The Great British Sell Off

Further to my previous post, I’ve come up with a brilliant idea for the BBC’s latest cash cow, now that the obligatory baking competition has come to a close for the winter break. It shall be called ‘The Great British Sell Off’ and will feature bloodthirsty and money-hungry suits furiously vying for control of various lucrative government contracts. Cross-over possibilities abound, such as the integration of ex-apprentice candidates (the taxis taking fired contestants from Sugar HQ could bring them straight to GBSO studios). Other potential fusions would include ‘One Sold Every Minute’, in which the conglomerate now controlling the NHS would begin selling off new-born babies in order to cut costs. The cause of the missing infants would then be falsely linked to various Roma families, creating a prefect storm of pseudo-journalism and witch-hunting for Paul Dacre et al, and the rest of the right-wing media. ‘Strictly Come Privatising’ would feature ex-public sector workers dancing for the pleasure of the aforementioned bloodthirsty business men and women, with the slim chance of keeping their jobs in their recently annexed industries dangled above them as an incentive. ‘Britain’s got Assets’ may not get the green-light due to the tautological nature of the title, and ‘Made in China’ may be open to criticism of cultural insensitivity, so will be shelved until further notice, dependent on the success of other spin-offs. Watch this space…

Privatised Nation

It seems to me that it's only a matter of time until the state itself is sold off to the highest bidder. If you think about it, the privatisation of government would solve several issues facing our current state owned politicians. There would be no outcry when it was revealed that MPs were claiming duck islands and landscape gardening on expense accounts, as it wouldn't be taxpayers money anymore. There would be none of the hassle of trying to convince the electorate that political parties cared about the general populace, merely the conglomerate which could offer the lowest price for running the country. 

However, going by our current government's recent form of awarding contracts to run essential services, we'd be as likely to end up with a private cabinet headed by a Francois Hollande Xi JinPing coalition than a homegrown assembly of careerist politicos. As more esteemed writers than I have pointed out, it seems that our government is perfectly happy to have services fulfilled by state owned companies, as long as that state isn't our own. The Chinese and French national companies currently contemplating commencing construction of two nuclear reactors in Hinkley were possibly too busy convincing our cabinet that their proposal offered value for money to appreciate the irony of the situation. 

As George Monbiot stated earlier this week the entire project is doomed to be outdated, expensive and practically obsolete before it's even completed. It seems to me that this is pure posturing on behalf of a government which is desperate for a good news story amidst the multiple disasters of education upheavals, Royal Mail sell-offs, ever increasing austerity and rising bills for everything from trains to central heating. Revealing a large project such as this is supposed to do everything that the HS2 railway has also failed to do. Ambitious, potentially beneficial, poorly planned and badly costed, both proposals smell distinctly of coalition desperation, and indicate an embarrassing lack of foresight on behalf of those we have entrusted to run our, currently public sector, state. 

Millagate, Socialism and The Daily Mail

Now don't get me wrong, I'm as happy as the next person to see the Daily 'Hate' Mail/Fail/Heil (well, possibly not rampant homophobes or Alan Partridge, but you know what I mean) have its reputation dragged ever so slightly through the mud, in the manner it has been over the past few weeks. However, the discourse surrounding Milla-gate (as it most definitely hasn't become known, much to my disappointment) has focused on entirely the wrong issues.

Granted, whilst it is certainly not on to make spurious claims about those who aren't able to defend themselves (and perhaps more importantly, sheer hypocrisy for a newspaper which devotes the majority of its time to preaching hatred towards the majority of the population, to accuse anyone of a lack of patriotism) the most important question here is, what's wrong with hating Britain?

Let me clarify. I am a British citizen, and extremely grateful to have been born as such. However, there is a hell of a lot to dislike about this paranoid, hysterical and isolationist island, not least the fact that the Mail enjoys the second widest circulation of all national newspapers. It seems clear to me that whilst there are many things to cherish about Britain, there is too much that needs improving for it not to be at best, a love-hate relationship.

Indeed, unconditional love of one's country is a dangerous thing. It can lead to rampant nationalism, war, xenophobia and dictatorship. It leads to a lack of criticism of the state, and a lack of accountability.

The other important issue to highlight from the whole debacle is that although individuals and institutions on both ends of the political spectrum have been quick to condemn the Mail's comments, this criticism has been framed within the context of not speaking ill of the dead, or that Millaband Senior's teenage ideologies have been unfairly extrapolated into his enduring world-view. All of which leads us to another question, what's wrong with being a Marxist?

The majority of commentators have explained away Ralph's apparent political stance as naïve youthful revolutionary sentiment, but the fact is that this radical young man developed into a no less radical adult, becoming one of Britain’s great Marxist thinkers, and a committed Socialist.

The ultimate questions we need to ask ourselves as a result of the this ongoing saga is, why are there not more people like Ralph Millaband in Britain today? How have Marxism and Socialism become dirty words, despite the fact that their fundamental principles are based on equality and fairness, two concepts which are as close to being objectively positive as it is possible to be? How have we found ourselves in a situation where the three main parties offer no alternative, and the Green Party (the only realistic option for the left-wing) is marginalised by mainstream media at the expense of UKIP, a reactionary bunch of misfits who campaign on a platform of increased isolationism, and ultra-nationalism?

These are questions that need to be answered, but suffice it to say here that part of the solution lies in increasing awareness about what Socialism really means, and working together to debunk the myths surrounding it, many of which have been intensified by the rhetoric resulting from Paul Dacre's recent editorial decisions.