Meeting held on Monday 18 April 2016
7 people were present and 5 gave their apologies
We started with a brief reflection upon the process of the group meetings. Earlier comments that the previous meeting had been less coherent than usual, opened up a consideration of whether we should aim for coherence, and if so how. It was suggested that the degree of incoherence at the last meeting was not so much a judgement about our process of discussion, but a reflection of our doubts and uncertainty about the political issues under discussion. On reflection we felt that we did not want to change the relatively unstructured format (starting with an initial expression of topics that might be addressed), which seemed appropriate given that (unlike a political party meeting) we did not (generally) have to make decisions.
Turning to the substantive issues, a number of observations were made that gave some reason for hope. The Tory project was in some disarray. Not only over the EU, but in the failure to act upon a number of issues in the budget, the school Academies project which was objected to by many Tories in the Shires and the disaster surrounding doctors’ contracts. While the Labour Party had not been shown by the media as taking advantage of this Tory misfortune, it did seem that Corbyn’s ‘alternative’ way of doing politics may be taking root. His ‘slow politics’ approach was manifested in discussions outside mainstream media such as Facebook, and now Snap-chat (which he is the first political leader to exploit).
In a wider context we wondered whether the neo-liberal (Thatcherite) agenda had run its course and was now being seen as inadequate. The Panama Papers (regarding off-shore tax avoidance), obscene wealth and inequality were perhaps becoming increasingly seen to be problematic. If this is the case, we wondered what leaders (Corbyn, Sanders, or should it be a younger generation?) might take forward new approaches. Or is political change driven more by emergent critical understandings rather than celebrity leadership? This certainly involve generations younger than us. How then do we communicate the need for political involvement to the young? Or are the young already politically involved but we are failing to engage adequately with the media they use?
Considering what changes were needed, it was felt that unravelling off-shore tax havens (for example) would be no simple matter, even for a socialist government. It would be interconnected with so many features of capitalist finance.
It was suggested that a rising awareness of the effects of climate change might demonstrate the inadequacy of the neo-liberal assumptions about growth and finance. But our problem is perhaps to draw together such evidence for the need to change into a political programme for change. We wondered whether parliament was the best or only vehicle for such change.
While the discussion seemed to indicate hope, we had to end at 10pm and so didn’t have time to design an alternative political programme