Meeting held on Monday 24th April 2017
Seven of us were present.
In the light of the recently announced general election (for June 8th) we commented on the lack of trust in the PM. In this our views were radically at odds with most of the press. She presented the election in terms of making her ‘stronger’, and such power seemed to be widely liked by many. Power (in the case of May, Trump, etc.) was often held to be a good, but expertise was not to be trusted. This general distrust in knowledge was associated with a predominance of sloganizing (eg ‘Brexit means Brexit’ ‘Red, White and Blue Brexit’, etc) rather than argument.
The news consisted largely of dramas (such as terrorist murders) rather than wider issues which had more social significance. Such dramas are often used to arouse fear amongst the public which is then exploited by politicians in order to justify the ‘security state’, with its oppressive restrictions and controls. More important themes, are often given little attention in the face of drama, slogan and shallow presentations of events.
Climate change was one such significant theme. We felt that the enormous threat to human civilization has not been taken anywhere near seriously enough. We seemed, however, to feel differently about developments hear. Some of us felt, that the campaign to encourage disinvestment in fossil fuels was already being successful in influencing the industry. Others, however, felt that this was only scratching the surface and that there was little hope that the fossil fuel industry would enable carbon dioxide emissions to be adequately reduced.
One problem here is that environmental problems such as climate change require policies whose effect is aimed at future generations. But there seems to be no concern for the long term or for the future of our children. We seem unprepared even to address problems of housing in relation to the younger generation.
Reflecting on the French presidential election we discussed whether Britain (like France, it is claimed) is deeply divided and whether a progressive alliance could offer a check to conservative policy. There was disappointment that both Labour and Lib Dems saw nothing to be gained from any form of alliance in order to oppose Tories in the forthcoming election.
Finally, a discussion of immigration considered whether immigration was fundamentally desirable, or was primarily a means by which neoliberal capitalism ensures that it attracts the cheapest labour rates. We had differing views about whether and how immigration might be controlled. More was at stake here than simply monetary advantage: money is not the only motive for employment