Meeting held on Monday 18 July 2016
8 people were present and 4 gave their apologies
Since we last met, Brexit had won the Referendum, a new Tory government had been put in place and the opposition had shown itself to be in a state of potentially terminal crisis.
Initial discussion was around the new government getting rid of the Department of the Environment, indicating a continuing lack of priority attached to climate change, etc. But in wider discussion we viewed the success of Brexit as part of a more general disillusionment with parliamentary democracy. This is also evidenced in the conflict between the parliamentary LP and the wider membership, amongst many of whom on the left trust in the PLP has broken down. This phenomenon is manifested in different ways in USA where the success of Trump reflects a right wing distrust of the political elite. We thought that the Referendum had brought to the surface what is, in fact, a long term crisis which the left needs to address.
Connected with these changes is a social media which, while appearing to make communication easier, actually leads to ghettoization as its technological system encourages contact between similar people, rather than different people.
As a consequence the situation is much more unstable and unpredictable. Possibly, the means by which taken for granted (hegemonic) assumptions are reinforced through the media is changing. Opinion polls, ‘experts’ and even ‘common sense’ were unable to predict the rise of Corbyn, Trump, Brexit and other phenomena. In such a situation there is a fear of a rise in right wing governments. But perhaps such a risky condition is an inevitable precondition for the rise of the radical left. Would it be worth risking the rise of the right for the possibility of the rise of the left? A split in the Labour party might risk both outcomes. Would that necessarily be a ‘bad thing’ for progressive politics? Certainly the possibility of some kind of proportional representation in parliament might help, but might PR simply lead to coalitions in which the middle path is always taken rather than the kind of radical change needed?
The neo-liberal economy may also be at risk with the impossibility of perpetual growth. While this may be welcomed, it is the associated inequality which is the main problem.
While we were meeting, parliament was discussing Trident. The outcome of such discussion was totally predictable, but there was reason to suppose that wider public discussion of Trident can influence people’s views regarding its relevance in the present context.