My recent speech to an Edinburgh South Independence Rally 16.6.18

Thank you for the invitation to join you here this afternoon at this Independence Rally in The Inch. Shame about the weather. 

I have just come from the SSP’s now famous campaign stall on Princes Street where we champion the need for a £10/hour wage. And I know you will all want to sign the petition on our stall over here.

CROSSROADS

Friends, the Independence movement has reached a crossroads with the publication of the SNP’s Sustainable Growth Commission report recently because it shows we still need to decide what Independence is actually for, what kind of nation we are out to build, and which Scots will benefit most.

Some see Independence as the continuation of what we have now with economic and political power transferred from one wealthy elite to another. I don’t.

Some believe we need to water down our commitments to the most deprived and vulnerable Scots to please the moneymen and the selfish middle class. I don’t.

Some think we need to stress how little will change with Independence to placate those most reluctant to embrace it. I don’t.

For me Independence is all about change. That is its greatest asset. It’s about transforming the Scotland we all see today; about eradicating the grotesque inequalities and intolerable deprivation that blights places like The Inch, about dumping economic & social attitudes and laws that hold back millions of people and shackles us to a rotten, exploitative system that forces misery on most and ugly opulence for an out of touch elite.

That Britain is a failing state. I’m not out to win the great prize of Independence against all odds and after great sacrifice just to establish a replica of it just to please financiers and aristocrats.

The Sustainable Growth Commission poses a vision of Independence I do not support.

It promises ten years of austerity after Independence.

It promises to leave us vulnerable to economic decisions others take with no control over our currency, interest rates or flights of capital. That’s not Independence.

It seeks to ‘transition’ Scotland to Independence by changing very little; keeping the Pound, staying in NATO, maintaining a feudal monarchy with its divine right of Queens and hereditary principles over a meritocracy with democracy and equality.

It’s that conservatism that lost us the last Referendum. And it will lose us the next one too. It’s not ‘transition’ we need its transformation.

I am not a nationalist. I am a socialist who supports Independence as a democratic right of a free people held back by a political union that oppresses working class people. I do not support a prospectus that makes Scotland’s working-class majority worse off.

Independence must be about something better.

It must be about redistributing this country’s vast wealth, taking some of it from those who have too much to give to those who have too little. It must be about public ownership and satisfying universal need not feeding private greed. It must be about unleashing the enormous technological and scientific riches humankind has bestowed on us for everyone’s benefit!

WINNING ‘INDYREF2’

I agree with Nicola Sturgeon when she says we need to spend more time persuading our fellow Scots about the merits of Independence rather than obsessing over the timing of INDYREF2.

But we also need to stop obsessing over Brexit and accept that the majority of Scots who voted to Remain did so without any great love for an institution that does not serve their interests nor the peoples of Europe.

I see the hand of big business behind that obsession because Brexit poses the loss of cheap labour and easy profits for them. They wouldn’t have a labour shortage if they paid the Living wage! 

We are behind in the opinion polls as things stand and will not win a second vote unless we spell out more persuasively what Independence is for. Victory can only be achieved by painting a much better economic and political prospectus!

And to those who say

‘But Colin, let’s get Independence first, then settle all these other questions later’ I say

‘No. It is not possible to win Independence without first explaining what it is for and what it will look like. Otherwise you are asking people to sign a blank cheque! That will never happen.

And to those who say

‘But, we start at 45% support today. When the campaign really gets going we can race ahead just as we did between 2012-14.’

That’s not a persuasive argument either. I was around in 2012-14. That period is gone forever. Political battles are not like some TV repeat where the same plot develops over & over & over.

A 2^nd Referendum, whenever we have it, will look nothing like the last one. The dynamics will be completely different. Some people who voted YES last time will vote NO now & vice versa.

Losing a second time however will kill our movement stone dead like it did in Quebec. I don’t want that.

Our movement remains at a huge disadvantage until we are clear about what we want. We have skirted too many fundamental issues in an attempt to build unity. But unity for unity’s sake is not enough. Victory lies ahead only if we agree on the need for profound improvement for working people. Maintaining the status quo is not a victory option.

 

We have time so let’s use it. Let’s stop running around like headless chickens waving flags and mumbling mindless platitudes. Let’s start finding solutions to the challenges that confront us.

OUR CASE NOT STRONG ENOUGH YET

The need for Independence is as strong as ever. But the truth is, as we all know, our case is not strong enough, not yet. We have still not persuaded the majority of Scots to back our case. We trail in all the polls. We still talk to ourselves too much and do too little to build extra support.

REMAIN POSITIVE BUT WORK ON MORE PERSUASIVE ARGUMENTS

The case for Independence is powerful. Britain is a failing state. Working people in Scotland can be persuaded of our case if we offer them the promise of a better world without insecurity and exploitation, where the nations enormous assets belong to us all and the fruits are shared out between us all, where the people are sovereign and we are at peace with the rest of this world.

I want an independent socialist Scotland, a modern democratic republic, and I believe that remains a powerfully attractive goal. We need to turn that dream into a reality. END   

Despite attempted obfuscation Hammond's Budget maintains Tory austerity

UK Chancellor Philip Hammond today delivered his Budget and made clear austerity remains the centrepiece of Tory economic policy despite dismal growth rates which were again downgraded for 2017-2019 to 1.5% [from 2% forecast in March], 1.4% and 1.3% respectively. 

If poverty wages, insecure employment, the chronic shortage of affordable housing and deepening indebtedness are to be ended it will only be mass action by working people that achieves it.

The SNP Scottish Government and Labour Councils need to add to their rhetoric against austerity, poverty pay and public sector cuts with effective political action. They have a pitifully poor record on this score over the past 8 years it must be said. For working people Hammond's Budget represents more of the same misery. That's why the Scottish Socialist Party will continue to campaign for a package of proposals designed to materially advance the lives of ordinary people; 

-A £10/hour living wage to end poverty pay and boost consumer spending, 

-Replace the Council tax with an income based alternative lifting the burden of payment off the shoulders of those least able to pay,
-Introduce free public transport to combat climate change and give people a more attractive alternative to their cars,
-Return our railways to public hands,
-Return our energy industry to public hands to end the scourge of fuel poverty once and for all
-Provide free access to the internet for all under 25,
-Provide residential elderly care free [to add to Scotland's free personal care]
-Implement a massive programme of publicly owned affordable house building for rent
To be paid for in part by closing down the tax havens protected by UK law exposed by the Paradise Papers to ensure the wealthy can no longer escape their obligations to society. And by cancelling the £100bn due to be spent on a second generation of Trident nuclear missiles stationed on the Clyde.

Back to the drawing board for the Independence movement in Catalonia and Scotland

Has he or hasn’t he? That is the question. Has Catalan President Carles Puigdemont declared Independence or not? Has the October 1^st Referendum he organised, where 90% of voters opted to become an independent republic, given him a mandate or not? Have the people of Catalonia spoken or not? If so, what have they said? For it is not at all clear. 

On the one hand Senor Puigdemont appears to have declared Independence only to suspend it for a week to allow negotiations between him and the Spanish Government to take place. Whilst the Referendum, declared illegal by the Spanish state and conducted under duress, resulted in a huge majority for Independence its validity is contested. The Catalan President insisted such an outcome would mean he had secured a mandate to declare Independence for Catalonia.

Whilst 90% of voters backed Independence the turnout was just 43% meaning most Catalans ignored the ballot. Both sides, for and against Independence, claim to have the majority behind them. The mood of the Catalan people is not at all clear as the massive demonstrations mobilised by all three sides in the conflict [those for independence, against and in favour of some negotiated dialogue with Madrid] showed. Each failed to conclusively prove where the majority of Catalans stand on the issue.

Furthermore the Catalan Government is now completely isolated at home and abroad in the ‘corridors of power. It has little support in the rest of Spain where all four main parties PP, PSOE, Podemos and Cuidadanos oppose Independence. The Spanish Constitution expressly prohibits secession by any of its constituent regions/nations without the consent of all others. And the ‘International community’ so called considers the matter an internal Spanish issue in which it is steadfastly determined not to become embroiled.

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, leader of the conservative Popular Party [PP] government, has threatened to impose direct rule from Madrid the moment Puidgemont declares UDI. And despite the huge political escalation this action would induce – alienating Catalans even further from the Government in Madrid - no one doubts he will do so. The Spanish state will simply not allow Catalonia to secede. Its provocative use of the Civil Guards and Spanish police on the streets of Catalonia on October 1^st left few in any doubt about the seriousness of its intentions. Rajoy knows the implications of Independence in Catalonia for politics across Spain - in the Basque country, Galicia and the Valencien community - would be incendiary. The break-up of Spain has been sharply posed and the forces of capital are not prepared to countenance such a possibility.

There was therefore only ever one outcome here. The independence movement in Catalonia has too little power. Worse, it has shown it was unprepared for this particular conflict. It now risks being routed by the emboldened Spanish state. The tactics the Independence movement employed in Catalonia in holding this referendum may well have back fired. It has not persuaded a majority of Catalans to support Independence. It has grievously underestimated the powers the Spanish state would employ against it and the huge inequity in the power relations it faced here. Moreover it has also threatened to split the governing coalition of Puidgemont’s centre-right nationalist party and the hard Left CUP [Popular Front].

Rajoy may in due course offer further devolution and increased funds to Catalonia in an effort to undermine the potency of the Independence cause. But this is unlikely in the short term. Meantime it looks like it is back to the drawing board for the Independence movement in Catalonia, just as in Scotland where following Nicola Sturgeons own INDYREF2 blunder morale has also been sapped.

'Brexit' negotiations underway with neither side representing the working class

Westminster MP’s vote tonight on the Government’s EU Withdrawal Bill with the Tories widely expected to win with the support of their allies the loyalist DUP. The vote draws attention again to the ‘Brexit’ negotiations now well underway. And perhaps the most important point about them, one universally ignored by the mainstream media, is that neither side represents the interests of working class people, anywhere.

I argued for a Remain vote back in June 2016. I did so on the basis it was ‘the lesser of two evils’. The European Union is, as far as I'm concerned, no friend of working people. It is an institution firmly rooted in post war Western European capitalism. Today it is firmly in the grip of neo-liberal free market capitalist corporations. It exists to ensure these multinational corporations profit, without tariff or interference, from exploiting 550milion Europeans. Treaty after treaty [Rome, Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon, Dublin] all ensured their interests were sacrosanct and put ahead of the peoples of Europe. Despite purporting to be ‘democratic’ the EU is in fact run by and for the interests of big business/capital. It is an instrument which exists to exploit their interests.

I therefore have no illusions in the EU, its character, purpose or negotiators. But, you may ask why, in that case did I call for a vote for Britain to ‘Remain’ inside this corrupt and undemocratic organisation?

Answer. Because the ‘Leave’ case on offer was even more unattractive. Led by the extreme Right of the Conservative Party its central promise was to roll back the clock and ‘take back control’ of economic and political decision making. But control for whom? Led by ‘Little Englanders’ who had no intentions of advancing the interests of working people anywhere, the ‘Leave’ campaign was not led by the Left. It was a narrow-minded xenophobic array led by dinosaurs like Nigel Farage, Boris Johnston, Michael Gove and other enemies of working people.

The British electorate voted to ‘Leave’ however. And as democrats we must accept the result. To do otherwise is to stand alongside the world’s ‘democracy deniers’. That’s no place for socialists.

So the ‘Brexit’ negotiations are now underway with neither side representing the interests of working class people. The ‘Brexiteers in Chief’ David Davies and Liam Fox are both arch Thatcherites with a record of reaction and privatisation as bad as any. They fully intend to shackle working people further and so do the EU negotiators who have their own punishments in store.

Working people across Europe face the same struggle. Greedy, exploitative employers wish us to work longer for less. They introduced zero hour contracts increasing the insecurity of working class people everywhere. And they have all moved to replace full time, permanent jobs on decent pay and trade’s union rights with insecure, part-time, casual, low paid and often humiliating conditions. Their profits have mushroomed as insecurity and indebtedness have wreaked havoc on working class communities throughout the continent. The rich have become obscenely richer whilst most of us have seen our living standards fall.

The SSP has no faith in the EU, its leaders or institutions. They are part of the problem facing working class people across Europe not its solution. The illusions pedalled in these institutions particularly by ‘Remainers’ who lost the 2016 Referendum are criminal. Working class Europeans have, as they say in the United States, ‘No skin in this game’. Both sides of the negotiating table are intent on signing a deal which further exploits working people across this continent. Neither want a £10/hour Living Wage and permanent, secure contracts of employment with full trade’s union protections. Neither want the riches of Europe publicly owned and controlled for the benefit of everyone. And neither side want that wealth shared out among all the peoples of Europe starting with the poorest first.

The task therefore facing working class people across Europe is to link up and build a common treasury for all. Not allow xenophobes and exploiters to divide us up so that we end up fighting one another instead of our common enemy. That’s the true internationalism behind our call for a People’s Europe.

I campaigned for a vote to stay in the EU to work with 550milion other Europeans to reform it from top to bottom. Reform it democratically since none of the EU leaders are elected by anyone. Reform it socially to ensure it serves the interests of working people not financiers in London, Frankfurt, Paris, Milan or Edinburgh for that matter.

Ultimate fight weekend arrives as world watches Mayweather vs McGregor

Mixed Martial Arts or the Ultimate Fighting Championship [UFC] is brutal. If first impressions last longest mines was horror. A mixture of boxing, wrestling and jujitsu UFC fighters can punch, elbow, knee, kick, choke, cripple and thump opponents senseless even when they are down and unconscious until the referee intervenes. One can only imagine what the sport is like at lower levels away from the prying eyes of TV cameras and pundits. My teenage son introduced it to me one Saturday morning at 3am last year as it was broadcast live on BT Sports. It woke me with a jolt I can tell you. There is no way I’d ever want him to do it.

UFC fighters meet in a cage or ‘octagon’ and the showtime pzazz surrounding it, like the carnage, is incessant. Needless to say contestants are mainly black, hispanic, eastern European or poor whites as is the case with the sports undisputed star and two category World Champion Irishman Conor McGregor. They all come from poor, working class backgrounds. McGregor, from the tough, impoverished Dublin housing scheme of Crumlin, is no exception.

Boxing is of course no different in its recruitment demographic. Floyd Mayweather, his opponent in Saturday nights ‘megafight’ under the Marquis of Queensberry's rules is black, and although now reputedly worth $250m after an unblemished 49-0 professional record, he emerged from poor neighbourhoods in Michigan and New Jersey.

The fight in Las Vegas this weekend will bring both fighters [and their huge entourages] $100m a piece as a worldwide audience hands over an estimated $500m to watch via pay per view or ringside in the massive T-Mobile Arena Las Vegas where, such has been the demand for tickets that a $1,000 ringside seat was this week being exchanged for $100,000!

Although now 40 years of age [and 12 years older than his opponent] with a shorter reach and a defensive style Mayweather is nonetheless considered the hot favourite. Tempted out of retirement by the staggering purse his compensatory advantage is the fact he is fighting under the rules of his sport and not McGregor’s. Incredible as it may seem McGregor has never had a single professional fight under boxing rules. And although boxing is his speciality in UFC bouts he has never fought an opponent in a 12 round purely boxing contest before. What a debut then!

For boxing purists this makes a mockery of their sport. They consider it a vulgar and greedy mismatch. Worse, they fear a victory for McGregor [however unlikely] will render boxing ridiculous and plunge it into even greater doldrums than it presently inhabits. They hope and expect McGregor to get ‘whupped’. But their first preference would probably be for another undoubted showman like him to emerge and take their sport forward with such pzazz as the Irishman has exhibited in the UFC.  Mayweather simply cannot match the Irishman for braggadocio and bullish one liners. Comparisons with the young Cassius Clay/Muhamad Ali are glib and over the top, but McGregor has certainly copied ‘the greatest’ in his pre-fight hype. Win or lose he and his UFC people have succeeded in putting their sport centre stage as far as the world’s attention is concerned this weekend. I'll certainly be watching to see if McGregor can possibly defy all the odds.

Edinburgh People's Festival commemorates Antonio Gramsci on 80th anniversary of his death

MAY'S LOSS ON SUPREME COURT RULING IS LESS THAN NICOLA STURGEON'S

Today’s ruling by the UK Supreme Court that the Government must seek Parliaments consent before signing Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and begin Britain's formal exit from the EU comes amid dramatically different political circumstances from those in early December when the case was heard.

Then the judgement threatened to throw Theresa May’s ‘Brexit’ plans into chaos. There was speculation that a Parliament stacked with a huge majority of MP's who had voted to Remain might thwart Brexit. And there was a bitter and unseemly intra-establishment row between ‘Remainers’ paying for a last gasp legal attempt to overthrow the wishes of the electorate and ‘Brexiteers’ accusing the courts of interfering with equally anti-democratic monarchical powers to plough on regardless of Parliament's wishes. Now however Theresa May’s hand appears immensely stronger. Her aim to sign Article 50 by the end of March is back on track.

What caused the turnaround? The answer is that the die-hard ‘Remainers’ looked over the cliff edge and decided they did not have the stomach for defying voters after all. 

May’s ‘Article 50’ Bill with its ‘Hard Brexit’ plan to halt the free movement of labour, stop payments to the EU and extricate Britain from the European Courts of Justice will be given the green light within weeks. All Tory MP’s will vote for it and so will two thirds of Labour’s. Which leaves only right-wing Labour ‘rebels’, 6 Lib Dems and the SNP huddled together in the ‘No’ Lobby.

Where does this leave the case for Scottish Independence? The short answer is not in a good place. The SNP have spent 7 months grandstanding and using Independence as some EU bargaining chip. Their bluff has been called time and time again. In June Nicola Sturgeon promised to ignore the UK vote and somehow keep Scotland inside the EU. She jetted round European capitals ‘sooking up’ to as many EU leaders as would meet her seeking help to thwart ‘Scexit’. As widely anticipated she got nowhere with either gambit. Next she insisted she would get Scotland a seat on the UK negotiating team. Having failed to deliver that too she finally warned she was ‘not bluffing’ over INDYREF2 and there must not be a ‘Hard Brexit’. If Scotland did not get to remain in the Single Market she would ‘almost, almost, almost inevitably’ call a [legally unenforceable] second Referendum. She did nothing of the kind of course. And today her ludicrous plan to use the ‘powers’ in the Sewell Convention have been utterly dismissed by eleven Supreme Court Justices.  

And the reason for not delivering a single one of her threats? Her impotence. Even the dogs in the street know she is bluffing over INDYREF2. Neither Nicola Sturgeon nor anyone else in the YES side is going to hold a second referendum while the polls are this bad. Support for Independence is not only in the minority it has been falling since June!

The same conservative SNP who infer Nicola will gamble on ‘one last throw of the dice’ know she has not made the case for Independence for two years now.

As the Scottish Socialist Party and others have been pointing out for months the EU is not the issue upon which to win INDYREF2. The EU is an anti-democratic bosses club in the grip of the same neo-liberal capitalism that was rejected in Britain in June [and the US in November]. It is no friend of working people. The SSP called for a ‘Remain’ vote in June as the ‘lesser of two evils’. Now that the verdict has been delivered we must all respect it and leave.

Nicola Sturgeon has ignored all else in her ‘in tray’ these past 7 months in order to highlight the ‘democratic deficit’ inherent in the June 23^rd vote. But she has ‘over egged the pudding’. For that particular ‘democratic deficit’ is not the only one Scots have suffered in recent years. And neither it is the most egregious. The war in Iraq and the Poll tax were even more offensive. Neither are such ‘democratic deficits’ all there is to the case for Independence. We will only win the vote for Independence when we can prove to Scotland’s working class majority they will be economically, socially and politically better off that way. Threatening INDYREF2 is not the same as making the case for Independence. That case has not been made and that is why we lag in the polls. Moreover increasingly frequent warnings from the SNP Deputy Leader and others that working class Scots will be worse off for the first 5 years of Independence at least is only going to prolong our minority status.

The psephologists Professor John Curtice and Dr Craig Dalyell have both shown the immensely more difficult challenges facing the YES campaign second time round. Some 13% of YES voters have moved to NO because of fears about the state of the Scottish economy. And the full impact of that journey is only now being revealed as it has been masked by the 14% of No voters who had moved in the other direction because they wanted to keep Scotland inside the EU. As that is clearly not going to happen they may drift back.

Rather than making an opportunist and undeliverable case for keeping Scotland in the anti-democratic neo-liberal EU as the SNP leadership has done the wider Independence movement needs to concentrate on making the fundamental - economic, social and political - case for self-determination. We have wasted 2 years waiting on the SNP to do it.

Dont Miss the Edinburgh Peoples Festival's 'Burns Night on the Beach'

BRITISH 'DEMOCRACY' UNDER THE MICROSCOPE AS SUPREME COURT RULES ON ARTICLE 50

 

Britain’s decision to leave the EU is being scrutinised by the highest constitutional court in the land. And in doing so the case has put UK ‘democracy’ under the microscope. Eleven unelected Supreme Court ‘Justices’ will rule on whether the UK Government has the legal right to use autocratic, monarchical ‘Crown Powers’ to override our elected Parliament’s right to ‘interpret’ the wishes of the British people as expressed in a democratic referendum.

It all sounds like an episode of ‘Yes Minister’ or ‘In the Thick of it’.

The Judges insist they are above politics and always reach their decisions based only on matters of law – matters passed into law by Parliament and therefore political by their very nature. 

Ostensibly the case in front of the UK Supreme Court turns on whether the Government has the right to sign Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty triggering Britain’s formal departure from the European Union, without going back to Parliament for permission and uses the archaic ‘Crown Powers’ vested in the office of the Prime Minister Theresa May by the Queen instead.

The High Court judgement in October ruled that the power to sign Article 50 fell under the jurisdiction of the European Communities Act 1972 passed by Westminster, as such was a matter ‘domestic UK law’ and therefore required the assent of Parliament. The Government on the other hand claims Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty falls under Britain’s International Treaty obligations and therefore does not require Parliamentary permission as such decisions are routinely dealt with under ‘The Crown Powers in Parliament’. Those who claim the British monarchy is powerless and largely confined to a figurehead role might like to pay close attention here as their view appears to be again exposed by the facts of this case. 

Obscured beneath all this legal finery is the naked politics. The High Court injunction was brought by two wealthy ‘Remain’ campaigners, investment fund manager Gina Miller and society hairdresser Dier Dos Santos who admit their objective was to overturn or at least slow the entire Brexit process. Moreover the three Judges involved earlier were outspoken ‘advocates’ of a Remain vote. They are of course ‘horrified’ at the suggestion their verdict was influenced by their political convictions insisting they are both obliged to, and capable of, putting aside their own political opinions in such circumstances and backgrounds. Of course!  

Meanwhile the UK Government is privately resigned to losing their Supreme Court Appeal and has tabled a one line Short Bill for Parliament seeking Westminster’s assent to invoke Article 50 formally in March.

US ELECTION:THE ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE WON

Donald Trump’s election as the next President of the United States of America came as no surprise to those who saw in his support the same rejection of neo-liberal capitalism seen in the Brexit result in June, in the election [and re-election] of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, in the unprecedented support for Bernie Sanders and in the growing support for Marine LePen’s ‘Front National’ in France today.

Trumps victory is part of this bigger phenomenon. For all his incipient racism and sexism Trump’s win represents above all the rejection of a ruthless economic and political orthodoxy that is inherent in the five million jobs Barack Obama has celebrated in the past 4 years all casual, low paid, insecure and demeaning.

Trump was the anti-establishment candidate. That is the great irony of his election. Even being abandoned by his own Republican Party leadership helped his cause. But he won because he reached beyond the Republican base in the South and Mid-West into the formerly Democratic ‘blue collar rust belt’ strongholds of Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Hilary Clinton on the other hand was a truly dreadful candidate. Her popularity ratings were the worst in history after Trumps. She however represents neo-liberal capitalism to the soles of her feet. And the ‘political strategists’ who tried to present her as the candidate of change failed miserably.

Trump alienated millions of Americans but he won because he easily portrayed her as the utterly cynical and crooked Washington insider. She is not a good role model for women anywhere. She would have done nothing for working class women in America and never has. Voters looking for equality and progressive advance for women and African Americans and Latinos in America deserved better. Anti-establishment figures like Bernie Sanders or Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who was the Left Democrat’s preferred option, would have won. The Democratic Party’s polls all showed Sanders had a far better chance of beating Trump than Clinton. But the ‘Super Delegates’ were all in her pocket.

THE POLLSTERS AND THE POLITICAL PUNDITS GOT IT WRONG AGAIN

The only people to challenge Hilary Clinton for the title of ‘biggest loser’ in this election were the pollsters and pundits. They all got this result badly wrong. I followed this election closely and the British media establishment’s coverage was dire. The BBC and Sky were particularly hopeless. I should have known from their woeful performance in the Scottish Independence Referendum and the BREXIT vote. But they exhibited bias against Trump when their job was to be objective. They made no effort to explain his attraction to millions of Americans and sneeringly dismissed ‘non-college educated, blue collar, working class, white, American men’. Lacking any empathy with the concerns of this crucial ‘constituency’ who work three low paid, insecure and soul destroying jobs they over played the importance of ‘identity politics’.

Now, to cover their appalling ignorance they talk, after the event, about how ‘shy Trump voters’ foxed them. Or could it be that the BBC stuffed as it is with middle class public school boys/girls dressed up as political experts are incapable of understanding working class people anywhere or getting them to talk to them openly?

WHAT KIND OF PRESIDENT WILL TRUMP BE?

The short answer is just like all the others. He is not a fascist, he is a mere right-wing populist. Having veered to the right to win the Republican nomination he moved back to the centre to win the ‘General Election’. He will face the same US establishment he sought to challenge and he will change little. The same military industrial complex, the same Wall Street, the same ‘Washington’, the same Congress and the same vested interests he rallied against will remain in control. He is not about to challenge the US political or business elite. And he will certainly not deliver the promises he made about good jobs, prosperity and security to those Americans who voted for him.

The task of changing America for the better, providing the jobs, security, prosperity, health and pursuit of happiness the ordinary people all seek awaits the Left in the USA today. And whilst Bernie Sanders’ campaign gave us hope as this election overall has again demonstrated the Left in the USA is very weak and has an awful long way to go.

Edinburgh People's Festival hosts 2nd BURNS Night ON THE BEACH

‘BURNS ON THE BEACH’

Sunday 22nd January – Portobello beach @ 7pm

Yes we know no one else has a ‘Burns Supper’ on the beach! But the People’s Festival likes to ‘break the mould’. Others follow our lead.

In 2015 our ‘Tram o’ Shanter’ flashmob on Edinburgh’s new transport system regaled unsuspecting travellers with musical renditions of ‘Ae Fond Kiss’ and ‘A man’s a man for a’ that’. Last year we hosted the world’s first ‘BURNS ON THE BEACH’ night. And it was such a huge success we immediately resolved to do it again.

‘You’re welcome Willie Stewart’ is our tribute to Robert Burns and his enduring message. To those building a new life here in Scotland we offer a ‘guid welcome’ with a seat by our camp fire, warm food, hot drinks, singing, laughing and dancing – to celebrate the inimitable legacy Burns left us all.

BURNS ON THE BEACH 2 takes place Sunday 22^nd January on Portobello beach [Bath Street] 7pm-9pm. Come along and enjoy fabulous entertainment [including a piper], warm food & hot drinks all gathered round a roaring fire amid stories, songs and dancing to cheer ‘the world’s poet.’

‘BURNS ON THE BEACH 2’

Sunday 22nd January 2017 : 7pm-9pm

Portobello beach [at Bath Street].

FREE ENTRY [Donations welcome]

www.edinburghpeoplesfestival.org

SNP'S ADVOCACY OF NEO-LIBERALISM IMPEDES SUPPORT FOR INDEPENDENCE

This article is published in the latest edition of the Scottish Socialist Voice 

‘I can confirm today that the Independence Referendum Bill will be published for consultation next week’ announced Nicola Sturgeon to a standing ovation from her Party Conference in Glasgow.

But wait! Isn’t this the same ‘Draft’ Bill she unveiled last month in her ‘legislative programme’ for Holyrood? And isn’t it the Bill that is to be discussed for a year containing no specified date for a second referendum? And isn’t that referendum merely ‘consultative’ lacking the legal validity of the 2014 vote? And if passed isn’t the Bill to be stuck in her handbag and used only if a majority for Independence magically materialises?

What, many will ask, is the SNP doing to advocate the case for Independence now and to effectively counter Unionist arguments. For it has not done so for two years. Rather it puts its own party interests ahead of the independence cause.

Despite the nationalists winning two consecutive General Elections in Scotland support for Independence has not grown. Indeed the latest poll by BMG for The Herald [13/10/16] has it falling. In the aftermath of the EU Referendum in June 59% said they’d back Independence. Now it is down to 45%.

‘Indyref2 before 2019 to keep Scotland in the EU’ ran the newspaper headlines on her speech. But the BMG poll also found 47% are against holding another Referendum with only 38% in favour. Three quarters of those against the vote said BREXIT makes no difference. BMG research director Dr Michael Turner concluded ‘The poll shows the EU is no game changer’ confirming the SSP’s view that to win ‘INDYREF2’ the YES campaign must convince on the issues affecting the day to day lives of Scotland’s working class majority.

The SNP has confused public anger over ‘the democratic deficit’ on June 23^rd with a misplaced affection for the anti-democratic neo-liberal EU in Brussels. More worryingly for a First Minister with an outsized passion for the EU the evidence shows most Scots will not vote for Independence simply to remain inside that bureaucracy! The passion Nicola Sturgeon displays for the EU reveals above all her loyalty to Scotland’s big business interests not ‘its people’.

More and more voters are asking when they see the SNP’s motto in primus ‘Standing up for Scotland’, what ‘Scotland’ do they mean? For, as the recently published figures for multiple deprivation show, they are not ‘standing up’ for Scotland’s working class communities.

Nicola Sturgeon’s obsession with the EU signifies first her party’s economic neo-liberal orthodoxy. And second reveals the SNP’s Right-wing is far stronger than it’s Left-wing. She would do well to heed the warnings from observers like Martin Jacques [‘The Observer’ 18/09/16] that the economic and political dominance of neo-liberalism may be coming to an end. The huge support for Sanders, Corbyn, Syriza and Podemos on the left and Trump, Le Pen and Brexit on the right represent a popular backlash against neo-liberalism and a desire for profound improvement in people’s living standards. Such ‘inchoate expressions of resentment’ as Jacques puts it, are railed against the very economic orthodoxy the SNP supports. Their economic policies widen inequalities, push down real incomes for the masses, proscribes public ownership and compels the ‘marketization’ of public services with taxes on business and the rich discouraged.  

The election of Angus Robertson MP as SNP Deputy Leader came as no surprise. His victory will have cheered party chiefs at Jackson’s Close for it endorses their orthodox neo-liberal economics. Known as ‘Mr NATO’ by his critics and firmly on the Right of the party, Robertson saw off two left wing challengers with ease in the ballot of 125,000 members. The result tells us a great deal about the political balance of forces inside the nationalist party.

It is ironic that having won mass popular support for not being Labour, for not being the party most closely associated with neo-liberalism, the SNP is in the same ideological camp. They won Parliamentary seats on the promise of ‘standing up’ to the excesses of neo-liberalism. But they have not done so. They advocate rather than ‘attack’ this hegemonic doctrine of corporate capitalism and in doing so they jeopardise the prospects of Independence.

Only by delivering the message of change working class voters need can the SNP secure the second Independence vote. But their passion for the neo-liberal EU and the outlandish claims they have made on its nature, on their place in the BREXIT negotiations and on stopping Scotland’s departure from it, exposes their real agenda. ‘Scotland’s business community’ has the SNP in its pocket and, as Kenny McAskill has recently admitted, produced ‘timid and managerial’ ambitions from the First Minister after two years in office. Such criticism is entirely valid even if it comes from a former Minister who did little to confront this ‘managerialism’ himself over the past 10 years. Nonetheless he is right to conclude a majority cannot be won for Independence on such a neo-liberal prospectus.

GROUNDHOG DAY FOR LABOUR AS CORBYN WINS VOTE AGAIN AND MP'S IGNORE IT AGAIN

It is hard to see what difference Jeremy Corbyn's re-election as Labour leader makes to the crisis his party is in.
As expected he saw off the challenge of Owen Smith with ease. And as expected 200 of his MP's have told him they will ignore the result just as they did last year. Adding insult to injury for Corbyn his opponent Smith won 58% of the vote in Scotland.
So the bloody stand-off continues.
And yet for all the melodrama the $64m question remains unanswered, what does Labour actually stand for? Does it still believe we should keep Trident nuclear weapons? Does it still believe in neo-liberal economic orthodoxy when its time appears to be up even for the capitalists who employ it? Does it still oppose Scottish Independence? Does it still believe in austerity and support 80% of George Osborne's cuts? Does it still believe in military interventions in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan? Does it still support the monarchy and the House of Lords? Does it still support the privatisation of the NHS and other public services? Does it still oppose higher taxes on the rich?
This confusion means Labour remain an utterly ineffective opposition at Westminster, Holyrood and everywhere else.
It is clear Corbyn cannot heal the splits in his party. The differences are so politically profound and the bitterness now so personal. He may be a principled socialist but 80% of his MP's are not.
So for all warm words of conciliation in the days that follow such results it will be back to 'business as usual' for the Labour MP's out to oust him within the week. Although they do not have the stomach to leave Labour as their forefathers in the SDP did in the early 1980's they will nonetheless continue to undermine him every chance they get. They will neither bury the hatchet nor buckle down to defend the interests of the working people who elected them. The Labour stasis will continue for some time yet.

IS THE LABOUR PARTY ABOUT TO SPLIT?

'Jeremy Corbyn's election as Labour leader is a symptom of the party's existential crisis not it's solution.' That was the conclusion I reached last summer following Corbyn's astonishing victory in the 2015 Labour leadership contest. The electorate's rejection of Ed Miliband's 'more of the same neo-liberalism' was followed by equally stark warning to Labour from its own members to change direction and outline clearly what it now stood for.

In the year since that vote Labour's crisis has worsened markedly. The Parliamentary Labour Party simply ignored the outcome of the leadership vote. Morale amongst Labour members deteriorated with each Parliamentary rebellion against Corbyn. The infamous 'chicken coup' organised by members of his Shadow Cabinet was designed to force him to resign. Instead it stiffened his resolve. And it has now produced this unprecedented second contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith the agent of the PLP faction that so despise him.

There is no shadow of doubt the contest will be poisonous nor that Corbyn will again emerge victorious. Some 600,000 Labour members are determined to deliver their verdict on the anti-democratic treachery of Smith, Angela Eagle and the rest of the PLP plotters.

The entire episode highlights the fundamental division in the Labour Party which was again laid bare when Andrew Marr interviewed Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell last weekend. Labour, Marr pointed out, has always been divided between those who see capitalism as a powerful, unopposable force they seek to manage in Government and those who see it as an exploitative and at times barbarous system which must be replaced by socialism. Corbyn is of course the first Labour leader to emerge from the latter camp.

In the 100 years of its existence Labour has never in truth resolved this core conflict. In recent years it has become politically, economically and socially neo-liberal. Neil Kinnock, John Smith, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Miliband all brought it to this place. Their policies were unashamedly capitalist, pro-market and 'business friendly'. They made it clear they saw Labour as a parliamentary party that sought the acceptance of the UK establishment. Corbyn on the other hand is an outsider contemptuous of the British ruling classes who seeks to end their undemocratic and ruthless grip on power. He seeks to replace capitalism with a more efficient, fairer and more democratic political and economic system.

I agree with Jeremy Corbyn on many things, but not about Scottish independence. He does not see the progressive democratic case for self-determination. And he is also wrong in my view to foster illusions in Labour as a socialist party, even under his leadership. Nonetheless every democrat in Britain fervently hopes he wins again for those in the PLP faction who have stabbed him in the back so often and so publicly deserve to feel the wrath of party members.

But many question arise should he win a second time; above all what exactly has changed? Are his enemies in the PLP and beyond going to bury the hatchet and accept the will of the membership this time? Or are they more likely to leave and form a new party? Labour MP's fear Theresa May is about to call another General Election and most fear they will lose their seats. And they would rather lose on their own terms than under Corbyn's leadership.

There have, its true, been predictions of a Labour Party split many times over the years that came to nothing, but this time it seems unavoidable. If it does happen the implications for politics across these isles will be profound.
 

High Street Banking Crooks

It's official, there is one law for the banks and another for the rest of us.

A US Congressional Report published today reveals that the Department of Justice dropped serious criminal charges against the world's biggest bank in 2013 after George Osborne intervened to warn the prosecution would lead to another 'global financial disaster'.

Prosecutors were told that HSBC chiefs had laundered $881m from Mexican and Colombian drug cartels. Yet the bankers did not face the full force of the law because they were too big to prosecute. Instead of sending them to jail they allowed these banking crooks to pay a paltry $1.9bn fine because of the fear of 'systemic risk to the global financial market'.

This episode tells us a great deal about the morality and greed that is rife in the world's biggest 'industry'.

It shows there is virtually no crime the bankers can commit that will result in jail time for these 'masters of the universe'. And it exposes the impotence of apparently powerful politicians like US Attorney General Eric Holder and UK Chancellor George Osborne in the face of neo-liberal finance capitalism.

Who can possibly doubt that 21st century capitalism is in the grip of amoral and crooked financiers? Who can doubt that these bankers act as if they are above the law? The plea bargained outcome in this case is hardly likely to act as a deterrent which will successfully curb their illegal behaviour.

The fact is the bankers have the politicians in their pockets. And only after we change that reality can we expect to see crooked bankers brought to justice anywhere.
 

Off to the Spanish General Election - Sunday June 26th

I am off to Madrid on Sunday to observe the Spanish General election at the invitation of Podemos.

The election has been called because it is 6 months since the last election and the Spanish Constitution decrees a new vote must be held if no party/coalition has been able to command a majority in the Cortes within that period. Since the last election on December 20th resulted in a hung parliament and none of the 4 main parties could agree to govern separately or together the June 26th vote has been called.

The latest opinion polls suggest little has changed however since December in terms of popular support. The conservative Partido Popular [PP] stands on 29% of the vote, Podemos [We Can] is on 25.5%, PSOE [the Labour Party] 20% and the smaller right of centre party Cuidadanos [Citizens] is on 14%. [Source: El Pais/Metroscopia 11.6.16]

With no party again likely to emerge with enough support to form a majority in the 350 seat Cortes on its own the pressure will mount to form a coalition. The likelihood of that happening however is poor. All the possible permutations failed to materialise last time. So there is likely to be a prolonged political impasse.

All of this is bad news for the economy and continues the journey into uncharted political waters for post Franco Spain. The country has been governed by either the PP or PSOE since the 1970's. But that all changed when the Spanish economy 'went off a cliff' following its financial collapse of 2008. The unprecedented economic crisis that followed also unearthed massive corruption and bribery at the heart of the Spanish banking sector and political establishment. The PP and PSOE leaders were caught red handed and thoroughly discredited by their financial corruption.

The economic collapse and social outrage at the corruption scandals led to the emergence first of Podemos [We Can] on the Left and then Cuidadanos [Citizens] on the Right. Both changed the face of Spanish politics.

Economically Spain remains in huge trouble. Unemployment as a whole is running at 20% and youth unemployment at 50%. The country has seen one million people emigrate in the last 5 years alone. The EU was forced to step in and bail out the Spanish finance sector. The country now has one of the highest debt: income ratio's in the world. It owes its creditors more than one Trillion Euros. The social consequences of the collapse are pitiful. 30% of the population are now living in poverty and unable for instance to afford the electricity they need to keep warm in the winter and cool in the blistering summer sun.

Podemos and their pony-tailed leader Pablo Iglesias have promised to create a million new jobs, to renegotiate EU debt repayments, invest in health and education provision and industrialise Spain's economy by moving away from the traditional sectors of tourism, agriculture and construction. Their hopes of forming Spain's first Left-wing Coalition Government since the 1930's rest with PSOE leader Pedro Sanchez. But there is no love lost between the two parties. More importantly their political differences are profound. Podemos are anti-austerity. PSOE are much more economically and socially conservative. On the crucial issue of Spain's constitution where areas like Catalonia, the Basque country, the Valencien community and Galicia the two party's share a desire to maintain the unitary state. But Podemos is in favour of independence referenda in these areas with a new constitutional settlement might loosen the grip of Madrid and devolve even more power to the localities.

In an attempt to boost its own level of support, increase the pressure on PSOE and ultimately break the deadlock in government Podemos has reached an agreement with the Spanish Communist Party [Unida Izquerida] to form an alliance for this election and will appear on the ballot paper as Unidos Podemos [United We Can].

I am looking forward to the election campaign and learning much more about Podemos's programme and strategy in the next week or so. And I will be filing regular reports from Madrid here on my blog over the next ten days.

Edinburgh Peoples Festival hosts debate on the European Union Referendum

The Edinburgh People's Festival hosts a debate on the forthcoming Referendum on Britain's membership of the EU on Wednesday at The Grassmarket Centre in Candlemaker Row.

The event offers the citizens of Edinburgh help to decide whether to Remain or Leave the EU.

Former SNP Deputy leader Jim Sillars will make the case for leaving the EU, Maggie Chapman from the Scottish Greens will outline the Remain view and Lothians MSP Neil Findlay will also join us to explain why he is as yet still undecided.

Doors open at 7pm and the debate will be chaired by Natalie Reid from the Edinburgh People's Festival. 

FREE PRESCRIPTIONS MUST BE PROTECTED

 

Free NHS prescriptions are one of the landmark achievements of The Scottish Parliament. And this needs to be reiterated as the Annual Conference of the British Medical Association's Scottish Committee convenes in Clydebank today. For a motion has been tabled at the conference by the Ayrshire and Arran branch calling for the reintroduction of means tested NHS prescription charges on the grounds that providing these medicines free is 'a drain on NHS resources and adds to GP's workloads'.

As an MSP I presented the original Holyrood Members Bill to abolish these charges in Scotland. And I am proud to have done so. The charges were abolished in Scotland in 2011. Any move to reintroduce the charges would not be in the best interests of patients or our nations health.

NHS Prescription charges were introduced in 1951. The charge of 1/- [one shilling] was intended to be temporary to help pay for Britain's war in Korea. Sixty years later they were finally abolished in Scotland but only after the charge had risen to £6.50 per item on the prescription.

The evidence I presented to Parliament in 2004 showed that tens of thousands of patients were going without the medicines they needed because they could not afford to pay. The means testing principles were illogical and contradictory. Some patients were exempt from payment on the grounds of age. Others, such as pregnant mums, were exempt on the basis of their particular health condition. There was no logic to which conditions should be exempt and others charged. It was entirely arbitrary based on the cost implications to the Exchequer. This meant that a retired multi-millionaire for example did not have to pay a penny but a low paid care worker had to meet the cost in full. MSPs on £65,000 a year were often exempt by virtue of their age or an existing health condition but cancer patients requiring multiple drugs at one time could rack up a small fortunes in medical bills.

The founding principle of the NHS, that the service be available to all citizens free at the point of need and paid for out of general taxes was of course completely breached by prescription charges.

Wales and Northern Ireland had abolished the charges years before Holyrood finally did so in 2011. Today only NHS patients in England now pay for their prescriptions. The charge currently stands at £8.20 per item. And it is due to rise again on April 1st.

Prescription charges mean the sick must pay twice for medical treatment, once out of their general taxes and secondly from this additional 'tax on the sick'. Economically the case for reintroducing prescription charges is weakest of all. NHS Scotland gave evidence to support my Bill showing that the cost of admitting patients to hospital whose condition had deteriorated through not accessing medication [£600/day] far exceeded any income they might gather from prescription charges. Leaving aside the cost to the wider economy - of days lost to prolonged sickness absence from work - the cost to the NHS of administering the means-tested system and protecting it from fraud reduced again any financial advantage further. The cost of medicines prescribed by GP's to their patients represents less than 0.5% [half of one per cent] of NHS Scotland's annual budget. 

NHS prescription charges are profoundly and politically unpopular because they undermine the fundamental principle of an NHS free to all.

 I am sure the BMA in Scotland will recognise the powerful case for ensuring patients in Scotland do not go without the medicines they need and oppose the motion to reintroduce prescription charges. And I urge them to work with their colleagues in England to see the charges are abolished there too.

RISE is the socialist choice on May 5th

Independence is the elephant in the room as far as the 2016 Holyrood elections are concerned. It completely overshadows everything else.
RISE: Scotland's Left Alliance supports a second referendum on Independence within the lifetime of the next Holyrood Parliament. We want an independent socialist Scotland, a modern democratic republic.
Scotland was assured throughout the 2014 Referendum by the 'No' side that we would never have to endure another Tory Government we did not elect or suffer policies we did not want. But that turned out not to be true. Instead another Tory Government was foisted upon us to inflict painful cuts and punishing austerity on working people in Scotland. They preside over an economy increasingly built on poverty wages and casualization. They continue to blame immigrants and claimants for an economic crisis that had nothing to do with them. Whereas they let the real culprits the greedy, reckless and corrupt bankers carry on with 'business as usual'. They have taken us into yet another war in the Middle East, this time in Syria, that we do not support. And they plan to restrict workers rights still further by introducing the worst anti-union laws in all Europe. It is little wonder then that this hatred for the Tories is the predominant influence in Scottish politics today.

RISE is in favour of a second referendum on Independence within the lifetime of the next Parliament to rid us of this Tory menace. But the independence movement needs to be clear that a new mandate is required from the Scottish people if we are to force Westminster to concede another vote. We must not forget that the power to hold a legally binding referendum on independence still resides with Westminster! And they got such a scare in 2014 they will not, to put it mildly, willingly grant another one. They are determined to stop Scotland breaking free from British control. So we need to mobilise Scottish public opinion behind that second referendum otherwise we could see majority support for independence develop and yet be unable to seize it.

RISE are standing candidates in the Holyrood elections on the eight regional lists in favour of a second referendum within the lifetime of the next Parliament at a time of our choosing. And we are asking people for their second vote.

Working class people need socialists in the Parliament speaking up for them. RISE has an excellent chance of getting MSP's elected and we urge all independence supporters to vote for us with their second vote and help elect as many RISE MSP's as possible on the lists. RISE has put our promise of a second referendum at the centre of our manifesto pledges. And as part of our vision of an independent socialist Scotland we also support a £10/hour living wage, the replacement of the Council tax with an income based alternative that sees the rich pay more and poorer less, and a promise to build 100,000 much needed new homes for rent in the socially owned sector. We will also create 100,000 new climate jobs in renewable energy, sustainable farming and via free public transport provision. And last but by no means least all RISE MSP's will live on the average wage of the Scottish people - just as the SSP's MSP's did between 1999 and 2007. So instead of taking the £60,000 salary all other MSP's get ours will live like the majority and not the elite.
As Edinburgh's famous socialist son James Connolly said in 1910 'RISE with your class not out of it.'

And all this shows that voting for RISE on May 5th is the smart choice for working people.      

Spain set for period of political instability following Sunday's General Election

Having begun 2015 with a visit to Athens for the Greek General Election triumph of Syriza I had hoped to end the year by accepting an invitation from Podemos to witness Sunday’s General Election in Spain. Alas the votes close proximity to Christmas meant that for family reasons that was not possible.

But the dramatic news from Madrid meant that for the first time in the post Franco era Spain will not be governed outright by either the Popular Party [Tories] or PSOE [Labour]. The remarkable breakthrough by Podemos [‘We can’] on the left and to a lesser extent by Cuidadanos [‘Citizens’] on the right was widely predicted amid Spain’s prolonged economic collapse and recent high profile corruption scandals. Spain now has a complex and polarised four party system with the PP on 123 seats in Parliament [down 66], PSOE on 90 [down 20], Podemos 69, Cuidadanos 40 and the others on 28.

The result overall was inconclusive however and even if the right-wing bloc manages to pull together a workable coalition [by no means certain] they only just make it across the 176 seat threshold needed in the 350 seat Parliament. Similarly if the left [PSOE + Podemos + the nationalist parties] can construct an agreed programme [again a major doubt] they too only just make a majority. Talk of a ‘Grand Coalition’ between the PP and PSOE, the two biggest parties, is equally unlikely. If no coalition or minority Government can be cobbled together another election must be held within three months. Many Spanish commentators believe this may be inevitable.

The political uncertainty matches the economic picture. The ‘recovery’ claimed by [former] Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy is extremely weak and largely invisible to millions of poor and under-employed Spaniards. For them Sunday’s result represents more of the same. The same austerity, the same mass unemployment, the same mass emigration by the cream of Spanish youth.

And the unresolved national questions in Catalonia, the Basque country and in Galicia, are unlikely to be settled any time soon either. The views of PSOE and Podemos on the left for example, are at odds with the desire of nationalists in the ‘regions’. Neither party backs self-determination, although Podemos was forced to concede a binding referendum to Catalonia in return for support there. The right wing parties oppose outright independence for Spanish ‘regions’.

Even if any coalition Government can be patched together it will be vulnerable to Parliamentary defeats. The PP lost one third of its seats. PSOE who should have been the main beneficiary of widespread disgust with the PP Government lost a fifth of theirs.

Podemos won 69 seats in a spectacular General Election debut for this new, young party. However a note of caution may be wise as there are many questions now facing them. Given they led the polls in the Spring uppermost perhaps among the questions is why did Spanish voters not move more decisively left? And why did 80% of voters reject Podemos given the severe economic hardship and the blazing indignation at several high profile corruption scandals affecting both the PP and PSOE?

Might a more decisive rejection of Spain’s political duopoly not have been expected? And might it not be premature therefore to write off Spain’s two long established parties just yet with all their money, power and influence?

In January Podemos were ahead in the polls. They were then rocked by a financial scandal of their own. Then there were reports of internal schisms over the party's structures and its decision-making process amid accusations of a move to the right. Podemos will face intense media scrutiny now and immense political pressure from a Spanish state concerned at its rise. All of which will undoubtedly add to the wider political instability in Spanish society.