top of page

Who Struck First?

Stephen Hornsby-Smith

Thatcher or Scargill? Did they both withdraw their industrial labour? Welcome to the world of spin!

Spin or no spin? Why should any 'negative' campaigning be propped-up by indulgent excess rather than educate? Is spin the 'political search-engine', the google of today the positive good that its champion's claim it is? Or is it more? Out of the ashes of spin Doctor's 'slugging-it out' has something that wasn't intended begun to emerge? Perhaps the transformation of economic and social self-perception has been its closest ally?

There's spin and there's a new generation of spin. Or is there something new, a political cross-pollination(CP) for want of a more adaptable definition? If spin is manipulation then CP is 'metrosexual post post modernistic bla bla bla! That's right, be wary of the jargon! But what if CP is a literacy that speaks to the new information world , not by bog-standard twentieth century social media, but by a new opening to further the frontiers of inclusion yet designed a way to not go go ideology nuts! Here's the trick, prove that social class politics(so important in this country) has been gathering over the phrase "together, united we'll never be defeated"- why is that limited to one social class when it is so provocatively demanding confrontation that pits one class against the rest?

Shouldn't it have a potentially wider reference, a true rallying cry for all ? It is a form of economic and social Dickensianism that has to be consigned to the past. Spin is a disguise, CP is an invention and is original;whilst spin re-hashes the status quo, CP could depart from the fixed uniformity, and the re-birth of positive change- in other words, CP is not counter- ideology, it offers a departure from it. It addresses the philosophical political issues as a result of industrialization in the 19th century and its consequences in the 20th. It does not ameliorate or soften it side-steps.

Spin should be the last vestiges of the old party-system, the ancien regime, the elephant in the room. We have a history of spin, and there has been no effective spin than doctor Thomas Cromwell, legend of making legal Henry VIII's Reformation - Alistair Campbell is just a novice compared with Thomas. Let me be clear, the 21st century is not the 'origin of spin', and it certainly wasn't created by Alistair Campbell after too many beers in a pub in Islington. But 21st century spin is just a stage leading to a watershed of philosophical that is being led by a political angle at present that is self-transformative. Will the powerful want to contend with its spin-offs? I don't know. But spin is a necessary form of conflict that was originally 'designed to make drastic change seamless and no change seem radically different. Why would you want to alter spin as we've all known it just to change the way we think? Why surpass gradualism by a distinct departure of a philosophical nature? Is there the political will to do this leap of faith?

Pragmatic and popular, and simple in application The consequences of spin, CP and then further enhancements requires new demographics, an upgrade rather than a selfie. It has to be governed by the laws of self-interest and self-incentivization (so rooted in the realistic primordial need to not waver on taking what's offered), developed to maximise and minimalize output according to'what you put-in you take-out; pretty standard stuff for Capitalists? This is not a choice of Socialism or Capitalism, but a choice of soft, hard or 'original Capitalism'! The comfortable must be knocked off their complacent perches, and not to have to rely on the mugs who are against any form of Capitalism, to feel that they are supporting 'anti-socialism Toryism' and not pro-Capitalism Toryism'. We can't just rely on the past but can 'Consent by Capitalism and welfare by Consent' .So where did this initiative start to re-regulate and translate into popular Capitalism? Thatcherite Britain. Thatcherism is the prime example of the policy of Privatization being a 'public money grab' that led to a transformation that it didn't actually intend - namely a new way of re-distribution of resources by a happy accident and serendipedy. But redistribution of resources by self-production not by lottery or a change of government once in a blue moon. It uncovered a self-perpetuating inter-action of the individual capable in mass individualizing self-determination by either the fast speeds of a digital and connected global markets as well as the more pedestrian public format on a local individual level.

This 'individual industrialization', in fact self-industrialization has to equate with popular access to 'log-on' to self-define; wasn't this the dream of global democracy beyond regionalism yet made personal by having to develop ones 'own economy, an open system commercially viable, an inclusive open freedom by demonstrable self-motivated possibilities? We live in an era of dependence on huge corporate monoliths and a political philosophical Indolence that doesn't question or exceed expectations or transmit the elegance of self-sufficiency. How is this important to the 21st and 22nd centuries? Globalization must accomodate a mass 'logging-on' on an individual micro managed scale to advance a dexterity and diverse globalization not avoid it! I have no doubt that to survive the brutal life we live in we have to augment this skill set by appealing to the primordial sledgehammer of money making. But CP could ignite a new generation of business makers and traverse undiscovered individual markets precisely because it doesn't rely on a fixation of poverty versus privilege, but mass employment by a nation of 'shopkeepers' ready to engage a post-paralytic post social class warfare world.Why not roll this shaft of light globally? On a very basic level, social media today shows the potential of individual impact on why not the economy? Ebay is just the beginning of a new century of ideas at our grasp, and is not a curse but an opportunity to transform ones job into a life of economic activity designed by the individual him or herself. Thatcherites still think this is the preserve of the bankers,stock-brokers and hedgefunders! Open-up this part of the economy enough and you get the 'spin-offs' rather than just the political spin. Isn't that what Thatcher would secretly have wanted?! The reshaping of the industrial social class 'market' ready to peal-back the cellophane of new technology; hell, social class can be the the next technology that inspires Britain! Negative 'social class' will be 'relocated' and the shape of the 'workforce' will evolve beyond the mass format of dockside , coal pits and factory manufacturing.

That is not a non-sequittar. You don't have to be Tom Good to enjoy 'the good life'; the good life isn't going all green and ditching the career,it is however about transforming your own agenda by your own conduct. Self-management doesn't require qualifications it requires the discipline of doing what you want to do with your life and making a good living from it. There is more to Capitalism than repetitive strain disorder or lap-top city,office block or barking or biting etc it's up to us to change the way and the reason for the way we work. Change your own political landscape by leading your own economic and social self-managed micro-managed experience in the greatest country in the world and then handing it onto the next generation. You get to write, promote, produce and direct your own'career' without having to have the compulsory beauty and brains contest to keep your job. These will be computer games that 'pay' your salary where tax is automatically collected . Welcome to the leisure measure drome.

History is often a mine-field for prospective authors who want to relate their interpretation of it; but what if spin produces a separate arc or angle in which it is more convenient for mass consumption to ignore? This is not spin, this is a highly inflammable political reality? Let me offer an inconvenient truth :Thatcher withdrew her 'labour' (by demanding that the NUM listen (and swallow) the Coal Boards recommendations). The executive of the Coal Board demanded that the NUM meet their promises of productivity and efficiency or management would withdraw and effectively go on strike. Strike?! Is that what you call it?! So did the NUM seek arbitrary executive powers with its demands imposed on its miners would refuse to invest their labour-capital too and would withhold funds or sequistrate all production of coal. The Coal Board felt intimidated by threats to not have a national secret ballot, where management of the Corporate NUM were dictating policy and in short-term interests of the industry only. How can the industry re-invest when it doesn't have a coal product that isn't mismanaged by the NUM? Such material in the wrong hands could be difficult to explain if it was 'shelved by both major parties'! The radicals outside mainstream parties wouldn't have touched it with a barge -pole, too much 'consensus of language' for their agendas of explosive terror and revolution. But the Cold War is a lifetime away and jump-starting CP today has every chance of momentum.

What the 'F' is this double-talk? Simple language swapped for ones opponents' ,yet provides the beginnings of a shaft of light that sheds light on how sides of industry could often share the same agenda. There are few areas of consensus in Britain but the NHS springs to mind. What if industry could invoke the same support for social and economic improvements to the economy without the need for class division? Perhaps we should say UNITE is a trade Union, but indivdualization of the economy would value all of society in uniting against division that the UNITE trade union wants to promote by economic sectarianism that must be left to the past to bury. Why is Britain so bonded together by the last century of division? Would you prefer the old certainties or would you prefer to lead your own economic and social experience in the greatest country in the world and then hand it on to the next generation? Britain built the free market within an Imperial and later post Cold War vision of unlimited markets and open potential. Why shouldn't it not be the next CP thing?!

Here is more recent spin: Trump praises Boris at the expense of Theresa May, and Boris loses bleeds support in the country, the shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry sledges Trump and wants him to get lost! She hits the wavelength of the general British verdict on Trump(rightly or wrongly), where George W seems as though he's becoming a better President by the minute(Would Thornberry think the same thing? Just don't mention the war...) Furthermore, Feminist Thornberry does not come to the rescue of the object of Trumps implicit criticism (Theresa May), she just revels in political association by gender as if Thornberry has been undermined by Trump and not May. So much for sisterhood! But if she had come to a fellow woman's help, the dissidents within the Tory parliamentary back benchers would have said May was getting Labour support and would be made politically vulnerable a Prime Minister in the House of Commons if she was courting feminism by Labour. If you were Thornberry's boss you'd be angry that Thornberry had missed that opportunity to undermine the Tories and create havoc. Or perhaps sticking the knife in ain't worth the deceit Thornberry would have to carry around with her? Spin within spin is certainly now hypothetical and covering more than ones bases. It has become the main political party in Britain, and can either hinder or transport change. But then again there is CP to the rescue?.......

CP could prove to be a polymorphous multi-geared economy requiring more than the national lottery to re-distribute 'thinking wealth' and provide a delivery system to augment the 'City of London' rolled-out all over the UK. .Take our out-dated view of our badly wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan who, I'm sure most in Britain would argue that the Invictus International Games shows life after military service as men and women who break glass ceilings and raise the bar of excellence. Prince Harry called such men and women role models for the rest of us,;so why can't we catch-up with such trailblazers in our own micro climate? Self-perpetuation has to be won and office have to be won on ones record. The most salient victor in the teeth of so many defeats was Winston Churchill. The greatest British PM of the 20th century wasn't born in the 20th century , but to the previous . It was one of extreme privilege and yet would evolve into a street fighter bearing the scars of callamitous Gallipoli Campaign and a terrifying ordeal as an escaped soldier in the Boer war . He alone knew what lay ahead if we didn't demand that we re-arm and prepare to fight the looming war with Hitler and his militarized society, and his foresight was often pilloried by smug sceptics reminding the country that Chuchill was trying too hard to correct 'his' defeat in Gallipoli, and was making waves for re-arming because he was 'yesterdays man' failing to revive a tired political career. To take on this political stigma and preserve his fears of military disaster as a warning from Europe slowly being swallowed-up by Hitler and Stalin was courageous. He fought the battle for re-arming Britain in Parliament and then mustered enough strength to charge the lines of Nazi evil despite his 'Black dog' of depression or was it post traumatic stress disorder from bearing the scars of Gallipoli.? Isn't the greatest pugillist actually a Harrovian and not a bare-knuckle fighter? He transcended his past and so can we.

bottom of page