Political Blackness: RIP?

Is Political Blackness Still Relevant Today? That is the title of a recently published Guardian article. The article is a debate between Dr Kehinde Andrews an African-Caribbean man and fairly well-known race pundit; a South Asian woman and a Chinese woman whose names I forget and with whom I am less familiar. The article sets out to discuss the various opinions of those in the debate on whether the concept of political blackness that was popularised in the 70's is still relevant in Britain today. The debate offers 3 different opinions on the relevance of that 1970's political blackness. All 3 argue that political blackness is no longer relevant at least in the 1970's articulation. 

Of those who participated in the debate only one participant Dr Andrews argued that whilst the political blackness of the 1970's was no longer relevant there was still a need for some type of black politics; arguing that the African-centred political blackness like that of the Pan-African Congress that was held in London in 1900 or that of the African-American political thinkers such as Malcolm X and or Louis Farrakhan should perhaps be adopted to replace the tradition political blackness of Britain. Dr Andrews comments were later picked up and responded to in a short web video by Lee Jasper a well known "black" activist of the traditional political blackness and former race adviser to former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone. Jasper argued that political blackness of the 1970's was still relevant and gave a number of reasons why he thought so. I share a British-Caribbean heritage with both Dr Andrews and Jasper and wanted to share my thoughts on what I think political blackness looks like today. Firstly I would like to clarify exactly the understandings of both political blackness in Britain and political blackness in the UK.

Political blackness in Britain differs from political blackness in the US. In the US political blackness refers to being of African heritage in some way and is connected to the ideals of black power that developed in the 60's and 70's. In the UK political blackness refers to being a descendant of a former British colony and is connected to the ideals of Marxist and radical socialist politics of the 70's and 80's. Political blackness in Britain is not dependent on African racial heritage and collective economics but heritage that connects you to an experience of colonialism under the British Empire and favoured government infiltration to collective economics.. All those who have been born from a colonial experience from Jamaica to India to Africa to China and even Australia and Canada who were of a Marxist or radical Socialist politics have technically been considered politically black in British politics.  It has not included many white Australians or Canadians but British political blackness could include them as they share a colonial experience in the British Empire. Black History Month since it's inception has always been a reflection of that concept of political blackness in Britain. So Black History Month is littered with references to Walter Rodney, C L R James, the Grenadian Revolution and the British Black Panther Party that embraced the Marxist inspired left-wing decolonisation politics. 

At the heart of political blackness in Britain has been the notion of decolonisation an idea that is not quite relevant for the experience of political blackness in the US. As decolonisation in the formal sense has been achieved and China and India have risen alongside African states such as Nigeria and South Africa political blackness has become somewhat redundant to ethnic groups whose nations now experience self-governance and are amongst the biggest economies in the world. Those that were once willing to gather together in a localised version of the "non-alignment" movement of third world nations in the 50's no longer need those relationships and are no longer oppressed by or suffering from the effects of colonial governance. 

Today there are attempts by those such as Dr Kehinde Andrews to revise Political Blackness in the context of Pan-Africanism or the US conceptions of Political Blackness. I believe that the task of Pan-Africanism can be as difficult for local Pan-African's as it is for those on the global stage in the African Union who struggle to gather together people of differing ethnicity's, economies and heritages into a Union. I also see that the models of political blackness developed in the US have not been as beneficial as Affirmative action programmes that sought further integration and in the end produced the likes of Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama. There are also attempts like that by Lee Jasper to resurrect the notion of British political blackness of the 70's and 80's but again I do not believe this is possible and British political blackness had limitations due to it's ideological principles. Perhaps there are a few nostalgic students that may enjoy the idea for a few years but the resurrection of British political blackness is not likely. 

I believe that if there was some concept of political blackness today it would revolve around the relationship between the UK and those former colonies in the Caribbean that are still in a political relationship with the UK Crown and those in Australia and Canada that share the same Head of State and their relationship to the UK and the Crown. As Britain plans it's Brexit future and many are considering the notion of a Commonwealth Free Trade Zone between the "Anglosphere" nations I believe that a political blackness today revolves around making sure that those from the British-Caribbean are included as part of the journey as people of the "Anglosphere". Political blackness today means fighting for British-Caribbean nations that have British names, speak English and share a Head of State with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK to be given a place at the table if discussions around a new Commonwealth Free Trade Zone or what is referred to as CANZUK comes to fruition which today looks more than likely. Those in Britain who share heritage with those in the British-Caribbean should put all political energy into lobbying for greater "Anglosphere" integration that includes the British-Caribbean nations as equal partners.

We must fight to give a fundamental human right of freedom of movement to those British-Caribbean nations that pledge allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II. British-Caribbeans must fight to be part of the emerging "Anglosphere" because we are an Anglophone people; we are not strangers. We are fundamentally culturally British. I believe that we must lift our voices and be the most fervent supporters of the emerging "Anglosphere". The opportunity for people of the British-Caribbean to travel without restriction to Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK in culturally familiar surroundings to work, live and dream is a opportunity that British-Caribbean nations cannot miss. The opportunity for citizens of the aforementioned nations to consider the British-Caribbean as a home away from home is too much of an opportunity for them to miss too. It is a win-win.

The political blackness of both Dr Andrews and Lee Jasper are politics of a different time and experience. Today's political blackness should not about be about decolonisation and radical socialism, neither should it about a US model of black power. The only political British blackness today is a politics of closer integration between the British-Caribbeans and our fellow the "Anglosphere" nations towards a new post-racial Geo-political paradigm where a British-Caribbean is considered as much part of the brotherhood as our partners.

God save Britannia!

Is This Why The British Public voted for BREXIT?!

I am a member of the Liberal Democrat Party, a party that is pro-EU. In the game of Westminster party politics I would be expected to take a position against all those who disagree with my party line. However, that is not my approach to politics. Before I was a member of a political party I was a philosophical liberal and have continued to be a philosophical liberal and open-minded. Although the Remain position may have been my default position rather than engage in a political civil war with half of my fellow citizens I consider it best to try to understand the public and what drove them to make this momentous political decision. As a Democrat I respect the will of the majority whilst understanding that democracy can be a bitch and that everyone does not get what they want all the time. As a liberal I see it as a duty to understand the public not to dictate to the public but to respond to the democratic will of the people as a public servant and to understand the zeitgeist.

As someone committed to public service and from the community organising tradition I consider it a duty of politicians to deliver what the people want. That is not to argue that a politician cannot teach, guide or offer educated opinion but recognition that democratic society depends upon politicians accepting the will of the people and then responding to that will as public servants. Therefore politicians are charged with using their political skills to shape the best course to the destination that the public has willed. Today, I want to examine Brexit from a perspective that exists in the UK and across the world but has not been picked up in any substantial way by the media. A perspective that I believe played a key role in the Brexit vote.

Since the beginning of the 21st century there has been a movement growing amongst the citizens of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom for greater integration between these "Anglosphere" nations within the Commonwealth. The argument has been made that the Commonwealth "Anglosphere" nations share a Head of State, common language, legal system, cultural values and political system as well as historical ties that are well documented.  What began as an obscure idea by a relatively unknown Canadian policy researcher James C Bennett in a little known book titled, The Anglosphere Challenge: Why English Speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the Twenty-First Century published in 2004 and then later explored by Canadian theorist Brent Cameron in another little known book called The Case for Commonwealth Free Trade: Options for a New Globalization in 2005 has slowly gained momentum over a decade or so and is now becoming a heavily debated topic amongst policymakers in the political mainstream as we start to imagine Britain's post-Brexit future.

After publishing these, frankly, very interesting books, Bennett and Cameron alongside a number of peers and well-educated academics from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK launched the CANZUK movement dedicated to promoting greater integration between the "Anglosphere" Commonwealth nations. In 2012, think tank Commonwealth-Exchange was formed in the UK with a vision to lobby for a more integrated Commonwealth. Commonwealth-Exchange would later come to the attention of the then London Mayor Boris Johnson who has since became a quiet advocate of their ideas; hence his position on Brexit.

In much of the commentary in the media on the referendum it was characterised as a debate about immigration. A battle between good British people that wanted to keep Britain's borders open and good British people that wanted their country back from what they consider to be an influx of immigrants from the EU. Whilst there were certainly strong elements of an undeniable xenophobic and anti-immigrant feeling in amongst the Leave campaigners and Remain campaigners were right to challenge the xenophobic aspects of the campaign in defence of an open, tolerant and internationalist Britain, the tactics of Farage and others largely took away from what I believe was at the centre of the intellectual debate. Should Britain's cultural, economic and political future be with the EU or with other "Anglosphere" nations in a Commonwealth Union?

Whilst the intellectual debate was not about immigration, there is no doubt that anti-immigration sentiments were used as a populist ruse for those supporters of the new and perhaps emerging political paradigm to win the vote. Those who have made the intellectual argument for greater Commonwealth integration between "Anglosphere" Commonwealth nations such as Ralph Buckle at Commonwealth-Exchange, have argued since 2014 for the need for more Commonwealth immigration, an idea that Leave campaign front-man Boris Johnson MP has embraced. Even contributing to writing the foreword to the Commonwealth-Exchange 2014 publication, "How to Solve A Problem Like A Visa?" A call to make it easier for citizens of Commonwealth nations to travel in the UK by removing Visa restrictions. The ideas of the non-partisan think tank Commonwealth-Exchange have also gained the support of now International Trade Minister Liam Fox MP who also wrote a foreword for one of their publications The Commonwealth's Call to Duty.Today; we have a Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and an International Trade Minister that have made clear their support for working towards a more integrated Commonwealth and developing new relationships with "Anglosphere" nations in favour of the EU.

It does not take a rocket scientist to recognise that the dream of a Commonwealth Free Trade Zone is an

appealing one to the British public. In a 2015 YouGov poll citizens in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK were asked if they wanted free movement within the "Anglosphere" with approximately 2/3rd's of citizens polled outside of the UK welcoming free movement and more than half of the UK population considering free movement as a positive. There are many UK citizens that have relatives living in "Anglosophere" nations and Australia and Canada alongside the US are the 3 nations most favourable to UK citizens according to a recent YouGov poll. The dream of sun, sand and sea in culturally familiar settings, plus even familiar soap opera's, makes the concept of an integrated "Anglosphere" a dream that many Brits want to see made a reality.

Australia and Canada are vast lands of continental sizes with a vast array of climates where UK citizens could think and dream bigger, unhampered by any notion of overcrowding and bring forth a new geo-political paradigm. There would be no need for them to learn new languages and cultural mores, they will be immediately situated in a familiar linguistic and cultural framework with only geographical adjustments needed to be made in order to integrate, work and communicate. Whilst the EU is a nation of many nations, cultures and political ideals the "Anglosphere" nations share the ideals of Liberal Democracy and free trade as well as a Head of State, legal system and language. For many the idea of a Commonwealth Free Trade Zone appears exceedingly obvious. Almost like "why didn't we think of that before?"

Ideologues of the Commonwealth Free Trade Zone also offer an interesting take on the relationship that the

"Anglosphere" nations could have with the US. Arguing that the union would act as the US's main partner in maintaining global order and stability. With a combined population of more than 125 million and strong armed forces and an economy in the top 5 biggest economies in the world, the union could become a better partner to the US than the EU. The US like Commonwealth "Anglosphere" nations shares much in common with the UK such as language and history and have a well-documented "special relationship". In many ways the "Anglosphere" is an idea that British citizens can be aroused by; an idea big enough to instigate the biggest political decision that Britain has made in decades.

I am a Liberal Democrat; a member of a party that is pro-EU but I am also a member of the British public and sympathetic towards both the Leave and Remain camps as citizens of the country that I call home. I understand many of the deep-rooted fears of those who perhaps think than Britain leaving the EU could result in a rerun of 1939. I understand the desire of those who consider a fall-out with the EU too much of a risk and would rather remain as part of an organisation that may not function in a way that the British would like in order to secure peace. I understand that we should not let those who use the Brexit vote to preach anti-immigrant hatred and promote a culture of hate and xenophobia towards EU citizens in Britain gain any ground. However, I believe that the notion of the "Anglosphere" is a rational and credible one not to be sneered at. There have been intelligent and insightful intellectual arguments of a ground-breaking new geo-political paradigm that have been made. I understand absolutely the reasons why British citizens would naturally find it easier to integrate politically and economically with those that share a multitude of things in common not to mention a Head of State and who also occupy such beautiful sunny surroundings. My only obvious dispute with the ideals would be the theoretical exclusion of those in the British-Caribbean that also share the same Head of State as the aforementioned.

Today, the British public have made a democratic decision to leave the EU. Now Britain must chart a new path and the idea of the "Anglosphere" is on the table. We have key government figures now who have quietly accepted these ideas and there has been money spent by powerful financiers and others to make the Leave vote a reality so that Britain could pursue this new course. Those who have sought to pursue this journey have dishonestly and ruthlessly used anti-immigration rhetoric whilst knowing that the project that they were setting out upon would not seal the immigration debate.

So, it appears like there is no other post-Brexit pathway on the table. The question now is who should lead the way in negotiations with the EU and in birthing the new political paradigm? For this I would argue that the Liberal Democrat Party is best placed to lead negotiations towards it. Why? Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is a liberal who shares many policies with the Liberal Democrat Party. Therefore he is ideologically aligned with us as Barack Obama and the US Democrats are aligned with us in our global movement to defeat tyranny and oppression. It would make negotiations easier to begin when there are two ideologically aligned minds and parties sitting down to make a move that would perhaps dramatically change the political landscape. "Anglosphere" nations are clearly and squarely Liberal Democracy's with decentralising and free-market instincts. The Liberal Democrat Party is the party of those traditional "Anglosphere" values, the party of J S Mill and John Maynard Keynes two of the Anglophone's greatest liberal intellectual icons.

Our philosophy and political platform of an open, united and tolerant UK is music to the ears of the citizens of Australia, Canada and New Zealand that look upon the idea of free movement favourably and the 58% of Brits that would welcome more immigration from the Commonwealth. We are the internationalist party a party whose ideology is about having strong internationalist relations. We have been the greatest advocates for the European Union and we will be the most fervent voices in working towards the integration that many British citizens desire.

Whilst the Conservative Party cynically ride's on the tails of anti-immigrant feeling we must develop our new internationalism and take the lead on the new paradigm. Whilst some have quietly accepted it, we must take the bull by the horns and declare it before the British public before it is too late.

God Save Britannia!

What should a Post-Brexit Liberal Democrat Politics Look Like?

Brexit has been one of the most controversial political moments in British political history; a moment that has divided the country and public opinion, turned citizen against citizen as those on either side of the debate chastise each other for their position on the EU and left British citizens on either side of the debate with a deep uncertainty about the future.

Whilst politicians that backed the Leave camp appear to be unsure of what to do in the future; the Remain camp desperately clings to the past in the hope that we can turn back the hands of time on what is a democratic decision by the British public. With this uncertainty about the future it is imperative that the next government to-be maps out a plausible, coherent and compelling vision of Britain in a post-Brexit world that can bring the country together and secure Britain's economic future. 

Moving towards a vision for Britain in the future, outside of the EU, means first coming to terms with the democratic decision made by the public in the referendum. It means refusing to join the chorus of those that characterise all Leave voters as uneducated racists lacking in understanding of economics and accepting that there were a plethora of reasons why voters decided to tick the Leave box. Some campaigners were obviously making immigration the centre of the referendum in an attempt to whip up an emotional anti-immigrant frenzy but there were also sound arguments about free-trade, democracy and Britain's economic future; arguments that should not be ideologically foreign to liberals. As the party committed to evidence backed policy it is important that we look closely at the rational arguments offered by Brexiter' and come to rational conclusions on the merit of the arguments, offering careful rebuttal's to the arguments where we disagree and incorporating arguments that we believe to be rational and reasonable.  

We liberals should steer clear of building our post-Brexit politics around the scaremongering speculative media reports that imagine an economic apocalypse once Britain leaves the EU.  As high-minded Liberal Democrats we should put aside the Punch and Judy politics where we revert to emotional prophesies of doom and apocalypse to gain a short-term increase in members. Whilst this may increase membership for the short-term it also increases the potential of the party being left out in the cold when the ashes are settled and the pain of defeat drifts away and another more immediate issue captures the public's imagination.  In accepting our democratic fate and looking to the future of Britain post-Brexit we will become the party with the answers and not the protest party; we will become the party of the future preparing for the future. 

So, where do we start? Well, firstly, I believe that we begin with a position on what Brexit looks like. What do we want the relationship to be between Britain and the EU once the dust has settled and Article 50 has been triggered? It is clear that we want to avoid a hostile relationship and to remain in a close friendship with EU nations. We still seek trading relationships with the EU just as say China or the US do and still want to work with the EU on transnational issues such as climate change.  As a political party it is for the Liberal Democrats to position ourselves as the internationalist party best placed to lead friendly negotiations with the EU. As the Liberal Democrats have largely championed the EU and Nick Clegg is one of the best minds on the EU and European policy in the country, the Liberal Democrat Party is in a good position to argue that we are the party most endearing to a European political audience considering our policy commitments to the EU and the fact that we have Nick Clegg on our team. We must argue that at the EU negotiating table a pro-European party would have a better chance at keeping negotiations friendly and civil and perhaps possess the ability to soften any desires that the EU has to punish Britain for its controversial decision by making it more difficult for Britain's to trade and travel within the EU. 

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly we should begin to re-frame the way how we think about the referendum. Instead of considering the referendum an argument about immigration, we should consider it to be an economic and cultural argument about whether we place our economic future with the EU or the Commonwealth. We must accept that a large part of the rational argument put forward by the Leave campaign revolved around developing a deeper trade and economic relationship with the Commonwealth. As a party committed to evidence based policy and being the internationalist party, it is imperative that we engage and build upon the arguments of those that see the economic future of Britain tied to the Commonwealth rather than the EU. It is imperative that we accept the potential of a new post-racial internationalism being developed through building closer relationships with the Commonwealth nations and that we offer the vision of a more integrated Commonwealth as our post-Brexit political position. 
  
The Commonwealth grew out of the relationships that had existed between Britain and its former colonies in the British Empire. After the independence struggles that liberated many of Britain's former colonies from British colonial rule, the Commonwealth was formed as an alliance of former colonies that had decided to gather together as free and independent nations. Today, largely through the efforts of Queen Elizabeth II, the Commonwealth has 53 nations in its membership; representing 2.2 billion people of many hues and backgrounds, across 5 continents with a collective GDP of $10 trillion, who share for better or for worse a political and cultural history that comes from being embroiled in the colonialism of the British Empire. Today, unlike in the past, Commonwealth independent Heads of State gather together as equals to discuss ways of improving relationships between Commonwealth nations and tackling important issues such as climate change, gender equality and poverty. 

Today, many economists believe that there is a great future in Britain working to build more extensive trade relationships with Commonwealth nations. The IMF estimates that the GDP of the Commonwealth will reach to 17.7% of global output within the next decade making it a larger market than the EU that is estimated to be trading at 15.3% of global output. Many feel today that perhaps Britain should have never turned its back on the Commonwealth considering the great growth that many Commonwealth nations are experiencing. They have also argued for a more inclusive internationalism that is global rather than regional. Whilst there were emotional campaigning tactics employed by Leave campaigners that attempted to reduce the referendum to a debate about immigration there were also deliberately misleading interpretations of the debate by the Remain camp that focused on the rhetoric and antics of Nigel Farage - making him out to be far more influential that he actually was during the referendum - whilst not responding to the considerable body of rational arguments offered by the Leave camp on why they believed that leaving the EU would be better for Britain's economic future and the world and allow Britain to pursue closer economic and trade relationships with the Commonwealth. 

We have completely ignored the humanitarian nature of the argument put forward by for example Lord Howell, who quite eloquently offered a humanitarian aspect of the argument emphasising Britain's ability to give a better deal to farmers in the developing world and his desire to open the markets to agricultural producers in the developing world free from the tariffs and protectionist policies imposed by the EU thus creating a better deal for both British consumers and Commonwealth agricultural producers in the developing world. The rational arguments put forward by a large segment of the Leave camp made no mention of immigration at all. In fact many Leave campaigners and those that support the argument for greater integration with the Commonwealth have argued that Britain needs more immigration from the Commonwealth as part of its future economic plan. 

The campaign is now over, the electorate have decided to leave the EU. Now is not the time to imagine what could have been or to cry about the world as it should be but to look at the world as it is. The opportunity has passed but we still have an opportunity to do something great for our country; we still have the chance to make sure that Britain's relationship with the EU in the future is not completely diminished; and we have the opportunity to chart a new path  into the future for all of Britain's citizens on either side of the referendum debate. A future that I believe must include the Commonwealth as a major element.

God Save Britannia!

5 Things Liberal Democrat's can learn from the US Democrat Party...

The US Democrat Party is a Liberal Democrat movement like ours; we share many of the same values, policies and social outlook'; we are brothers and sisters in arms in a battle to bring happiness and freedom to the many and to free the world from tyranny, poverty and war. However, whilst the US Democrat Party is riding high after winning two US Presidential elections under the leadership of Barack Obama and are the bookies favourite to be elected for a third time under the leadership of Hilary Clinton this year the Liberal Democrat Party in the UK is at it's lowest position in the polls since the birth of the party. If the Liberal Democrat Party in the UK are going to become a political force, ready to be elected to govern the United Kingdom, we must look to the US Democrat Party as the model of the future of Liberal Democratic politics in the UK. A model of politics which has transformed political campaigning, won two elections and now has a President who on his way out is polling higher in the polls than ever before. For the Liberal Democrat Party in the UK to become the major party that it should be we must look across the Atlantic to our political brothers and sisters for inspiration. Here are 5 key things that we can learn from the US Democrat Party,

1. A Vision for the Future 

Barack Obama' election campaign built on the basis of a new vision for the future. A new post-racial America that would make Martin Luther King's dream a social reality. A new America that was not "balkanised" by race, class, gender or sex but where every one would be given equal opportunities and it would be possible for an African-American with a foreign name to become President of the United States of America. If the Liberal Democrat Party in the UK want to become a competitive political force we need to have a compelling vision for the future and say no to the "fightback". Our politics now must look beyond the EU and towards Britain's future. We must map out an inspirational plan on the future of Britain's trade policies post-Brexit and how we can work together with the whole nation to make it a better place with greater opportunities for all. 



2. A Strategy for Diversity

It is no secret that the US Democrat Party depend on the vote of the African-American community, without whom they would never win a Presidential election. The US Democratic Party has actively courted the vote of African-American and other ethnic minorities and made themselves into their natural political ally. It is through the US Democratic Party that African-Americans and other ethnic minorities have been able to get a foothold into US politics. The US Democrat Party has made itself open to African-American candidates and has produced many great African-American politicians in major US Cities such as Harold Washington, Maynard Jackson and Cory Booker amongst others. The US Democrat Party have been so involved with African-Americans that they have even had members of the Black Panther Party run for local office. If the Liberal Democrats want to win an election we need to actively court the BME vote. That means becoming aware of diversity and avoiding meeting in cafes that serve pork and choosing to meet in coffee shops rather than pubs that alienate some BME minorities; making sure that diverse food is served at conference and that we acknowledge major festivals amongst BME faith groups. It also means seeking out the brightest and the best BME candidates that can bring their communities to become part of the Liberal Democrat movement.

3. A Pop Cultural Strategy   

The US Democratic Party have become the pop cultural party of the US. Their supporters include Beyonce, Kanye West, Kim Kardashian West and some of the world's biggest pop cultural icons. Rappers such as J Cole and Kanye West have performed at fundraisers at the Democratic National Convention. Obama has frequently made pop cultural references throughout his Presidency. From singing Al Green's "Let's Stay Together" to speaking about Kanye West's declaration to run for President and that "Mic drop" at his final State of the Union address. Just recently Beyonce came out and publicly endorsed Hilary Clinton for President. The US Democratic Party are cool. As cool as you can get in politics anyway. Obama has spoken about his teenage cannabis use, told the world that he has Jay-Z's American Gangster on his Ipod and declared that he enjoyed the messages of Bob Marley as a youth. If the Liberal Democrat Party want to be the party of the future we need to adopt a pop cultural strategy, we must become Britain's pop cultural party, we must be cool.

4. A Community Organising Strategy

In 2009 the US Democratic Party launched Organising for America an organisation to introduce community organising principles into the US Democratic Party' political strategy. The organisation was successful in helping Obama to get elected second time around and pushing the Democratic Party policies locally at a grassroots level after Obama' first election win. The movement used community organising principles such as one to ones, personal testimonies and house meetings to deepen relationships between the activists; it emphasised organising locally on community issues that were important to Liberal Democrat supporters in the US. It also acted as a training ground for developing young Democrat leaders on the ground.

Giving many activists the opportunity to lead locally and to speak publicly many perhaps getting their first taste of public speaking and political leadership. Members join the party often because they wantrecognition, they have ambition, anger and an ego. Members do not want to sit around listening to leaders and experts but to become leaders and experts themselves that can hold their own defending Liberal Democrat values and principles if challenged. Members want to be recognised and given opportunities to develop political skills that can be used both inside and outside of politics and that contribute towards personal development. For the Liberal Democrat Party in the UK to make a difference locally as well as nationally, we must adopt community organising as a major party of our political strategy and develop a community organising wing of the party.

5. A Communications Strategy 

The US Democrat Party in the 2008 election pioneered the use of new technologies in political campaigning. The US Democrat Party developed a significant web presence and Barack Obama today has one of the largest social media followings in the world. During their 2008 and 2012 campaigns the US Democrat Party were able to harness the power of social media and the internet to raise small donations from Democrat Party supporters. These small donations contributed towards making Barack Obama's election the most well-funded in history. For the Liberal Democrat Party in the UK to become a modern Liberal Democrat political party we need to develop an engaging web and social media presence, that engages with the future, pop culture, diversity and grassroots community organising.

The time to look towards the future is now, the time for change is now. Yes We Can!

Keep Hope Alive: On the life of Civil Rights and Liberal Democrat icon Jesse Jackson in his 75th Year

On October 8th this year, Civil Rights Movement and Liberal Democrat icon Reverend Jesse Jackson turned 75 years old. At the ripe old age of 75 the Reverend is still active campaigning and getting out the vote. Jackson is often not acknowledged for his great contributions to the Civil Rights Movement and to the US Democrat party but today I want to give Reverend Jesse Jackson his due credit as a living icon of the African-American struggle. Reverend Jesse Jackson has been the successor to Martin Luther King Jnr, the founder of Rainbow PUSH; a transformational Liberal Democrat post-racial movement that would lay the foundations for Obama's post-racial political campaigning in 2008 and a prospective US Democrat Presidential nominee twice, in 84 and 88, the first African-American male to be nominated.

Jackson was born October 8th in Greenville, South Carolina. His mother a teenage student and his father a somewhat older former professional boxer. Up until the age of 12 Jackson was known as Jesse Burns, a name he took from his grandmother. As a boy Jackson was ridiculed by other people in the community for being born out of wedlock and not having a father. When he was 12 years old his mother married and he was adopted by his Mother' husband and given the surname Jackson. Jackson grew up in the segregated South at the time of the Jim Crow laws, he attended a segregated school, was taught to sit at the back of the bus and drink at a racially specific water fountain. At school Jesse Jackson excelled at sports and it is said that he showed presidential and political ambitions as a child by running for President of the student body.

On leaving High School in 1959 Jackson enrolled on a football scholarship at the University of Illinois, a largely white institution but after a short period he left the university because of racism and transferred to North Carolina A&T an historically black college university in Greensboro. On enrolling at the university he pursued a degree in Sociology under a football scholarship and played quarter-back whilst acting as President of the student body. In 1964 Jackson graduated with a degree in Sociology and entered the seminary. It was during this time that he became caught up in the winds of change and dropped out of education to join the burgeoning Civil Rights Movement.

A tall, athletic man with a degree level education Jackson soon became a known figure in the movement participating in the Selma marches in 1965 organised by Martin Luther King Jnr. Impressed by Jackson's organisational skills but less so by his sometimes attention grabbing antics King began to involve Jackson in the activities of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and gave him the duty of setting up a branch of the organisation in Chicago. In 1967 Jackson became the national director of the economic arm of the SCLC, Operation Breadbasket. As national director of Operation Breadbasket Jackson led boycotts by black consumers as a way to pressure employers to employ African-Americans in their businesses.

In 1968 Martin Luther King Jnr was assassinated in the presence of Jesse Jackson who was on the lower ground floor of the Memphis building when King was shot. Although not besides King when he was shot Jackson is said to have ran up the stairs and held the dying King in his arms. His shirt covered in the blood of Martin Luther King, Jackson appeared in the media. The unfortunate circumstances had now thrust a young Jesse Jackson into the leadership position.

During this period Jackson clashed with older Civil Rights activists who had envisioned themselves as future leaders of the movement in King's demise, however, slowly Jackson took up the mantle as King's predecessor. In 1971 he launched the Black Expo to promote black business; the Expo was attended by African-American businessmen and politicians from across the country including the very influential Chicago Mayor at the time Mayor Harold Washington. One of the most interesting and controversial figures in African-American Democrat politics. Jackson was developing a national profile and began to clash even more with other members of SCLC, eventually Jackson and his team quit the organisation to birth a new organisation, Operation PUSH (People United to Serve Humanity).

In 1971 Jackson launched Operation PUSH with the aim of lobbying politicians and corporations to give jobs and improve opportunities for African-Americans and all poor people regardless of race. The organisation was responsible for pressuring corporations to adopt Affirmative Action policies to hire and buy black, his work would birth the new class of African-American highly paid executives that we see today. As Director of Operation PUSH Jackson would win many gains for African-Americans and low income communities in Chicago and across the US. Gains that could be said to have paved the way for Barack Obama who would later rise up as a political force out of the city that Jackson had made his own, Chicago.

In 1984 Jackson quit as Director of Operation PUSH to run as a Democrat party Presidential nominee. In a speech at the 1984 Democratic Convention Jackson spoke of and called for a Rainbow Coalition; a coalition of African-Americans; Hispanics, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, youth, the disabled, the gay community, the poor and all minority groups working together to change America. The idea is said to have been initially developed by Black Panther Party member Fred Hampton in the 1960's but Jackson can be credited with making the idea into a political reality. Though unsuccessful in becoming the Democratic parties Presidential candidate Jackson gained momentum across the country with a bigger national profile. After his failed Presidential attempt Jackson built upon the idea of developing a Rainbow Coalition and launched a new organisation, the National Rainbow Coalition.

As the Director of the National Rainbow Coalition Jackson developed a credible opposition to

"Reaganomics" and gathered a substantial following that led him to run as Democrat party nominee in 1988. In a much better place than in '84 Jackson held massive, polished political rallies and delivered his memorable speech line "I understand". In '88 Jackson put up a much better political performance and was second only to Michael Dukasis who would become the Presidential candidate. Although Jackson was unsuccessful in both Presidential attempts he awakened the world to the possibility of an African-American President; made African-American's proud and inspired a young African-American boy called Barack Obama who would one day be President of the United States of America.

In 1996 Jackson merged Operation PUSH and the National Rainbow Coalition and launched Rainbow Coalition. Rainbow Coalition would become of the greatest community organising and Civil Rights movements ever with offices in Chicago, New York, Washington D.C, Los Angeles, Detroit, Atlanta, Houston, Silicon Valley, New Orleans and Boston tackling issues around economic inequality and economic disparities between African-Americans and White Americans. The economic goals of the organisation aim to get African-American and other minorities onto the payrolls, into the boardrooms and onto the suppliers lists of major corporations.

Apart from his political work Jackson has been a peacekeeper travelling to Iraq to negotiate the successful release of British and US soldiers in 1991; travelling to Cuba to successfully negotiate the release of a number of US prisoners held there in 1984 and travelling to Belgrade to again successfully negotiate with Slobodan Milosevic the release of 3 captured US soldiers in 1999. Jackson was also one of the most outspoken voices against the Iraq war.

Reverend Jesse Jackson has been one of the great

figures of the Civil Rights Movement and Liberal Democratic politics; a giant who deserves much more respect than he is given. If we could all be like Jesse Jackson the world would be a considerably better place. Jesse Jackson has been a massive inspiration to me; my book Community Organizer: A Story of Community Organizing in London sings his praises and speaks fondly of my opportunity to visit Rainbow PUSH offices in Chicago, Washington D.C and New York and my experience sharing a platform with him and hearing his tough stories of Civil Rights activism. I hope now that you know the story of Jesse Jackson you are as inspired as me and Barack Obama to make a difference and change the world.

"I understand - Jesse Jackson, 1988 US Democrat Party nomination speech

KEEP HOPE ALIVE!

Dear Fellow Liberal Democrats...

Dear fellow Liberal Democrats,

If you are interested in politics you join a political party. If you want a career in politics it is usual to enter a party humbly and try to make friends with all the big-wigs in order to secure that you get the support from the party to be elected as a PPC. It is normal to not rock the boat or to challenge the leadership or the norms of the party. However, there are times in politics when you have to challenge the direction of party leaders. Those times can be when a party has just lost an election, when a party is scoring very low in the polls or when the leadership of a party decides to take the party in a direction that is perilous to the party and its ideology. Now is one of those moments when the voice of reason must be heard and one must put aside personal career ambitions to speak the truth.

Today, I believe that it is time to bring an end to the "fightback" against Brexit and for the Liberal Democrat party to devise a compelling vision for Britain post-Brexit. If the Liberal Democrat party does not move away from the message of a "fightback" against half the country then it will never win a general election and end up a fringe party something like the Socialist Workers Party. No political party that uses the rhetoric of a "fightback" against the powers that be is ever successful, why? Because the "fightback" is the language of the protest group and not a potentially ruling political party. It is imperative we scrap the language of the "fightback" and take up the language of the future.

It is now time to challenge Nick Clegg's public campaign against Brexit; to challenge the potency of the message of the "fightback" and begin to think about how we can become the party that offers the most compelling post-Brexit vision for Britain. By doing that we become the party that has the answers for Britain's economic future outside of the EU and not the party stuck in the past. Although riding the wave of anger that exists amongst remain voters is appealing in the short term, it is a more long term vision of the future that we must look too, a future that is almost certainly going to be outside of the EU.

There are a number of issues with the current political strategy that we have; firstly, we are the party that champions democracy and it is explicit in our name. We are the party that desires rule by the people for the people, therefore it is imperative that we stand by our democratic principles and accept the Brexit vote. That remain voters both in and out of the party are angered that the vote did not go their way does not take away from the fact that we as Liberal Democrats are ideologically beholden to democracy and thus must accept it when the vote is for or against our beliefs as the will of the people. Whilst there are no issues with expressing personal anger that the vote did not go your way and there can also be merit in discussing EU membership simply as a hypothetical, academic exercise, politics is not the arena of academic pontificating over spilt milk and there is nothing worse than a sore loser trying to convince people why they should have been victorious long after the match is over. This behaviour is ignoble to say the least. The Liberal Democrat party is the party of local democracy so should concede at some level to the arguments that were put forth by Brexiter' in regard to what they considered to be a transferring of national democracy to a European Parliament and their desire to keep democracy local. The party line that does not even consider reasonable arguments about democracy made by Brexiter' and that appears to go against our deep-rooted ideological principles. If you joined the party because you believed in what it says on the tin then now is the time to exercise your true democratic instincts and principles and not to tow the party line to seek favour in your political career.

Secondly, Liberal Democrat ideology does not depend on EU membership. There was nothing written in the work of J S Mill or John Maynard Keynes that argued that being part of a supra-national organisation of European nations was at the heart of Liberal Democratic thought. There is not a shadow of a doubt that Liberal Democrat ideology has a deep instinct for internationalism but this internationalism by no means specifies being part of an organisation such as the EU. In many ways leaving Brexit leaves Britain free to develop a deeper internationalism with other non-EU nations across the world in some of the fastest growing economies in the world today. Leaving the EU offers opportunities to build new trading relationships for the future with nations of the Commonwealth such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Caribbean, South Africa and Nigeria amongst others. The Liberal Democrat party can still be an internationalist party and Britain can still be an outward looking nation outside of the EU. The scaremongering message that Britain will collapse outside of the EU is frankly UNINSPIRING...

Thirdly, there is a strong economic argument for developing new trading relationships with Commonwealth nations and exploiting the opportunities for trade with Commonwealth nations, some of whom are amongst the fastest growing economies in the world, such as Kenya, or the biggest economies in political regions like Nigeria in Africa. There is also a deep cultural understanding between many nations in the Commonwealth, a commonality may be shared with Britain and the Commonwealth nations more than Britain and the EU nations. The national language of Nigeria is English, India has the biggest English speaking population in the world. British-Caribbean nations like Jamaica and Barbados share our Head of State as is the same with Australia and Canada. The Commonwealth is made of of 2.2 billion people, a population much larger than the EU. It has been written by economists that in the next decade the Commonwealth nations will collectively trade more than the EU.

Developing and less advanced economies offer more opportunities for growth and accumulation of wealth; advanced capitalist nations tend to halt and flatline whilst developing economies grow until they reach a stage of advanced capitalism during which time great wealth is amassed and nations transformed. Many Brexiter' are aware of the economic opportunities; it was been mentioned on Question Time by a Brexiter in the audience who categorically stated that he did not vote for Brexit because of immigration but because he believed that Britain would be better placed to grasp economic opportunities in newer markets if they were outside of the EU. Many business people who understand macro economic trends desired to leave the EU for solely long-term economic interests over short-term gain. Free from the tariffs that EU nations place on goods coming from developing nations and free from propping up EU farmers contrary to Clegg's campaign we would be able to get cheaper goods from developing nations. This does not mean that we are no longer friends with European nations or that we refuse diplomatic relationships or cannot work with the EU on big human issues such as climate change that impact us all but simply that Britain is free to pursue independent relationships and friendships on its own accord and in its own self-interest.

As a Liberal Democrat ideologue, a Liberal Democrat militant, I believe that the future of Britain outside of the EU is better for Britain and humanity. I also understand that there is no money in a "fightback" against the Brexit vote; whatever donations that we have gained from championing the "fightback" are insubstantial; the money is backing the future, if the Liberal Democrat party does not wake up and smell the coffee, we may find ourselves paying dearly for not anticipating the future and perhaps changing the guard.

Now is a time for a shake up in the party, we have lost some of our great political figures; Charles Kennedy RIP is no longer with us; the Rt Honourable Simon Hughes was deposed from his seat after 30 years; Paddy Ashdown is particularly aged; there are 8 Lib Dem MP's and one AM. The party leadership is struggling to cut through the media and the only political big-hitter is Nick Clegg but he is a face of the past with a tarnished public image and what appears to be an EU obsession.

I joined the Party in 2008 when Nick Clegg was the leader of the party. I joined because I thought that he was the best possible leader of the party and the country; he was the only politician in Britain that ever inspired me to join a political party but today I think Nick Clegg should let the party look to the future with or without him. If the party want to see a future we have to back change, the Elders of the party have to accept and back change; they have to create the conditions for a renewal or be left with the legacy of destroying the Liberal Democrat party.

Kind regards


Tony Thomas
Liberal Democrat

Power to the People: Rethinking the Black Panther Party on it's 50th Anniversary

This year is the 50th anniversary of the Black Panther Party. Formed in Oakland in 1966 by Huey P Newton and Bobby Seale, the Black Panther Party would become one of the most iconic black movements of the 20th Century and inspire millions the world over. Often the party is remembered for the gun-toting images of Newton and Seale dressed as Urban bandeleros, violent altercations with the police and protesting the release of Huey Newton from prison for allegedly shooting a police officer in a late night altercation in Oakland. Whilst these images are potent they should not take away from the great intellectual contributions that they made and the noble strides that they took to develop a politics and a social programme for their peers.

Today, I want to remember the Black Panther Party not as the gun-toting youth

that they were in 1966 or the campaigning group after the imprisonment of Huey Newton but as the serious political and intellectual force that they became as the matured. I want to bring the focus to the days of the Black Panther Party after release of Huey Newton. It was during this period in the 70's that I believe the Black Panther Party made its greatest contributions. 

Whilst in prison Newton thought intensely about the future of the party against

the backdrop of a full on assault by the US state being waged on the party members on the outside. In the midst of this open conflict Newton, behind bars, began a feud with members of the party that had ramped up the rhetoric of clashing with the state. In response to their antics he decided to reformulate the party that he had founded and for which he had acted as main theoretician. In this period Newton rethought much of what he had started in 1966 and his political ideology and strategy. It is during this period that I believe that Black Panther Party made the greatest contributions to black thought and politics and it is for this period that they must be honoured and recognised as perhaps the greatest black political force to ever exist.

On release from prison Newton began to reformulate the Black Panther Party as a party of the lumpen proletariat. In this sense they challenged Marxist orthodoxy by arguing that the lumpen proletariat were the most revolutionary force in the society and in particular the black community. According to Marx there were four social classes, the bourgeoisie, the petit bourgeoisie, the proletariat and the lumpen proletariat. For Marx it was the proletariat or working class that were the revolutionary class with the potential to change the world. Whilst all other social classes including the lumpen proletariat or poor or displaced workers were counter-revolutionary. Marx in his communist manifesto described the various traits of the classes and described the lumpen proletariat as a drop out class that struggled to sell their labour for capital in the marketplace; they were hustlers, youth, ex-convicts, part-time workers, single mothers, those on welfare and the underemployed, the most excluded in society. Marx considered the lumpen to be simply some times illegitimate capitalists and often irregular workers, without a stake in human society who could never be engaged in revolution.

Newton thought differently; he identified the brothers on the block as the Lumpen Proletariat, he saw that they shared many of the characteristics of Marx's description of the lumpen proletariat and set about creating a political party that represented that class as a revolutionary class. Strikingly, unlike many Newton believed that his peers who had been written off by society could find hope and agency and the self-esteem to change their own conditions and the world. 

In doing this the Black Panther Party became a new voice for what they believed to be an expanding class in a way not dissimilar to the Labour movement at the beginning of the 20th Century. Huey Newton coined the term "revolutionary intercommunalism" for his radical philosophy; a philosophy that has not been explored enough by black academics. 

In his philosophy Newton uses the dialectical method used by Marx to argue a counter-philosophy to Black Nationalism and Marxism placing the Black Panther Party in a different intellectual and political realm from much of what is often written about the party. Too often the critiques that the party made of Black Nationalism and Marxism that were central to the parties identity are ignored and the Black Panther Party is depicted as either a Black power movement or a Marxist one. The Black Panther Party have been hijacked by both black nationalists and socialist parties alike all at great detriment to the very interesting political philosophy that the party stood for. A philosophy that could not be more timely considering the police killings of those of that social class today, and the mass incarceration rates and destroyed neighbourhoods that the "underclass" experience. There has perhaps been no more important time for a powerful voice to speak to the self-interests of the "Hood".

Often the depictions of the Black Panther Party revolve around the very early days of the party but do not focus on the maturity of the party that arose after the release of Huey Newton from prison. It was under Newton's orders on release from jail that the party moved away from the militancy and gun-toting that had wreaked havoc on the party and began the survival programmes that included free breakfast, free shoe and healthcare centres and the innovative Inter-communal School. It is also during this period when Bobby Seale ran for Mayor and Elaine Brown for Councilwoman; setting a new precedent in black politics that would pave the way to the election of Barack Obama today. By the 70's the Black Panther Party were a much more sophisticated and mainstream organisation than in 1966. They had developed a sophisticated ideology that is still today an interesting contribution to Marxist thought.

During this year there have been attempts to compare the Black Panther Party to the Black Lives Matter campaign. Comparisons that I believe are unjustified. For me, I do not think that protest movements and a highly organised political party with a groundbreaking political philosophy can be compared.

I believe that the Black Panther Party would have been closer to Obama today than to Black Lives Matter. They may have been to the left of Obama but would have seen the sense in his approach and the tradition of community organising that he arose out of. For Black Lives Matter or any other protest organisation to be compared to the Black Panther Party Party they would have to become a political party speaking for the lumpen proletariat or those more modernly termed the "underclass". They would have to find candidates that can act as spokespersons for the lumpen proletariat in mainstream politics. It is the black underclass that are experiencing the issues of gun violence, imprisonment, poverty, drug infested neighbourhoods and police brutality; it is the underclass that have the major black urban issues that need to be solved. 

Developing a clearer understanding of the Black Panther Party beyond the media images and the gun-toting propaganda of its early days to a more sophisticated analysis of the Black Panther Party' ideology, methodology and their ground-breaking urban political strategy post 1970 is I believe the best way for us to celebrate the legacy of the work of the Black Panther Party in its 50th anniversary. 

Power to the People!