4 Jan 2011

WTF Uncuts Aaron Peters in bed with UCL Tories?

Let us hope that in the period of fiscal authority that will inevitably follow next
year‟s general election that the two parties can unite on this most crucial of areas.
Mutually agreeing on the necessity of delivering a respect agenda and how to foster
higher levels of social capital, self-reliance and working class aspiration, while re-
ducing the size of the state, eliminating a „benefits culture‟ and renewing a collective
„can do‟ attitude among our country‟s very poorest. In response to the failings of po-
litical, economic and cultural institutions in the first decade of the 21st century it is
often claimed that increased social capital is a fundamental prerequisite, this author
agrees but such an undertaking can only be successful if allied with those funda-
mentally socially conservative values of diligence, deference and duty that have
seen us through far harder times than these.

Aaron Peters

From this document

Thanks to Richard Seymour of Lenin's Tomb for letting us know about this.

Peters also noted:

While the two major parties may substantially disagree over a number of
key issues Ian Duncan-Smith‟s Centre for Social Justice‟s recent report of Break-
through Britain: Dynamic Benefits seems a continuation of the excellent „workfare‟
policies of former Labour cabinet member James Purnell in his short time as head of
the Department of Work and Pensions.

Wonder why he doesn't apparently wear clothes, is this like a self-reliance protest thing?

Aaron Peters Uncut are we being sectarian?

Uncut good in my view, in fact very good and with some reservations I do like mutuals but Peters, ho hum?


Jim Jepps said...

I think Peters was in Labour until the election when he left. Everyone's allowed to change their mind in my opinion, and I think the fact that his ideas are become more radical is to be welcomed rather than holding his past against him.

Derek Wall said...

Ok fair enough Jim.

I think it probably needs some discussion though.

Derek Wall said...

well I would be interested to see what response he has to this?

Adam Ramsay said...

Hi guys,

I'm really not sure what he is saying in those quotes - it is clearly a paragraph from a larger piece, and I'm not sure I'd be comfortable coming to a conclusion without reading the whole thing.

However, as Jim says, even if he is explaining a position that we would disagree with as much as that piece of text seems to imply, he has every right to change his mind. The times I've met the guy (only a few) he has held interesting, well thought out, and radical positions, and I haven't heard him express the sorts of sentiments implied by this - though I can't claim to have had any conversations about these specific things.

However, I do know he has recently joined the Green Party, and so can assume that he agrees with most of what we stand for.

Gabriel said...

The quotes you have put up are admittedly a little embarrassing, but having read the whole thing it seems somewhat reasonable, especially knowing as I do that since this summer he has been much more radicalised.

Talking about the parties 50 years ago... " While the Conservative party‟s genus of this social conservativism extended to advocating the continued hegemony of a „ruling class‟ while Labour‟s did
not, both did articulate visions of the „good society‟ that was centred around the interests of the community being of primacy over one‟s own rational self-interest and
the recognition that authority should be respected. "

And then...

"in the 21st century it should not be an inconsistent position to
advocate a redistribution of capabilities and a more favourable tax regime to low
earners, whilst also articulating a belief in the importance of respect, deference,
work over welfare, a sense of collective moral purpose and the primacy of fulfilling of
one‟s responsibilities before demanding one‟s rights. For too long what Christopher
Hitchens has called a „soft Fabian consensus‟ on social issues has hindered the left
from remaining true to its original mission, this mission being to improve the lives of
the very poorest so that they may live lives of dignity and self-reliance. To change
the paradigm of the distribution of capabilities should not mean to also advocate a
dependency culture of welfare benefits over work or individual egoism over collective duty."

I may be wrong, but I can see in there the seeds of a discontent with the neo-liberal consensus in todays culture.

Also, its available on his blog, so he wasnt exactly trying to hide it:


Derek Wall said...

OK Adam,

You can read the whole thing I put a link in above which I think works.

I am hoping Aaron can write something in response which I can post up.

I do think this does need a bit of an airing and this is probably as good a place as any to do it.

Derek Wall said...

here you go Adam http://www.uclconservatives.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Issue-13.pdf