As a died-in-the-wool-fruit-loop-conspiraloon, I don’t underestimate the possibility of cynical undercurrents in any political movement. You can trace evidence of high level funding of Marxist/ Communist revolutions by capitalist bankers from the French Revolution, the Russian revolution all to way to
Chavez’ election. The easiest way to win a war, or a political struggle, is to back both sides

My belief is that what every taxi driver has suspected since the year dot is true - They’re all the bloody same. Bandying around terms such as Marxist, Stalinist, or Fascist, as if the end results for ordinary people are any different, obscures that fact

I hear a lot from people on the ‘Right’ of politics who argue that Leftist belief systems are a con which are used to dupe idealists into submitting to tyranny.

That could very well be so, certainly as far as much of the leadership is concerned. What I don’t hear articulated so much is the suggestion that capitalist belief systems are manipulated in exactly the same way. How much of our current economic system really is truly subject to free and open competition? How much of the stuff we can’t do without is actually subject to oligopoly and monopoly?

Livingstone had to go. And contrary to what a lot of disappointed Leftists believe, I doubt that Johnson’s administration will be that much different. What will be different is people’s conditioned perception of the things that administration will do

I have never met Ken Livingstone so without the benefit of a personal in-depth interview I cannot be certain of his precise affiliations and can only rely on the opinion of individuals who have been close to him and have “defected” so to speak. It is my observation that his political modus operandi is entirely compatible with that of a Marxist political player, perhaps because I view Marxism with more cynicism than you do.

This subject could easy blow-up into a politically existential debate but I think you underestimate the undercurrent of totalitarian cynical exploitation that is inherent in Marxism right from its inception. Orwell had it in a nutshell and I don’t think I could improve on his dissection. Livingstone carried the full pack from his exploitation of tribal vanity to his venal tolerance of corruption.

He knew how to push your buttons on occasion too.

For many reasons not mentioned in that film which I think skirted around the more serious problems with Ken’s reign, particularly the second term

One thing that does concern me though is some of the language being used to describe the changes that are being forced on us here in the UK and globally. You use the term Marxist in your post. Many Europhobes refer to the EU as being a Communist institution.

Ken is no Marxist, certainly not in recent years and the people who run the EU project aren’t Commies. Their instincts are totalitarian and elitist and could therefore be equally described as fascistic. Personally I think fascistic is more accurate as it encompasses the role being played by privately controlled corporations in the new world that is being shaped around us

The problem with the terminology which is being used is that it effectively separates though who see themselves as conservative from those who consider themselves to be of the left, when the reality is that they are, broadly speaking, concerned about very similar issues

I’m converted, I’m converted. Where do I sign up?

[Seriously - think London must have read this post.]