Conservative landslide - how are we feeling as feminists?

Found this.

www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html

I HAD spent much of my life writing music for commercials, film and television and knew little about the world of philanthropy as practiced by the very wealthy until what I call the big bang happened in 2006. That year, my father, Warren Buffett, made good on his commitment to give nearly all of his accumulated wealth back to society. In addition to making several large donations, he added generously to the three foundations that my parents had created years earlier, one for each of their children to run.

Early on in our philanthropic journey, my wife and I became aware of something I started to call Philanthropic Colonialism. I noticed that a donor had the urge to “save the day” in some fashion. People (including me) who had very little knowledge of a particular place would think that they could solve a local problem. Whether it involved farming methods, education practices, job training or business development, over and over I would hear people discuss transplanting what worked in one setting directly into another with little regard for culture, geography or societal norms

Often the results of our decisions had unintended consequences; distributing condoms to stop the spread of AIDS in a brothel area ended up creating a higher price for unprotected sex.

But now I think something even more damaging is going on.

Because of who my father is, I’ve been able to occupy some seats I never expected to sit in. Inside any important philanthropy meeting, you witness heads of state meeting with investment managers and corporate leaders. All are searching for answers with their right hand to problems that others in the room have created with their left. There are plenty of statistics that tell us that inequality is continually rising. At the same time, according to the Urban Institute, the nonprofit sector has been steadily growing. Between 2001 and 2011, the number of nonprofits increased 25 percent. Their growth rate now exceeds that of both the business and government sectors. It’s a massive business, with approximately $316 billion given away in 2012 in the United States alone and more than 9.4 million employed

Philanthropy has become the “it” vehicle to level the playing field and has generated a growing number of gatherings, workshops and affinity groups.

As more lives and communities are destroyed by the system that creates vast amounts of wealth for the few, the more heroic it sounds to “give back.” It’s what I would call “conscience laundering” — feeling better about accumulating more than any one person could possibly need to live on by sprinkling a little around as an act of charity

But this just keeps the existing structure of inequality in place
. The rich sleep better at night, while others get just enough to keep the pot from boiling over. Nearly every time someone feels better by doing good, on the other side of the world (or street), someone else is further locked into a system that will not allow the true flourishing of his or her nature or the opportunity to live a joyful and fulfilled life

And with more business-minded folks getting into the act, business principles are trumpeted as an important element to add to the philanthropic sector. I now hear people ask, “what’s the R.O.I.?” when it comes to alleviating human suffering, as if return on investment were the only measure of success. Microlending and financial literacy (now I’m going to upset people who are wonderful folks and a few dear friends) — what is this really about? People will certainly learn how to integrate into our system of debt and repayment with interest. People will rise above making $2 a day to enter our world of goods and services so they can buy more. But doesn’t all this just feed the beast?

Round up and mini bios of all the new MPs here www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/house/house-magazine/108577/class-2019-meet-new-mps

I’m trying to ascertain Nandy’s position on GC matters via GC labour networks.

This may give an answer: Any Questions from September from 43 minutes onwards.

, basically. Shame, as I like her otherwise.

This is what I said

And working class people who DO donate to food banks will be highly likely to reign things in a bit cash wise because the Tories are KNOWN for making cuts and who knows where they will cut next

@PencilsInSpace Yes there are valuable contributions here.

I agree. However im not the one who brought up that thread in the first place.

A lot of those comments have to be seen in context. There are people with disabled children on that thread who are very very worried. And some of those posts went up on Friday the day all the results and counts were in. So were a first reaction.

If anyone's done it they should share as to where they found such cheap insurance!

I’m not sure switching from food bank donation to private healthcare quite adds up.

Yeah, cos a couple of tins of baked beans, a jar of jam and some rice pudding will totally cover your private healthcare.

Where might one find this thread?

People will stop donating to food banks because they need to buy private health insurance? You think this spin is any better than what those posts actually said?

That just sounds utterly ridiculous.

The Tories are not going to abolish the NHS. You would have to have been putting vast amounts into food banks before it comes anywhere near the cost of private health care.

Excuse me, Helena.

A support thread for whom?

I'm more than happy to post verbatim what at least three posters on that thread said but where can I post that? I can't post it here because this thread must absolutely not be deleted as a TAAT. There are far too many valuable contributions here.

I can't post it on the thread you're on because it's a group hug thread and MNHQ have intervened and said corbyn supporters are allowed to have a 'support' thread.

People will stop donating to food banks because they need to buy private health insurance? You think this spin is any better than what those posts actually said?

"There is a thread elsewhere on MN where people are posting, apparently quite seriously, that they will now stop donating to food banks because poor people voted tory so fuck em"

Excuse me. Im on that thread and its a support thread not a Corbyn fangirling thread. And please post the rest of it. There are people posting on there that they can no longer AFFORD to give to food banks now because they are looking into private health insurance. Because of fears about the NHS. I can sort of see where they are coming from.

Speaking of the NHS John Pilgers documentary The Dirty War on the NHS is on ITV1 tomorrow night.

It's cheaper.

Oh absolutely, but that's the sort of point that citizens should be challenging political parties on during elections. If they want our votes, they have to guarantee they will have long-term plans to invest in British citizens.

Governments are not private households no matter what guff they spout at us about public debt and spending. A country like the UK with its sovereign currency can absolutely afford to invest in its citizens, and that is one of the main roles of governments around the world.

The urgency for immigration is precisely because successive UK governments are failing to invest in the British population in terms of training and retaining them, especially in healthcare.

It's cheaper. Same way hiring foreign tradesmen is cheaper. No government or corporation cares about the effect of stripping talent from poorer nations who can't afford to lose their doctors.
It's both a lack of respect for British people and short-termism. I say that as the child of a non-EU NHS doctor immigrant.

It's a bit like the situation with May: no male politician of any stature really wanted the job because they all knew it was going to be horrible and almost certainly doomed to failure and they didn't want to be associated with it. So they let a woman do it. Now of course they're all routinely vilifying her as the worst prime minister in British history while BJ bases his exit strategy on the deal she carved out.

Well said.

I think we should invest in training our own workforce and not rely on immigration ( and I am my self a reluctant immigrant). But many people immigrate because there are jobs to be had. These are jobs that British government has not invested in training British workforce for because it is cheaper to use immigration, in effect other countries’ tax money. In an ideal world this is ok as those countries will get some of our workforce but we don’t live in an stable world.

Great post, MagnificentDelurker. Glad to see we share similar views on this point. :)
The urgency for immigration is precisely because successive UK governments are failing to invest in the British population in terms of training and retaining them, especially in healthcare.

And we had Smith between Kinnock and Blair so it might be an even longer journey back to electability. I hope not.

I'm concerned about the potential for a glass cliff situation. I don't think a new leader is going to lead Labour to victory unless they can get to grips with Momentum and defuse it, as Kinnock had to with Militant and for which he was forever tainted. Someone new and clean and fresh (Blair) was then able to pick up the baton and win. It took 18 years for Labour to get back after 1979. I hope it won't be as long this time but I'm braced for another 10 years of Tory rule while Momentum and the Corbyn legacy are dismantled and I'm not sure I want to see a promising female candidate sacrifice herself to the rebuilding phase. Can't help feeling that the men got us into this and the men need to get us out.

It's a bit like the situation with May: no male politician of any stature really wanted the job because they all knew it was going to be horrible and almost certainly doomed to failure and they didn't want to be associated with it. So they let a woman do it. Now of course they're all routinely vilifying her as the worst prime minister in British history while BJ bases his exit strategy on the deal she carved out.

I would be really sorry to see a promising female politician take the post for a term or two, take on the tough job of reforming the party and be distrusted for it (as Kinnock was for what he did) and then removed so that a man could reap the rewards of her work.

I speak, obviously, as someone looking for a more centrist Labour party. I canvassed for Labour for three weeks prior to the election and I saw very little support among long-time Labour voters for a return to the hard-left. I had people who planned to vote Labour telling me that actually they hoped the Tories would win. My constituency held onto our Labour MP despite Corbyn.

It’s a poison chalice, definitely. Whoever wins will need to be able to make a really big separation between bone and family life and work - keep the personal life self esteem intact but not have a public rhino hide that prevents you hearing the electorate.

Whoever wins probably won’t fight a GE (presuming that we get a full five years) but will do 4 years and be replaced with a fresher face for the final year.

Those considering it, especially the young ones, will be deciding if they are better hanging on for 4 years (of course, you’ll only want to risk that if you have a sizeable majority that means you are unlikely to lose your seat during the GE with you as a new leader).

On the face of things, I like RLB and Lisa Nandy - that might change with more info, but what young (by politician standards!) woman wants to wade into this quagmire of shit? They are both 40 with one child, LN has been MP one term longer but RLB has had more shadow cabinet experience. I don’t know how old RLB’s son is, but becoming leader will mean potentially choosing between a second child and career (they may both have already made that choice, of course, but these are the general issues facing 40 year old women today).

LN was part of the ‘chicken coup’ (rumoured to be an organiser and a definite ally of Owen Smith at the time) and RLB was instrumental in getting Corbyn nominated for the leadership contest in the first place, so they both have history that could tip members either way.

As far as I know (and I live in Greater Manchester so do have friends in both CLPs) they are both decent constituency MPs. Accessible and sympathetic, hardworking.

Lisa will do well to refuse any factional endorsement, I reckon, where RLB will be endorsed by Momentum whether she wants it or not.

Momentum don’t have great numbers but they do seem to be good at organising for internal membership votes. I think great swathes of the membership don’t bother to vote in say, NEC stuff at all. The other organising factions don’t seem to have had much success of late, but this is a new landscape for everyone. Lots of new post GE members, reportedly.

I’m sure WPUK will have good, solid analysis, and no Labour MP who survived this bloodbath of an election can still believe that woke is the way to win, surely?

Oh and I’m also not forgetting Brown s pension raid which drove private final salary pensions to close down, whilst the public pensions are guaranteed by taxpayers.

Public pensions are only guaranteed up to a point. Final salary schemes closed to new entrants about a decade ago, even those still in them have had their terms changed for the worse. Also please remember that public sector workers are also taxpayers, not some breed apart.

I agree with all that especially this those selected by the party membership aren’t necessarily the best ones to actually win the votes of the wider electorate.
That is a big problem.

For my penance I just googled who will win Labour race and got an article on odds in a tabloid. Red the comments they are all hated, with an extra layer of misogyny on top. It’s a tough gig.

Dunno.
Early days.

Nandy gets the North/South divide but has kept quiet the last few years so I don’t know if she has enough internal party support?

I think we are potentially stuck with a problem similar to the one the US democrats are facing - those selected by the party membership aren’t necessarily the best ones to actually win the votes of the wider electorate.

I presume the Corbyn supporting membership will support Rebecca Long Bailey (rumoured to be considering running a duo ticket with Keir Starmer for deputy) but I think Nandy will be more popular with the wider voters.

I’m thinking of it a bit like Guess Who, where flipping the tiles down leaves the first choice standing.

The current Corbyn membership won’t want a leader who voted for the Iraq war, and the long standing members won’t want anyone too newly elected or too associated with Momentum.

Northerners won’t want a southerner, and anyone staunch remain will be seen as a traitor by the voters who Labour desperately need back.

Nandy had some issues with expenses but I don’t know if that was noticed much outside of Manchester? (She likes first class, basically).

Or has best chance of...

DuMonde who do you think could win?

As a southerner who relocated up North 12 years ago, I think another Southern based MP would be a PR disaster.