Some would say that England has gifted the world with two valued exports: parliamentary democracy, and football. As any Englishman would know, England "invented" the concept of football. Englishmen also know that after being the country that created the football "system", other countries over time developed the same system and evolved it, while England lagged behind, for a long time failing to update its "system" at all. We still were sticking to the same ideas from generations past, while other countries had taken the idea to the next level. his is partly why England only won the World Cup in 1966.
However, much the same could be said of parliamentary democracy, England's other "export". When foreigners understand fully how the political system in the UK works, many of them are in disbelief. This author has witnessed this reaction a number of times.
In many ways, the UK's progressive "public image" to the world abroad is in stark contrast to the grubby and backwards reality. This is one of the many ways in which the "elite" of the establishment fool those abroad, and their own electorate, into being turkeys that vote for Christmas.
England's parliament gained its power over the monarch during the events of the 17th century, when the actions of two Stewart kings (Charles I and James II) took England back into the realms of autocracy that had existed in previous centuries. The result was a much more powerful parliament, composed of combination of aristocrats, landowners and "men of means", that substantially reduced the power of the monarch. That system has remained unchanged since, and was gradually extended over the 19th century to better reflect the changes in population and society.
The idea of parliamentary democracy spread to America, resulting in the War Of Independence, and throughout the 19th century, across parts of Europe. Even by the end of the 19th century, it could be argued that Westminster was still one of the best models of democracy in the world, compared to the embryonic attempts of much more limited "democracy" across parts of Europe.
How To Waste Your Vote
Today, almost all representative democracies in the world use the system of Proportional Representation, which has existed since the early 20th century. Although there are rules that give a threshold for parties to pass in order to enter parliament, this voting system allows the fairest reflection of the electorate's will in parliament. Of course, this usually results in coalition governments, but this is accepted as the natural result of the system. Coalition government has its critics, but the electorate is used to it, and would struggle to think of an effective - and fair - alternative.
The "First Past the Post" system (or a variation of it) is still used in the English-speaking world - in the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. This is the same electoral system that existed more than two hundred years ago. While the franchise of the vote has extended, the electoral system remains the same.
The natural result of that FPTP system is fewer parties in parliament. To become an MP, a party needs to have more votes than any other party in that particular electoral district (called a "constituency" in the UK). Naturally, this means few parties will be able to gather that kind of support, and this get into parliament.
Advocates of this system point to the fact that it allows local representation that is not the case in PR. However, it can equally be argued that as one of the effects of the FPTP system is a large portion of "safe" seats, this puts into question the motivation of any MP who has the luck to be sitting in one. Because of the way that district boundaries can be "gerrymandered" (e.g. in the USA or the UK) to suit a party's interests, it means that a large portion of the electorate are effectively disenfranchised - their votes become "wasted" simply because of where they live. Prospective candidates in a party can easily become MPs in "safe seats" through smart politicking and networking, and then once in place, the party "favourite" has little incentive to be an effective MP for his constituents, but far more incentive to spend time in Westminster for the purposes of self-promotion. This is how the game works for many.
Many of the "safe" seats can easily become "rotten boroughs". Any voter that happens to live in a "safe" seat but doesn't support their MP's party, has no effective way to get rid of him. Only a highly-organised "tactical vote" by supporters of other parties working in unison for an agreed candidate would work - one rare example of this was the election of Martin Bell standing as in independent candidate in the 1997 election against the sitting Conservative MP in the constituency of Tatton (currently George Osborne's seat). This demonstrates the extremely high level of organisation necessary to "beat the system". Only significant (and, therefore, rare) changes in political mood - such as those in Scotland since the historic referendum last autumn - make this possible.
In this sense, the FPTP system makes the electoral process a "closed shop". With the election - and 2015 is likely to be a prime example - often decided on the votes of some tens of thousands living in "marginal constituencies" in England (in the USA, read: "swing state") - it makes a mockery of the supposed power of the electorate. Only those who happen to live in the right areas have real power, and it is always these "swing voters" (that supposedly represent "Middle England") that decide things. This is the reason why the political parties focus so narrowly on the issues that matter to those specific voters. The effect is not far from that which existed two hundred years ago, when it was the voters in "rotten boroughs" that had a big say in things.
In this way, the UK is really ran in much the same way it was in the 18th century. While the franchise has been extended to all adults, the electoral system basically is the same as it was in the 18th century, with the "power" of the electorate's vote highly dependent on where they live. Millions of votes are "wasted", while the established parties tussle over a smaller and smaller proportion of the electorate.
And this is even without mentioning the House Of Lords - or what might better be called the "House Of Boyars". Like in the days of the Russian Empire, the House Of Lords is simply a parlour for aristocrats and political appointees, a pathetic joke on the concept of "democracy". The "House Of Lords" is a place where giving enough money to the governing party can "buy" you a place in the upper parliament of the UK. None of them are elected and - along with the theocratic Iran - is the only "parliament" in the world where theologians (i.e. bishops) have a place alongside those who have gained their place through a nod and a wink.
In more unpleasant ways, of course, there is plenty of evidence that the "establishment" has been covering up the truth for years.
A "managed democracy"?
It is no wonder that as politics in the UK has become more "professional", it has also become more of a charade separated from the reality of ordinary people's lives. The current Prime Minister is a self-evident example of that: a son of a minor aristocrat (and distant relative to the Queen), he represents the psychology of the "establishment", in spite of his protests: seemingly self-confident but actually incompetent, publicly sincere but privately scornful.
And yet, in the 2010 election, Cameron said - with a straight face - "Vote Change, Vote Conservative"(!).
Apart from the political system being a "closed shop" in many ways, in any case the way the country is ran - through the economy - is effectively a debate-free zone. The economic orthodoxy of austerity and the neo-liberal model has transformed the UK from a diverse economy with a large manufacturing base, to a largely reliant on the fortunes of the (now bloated) financial industry. Having tied the fate of the UK economy to finance, the banks then promptly crashed the economy and made the government pay the bill. And now the rest of society is "paying the bill" in the form of austerity, the shrinking of the state, and the (often dubious) selling-off of government services to an incompetent private sector.
In this way, the UK is barely operating as a country at all, and more like a corporation that should be "restructured", with its population as "employees" that can be offloaded. There are always cheaper supplies of labour, and cheaper ways of getting things done.
Lastly, there is the media, which during this election campaign has seemingly done its best to promote the virtues of Cameron and his "long term economic plan" (see above). As Cameron himself has said in the past: "There is No Alternative".
Well, we may as well all go home, then.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
The Conservatives, Labour and the SNP: the Tories' cynical strategy of divide and rule
The Conservatives' election strategy has been marked by negative tactics and low politics. This reached a low point with the personal attacks on Ed Miliband the other week, but has not stopped. In spite of the fact that there is little evidence that this is actually having an effect on the polls (and some suggesting it may have had the opposite effect), the attacks on Miliband have continued by major Tory figures.
Cameron seems intent on flogging this particular dead horse. One particularly-telling moment was a Cameron interview with Sky News the day after Fallon's remarks, where Cameron admitted that he didn't know Miliband personally (or really, at all), but still felt justified in making these highly-personal attacks. This is just absurd: the Prime Minister trying to defend making unsavoury personal attacks on a person he barely even knows. The fact that Cameron has to resort to them to make a point, while Miliband simply has to talk about the effect government policies are having, tells you a lot about the character of the two men vying to be Prime Minister after the election.
The wider truth about the Tories is that they would do and say almost anything to have power. Their manifesto was full of ridiculous promises; where the money came from, nobody knew. While all parties are guilty of exaggerating the danger of other parties, the Conservatives' threats at times have bordered on the nonsensical: that they would create "millions" of jobs, and that Labour would destroy "millions" of jobs. Since when do Conservative governments "create" jobs? Only the private companies can do that. The talk of Labour "chaos", which ignores the fact that - prior to the global financial crisis - Labour presided over the longest period of growth in living memory. Yes, there was a crash, but it was a worldwide crash, that cannot simply be blamed on Labour. In any case, the Conservatives' economic policy at the time was even more gung-ho than the then Labour government's. But these facts must be conveniently forgotten to project the fallacy of Conservative competence.
Divide and rule
The Conservative Party is the historic party of the old aristocracy, and the party still rules the UK with the same attitude the Empire had towards it's colonies. These days, with the empire long gone, it feels like the "empire" is just London ruling the other parts of the country like outlying colonies. For those in the Westminster bubble, the rest of the country certainly feels as remote. The country is ran as though it is just an economic extension of the London economy: this explains why London acts as a vampire on the "real" UK beyond the M25. The economic model the UK has had for the past thirty years has been made in London, for the benefit of London. Any beneficial effects on those areas outside of London have been incidental. It's essentially the same economic model as some parts of the Third World.
The only way the electorate can be distracted from this reality is by the Tories creating poisonous false narratives like "strivers" versus "shirkers". The "politics of envy" that the Tories hurl at Labour more accurately reflects how they use the politics of fear to protect their own interests and positions. When you have a lot to lose - like the media barons that support the Tories - anything that could possibly prevent your own expansion is perceived as a mortal threat.
The Tories have been gradually losing support in Scotland over the last thirty years. The loss of the 1997 election saw the last generation of Tory Scots swept from Westminster, leaving only a vestige of support. The irony was that, after opposing devolution, the Scottish Conservatives found that they could have a larger voice in Holyrood's new, proportional system. The same was true of the SNP. When the nationalists became a minority government in Holyrood, the SNP had to rely on Tory support from time to time to get some bills through parliament. Then, with the collapse of Labour support becoming even more dramatic after the SNP won power outright in the following Holyrood elections. a historic change looked to be taking place. The aftermath of the independence referendum last year confirmed the historic nature of the collapse of Labour support to the benefit of the SNP. The Tories looked on in delight.
As said earlier, the Tories have a track record of doing and saying anything in order to have power. Regarding the national integrity of the UK, this will even extend to happily losing one part of the country if it means having a better control of the rest. For this is the calculation that Cameron and other figures in the government have clearly made. This is, quite literally, "divide and rule".
And yet, the Tories' strategy is at a complete counter to one of main tenets of their existence: the preservation of the UK. While it may be argued by some that it was the Labour party that "gave up" on the empire, it is the Tories who seem happy to give up on the idea of the UK - so long as they think they can rule what is left of it.
While in the election campaign they talk about the dangers of the "chaos" of the SNP somehow having control over Labour and the UK as a whole, at the same time people like George Osborne are talking up the talents of the SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon. It is almost as if some Tories want the SNP to do well, regardless of the implications this may have on the wider future of the UK. And yet, while offering more powers to Scotland after the referendum, now they are talking about how Scottish voters' choice will have no effect in Westminster - words that seem almost designed to make the Scots even more angry and disconnected from the decisions in Westminster. This would no doubt suit the long-term aims of the SNP.
One theory doing the rounds is that the Conservatives are somehow hoping to destroy the Labour party in Scotland through the proxy of the SNP. With the simultaneous collapse of the LibDems north of the border, this then gives them a free run as the main "unionist" opposition to the SNP. A plot as nefarious as this couldn't be put past the Tories, regardless of how fanciful the aim. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (until he's the enemy again).
A Game Of Chess
In this light, the Scottish Conservatives may be trying to play a very long game. Meanwhile, the English Conservatives are trying to make Labour - the only party with serious levels of support in each part the union - as the party prepared to "do a deal" with a party (the SNP) that would split the union asunder. As we have already seen, this claim is as nonsensical as it is shamelessly hypocritical and disingenuous.
It would suit both the SNP and the Tories for Labour to be dislodged as "Stewards Of The North". To use a "Game Of Thrones" analogy (apologies to those not in the know) the Tories are playing the Lannisters, who secretly did a deal with the Boltons (the SNP) to take over from the Starks (Labour).
But this is not a game. While Cameron and Osborne play petty politics with Scotland for their own reasons, at the same time they are also playing games with the "insurgents" in British politics, UKIP. The Tories criticise Labour for refusing to rule out a deal with the SNP, but already in the previous parliament, Ukip's agenda forced Cameron into promising an EU referendum in the next parliament. And that was even at a time before UKIP had any MPs. While UKIP are unlikely to get more than a handful of MPs, they have plenty of "soft power" over the Conservatives in terms of the many Euro-sceptic MPs amongst the Tories themselves.
So, assuming that Cameron did get back into power, he would be beholden to the "insurgents" of UKIP on one hand, and powerless to prevent an angry and politically-disconnected Scotland breaking away, on the other. A Cameron second term could conceivably conclude with Scotland breaking up the union and the UK leaving the EU. While these might seem far-fetched scenarios, they would be even less likely if Ed Miliband were Prime Minister.
To the likes of Cameron, politics is a game of chess, but one he thinks he is much better at than he actually is. His record as Prime Minister and statesman is actually pretty appalling. It sometimes feels like he's doing it for the lack of anything better to do.
Cameron seems intent on flogging this particular dead horse. One particularly-telling moment was a Cameron interview with Sky News the day after Fallon's remarks, where Cameron admitted that he didn't know Miliband personally (or really, at all), but still felt justified in making these highly-personal attacks. This is just absurd: the Prime Minister trying to defend making unsavoury personal attacks on a person he barely even knows. The fact that Cameron has to resort to them to make a point, while Miliband simply has to talk about the effect government policies are having, tells you a lot about the character of the two men vying to be Prime Minister after the election.
The wider truth about the Tories is that they would do and say almost anything to have power. Their manifesto was full of ridiculous promises; where the money came from, nobody knew. While all parties are guilty of exaggerating the danger of other parties, the Conservatives' threats at times have bordered on the nonsensical: that they would create "millions" of jobs, and that Labour would destroy "millions" of jobs. Since when do Conservative governments "create" jobs? Only the private companies can do that. The talk of Labour "chaos", which ignores the fact that - prior to the global financial crisis - Labour presided over the longest period of growth in living memory. Yes, there was a crash, but it was a worldwide crash, that cannot simply be blamed on Labour. In any case, the Conservatives' economic policy at the time was even more gung-ho than the then Labour government's. But these facts must be conveniently forgotten to project the fallacy of Conservative competence.
Divide and rule
The Conservative Party is the historic party of the old aristocracy, and the party still rules the UK with the same attitude the Empire had towards it's colonies. These days, with the empire long gone, it feels like the "empire" is just London ruling the other parts of the country like outlying colonies. For those in the Westminster bubble, the rest of the country certainly feels as remote. The country is ran as though it is just an economic extension of the London economy: this explains why London acts as a vampire on the "real" UK beyond the M25. The economic model the UK has had for the past thirty years has been made in London, for the benefit of London. Any beneficial effects on those areas outside of London have been incidental. It's essentially the same economic model as some parts of the Third World.
The only way the electorate can be distracted from this reality is by the Tories creating poisonous false narratives like "strivers" versus "shirkers". The "politics of envy" that the Tories hurl at Labour more accurately reflects how they use the politics of fear to protect their own interests and positions. When you have a lot to lose - like the media barons that support the Tories - anything that could possibly prevent your own expansion is perceived as a mortal threat.
The Tories have been gradually losing support in Scotland over the last thirty years. The loss of the 1997 election saw the last generation of Tory Scots swept from Westminster, leaving only a vestige of support. The irony was that, after opposing devolution, the Scottish Conservatives found that they could have a larger voice in Holyrood's new, proportional system. The same was true of the SNP. When the nationalists became a minority government in Holyrood, the SNP had to rely on Tory support from time to time to get some bills through parliament. Then, with the collapse of Labour support becoming even more dramatic after the SNP won power outright in the following Holyrood elections. a historic change looked to be taking place. The aftermath of the independence referendum last year confirmed the historic nature of the collapse of Labour support to the benefit of the SNP. The Tories looked on in delight.
As said earlier, the Tories have a track record of doing and saying anything in order to have power. Regarding the national integrity of the UK, this will even extend to happily losing one part of the country if it means having a better control of the rest. For this is the calculation that Cameron and other figures in the government have clearly made. This is, quite literally, "divide and rule".
And yet, the Tories' strategy is at a complete counter to one of main tenets of their existence: the preservation of the UK. While it may be argued by some that it was the Labour party that "gave up" on the empire, it is the Tories who seem happy to give up on the idea of the UK - so long as they think they can rule what is left of it.
While in the election campaign they talk about the dangers of the "chaos" of the SNP somehow having control over Labour and the UK as a whole, at the same time people like George Osborne are talking up the talents of the SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon. It is almost as if some Tories want the SNP to do well, regardless of the implications this may have on the wider future of the UK. And yet, while offering more powers to Scotland after the referendum, now they are talking about how Scottish voters' choice will have no effect in Westminster - words that seem almost designed to make the Scots even more angry and disconnected from the decisions in Westminster. This would no doubt suit the long-term aims of the SNP.
One theory doing the rounds is that the Conservatives are somehow hoping to destroy the Labour party in Scotland through the proxy of the SNP. With the simultaneous collapse of the LibDems north of the border, this then gives them a free run as the main "unionist" opposition to the SNP. A plot as nefarious as this couldn't be put past the Tories, regardless of how fanciful the aim. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (until he's the enemy again).
A Game Of Chess
In this light, the Scottish Conservatives may be trying to play a very long game. Meanwhile, the English Conservatives are trying to make Labour - the only party with serious levels of support in each part the union - as the party prepared to "do a deal" with a party (the SNP) that would split the union asunder. As we have already seen, this claim is as nonsensical as it is shamelessly hypocritical and disingenuous.
It would suit both the SNP and the Tories for Labour to be dislodged as "Stewards Of The North". To use a "Game Of Thrones" analogy (apologies to those not in the know) the Tories are playing the Lannisters, who secretly did a deal with the Boltons (the SNP) to take over from the Starks (Labour).
But this is not a game. While Cameron and Osborne play petty politics with Scotland for their own reasons, at the same time they are also playing games with the "insurgents" in British politics, UKIP. The Tories criticise Labour for refusing to rule out a deal with the SNP, but already in the previous parliament, Ukip's agenda forced Cameron into promising an EU referendum in the next parliament. And that was even at a time before UKIP had any MPs. While UKIP are unlikely to get more than a handful of MPs, they have plenty of "soft power" over the Conservatives in terms of the many Euro-sceptic MPs amongst the Tories themselves.
So, assuming that Cameron did get back into power, he would be beholden to the "insurgents" of UKIP on one hand, and powerless to prevent an angry and politically-disconnected Scotland breaking away, on the other. A Cameron second term could conceivably conclude with Scotland breaking up the union and the UK leaving the EU. While these might seem far-fetched scenarios, they would be even less likely if Ed Miliband were Prime Minister.
To the likes of Cameron, politics is a game of chess, but one he thinks he is much better at than he actually is. His record as Prime Minister and statesman is actually pretty appalling. It sometimes feels like he's doing it for the lack of anything better to do.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Conservative and Labour manifestos launched: role reversal and fantasy politics in the 2015 election
Yesterday Labour launched their manifesto for the election, followed by the Conservatives today.
Before going on to some of the specifics, first of all it's worthwhile looking at the "first impressions" given by both parties' manifestos.
Both parties went for a "corporate" look using their party colours, with the Tories having a long angle shot of some of the cabinet "big names" (read: future leadership contenders) sat at a table. That said, it was also instructive about who wasn't in this particular photo - the likes of Iain Duncan Smith and Eric Pickles, for example, or Grant "Michael Green" Shapps. The idea portrayed here is, one assumes, that of a solid, reliable team of ministers who work well together. The irony is that Cameron's speech talked about how "the people" were against some of his ministers' reforms, but they went ahead anyway; the reality is that it was Cameron who was against some of the reforms, but his ministers ignored him. IDS, for example, refused to resign when asked, and Cameron didn't want to fire him over the Universal Credit fiasco. So even the photo on the manifesto front page indirectly reflects some of the "behind the scenes" goings-on between the personalities in the party.
Staying with the Tories, their manifesto's "summary" page declares "we have a plan for every stage of your life" which was instantly mocked by some (see entry for 11.16) as sounding terrifyingly like something out of Nineteen Eighty-Four. So are the Tories now re-branding themselves as Stalinists, taking their tips from the Chinese Communist Party? Conservative government for life, from cradle to the grave! Clearly, some people in party headquarters doesn't get out much if they think that "summary" looks reassuring...
Talking about Labour, as they were the party of opposition, they needed to give the impression of reassurance and competence. Ed Miliband now regularly wears grey ties, which makes me think that someone has told him it makes him look like a bank manager (it does!). The impression Labour and Ed Miliband want to give is one of almost "boring" competence, compared to the "danger and risk" to the lifeblood of the country that the Conservatives offer with their continued drive to austerity and the EU referendum. Many commentators spoke of how impressive Miliband came across compared to the past, and how to some it "looked like Miliband, but sounded like someone else" i.e. it was Ed Miliband, but the "adult/serious/competent/confident" version. This was the "yes, I'm ready to govern" version that Miliband wanted to show, contrasting with the version that Cameron and the media have shown in the past.
One more point worth mentioning was about how the press were handled by both parties during their launches, which displayed the different tones and attitudes of both sides. Miliband was keen to have an in-depth feedback with the press, even telling his (jeering) activists to show respect when he was being asked a hostile question. By contrast (and again, very "Chinese Communist Party"), the Tories' press session was must briefer, with Cameron "answering" fewer questions (usually by completely changing the topic), and having an aide hold the microphone for the press to prevent any follow-up from Cameron's "answer". Once Cameron gave his "answer" the mic quickly went over to someone else. The event was shamelessly stage-managed to avoid any awkward moments for the Tories' "dear leader"...
The role reversal of Labour and the Conservatives is striking in their manifestos and the pledges that they have made. With the Tories having a "wobble" last week, and Labour appearing to set the pace at out-flanking the Tories on their "competence" pledges, the pressure has been on the Tories to respond. After the clumsy, un-costed and ill-thought-out policy announcements at the end of the week (£8bn extra a year for the NHS? What planet are they on?), the Tories were looking to their manifesto to regain the initiative. It's never good for the Tories when they - as Ed Miliband said - make the Green Party look fiscally responsible.
Losing the plot?
The "eye-catching" policy of the manifesto launch was introducing the "right to buy" for housing association properties.
Here is an idea that qualifies as "zombie politics"; resurrecting an idea that was brought to life thirty years ago, and trying to re-package it decades later as the "next big thing". This policy also summaries everything that is wrong about the Conservative Party and the people who run it.
As Thatcher's original idea was politically popular, Cameron and his allies think the same trick can work again thirty years on with offering to sell-off Housing Association properties. For one, shows a condescending attitude towards people who live in these properties: it assumes that they want (and can afford) to buy these properties outright, rather than preferring the security that the long-term HA leases have, without having to pay the maintenance costs.
Second, it is clear that this a policy cynically aimed at Labour voters (as most HA properties are in lower-income areas), while at the same time aimed at getting the attention of middle-class "floating voters" that the Tories are the "party of aspiration". But it's arrogant to assume that people in the 2010s have the same attitudes as those in the 1980s, because the social circumstances have changed. The housing crisis is at the back of everyone's minds, and evidence has shown that this policy isn't even popular with voters themselves. If you forgive the muddled metaphor, the Tories seem to think that voters are like Pavlovian dogs that whose "lights" can switched on and off at the click of a finger. They think that voters are - essentially - simple.
In this way, Cameron's Conservatives show how they are still living in the past, and think that they can win an election in 2015 on policies first thought up in 1979. It's superficial, arrogant and lazy thinking, and in a whole host of ways, is absolutely terrible economics. It's the worst of both worlds - a horrible political idea, and an economically-insane one. It also happens to be illegal, with HAs liable to challenge any Conservative attempts to enforce sell-offs in court.
This condescending attitude towards the public has been apparent from the stage-managed photo opportunities which people can see through immediately, and are heartily tired of seeing. It is odd that Britain is has of the most intelligent electorates in the world, yet the two main parties - the Tories in particular - treat the electorate as though they are idiots.
The overall impression of the Conservative manifesto was of a party in flight from reality. In government, they missed their economic targets by a mile, and made a mess of almost every major project and "reform" they handled. In many policies they announced in the manifesto, the costings couldn't be explained, and the cuts to made were only mentioned in the most abstract way. The Tories were telling us they could make massive savings with cuts (from where, they didn't say) while at the same time spending money here, there and everywhere. No-one with a brain could take this stuff seriously. Less than six months ago George Osborne was warning of the massive scale of the austerity to come after the election. Suddenly, the Tories have had massive attack of amnesia and self-delusion. Where does this madness end?
Cameron makes his party as being - wait for it - the "party of the working people". This is so laughable it's ridiculous. Why do so many of their party donors are tax-avoiders and have "non-dom" status, and why do the City invest in their party then? If anything, the Tories are the "trades union of the rich".
The only people that the Tories can be kidding is themselves.
Before going on to some of the specifics, first of all it's worthwhile looking at the "first impressions" given by both parties' manifestos.
Both parties went for a "corporate" look using their party colours, with the Tories having a long angle shot of some of the cabinet "big names" (read: future leadership contenders) sat at a table. That said, it was also instructive about who wasn't in this particular photo - the likes of Iain Duncan Smith and Eric Pickles, for example, or Grant "Michael Green" Shapps. The idea portrayed here is, one assumes, that of a solid, reliable team of ministers who work well together. The irony is that Cameron's speech talked about how "the people" were against some of his ministers' reforms, but they went ahead anyway; the reality is that it was Cameron who was against some of the reforms, but his ministers ignored him. IDS, for example, refused to resign when asked, and Cameron didn't want to fire him over the Universal Credit fiasco. So even the photo on the manifesto front page indirectly reflects some of the "behind the scenes" goings-on between the personalities in the party.
Staying with the Tories, their manifesto's "summary" page declares "we have a plan for every stage of your life" which was instantly mocked by some (see entry for 11.16) as sounding terrifyingly like something out of Nineteen Eighty-Four. So are the Tories now re-branding themselves as Stalinists, taking their tips from the Chinese Communist Party? Conservative government for life, from cradle to the grave! Clearly, some people in party headquarters doesn't get out much if they think that "summary" looks reassuring...
Talking about Labour, as they were the party of opposition, they needed to give the impression of reassurance and competence. Ed Miliband now regularly wears grey ties, which makes me think that someone has told him it makes him look like a bank manager (it does!). The impression Labour and Ed Miliband want to give is one of almost "boring" competence, compared to the "danger and risk" to the lifeblood of the country that the Conservatives offer with their continued drive to austerity and the EU referendum. Many commentators spoke of how impressive Miliband came across compared to the past, and how to some it "looked like Miliband, but sounded like someone else" i.e. it was Ed Miliband, but the "adult/serious/competent/confident" version. This was the "yes, I'm ready to govern" version that Miliband wanted to show, contrasting with the version that Cameron and the media have shown in the past.
One more point worth mentioning was about how the press were handled by both parties during their launches, which displayed the different tones and attitudes of both sides. Miliband was keen to have an in-depth feedback with the press, even telling his (jeering) activists to show respect when he was being asked a hostile question. By contrast (and again, very "Chinese Communist Party"), the Tories' press session was must briefer, with Cameron "answering" fewer questions (usually by completely changing the topic), and having an aide hold the microphone for the press to prevent any follow-up from Cameron's "answer". Once Cameron gave his "answer" the mic quickly went over to someone else. The event was shamelessly stage-managed to avoid any awkward moments for the Tories' "dear leader"...
The role reversal of Labour and the Conservatives is striking in their manifestos and the pledges that they have made. With the Tories having a "wobble" last week, and Labour appearing to set the pace at out-flanking the Tories on their "competence" pledges, the pressure has been on the Tories to respond. After the clumsy, un-costed and ill-thought-out policy announcements at the end of the week (£8bn extra a year for the NHS? What planet are they on?), the Tories were looking to their manifesto to regain the initiative. It's never good for the Tories when they - as Ed Miliband said - make the Green Party look fiscally responsible.
Losing the plot?
The "eye-catching" policy of the manifesto launch was introducing the "right to buy" for housing association properties.
Here is an idea that qualifies as "zombie politics"; resurrecting an idea that was brought to life thirty years ago, and trying to re-package it decades later as the "next big thing". This policy also summaries everything that is wrong about the Conservative Party and the people who run it.
As Thatcher's original idea was politically popular, Cameron and his allies think the same trick can work again thirty years on with offering to sell-off Housing Association properties. For one, shows a condescending attitude towards people who live in these properties: it assumes that they want (and can afford) to buy these properties outright, rather than preferring the security that the long-term HA leases have, without having to pay the maintenance costs.
Second, it is clear that this a policy cynically aimed at Labour voters (as most HA properties are in lower-income areas), while at the same time aimed at getting the attention of middle-class "floating voters" that the Tories are the "party of aspiration". But it's arrogant to assume that people in the 2010s have the same attitudes as those in the 1980s, because the social circumstances have changed. The housing crisis is at the back of everyone's minds, and evidence has shown that this policy isn't even popular with voters themselves. If you forgive the muddled metaphor, the Tories seem to think that voters are like Pavlovian dogs that whose "lights" can switched on and off at the click of a finger. They think that voters are - essentially - simple.
In this way, Cameron's Conservatives show how they are still living in the past, and think that they can win an election in 2015 on policies first thought up in 1979. It's superficial, arrogant and lazy thinking, and in a whole host of ways, is absolutely terrible economics. It's the worst of both worlds - a horrible political idea, and an economically-insane one. It also happens to be illegal, with HAs liable to challenge any Conservative attempts to enforce sell-offs in court.
This condescending attitude towards the public has been apparent from the stage-managed photo opportunities which people can see through immediately, and are heartily tired of seeing. It is odd that Britain is has of the most intelligent electorates in the world, yet the two main parties - the Tories in particular - treat the electorate as though they are idiots.
The overall impression of the Conservative manifesto was of a party in flight from reality. In government, they missed their economic targets by a mile, and made a mess of almost every major project and "reform" they handled. In many policies they announced in the manifesto, the costings couldn't be explained, and the cuts to made were only mentioned in the most abstract way. The Tories were telling us they could make massive savings with cuts (from where, they didn't say) while at the same time spending money here, there and everywhere. No-one with a brain could take this stuff seriously. Less than six months ago George Osborne was warning of the massive scale of the austerity to come after the election. Suddenly, the Tories have had massive attack of amnesia and self-delusion. Where does this madness end?
Cameron makes his party as being - wait for it - the "party of the working people". This is so laughable it's ridiculous. Why do so many of their party donors are tax-avoiders and have "non-dom" status, and why do the City invest in their party then? If anything, the Tories are the "trades union of the rich".
The only people that the Tories can be kidding is themselves.
Friday, April 10, 2015
David Cameron and the Conservatives' negative 2015 election campaign: are they losing the plot?
Two weeks ago, parliament dissolved for the election campaign, and Cameron and Miliband were preparing for their fate with Jeremy Paxman. I wrote previously about how that week was possibly a week that Cameron would have liked to forget. The PM did not exactly show himself off in his best light, and brought back the negative traits that Cameron and his supporters do their best to hide.
That was two weeks ago, and the following Thursday was dominated by the leaders' debates. Since then (and until a few days ago) the media coverage of Cameron was soft-focus, easy-on-the-eye segments of him visiting somewhere, looking kindly-but-earnest, and being photographed in kindly settings. This culminated in him being photographed with a lamb over the Easter weekend, which was perhaps the most overtly (and sickeningly) reverential photo opportunity yet.
In parallel to that, Ed Miliband and Labour were consistently shown in the mainstream media as hapless and not to be trusted. Even though this clearly flew in face of the conventional view that Miliband did - at worst - a decent job of explaining his platform in the leaders' debate, this "line" kept on being used by many in the media.
This blatant bias gave credence to the view that the media are just as much a part of the "establishment" as those in the ranks of the Conservative party.
However, the Conservatives' negative campaign looked to have stalled their fortunes by the end of the Easter holiday. It wasn't having any noticeable effect on the polls, which were showing the two main parties neck-and-neck. And then Labour turned up the heat a couple of notches.
How to lose the plot in seventy-two hours
The week began to get interesting when Tony Blair made a sudden appearance back in Sedgefield to make a speech on Europe. To an extent, this was Labour taking a risk due to the toxic effect that Blair has on some since the Iraq war. But Blair's speech displayed his statesman-like command of the English language is still a force to marvel, as well as being a devastating put-down on Cameron personally and the Conservatives in general. While Blair could be dismissed as a sign of desperation in the Miliband camp, Blair's message could not. The Conservative response was unconvincing and petty. The tone of that response would become a Conservative trend for the week.
The next day, Labour then announced that they would abolish the right of non-doms' tax privileges. As this policy was clearly a vote-winner, the Tories didn't have a coherent reply. What was even more ironic was that the Financial Times had even supported this change of the law. One of their ministers tried several different arguments against it, changing her "line" with each put-down, to ridiculous effect. The Tories were caught trying to defend the indefensible, as they tried vainly to defend the interests of their wealthy supporters. Labour had - to the Tories' evident surprise - played an absolute blinder, leaving the Conservatives flapping around for a response. It didn't come.
Things went from the sublime to the farcical the following day: Thursday. Defence secretary Michael Fallon then went on the attack about Labour's apparently "chaotic" and dangerous policy on Trident and the nuclear deterrent, going so far as to call Ed Miliband "ruthless" for robbing his brother of the leadership, suggesting that Ed would "stab" Britain in the back the same way he had done to his brother.
This line of attack was as stupid as it was embarrassing. Not only was Fallon blatantly getting his facts wrong about Labour's policy (which was essentially the same as the Conservatives), he was attacking Miliband in a way that was to quickly backfire on him.
Miliband's response to these attacks was a lesson in masterful, polite put-down. By this point in the campaign, Miliband was beginning to look more and more composed, more obviously, naturally "human", and quick to dismiss Tory personal attacks on him as "pathetic". It was clear that most people agreed with him.
To cap it all off, the Tories then decided to postpone their manifesto launch so it didn't clash with Labour's. The average person would conclude that they were scrabbling around for something - anything - to deflect the attention back on to Labour "chaos" versus Conservative "competence".
Only now, the roles had seemed reversed.
In footballing terms, gone from bad to worse for the Tories, by the end of Thurday reading:
Labour 3 - 0 Conservatives
Blair
Miliband
Fallon (o.g.)
On Friday, the Tories were clearly trying to get back in the game by throwing out a few policy ideas (calling them more than "ideas" would be too kind). These included a freeze on rail fares (isn't that a Socialist idea?), and a law that gave employees the right to three days paid "voluntary leave" from their companies.
Both these ideas were quickly dismissed as gimmicks - and according to industry experts, irresponsible ones as that. The Tories had somehow turned their campaign from a well-oiled machine into a farcical joke. No-one was taking anything the Conservatives said very seriously any more.
The Blame Game
The personal attacks, as insiders know, could only have been instigated by Cameron. It was Cameron who used personal attacks in front of 10 Downing Street as his way to start the election campaign. This has been Cameron's line of attack for a very long time, making it all a question of personality. But this is also another sign of the petty baseness and superficiality of the Prime Minister's personality. While it is true that Ed Miliband has not exactly shone in personal terms since becoming Labour leader, it is now also equally clear that the poor image given to him was an unfair misrepresentation.
With the election campaign properly underway, it almost feels as though the "real" Ed (rather than "Red Ed") has suddenly been unveiled, to the Tories astonishment. A wag might suggest it was all a "cunning plan" to lull the Tories into a false sense of security, with Miliband playing a "long game" that would only become clear to everyone right at the last moment. Miliband is far from an obvious statesman, but he is also clearly a decent person who cares about people far more than those in the Conservative party.
Poor Michael Fallon was clearly told to do a job on Thursday and he did it - this was what Miliband himself cleverly alluded to. Cameron is now seen as a petty coward, who attacks his enemies but doesn't have the courage to have a one-on-one debate with a man he thinks is useless, and nor the decency to talk to the real electorate during a campaign to remain as their leader. He would rather spend a day flashing around four corners of the country (if only for a hour or two), hang out in the "Game Of Thrones" set, and then talk to a small gathering of supporters in a huge, empty shed (but pretend he's talking to a large gathering of the masses). As Miliband said, it's pathetic.
Cameron is a man who can't take criticism. He has been seen losing his temper in Westminster when rattled. This is why he lives in a cocoon-like existence, detached from the real Britain of food banks, zero-hour contracts, and thirtysomethings living with their parents because they can't afford to rent a place for themselves (let alone a mortgage). This is the consequence of his "long term economic plan".
It was Cameron who brought in Lynton Crosby as the expert to guide them to victory in 2015. So far, all his strategy has shown is that the "nasty party" are back with a vengeance. They were in hiding all along.
Fundamentally, under the stresses of an election campaign people are now seeing more of the "real" Cameron and the "real" Miliband. People will decide which person they would rather have making decisions about how society works. If it was simply about "the economy" then, yes, the Tories would probably win, but that's an overly-simplistic judgement. "The economy" is a complex idea, with lots of different factors influencing it. This explains why the Tories are not in a better position.
There is too much distrust and uncertainty about how the economy is ran in the UK. Who does it work for? This is the question that Ed Miliband poses.
That was two weeks ago, and the following Thursday was dominated by the leaders' debates. Since then (and until a few days ago) the media coverage of Cameron was soft-focus, easy-on-the-eye segments of him visiting somewhere, looking kindly-but-earnest, and being photographed in kindly settings. This culminated in him being photographed with a lamb over the Easter weekend, which was perhaps the most overtly (and sickeningly) reverential photo opportunity yet.
In parallel to that, Ed Miliband and Labour were consistently shown in the mainstream media as hapless and not to be trusted. Even though this clearly flew in face of the conventional view that Miliband did - at worst - a decent job of explaining his platform in the leaders' debate, this "line" kept on being used by many in the media.
This blatant bias gave credence to the view that the media are just as much a part of the "establishment" as those in the ranks of the Conservative party.
However, the Conservatives' negative campaign looked to have stalled their fortunes by the end of the Easter holiday. It wasn't having any noticeable effect on the polls, which were showing the two main parties neck-and-neck. And then Labour turned up the heat a couple of notches.
How to lose the plot in seventy-two hours
The week began to get interesting when Tony Blair made a sudden appearance back in Sedgefield to make a speech on Europe. To an extent, this was Labour taking a risk due to the toxic effect that Blair has on some since the Iraq war. But Blair's speech displayed his statesman-like command of the English language is still a force to marvel, as well as being a devastating put-down on Cameron personally and the Conservatives in general. While Blair could be dismissed as a sign of desperation in the Miliband camp, Blair's message could not. The Conservative response was unconvincing and petty. The tone of that response would become a Conservative trend for the week.
The next day, Labour then announced that they would abolish the right of non-doms' tax privileges. As this policy was clearly a vote-winner, the Tories didn't have a coherent reply. What was even more ironic was that the Financial Times had even supported this change of the law. One of their ministers tried several different arguments against it, changing her "line" with each put-down, to ridiculous effect. The Tories were caught trying to defend the indefensible, as they tried vainly to defend the interests of their wealthy supporters. Labour had - to the Tories' evident surprise - played an absolute blinder, leaving the Conservatives flapping around for a response. It didn't come.
Things went from the sublime to the farcical the following day: Thursday. Defence secretary Michael Fallon then went on the attack about Labour's apparently "chaotic" and dangerous policy on Trident and the nuclear deterrent, going so far as to call Ed Miliband "ruthless" for robbing his brother of the leadership, suggesting that Ed would "stab" Britain in the back the same way he had done to his brother.
This line of attack was as stupid as it was embarrassing. Not only was Fallon blatantly getting his facts wrong about Labour's policy (which was essentially the same as the Conservatives), he was attacking Miliband in a way that was to quickly backfire on him.
Miliband's response to these attacks was a lesson in masterful, polite put-down. By this point in the campaign, Miliband was beginning to look more and more composed, more obviously, naturally "human", and quick to dismiss Tory personal attacks on him as "pathetic". It was clear that most people agreed with him.
To cap it all off, the Tories then decided to postpone their manifesto launch so it didn't clash with Labour's. The average person would conclude that they were scrabbling around for something - anything - to deflect the attention back on to Labour "chaos" versus Conservative "competence".
Only now, the roles had seemed reversed.
In footballing terms, gone from bad to worse for the Tories, by the end of Thurday reading:
Labour 3 - 0 Conservatives
Blair
Miliband
Fallon (o.g.)
On Friday, the Tories were clearly trying to get back in the game by throwing out a few policy ideas (calling them more than "ideas" would be too kind). These included a freeze on rail fares (isn't that a Socialist idea?), and a law that gave employees the right to three days paid "voluntary leave" from their companies.
Both these ideas were quickly dismissed as gimmicks - and according to industry experts, irresponsible ones as that. The Tories had somehow turned their campaign from a well-oiled machine into a farcical joke. No-one was taking anything the Conservatives said very seriously any more.
The Blame Game
The personal attacks, as insiders know, could only have been instigated by Cameron. It was Cameron who used personal attacks in front of 10 Downing Street as his way to start the election campaign. This has been Cameron's line of attack for a very long time, making it all a question of personality. But this is also another sign of the petty baseness and superficiality of the Prime Minister's personality. While it is true that Ed Miliband has not exactly shone in personal terms since becoming Labour leader, it is now also equally clear that the poor image given to him was an unfair misrepresentation.
With the election campaign properly underway, it almost feels as though the "real" Ed (rather than "Red Ed") has suddenly been unveiled, to the Tories astonishment. A wag might suggest it was all a "cunning plan" to lull the Tories into a false sense of security, with Miliband playing a "long game" that would only become clear to everyone right at the last moment. Miliband is far from an obvious statesman, but he is also clearly a decent person who cares about people far more than those in the Conservative party.
Poor Michael Fallon was clearly told to do a job on Thursday and he did it - this was what Miliband himself cleverly alluded to. Cameron is now seen as a petty coward, who attacks his enemies but doesn't have the courage to have a one-on-one debate with a man he thinks is useless, and nor the decency to talk to the real electorate during a campaign to remain as their leader. He would rather spend a day flashing around four corners of the country (if only for a hour or two), hang out in the "Game Of Thrones" set, and then talk to a small gathering of supporters in a huge, empty shed (but pretend he's talking to a large gathering of the masses). As Miliband said, it's pathetic.
Cameron is a man who can't take criticism. He has been seen losing his temper in Westminster when rattled. This is why he lives in a cocoon-like existence, detached from the real Britain of food banks, zero-hour contracts, and thirtysomethings living with their parents because they can't afford to rent a place for themselves (let alone a mortgage). This is the consequence of his "long term economic plan".
It was Cameron who brought in Lynton Crosby as the expert to guide them to victory in 2015. So far, all his strategy has shown is that the "nasty party" are back with a vengeance. They were in hiding all along.
Fundamentally, under the stresses of an election campaign people are now seeing more of the "real" Cameron and the "real" Miliband. People will decide which person they would rather have making decisions about how society works. If it was simply about "the economy" then, yes, the Tories would probably win, but that's an overly-simplistic judgement. "The economy" is a complex idea, with lots of different factors influencing it. This explains why the Tories are not in a better position.
There is too much distrust and uncertainty about how the economy is ran in the UK. Who does it work for? This is the question that Ed Miliband poses.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Politics, the media, and the 2015 general election: the establishment's "dirty tricks"
The Leveson inquiry a few years ago delved into the sordid underbelly of the relationship between politicians, the media and the police. I wrote an article discussing how the media in the UK is in reality more of an oligarchy of individuals whose views are espoused through the mouthpieces of their own newspapers (and - in the case of Rupert Murdoch - media outlets as well).
We talk about a "free press" existing in the UK, but the major national newspapers are owned by what we could easily call "media barons". Murdoch is the most famous, of course; the Australian owns the "Sun" and "The Times", as well as the media (and news) outlet, Sky. The "Daily Mail" is ran day-today by its autocratic editor, Paul Dacre, but has been owned by Lord Rothermere and others for over a hundred years. These are the two most popular newspapers in the UK, both of which are instinctively conservative-leaning (though the "Sun" was more left-leaning back in the 1960s). There is also the "Daily Express", whose aim appears to be to out-do the "Daily Mail" at headline-grabbing scaremongering, and shores up the remainder of the conservative press, albeit with smaller circulation numbers. It is also the only national newspaper to be publicly supportive of UKIP.
"The Daily Telegraph" - casually known as the "Torygraph" - is effectively the editorial mouthpiece of the Barclay brothers, whom are tax avoiders and own the Channel Island of Sark. You'd be hard-pressed to find a newspaper that more symbolizes "the establishment" that this.
By comparison, the "Mirror" is the most popular left-leaning tabloid, while the "Guardian" is the newspaper of choice for the "mainstream" liberal-left. Lastly, there is the "Independent", a newspaper that was only established in the 1980s, and is (also with the London "Evening Standard") now owned by the Russian liberal Anglophile, Alexander Lebedev. This shores up the remainder of what could be called the "liberal left" segment of British society.
Fighting against the tide
It is fairly clear from this summary of the media environment in the UK that British newspapers are mainly owned by people who are rich and naturally have conservative beliefs. It can also be said that the most popular newspapers are owned by people who are rich and naturally have conservative beliefs; the same is true of their editors, and many of their journalists. These people have come from privileged backgrounds, have gone to public schools and top-class universities, mainly live in London, and thus have priorities that are completely different from those of ordinary families in the UK.
The problem is this: most people in the UK don't share those views. If they did, then British politics would be much more dominated by the Conservatives that it actually is. In effect, the majority of the British media is controlled by conservatives, and it is their views that are reflected in their newspapers. Anyone who believes that newspapers are there to reflect the views of their readers is living with a dangerously-naive view of the world.
This point was made clear when Rupert Murdoch answered questions to parliamentary committees, and the Leveson inquiry. There is a clear "line of communication" explaining how a newspaper ought to explain a "story"; this often involves having a headline that reflects the views of the editor/owner (any sane editor matches his view with the view of the owner), and having the facts of the story fit around the headline. This is not "news" in the conventional sense of the word, but "spin" (or propaganda, to use the old-fashioned term).
Now this is nothing surprising, of course. Newspapers are businesses, and thus need to make money: this explains why some of them use sensational (i.e. misleading) techniques to grab readers' attention. But this is only one part of it. If newspaper owners were only there to make money, this would at least be understandable. But many of them are clearly interested in much more than money: being human beings, they crave power as well as financial success. Rupert Murdoch is the easy example to use for this, with his seemingly-insatiable appetite to buy more and more media outlets (and thus more and more influence).
In this way, it can be argued that newspaper owners, their editors, and their high-flying journalists, are effectively another wing of the "establishment". The difference with the "establishment" in Westminster is that media "wing" of the establishment is un-elected, and (as the many recent scandals have shown) effectively unaccountable. When the Conservative government talked about possibly implementing reforms to hold newspapers to account, they screamed blue murder; as though they had been stabbed in the back by one of their own. And so the sacred "free press" were preserved from statutory intrusion.
Now that the election campaign has got underway for real, the "establishment media" have been using all their "dirty tricks" to undermine the Labour campaign. From the Telegraph's publication of top business leaders backing the Conservatives (really? who'd have thought, given that the newspaper is owned by tax exiles?), to the relentless message by the Telegraph, Mail, and the Sun that Labour is "anti-business".
In some ways, this election campaign is being played in the media as a repeat of 1992. The Tories use a negative (and narrowly-focused) campaign to scare people against "Labour chaos" and another tax bombshell; at times, it seems the media are "triangulating" their attacks in conjuction with CCHQ. Ed Miliband, while certainly not the most charismatic person in the world, is certainly not the "weirdo" the media make him out to be. In recent days, he has been seen giving interviews and explaining his ideas in a much more natural and straightforward way than before. But this has barely had a mention in the media.
What's worse is that Cameron's real record as a Prime Minster, and that of his government, is one of failure, That was clearly shown in the seven-way debate, where is abjectly failed to defend his record, gave (at best) misleading answers, could only revert to repeating the same negative points, and was (rightly) attacked by the other party leaders. His performance was one of the least convincing of the seven leaders. Yet somehow, polls in the media were showing him as either leading in the performance stakes, or coming a strong second. Who did they ask?
For these reasons, we can expect more of the same over the coming month: a co-ordinated attack on Miliband a la Kinnock in 1992, from the Conservatives and their media allies. It is for this reason why the London press are now fixated on building-up the threat that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP pose. As Labour look very unlikely to gain a majority, the best method of attack is to go after those who may prop them up, and thus shore up the Tories as a safe "anti-SNP" block against the insurgents north of the wall.
Will it work? Well, it has before. And while no-one is seriously expecting the Tories to get a majority, if they can indirectly depress the Labour vote in Scotland through the SNP, and scare enough English voters from voting Labour, the Tories will have done what they always do: divide and rule.
And then, post-election the media barons will have another "scapegoat" to threaten their readers with: the "Queen Beyond The Wall"...
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
David Cameron's personality and the Conservative's 2015 general election strategy - where fiction and reality meet
A week is a long time in politics. This time last week, David Cameron was having possibly one if his worst weeks in a long while.
He had first got himself into an unintended muddle over his admission in a "soft" interview he wouldn't stand for a third term, which resulted in a (still ongoing) strategy in damage limitation and clarification. As one wag said - Cameron shot the starting pistol to the election campaign, into his own foot. It was an undeniable blunder (no-one is suggesting it was said as a planned announcement), and one that would have serious implications for his party if Cameron indeed won a second term.
While this was possibly more of an issue inside the Westminster bubble, this was followed shortly afterwards by a short speech he gave at Age Concern. Apparently, he went there expected an "easy ride" - given his triple-lock for pensioners, and other give-aways - but was heckled (by OAPs!) for much of the time, with many of them clearly unimpressed by Cameron's performance and typical hand-wringing with answers. He was even called a "liar".
Comparisons with Tony Blair's painful performance in front of the WI fifteen years ago instantly came to mind. What was more revealing was that, while the WI was Blair tactically going into "the lion's den" (and in that sense, a brave - if risky - decision), Cameron thought he was on safe ground (he is rarely a man who likes taking risks). The fact that he wasn't shows how badly he misjudged his audience, and a key section of the electorate.
Then, in the last day of parliament, while David Cameron was politicking in the heart of the country (and many MPs doing the same), the Tory leadership attempted to quickly force through a motion to make it easier to dislodge the speaker, John Bercow. The plainly deceitful nature of the act was damned by MPs as an act that blatantly undermined the authority of parliament, as one Tory MP (in fact, the MP who had previously suggested motion) passionately felt that he had been played as a fool. As Leader of the House - and on his last day as an MP - it was William Hague's job to get the motion passed. And when the vote came, David Cameron abandoned his electioneering to be sent by helicopter to Westminster for the time of the vote. Imagine the poetic justice, then, when MPs voted the motion down; Cameron, in his arrogance, had come all the way to Westminster in time to see his party's humiliation.
After all this, there was the Paxman "debate", which Cameron also came off looking better overall than Miliband, but not by a convincing margin. The perception here was that Cameron looked under-rehearsed - even bored! - by the notion of having to justify his government's record to Paxman. But what was more revealing was the public perception that the electorate had of Cameron's performance, compared to the reality of what he actually said.
Doff the cap to "Mr. Nice Guy"
What was revealing about the Paxman interview (and the audience interaction afterwards) was that - when you listen to the Paxman exchanges - Cameron comes across as, at best, evasive ("Look,..." is a commonly-used way to start a sentence). He uses misleading and uninspired language to divert attention from his inability to answer questions properly (or at all!). In short, he looked like a "typical politician": cynical and untrustworthy, and Paxman simply destroyed his record as Prime Minister.
In spite of that, the reaction was not that Cameron was "useless at defending his record" (the reality), but that he came across as composed and more statesman-like (regardless of the nonsense he actually said).
Later on, when the audience had their turn, the mood of the conversation was much less adversarial compared to Paxman, but more relaxed, respectful; at times, even deferential. This last point is key, and taps at an underlining impression that many of the electorate have of Cameron - fundamentally, he seems a "nice guy". And more than that, his Eton-educated background seems to lend him gravitas and self-confidence in the public environment.
This says a lot about the psychology of Britain: an alarming number of people would rather have an incompetent who was "from the right background" running the country than someone who actually cared more about ordinary people. Cameron is the consummate actor, compared to the cunning George Osborne, who, from number 11, runs the show in reality.
The perception versus the reality
As well as being a consummate actor, Cameron is also a compulsive liar. Perhaps more accurately, he may well be so used to "making stuff up" that he has now long believed in his own lies, as some people with personality disorders do. There was evidence of this only yesterday.
In a speech he gave in a marginal Con-Lib constituency, he talked about the Conservatives mantra-like message of the "long-term economic plan" and how Ed Balls "broke the banks". Now, a moment's thought back the events of 2008 will tell you this is nothing less than complete garbage. Labour did not "break the banks" - they bailed them out! It was not Labour's economic policy that caused the financial crisis, it was the failures of the banks that caused the financial crisis!
The fact that no-one (let alone Labour themselves) properly and repeatedly challenges the Tories' nebulous "take" on the events of 2008 is extra-ordinary. The reality was that, regarding financial policy, the Tories had an even more lax policy on the banks than Labour. And Cameron's economic plans only changed when he thought it would be a good way to differentiate from Labour after the financial crisis. ANY government in charge in 2008 would have had an economic crisis, due to the way the country's banks were ran; this is the reality that none of the parties are willing to properly deal with.
Government over-spending did not cause the financial crisis of 2008; no more than government over-spending in 1929 caused the Wall Street Crash. But Cameron and the Tories have to make people believe this outrageous untruth in order to keep Labour from power.
Also yesterday, Cameron made a political first in modern times by personally attacking Miliband in front of Downing Street, after (pointlessly) going to see the Queen. Again, the public perception of Cameron is that he is - possibly because of his background - a "safe pair of hands" and a trustworthy figure, compared to Miliband. He is keen to play up this perception, which, like others, is based on a facade.
Time and again, Cameron has shown the vindictive and petty side of his personality. When suitably provoked, Cameron's horrible, arrogant, bullying and sadistic personality is there to see,
This was shown with the way he continually attacks Miliband as weak, when in reality Cameron's own record as a statesman and a leader is nothing less than weak and useless. Due to Cameron's mis-judgements and poor strategy, Britain has its poorest relations with Europe for decades. Then there was the farce of the Syria vote only last year, all thanks to Cameron's doing. His control of his party might be good now, with a strategic truce called during the election campaign, but his MPs have been running rings around him for most of the parliament. And that doesn't even include UKIP.
In many ways, Cameron is - in spite of the opposite perception - the UK's most useless Prime Minister in living memory. On the world stage, Britain is becoming an irrelevance: we no longer export things, and our balance of payments has been in a terrible state for a long time. Militarily, our armed forces are being pared to the bone, and it is a miracle that the heads of the armed forces are not screaming on TV more often. Perhaps it is only the knowledge that the Tories are "people like them" that keeps them from publicly venting their spleen.
Economically, Britain is turning into a "low-pay, low productivity paradise" of Europe, and that's due to the government's economic policy that has seen the erosion of employee rights and the hollowing-out of Britain's skills base. This is the future that Cameron offers - and that's without even getting on to "austerity" (see the earlier point about the financial crisis and "welfare reform". The ONS today has released figures that show that many of the jobs created in the last few years (i.e. the "jobs growth") have been through self-employment (see 12.05 in the linked blog). And I'm sure no-one is seriously suggesting that the UK has miraculously become a "nation of entrepreneurs"...
While to many it is openly accepted that Cameron is a "liar", the level of distrust with politicians is so high that few people seem to care enough to make a point of it.
That's what the Tories are counting on.
He had first got himself into an unintended muddle over his admission in a "soft" interview he wouldn't stand for a third term, which resulted in a (still ongoing) strategy in damage limitation and clarification. As one wag said - Cameron shot the starting pistol to the election campaign, into his own foot. It was an undeniable blunder (no-one is suggesting it was said as a planned announcement), and one that would have serious implications for his party if Cameron indeed won a second term.
While this was possibly more of an issue inside the Westminster bubble, this was followed shortly afterwards by a short speech he gave at Age Concern. Apparently, he went there expected an "easy ride" - given his triple-lock for pensioners, and other give-aways - but was heckled (by OAPs!) for much of the time, with many of them clearly unimpressed by Cameron's performance and typical hand-wringing with answers. He was even called a "liar".
Comparisons with Tony Blair's painful performance in front of the WI fifteen years ago instantly came to mind. What was more revealing was that, while the WI was Blair tactically going into "the lion's den" (and in that sense, a brave - if risky - decision), Cameron thought he was on safe ground (he is rarely a man who likes taking risks). The fact that he wasn't shows how badly he misjudged his audience, and a key section of the electorate.
Then, in the last day of parliament, while David Cameron was politicking in the heart of the country (and many MPs doing the same), the Tory leadership attempted to quickly force through a motion to make it easier to dislodge the speaker, John Bercow. The plainly deceitful nature of the act was damned by MPs as an act that blatantly undermined the authority of parliament, as one Tory MP (in fact, the MP who had previously suggested motion) passionately felt that he had been played as a fool. As Leader of the House - and on his last day as an MP - it was William Hague's job to get the motion passed. And when the vote came, David Cameron abandoned his electioneering to be sent by helicopter to Westminster for the time of the vote. Imagine the poetic justice, then, when MPs voted the motion down; Cameron, in his arrogance, had come all the way to Westminster in time to see his party's humiliation.
After all this, there was the Paxman "debate", which Cameron also came off looking better overall than Miliband, but not by a convincing margin. The perception here was that Cameron looked under-rehearsed - even bored! - by the notion of having to justify his government's record to Paxman. But what was more revealing was the public perception that the electorate had of Cameron's performance, compared to the reality of what he actually said.
Doff the cap to "Mr. Nice Guy"
What was revealing about the Paxman interview (and the audience interaction afterwards) was that - when you listen to the Paxman exchanges - Cameron comes across as, at best, evasive ("Look,..." is a commonly-used way to start a sentence). He uses misleading and uninspired language to divert attention from his inability to answer questions properly (or at all!). In short, he looked like a "typical politician": cynical and untrustworthy, and Paxman simply destroyed his record as Prime Minister.
In spite of that, the reaction was not that Cameron was "useless at defending his record" (the reality), but that he came across as composed and more statesman-like (regardless of the nonsense he actually said).
Later on, when the audience had their turn, the mood of the conversation was much less adversarial compared to Paxman, but more relaxed, respectful; at times, even deferential. This last point is key, and taps at an underlining impression that many of the electorate have of Cameron - fundamentally, he seems a "nice guy". And more than that, his Eton-educated background seems to lend him gravitas and self-confidence in the public environment.
This says a lot about the psychology of Britain: an alarming number of people would rather have an incompetent who was "from the right background" running the country than someone who actually cared more about ordinary people. Cameron is the consummate actor, compared to the cunning George Osborne, who, from number 11, runs the show in reality.
The perception versus the reality
As well as being a consummate actor, Cameron is also a compulsive liar. Perhaps more accurately, he may well be so used to "making stuff up" that he has now long believed in his own lies, as some people with personality disorders do. There was evidence of this only yesterday.
In a speech he gave in a marginal Con-Lib constituency, he talked about the Conservatives mantra-like message of the "long-term economic plan" and how Ed Balls "broke the banks". Now, a moment's thought back the events of 2008 will tell you this is nothing less than complete garbage. Labour did not "break the banks" - they bailed them out! It was not Labour's economic policy that caused the financial crisis, it was the failures of the banks that caused the financial crisis!
The fact that no-one (let alone Labour themselves) properly and repeatedly challenges the Tories' nebulous "take" on the events of 2008 is extra-ordinary. The reality was that, regarding financial policy, the Tories had an even more lax policy on the banks than Labour. And Cameron's economic plans only changed when he thought it would be a good way to differentiate from Labour after the financial crisis. ANY government in charge in 2008 would have had an economic crisis, due to the way the country's banks were ran; this is the reality that none of the parties are willing to properly deal with.
Government over-spending did not cause the financial crisis of 2008; no more than government over-spending in 1929 caused the Wall Street Crash. But Cameron and the Tories have to make people believe this outrageous untruth in order to keep Labour from power.
Also yesterday, Cameron made a political first in modern times by personally attacking Miliband in front of Downing Street, after (pointlessly) going to see the Queen. Again, the public perception of Cameron is that he is - possibly because of his background - a "safe pair of hands" and a trustworthy figure, compared to Miliband. He is keen to play up this perception, which, like others, is based on a facade.
Time and again, Cameron has shown the vindictive and petty side of his personality. When suitably provoked, Cameron's horrible, arrogant, bullying and sadistic personality is there to see,
This was shown with the way he continually attacks Miliband as weak, when in reality Cameron's own record as a statesman and a leader is nothing less than weak and useless. Due to Cameron's mis-judgements and poor strategy, Britain has its poorest relations with Europe for decades. Then there was the farce of the Syria vote only last year, all thanks to Cameron's doing. His control of his party might be good now, with a strategic truce called during the election campaign, but his MPs have been running rings around him for most of the parliament. And that doesn't even include UKIP.
In many ways, Cameron is - in spite of the opposite perception - the UK's most useless Prime Minister in living memory. On the world stage, Britain is becoming an irrelevance: we no longer export things, and our balance of payments has been in a terrible state for a long time. Militarily, our armed forces are being pared to the bone, and it is a miracle that the heads of the armed forces are not screaming on TV more often. Perhaps it is only the knowledge that the Tories are "people like them" that keeps them from publicly venting their spleen.
Economically, Britain is turning into a "low-pay, low productivity paradise" of Europe, and that's due to the government's economic policy that has seen the erosion of employee rights and the hollowing-out of Britain's skills base. This is the future that Cameron offers - and that's without even getting on to "austerity" (see the earlier point about the financial crisis and "welfare reform". The ONS today has released figures that show that many of the jobs created in the last few years (i.e. the "jobs growth") have been through self-employment (see 12.05 in the linked blog). And I'm sure no-one is seriously suggesting that the UK has miraculously become a "nation of entrepreneurs"...
While to many it is openly accepted that Cameron is a "liar", the level of distrust with politicians is so high that few people seem to care enough to make a point of it.
That's what the Tories are counting on.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Narcissism: "Generation Y", parenting, society, and the rise of malignant self-love
There is now clear evidence in scientific studies that today's younger generation are psychologically more narcissistic than their parents' and grandparents' generations.
There are a combination of factors behind this. Some blame a culture of over-praise from some parents: that with modern-day parenting focusing on telling your child how "special" they are , these children then grow into up into adults who believe it to be literally true. Others are more sceptical of this "blame the parents" attitude, Obviously, all children need to feel "special" in one way or another in order to have a healthy sense of self-esteem. The challenge is knowing where to draw the line, or where to find the right balance between promoting self-esteem but not encouraging unhealthy narcissism.
I've written before about some of the social conditions that can lead to narcissism (also called NPD). What's difficult to deny regarding the scientific evidence (and may seem to be stating the obvious anyway) is how narcissism seems to have expanded through society as we move from one generation to the next. Studies have shown this, as I mentioned at the beginning: the "Y generation" are much more clinically narcissistic than their parents and grandparents. The question is:why?
The Narcissistic Society
Scientific studies have shown how different societies around the world can be either instinctively "collectivist" or "individualist". Again, this may seem like stating the obvious, but it's always good to have solid evidence to dispel the idea that "common sense" notions are not just myths.
Some of the most "individualist" societies in the world are, not surprisingly,"Anglo-Saxon" societies are more individualistic, especially the USA. Staying in the West, at the other end you have Scandinavian society, which is much more instinctively "collectivist". Other societies, such as Japan and China, are also socially collectivist (in spite of being clearly Capitalist), What we mean by "collectivist" is that, for example, in an office environment, workers in collectivist societies take into consideration the unit of the workforce, and the emotional well-being of others. This isn't to mean that they are "better" exactly; rather, a worker's actions in a collectivist society are highly-influenced by his interactions with those around him, and working closely with those around him is the way to get things done. Egoism is a no-no.
In individualist societies, the workplace is a much more dog-eat-dog place, where would be considered weak to not put yourself forward when the opportunity occurs. Self-promotion and doing-down your rivals is considered normal; being a conspicuous "team player" is not really the way to get ahead.
Individualist societies have become more conspicuous in the last thirty years or so. The anecdotal evidence is there, as well as the scientific evidence. In the same way that many countries around the world actively seek to emulate American culture, the same can also be said of the technological and social changes that have happened, especially since the turn of the 21st century. Narcissists are known as having two main attributes: self-love and a lack of empathy for others. In the regard of lack of empathy, Narcissists share an attribute with (far more dangerous) psychopaths (more on them here).
And the problem is, the more individualist a society becomes, the more narcissistic (and potentially psychopathic) its people become, and the less well-inclined people are towards one another. In short, individualist societies seem to lack empathy. Society becomes more dysfunctional, sometimes frighteningly so.
The "Me" generation?
At the start, I talked about how parenting was said to be one (disputed) factor for the "Y" generation showing higher levels of narcissism. While it's not entirely clear if we can simply "blame the parents" - although it certainly could be an environmental factor - there are other factors about the modern working and social environment that make narcissism much easier to "nurture" within an individual.
"Look at my awards!": In the modern work environment, the resume/CV is an essential tool for getting the job you want in your career. Your CV has to be a statement of not who you are, but a statement of what you are. Are you a go-getter or a shrinking violet? It is expected to list all your achievements (no matter if that involves absurd embellishments - more on that in a moment), and treat yourself as less a person than a brand. These expectations naturally would encourage narcissistic behaviour in order to make you sound like you are the best at everything.
Fight for your place: One of the reasons why this is necessary is due to the insecurities that exist in the modern working environment. While in their parents and grandparents generation, "jobs for life" were commonplace, now job insecurity is the norm. For this reason, younger people are obliged to stand out from the others in order to simply get an interview; and if they expect to prosper at the company in the long-term, they will need all their skills in narcissism and doing-down their rivals in order to do so. Thus if they want to be sure of getting noticed in the first place in such an unforgiving work environment, it would be natural to embellish their CV.
"My friends always seem so much happier than me": One of the side-effects of narcissism is depression and mood swings (as well as laziness and arrogance). The explosion of social media in the last ten years - especially the "Facebook generation" - has allowed people to create and manage their own "profile" on social media for their peers to see (and admire). The problem with this is that social media by definition is not the same as reality. Anyone posting pictures on social media, for example, is always going to show pictures of them enjoying themselves with their friends. The more "friends" you have, the more you will see others having a good time. And so, in your mind, it will look like everyone else is having a good time when you are not, even though the reality is different. This feeds a vicious circle of creating a false image of what is really happening. Thus the narcissists' "supply" (i.e. source of admiration) will have to extended further.
Better, faster, higher... : Advertising is everywhere, and the expansion of technology in life has created the impression that things should be expected "now". Even in matters as prosaic as cooking, it sometimes appears that people no longer "have the time" (or patience?) for real cooking. The way that the capabilities of computers and other related technology have grown so quickly has had the knock-on effect of allowing people to think that everything should happen as quickly. Technology comes in and out of fashion in a matter of months. All these factors create a social environment that changes people's "expectation management".
"Expectation management" is considered one of the key "problems" identified in the levels of narcissism described in "Generation Y". Having been raised by parents to believe they could "have it all" because they are "special", real-life provides a nasty slap in the face.
In truth, many of the parents saying these things obviously meant well: the problem is that the social and economic conditions have changed. "Generation Y" cannot expect to get the mortgage, fast car and stable job that his parents did. But his parents didn't know this. Now stuck with a student debt, a zero-hours contract and still living at home with his parents, a "Generation Y" individual can only have the option of living out his narcissistic fantasy on social media, for example - or by abandoning responsibility and getting into financial problems, turning to petty crime, or worse.
One last point to mention is the link between narcissism (and psychopathy) and sex. Like everything else in life, narcissists have a casual and amoral attitude towards sex. For them, it is simply a way to gain temporary pleasure, and meaningful, stable relationships are very difficult for narcissists to hold down. While there is not much reliable research into this subject, the explosive growth of the availability of pornography (e.g. on the internet) has seen numerous studies into its detrimental effect on the psychology of young men (i.e. "Generation Y"), and their attitudes towards the opposite sex. In this sense, technology can be said to be having an undeniable effect on how society behaves - and not always for the better.
There are a combination of factors behind this. Some blame a culture of over-praise from some parents: that with modern-day parenting focusing on telling your child how "special" they are , these children then grow into up into adults who believe it to be literally true. Others are more sceptical of this "blame the parents" attitude, Obviously, all children need to feel "special" in one way or another in order to have a healthy sense of self-esteem. The challenge is knowing where to draw the line, or where to find the right balance between promoting self-esteem but not encouraging unhealthy narcissism.
I've written before about some of the social conditions that can lead to narcissism (also called NPD). What's difficult to deny regarding the scientific evidence (and may seem to be stating the obvious anyway) is how narcissism seems to have expanded through society as we move from one generation to the next. Studies have shown this, as I mentioned at the beginning: the "Y generation" are much more clinically narcissistic than their parents and grandparents. The question is:why?
The Narcissistic Society
Scientific studies have shown how different societies around the world can be either instinctively "collectivist" or "individualist". Again, this may seem like stating the obvious, but it's always good to have solid evidence to dispel the idea that "common sense" notions are not just myths.
Some of the most "individualist" societies in the world are, not surprisingly,"Anglo-Saxon" societies are more individualistic, especially the USA. Staying in the West, at the other end you have Scandinavian society, which is much more instinctively "collectivist". Other societies, such as Japan and China, are also socially collectivist (in spite of being clearly Capitalist), What we mean by "collectivist" is that, for example, in an office environment, workers in collectivist societies take into consideration the unit of the workforce, and the emotional well-being of others. This isn't to mean that they are "better" exactly; rather, a worker's actions in a collectivist society are highly-influenced by his interactions with those around him, and working closely with those around him is the way to get things done. Egoism is a no-no.
In individualist societies, the workplace is a much more dog-eat-dog place, where would be considered weak to not put yourself forward when the opportunity occurs. Self-promotion and doing-down your rivals is considered normal; being a conspicuous "team player" is not really the way to get ahead.
Individualist societies have become more conspicuous in the last thirty years or so. The anecdotal evidence is there, as well as the scientific evidence. In the same way that many countries around the world actively seek to emulate American culture, the same can also be said of the technological and social changes that have happened, especially since the turn of the 21st century. Narcissists are known as having two main attributes: self-love and a lack of empathy for others. In the regard of lack of empathy, Narcissists share an attribute with (far more dangerous) psychopaths (more on them here).
And the problem is, the more individualist a society becomes, the more narcissistic (and potentially psychopathic) its people become, and the less well-inclined people are towards one another. In short, individualist societies seem to lack empathy. Society becomes more dysfunctional, sometimes frighteningly so.
The "Me" generation?
At the start, I talked about how parenting was said to be one (disputed) factor for the "Y" generation showing higher levels of narcissism. While it's not entirely clear if we can simply "blame the parents" - although it certainly could be an environmental factor - there are other factors about the modern working and social environment that make narcissism much easier to "nurture" within an individual.
"Look at my awards!": In the modern work environment, the resume/CV is an essential tool for getting the job you want in your career. Your CV has to be a statement of not who you are, but a statement of what you are. Are you a go-getter or a shrinking violet? It is expected to list all your achievements (no matter if that involves absurd embellishments - more on that in a moment), and treat yourself as less a person than a brand. These expectations naturally would encourage narcissistic behaviour in order to make you sound like you are the best at everything.
Fight for your place: One of the reasons why this is necessary is due to the insecurities that exist in the modern working environment. While in their parents and grandparents generation, "jobs for life" were commonplace, now job insecurity is the norm. For this reason, younger people are obliged to stand out from the others in order to simply get an interview; and if they expect to prosper at the company in the long-term, they will need all their skills in narcissism and doing-down their rivals in order to do so. Thus if they want to be sure of getting noticed in the first place in such an unforgiving work environment, it would be natural to embellish their CV.
"My friends always seem so much happier than me": One of the side-effects of narcissism is depression and mood swings (as well as laziness and arrogance). The explosion of social media in the last ten years - especially the "Facebook generation" - has allowed people to create and manage their own "profile" on social media for their peers to see (and admire). The problem with this is that social media by definition is not the same as reality. Anyone posting pictures on social media, for example, is always going to show pictures of them enjoying themselves with their friends. The more "friends" you have, the more you will see others having a good time. And so, in your mind, it will look like everyone else is having a good time when you are not, even though the reality is different. This feeds a vicious circle of creating a false image of what is really happening. Thus the narcissists' "supply" (i.e. source of admiration) will have to extended further.
Better, faster, higher... : Advertising is everywhere, and the expansion of technology in life has created the impression that things should be expected "now". Even in matters as prosaic as cooking, it sometimes appears that people no longer "have the time" (or patience?) for real cooking. The way that the capabilities of computers and other related technology have grown so quickly has had the knock-on effect of allowing people to think that everything should happen as quickly. Technology comes in and out of fashion in a matter of months. All these factors create a social environment that changes people's "expectation management".
"Expectation management" is considered one of the key "problems" identified in the levels of narcissism described in "Generation Y". Having been raised by parents to believe they could "have it all" because they are "special", real-life provides a nasty slap in the face.
In truth, many of the parents saying these things obviously meant well: the problem is that the social and economic conditions have changed. "Generation Y" cannot expect to get the mortgage, fast car and stable job that his parents did. But his parents didn't know this. Now stuck with a student debt, a zero-hours contract and still living at home with his parents, a "Generation Y" individual can only have the option of living out his narcissistic fantasy on social media, for example - or by abandoning responsibility and getting into financial problems, turning to petty crime, or worse.
One last point to mention is the link between narcissism (and psychopathy) and sex. Like everything else in life, narcissists have a casual and amoral attitude towards sex. For them, it is simply a way to gain temporary pleasure, and meaningful, stable relationships are very difficult for narcissists to hold down. While there is not much reliable research into this subject, the explosive growth of the availability of pornography (e.g. on the internet) has seen numerous studies into its detrimental effect on the psychology of young men (i.e. "Generation Y"), and their attitudes towards the opposite sex. In this sense, technology can be said to be having an undeniable effect on how society behaves - and not always for the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)