Why Cameron's Conservatives are the most incompetent British government ever

I wrote last year about how Cameron's government is possibly the worst-ever British government in modern history. Since that time, that point of view has been only vindicated even further.

Last spring, around the chancellor's "omnishambles" budget, there were a series of cock-ups that made the government seem completely inept, as well as indifferent towards the detrimental effect their policies were having on the economy and British society in general.

If possible, things are now even worse.

 The government's economic policy has been a complete disaster. The UK is now on the verge of entering a unprecedented triple-dip recession. The UK is currently going through its slowest economic recovery (if it can be called that) than even before the Great Depression. Youth unemployment is at near-crippling levels, many of those including people with degrees. Levels of long-term unemployment are at similarly-worrying levels. The vast majority of the jobs that are on offer are part-time or temporary (if not both). All these signs in the job market tell us that, thanks to Osborne's incompetence, the British economy may be going through a permanent structural change in the employment market, so that large parts of the country become comparable with a deprived East European country.

The government's economic policy is centred on paying off the debt. This would be a laudable aim, if the way there are going about it were not more laughable. Thanks to their economic policy, the debt has increased continually, rather than the opposite. The Conservatives use the reasoning of comparing government finances to that of a household, which may seem easy to explain, but is also completely idiotic. You cannot compare running the government to running a household. This is what economists might call confusing micro-economic policy with macro-economic policy. This mistake is easily explained if you think about where government gets its money from: taxpayers.
The government confuses taxpayers to the same income you would get from a job to pay your household outgoings. The government also confuses paying government debt to the same principle as paying off household debt (e.g. a mortgage). The government thinks that if you pay off government debt as fast as you can, by cutting back on public spending regardless of its detriment to its taxpayers, it will be better for the economy. This is like a household cutting back on things like food and fuel in order to pay off a mortgage more quickly. Rather than getting a better deal on your mortgage (paying it off over a longer time frame), the Conservative household would rather starve now. Furthermore, using the same Conservative principle, imagine the household is unemployed. If you cut back on transport costs, for example, you make it more difficult to get a job. So the measure is self-defeating.
This is what the Conservative government have now discovered, too late for the economy. By cutting serious public investment, and cutting back on public spending, you are reducing the opportunities for taxpayers to make more money; and when you make the economic situation more difficult for your taxpayers, your tax revenue goes down. Thus increasing the debt, not reducing it. When the economy is doing badly, this is the time for government to act; when the economy is doing well, the government can back off. The Obama administration has known this all along, and explains why the US is on the way to a steady recovery. The Conservatives' therefore have shown that they are utterly incapable of understanding how the economy works.
Furthermore, George Osborne still says that the sign of the economy's decline is even further justification for his policy of reducing the debt at all costs. Going back to the mortgage analogy, this is like a household starving to death to pay off the mortgage stating that their starvation is a sign that they're doing well! I'm not sure what Osborne's mindset is these days, but he's either: completely irresponsible in knowing he's wrong but refusing to admit it, or; completely delusional, and in need of mental help. In either case, a rational or competent Prime Minister would dismiss him. But David Cameron is neither rational or competent either.

While Osborne is responsible for the government's disastrous and idiotic economic policy, his long-term friend David Cameron supports him, and meanwhile is largely responsible for the government's foreign policy, in particular Europe. Now that Cameron has officially stated his party's stance towards Europe, he has displayed another example of his amateur ineptness at politics. Cameron has stated that if he wins the next general election, he will give the public a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU, based on the assumption he will get back some powers (which, he doesn't say, or know, yet).
There are a host of reasons why Cameron has shown appalling judgement (here), as well as creating a disaster in the making (here). In short, Cameron has offered a short-term solution to papering over the cracks of his party's disunity, by offering a ticking time-bomb, for both his party and, potentially, the country.
Apart from its reception in the UK, Cameron's European "strategy" of getting a better deal can only work if his threat to leave concerns the EU, and Germany in particular. But thanks to thirty years of government under-investment in the manufacturing sector (as I described here), the EU paying more for the UK's exports  is not a huge worry for them if the UK leaves. Many of them would just shrug their shoulders at the silliness of the British government, and carry on without us. The UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK. Cameron doesn't seem to realise this, however.
So Cameron has followed up Osborne with a potentially disastrous and idiotic European policy. For even in the best-case scenario (that he is re-elected, wins sizable EU concessions, and wins the referendum), there will still be a Eurosceptic wing to his party, as now. Cameron doesn't even want the UK to leave the EU, but he is willing to put everything at risk for a relatively small gain.
I wonder if he's ever played poker.

At the same time, Cameron has given further ground to Alex Salmond, effectively Prime Minister of a semi-autonomous Scotland. For Cameron's newly-stated European policy plays into the hands of those who want Scottish independence. The reasoning for Nationalists is this: why put at risk Scotland's position in the EU (and even if not threatened, potentially reduced, as part of a re-negotiated UK deal)? Rather than wait for Euro-sceptic England's potential withdrawal in (for example) 2017 to drag out Scotland as well (joined at the hip, as they are in the UK), much better for Scotland to engage with the EU on its own terms as a separate state, by supporting the independence referendum in 2014.
Thus by 2020, Scotland could be in the EU in its own right, and the "remainder of the UK" out. Again, Cameron shows up his complete lack of strategic thinking.

Then there is the issue of defence, another issue that Cameron has completely screwed up. He recently made a speech that the Algerian hostage crisis highlighted the need for a British defence strategy for North Africa, involving troops and additional ordinance. He suggested this at the same time as supporting his governments ongoing plan to reduce the British army to a level (eighty thousand men) that is lower than was that of the German army's punishment at the terms of the Treaty Of Versailles (who were reduced to a standing army of one hundred thousand men). In other words, it could be argued that, in earlier days, Cameron and his government's treatment of the British army would have been equated to that of a foreign conqueror on a defeated enemy. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the service chiefs have similar views now.
Not only does this attitude of obsessive parsimony to the army show incredible arrogance by the party that is traditionally supposed to best defend the interests of the armed forces. More than that, it is another example of the chronic lack of foresight and future planning. How does the government expect Britain to defend itself, let alone fulfill current and future commitments abroad?
It could be argued that such incompetence towards its defence policy is tantamount to an abrogation of its duty to defend the nation.

This "lack of foresight and planning" is an ongoing theme with Cameron's government - a polite way of saying that they haven't got a clue how to run the country. But this is, in effect, the reality.

Not only is the government completely incompetent in its key roles of the economy, defence, and European relations. It also has a completely incompetent and self-defeating immigration policy.
The UKBA has been found out to be one of the most incompetent government agencies of all. Again, government cutbacks play a part in this, as fresh scandals explain. UKBA staff are overwhelmed with the workload relative to their staffing sizes; as a consequence, airports are filled with queues more redolent of a banana republic, and tens of thousands of visa applications (including passports and supporting documents) have been lost or forgotten about. Months pass without a response for many applicants, and that is just in the UK.
Then there are the government's idiotic immigration rules themselves, that are causing universities to pull their hair out in frustration, as thousands of potential foreign students forego on the chance to get a British education because they are either unable to get a visa, or don't have the patience to wait months for one when they can much more easily go elsewhere. For these people, getting a visa to the UK seems no less difficult than getting a visa to North Korea.
Lastly, there are the government's immigration rules that are less incompetent, as inhumane. British nationals married to spouses from outside the EU or EEA (meaning those married to Americans, Australians and Kiwis as many as any other country) can only live with their spouses (and children) in the UK if they earn nearly £20,000 a year, or have a similar amount in savings (more if they have children). In other words, if you are British, not rich, and are married to someone from the wrong country, you cannot live in the UK. If the government's defence policy is something close to an abrogation of its duty to defend the country, the government's policy towards these unfortunate Britons is something close to a denial of the basic right of residence to its own people.

There are countless other examples of ministerial and governmental incompetence.
One of the most recent ones is the fiasco over the implementation of the "Green Deal", the government's supposed "flagship" environmental policy, that was meant to update the environmental standards of homes across the UK, and keep the related industries with permanent, long-term employment. However, in spite of the government's outward support for these industries, lack of basic government planning has meant there is no work at all for these industries, as very few home-owners know about the "Green Deal", let alone signed up to it. Bone-headed government thinking has therefore left key "green energy" industries out on a limb.

Thus in the space of less than a few years, the Conservative government has reduced the UK to same level of government competence as found in a Third World banana republic.

The title of the article is "why Cameron's Conservatives are the most incompetent British government". I have explained the "how", but not the real why.
The real reason "why" is because those at the top, from the supposed "cream" of society, have little idea about how to run government and the key institutions that run modern-day Britain. This is down to education, as explained in more detail here.

How Britain's Elite Stays In Power

The average foreigner thinks of Britain as symbolizing the equal, yet contradictory, ideals of democracy and tradition. Foreign tourists love the UK for its symbols: The Royal Family, The Houses Of Parliament, and so on. Modern Britain is seen by foreigners and Brits alike as a synthesis, brought about through continual compromises.

The UK itself is a bizarre creation, that confuses foreigners endlessly. Modern British society is a post-imperial creation, a melting pot of populations that have been arriving to "the homeland" since the end of the Second World War. But Britain's institutions have faced repeated scandals ever since the financial crisis, such to the extent that it's hard for people to know who to look up to as moral icons, or which of its cherished institutions can be trusted or believed any more.
 It started with the scandals that have engulfed the banking sector, followed by the expenses scandal, followed by the Murdoch Press scandal that has implicated MPs as well as the police. Then there is the tax avoidance scandal, the crisis of confidence that has hit the BBC due to the Jimmy Savile scandal, many scandals involving how badly our public institutions are ran (such as the NHS, the immigration service etc.), and the corrupt relationship between politicians and government contractors. Britain in the early 21st century faces a series of systematic structural failings that bode badly for Britain's future, with governing politicians unable to deal with them or make a viable plan for the future. Britain is almost literally falling apart at the seams because of government failure. The routine incompetence and impunity of the governing elite is just another symptom of the dysfunctional state of those in power.

The institutions that wield power in the UK have root in the political convulsions of the 17th century. The constitutional monarchy as we know it, the Bank Of England, and the functions of the Houses Of Parliament all came about through compromises made in the 17th century.
That century began with Britain having its first all-conquering monarch, James I, who ruled the entire island of Britain. James' legacy lives with us today in the form of the King James Bible, and The Union Jack ("Jack" being a shortened version of the Latin for James), not to mention Guy Fawkes, the famous would-be assassin and terrorist. For all the things that James in responsible for that we take for granted today, there were many more that people wanted him quickly forgotten for. For James was also an inveterate schemer who ruled the United Kingdom (parliament refused to allow him the title of King Of Great Britain) through divide and rule; an approach that would be more associated today with the likes of Richard Nixon. Although not a war-like ruler, this was mostly (also like Nixon) through an act of amoral expediency. As much as only Nixon could have gone to China, only a schemer like James was the man to make peace with Spain.
He also passed on to his eldest son, Charles, the arrogance of power, but not his father's carefully-honed political antennae. The Civil War, Charles' execution, and the Commonwealth, were a result of Charles' stubbornness and double-dealing, that would have been prevented if Charles had been more flexible.
As it was, even after the Restoration of the monarchy, both of Charles' sons (Charles II and James II) still created conflict with parliament, finally resulting the the "Glorious Revolution" of 1689 that deposed the openly-Catholic James II and installed his daughter (Mary) and Dutch nephew (William) jointly in his stead.
The "Glorious Revolution" was the real birth of the constitutional monarchy as we know it today, for it made the monarchy effectively the property of parliament and (symbolically, at least) the people. This was put to the test very quickly when parliament stated that the monarch had to be an Anglican. After Queen Anne died in 1714, the title of king passed to a distant Protestant German relative who barely spoke English, rather than Anne's closest relative, James Francis, her brother from her father James II's second marriage, who was a Catholic. Thus the "Jacobite" cause was founded, which rumbled on for the next half century.

The British establishment from that point onwards has learned how to do what is necessary to stay in power. While every other major European power has experienced revolution to bring about social and political change, Britain has stood alone in being able to withstand the "reactionary forces", pursuing a consistent policy of incremental change. British people, compared to their European counterparts, don't "do" revolution. The closest comparison is perhaps Spain, but even they went through many decades of Republican government before the constitutional monarchy was restored.
But the British establishment is more than just the monarchy. The "establishment" really includes all those that have a vested interest in maintaining the current hierarchy, which means the aristocracy, the banking sector, "public schools", and so on. 
The real legacy of the "Glorious Revolution" was a gradual melding together of the monarchy and the parliament (which had a large aristocratic element in any case). The two needed each other for legitimacy and continuity, rather like how the corporate elite maintain the political elite nowadays in the USA. This is one of the things that the UK and the USA have in common about their respective "establishments": they both have decades (even centuries) of experience in how to occasionally surrender powers to the populace in return for a greater hold on their positions.

The "establishment" therefore breeds unswerving loyalty and sheep-like servility in the electorate through maintaining an illusion of democratic power, while making sure their own positions are inviolate.

There are a number of ways it can do this.

First is the idea of a "narrative". America has its own narrative that everyone, from the lowliest person upwards to the "aspiring classes" buys into: the American Dream. The reality, of course, is very different. As is the same in the UK, where the"establishment" continues to give out the message of an "island nation", somehow different from the rest of Europe, and thus where "European ideas" should be treated with suspicion. This is another reason why much of the "establishment" is anti-European: it presents the wider populace with other, dangerous, ideas. The "establishment" is only pro-European when it thinks it can get something out of it for itself. The idea of a unified Europe terrifies it, as it would lose much of its power and privilege.

Second is the idea of the UK being a "civilised country", where people are good and caring towards each other, and where everyone is looked after. Much of this is simply talk. Under this is the "establishment" meaning of a "civilised country": where people shut up and don't complain, follow the rules, are respectful to one's superiors and "keep calm and carry on". This is another reason why British people don't "do" revolution: the "establishment" tells us its "un-British".

Third is the idea of Britain holding the "mother of parliaments". The Houses Of Parliament are two parliaments, one of them (The House Of Lords) entirely unelected, and mostly appointees by governments past and present. In other words, it is utterly corrupt in any objective meaning of the word. Until the end of the 20th century, many of them were there through "noble birth". Since the former Labour government "reformed" it, many of these nobles were replaced by government appointees, easily subject to influence and machinations.
The Houses Of Parliament are populated by people who are generally either there through (in the case of Conservatives) being from the right family or having the right connections, or (in the case of the other parties) there through connections or being involved in the political classes from young adulthood. In other words, the majority of these MPs have little grasp of "real life", and even if they do, are subject to influence from the "establishment" in any case. Labour's last tenure in office is a case in point: their politicians made some cosmetic improvements to society, but also vastly indulged the banking sector (leading to the current financial crisis), allowed the private sector to increase its influence in education, and made university more inaccessible to the poor by introducing tuition fees. Once the more "establishment-friendly" Conservatives were in power, these changes were accelerated, and government funding to the public sector dried up. Any attempt at reform of the democratic system beyond a cosmetic one (such as the "AV" referendum) is rubbished as being pointless and unsuitable to Britain.
In other words, the "mother of parliaments" is a sham, for it does not hold the "establishment" to account for its actions, but instead perpetuates its existence, while feeding a false narrative to the electorate about necessity of its existence.

Fourth is the idea that Britain has the best education system in the world. The USA also makes this claim, and in the same way, both Britain and America are right. The UK and USA have the best education systems for rich people in the world. "Oxbridge" and the "Ivy League" are what keeps the Anglophone "establishments" on both sides of the Atlantic alive and well. These are the foundations that keep things standing (and the "establishment" far above their respective populations). Its hardly surprising that so many up-and-coming "nouveau riche" from China and elsewhere are keen to study in the UK and USA, when both countries have the best education that money can afford.
The "establishment" maintains the fiction that these educational institutions can only be maintained through charges that exclude all but the richest from attending, and the the country needs these institutions to protect the future of the country for everyone else. There is an alternative answer to this, and it exists in the educational experience of the Soviet Union. While I am no Communist or fan of Communism in itself, it is undeniable that the Soviet Union had one of the most advanced and progressive educational systems (relative to its cost to the population) in the world at the time. The Russian education system did not collapse after the Bolshevik Revolution, as its "establishment" guessed. On the contrary, over time, it thrived as never before. Cuba's education and health system tells us a similar story.
"Oxbridge", so the "establishment" tells us, exists for the benefit of the whole country, even though it is only the children from the "establishment" who can really afford to go there. The Russian experience tells us that there is a possible alternative to the status quo.

Fifth, and last, is the popular romanticism and trivialisation of the class system in the media and collective mindset. The media (with a few honorable exceptions) is also part of the "establishment", and maintains its status, consciously or not. Britain has one of the most entrenched class systems in the world, with the lowest levels of social mobility in Europe. This is a fact. And yet the media and popular opinion often make light of this. Although the country has made reforms to open up society on the surface, social mobility has decreased in recent decades, to unprecedented low levels comparable with our GDP. This is because the money has simply been sucked up to the top, undoing any progression that was made in the decades following the Second World War.
The public's bovine respect for the monarchy and other British "institutions" is another symptom of the popular trivialisation of the class system. More seriously, the "establishment" finds it easy to distract criticism of the class system by highlighting the fact that many people now consider themselves to be "middle class". This is not a fact on the ground, merely a point of perception, and a complete illusion.
What is "middle class"? Thinking you are "middle class" is simply a sign that you have bought into the idea that you think you are socially better than someone else, and makes it all the easier for the "establishment" to sit back and smile at these simple people's delusions. As far as the "establishment" is concerned, a commoner can call himself the King Of England if it makes him happy and docile. In reality, the so-called "middle class" are now worse-off than they have been for decades. If being "middle class" is about lifestyle opportunities and real income, then the real "middle class" family these days should have a combined income of at least £70,000 per annum. Anything less is just self-delusion. And it is this mass delusion by people who think they are "middle class" that keeps the "establishment" happy.

It is these five strands of thought that keep the "establishment" in power in the UK. It is only by openly challenging these ideas that real change can come to the UK.

Adoption, Narcissism and psychopathy

I wrote at the start of the month here about the relationship between family breakdown, the individualist structure of modern society, and narcissism. I said there that there seemed to be conclusive anecdotal and scientific evidence that suggested a link between narcissism formed in early childhood, and the dysfunction of the parental unit.
 In other words, the perceived rise of individualism and the "me" culture in modern society I saw as stemming from the rise of the "baby boom" after the Second World War, and the erosion of the stable family unit/parenting skills. Thus when the parents themselves become narcissistic, the children they raise are bound be be at a higher than average risk of developing the same (or even worse) psychological disorders.

We know now that many psychological disorders, such as narcissism, ASPD and psychopathy, have their origins in early childhood. Narcissism (and psychopathy), apart from any biological factors, stem from an unstable and dysfunctional parental relationship in a child's first years. The issue is even more complicated when the child is an adoptee or foster child.

For decades, adoptions have been seen by many governments as the answer to the problem of unwanted children; either as the result of family poverty, rape, or any number of other social factors. It seems clear that as the level of social instability increases and destroys the family unit (as I mentioned in the previously-related article), the rate unwanted children is bound to increase by a correlating amount.
Adoption was seen by governments and psychologists as providing a stable family environment (provided the parents-to-be were properly screened) that allowed the adoptee the right environment to develop healthily. However, more recent research has revealed a previously-unexplored reality. That although many adopted children do develop normally, an alarmingly-disproportionate number of them develop psychological disorders - such as narcissism, and in extreme cases, psychopathy.

A closer look at the prison population, and the biographies of notorious serial killers, tells us a different story to the one told by government. Many of the most notorious serial killers were adopted children; and the proportion of adoptees in the prison population (and violent offenders) is significantly higher (as much as five times higher) than their proportion of the general population. The fact that adoptees feature so disproportionately in crime statistics is highly revealing, as well as an indictment of the how badly this issue is downplayed.

There are two contributing factors to this trend.
Because adopted children are severed from their biological mother, the damage this does to the baby had been previously-downplayed (partly because of the obvious difficulty of analyzing the psychology of newly-born babies). Lacking a mother's warmth is a huge blow to the infant's needs, and makes it more likely that the baby will become either self-absorbed or worse if not remedied quickly. So from the start, adoptees are psychologically fragile, even before we factor into it the prospective parents.
Next is the psychology of the adopting parents themselves. What is the real motive for them wanting the child? This factor cannot be emphasized strongly enough, and can make the difference between a well-adjusted adoptee, and mal-adjusted one. Adopting parents who want a child for the sake of their own vanity (such as to fill a void in their life, or as a source of love) are running the risk of making the adoptee's psychology even more dysfunctional, and making the likelihood of the child developing narcissistic/psychopathic traits all the more certain. Narcissistic parents and parenting makes the child feel like they are looking after two adult children. Such parents do not really "love" their adopted children, they need them, as a form of Narcissistic Supply. A parent-to-be who already has Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is the last person who should be responsible for the upbringing of an adoptee. As a result, the adoptee's psychology becomes even more self-centred and narcissistic: the worse possible result. If the child is then not given a proper moral grounding either, the child can even develop into a psychopath.
Then there is also the factor of the social conditions of the parents themselves: adopted children raised with parents from a socially-deprived background, regardless of good intentions, may well do more harm than good. As mentioned in the previous post on this issue, social deprivation and economic instability can cause great psychological harm to the already-insecure mental health of an adoptee.

Set with the wrong-minded parents in the wrong social conditions, an adopted child can be akin to a psychological time-bomb. 

This is why emphasis should be put on doing extensive research into the motives and social background of the prospective parents as well as the child, in order to avoid such a situation. Unfortunately, the damage for many has already been done, as any trawl through adoption forums can tell you.

I explained in my article "Individualism, Narcissism and Psychopathy" how modern society has helped to gestate these psychological disorders. Social breakdown creates broken families; broken families create unwanted children; unwanted children can become wanted by insecure and narcissistic "parents"; and the adopted children's psychology becomes even more dysfunctional.

This is a vicious circle, and one that even the UK government is exacerbating. The Education Minister, Micheal Gove (an adopted child, with a personality possibly indicative of some form of narcissism/psychopathy) is eager to make it easier for parents to adopt children. The horrible irony is not lost here: that a man who was an adopted child, and possible psychopath, wishes to make it easier for other adopted children to become potential psychopaths.

Perhaps there is a method to the madness after all.

A more general description of the main attributes of Psychopathy, see here.

Jimmy Savile's psychopathy and the British psyche

The psychopathy of Jimmy Savile is now well-known and documented, and is a stark example of what happens when a psychopath attains a position of power.

The fact that he was a predatory paedophile has masked over the fact that he was also Britain's most prolific sex offender, regardless of the age and gender of the victims. The majority were underage girls, but his paedophilic tendency is merely a detail to the overall horrific nature of his personality.

His personality fits all the characteristics and behaviour of a psychopath. The gross narcissism was there, with the love of himself, and his self-made opulent lifestyle. The sense of entitlement, that he could do whatever he liked whenever he liked, was constant. All psychopaths are obsessive about control and psychological power, as well as utterly amoral. This explains why another key indicator of psychopathy is shameless sexual promiscuity and sadistic perversion.While Savile was not a serial killer like another infamous British psychopath, Ian Brady (more about him here), his psychopathy was instead displayed through his shameless and shockingly prolific sexual behaviour.
 He called his mother "The Duchess", and preserved her clothing carefully decades after her death in the early seventies. Did he do this out of "love", or was it another form of Secondary Narcissism (love through association)? If his mother was "The Duchess", then that would make him "The Duke" upon her death.
Like a typical psychopath, Savile was outwardly charming, but this was merely his psychopathic "mask" that hid the cold and calculating monster beneath. The "monster" beneath the "mask" was best revealed in Louis Theroux's TV profile of him: Savile, while outwardly charming, became hostile and intimidating at a moment's notice if he thought his outward persona was under threat.

Some of the most successful psychopaths (i.e. those which hide it most effectively) are philanthropists. Savile is perhaps one of the best-known examples of this to date in Britain, at least that we know of. The philanthropy is a shield, another extension of the "mask" - and a very effective one, as had shown with Savile in the end. This made him feel (rightly, as it turned out) almost untouchable, thus justifying his own God-like self-image. As long as he was publicly seen to be charitable and caring, the real sexually-depraved, narcissistic and sadistic monster beneath was free to do as he liked. He was given free-rein in hospitals and prisons. His cunning was such that he preyed on sexual opportunism. His preference for victims from children's homes, the psychologically disturbed and the vulnerable was another indication that he chose victims who were even less likely to be believed.
One of the most bizarre incidents involved his long-term friendship with another infamous serial-killer and misogynist, Peter Sutcliffe: he duped the boxer Frank Bruno to shake Sutcliffe's hand in prison, not realising he was the infamous serial killer. This is just one small example of the psychological power-play constant in Savile's personality. His annual festive dinner with Margaret Thatcher is another, as was his continual peddling for influence within the royal family.

Savile successfully groomed his self-image for his entire professional life as an entertainer, especially in the circles of the establishment. In that sense, there was something of the "court jester" about Savile, albeit a depraved one that was also a "dirty old man". For the entire second half of his life, Savile became part and parcel of the establishment; a sinister and freakish psychopath that hid his true nature "in plain sight" as he hob-nobbed with the rich and famous.
But I also believe that some aspects of British cultural psyche played into his hands, for depraved psychopaths like him truly thrive when there is the right "human environment": a collective culture that is callous towards sexual responsibility and indulgent of deviancy.

 "Uncle Jimmy", as he called himself, was also one of Britain's most famous "eccentrics".
There was his odd fashion sense - the track-suit - that marked him as being unique. This was another extension of his narcissism, attention-seeking to make him instantly identifiable, as well as conspicuously wearing gold chains and rings, and smoking huge, phallus-like cigars. But because such "eccentricity" is considered a natural part of the British psyche, it was tolerated and indulged without question. This "eccentric" side of the British psyche also hides a darker truth: that what might sometimes be called "eccentricity" in complacent eyes, should really be called something much more sinister.

During the decades of sexual abuse, sex crimes were not taken as seriously by the police as they are now. This reflected a casual indifference in British society towards sex acts. These things were never spoken about in polite conversation, with chauvinism and "naughtiness" the frivolous norm, and a complacency towards the behaviour of "dirty old men". It was in this atmosphere that Jimmy Savile thrived.

And yet this "atmosphere" still exists in British psyche today: casual chauvinism is the norm: "The Sun" still has its "Page Three"; anyone who has been to resorts like Magaluf will know about the rampant sexual depravity that goes on - far higher than in, say, German resorts. The British are sex-obsessed yet sexually-illiterate; have among the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and broken families in Europe; have the most irresponsible attitudes to alcohol in Europe, and as a result, night-time Britain often resembles a war-zone when the bars close.

Yet this is all part of "British Culture", supposedly. And Jimmy Savile - in the way he exploited that culture -  is partly a product of that.

The state of the British economy and its post-Imperial future

As I wrote in an earlier post here, "The Future Of Britain" is written by its past. Any national economy has to have a valid and sustainable model to grow.

Britain had been struggling to adapt its economy in relation to the world and its own population since the end of the Second World War; by the end of the seventies, the new Conservative government followed the economic thinking of the Monetarist school. An inefficient manufacturing and public sector was seen to blame for many of the problems that existed; the private sector was seen as the most efficient sector, therefore this was promoted by the Thatcher government, while at the same time killing the power of the unions to control employees pay rights.
The Conservatives, due to their background, were naturally more minded to trust the opinion of The City, which up to this point had played a minor role in the British economy. Influenced by the Monetarist, laissez-faire approach, the complacent arrogance and ignorance of the Conservative government led them to believe that the British economy did not need a strongly-supported manufacturing base to the economy. In fact, many of them associated factories and manufacturing with backwardness, union militancy and inefficiency. It was the government's belief that an expansion of a booming financial sector was Britain's way forward in the post-modern age: with a strong financial sector, everything else would fall into place and grow along with it. It would be a sign of progress, therefore, that Britain would no longer need a real manufacturing base.

Up to the end of the seventies, Britain had a large manufacturing base that produced exports. Although it had its inefficiencies, the modest income of these industries was allowed to wither by the government and an ignorant private sector; rather than invest to regain their competitive edge, they were cut down, slice by slice, to maximise profits through minimising costs (i.e. laying-off the workforce and relocating premises). The manufacturing base became an early casualty to "globalisation", as companies moved their factories abroad. As was already said, the government turned a blind eye to this as it saw the financial sector as the future of Britain. The incoming Labour government in 1997 continued with this willful ignorance and complacency, continuing to massage the ego of the financial sector further. By the start of the 21st century, resting the hopes on the financial sector was the only hope to keep Britain's economy going, as there was very little else left to support it. Manufacturing was minimal, as "service industries" had replaced manufacturing. Even the agricultural sector had become unprofitable due to the lop-sided effect on the price of imports from the strong pound (courtesy of The City). All was good, as long as the economy kept booming.

The results of this thinking are clear to see now. Believing themselves to be infallible, the financial sector quickly began to forget the most basic rules of economics (let alone ethics) in order to make the most profit possible. The City and the government encouraged an expansion in credit lending, as well as making people see their own homes as an investment rather than a roof over their heads. By 2007, the whole system in Britain that was creating the financial-backed boom was shown to be the complete fraud that it had been all along. Ireland used an almost identical model, to the same sorry result.

This explains why Britain in 2013 has a completely dysfunctional and lop-sided economy, unsustainable in any real sense of the word. The best way to explain this, apart from in layman's terms, is to compare the British model to other economies and their models around the world.
In order for a nation to grow, it needs growth supported by exports. A few countries can get around this by being financial centres, such as Singapore, Hong Kong (although not technically an independent state) and Switzerland. This is the model that the British Conservatives aimed (and still aim) to imitate. But, by nature, such countries have a generally small, highly-skilled and educated workforce, which fits in well with the financial sector. Britain has none of these, except for London and the South-east (I'll come back to this point later in a moment).
For a country to have exports, there are generally two paths to success: either produce demanded products (such as Germany, the Far East and the USA); or have a demanded resource, such as oil (The Gulf States, Central Asia, the USA, Russia, etc.), precious metals (Africa, Mongolia etc.), coffee beans, whatever. Without either of these paths, the chances of economic growth are limited.

The Conservatives still believe that Britain can be ran like Singapore, but this thinking merely displays their blinkered London-centric mentality and economic ignorance of the rest of the country, never mind their complete ignorance of economics.

I said that only London and the South-east compare economically to places like Singapore; the rest of Britain in 2013 feels more like a neglected colonial appendage to a London city-state - the "Kaliningrad" of London, to use a Russian metaphor. Economically, there is London and the South-east; and then there is everywhere else. Greater London's economy is still flourishing based on the financial sector and related services. Meanwhile, the other regions of the UK are an a different economic country, dependent on the success of London somehow trickling through to them. If nothing changes, the future of Britain will be this: to be the "Empire Of London" in all but name; a wealthy London supporting its neglected and dysfunctional regional "colonies", made economic dependencies of the Imperial Capital.
Fifty years ago, the economy of the UK was far more balanced, as the manufacturing sectors of the North and the Midlands actually contributed much more to the economy. But no longer. Sold a lie by the government thirty years ago, it is Britain as a country overall that is suffering the results of that complacent idiocy.

Germany thrives still because its economy is balanced; its manufacturing sector was continually nurtured by government. Turkey is an up-and-coming power due to the investment thrown into its manufacturing; with a similar-sized population and dynamic approach like Germany, Turkey has a great opportunity to match Germany as a regional power in the medium and long-term.

Britain, sadly, has little future under the economic orthodoxy of its establishment. If you imagine rich Singapore controlling a economically run-down South-East Asia, you might be close to the truth to what future "Britain" as an economic power holds, as a wealthy and ignorant London establishment neglects the unfashionable and depressed corners of its "British Islands Empire".
And some of the establishment have the gall to question why rich London should support its poor regions.
Because you made them poor, that's why!

Individualism, Narcissism, and psychopathy in modern society

The rise of the culture of individualism has been blamed for the breakdown of the family unit in the Western world over the last forty years. This is nothing new, and there have been many studies done over the years on the subject. I don't want to go over the same ground; instead, I am more interested in the psychological grounding of this trend, and the psychological implications it has had on society, that we can see all around us, under the surface.

I said that individualism has caused the breakdown of the family, but Western society's change began in the "baby boom" generation after the Second World War. That came about at the same time as unprecedented levels of rising prosperity in Western society, allowing children in the West to experience previously-unknown levels of parental attention. By the sixties, this prosperity created a greater emphasis on "self-improvement" and "individual achievement" in children, resulting in a greater degree of people's self-awareness generally. This culture of self-expression and exploration, and a greater tolerance of diversity of thought therefore created an unprecedented level of narcissism in children growing up in this social environment.
As long as this occurred at the same time as a healthy economy, this was not overtly harmful to society. The social culture of the West was radically different by the end of the sixties than what existed ten years previously, and was a direct result of both rising prosperity and rising self-awareness in Western society.
But by the seventies, the economy had become unstable, and one half of the equation (improving social conditions and rising self-awareness) had been destroyed. The effect on society was almost immediate: a culture of rising self-awareness had now grown to one of increasing narcissism, but in an unstable socio-economic climate. The collective psychology of Western society now became more dysfunctional, as an increasingly narcissistic society was unable to properly deal with a change in economic circumstances. The result was more family breakdown, and more crime. Thus children born of narcissistic parents (such as those in the social conditions of the "baby boom" generation) are even more likely to be narcissistic, if not outright psychopathic, when you combine narcissistic parenting with an unstable social environment.

When I talk about "narcissism", we mean Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), which, with Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD), is one half of the psychological conditions required to create Psychopathy. I wrote here about what the medical definition of psychopathy is, as an (until recently) under-examined and virulent psychological plague on society, and how it can be seen as the cause of much of the problems in human society.
Narcissism (NPD) is largely a result of environmental factors: a combination of parental dominance/indifference/excessive adoration and/or abuse in the child's formative years. Instability in the family unit, such as separation and parental conflict also contribute to the problem. Narcissism results from the child's inability to see healthy and suitable psychological support from the parents and elders, as mentioned: the child then begins to see itself as the only reliable place to receive support, becomes self-absorbed and misanthropic. A narcissistic personality sees itself as grandiose, entitled to superior treatment, and abusive towards others it sees as inferior to itself (i.e. everyone), who it sees more as objects to be used rather than real people. A narcissist cannot take criticism easily, and refuses to take responsibility for his own actions; he finds it difficult to focus on one task (be it a job or a relationship) for a long time, as his grandiose nature makes it difficult to "waste" time on what he sees as fruitless pursuits. Cynical towards humankind in general, he finds it hard to trust people, and thus have many real friendships; superficial, his emotions are shallow and not to be taken at face value. In personal relationships, the narcissist uses partners as objects of his own amusement, causing emotional distress and potentially long-last psychological damage.
The above characteristics, when combined with ASPD (Anti-Social Personality Disorder) create the dysfunctional and amoral personality of a psychopath.

The increase in economic instability in the seventies therefore created the knock-on effect of familial instability, exacerbating the conditions suitable for incubating NPD in children. This effect is then multiplied over the generations; parents born of the "baby boom" generation, potentially narcissistic and dysfunctional in their own right, made the likelihood of causing NPD in their children all the more possible. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence to link the rise in consumerism as part of the modern Capitalist economy over the last forty years with the concurrent reported steep rise in narcissism in society.

The unstable economic climate of the seventies also destroyed the "Post-war Consensus" in the West; Western economies, such at the USA and UK in particular, saw the former Keynesian economic model as discredited. Monetarism, which emphasized the downsizing of government and social bonds, and the emphasis on individualist pursuit, became the new model to follow. While the economy improved over the next twenty-five years in both the USA and UK, the levels of inequality increased to unprecedented levels - the gap between the salary of the average CEO and his workers had increased tenfold in thirty years, while the salary of the average worker had only slightly improved, if at all, in real terms. For those at the bottom ten per cent, their earnings have fallen.

Monetarism, and the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand that inspired it, may even be compared with the economics and ideology of psychopathy put into practice. Psychopaths, because they are amoral, cunning, ambitious and promiscuous, act like a psychological plague on human society; literally spreading their psychopathic seed, and the unstable family conditions required for it to gestate in their offspring, they create more psychopaths in their unloved and misanthropic children.
Psychopaths cause chaos, and want to cause chaos because they gain pleasure and power from it, in equal measure. The Monetarist economic model, and its contemporary successors in the USA and the UK (The Tea Party, formed by the billionaire Koch brothers; and the Conservative government, intent on transforming and shrinking the public sector), is an ideological justification for the destruction of the social unit, and for destroying belief in government overall. 
Like Ayn Rand's ideology, Monetarism justifies itself by saying it advances individual aspiration, innovation  and achievement, like the Capitalist economies of medieval states like the Venetian Republic did, for example. This is a misnomer, and a smokescreen. For a start, the Venetian Republic was much more state-controlled than contemporary capitalists like to admit, as well as creating some progressive social measures to improve society (such as a rudimentary form of "NHS"). Secondly, by focusing on individualism as the primary method of improving the economy and society, it becomes an inherently misanthropic ideology; as all motives are seen through pure self-interest, cynicism in human nature becomes the norm. If people exist to simply get what they can more themselves, the motivation for co-operation decreases.
Ayn Rand argued that co-operation in society only exists through mutual self-interest: companies caring for the wider environment, for example, because they see the long-term benefits. But there is little evidence for this in reality. Companies are far more likely to do the bare minimum to benefit society, and will only behave in an altruistic way when compelled by government instruction; the same is true for individuals when there is no altruist motive. Rand's book, "The Virtue Of Selfishness" makes such counter-intuitive logic (that self-interest benefits society, while altruism destroys it), and turns the moral compass of society on its head. Thus people are poor simply through their own actions, people are made rich through purely their own actions, and charity becomes a counter-productive indulgence (as Ayn Rand thought herself).
Thus caring selflessly for others is akin to stupidity (if not outright evil), and human motive is reduced to pure self-interest: "he's helping me because he wants something, not because he cares about me", for example.

This is why Conservatives always emphasize self-improvement as the best method out of poverty, while conveniently ignoring the natural advantage of the wealth which they were born into. It is no coincidence that Conservatives are more likely to be rich; those that were not already born into comfort and wealth, most likely made their wealth through moral flexibility, if not outright ruthlessness and inhumanity. In other words, they are likely to be Narcissists, if not outright Psychopaths.

An economy based on these principles is most likely to create social inequality and sporadic bouts of  economic chaos, which inevitably benefits those already at the top. The West, especially the USA and UK (where Monetarist policies are at their most virulent), has therefore created an individualist (and more psychopathic) society that is predisposed to perpetuate itself; greater individualism in society, greater family dysfunction, and greater economic instability are all conditions that will create a greater frequency of NPD and Psychopathy in society as a whole, which will create further chaos, and so on.

There is also much that links the psychopathic factors in Capitalism with that of the earlier human hunter-gatherer instinct; and in this sense, Capitalism is simply an adaptation of the hunter-gatherer mentality applied to a higher stage of evolution.

In other words, using this projection, narcissism and psychopathy will continue to grow like a virus throughout Capitalist society as long as the social and economic conditions allow it to.