Psychopathy and crime: from the boardroom to the sink estate. Linking crime, poverty, economics and government.

Psychopaths comprise a small percentile of the population at large (commonly estimated at 1%). These individuals differ from the rest of the population because, research has shown, their brains have a dysfunction.
A small part of the brain called the amygdala is generally-understood to be responsible for forming empathy with others: a person who lacks empathy lacks the emotional understanding of how others feel, and therefore lacks the knowledge of how to react to it properly. It is this "empathy circuit" that makes people behave in a caring and humane manner towards others: if that circuit is "broken" - as it is in psychopaths - then an individual has no compunction (or necessity) to act in a way sympathetic to other people. On the contrary, they will do whatever they need to do to achieve their goals, regardless of the consequences for others.

An individual crime wave?

Psychopathy is a collection of traits and behaviours that are a result of lack of empathy. Much of the research into psychopathy was originally carried out in prisons, mostly because this was the only place where it was possible to find a "stable" population of psychopaths. Research has shown that psychopaths make up a highly-disproportionate percentage of the prison population; this disparity increases even further when you look at violent offenders and serial sex offenders. In other words, psychopaths (who make up only 1% of the population) are responsible for a large part of violent and sexual offences. Furthermore, psychopaths, by the nature of their "disorder" are incapable of learning from their mistakes, and not surprisingly, make up a disproportionate percentage of those that are repeat offenders. So we can see that psychopaths bear a great responsibility for much of the crime that exists in society. And this doesn't even factor in other, more discreet - yet socially extremely-damaging -  types of crime (more on that later).

However, most psychopaths are not even in prison. It can be said that only the "unsuccessful" psychopaths are the ones that we actually see in prison. Most serial killers are not psychopaths; however, a disproportionate number of serial killers are psychopaths. What makes the difference between a psychopath being a serial killer (which is in fact, very rare), a violent gang member, a rapist, a serial adulterer, a fraudster, or a boardroom CEO? Circumstance.

Choose your weapon

Robert Hare, the foremost expert on psychopathy, has said that psychopaths exist in all sections of society, and thus bad parenting or an abusive childhood cannot be said to be solely to blame, as some others have argued. Hare suggests that psychopathy is, at least partially, a biological (i.e. genetic) condition. The environment of a "psychopathic child" can play a part in aggravating the onset of the condition, but there are equally - as Hare claims - too many examples of psychopaths from well-adjusted families to say for sure that environment plays a decisive role. While environment is a factor, Hare's thinking suggests it is largely a biological condition.

Regardless of the origins of how a person becomes a psychopath, what is clear that apart from being a disproportionate part of the prison population, in the general population, we know that people ranking high on Hare's "psychopathy checklist" also tend to feature disproportionately in some fields of work.
Psychopaths have low anxiety levels and high risk-taking tendencies, amongst other behaviours, such as manipulation and superficial charm. This ruthlessness and ability to make quick decisions gives them a natural advantage in professions such as business, banking and law, but also other fields such as medicine and even the military and the police - and yes, politics, too. Psychopaths have been shown to have a heightened sense of alertness, and an ability to focus in on a person's strengths and weaknesses. Thus, they are "hard-wired" to be adaptive survivors, and - depending on their individual circumstances - know how to make the most of their "attributes".

This explains why there are a disproportionate numbers of violent and sexual offenders - but very few fraudsters - in prison.
Those psychopaths that have been born at the wrong end of society are most likely to be destined to become petty "career" criminals, gang members or father a string of illegitimate children. However, equally, a disproportionate number of these "low end" psychopaths may be able, through force of circumstances, be able to become highly-successful entrepreneurs: what is often called a "rags-to-riches" millionaire who has "the gift of the gab". These types of individuals were able to use their cunning and ruthlessness in more "pro-active" ways to make themselves financially well-off using legal means, whereas a psychopathic gang member was not.

And then we have what might be called "mid-level" psychopaths. These are usually "socially-adapted" psychopaths that have found some middling way to find an outlet for channeling their attributes: born into an "average" family, they may be successful salesmen or con men (more on these types of psychopaths, and the sales industry in general here). Equally, they may well go into the police force or even the military. In short, they have chosen professions that fit the glove of their personality, without making their lack of empathy seem too obvious or intrusive on their way of life. In some ways, these types of psychopaths are perhaps the most "socially-useful" to society, because they contribute something positive to society, in spite of their other negatives. This is not to say that these people are "well-adjusted" - they may still be capable of violence, ruthlessness, manipulation, and sometimes behave appallingly - but it may be well-concealed so to be less obviously-apparent.

Lastly (and most ominously) are the "high-end" psychopaths. Many of these are people either born into the higher end of society, or by their own high intelligence and cunning, are able to quickly work their way into it. While "low-level" psychopaths may be the ones most likely you'll encounter in prison and responsible for a large degree of "everyday" crime, the "high-end" psychopaths are the ones most likely to defraud businesses, bankrupt corporations, lay off entire workforces, cause environmental disasters, or worse. These are the people who have "the system" wrapped around their finger, so that any amoral acts they do are either ignored, excused, blamed on others (or underlings), or have been already made legal to neutralise the threat to their position. These people aren't in prison because they already have the political and legal system in their pockets.
The most infamous recent example is the financial crisis of 2008, where the elite of the banking system had devised a fraudulent banking model that caused the entire system to collapse. The banking cartel was then able to effectively blackmail governments into "bailing out" the banks without seriously forcing them to change their systems of operation, let alone sending many of them to prison for mass fraud on an epic scale. The modern economic system, which first came to into wide use thirty years ago, is effectively propping-up a system of economic extraction by an elite at the expense of the conditions of the regular workforce. These are conditions where the elite are leeching off the lower half of society in the same manner that psychopaths leech off their targeted victims. With the justification of Ayn Rand's philosophy, neo-liberalism sees social injustice as a "necessary evil"; even a good thing. This is precisely the same logic that psychopaths use to justify their acts. Is that a coincidence?
It is this reason why the gap between the highest and lowest earners has expanded by many times in the last thirty years. In this sense, it is difficult to separate the effects that psychopathy has on crime and on how our economy is governed overall: if the modern "Capitalist" system is ran on the principle of amoral exploitation, then how is it different, morally-speaking, from psychopathy?

When "high-end" psychopaths are in positions of authority the results are far more socially-devastating than a "low-end" psychopath. A low-end psychopath in a town can harm individuals and families through, for example, petty crime and casual violence. A high-end psychopath, by closing down a town's factory, can bring about the social conditions to breed more crime and social deprivation in the whole town.
This is what makes psychopathy a cause of so much of humanity's social problems, from poverty and inequality to crime. Psychopaths are nature's predators, amorally seeking to exploit others for their own advantage. When these individuals gain entry into the field of politics, the result can be truly devastating. History has seen many examples; and in the modern-day, we see many countries around the world that are ran as little more than modern-day feudal states. These nations are ruled by elites that see their populations as little more than resources to exploit, and are the main cause of poverty in the world today: by definition, these elites must lack empathy for those they rule in order to justify how they "govern", breeding further generations "little dictators" for their elites to continue their hereditary exploitation of their populations.

North Korea is a prime example of this, though there are many others.

The best movie psychopath? The Joker in "The Dark Knight"

The psychopathic character endlessly fascinates the darker side of human nature. While psychopaths in real-life are best to be avoided for a whole host of reasons (more on how to spot a psychopath here), it is the fictional psychopaths, such as those that stand out in movies, that many of us can't get enough of.

Psychopathy is understood as a psychological syndrome, or a series of traits, that exist in a small fraction of the population. The stand-out feature of this collection of traits is a lack of empathy, or understanding of basic human emotions. After that, psychologists would identify the chaotic nature of a psychopathic individual (i.e. instinctive actions lacking in any planning, a lack of any concrete life "goal"), and the cunning and amoral use of manipulation to get what they want, without regard to the consequences for others. In essence, a psychopath has no moral (i.e. empathy) compass, and he will whatever is easiest and convenient to satisfy his needs at that time. There are many traits, but those mentioned are likely to be the most prominent.

An agent of chaos

A feature-length British documentary by Channel Four (called "Psychopath Night") used some experts in the field of crime and psychiatry to look in some depth at clarifying what a "psychopath" exactly is. One of the experts was Kevin Dutton, who described his "mixing-deck" approach to understanding how "psychopathy" may manifest itself throughout a section of human society.
At the same time, the documentary used the experts to analyse what they thought were the most convincing portrayals of the psychopathic character in film. Heath Ledger's playing of "The Joker" was considered best, as explained here (watch from 8.37).

As mentioned by the former FBI expert in the documentary, in the bank robbery scene at the start of the movie, The Joker shows callous duplicity and a complete lack of regard for his cohorts - having them kill each other one-by-one to apparently get more of the money, until there is only The Joker himself remaining. In the same scene, he displays grandiosity in the dramatic and terrifying nature of the bank heist, clearly wanting to make a statement of intent (and which is later demonstrated when he later crashes Bruce Wayne's party to get Harvey Dent). Lastly, in the conversation with the bank manager, he makes it clear how nihilistic is his world-view; he has no moral code, only a belief that what doesn't kill you "makes you...stranger".

Throughout the film, The Joker does whatever is necessary to achieve what he wants: though often this appears to be to cause chaos simply for the sheer hell of it. As he explain to Batman when interrogated, he is not a monster but simply "ahead of the curve". This is a purely amoral, psychopathic perspective of the world; an utterly cynical view of human nature, where he believes that people will turn on each other when the chips are down.

While he targets the main individuals working against the mafia - the judge of the mafia trial, the police commissioner, Harvey Dent, and the mayor - it is also clear that his wider purpose is to cause as much moral chaos in the city as possible. One the last scenes is where he creates his own kind of amoral, real-life social experiment: the ferry scene, where two ferries - one carrying civilians, the other with convicts and prison guards - are told to blow up the other before a deadline, or they would both be blown up.
He blows up a hospital, it seems simply for the sake of it, taking its patients as hostages, and after causing the explosion that disfigured Harvey Dent, in the final scene with Batman, The Joker declares it was his intention to see Harvey Dent, the city's "hero", come down to earth, in order to morally corrupt the city. In the later film,  "The Dark Knight Rises", this prophecy finally comes true, when Bane reads out Gordon's speech (more on the psychological comparison between The Joker and Bane here).  In the same way, he also brings about the collapse of the public's moral view of Batman himself, when Batman takes the blame for killing Dent and the corrupt police officers. This demonstrates that by the end of the film, although The Joker had "failed" in his main task (the story implies he is after complete criminal control of the city), he had succeeded in destroying Batman as a moral force for good in the public's eyes, and achieved his own kind of "moral" victory even though he would be behind bars.

As a psychological portrait, The Joker fits many of the traits consistent with a psychopath. It is in the hospital scene with Harvey Dent where the Joker makes his remark that he is "an agent of chaos", asking "do I look like the kind of guy with a plan?" This comment is further clarification of the chaotic and impulsive nature of his personality.

Master of Manipulation

As the film progresses, each scene with The Joker clarifies further that his character features strongly manipulative and cunning elements. He apparently seems to offer his services to the mafia - to kill Batman -  while at the same time, destroying them as an organisation, one by one, culminating in burning half of their money.

He conspires events to have himself arrested in order to grab the mafia's accountant, Lau, by blowing up the main police station. While under interrogation with Batman in the station, he also tries to manipulate Batman towards his side, by insinuating that Batman is being used by the police, and will be blamed as a villain later (which is indeed what happens at the end of the film). He also succeeds in manipulating Harvey Dent - after causing the explosion that facially disfigured him - to go after the corrupt police who were working with the mafia boss Maroni, diverting the blame away from himself.

The Joker's real purpose, apart from causing as much mayhem as possible, is to ultimately take control of the city, as its chaotic criminal head. From gaining the attention of the mafia by robbing one of their banks, then offering them "his services" to kill Batman, he also succeeds in killing off his main mafia rivals, one by one. While he is supposedly working as an agent of the mafia in targeting the city's great and good, he also clearly has a plan of his own. First by killing Gambol who has already threatened to eliminate him, then, after burning half of the mafia's money, killing The Chechen. Lastly, as mentioned before, he manipulates Harvey Dent into killing the last remaining big mafia boss, Maroni.
In this sense, he Joker easily fulfills the portrait of psychopath as Machiavellian schemer, using the mafia's influence to target the "moral core" of Gotham City, while equally scheming to manipulate Harvey Dent and Batman to for his own ends. The Joker is a criminal mastermind lurking behind a dark facade of amoral nihilism.


In this respect, it is clear that if The Joker were a real human being, he would be a truly terrifying person to behold. While this character is an extreme (and fictitious) example, there exist real-life examples, too. Some of them are in prison (Ian Brady, for example), and others had their notoriety only fully revealed after their death (e.g. Jimmy Savile). However, you do not need to look very far.

In some respects, the personality of The Joker bears some similarity to that of Stalin: certainly, Stalin is a prime example of how a psychopath does what is necessary to get to the top, and what happens when a psychopath rules the largest country in the world.

When psychopaths are in charge, the result is chaos, and terrifying for everyone else: how do you think the financial crisis was possible?

Psychopathy, economics and politics: joining the dots, and "Why Nations Fail"

The author recently read the brilliant book "Why Nations Fail", by Daron Acemoglu, and James A. Robinson. This book explains their theory about why some countries are rich and others are poor; and how historically, various countries became rich, became poor, have always been poor, and so on.

Using many historical and contemporary examples, they show how nation-states can be roughly divided into those that are "extractive" and those that are "inclusive". Essentially, an "extractive" society is one where a closed, ruling elite uses its population to "extract" wealth for its own benefit; an "inclusive" society is one where the population as a whole has easy access to institutions, an open legal system, and their human rights are secured. As you might imagine, "extractive" societies are always significantly poorer than "inclusive" ones, though the scale of "extraction" or "inclusion" depends on the specific circumstances of any one nation-state.

This explanation mirrors something I read years ago about why countries are poor: in a word, corruption. As economics (and politics) is about choices, countries are poor because the wealth and power of the country is concentrated in the hands of a closed elite. An elite could choose to invest in innovation and development, but this would come at a risk of creating other wealthy people, who would want to replace them, or at least ask for more say in how things are being run. If the institutions are corrupt, then this inevitably results in government becoming a closed shop. For this reason, nation-states run in this way would never develop economically beyond a certain level: corruption always holds these countries back. Africa is the poorest continent in the globe for this reason, but this form of "institutionalised" corruption has more-or-less existed in Africa for centuries, going back to before when the Portuguese explored the continent five hundred years ago. In the book "Why Nations Fail", it is also concisely explained why North and South America have such different standards of living: again, the question comes down to corruption and exploitation, of one form or another.

Joining the dots: towards a unified theory?

This got me thinking about some of the points I've made elsewhere about the effect human psychology has on economics and politics, and vice versa. This idea of "extractive" societies sounds similar in tone, at a collective level, to the premise that psychopaths are "leeches" on society at large.

Psychopaths make up roughly 1% of the human population, though with a sliding scale of "severity" of the personality disorder, "semi-psychopaths" may also comprise another few per cent. The glaring differential that marks them out from normal human beings is their lack of empathy (i.e. lack of understanding of human emotion, and how to respond appropriately to it). As described in the linked article earlier:

" ... there are people in human society who do not believe that taxes are "the price of civilisation", and do not believe that government should provide collective services. From a psychological point of view, these people appear to have a severe lack of empathy. "

So economic and political institutions may well also have cumulative effect on human psychology, in that a nation-state's institutions (or chronic lack of them) can erode a person's empathy towards society at large. It must also be said that, by definition,  a disproportionate number of people in corrupt elites around the world - from North Korea's Kim Jong-Un to the richest man in the world, Mexico's Carlos Slim - would also have an empathy deficit, in order to justify what they do. This also explains why the rich (i.e. in the West) complain about paying taxes for public services they do not use; these people display a lack of empathy towards society, and an anti-social attitude towards their responsibilities. More on this later.

In an article last year, I talked about how the historic "hunter-gatherer" society and its contemporary Capitalist equivalent may well generate an environment that is beneficial towards psychopaths. Intriguingly. the authors of "Why Nations Fail" talk about how the hunter-gatherer society's evolution to a sedentary, farming civilisation can likely have only come about through an act of leadership, bringing about an institutional change. In their book, they talk about the example of the Natufian civilisation around 9000BC in the modern-day Holy Land, which was the first known society to make the change from hunting to an agrarian society.
As has been mentioned in earlier posts, psychopaths are also humanity's natural leaders, so much so that Kevin Dutton, who wrote the book "The Wisdom Of Psychopaths", believes that not all of psychopath's psychological attributes are always bad - sometimes, they are even beneficial. In this way, it can be argued that if the authors of "Why Nations Fail" suggest that it was decisive (and therefore, autocratic) decision of a Natufian leader to bring about the "revolution" to a settled farming, it would have taken a great deal of fearlessness (and ruthless enforcement) to bring about this change. And what better person to do this than a psychopath?

Kevin Dutton talks about psychopaths, for all the damage they can wreak on society, as also acting as the "doers" in society, the ones that are fearless at taking risks. Assuming this to be true, it can be surmised that a disproportionately-large number of individuals responsible for humanity's various advances throughout history were psychopaths. If you look at today's entrepreneurs, it's not hard to recognise in a significant number of them the same attributes - the risk-taking, the fearlessness, the occasional amoral ruthlessness - that we recognise in psychopaths. In this sense, they are society's "winners". But this was not always the case.

Different system, different outcome

Different kinds of societies produce different kinds of social environments. The theory of "extractive" and "inclusive" nation-states links to some of the ideas mentioned in an earlier article: that psychopaths thrive in hunter-gatherer/ Capitalist societies, but struggle to advance in stratified and closed societies. This matches, (with some caveats, which I'll explain shortly) to the "inclusive" and "extractive" societies mentioned in "Why Nations Fail".

In the modern world, the most "inclusive" (i.e. egalitarian and open) nation-states can be found in places like Scandinavia: these are societies where inequality levels are very low and standards of living are very high; this is a result of their high-functioning and well-organised institutions. At the opposite end, the most "extractive" nation-states (i.e. the most corrupt, with the most dysfunctional institutions) can be found in the Third World. Nation-states like the USA and the UK are still very high in terms of institutional organisation, but have significantly higher levels of inequality compared to places like Scandinavia.

Modern laissez-faire Capitalism (i.e. the neo-liberal philosophy created by Ayn Rand) engenders a social attitude similar to that found in hunter-gatherer societies, and is probably the best environment for a psychopath to thrive in: this also coincides with the greatest advances in human history. However, endemic to this neo-liberal system is the creation, over time, of a cartel-like structure that has effective control over large segments of economic transactions. This is a natural result of the way "the market" works, when not protected by effective institutions. The creation of this cartel is a fundamental weakness in the system, and also a fundamental problem of what happens when psychopaths rule the roost: they are very good at getting to the top and staying there, doing whatever thy can to preserve their position in society. The creation of these cartels, or "economic elites" are what prevents Capitalist societies from becoming fully inclusive, and explains why psychopaths tend to thrive in them: because fully-inclusive societies are anathema to a psychopath's understanding and interests.

For a psychopath,  an "extractive" society of a closed elite creates a glass barrier he finds difficult to pass; conversely, a fully-inclusive society creates institutions and rights that prevent a psychopath from amorally securing his position at the top for perpetuity. He might get to the top for a while, but "the system" will quickly root out and cast down any amoral usurpers. In a Capitalist system, this is less likely to happen while also giving him more opportunities to amorally profit from others, and would thus be a psychopath's preferred social environment to advance in.

There are psychopaths in any society, "extractive" as well as "inclusive". When psychopaths rule the roost, the result is chaos, regardless of the social make-up of the system. The question is: how to make psychopaths "work", so that the system gets the best out of them, without breaking the system.

George Osborne's 2014 Autumn Statement: the madman at Number 11?

There's a fair body of evidence to suggest that George Osborne is the worst chancellor in living memory: both as a chancellor, and as a human being.

There was a famous phrase that came out of the Labour government when Gordon Brown was chancellor: as his enemies in the Labour Party liked to say to those who'd listen "remember, the chancellor is mad".
Brown can be blamed for creating a unsustainable economic model that contributed to the UK being over-exposed financially when 2008 hit, but for his mistakes as a chancellor, it was clear that he also has a very large design towards social justice. He created measures such as working families tax credit, and channeled money into the NHS and other social programmes.
He may not always have been an obviously likeable person (and even less so during his time as PM), but it was evident that his heart was in the right place. Listening to his speeches, especially recently in the Scottish referendum, and there is an unmistakable humanity to his words. The tragedy is that never really showed when it needed to matter, when he was Prime Minister.

A calculator and a puppet master?

George Osborne, on the other hand, has less of the economic acumen of Brown, but makes up for it in devious, political cunning (which he doesn't seem to bother to hide). He has replaced Brown's clear sense of social justice, with a clear sense that George Osborne is only pretending to understand how ordinary people live their lives, and a sneering contempt for his enemies.

In this sense, Osborne appears as a pure, amoral political machine, with every calculation and decision based around how it can be made to benefit his agenda.

In some ways, Osborne and Cameron are the ideal political match: Cameron appears as the self-assured (if not terribly cerebral), statesman-like actor-cum-salesman who "does human" quite convincingly (more on Cameron's personality here); Osborne, on the other hand, is the real political calculator and the real "power behind the throne", who doesn't deign to stoop to Cameron's efforts of pretending to be something he isn't - Osborne is as he is, and seems very comfortable with it. It is Osborne's vision that the country is being subjected to, not Cameron's; Cameron simply understands the goal and acquiesces.

It has been said that Osborne rarely does press conferences; unlike the Prime Minister, who can't get enough of them. While it would be too flattering to compare Cameron and Osborne in the same light as Blair and Brown, it would be similarly too condescending to compare them to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The truth may lie somewhere psychologically in the middle.
Osborne's performances in parliament (as seen in the Autumn Statement) can be psychologically-painful to watch, as he appears to revel in playing the part of a pantomime villain, verbally attacking his enemies with sneering snide remarks and cutting put-downs. As a man clearly happy in his own skin, he doesn't feel the need to pretend to be nice for the sake of it. These types of behaviour alone tell us much about George Osborne's potential psychological make-up (it would be awful to be his psychiatrist...).

Austerity for the sake of austerity?

So much for George Osborne, the human being. As a chancellor, he has been an almost complete failure; in fact, making the economic situation worse in the long-run rather than better. He would be the first to blame it on inheriting "Labour's economic mess" (more on that old chestnut here), but the bare truth is that he simply doesn't understand how the macro economy works. If he did, then he would understand why the masses of low-paid, low-skill jobs that are filling the economy are the reason for the low tax revenues, which is also one reason why the deficit keeps on going up. You can cut spending as much as you like, but if taxes are declining also, the result will still be zero. In other words, you are back to square one, except that now people are on average poorer than before. It looks like the Conservatives' economic plan doesn't understand this basic truth, along with some others. Their idea of having a "low-tax, low-spend" economy looks idiotic, if not economically insane, in the contemporary economic climate. It is a recipe for self-inflicted masochism, as the countries in the Eurozone are finding out.

Osborne's plan is simply "austerity, austerity, austerity". Austerity until kingdom come! While back in 2010 "the plan" was envisaged to last for only one parliament, it will now last for two. And the majority of the cuts haven't happened yet. Now that Osborne has successfully twisted Labour into accepting much of Osborne's plan, what is there left to vote for in 2015, if you vote for the three main parties?

What is the point of austerity? It was said by former Downing Street advisor, Steve Hilton, that by the end of this parliament "everything must have changed". The question is: why? George Osborne has now cornered the three main parties into largely accepting austerity (the honourable exception being the Greens, while Ukip want even more stringent austerity than Osborne). But what is austerity for?

As the economic evidence shows, "austerity" fails at its basic aim of getting the national finances in order, and in any case, it's ludicrous to think of the national finances in the same way as, say, household finances. You cannot take micro-economic policy and apply it to macro-economics - this has been the ultimate failure of Thatcherite economics, with the deregulation of the financial market happening at the same time as allowing the manufacturing industry to collapse thirty years ago. While a strong pound is great for the financial markets, it spells disaster for exports. That's why the UK exports so little now, and has a bloated, (and with "too big to fail" banks, a effectively state-subsidised) banking sector.
The UK economy now subsides on finance on one hand and a mass of low-paid, low-skill jobs on the other. Engineering and other skilled industries are the exception to the rule. This is the economy that Osborne now champions.

After the Second World War, Britain faced years of austerity due to the bankruptcy of the empire. And in spite of all that, the Labour government still created the NHS and the modern welfare state. These days, Osborne's plan is a second dose of austerity after a world financial crisis, with the effect of degrading the welfare state and the NHS to minimal levels, and levels of state spending lower than before the welfare state was created. In other words, in a very real sense, the UK is going backwards, not forwards.

Is this Osborne's "vision" for the future?

The only conclusion to reach is that "austerity" is Osborne's policy because he ideologically believes in a smaller state: but not for the sake of improving the welfare of society (as austerity not only doesn't work as a social incentive, it also doesn't work to reduce the national deficit, as we have seen with its negative effect on tax receipts).
No, Osborne's vision, like that of Iain Duncan Smith, can only be an effect of his lack of empathy towards society at large. He fails to understand how people cannot be able to get jobs that pay well, and has little sympathy for the worse-off. Why should the rich pay for the "idle" poor? Why should the rich have to give money to people they have no affinity for?

This is the politics of real "class war" - and the rich are winning.

The establishment, the child abuse scandal, and psychopathy: the elephant in the room

The number of cases of  historical (and recent) child abuse involving "establishment" figures is growing by the week. Recently, it has been uncovered (and admitted by police sources) that there was indeed a high-placed "paedophile ring" involving Westminster around thirty years ago, which was covered-up by those in positions of authority.
This ring has also been implicated in the death of at least two teenage boys; one case was the disappearance and murder of a former magistrate's son in 1979, the other the son of the driver of the former Australian commissioner in 1981.

There is a strong argument for linking the psychology of people who abuse children to that of psychopathy: for someone to carry such acts of abuse, by definition, requires a complete lack of empathy for the victims; worse, the fact that the victims are vulnerable (children) adds stronger psychological evidence that the perpetrators bear many of the hallmarks consistent with psychopathy. From the case of Ian Watkins last year, to the infamous Jimmy Savile, there is a convincing argument that this form of abuse should be put on the same level of psychological severity as other psychopaths; the fact that they choose to abuse children is simply their chosen method of displaying their psychopathy, for whatever reason.

There are many ways that psychopaths may indulge their psychological disorder on society, and can vary wildly from case to case - what unites them is the common trait of a lack of empathy for their chosen victims.

The case of Myles Bradbury

Myles Bradbury was until recently an acclaimed, and universally-respected (and loved) doctor at Addenbrooke's hospital in Cambridge, one of the best in the country. He was also a serial child abuser.

Looking at the anecdotal evidence of the case, there is a convincing argument that Bradbury's personality corresponds to large degree to that of a psychopath. He was charming and persuasive with the parents of his victims, and trusted implicitly by all those he was involved with; he was involved in good work with the scouts and church groups, so manufacturing a persona as a moral pillar of the community.
The same has been said of many psychopaths: that they are masters in the art of performance, hiding their true, amoral, selves behind a mask of respectability. Bradbury was a "God-like figure", who appeared to revel in his status, and clearly used his status as a cover for his appalling and callous acts. This included abusing boys when even his parents were in the same room.

As people after the event always ask: how did they get away with it? The answer lies in the charm of the psychopath, and their adaptive personality. In short, they have no real "humanity" in the moral sense of the word, but have the personality of a predator on society, that is able to use adaptive skills to get what they want from the human environment.

The other question - the elephant in the room - is why does it appear there are so many of them in the establishment?

A finishing school for psychopaths?

In general, psychopaths, as amoral predators, seek to reach the top of society. And many of them succeed in getting there, through a combination of amoral ruthlessness and cunning charm. The modern social environment of today's Capitalist society also resembles the ideal, dog-eat-dog environment that a psychopath would be ideally-suited for: where Ayn Rand's ideas have been put into practice, they appear to create a society that almost seems like an inadvertent attempt at socially-engineering sociopathy on a mass scale. Modern free-market Capitalism, based on the tenets of Ayn Rand's ideology, encourages a society almost at economic war with itself; a mass of amoral individuals who see the cost of everything and the value of nothing. In short, modern-day Capitalism grinds down natural human empathy.

But going back to the question posed earlier, what is it about the UK establishment? Is there something fundamentally wrong somewhere that has created a disproportionate number of psychopathic child abusers?

As has been shown, psychopathy (and sociopathy) are a by-product of a person's human environment. While it is not fully understood (and biological factors are also important), psychopathy usually occurs due to the environment early in a person's life creating a lack of empathy in the individual in question. One glaring distinction that marks out "the establishment" from the rest of British society is in the area of education.

"Public school" is a long tradition for the establishment, and has been a rite of passage for generations; in some families, for centuries. Boarding school is how many of Britain's elite choose to education their children: many of the current Conservative government, including David Cameron himself, are products of that system. And we can see the results of that system for ourselves today.

While it is not my place to judge parenting, boarding school has been extolled by the elite as the ideal method to educate children of the elite so they are ready to step into positions of authority when the time comes. Boarding school is the way to "build character" in children and adolescents; away from their parents and surrounded by their peers and an authoritarian adult regime.

But the reality often seems to be different: by definition, boarding schools are atypical social environments, that create atypical behaviour: less about emotionally "building character" than psychologically "purging empathy" from the child growing into adulthood. In other words, it is in many ways a dysfunctional social environment that breeds the conditions for forming sociopaths.

There are number of cases of these types of school being populated with teachers who are child abusers, far more than found in the schools system at large; similarly, the many "rites of passage" that occur in boarding school are little more than psychological terror and forms of sexual abuse. These have the effect of not creating constructive and outstanding members of society, but can create the very opposite: either traumatised adults, or adults that have little empathy for society at large and little concept of social value: in other words, ready-made psychopaths.

It is for this reason that Britain's "establishment" seems to be disproportionately-afflicted by the child abuse scandal: these perpetrators were not born as monsters, but often may have been turned into them by a system that was meant to create the very opposite. But there are so many intertwined with propping up its tottering moral code, that no-one in authority has the courage to change it. it is for this reason why it is corrupt.

It exists simply for the sake of amoral self-perpetuation.

The Conservatives' economic plan: how to destroy British society in a few easy steps

As many people have noticed, the Tories' economic plan isn't really working. Well, there's a "recovery" of sorts, but it's the weakest so-called "recovery" known in living memory, including the Depression.

The recovery centres on several economic factors (more about them here).
First of all, there is a dysfunctional jobs market, meaning that there is a dearth of skilled work. The result is that skilled workers are having to settle for low-skilled (or non-skilled) work in areas like retail and the service sector, meaning that in order to get a job at Aldi, school-leavers are competing with graduates and European migrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. This naturally gives more leverage to employers, meaning they can cut overheads on wages and workers' benefits, explaining the explosion in "zero hours" contracts. Oh, employers now love the Conservatives for this, I'm sure...as they have now created a workers' version of living hell.

You don't have to be out-of-work to live in poverty - most people in poverty (and receiving most of the benefits!) -  are those already in employment. So most of the so-called "scroungers" on benefits are in fact the selfsame "hard-working" people that the Conservatives claim to be fighting for. Instead, the Tories are kicking them while they're already down. So what, then, is the point of being in work for these despairing, blighted souls?

Apart from that, the other main factor driving the "recovery" is uncontrolled inflation in property prices - sorry, I mean the "boost" in house prices - which George Osborne was famously quoted as helping "Middle England" feel a little bit richer nearer the election.(At this point, the intention to "make people feel richer" should be emphasized. The chancellor's scheme is another of his many machiavellian plans to deceive while sneering at those worse-off than him)  Osborne fueled this further by creating a government subsidy that effectively funds selectively-targeted, state-sponsored inflation, known as "help to buy". The recurring theme here is a tendency to deal with the problem by making it worse.

Are they psychos, or just plain stupid?

"Dealing with the problem by making it worse" is something you either do by intention or by lack of foresight. And if you keep on doing this again and again, you can logically only reach one conclusion: either you are doing this on purpose, or you're doing it because you haven't got a brain. This has been the ongoing scenario that successive Conservative (and Labour) governments have overseen for the past thirty-five years.

The current Conservative government is wedded to the "paying off the debt" through a course of austerity. As Cameron is keen to say, they are fulfilling their promise to put Britain's finances in order.
Except, they aren't: the deficit is getting worse, not better. Year-on-year, George Osborne is missing his targets by a mile, and meanwhile, the economic circumstances of everyday people are getting worse, as they are stuck in low-pay jobs, rising household debt they are funding through easy credit. Debt is rising, and the Tories must at least privately) understand that their economic plan was always intellectually-bankrupt.

The Tories' telling of the financial crisis was a novel explanation of events, that conveniently re-spun the argument to suit their own psychology. In their eyes, the financial crisis was primarily a result of a) government overspending on welfare, and b) not much else, really. Stood up against the hard truth of economics, the reason that the Labour government went into financial free-fall was in large part a result of rapidly-falling tax revenues as a consequence of the global crisis creating a slump. This is the same thing that the current government are suffering now.
There was also the massive injection of the bailout to prop up the broken banking system, but let's not get into that massive issue here (where the Tories don't have a moral leg to stand on).

In spite of this, in spite of being shown that their plan isn't working but in fact making public finances worse, and that they are destroying the labour market, and creating yet another speculative housing bubble potentially worse than the last one, George Osborne insists on cutting public spending much further after the election.
Is this man actually sane? Given the circumstances, it is hard not to question the "rationalism" of some of the decision-making happening in Whitehall.

An "institutionalised" establishment?

The decision-making process of Cameron, Osborne, and the many other "establishment" progeny running the government is worth thinking about. The "establishment" is a master at one thing: self-preservation.
As one of the long-living elites in the developed world, Britain's ruling elite has for centuries perfected a private education system (which they quaintly call "public school" - clever, that!) which churns out generation after generation of young men who have the skills necessary to run the country in the way it has been run for generations: by drumming in to them strict ideological orthodoxy, good manners, and a wily tongue. It is this combination of characteristics that has kept the establishment where it is, in spite of the many revolutions and upheavals across the rest of Europe over the centuries. The key for Britain's elite is to be one step ahead of the game, otherwise the whole stack of cards come crashing down - as they did in France in 1789, and Russia in 1917.

The establishment of the welfare state after the Second World War was a severe test to the establishment, forcing it on the back foot. The "One Nation" Toryism of Harold MacMillan was the establishment's compromise, which held things at bay for some time. The inflationary crises of the 1970s - a result of a consumer boom and unprecedented oil price rises, and NOT due to unreasonable demands from the trades unions - forced a re-think. People like Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher were advocates for a completely new economic model.

Ever since then, Thatcherism has been the economic orthodoxy of the government, including Labour. The establishment thus found a new orthodoxy that they found fit neatly into their own self-preservation. Greed was now good, and there was no longer such a thing as "society" (so we no longer had to care about the "social good"). Inequality was to be celebrated by Tories as a sign of the "natural order". In other words, it was as though feudalism had never gone out of fashion.

The new orthodoxy had several major effects: the gap between rich and poor skyrocketed; council houses were sold off, and the remaining council estate effectively became dumping grounds for the poor and "socially disadvantaged" who could afford nothing else (thus the "sink estate" was born, and the Tories neatly created a new scapegoat for society's ills); the economy was "redesigned" by Thatcherites so that industrial towns became unemployment and low-skill hotspots; and successive housing bubbles were created, making people "feel rich".

The "establishment" is not evil in itself, but by its very nature, it is designed to house, incubate and protect individuals who commit evil, thus perpetuating the problem. It is no wonder that the child abuse scandal rocking the UK in recent times uncovers more horrific revelations with each passing month.
It may be safe so assume that when the horrific truth comes out, the perpetrators will be long dead, thus protecting the integrity of those who hid the truth in the name of "self-preservation"...

ISIS and Islamofascism: are they the modern-day Nazis of the Middle East?

The "caliphate" that de facto controls a huge swathe of territory across Eastern Syria and the West and North-west of Iraq is the "new normal" in the Middle East.

The rise of ISIS/ ISIL/ the "Islamic State" was due to a number of factors. I've talked about these factors before, when ISIS spectacularly came onto the radar nearly six months ago: the main one being the collapse of central power and authority/ legitimacy in both Iraq and Syria. As nature abhors a vacuum, so it is the case with humanity.

The "Nazis" on the Euphrates

In many ways, it could be said that ISIS are to the modern Middle East what the Nazis were to Europe in the 1930s and '40s. The rise of fascism that began in the '20s was a result of perceived "humiliation", economic deprivation, and loss of cultural identity: a violent counter-reaction to the modern Western values and socio-economic orthodoxy that was commonplace after the First World War.
In the search for simple answers, the Nazis in Germany took the ideas of Italian fascism, and applied them to their own circumstances. Adolf Hitler wanted to create a "thousand-year reich" that would extend from the Atlantic to the Urals. As he saw it, Germans were historically the "master race" of Europe, so they should take what was rightfully theirs: subdue the nations of the "lesser" Europeans, and cleanse Europe of Jews, who he saw as behind a worldwide conspiracy against Germany.

Change some of the names, and the ideology of ISIS is little different: Modern-day "Islamofascists" have created a brutal, despotic, anti-Western de facto state in the heart of the Middle East, and will use any means at its disposal to expand across the entire region; in the same way that fascism in Europe once brutally expanded across the entire continent, Islamofascism has the same aims today in the Middle East. Islamofascism is a reality, not a point of view: Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were the forerunners of ISIS, and ISIS are simply a more updated, tech-savvy offshoot of the same ideology. The only difference is that ISIS are applying their selfsame ideology with greater efficiency on the ground, and have honed to brutal near-perfection their methods of recruitment, warfare, and the iron fist of how to govern conquered territory, with a combination of "charity" and the ruthless application of power. Also, having lots of money to pass around - through oil revenues and the product of mass larceny - doesn't do any harm, either.

The irony here is that Al-Qaeda - once the most-feared terror group in the world - are now looking somewhat irrelevant compared to ISIS (as brilliantly summarized by John Oliver here); in the same way that Hitler's brutal form of fascism made Mussolini's earlier ideas seem "quaint" by comparison?

Here to stay?

No-one in the West has a real plan of how to defeat ISIS. Part of the problem is that ISIS appeals to disaffected Sunnis in Iraq and Syria in the same way that the Nazis held an appeal to large segments of German society in the 1930s. This is not to say that masses of Sunnis have suddenly become Islamic extremists: like the Germans in the thirties, they simply have little alternative on the ground, and would rather hold their noses to the reality rather than choose the chaotic alternative. They are not going to rise up against ISIS, because there is no-one who can rise to fill the hole that ISIS have filled in the Middle East.

For foreseeable future, ISIS and their "Islamic State" look to be a semi-permanent feature of the new
Middle East. As the Nazis filled the hole left by the weak authority of Weimar Germany left by Versailles, modern-day ISIS claim their legitimacy comes from the injustice of the Sykes-Picot Treaty that divided up the Sunnis of the Levant and Mesopotamia between Iraq and Syria. This is the core of their claim to be the representatives of Sunni Islamic values (whatever they may be).

The campaign to defeat ISIS isn't helped by the politics and rivalries of the Middle East. Turkey, a key member of NATO, seems to be turning a blind eye to ISIS: Ankara's policy seems to be a case of live-and-let-live; allowing recruits from Europe pass almost without hindrance across Turkey's border with Syria, and meanwhile seeming to give ISIS a free rein for its adherents to operate in the south of Turkey, moving against Syrian exiles that oppose them. While it many be too much of a stretch to say that this is because of shared Sunni Islamic values, it is more likely the case that the Turkish authorities (rightly) fear the consequences of going against ISIS: the thought of terrorist outrages in Turkish resorts would fill the government with dread. In this very real sense, Turkey's hands are tied. It is partly for this reason why they did so little to help the beseiged Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani, just across its border.

The Arab Spring has spawned many conflicts: from Syria, to Libya, and now to Iraq once more, thanks to the summer blitzkrieg by ISIS. The road to Kobani, the looting of Mosul, the uprisings in Syria, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia were all partly inspired by the renaissance of political Islam that first happened by the ballot box in Turkey twelve years ago.
Turkey is now the main player in much of what happens in the Middle East, and is as much a victim of its own success. As the progenitor of the ideology that led to the Arab Spring, having ISIS as Turkey's southern neighbours is partly a consequence of that: by stirring Sunni Arabs to do the same that devout Sunnis in Turkey did democratically in 2002. Except that there were no democracies in the Middle East, so how else to achieve it? The result in Syria was a civil war, that could only benefit the extremists.

ISIS is now the wolf at the door of many Middle Eastern governments, a monster that few know how to tame. People would do well to read the history books again.

Four reasons for the UK's "economic recovery": low-skill work, zero-hour contracts, internships, and "self-employment"

The Conservatives are magicians: managing to create an economic recovery with more jobs that still leaves people worse-off than before. How on earth do they do it?

The answer is simple, and boils down to the changes that have happened in the UK's labour market since the Conservatives took office in 2010. In short, Britain doesn't have a smart labour market, or a very efficient workforce; it has a "stupid" labour market, and a "useless" workforce.

Work smart, not long?

When I say "stupid" and "useless", I'm not criticising employees; on the contrary, they are doing the best they can in an employment situation designed to frustrate and degrade them. My beef is with how the government and British employers have created a  hollowing-out the labour market in the middle: the number of semi-skilled jobs is disappearing quickly, often being replaced by technology; and the number of low-skilled jobs is on the rise to compensate for this.

Britain has some of the lowest work productivity rates in the Western world. Along from the mass of low-skilled jobs that are proliferating (Aldi expansion coming your way?), semi-skilled jobs are disappearing (Lloyds recently announcing mass layoffs, as did Rolls-Royce's aviation wing - ha-ha).
The low productivity comes from the long-hours culture that has been around for decades, and seems to be getting worse; with fewer jobs and more competition for work places, employers hold the whip hand ever more, obliging workers in offices and elsewhere to work overtime in order to keep their masters' happy. This is a disaster in the long-run, and simply becomes a race to the bottom, declaring that Britain is on a fast-track to being ran like a developing country.

For the UK to put this right looks like it would require a whole paradigm-shift, and a near-rejection of the established orthodoxy of Anglo-Saxon capitalism. In short, nothing would appear to be changing soon, and may be worse if people like Ukip have their way.

"Employee rights"? What are they?

One stark fact that has gone habitually under-reported is the slow destruction of employee rights. While the minimum wage is a legal working requirement, how many times has is been seriously enforced?
Especially with the crowded labour market for low-skill jobs, and more and more people looking for jobs that offer worse conditions - it is this power that employers have that explains much of the rise of zero-hour contracts (which legally bind you to an employer that has no obligation to give you fixed hours of work). Those jobs that are in the more skilled sectors now like to offer internships as a way to give graduates "opportunities" (we are awash with euphemisms these days!), but are more simply unpaid work that only people from wealthier families can really afford to "invest" the time in. The irony here is that many of these so-called internship "opportunities" are used by employers to get graduates to do dull errands and menial tasks for a few months for free, then hire another sucker to replace them. Ah, what a life!

Lastly, there is the quiet rise of the self-employed - in, put in other terms, a rise of those in the utterly desperate, last-chance saloon. These poor people are often reduced to debt-filled penury, after bravely trying-out a venture that doesn't work out (thanks to George Osborne's "Wonga" economy).

This is the future that the Conservatives promise Britain: more of the same, failed ideas with the same intellectual pygmies that have no qualifications to run the economy: turning it into a glorified PLC, lapping-up the many migrant workers from Eastern Europe that can swamp the growing low-skill economy, bringing wages down further, and encouraging companies to offer worse and worse working conditions. In this economy, the only things growing will be inefficiency, food banks. and wealth disparity.

If you like the sound of that, though, then you should probably vote Conservative.

The 2015 General Election: time to break the mould of "LibLabCon" for good?

The last six weeks have demonstrated the inherent weaknesses and complacency in the two-party system in the UK.

In different ways, both Ukip in England and the SNP in Scotland are showing what happens when the two main parties take things for granted. The rise of Ukip in England has taken both the Conservatives and Labour unawares, like the proverbial frog slowly and blissfully boiling to death as the water gets ever hotter around him.

Not much more that six months from the next election, and the two major parties are both struggling with the twin demons of internal strife and an insurgency from a nationalist party in their back-yard - albeit in different countries. Things are looking very messy.

The last Englishman standing

Ukip has come a long way in two years: since they first appeared on the by-election radar in late 2012 (as noticeable runners-up) they have gone from strength to strength. Two years ago they were polling well under ten per cent of the vote (around 5% on average); that average has been relentlessly climbing, creeping up like a lethal vine, ever since. For the past six months it's rarely been below 15%, and sometimes higher than 20%.

There are many different reasons for this: but one of the main factors is also the unusual set of circumstances that occurred as a result of this current parliament. With Labour unable to fully capitalise on the government's struggle with the economy whilst in power due to the electorate's recent memory of their last few, miserable years in power under Gordon Brown. Meanwhile, the LibDems, the party that the electorate have usually turned two as the main "protest party" for the last twenty years, are tarnished by the mill-stone of incumbency as the Tories. Their vote share has tumbled from more than a fifth at the last election, to less than a tenth barely six months from the next election.
And where have those "lost" LibDem voters gone? More on that later.

So apart from everything else, Ukip and Nigel Farage are in some ways blessed by being in the right place at the right time. If Ukip didn't exist, it may well have been necessary to invent them, given the peculiar political situation Britain finds itself in after 2010. With all three major political parties considered "damaged goods" in different ways, Ukip have the advantage of clearly standing for values so catagorically at odds with those held by the three main parties: by which I mean immigration and Europe, which Ukip have (successfully) linked to the issue of the economy. By finding "cleavage issues" that give Ukip a very easily-definable "brand", this marks them out from the "drive to the middle ground" that has occupied the minds of the political classes for the last fifteen years.
Add to that Nigel Farage's natural ability to "sound human" compared to the out-of-touch lifestyles of the political establishment in Westminster, and Ukip now look to be a decent bet on grabbing up to ten seats (or more) at the general election. Bear in mind that the last time a fourth party appeared (the SDP in the 1980s), they won less than half a dozen seats. If, as expected, Ukip win the Rochester by-election, other Tories may also (not unreasonably) assess that their chances of holding on to their seats would be improved by changing to Ukip.

This would be the nightmare scenario for Cameron, and would cement the apparent fragmentation of British politics. It would also effectively undo any chance of the Tories winning a majority for the foreseeable future.

But he's not the only one facing sleepless nights. Apart from a potential Ukip insurgency in the north of England (which the Tories are already written off an unwinnable), Ed Milliband has even more serious problems north of the wall...

Our friends in the north

Labour may have won the battle of the Scottish referendum, but they look to be losing the war for Scotland. The recent resignation of the leader of Scottish Labour, Johann Lamont has demonstrated the problem that Labour have fighting off the rise of the SNP in places like Glasgow and Dundee (which both voted "yes" in the referendum).

The SNP now look much like the "real" Labour party in Scotland (in the same way that Ukip look like the "real" Conservative party in England). Psephologists say that there are few real seats where the SNP have a real chance of unseating Labour, but these are strange times. If Ukip can win a seat with a more than 10,000 majority, then it's difficult to say how complacent Labour can deserve to be in places like east Glasgow and Inverclyde. Judging from Johann Lamont's comments, she thinks the Labour party in Scotland has bee treated very badly by its Westminster masters, more or less calling for a separation for the sake of Scottish politics.

More worrying still is the potential fate of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland. Many of their sitting Scottish MPs have the SNP as their main rivals (there are more than ten Lib Dem Westminster MPs in Scotland), and some experts are predicting that most of them will lose their seats to the SNP. If that happens, then not only will it make the Lib Dems a much-reduced force in parliament after the election, but that the SNP may well come from having only a handful of MPs, to potentially a dozen or even more.
And in a hung parliament, the SNP's expanded cohort of parliamentarians could hold sway on some key votes. Well, that's before the issue of EVEL has been factored in. Anglo-Scottish relations may about to become very messy indeed...

A few Green sprouts

The rise in popularity of the Greens is another of the "silent growth" stories in the last year. While not to the same extent as that of Ukip, the Greens look to have, like Ukip, been the beneficiaries of not being one of the "damaged goods" parties. Like Ukip, they have learned that the best way to beat the FPTP system is to copy the model the Lib Dems used twenty years ago: get a good foothold set up in favourable local environments.
The collapse of the Lib Dem vote since the election seems to have benefitted partly Labour, but also partly the Greens, who to some ex-Lib Dem voters look more faithful to some of the tenets of "liberalism" and localism than the Lib Dems themselves.
Due to this, there are now half a dozen seats that the Greens are targeting, with a decent chance of winning some of them.

While not on the scale of Ukip in England nationally, or the sudden spike in SNP potential fortunes, the "Green surge" would be another sign of the fragmentation of the old "two party" model: in 2015, there is now a reasonable chance of there being five parties in England that have more just a few seats in parliament. In the Scottish parliament in Holyrood, this is already the case.

With the way that the electorate are becoming more discerning and articulate in expressing their political whims, Westminster politics may be seeing the beginning of a permanent fragmentation.

Why UKIP are the "real" Conservative Party

There are two conservative parties in British national politics today: the Conservative Party, and UKIP. One of them represents the views of the Thatcherite, Euro-sceptic, neo-liberal right, and the other is the "Conservative Party".

Nigel Farage is the leader of UKIP, and was one of its first members, joining in the early nineties after leaving the Conservative Party in disgust over the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, which turned the EU from a looser, free trade zone into a much more concrete political and legal institution, with the aim of perpetual "ever closer union".

"We'll always have Maastricht"

It's worth remembering that Margaret Thatcher was always of the view that the old EEC was good for Britain because it was a free trade zone; she supported it because it was in Britain's interests. She was pro-European in many ways; but she was also ideologically anti-EU, as it took away sovereignty from Britain over various areas of government.
The crunch came in 1989 when her chancellor and foreign secretary (Nigel Lawson and Geoffrey Howe) had pressured Thatcher into agreeing to join the ERM, thus harmonising the comparative values of various European currencies, including the pound. Over this key issue, amongst others, Thatcher fired Howe that summer, replacing him with the little-known (harmless? malleable?) John Major. Barely a few months later, and in October Lawson quit, forcing Thatcher to promote the hitherto unknown Major into the second biggest job in the government, that of chancellor. And little over a year later, in November 1990, Thatcher herself was gone. It was surely the most tempestuous eighteen months of British peacetime politics ever known in the modern Conservative Party. And Europe had played a key part of it.

Major came to power by accident and chance circumstance; an archetypal mediocrity, in every way like the fictitious Jim Hacker from the political satire series, "Yes (Prime) Minister".
Thatcher seemed to trust him as a safe bet in 1989, seemingly channelling her own prejudices into the empty jar that was John Major; assuming he was another of the younger generation of "Thatcher clones", raised to worship at Thatcher's altar, and had already replaced many of the older "wets". But once in power under his own steam, it was clear to the Thatcherites that Major was just like the old-style "wets".
His support for the Maastricht Treaty caused a significant number of Conservatives to rebel, coming close to forcing a vote of confidence that could have brought down the government itself. The rest of the story is well-known.

The heir to Thatcher?

Reviewing this period of Conservative history is key to understanding UKIP. Because Nigel Farage's politics and ideology are shaped by those events, and by the ideology of Thatcher. While the modern leaders of the Conservatives claim to be "neo-Thatcherites", they know the words but not the real psychology; Cameron and Osborne are too distanced from that time and Thatcher's unique sense of mission. Besides, Cameron claimed he was the "heir to Blair" before saying he was heir to anyone else; in this sense, the Conservative Party are simply an extension of Cameron's psychology and ideology (whatever that is), and "Thatcherism" is only a superficial part of it.

It was Thatcher who transformed the Conservative Party into a fearsome electoral machine under her tutelage; it was Thatcher who comfortably won three elections in a row. UKIP are criticised as a "populist" party, but it is Thatcher who is the real role model to follow in creating a "populist" political party: Thatcher was herself an outsider, a non-establishment figure - a grocer's daughter from Lincolnshire who was a convert to the neoliberalism expounded by Ayn Rand.
With her own force of will she became leader of the Conservative Party, and turned it into a neo-liberal party, forcing it to reject the "post-war consensus". Likewise, she also made the Conservative Party seem a less "establishment" party, and appeal again to ordinary people; the aspiring working classes. Norman Tebbitt is a witness to that.

It was this approach that made Thatcher the most successful Prime Minister of the modern age - a non-establishment, egalitarian political outfit that believes in promoting self-worth and economic freedom. Now, Thatcher was a divisive figure - there can be no denying that - and that was as much down to her difficult (detached?) personality as much as her view on society. What Farage has in his favour is a genuine and irrepressible personality that explains ideas in ways people can simply understand.

It is Nigel Farage who has the best claim today to be a real "heir to Thatcher". Farage made his career in the "Thatcher Eighties" in the London Metals Exchange, and doing so without even going to university. His views are those that Thatcher espoused thirty years ago, almost without exception.

What UKIP and Farage represent is, put simply, the politics of Thatcher and the Conservative Party circa 1987. There are many in the Conservative Party who look to the events of 1989-90 as a black time, when the real principles of Conservatism were betrayed and the politics of Thatcher (and the woman herself) were abandoned. The Conservatives have never truly recovered from that.

Farage and UKIP are, in many ways, an opportunity to put things back in some order. Of the Maastricht rebels and the Eurosceptics of the '90s, few are still around or in active politics. A glorius exception to that is John Redwood, who famously put up a leadership challenge to Major in 1995. The question to ask is: with two MPs already having gone to UKIP, why should others not follow? Clearly, those who admire the politics of Thatcher have more in common with UKIP than with the modern Conservative Party. Cameron's views on Europe are little different from those that John major held twenty years ago, and by being part of UKIP those Conservative MPs can at least not worry about having to toe a "party line" clearly so far from their own heart. Under Cameron, the Conservative Party has lost all real sense of purpose beyond its own, aimless, survival.

They should join a "real" Conservative Party...

UKIP, the Conservatives and David Cameron: does the future belong to Farage?

The defection of Douglas Carswell and his (re)election as a Ukip MP in Clacton is a defining moment in modern British political history. His defection hit the Conservatives for six; then not long after, when another Tory, Mark Reckless, defected to Ukip at the start of the conference season, it just seemed to add insult to injury.

Now Reckless' by-election at Rochester and Strood on 20 November has been deemed a "must win" for Cameron; the message is that everyone who can spare the time is meant to do what they can to stem the threat of losing another "safe" Tory seat to a turncoat Faragist. The problem with this is that the polls locally are giving Reckless a decent lead. It looks likely that the Conservatives will then lose this seat as well.

Don't feed the crocodile

This fiasco can be laid at Cameron's door. The rise of Ukip in the last two years may have took everyone by surprise, but Cameron's strategy has been as transparently ham-fisted as it is self-defeating.
Eighteen months ago, Ukip was brought onto the serious political radar by their spectacular second-place at the Eastleigh by-election (they had had some similar - though less spectacular - results late in 2012). It was around this time that Cameron pledged to have an in-out referendum on the EU if Brussels refused to give in to his wishes for a renegotiation. This had no effect on stemming the leakage of voters to Ukip; if anything, their vote only increased with each sign of Cameron's desperation. With each passing phase of Ukip's growing appeal, Cameron is pressured into making more concessions to the Eurosceptic right of his party. Not for the first time, he shows himself to be a follower and not a leader.

The latest twist in this story became truly dramatic, when Cameron seemed to suggest a plan to limit the number of European migrants allowed into the UK. With exquisite timing, Manuel Barroso, the retiring EU bureaucrat rapidly smacked down any suggestion of Cameron's idea getting any leeway in Europe: simply, this idea broke one of the fundamental tenets of the EU, the free movement of labour.
Gleefully, Farage posted a twitter"thankyou" to Barroso for this helpful clarification, thus confirming everything that Farage has been saying all this time: that the only way to control Britain's borders was to leave the EU. There were no half-measures.

In fact, apart from all the other factors, the rise of Ukip must also be partly down to the fact that people know that Cameron's claims of being the only person able to reform the EU and give Britain a real choice are complete nonsense. Farage may also be one of the few leading politicians who can "talk human", but his words are also a lot more likely to be taken at face value.

Et tu, Brutus?

Now, after Cameron had a private meeting with MPs, Ken Clarke, the sole remaining moderate of the "old guard" still in parliament (and still respected), seems to have "gone rogue". Saying what probably many Tories think privately, he has suggested those Tory MPs with views more similar to those of Ukip would be better simply defecting outright and making things clearer for the "real" Conservatives - "Cameron's Conservatives".

Only a moment's thought about what this would mean in reality doesn't bear thinking about for Cameron. Some insiders have said that if (when?) the Tories lose the Rochester by-election to Ukip, it would encourage others to follow. Ken Clarke's words can only have added fuel to the fire. The last thing Cameron wants would be a civil war in the governing party little more than six months from a general election - but that looks a lot like what he's got.

We've been here before, and this is where Cameron's failings really start to show. John Major's seven-year premiership (1990-1997) was dogged by political in-fighting about Europe, culminating in the leadership challenge of John Redwood in 1995 (which resolved nothing). Major's premiership was characterised by his weak leadership, with him pleading in the weeks leading up to the general election with mischief-making Eurosceptic MPs not to "bind his hands" over Europe. But what Major faced then looks like a minor tiff compared to the naked schism on display today.

While Cameron's personality may have many differences to Major's, Cameron shares the same aimless, bland ideology of the "moderate" Conservative, and also shares the same tendency to let others lead the way on discourse and argument. What does Cameron truly believe in? Apart from his own self-confidence, few people can really say.

So Ken Clarke's "suggestion" looks like turning the Tories into little more than a vehicle for Cameron's facile and nameless "ideology" (something I alluded to last year), and a recipe for electoral disaster. This is ironic, given that people have in the past called Ukip little more than a bandwagon for Nigel Farage's omnipresent personality - Ken Clarke would do something similar to the old Conservative and Unionist Party, leaving the "real" Conservatives to join Ukip.

The Scottish referendum, home rule and the West Lothian Question

Scotland voted against becoming an independent country, by 55% to 45%. While the result was not quite as close as the polls predicted, many pollsters suggested this may well happen due to the "shy noes", which is indeed what happened.
That all being said, put in other terms, for every twenty voters, 9 were for separation - which suggests a very divided electorate. And now a few days on from the vote, Scotland feels like a different country psychologically and politically from a few months ago; perhaps permanently so.

Having energised the population like never before in living memory, the SNP look to be the political beneficiaries of the "Yes" campaign: many Labour voters voted for independence on the back of an attitude of complacency and seeming distant indifference from Westminster. One example of this was the surreal moments when Scottish Labour MPs came to their constituencies north of the border to campaign (and where many of them indeed hailed from), to be told by one-time Scottish Labour supporters to "eff off back to Westminster".
The referendum had the effect of making many Scottish Labour voters swing over to the "Yes" campaign and firmly into the SNP camp. That change may well be irreversible, with large implications for some of their seats in the Scottish (post) industrial heartlands. In other words, the SNP have turned overnight into a "Ukip north of the wall".

I'm alright, jock

A closer analysis of the referendum shows us that the vote was based on economic interests above all. The areas that voted yes were the (post) industrial heartland around Glasgow, and Scotland's fourth city, Dundee. Aberdeen (already wealthy from oil), and Edinburgh (wealthy from a vibrant economy), as well as the Scottish countryside regions and islands, all voted no.

This makes cold economic sense, if not being politically or psychologically heart-warming.
Those people who voted "yes" did so because they saw that they had nothing to lose and were more than willing to risk what little they had gained from the union with England (well, London). Glasgow and Dundee have never recovered from the (London-inspired) economic malaise brought on by the disappearance of the industries thirty years ago; in this sense, a vote for "yes" is a vote of desperation as well as aspiration.

(At this point, a wag might suggest that Glasgow and Dundee be given independence from the rest of "no" Scotland and the UK, seeing as that's what they voted for)

Those who voted "no" did so because of a simple attitude of "I'm alright, jack" - they were doing fine (or at least, not badly enough to want to risk something) from the union with London. To these people, independence meant change and uncertainty, and like any conservative cautionary individual, would prefer the devil they knew than the devil they didn't.

Another angle was the "age gap": the comparison of generational attitudes. Alex Salmond gave the vote to sixteen year olds with the transparent view that they would be more inclined to vote for independence. Not enough research has been done yet to show if this was truly proved to be the case. It follows some logic to suggest that older people (e.g. over fifty) may well look to their pensions and be terrified of the thought of what would happen to them come independence; on the other hand, younger people have the rest of their lives to look forward to aspiration rather than the caution and worry of an approaching mortality.

"What's your problem, Scotland?"

One last thought is comparing the independence movement and referendum in Scotland to contemporary and recent referendums in other parts of Europe. Catalonia is planning a referendum of its own in the coming weeks and months; Flanders in Belgium has had similar ideas for years. Even Italy has some (rudimentary) independence movements, such as the Veneto (Venice region), and others.
Since the end of the Cold War, Slovakia has split from the Czechs, the Baltic states have split (or re-detached themselves) from Russia, and Yugoslavia has fracturing into half a dozen pieces. Most recently, Kosovo declared independence in 2008.

A more comparable example to that of Scotland and the UK, is the case of Montenegro. This nation became joined with Serbia after the First World War (and also involved a union of crowns, as both Montenegro and Serbia were independent monarchies in 1914); Serbia also had other Slavic parts of the former Austria-Hungary as its reward for starting the First World War. The resulting nation became known as Yugoslavia, though it was in effect a "Greater Serbia", given its much larger population. When Yugoslavia fractured in the 1990s, Montenegro (apart from Kosovo) remained the only "partner" in this union of states with Serbia.
Finally, around ten years ago, Montenegro had its own independence referendum, which was won by only one percent of the vote (if that). That vote cast the last part of "Yugoslavia" into oblivion and history. Serbs and Montegrins are linguistically and culturally as alike as Scots and English. The question many "yes" voters in Scotland (and in other successful independence movements in Europe) ask other Scots is "why would you not want to be a free and independent country?" In short, what is your problem?

Many people in Glasgow and Dundee this weekend may feel they are living in a nation of scared sheep. While this is an unfair insult to many "no" voters, the anger from the "yes" camp is understandable: if places like Montenegro or Slovakia - neither of which have many recognisable resources - would be independent countries, then why not Scotland, with its oil, industry and educated population?
However this question may soon become academic, thanks to the "cunning plan" of David Cameron...

"I have a cunning plan..."

A week is a long time in politics, so they say, this this past week is certainly following that rule.
This time last week, panicked by the close opinion polls. Cameron, Milliband and Clegg agreed to a "vow" to grant Scotland extensive new powers - as explained by their spokesperson, the former PM Gordon Brown.
This was the "devo-max" option that Alex Salmond originally wanted on the referendum vote; Westminster was now offering a vote for either a Salmond-inspired "indy-lite", or a Westminster-panicked "devo-max". Salmond had been playing a poker game with Westminster for the last few years over Scotland's future, and Westminster had blinked.

Or so it seemed. Another analysis of the situation reveals that David Cameron saw a ruthless opportunity in what looked like another flapping episode at Downing Street. Cameron has plenty of form for both being at times a hopeless strategist and also a ruthless opportunist: it is for this reason why he has so many enemies in his own party as well as in general. It also explains why many view him as being a disaster on so many levels for the country. His current "cunning plan" is possibly the most dastardly of all, in terms of its huge implications.

In short, Cameron is happy to give "home rule" to Scotland, provided there is a quid pro quo for England (and Wales and NI, in theory).
Cameron's vision for preserving the UK in a modernised form is to give tax and law-giving powers to Scotland, provided Scottish MPs have no rights to vote on equivalent bills in England. In this way, Scottish MPs would be emasculated to having a right a sit in Westminster, but in effect do little else (and have no right to sit in a Westminster government either).

If Cameron's vision rings true, the same could also be true for Wales and NI, eventually leaving Westminster as an English-only parliament at some way down the line, with Downing Street effectively as an English-only government. In this scenario, while the Westminster government would represent (and formulate) foreign policy and British interests abroad, almost all other major internal decisions would be left to the devolved governments in London (Westminster), Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.

The "Balkanisation" of Britain?

The political ramifications for Labour are massive.
Cameron has clearly calculated that as the Tories are now an English-only party, this leaves Labour (and to a lesser extent, the Lib Dems) as the only truly "British" party in the country. Therefore, the best way to screw Labour electorally and politically is to give them what they had been asking for all these years - full devolution! This would leave the Tories at a natural advantage in an English-only Westminster, and make it more difficult for Labour to form a government.

Labour have dodged the bullet of Salmond's referendum only to be hit in the solar plexus by Cameron's "devo-max" plan.

Cameron has therefore gone from nearly breaking apart the UK by accident to now having a plan to effectively break up the UK on purpose.

The next seven months will prove to be pivotal and seismic in Westminster, With the Tories now keen to embrace some kind of "fast-track" devolution package before the general election in May (which they would ordinarily expect to lose), they see this plan as killing two birds with one stone: turning the tables on Labour by putting them in an impossible position - to accept their plan would be electoral suicide, but to reject it would be not much better.
The "England first" strategy also seems to be with Ukip in mind - though its easy to suspect that may also backfire, as Cameron has been trying to "out do Ukip" for the last eighteen months, with disastrous results.

These are truly crazy times, when you have a Conservative Prime Minister whose plan is to effectively break up the union in order to hold on to power.