A few years ago, this author wrote an article looking at the rise of (clinical) narcissism over the last thirty years or so, and the concurrent development in the rise of consumerist culture in the world. Last year, the author wrote a piece on how crime developed in human society over time, looking at the effect that changes in industrialisation and modern Capitalist society have had on how humans interact (and become more anti-social).
About five years ago was when the author first looked at how changes in modern society have made people more individualistic and narcissistic; linked to this is anti-social behaviour and, at the extreme end, psychopathy.
In this article, I want to try and bring some of these threads closer together.
Any criminologist knows that the majority of crime is carried out by those who are uneducated, from unstable backgrounds, and are impoverished. This is just a fact. Gang members, for example, exist as a coherent social unit as an indirect result of the lack of cohesive community and family identity. From a social point of view, "gang culture" exists due to a failure elsewhere. The recent spike in violent crime in Britain, and in London in particular, is a sign of that failure.
Socially-conservative voices will talk of the failure of the family unit in creating the moral vacuum that allows gang culture to flourish; but at the same time, these voices will talk of a collapse in "individual responsibility", while promoting a social view that emphasizes individualism. But these voices are trying to have it both ways. If the family unit is to be promoted then this is, by definition, against the individualism they also want to promote. From a social point of view, you can either be pro-family (and pro-community), or pro-individual. Logically, you can't be both - pro-social on one hand, but anti-social on the other.
This hypocrisy is typical of the right-wing since the rise of Libertarian values with Reagan in the USA and Thatcher in the UK, both ideological disciples of Ayn Rand. This ideology took control of conservative politics in the Anglo-sphere around forty years ago, and has been able to maintain the loyalty of more traditional "pro-social" conservatives due to a kind of "devil's bargain": Libertarians would make all conservatives rich, while peddling a fiction that the lower classes could also get rich quick in a deregulated market economy.
The reality of their ideology was that it massively widens inequalities (the statistics support this), creating a "dog eat dog" society which makes it more and more difficult for those on lower incomes to manage. In short, the poorest ten per cent are now poorer in real terms than they were forty years ago, while the top ten per cent are massively richer. And yet, the peddled fiction of more wealth for all is maintained because GDP has increased.
What this means for the poorest in social terms is that the community and family bonds are stretched to breaking point. The Libertarian outlook on society is one where society is atomized.
At the family "micro" level, the kind of insecurity created by a deregulated market leads to insecure working conditions. This leads to numerous side effects on the family such as deprivation, families being encouraged to drift apart through the need to look further afield for work opportunities, which thus increases family breakdown (see: adoption, and its often under-examined social impact). Other related factors are the insecurity and deprivation creating relationship and marriage break-up (with the obvious negative psychological consequences on any children), with the more general human knock-on effects of insecurity such as abuse of alcohol and drugs, psychological and physical violence in the home etc. etc. which are all heightened when all these factors are grouped together in the lowest segments of society.
At the community "macro" level, the need for workers to work further afield, and in more unstable working conditions, leads to a breakdown in community cohesion. Neighbours no longer see each other regularly; it becomes more difficult for a sense of social community to develop; small animosities develop between neighbours of different circumstances, and so on. In this environment, crime and "gang culture" become more difficult to combat, as crime becomes an expression of selfish, anti-social narcissism, and "gang culture" becomes the replacement of community and family for those anti-social misfits that have lost their connection to society. They commit crime because they no longer give a damn about anyone else, except perhaps their gang, if they are in one.
Looking through these two perspectives - micro and macro - it is easy to see how society becomes atomized, how the bonds that hold society together fall apart, and how Libertarian values engender anti-social behaviour. When the social bonds that hold people together are broken down, the result is crime.
The England riots of 2011 were an example of selfish anti-social behaviour out of control. The Conservative government's instinctive reply to blame it on them as individuals, which was as predictable as it was depressing. While there was some blame passed on to the parents of those involved (which itself was not exactly helpful), there was no serious attempt to look at the underlying causes, and to think about why England, and why not elsewhere, such as in other European countries? What marks England different from other countries of similar levels of development, for example, are the levels of much higher inequality, itself a result of the Libertarian ideology that had been at the heart of government since Thatcher.
Also in the UK, the Conservative government's policy of "austerity" is part of the wider Libertarian agenda. The soaring levels of violent crime, homelessness and mental health issues can all be pinned - either directly or indirectly - on the government's policy of "austerity", which has seen police and prisons funding slashed and local government funding (which is responsible for community and social care issues) cut drastically. When these agencies no longer have the funds available to police or care for society as they once did, the result isn't hard to predict.
The simultaneous "reforms" being carried out to welfare provision (i.e. to reduce spending) have the same effect on a "micro" and "macro" level. More families are destitute, child poverty has more than doubled thanks to "austerity", while the effects on mental health are similarly predictable. The family unit becomes more and more strained, with the effects on the wider community that have already been mentioned. Crime, again, is the predictable result, one way or the other.
Libertarian ideology is bad for society's health because it is fundamentally "anti-social" in its perspective.
Thursday, July 26, 2018
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
"No Deal" Brexit, "emergency powers" and blaming the EU: Britain's "Reichstag Fire" moment?
With the negotiations with the EU heading in ever more certainty towards a "no deal" situation, talk is now how Britain would be governed after leaving the EU in this event. All the evidence points towards an unprecedented situation where legal barriers would automatically be raised to Britain after its government deciding to leave the single market and customs union. Britain would be an island of itself, in a very literal sense, in large part cut off from the legal connections to its neighbours.
What this would mean in practical terms has been discussed in great detail elsewhere (see eureferendum.com for example). The day-to-day running of the country's industry and services would be hugely affected, akin to a time of war.
The fact that Theresa May assembled what has been termed a "war cabinet" tells us a lot about the mentality of those in government; to instinctively see the EU as an adversary now that we're leaving. And the government's behaviour during the negotiations has been nothing less than mendacious; from recently going back on previous commitments agreed last December (like over Northern Ireland, and now even threatening to go back on its previous commitment over the "divorce bill"), to now demanding that the EU show more "flexibility" when it has been the UK with its "red lines" that has been the one causing all the hold-ups. What should also not be forgotten is that the December agreement was put in place to avoid a collapse of talks completely at such an early stage; the EU was compromising where possible in order to prevent the potential unseating of May in London. And now, six months on, they realise that she is an untrustworthy figure, who goes back on agreements when it suits her. What does that say about Britain's status as a reliable power?
From the start, the EU was clear and transparent about what was and wasn't possible through the negotiations and as a potential end-state between the two sides, given the legal consequences (and impossibility of the UK's "magical thinking"). By contrast, the UK government's strategy has been opaque and involved obfuscation at every turn in order to mask the chaos behind the scenes at home.
And now, the chaos of a potential "no deal" outcome is, as predicted, being blamed on the EU. In the UK, the only side that is promoting the feasibility (or even desirability) of "no deal" are the "Brextremists"; the hard-right Libertarians that make up perhaps 20% of the parliamentary Conservative Party.
It's telling that British politics is being guided by a faction of one party; a faction whose views represent not much more than perhaps 10% of the entire electorate, if that. The "Brexit Agenda" has long been a Libertarian project, dismissed for years as the wild fantasy of a bunch of cranks. The Maastricht Treaty was the moment that brought that to the surface, with then-Prime Minister John Major calling them the "bastards".
Major's view, looked at in the current situation, can only be even more true today. As their views were only ever really held by a small faction of their party, and even less well-represented in the electorate, where could their mandate come from? It was the work of UKIP, who were always a Libertarian party at heart - in spite of purposely-misleading talk otherwise - that allowed the "Brexit Agenda" real oxygen in the public sphere. A combination of the financial crisis, exploited worries of immigration, and a peculiar political situation after 2010 that made UKIP seem like an unofficial "opposition", gave that party the space to promote their agenda, with the charisma of Nigel Farage helping the project along. It was David Cameron's combination of insecurity and arrogance that was the final factor in the EU referendum taking place.
Extremist views, such as those held by the Libertarian faction guiding "no deal" Brexit, could only ever come to dominate the political sphere in unusual times. What we are seeing in Britain is, under the circumstances, little better than a quiet "coup" by a group of political extremists. Using "legitimate" means by usurping parliament and blackmailing the government, they are the ones in charge. Any voices of dissent at their actions are dismissed as against the "will of the people", as these Libertarians choose to dictate how Britain should be transformed into a Libertarian "utopia" after leaving the EU. By holding key government ministries, and holding influential positions outside government as "independent advisers", Libertarians maintain their grip on power over a paralyzed government. Thus they ensure that there is no way to reverse their agenda.
Meanwhile, they also ensure that any government attempts at negotiation with the EU are sabotaged from their own side, by submitting proposals to the EU that are bound to be rejected. This is then followed up by them blaming the EU for the lack of progress in the talks, claiming that the EU are untrustworthy, intransigent, and had an agenda designed to "punish" Britain into leaving without a deal.
"Emergency Powers"
It is at this point that we can see how any chaos in Britain after Brexit next year will be blamed on the EU. And, given a compliant (and supportive) media, many in Britain would accept it.
Using a dark historical parallel, this could be Britain's "Reichstag Fire" moment - when a calamity instigated by one side is blamed on the other, in order to create a specific controlled narrative. While the EU would in that situation be accused of "stabbing Britain in the back" for its behaviour, those Brits still be in favour of rejoining the EU might well be branded "traitors" for siding with a foreign power. Foreigners themselves in Britain during this chaotic time might well (justifiably) fear for their safety. In the meantime, given the potential for widespread disruption to infrastructure and so on in the case of "no deal", the government might well be forced to use "emergency powers" to keep the country running, as in a time of war. Being effectively cut off from much of the rest of the world (even if for only a short while) would make this even easier to implement. Such self-imposed isolation would then allow those in power to take control of the narrative even more completely.
This is the kind of "creative destruction" that Libertarians talk about, where they hope to make a killing on the carcass of Britain's anarchic economy as vulture capitalists. In times of chaos, people look to order and authority, and are willing to suspend their usual common values like democracy and free speech. While Libertarians might look to make a mint in the meantime, deals could well be sought with more unscrupulous far-right authoritarians to create a kind of cultural "revivalism" to bring the nation together, where long-repressed ideas of power and identity are re-invented, at the expense of the "other", and at the expense of diversity.
Such talk has already been seen in Britain and America, with the rise of the unashamed bigotry of the far-right. In a "No Deal" Brexit, Britain could quickly descend; first into chaos, and afterwards, into a kind of "dark alliance" between opportunistic Libertarian vulture capitalists and the neo-Fascism of the alt-right.
It could happen.
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Theresa May as Prime Minister: Two years on
Two years on from May's beginning her premiership, there is nothing positive to say about her tenure, and nothing positive to say about her personality.
Going through things chronologically, her time in office is just a catalogue of dysfunctional misrule and doddering mismanagement, in which Britain has suffered through one crisis, scandal or humiliation after another.
The general mood of the country, outside of the wealthy and unencumbered Tory shires, feels like one of weary resignation, where the nation's fate - as "no deal Brexit" - is sliding towards economic, social and moral oblivion. Some people seem to actively welcome it, as a cathartic release. There is a feeling that Britain's social connections are breaking in a thousand small ways every single day; from the collapse of public service provision due to the government's "austerity" drive, to the many disproportionate side-effects this has on vulnerable segments of society such as the poor, disabled, and so on. The knock-on effects to issues like crime are clear.
And much of this rests squarely in the hands of Theresa May, as she is the one who has the power to change this, but chooses not to.
The author has written before about how May's psyche seems to embody many of the pathological neuroses that can be found in Britain's inner world. Autocratic, secretive, paranoid, untrustworthy: these are the words that can summarise Theresa May's style of government. Not to mention the poor judgement and the incompetence.
This catalogue of failure begins with her opening gambit in how she decided to interpret the EU referendum result. While the vote was won by a very narrow margin (4%), she decided to completely embrace the world-view of "leave". In the party conference, "remainers" were derided, and the agenda of UKIP was embraced almost wholesale. In effect, the Conservative Party under Theresa May was transformed into UKIP, leaving the moderate side of the party ignored. For those Conservatives against this lurch to the hard right, it was a case of "like it or or lump it"; as was explained to those in any doubt, it was either support the hard-right vision, or be considered a turncoat. And the ultimate threat used was existential: it was either this way, or allow Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister.
This autocratic atmosphere was clear from the very beginning, when the decision by Theresa May and her "Rasputin" advisor, Nick Timothy to leave the single market and customs union was made, without any consultation with the cabinet. In effect, this course of action set in motion a chain of events that left to the long road of "Hard Brexit", where a deal with the EU was effectively impossible. Her Lancaster House speech in January 2017 cemented that perception, leaving the "Brextremists" delighted, and the moderates in despair.
After already discarding the views of one half of the electorate, and secretively deciding on a course of "Hard Brexit", this was followed up by the decision to invoke Article 50 in March, setting in motion the two-year timeline for exit negotiations.
This error of judgement had already been warned against by the UK's "man in Brussels", Ivan Rogers, who had resigned in the New Year due to his well-sourced advice being ignored. Starting the stopwatch before the government had even had a chance to decide on a proper strategy (let alone before deciding what the government's actual aim outside the EU was) made no sense. It would automatically give the advantage to the EU, as the onus would be on the UK government to decide things with Brussels in that two-year period, or face leaving the EU with no deal. By doing so, Britain's government was shooting itself in the foot, while any threats later made to leave without a deal would be little more than threatening to shoot itself in the head.
But "politics" came first, and May and her advisors decided they knew better. After invoking Article 50, the next judgement that proved to be strategically-calamitous was to call for an early election.
After running the country in the style of an autocratic and secretive "personal rule", May allowed her advisors to create a kind of personality cult around her image.
In hindsight, what was baffling about this was that May was PR-phobic and had no obvious personal charisma - or even, it would appear any real "personality". It would create a personality cult around someone with no personality.
Her advisors, policy head Nick "Rasputin" Timothy and communications head Fiona Hill, had followed her from the Home Office, and ran Downing Street in the same manner. As many critics alleged, it was really these two who were making the key decisions; May seemed to have few ideas of her own, and went along with their judgments, as well as allowing these two abrasive personalities dominate the day-to-day running of the country. Their defenders would argue that as their world-view matched closely with May's, their dominance was simply another manifestation of May's own philosophy; but their detractors could also argue that as their abrasive personal conduct was condoned, it damaged May's own integrity to be so closely connected to them. May also allowed them to make key decisions like writing the upcoming election's manifesto, so it was also May's error to allow such a poorly-conceived manifesto to destroy the trust that people had had in her judgment to that date. Not to mention the fact that she had already ruled out any opportunism in calling an early election on numerous times, so going back on her word while claiming it was somehow the opposition's fault was as bad a piece of dissemination as seen by the worst politicians.
The 2017 election campaign revealed to the public how poorly May was personally equipped to deal with modern politics. In short, her role up to that time had been to be an "anti-modern" politician; essentially a technocrat who was given the trust to "get on with the job", and didn't need to be seen in public. In this way, May's aversion to the personality politics of Cameron was shared by her two advisors, and it was this workmanlike "image" that had been presented for those first ten months as Prime Minister.
As everyone learned during that campaign, May didn't like being seen in public because she didn't know how to deal with the public. She was also intellectually-incapable of thinking on her feet, and that "workmanlike" image that had worked for her before became then satirized as the "Maybot".
In the aftermath of the election, her judgment suffered twice in quick succession, over two different issues. First, losing the party's majority (itself an unprecedented blunder in a snap election) meant that the party relied on the DUP to get votes through parliament. May allowed her government to become allied to a party with its own murky links as well as social views that were anathema on the British mainland; worse, the "deal" with the DUP was effectively "cash for votes", which was the kind of corrupt bargain more usually associated with third world dictatorships (and "pork-barrel" USA).
Second, was her response to the Grenfell disaster, where her cack-handed manner of dealing with the event led even some of her supporters into throes of yet more despair.
Before the 2017 election, May's government had been ruled in large part by the autocratic pairing of Timothy and Hill. After her two key advisors were fired as the condition for her party allowing May to continue, May's government has been ruled in large part by stasis.
The Grenfell disaster was simply the first of many physical signs of the malaise that seemed to embody May's administration and her personal style. By the autumn, the "MeToo" movement reached Westminster, revealing to the public the chauvinistic and boorish culture that had been prevalent since time immemorial. Then sackings of two ministers over their sexist conduct seemed to open the floodgates to other sackings or resignations for various reasons that have gone on since then, with a rate of political attrition since last autumn that is more common to that found in unstable Latin American administrations. Meanwhile, the "optics" of seeing the Palace Of Westminster in scaffolding seems to mirror the shambolic internal goings-on, where the facade of functioning government is only just barely maintained.
The collapse of Carillion highlighted the "Ponzi scheme" structure that seems typical in public sector service providers, while the fate of the "Windrush generation" highlighted the immorality at the heart of Theresa May's "hostile environment". And while ministers might be changed, the policies themselves are barely touched. This is without even mentioning "austerity", whose effects are so vast on the public sector it's barely possible to know where to begin. Just to give one example, many local councils have had their budgets cut by 40%, while other services like the police, prisons, and others have had similarly life-changing cuts to their budgets.
With May, there is a facade of humanity where she pretends to show empathy for the plight of those her government's policies have affected, but once attention has turned, to use one of May's famous quotes, "nothing has changed". There is no sign that she's affected by the innumerable anecdotes of what her government's policies are doing to society, as her government's strategy is unchanged.
The sense of stasis under May's watch is caused in part by her (mis)handling of Brexit, which it seems has consumed the government's attention from almost any other issue, so the feeling of the country literally going to rack and ruin is very real. But what's even worse is that May's strategy since invoking Article 50 has been to avoid making any kind of coherent government plan, as this might provoke a crisis in the parliamentary party. The only offering of any substance until the Chequers white paper the other week was May's Florence speech last September, which, beyond saying what it ruled out (such reiterating leaving the single market and customs union), offered nothing coherent and instead presented yet more nonsensical "cakism".
The latest offering - the Chequers white paper - neatly embodies all that is wrong with May's style of government, and how she has learned nothing in her two years as Prime Minister. She is still in "dictatorial" mode, like she was from the very beginning with her unilateral decision over leaving the single market and customs union. This "white paper" was an incoherent "compromise" between the wishes of both sides of the party, that was created unilaterally by her and her close advisors in secret, thrust on to the cabinet without warning, were lied to about its contents beforehand, and were all then blackmailed in agreeing to it. What's not to like, eh? This behaviour soon caused the resignation of three ministers, has since been decried by both wings of the party, with the white paper being rejected by the EU in any case. The "Brextremists" then forced the government into accepting several amendments to the white paper that make a "no deal" scenario all the more likely than ever.
Two years on, Theresa May's premiership has achieved precisely nothing. Her time in government, and in regards to Brexit, has achieved as much as if there had been no government in charge at all. The only "achievements" she could point to are invoking article 50 and declaring Britain's objective to leave the single market and the customs union, and anyone with a pulse could have done that. The fact that both those decisions actually were strategically idiotic tells you everything.
Going through things chronologically, her time in office is just a catalogue of dysfunctional misrule and doddering mismanagement, in which Britain has suffered through one crisis, scandal or humiliation after another.
The general mood of the country, outside of the wealthy and unencumbered Tory shires, feels like one of weary resignation, where the nation's fate - as "no deal Brexit" - is sliding towards economic, social and moral oblivion. Some people seem to actively welcome it, as a cathartic release. There is a feeling that Britain's social connections are breaking in a thousand small ways every single day; from the collapse of public service provision due to the government's "austerity" drive, to the many disproportionate side-effects this has on vulnerable segments of society such as the poor, disabled, and so on. The knock-on effects to issues like crime are clear.
And much of this rests squarely in the hands of Theresa May, as she is the one who has the power to change this, but chooses not to.
The author has written before about how May's psyche seems to embody many of the pathological neuroses that can be found in Britain's inner world. Autocratic, secretive, paranoid, untrustworthy: these are the words that can summarise Theresa May's style of government. Not to mention the poor judgement and the incompetence.
This catalogue of failure begins with her opening gambit in how she decided to interpret the EU referendum result. While the vote was won by a very narrow margin (4%), she decided to completely embrace the world-view of "leave". In the party conference, "remainers" were derided, and the agenda of UKIP was embraced almost wholesale. In effect, the Conservative Party under Theresa May was transformed into UKIP, leaving the moderate side of the party ignored. For those Conservatives against this lurch to the hard right, it was a case of "like it or or lump it"; as was explained to those in any doubt, it was either support the hard-right vision, or be considered a turncoat. And the ultimate threat used was existential: it was either this way, or allow Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister.
This autocratic atmosphere was clear from the very beginning, when the decision by Theresa May and her "Rasputin" advisor, Nick Timothy to leave the single market and customs union was made, without any consultation with the cabinet. In effect, this course of action set in motion a chain of events that left to the long road of "Hard Brexit", where a deal with the EU was effectively impossible. Her Lancaster House speech in January 2017 cemented that perception, leaving the "Brextremists" delighted, and the moderates in despair.
After already discarding the views of one half of the electorate, and secretively deciding on a course of "Hard Brexit", this was followed up by the decision to invoke Article 50 in March, setting in motion the two-year timeline for exit negotiations.
This error of judgement had already been warned against by the UK's "man in Brussels", Ivan Rogers, who had resigned in the New Year due to his well-sourced advice being ignored. Starting the stopwatch before the government had even had a chance to decide on a proper strategy (let alone before deciding what the government's actual aim outside the EU was) made no sense. It would automatically give the advantage to the EU, as the onus would be on the UK government to decide things with Brussels in that two-year period, or face leaving the EU with no deal. By doing so, Britain's government was shooting itself in the foot, while any threats later made to leave without a deal would be little more than threatening to shoot itself in the head.
But "politics" came first, and May and her advisors decided they knew better. After invoking Article 50, the next judgement that proved to be strategically-calamitous was to call for an early election.
After running the country in the style of an autocratic and secretive "personal rule", May allowed her advisors to create a kind of personality cult around her image.
In hindsight, what was baffling about this was that May was PR-phobic and had no obvious personal charisma - or even, it would appear any real "personality". It would create a personality cult around someone with no personality.
Her advisors, policy head Nick "Rasputin" Timothy and communications head Fiona Hill, had followed her from the Home Office, and ran Downing Street in the same manner. As many critics alleged, it was really these two who were making the key decisions; May seemed to have few ideas of her own, and went along with their judgments, as well as allowing these two abrasive personalities dominate the day-to-day running of the country. Their defenders would argue that as their world-view matched closely with May's, their dominance was simply another manifestation of May's own philosophy; but their detractors could also argue that as their abrasive personal conduct was condoned, it damaged May's own integrity to be so closely connected to them. May also allowed them to make key decisions like writing the upcoming election's manifesto, so it was also May's error to allow such a poorly-conceived manifesto to destroy the trust that people had had in her judgment to that date. Not to mention the fact that she had already ruled out any opportunism in calling an early election on numerous times, so going back on her word while claiming it was somehow the opposition's fault was as bad a piece of dissemination as seen by the worst politicians.
The 2017 election campaign revealed to the public how poorly May was personally equipped to deal with modern politics. In short, her role up to that time had been to be an "anti-modern" politician; essentially a technocrat who was given the trust to "get on with the job", and didn't need to be seen in public. In this way, May's aversion to the personality politics of Cameron was shared by her two advisors, and it was this workmanlike "image" that had been presented for those first ten months as Prime Minister.
As everyone learned during that campaign, May didn't like being seen in public because she didn't know how to deal with the public. She was also intellectually-incapable of thinking on her feet, and that "workmanlike" image that had worked for her before became then satirized as the "Maybot".
In the aftermath of the election, her judgment suffered twice in quick succession, over two different issues. First, losing the party's majority (itself an unprecedented blunder in a snap election) meant that the party relied on the DUP to get votes through parliament. May allowed her government to become allied to a party with its own murky links as well as social views that were anathema on the British mainland; worse, the "deal" with the DUP was effectively "cash for votes", which was the kind of corrupt bargain more usually associated with third world dictatorships (and "pork-barrel" USA).
Second, was her response to the Grenfell disaster, where her cack-handed manner of dealing with the event led even some of her supporters into throes of yet more despair.
Before the 2017 election, May's government had been ruled in large part by the autocratic pairing of Timothy and Hill. After her two key advisors were fired as the condition for her party allowing May to continue, May's government has been ruled in large part by stasis.
The Grenfell disaster was simply the first of many physical signs of the malaise that seemed to embody May's administration and her personal style. By the autumn, the "MeToo" movement reached Westminster, revealing to the public the chauvinistic and boorish culture that had been prevalent since time immemorial. Then sackings of two ministers over their sexist conduct seemed to open the floodgates to other sackings or resignations for various reasons that have gone on since then, with a rate of political attrition since last autumn that is more common to that found in unstable Latin American administrations. Meanwhile, the "optics" of seeing the Palace Of Westminster in scaffolding seems to mirror the shambolic internal goings-on, where the facade of functioning government is only just barely maintained.
The collapse of Carillion highlighted the "Ponzi scheme" structure that seems typical in public sector service providers, while the fate of the "Windrush generation" highlighted the immorality at the heart of Theresa May's "hostile environment". And while ministers might be changed, the policies themselves are barely touched. This is without even mentioning "austerity", whose effects are so vast on the public sector it's barely possible to know where to begin. Just to give one example, many local councils have had their budgets cut by 40%, while other services like the police, prisons, and others have had similarly life-changing cuts to their budgets.
With May, there is a facade of humanity where she pretends to show empathy for the plight of those her government's policies have affected, but once attention has turned, to use one of May's famous quotes, "nothing has changed". There is no sign that she's affected by the innumerable anecdotes of what her government's policies are doing to society, as her government's strategy is unchanged.
The sense of stasis under May's watch is caused in part by her (mis)handling of Brexit, which it seems has consumed the government's attention from almost any other issue, so the feeling of the country literally going to rack and ruin is very real. But what's even worse is that May's strategy since invoking Article 50 has been to avoid making any kind of coherent government plan, as this might provoke a crisis in the parliamentary party. The only offering of any substance until the Chequers white paper the other week was May's Florence speech last September, which, beyond saying what it ruled out (such reiterating leaving the single market and customs union), offered nothing coherent and instead presented yet more nonsensical "cakism".
The latest offering - the Chequers white paper - neatly embodies all that is wrong with May's style of government, and how she has learned nothing in her two years as Prime Minister. She is still in "dictatorial" mode, like she was from the very beginning with her unilateral decision over leaving the single market and customs union. This "white paper" was an incoherent "compromise" between the wishes of both sides of the party, that was created unilaterally by her and her close advisors in secret, thrust on to the cabinet without warning, were lied to about its contents beforehand, and were all then blackmailed in agreeing to it. What's not to like, eh? This behaviour soon caused the resignation of three ministers, has since been decried by both wings of the party, with the white paper being rejected by the EU in any case. The "Brextremists" then forced the government into accepting several amendments to the white paper that make a "no deal" scenario all the more likely than ever.
Two years on, Theresa May's premiership has achieved precisely nothing. Her time in government, and in regards to Brexit, has achieved as much as if there had been no government in charge at all. The only "achievements" she could point to are invoking article 50 and declaring Britain's objective to leave the single market and the customs union, and anyone with a pulse could have done that. The fact that both those decisions actually were strategically idiotic tells you everything.
Monday, July 2, 2018
Brexit and the Iraq War: "The Shock Doctrine" applied to The UK
Perhaps one of the most persuasive arguments that the EU referendum was a historic mistake is how much political discourse and British society has been poisoned by it since. David Cameron called the referendum in order to resolve the poison that "Europe" had caused to the Conservative Party for the last thirty years. Instead, that poison spread like a cancer across the fabric of British society, dividing communities and segments of society in a "culture war" that continues to this day, with every sign that these divisions may be there for the long-term.
To the objective eye, Britain has been transformed into a nation at war with its own identity, with "Leavers" and "Remainers" marking the new ideological and cultural divide. On the one hand, Brexit is the issue that is the "elephant in the room" at social gatherings, that few people will dare raise in unfamiliar company, for the risk of causing open argument and hostility. On the other hand, this form of "self-censorship" of debate on the issue makes it a "fait accompli" where the most important event in Britain's post-war history becomes a closed issue, where talking about it only provokes talk of trying to reverse a democratic decision.
Brexit is the most contentious issue that Britain has faced since the Iraq War, which itself brought about the million-man march. The crossover of controversy of the two events is hard to miss: the "false prospectus" used to justify the war in Iraq is mirrored by the lies over the threat of Turkey joining the EU, the "Brexit bus" NHS pledge, and so on; the lack of planning over the Iraq war is matched by the lack of planning by the government over Brexit; the complacency that the coalition would be greeted in open arms in Iraq is matched by the complacency that post-Brexit Britain will somehow be a paradise. And all behind this is the same Libertarian agenda; the same agenda that Naomi Klein spoke long about in "The Shock Doctrine".
In this way, it can be argued that the "Neocons" in the Bush administration that led the call to war in Iraq (for the purpose of profiteering) are matched by those Libertarians in Britain and outside who see Brexit as the opportunity to make money from post-Brexit "disaster capitalism". These are the people who are advising the British government.
This is one reason why the negotiations have been going so badly. There are those with vested interests who need the negotiations to fail in order for their plan to come to fruition, by making sure that any proposal that the British government sends to Brussels is bound to be unacceptable. This way, they simply have to continue this farce until the time runs out, and then they can blame the EU for being "uncompromising". This was evident as long ago as during May's Florence speech, and it was even clear from her Lancaster House speech eighteen months ago, before she invoked article 50, that she saw Britain's course as separate from European institutions like the single market, ECJ and customs union. The course for Britain of the "Hard Brexit" of Libertarians' dreams has been the plan since almost the very beginning, as soon as May became Prime Minister. All the talk of compromise from Britain has simply been to keep the Euro-friendly MPs in the Conservative Party from rebelling, and it should now be clear to them they've been played for fools. The rebels' ultimate loyalty to their party was always the trump card that the "Brexiteers" had over any real concern for the country's future; the rebels' ultimate "weakness" was the hold that the Libertarian far-right in the party had over them, whose demands (also called the Brexit "Taliban") could never be reasoned with.
Going back to Iraq, we know now that the Iraq War was a humanitarian disaster for the country. Regardless of where you stand on the Saddam Hussein regime (which was unquestionably awful for many Iraqis), the real thing that matters is the opinion of Iraqis themselves. The opinions of those that are old enough to remember living as adults during Saddam's time vary of course, depending on who you talk to. Of the various groups in the country, arguably the Kurds have done the best out of post-invasion Iraq, but all those that have benefited have done so due to the anarchic and corrupt situation and/or loss of control from the centre.
"Anarchy" and "loss of central control" are two things that can also be found when the Libertarian lobby take control of a society. Those Iraqis that do have nostalgia for Saddam's time (Sunnis, mostly) talk of the stability, which is something that is easily taken for granted and only appreciated when it is lost. If the Libertarian agenda represents one thing, it is economic and social instability (also known as "creative destruction"); precisely what has happened to Iraq since the invasion.
The "creative destruction" analogy - transplanted from the Middle East to the Anglo-sphere - also holds true for post-Brexit Britain. And the comparison that is valid has already been made - about those behind the drive to the war in Iraq and those in the "Brexit Agenda" i.e. Libertarians. As mentioned at the start, Brexit has poisoned British society, in a way that may well be irreversible. The cultural fractures that have been created seem impossible to reconcile. Meanwhile, the status of the country itself is in flux, with things only becoming clearer next year, when Britain leaves the EU. When that happens, it is difficult to predict what the result will be. While the EU referendum brought to the surface the many injustices present in British society, it seems that the government in Edinburgh, after initially threatening another independence referendum after the Brexit vote, is keeping its powder dry for the moment. Sensibly, they want to wait until it is clear what path Britain will take before deciding its next step.
What Brexit makes clear is how fragile the bonds that hold British society together really are. Holyrood is waiting; it is hard to believe that they would not respond themselves if they see their future as tied to an "English corpse", destroying itself due to the machinations of a self-centred and amoral right-wing clique, its infrastructure gobbled up by "vulture capitalists".
In such a situation, optimism about Britain's immediate future is difficult to summon. There is no chance that the government will reverse course, partly because it is seen as politically-impossible, but more importantly, because the vested interests guiding the government are too powerful to resist. The "bandwagon" cannot be turned around. Like how the coalition's armies preparing for war in Iraq were impossible send back home without fighting, Theresa May cannot do a U-turn on Brexit, regardless of how bad it might be. The dye is cast.
The "apocalyptic" scenario would involve the break-up of the UK. As mentioned, Scotland would see no reason to remain tied to an "English corpse".
Culturally-speaking, this author has found some unerring parallels to British society and the former Yugoslavia. While no-one in their right mind would make direct comparisons with Britain's future and the break-up of Yugoslavia (!), more general cultural comparisons may be possible. Like how Serbia dominated Yugoslavia economically and culturally, so does England in the UK. Likewise, Serbia's own sense of identity is tied to its history and cultural dominance over its immediate neighbours (e.g. Croats, Bosnians and so on) is matched by England's innate sense of cultural superiority over the other nations of the UK. Brexit can also be ultimately seen as an expression of pathological English nationalism, especially when surveys show how many English people would prefer Brexit even at the expense of the integrity of the UK. Looking at Yugoslavia, it could be argued that it was Serbian resentment at devolving more powers to the constituent assembles of Federal Yugoslavia that created the tensions that led to the country's break-up. The same tensions have been evident, and gradually rising, in the UK for nearly twenty years.
The fact that Scotland's independence referendum preceded the EU referendum by two years cannot have been a coincidence in stoking English nationalist sentiment. All that was needed was the added factor of economic woes and financial inequality (also present in Federal Yugoslavia in the 1980s, it should be added), and - hey presto! - you have the perfect ingredients for an "English backlash". Given how it was England that voted by a comfortable margin for Brexit, while in either Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there was only a narrow vote to leave, or sizable votes to remain, this puts a clear "nationalist" complexion on events.
This is all the result of the poison of Brexit, stoked by a Libertarian agenda.
To the objective eye, Britain has been transformed into a nation at war with its own identity, with "Leavers" and "Remainers" marking the new ideological and cultural divide. On the one hand, Brexit is the issue that is the "elephant in the room" at social gatherings, that few people will dare raise in unfamiliar company, for the risk of causing open argument and hostility. On the other hand, this form of "self-censorship" of debate on the issue makes it a "fait accompli" where the most important event in Britain's post-war history becomes a closed issue, where talking about it only provokes talk of trying to reverse a democratic decision.
Brexit is the most contentious issue that Britain has faced since the Iraq War, which itself brought about the million-man march. The crossover of controversy of the two events is hard to miss: the "false prospectus" used to justify the war in Iraq is mirrored by the lies over the threat of Turkey joining the EU, the "Brexit bus" NHS pledge, and so on; the lack of planning over the Iraq war is matched by the lack of planning by the government over Brexit; the complacency that the coalition would be greeted in open arms in Iraq is matched by the complacency that post-Brexit Britain will somehow be a paradise. And all behind this is the same Libertarian agenda; the same agenda that Naomi Klein spoke long about in "The Shock Doctrine".
In this way, it can be argued that the "Neocons" in the Bush administration that led the call to war in Iraq (for the purpose of profiteering) are matched by those Libertarians in Britain and outside who see Brexit as the opportunity to make money from post-Brexit "disaster capitalism". These are the people who are advising the British government.
This is one reason why the negotiations have been going so badly. There are those with vested interests who need the negotiations to fail in order for their plan to come to fruition, by making sure that any proposal that the British government sends to Brussels is bound to be unacceptable. This way, they simply have to continue this farce until the time runs out, and then they can blame the EU for being "uncompromising". This was evident as long ago as during May's Florence speech, and it was even clear from her Lancaster House speech eighteen months ago, before she invoked article 50, that she saw Britain's course as separate from European institutions like the single market, ECJ and customs union. The course for Britain of the "Hard Brexit" of Libertarians' dreams has been the plan since almost the very beginning, as soon as May became Prime Minister. All the talk of compromise from Britain has simply been to keep the Euro-friendly MPs in the Conservative Party from rebelling, and it should now be clear to them they've been played for fools. The rebels' ultimate loyalty to their party was always the trump card that the "Brexiteers" had over any real concern for the country's future; the rebels' ultimate "weakness" was the hold that the Libertarian far-right in the party had over them, whose demands (also called the Brexit "Taliban") could never be reasoned with.
Going back to Iraq, we know now that the Iraq War was a humanitarian disaster for the country. Regardless of where you stand on the Saddam Hussein regime (which was unquestionably awful for many Iraqis), the real thing that matters is the opinion of Iraqis themselves. The opinions of those that are old enough to remember living as adults during Saddam's time vary of course, depending on who you talk to. Of the various groups in the country, arguably the Kurds have done the best out of post-invasion Iraq, but all those that have benefited have done so due to the anarchic and corrupt situation and/or loss of control from the centre.
"Anarchy" and "loss of central control" are two things that can also be found when the Libertarian lobby take control of a society. Those Iraqis that do have nostalgia for Saddam's time (Sunnis, mostly) talk of the stability, which is something that is easily taken for granted and only appreciated when it is lost. If the Libertarian agenda represents one thing, it is economic and social instability (also known as "creative destruction"); precisely what has happened to Iraq since the invasion.
The "creative destruction" analogy - transplanted from the Middle East to the Anglo-sphere - also holds true for post-Brexit Britain. And the comparison that is valid has already been made - about those behind the drive to the war in Iraq and those in the "Brexit Agenda" i.e. Libertarians. As mentioned at the start, Brexit has poisoned British society, in a way that may well be irreversible. The cultural fractures that have been created seem impossible to reconcile. Meanwhile, the status of the country itself is in flux, with things only becoming clearer next year, when Britain leaves the EU. When that happens, it is difficult to predict what the result will be. While the EU referendum brought to the surface the many injustices present in British society, it seems that the government in Edinburgh, after initially threatening another independence referendum after the Brexit vote, is keeping its powder dry for the moment. Sensibly, they want to wait until it is clear what path Britain will take before deciding its next step.
What Brexit makes clear is how fragile the bonds that hold British society together really are. Holyrood is waiting; it is hard to believe that they would not respond themselves if they see their future as tied to an "English corpse", destroying itself due to the machinations of a self-centred and amoral right-wing clique, its infrastructure gobbled up by "vulture capitalists".
In such a situation, optimism about Britain's immediate future is difficult to summon. There is no chance that the government will reverse course, partly because it is seen as politically-impossible, but more importantly, because the vested interests guiding the government are too powerful to resist. The "bandwagon" cannot be turned around. Like how the coalition's armies preparing for war in Iraq were impossible send back home without fighting, Theresa May cannot do a U-turn on Brexit, regardless of how bad it might be. The dye is cast.
The "apocalyptic" scenario would involve the break-up of the UK. As mentioned, Scotland would see no reason to remain tied to an "English corpse".
Culturally-speaking, this author has found some unerring parallels to British society and the former Yugoslavia. While no-one in their right mind would make direct comparisons with Britain's future and the break-up of Yugoslavia (!), more general cultural comparisons may be possible. Like how Serbia dominated Yugoslavia economically and culturally, so does England in the UK. Likewise, Serbia's own sense of identity is tied to its history and cultural dominance over its immediate neighbours (e.g. Croats, Bosnians and so on) is matched by England's innate sense of cultural superiority over the other nations of the UK. Brexit can also be ultimately seen as an expression of pathological English nationalism, especially when surveys show how many English people would prefer Brexit even at the expense of the integrity of the UK. Looking at Yugoslavia, it could be argued that it was Serbian resentment at devolving more powers to the constituent assembles of Federal Yugoslavia that created the tensions that led to the country's break-up. The same tensions have been evident, and gradually rising, in the UK for nearly twenty years.
The fact that Scotland's independence referendum preceded the EU referendum by two years cannot have been a coincidence in stoking English nationalist sentiment. All that was needed was the added factor of economic woes and financial inequality (also present in Federal Yugoslavia in the 1980s, it should be added), and - hey presto! - you have the perfect ingredients for an "English backlash". Given how it was England that voted by a comfortable margin for Brexit, while in either Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there was only a narrow vote to leave, or sizable votes to remain, this puts a clear "nationalist" complexion on events.
This is all the result of the poison of Brexit, stoked by a Libertarian agenda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)