Narcissism and politics: David Cameron's resignation and the EU referendum

David Cameron's career is, in many ways, a parable of the ascent and (inevitable) demise of the narcissist as politician.
In a previous article, we've looked at Cameron's rise to party leader and Prime Minister, through the prism of the narcissist. The nature of his fall was as much the result his own personality and narcissism as any other part of his career; in some ways, even more so.

The article mentioned looks at how Cameron took control of his party by effectively making the success of the party reliant on the success of the leader; the party became popular because he was popular. In this sense, like many narcissist-politicians, the party became a form of "personality cult". He modernised the party, becoming known as the "heir to Blair" in the process. He took a look at how to make his party popular, recruiting Steve Hilton in the process; this was the "hug a hoodie" period before the financial crisis. These were the positives that Cameron brought to his role; but there were far more negatives in the long run.

Over his career he became known as masterful at tactics, but hopeless at strategy. His superficial charm was noticeable and what gave him an automatic sense of gravitas. The problem with this was that it perhaps too often it gave him an automatic sense of invincibility. We'll look at this in more detail in a moment.
The superficial charm, along with some other more unpleasant characteristics, have seemed to point to a darker aspect of Cameron's personality. While he has plenty of admirers and his circle of supporters are fiercely-defensive of his character and motives, a more distanced look at his career at the pinnacle of politics for six years (plus his four-and-a-half years as leader of the opposition) leads to a less sympathetic assessment. While he himself said that "all careers end in failure", his own failure was one he brought about on himself. It is this seismic failure that will always define him.

Politics as a poker game

Some see politics and power as a game of chess; others see it as a game of poker. A famous example of the former would be the cynical "grand master" of geo-politics in the early 21st century, Vladimir Putin. This is a man who will do whatever he needs to in order to preserve power, exploit weaknesses in his enemies, and grab opportunities to extend influence. Cameron's partner-in-power, George Osborne, is someone who also played politics as a chess game, using his position as chancellor to trap and destroy his enemies.
David Cameron, though, sees it as a game of poker, He would never admit this himself probably, but the evidence is there to see when you look at the judgments and decisions he has made as leader of his party and, more significantly, as Prime Minister.

Cameron is the ultimate "risk-taker" as politician. It is easier, and more instructive, to look at the progress of Cameron's career as a series of decisions and judgments (or "gambles"), and how this affected (or reinforced) the somewhat callous, risk-taking aspect to his character, ultimately resulting in an explosive "ultimate gamble".
This goes back all the way to his initial rise to the leadership of the Conservative Party. His main challenger for the leadership in 2005 was David Davis. As Davis was known as an arch Euro-sceptic, and Cameron's views on Europe were more nuanced, in order to win the support of the party's hard right, he declared that if he became Conservative leader he would take them out of the European People's Party (EPP), the EU's largest group of conservatism in the parliament. This declaration was key to getting the support he needed, and then he carried through with his promise to take his party out of the EPP. This was largely unremarked on in Britain at the time, but it was not in the Europe. It was never forgotten in Europe's major capitals how Cameron played to his party's anti-European instincts for his own personal gain; as would be repeated ten years later.

While this decision might not be a "gamble" as such, it was a judgement that would start a ball rolling and have long implications.

Cameron's relationship with the parliamentary party was almost always unstable, due to the distrust they felt over what they saw as his instinctive "Europeanism". Like during John Major's tenure, he was always having to play a balancing act between doing things to remain popular with the wider electorate (and thus in office), and doing things to stay on the right side of his MPs. His instincts were to the former, with the occasional piece of red meat thrown to the latter when the need arose. It was this strategy of effectively "winging it" with his own MPs (and thus the fate of the country) that would lead to the fateful "Bloomberg Speech" in early 2013.

His parliamentary party were taken aback when he failed to win the 2010 election outright; when Cameron then took the decision (and thus his first real "gamble") to join in a full coalition with the Liberal Democrats, many of them were incensed, and it took all his charm to keep them on his side. But even that was only temporary.
This "gamble" of coalition government led to a further "gamble" the following year, in the form of the AV referendum. This referendum on changing the voting system was one of the LibDems' terms in the Coalition Agreement; Cameron was taking a risk, for if he lost it, his party would have permanently fewer seats in parliament (and he would, one assumes, not be long in his job). Luckily for him, the risk was in fact over-stated, and due to the winning over the support of the Labour party, the "no" side won comfortably. Cameron had taken his first major domestic gamble, and won.

By 2012, though, the LibDems were causing trouble. After accepting austerity and losing the AV referendum, their leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg was becoming increasingly unpopular, and so needed something to raise his party's profile than being seen as the Conservatives' "enabler". According to the Coalition Agreement, the AV referendum was tied to changes on constituency boundary reform, which would benefit the Conservatives (at the expense of Labour and the LibDems). However, the LibDems now said that boundary reform was tied to House Of Lords reform; they would not support boundary reform without Lords' reform.
This led to boundary reform can being kicked down the road till after the 2015 election after the LibDems' Lords' reform failed, which infuriated many of Cameron's MPs. They were further infuriated by another decision (read "gamble") that Cameron took, to support gay marriage.

It was partly due to these factors (and the rise of UKIP) that led Cameron to feel the need to give his rebellious MP some "red meat"; the result of this was the fateful "Bloomberg Speech". In other words, his "gambles" in one direction had led to the need to "hedge" in the other.

Meanwhile, Cameron took his first foreign policy "gamble" early in 2011, with the intervention in Libya. The "Arab Spring" affected him quite strongly and, with the support of Nicholas Sarkozy, took the war in Libya to be a kind of personal crusade. It was a largely Anglo-French operation, but what was meant to be an operation that had learned the mistakes of Iraq turned into one that simply repeated them, albeit in a slightly different form. Once Muammar Qaddafi was gone, Cameron's attention rapidly waned; even before that, Cameron's "strategy" in Libya was proving to be almost non-existent. To be blunt, while Cameron may have had good intentions, to outsiders it looked like an exercise in foreign policy "attention seeking". The fact that Libya quickly collapsed into civil war due to a lack of Anglo-French guidance or oversight told its own story. Cameron's "gamble" in Libya is something that Britain seemed to quickly forget; meanwhile, Libyans are living it every day.

That trend of Cameron "taking his eye off the ball" did not get any better with the vote on war in Syria two years later. Again, Cameron's character flaws shown themselves to lead to a blunder of his own making. This was another case of him rolling the dice with high stakes in foreign affairs, and losing.

Raising the stakes

So far, Cameron's "gambles" had either paid off, or (at a superficial level) his "losses" had not critically damaged his position; he would lick his wounds and move on. In this sense, you could see where Cameron might get the impression that he was "getting quite good" at making judgement calls, in spite of the reality. He seemed to be quite good at shrugging off the occasional knock-back as part of a learning curve. The problem with this was that it might lead him to think his judgement was getting better with each "gamble" he made. It wasn't; it was simply that the stakes were getting higher each time.

Cameron has been called an "Essay Crisis" Prime Minister: he would often lack the drive and attention to deal with a problem until the last minute, when he would suddenly bring it all together as if by magic. It also meant that he was liable to panic at the final moment.

This was true of the Scottish Referendum, when during the negotiations with Alex Salmond he gave way on some issues, as long as the vote was an "either-or" and London would decide the timing of the vote. As the polls suggested a comfortable majority for staying part of the UK when the campaign started, Cameron saw this as a way to "lance the boil" of Scottish independence, while also catching Alex Salmond on the back foot.
As we know, the polls narrowed dramatically in the final weeks of the campaign, resulting in Cameron's panicky "vow" with the other major party leaders for more powers for Scotland to stay part of the UK (as an aside here, with Scotland being the only other kingdom in the "United Kingdom", Scotland leaving the UK would effectively mean the name would no longer have any meaning; so Scotland was effectively voting to abolish "the UK").
Again, this was another moment when Cameron was truly "risking it all". But no sooner had the referendum been won that he was again "hedging" with his own troublesome backbenchers by calling for EVEL; currying favour with Scotland one day, and with the English shires the next. No wonder people saw him as untrustworthy.

As we have seen, Cameron had been a "lucky" Prime Minister. The after-shocks of the referendum had huge effects on the politics of Scotland, with horrifying effects for Labour. Come the general election, it meant that Labour had to win dozens of seats in England to stand a chance. Cameron's use of Lynton Crosby, combined with a ruthless assault on the seats of the coalition partners, meant that his party was able to create an almost "perfect victory".
The strategy Cameron used in the election campaign was risky, especially as - in relentlessly attacking the LibDems - they were undermining the very party they thought they would need to form a functioning government. And, indeed, the "perfect victory" was almost too perfect: for it meant that with the LibDems no longer there in government to block an EU referendum, he would have to go through with his promise. This would prove to be a hideous irony.

And so Cameron arrived at his biggest gamble of all. As he had won so many other battles, and often played his hand with mastery over the past six years, he thought he had done enough to win the referendum, so he could go on to the final, glorious years of his premiership. In many ways, he used the same strategy ("Project Fear") in the EU referendum as he had in the Scottish referendum. He made many assumptions - mostly false -  about the state of politics in the UK. Forgetting that UKIP were doing to Labour in the Northern England what the SNP had done to them in Scotland was a huge error of judgment on Cameron's part. This meant that Labour could not "rely" on "their" voters to vote the way they wanted, to fateful effect.

It was Cameron's "Essay Crisis" too many. He had looked at his hand of poker, and misjudged the table when he needed his judgment the most, when the stakes could not have been higher - for him or the country. The tendency for Cameron to be the expert of "winging it", of recklessly assuming "everything will be fine", of over-estimating his own judgment, finally came to destroy him.

In the end, also the manner of his resignation was told us something of his character. He was infamously quoted as saying after the result was clear "I'm not here for the hard shit", or words to that effect.

Narcissism and politics/ the narcissist as politician

It is commonly-understood that a significant proportion of politicians are narcissists (at least partially). Elsewhere, the author has looked into the darker side of politics, where it could be argued that politics and psychopathy meet. But there are plenty of cases in history and the present day to support this widely-accepted phenomenon.

We need look no further than the UK for evidence.
The modern-day Conservative Party is led by David Cameron and George Osborne.  These are the "power duo" of the UK, in some ways the "successors" to the domination that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had over British politics for fifteen years.
Like with Blair and Brown, Cameron and Osborne seem to have some kind of informal agreement about power-sharing: Cameron is the "front man", whereas Osborne is the "back-seat driver" or the "power behind the throne". In some ways, they could be called "amplified" or "alternate" versions of their respective predecessors.
Like Blair, Cameron possesses the charisma and statesmanlike gravitas necessary to appear as a convincing world leader; however, at the same time, Cameron appears less as the "heir to Blair" as the "Blair's bastard" - possessing many of the negative attributes that Blair was accused of having (but more amplified), and only a superficial smattering of the positives. Gordon Brown was accused by some of being dour and power-hungry; Osborne wields powers with supreme efficiency but absent of natural charm, and his ambition is nakedly plain to see. Everything he does is seen through the lens of amplifying power.

Whereas Osborne is an individual with apparent empathy issues, Cameron's personality displays an almost childish aspect to it at times. While the mask is in place, Cameron beams with bubbly charm; but when provoked by something, Cameron temper runs amok, turning into adolescent petulance. Cameron's personality has been analysed before, through the prism of his superficiality pointing to a  darker side. However, a second look at the evidence suggests that Cameron's narcissistic traits far outweigh anything else (what psychologists call the "anti-social" traits). He has no real values because he believes in nothing. He wanted to be Prime Minister simply because he thought he would be good at it - a definition of narcissism if ever there was one. His ideas are taken up suddenly, but because he lacks the will to see things through, will quickly lose interest and do something else. The "Green deal" is a great example of this: a policy announced with great fanfare, only to be quietly dropped when Cameron wanted to suddenly get rid of the "green crap". A large number of firms tied to the industry, and thousands of jobs, were cut loose as a result. In the same way, Cameron's ideas of ten years ago, such as "hug a hoodie" and sticking to Labour's spending plans, were instantly dropped when the socio-economic climate soured. It could similarly be argued that his government's key policy of "austerity" is nothing more than a moment of opportunism seen in 2008, which (fortunately for them) has worked out well for Cameron and Osborne since. Seen in this way, "austerity" is simply a tool to make Cameron and his government famous (or infamous) to posterity. All these examples point to the superficial nature of Cameron's personality: he will do or say anything to gain support. And all this goes without even mentioning the countless lies spoken from his mouth: there are too many to mention.

The God-figure

Adulation is obviously a key aspect of narcissists as politicians. The narcissist as politician sees himself as a "saviour", to his party and the country. But first of all, to his party and his army of followers. As we see with the example of David Cameron, he became the leader of his party in 2005, on the back of a third successive electoral defeat for the Conservatives. It was clear that when Cameron called himself the "heir to Blair" he was also aping Blair's ability to take a party that was on the ropes, channel their desperation and allow him to be their instrument. All that was necessary was loyalty and belief in his "vision". In this way, it can also be argued that "the party" in this psychological state sees its "visionary" leader as a manifestation of their own idealised self, discarded of its self-doubt and insecurities.
In this psychological state of affairs, it's easy to see how a narcissistic politician as party leader is able to channel that same energy to the nation at large. Thus when the narcissist politician does indeed attain the ultimate prize, he feels that his inflated sense of self-worth was in fact an accurate portrayal of his talents. The irony here is that this misguided psychology also results in him attracting others to his close circle who also wish to gain their own piece of the power; sycophants who will agree with and follow his ideas, or suggest only ideas that they think he will agree with. In short, this results in the leader promoting people who are incompetent but loyal over those who actually have better ideas. Cameron's governing circle is a case in point.

"Us and Them"

Thus in a court of yes-men, the narcissist politician sees anyone who criticises him as being an "enemy"; for this reason, we can see how narcissists suffer from irrational paranoia. It is in this state that we arrive at the point where the narcissistic leader sees himself as a victim, leading to a reliance on the tribal loyalty of his followers. In this way, there is a need for the narcissistic leader to create an "us and them" mentality. If an obvious enemy does not exist, one is created.
In the case of David Cameron, the creation of "austerity" as the government's effective religion is the way to assess how "loyal" segments of society are to the cause. Those who are against "austerity" are "deficit deniers", and not living in the real world. Society is divided into "strivers versus skivers", in George Osborne's infamous wording. This is the essence of the politics of "divide and rule" that narcissistic politicians always fall back on in the end. The sad truth is that it usually works.

At the end of the day, a narcissistic politician relies on the politics of low populism and base emotion to hold on to power. Cameron is no exception to this rule. Look at the themes that have occupied Conservative rule and their party conferences. While the attempt is made to make their theme hopeful, the "Nasty Party" once decried by Theresa May is back in full swing, even in her own terms. If not victimising young people or the unemployed, Cameron's Conservatives are blaming immigrants for social problems. Opponents are called "unpatriotic" or worse. It is in these national atmosphere that generates more violent dissent, as the cycle of division and hatred between opposing sides is fuelled by the rage of the narcissistic leader. This downward spiral of polarisation and ever harsher rhetoric has only one result in the end. The eventual end for the narcissistic politician is often a violent or dramatic removal from power.

That time has not arrived yet for David Cameron - and may not, as he has already indicated his "exit strategy". For others though, such as Turkey's President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it is a different story: a man who seems intent to wielding ever greater degrees of power, come what may.

The Conservatives' election strategy and "dirty tricks": how to divide your enemies and threaten people

Q: How do the Conservatives, the party that represent the interests of Britain's rich and powerful, persuade others to vote for them?

There have historically been two strands to this answer, depending on who they are trying to persuade.

To the "middle class", the Conservatives use the double-pronged "threat" of the Labour party as the party that will take away their money through taxation (and destroy the economy), as well as the "threat" that the "feckless/ undeserving/ immoral" segments of society pose to the rest.
Married with the psychological "threat" of the alternative is the "opportunity" that the Conservatives say they can bring to the middle class - that they offer the easiest (low tax) route for the the middle class to rise upwards to the golden realms of the elite. The message is fear on one hand, and greed on the other.

To the "working class", the Conservatives use the similar "threat" of the "feckless/ undeserving/ immoral", which is presumably much closer to home to them, married with the message that the Conservatives represent the "party of opportunity", allowing the "hardworking" to rise up to the middle class. Again, it is fear on one hand, and self-interest on the other.  

Over the long history of the Tories, they have been adept at masking their recurring incompetence inside an exterior shell of assured self-confidence. This may well also be a metaphor for the state of modern Britain itself: but that's another story.

Divide and rule

George Osborne's use of the "strivers versus skivers" rhetoric is the latest telling of a narrative from the Tories that has been the same for many decades, which has intensified with the coming of Thatcherism.
The psychology of politics is a science in itself, and the psychology of the Conservatives is well worth studying in detail. The author looked at some examples from the Conservative government a few years ago, and came up with some interesting results. But as the only way that the Tories can become the government is by making their enemies hate each other, divide and rule is the best way to achieve it. As said earlier, this is a strategy they've practiced over many years.

This explains why Cameron's election strategy - devised by Lynton Crosby - has been all about the negatives, which reached a particular nadir a few weeks ago. But things have hardly got much better since, and there has been the relentless promotion of the "threat" that the SNP have over a possible Labour government - about the most cast-iron example of a literal "divide and rule" strategy you could witness.
The baseness of psychology required to formulate this strategy is stark, and it tells you much about how many Conservatives view human nature: as a game of winners and losers, where those who "lose out" have done so through their own mistakes, and therefore should be deservedly punished for it. As well as mirroring the thinking of Ayn Rand, it also - alarmingly - mirrors the thinking of one of the most destructive psychological disorders.

The kind of Britain that the Tories espouse is one where the disabled and the unemployed are presumed as probable fraudsters for simply wishing some financial aid from the state.  It is a Britain where the unemployed are sometimes forced to work for their benefits (which is not only immoral, but also bad economics). People have literally died as the indirect result of government welfare policy. But under the Tories "divide and rule" strategy, those people that died were not penniless and starving because the government withdrew their benefits, but because of the choices that those people made. They were defined as "undeserving" i.e. they deserved to die.

The use of "divide and rule" provides the most important element of electioneering - creating a "scapegoat". Whether it's the SNP (or Scotland in general), "immigrants", "skivers", or whoever, the electorate - from a psychological point of view - have convincing "hate figures" in order to turn to the Tories as their saviour.

But for a cynical and immoral "divide and rule" strategy to work to its best, you also have to know how to use cynical and immoral "dirty tricks"...

How to use "The Dirty Tricks Handbook"

First and foremost, you have to control the "narrative". This is the "story" of what has happened up to the election. In short, it's propaganda - a lie - that you tell voters. It must be simple to be easily memorable, and repeated regularly.
The Tories' "narrative" about Labour - repeated by Cameron - is that they "broke the banks", and that it was "Labour overspending" that caused the crisis. Only the other day a treasury civil servant said catagorically that this "narrative" was untrue and a historical fallacy. It was a banking crisis (partly caused by lack of government regulation) that created the financial crisis. The "Labour overspending" happened as a result of the crisis; it was not the cause of it. The fact that so many people in the UK have such bad memories that they don't remember this is deeply worrying. The Tories are relying on the notion that if a smart, smooth-talking politician keeps on saying something, people believe it is true. And - horrifyingly - the evidence supports that notion.

Secondly - but probably as important - you have to have the media on your side. In this election, there is convincing evidence (also carried out by Loughborough University) that the media are solidly on the side of the Conservatives. This also seems to extend to the BBC, given the regularly tough questioning given out to Ed Miliband especially, compared to the tame (and sometimes poorly-phrased) questioning given to Cameron and other Tory figures. Given the similar educational backgrounds that many media figures have to many politicians, this shouldn't be so surprising, but it certainly puts paid to any real sense of media "freedom". Also, given that Ed Miliband had effectively declared war on a large segment of the media "establishment" following the events of Leveson, it is even less surprising.
It wasn't always like this, though. Under Tony Blair, the media "establishment" was largely on his side, but again - especially in the case of Rupert Murdoch - it was a case of currying favour in order to gain the support of the media. If the media really wasn't so influential, why did Blair (and Cameron) so obviously want to win them over?

Next, and related to the two previous ideas, is how essential it is to control the agenda. The Tories did this with ruthless duplicity. The whole "debate about the debates" was a prime example of the Tories controlling events in order to allow David Cameron to dictate to the media and the other parties precisely on what terms things would be allowed to happen. It was a disgraceful - but horribly effective - strategy.

Fourthly, apart from the "big lie" to control the "narrative", is the use of character assassination. This was alluded to earlier with the negative attacks on Miliband as someone who would "Stab Britain in The Back". In the case of this election, they seem to have been fairly ineffective (even counter-productive), but in the past had a greater chance of success - with the help of the media (see above). Related to this point is using your opponents' comments in an out-of-context manner to try to destroy their reputation.

One of the most interesting - and to your rival party, confounding - tactics is the use of "projection". This is a psychological term more commonly used as a tactic of narcissists to confound those around them when under threat. In political terms, this is when you accuse your rivals of the exact same errors that they accuse you of - "projecting" your own weaknesses onto your opponents. As this is the last thing your rivals are expecting, it leaves them confused and unclear where to go next with their argument.
An example in this campaign is Cameron's claim the other day that the Tories are for "hardworking people" and against the excesses of bankers, unlike Labour (because they bailed them out, and allowed excessive bonuses). This statement is so catagorically opposite to the Conservatives' reality that it beggars belief that Cameron can even convincingly utter it. As anyone with a brain knows, the Conservatives finances are strongly-reliant on groups and individuals in The City and offshore clients.
This kind of statement tells us more about the worrying ease with which David Cameron can spout complete nonsense from his mouth while seeming to believe every word of it. But Cameron has a track record for being a compulsive liar (or - let's be fair - possibly just a complete idiot), as well as a bully; not to mention  a coward, and an incompetent.

Lastly, you can always steal the clothes (i.e. policies) of your opponent and claim they were yours all along.

The UK, the 2015 general election and the illusion of democracy

Some would say that England has gifted the world with two valued exports: parliamentary democracy, and football. As any Englishman would know, England "invented" the concept of football. Englishmen also know that after being the country that created the football "system", other countries over time developed the same system and evolved it, while England lagged behind, for a long time failing to update its "system" at all. We still were sticking to the same ideas from generations past, while other countries had taken the idea to the next level. his is partly why England only won the World Cup in 1966.

However, much the same could be said of parliamentary democracy, England's other "export". When foreigners understand fully how the political system in the UK works, many of them are in disbelief. This author has witnessed this reaction a number of times.

In many ways, the UK's progressive "public image" to the world abroad is in stark contrast to the grubby and backwards reality. This is one of the many ways in which the "elite" of the establishment fool those abroad, and their own electorate, into being turkeys that vote for Christmas.

England's parliament gained its power over the monarch during the events of the 17th century, when the actions of two Stewart kings (Charles I and James II) took England back into the realms of autocracy that had existed in previous centuries. The result was a much more powerful parliament, composed of combination of aristocrats, landowners and "men of means", that substantially reduced the power of the monarch. That system has remained unchanged since, and was gradually extended over the 19th century to better reflect the changes in population and society.
The idea of parliamentary democracy spread to America, resulting in the War Of Independence, and throughout the 19th century, across parts of Europe. Even by the end of the 19th century, it could be argued that Westminster was still one of the best models of democracy in the world, compared to the embryonic attempts of much more limited "democracy" across parts of Europe.

How To Waste Your Vote

Today, almost all representative democracies in the world use the system of Proportional Representation, which has existed since the early 20th century. Although there are rules that give a threshold for parties to pass in order to enter parliament, this voting system allows the fairest reflection of the electorate's will in parliament. Of course, this usually results in coalition governments, but this is accepted as the natural result of the system. Coalition government has its critics, but the electorate is used to it, and would struggle to think of an effective - and fair - alternative.
The "First Past the Post" system (or a variation of it) is still used in the English-speaking world - in the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. This is the same electoral system that existed more than two hundred years ago. While the franchise of the vote has extended, the electoral system remains the same.
The natural result of that FPTP system is fewer parties in parliament. To become an MP, a party needs to have more votes than any other party in that particular electoral district (called a "constituency" in the UK). Naturally, this means few parties will be able to gather that kind of support, and this get into parliament.

Advocates of this system point to the fact that it allows local representation that is not the case in PR. However, it can equally be argued that as one of the effects of the FPTP system is a large portion of "safe" seats, this puts into question the motivation of any MP who has the luck to be sitting in one. Because of the way that district boundaries can be "gerrymandered" (e.g. in the USA or the UK) to suit a party's interests, it means that a large portion of the electorate are effectively disenfranchised - their votes become "wasted" simply because of where they live. Prospective candidates in a party can easily become MPs in "safe seats" through smart politicking and networking, and then once in place, the party "favourite" has little incentive to be an effective MP for his constituents, but far more incentive to spend time in Westminster for the purposes of self-promotion. This is how the game works for many.

Many of the "safe" seats can easily become "rotten boroughs". Any voter that happens to live in a "safe" seat but doesn't support their MP's party, has no effective way to get rid of him. Only a highly-organised "tactical vote" by supporters of other parties working in unison for an agreed candidate would work - one rare example of this was the election of Martin Bell standing as in independent candidate in the 1997 election against the sitting Conservative MP in the constituency of Tatton (currently George Osborne's seat). This demonstrates the extremely high level of organisation necessary to "beat the system". Only significant (and, therefore, rare) changes in political mood - such as those in Scotland since the historic referendum last autumn - make this possible.

In this sense, the FPTP system makes the electoral process a "closed shop". With the election - and 2015 is likely to be a prime example - often decided on the votes of some tens of thousands living in "marginal constituencies" in England (in the USA, read: "swing state") - it makes a mockery of the supposed power of the electorate.  Only those who happen to live in the right areas have real power, and it is always these "swing voters" (that supposedly represent "Middle England") that decide things. This is the reason why the political parties focus so narrowly on the issues that matter to those specific voters.  The effect is not far from that which existed two hundred years ago, when it was the voters in "rotten boroughs" that had a big say in things.
In this way, the UK is really ran in much the same way it was in the 18th century. While the franchise has been extended to all adults, the electoral system basically is the same as it was in the 18th century, with the "power" of the electorate's vote highly dependent on where they live. Millions of votes are "wasted", while the established parties tussle over a smaller and smaller proportion of the electorate.

And this is even without mentioning the House Of Lords - or what might better be called the "House Of Boyars". Like in the days of the Russian Empire, the House Of Lords is simply a parlour for aristocrats and political appointees, a pathetic joke on the concept of "democracy". The "House Of Lords" is a place where giving enough money to the governing party can "buy" you a place in the upper parliament of the UK. None of them are elected and - along with the theocratic Iran - is the only "parliament" in the world where theologians (i.e. bishops) have a place alongside those who have gained their place through a nod and a wink.

In more unpleasant ways, of course, there is plenty of evidence that the "establishment" has been covering up the truth for years.

A "managed democracy"?

It is no wonder that as politics in the UK has become more "professional", it has also become more of a charade separated from the reality of ordinary people's lives. The current Prime Minister is a self-evident example of that: a son of a minor aristocrat (and distant relative to the Queen), he represents the psychology of the "establishment", in spite of his protests: seemingly self-confident but actually incompetent, publicly sincere but privately scornful.

And yet, in the 2010 election, Cameron said - with a straight face - "Vote Change, Vote Conservative"(!).

Apart from the political system being a "closed shop" in many ways, in any case the way the country is ran - through the economy - is effectively a debate-free zone. The economic orthodoxy of austerity and the neo-liberal model has transformed the UK from a diverse economy with a large manufacturing base, to a largely reliant on the fortunes of the (now bloated) financial industry. Having tied the fate of the UK economy to finance, the banks then promptly crashed the economy and made the government pay the bill. And now the rest of society is "paying the bill" in the form of austerity, the shrinking of the state, and the (often dubious) selling-off of government services to an incompetent private sector.
In this way, the UK is barely operating as a country at all, and more like a corporation that should be "restructured", with its population as "employees" that can be offloaded. There are always cheaper supplies of labour, and cheaper ways of getting things done.

Lastly, there is the media, which during this election campaign has seemingly done its best to promote the virtues of Cameron and his "long term economic plan" (see above). As Cameron himself has said in the past: "There is No Alternative".

Well, we may as well all go home, then.

David Cameron and the Conservatives' negative 2015 election campaign: are they losing the plot?

Two weeks ago, parliament dissolved for the election campaign, and Cameron and Miliband were preparing for their fate with Jeremy Paxman. I wrote previously about how that week was possibly a week that Cameron would have liked to forget. The PM did not exactly show himself off in his best light, and brought back the negative traits that Cameron and his supporters do their best to hide.

That was two weeks ago, and the following Thursday was dominated by the leaders' debates. Since then (and until a few days ago) the media coverage of Cameron was soft-focus, easy-on-the-eye segments of him visiting somewhere, looking kindly-but-earnest, and being photographed in kindly settings. This culminated in him being photographed with a lamb over the Easter weekend, which was perhaps the most overtly (and sickeningly) reverential photo opportunity yet.
In parallel to that, Ed Miliband and Labour were consistently shown in the mainstream media as hapless and not to be trusted. Even though this clearly flew in face of the conventional view that Miliband did - at worst - a decent job of explaining his platform in the leaders' debate, this "line" kept on being used by many in the media.

This blatant bias gave credence to the view that the media are just as much a part of the "establishment" as those in the ranks of the Conservative party.

However, the Conservatives' negative campaign looked to have stalled their fortunes by the end of the Easter holiday. It wasn't having any noticeable effect on the polls, which were showing the two main parties neck-and-neck. And then Labour turned up the heat a couple of notches.

How to lose the plot in seventy-two hours

The week began to get interesting when Tony Blair made a sudden appearance back in Sedgefield to make a speech on Europe. To an extent, this was Labour taking a risk due to the toxic effect that Blair has on some since the Iraq war. But Blair's speech displayed his statesman-like command of the English language is still a force to marvel, as well as being a devastating put-down on Cameron personally and the Conservatives in general. While Blair could be dismissed as a sign of desperation in the Miliband camp, Blair's message could not. The Conservative response was unconvincing and petty. The tone of that response would become a Conservative trend for the week.

The next day, Labour then announced that they would abolish the right of non-doms' tax privileges. As this policy was clearly a vote-winner, the Tories didn't have a coherent reply. What was even more ironic was that the Financial Times had even supported this change of the law. One of their ministers tried several different arguments against it, changing her "line" with each put-down, to ridiculous effect. The Tories were caught trying to defend the indefensible, as they tried vainly to defend the interests of their wealthy supporters. Labour had - to the Tories' evident surprise - played an absolute blinder, leaving the Conservatives flapping around for a response. It didn't come.

Things went from the sublime to the farcical the following day: Thursday. Defence secretary Michael Fallon then went on the attack about Labour's apparently "chaotic" and dangerous policy on Trident and the nuclear deterrent, going so far as to call Ed Miliband "ruthless" for robbing his brother of the leadership, suggesting that Ed would "stab" Britain in the back the same way he had done to his brother.
This line of attack was as stupid as it was embarrassing. Not only was Fallon blatantly getting his facts wrong about Labour's policy (which was essentially the same as the Conservatives), he was attacking Miliband in a way that was to quickly backfire on him.
Miliband's response to these attacks was a lesson in masterful, polite put-down. By this point in the campaign, Miliband was beginning to look more and more composed, more obviously, naturally "human", and quick to dismiss Tory personal attacks on him as "pathetic". It was clear that most people agreed with him.

To cap it all off, the Tories then decided to postpone their manifesto launch so it didn't clash with Labour's. The average person would conclude that they were scrabbling around for something - anything - to deflect the attention back on to Labour "chaos" versus Conservative "competence".

Only now, the roles had seemed reversed.

In footballing terms, gone from bad to worse for the Tories, by the end of Thurday reading:

Labour 3 - 0 Conservatives
Blair
Miliband
Fallon (o.g.)

On Friday, the Tories were clearly trying to get back in the game by throwing out a few policy ideas (calling them more than "ideas" would be too kind). These included a freeze on rail fares (isn't that a Socialist idea?), and a law that gave employees the right to three days paid "voluntary leave" from their companies.
Both these ideas were quickly dismissed as gimmicks - and according to industry experts, irresponsible ones as that. The Tories had somehow turned their campaign from a well-oiled machine into a farcical joke. No-one was taking anything the Conservatives said very seriously any more.

The Blame Game

The personal attacks, as insiders know, could only have been instigated by Cameron. It was Cameron who used personal attacks in front of 10 Downing Street as his way to start the election campaign. This has been Cameron's line of attack for a very long time, making it all a question of personality. But this is also another sign of the petty baseness and superficiality of the Prime Minister's personality. While it is true that Ed Miliband has not exactly shone in personal terms since becoming Labour leader, it is now also equally clear that the poor image given to him was an unfair misrepresentation.
With the election campaign properly underway, it almost feels as though the "real" Ed (rather than "Red Ed") has suddenly been unveiled, to the Tories astonishment. A wag might suggest it was all a "cunning plan" to lull the Tories into a false sense of security, with Miliband playing a "long game" that would only become clear to everyone right at the last moment. Miliband is far from an obvious statesman, but he is also clearly a decent person who cares about people far more than those in the Conservative party.

Poor Michael Fallon was clearly told to do a job on Thursday and he did it - this was what Miliband himself cleverly alluded to. Cameron is now seen as a petty coward, who attacks his enemies but doesn't have the courage to have a one-on-one debate with a man he thinks is useless, and nor the decency to talk to the real electorate during a campaign to remain as their leader. He would rather spend a day flashing around four corners of the country (if only for a hour or two), hang out in the "Game Of Thrones" set, and then talk to a small gathering of supporters in a huge, empty shed (but pretend he's talking to a large gathering of the masses). As Miliband said, it's pathetic.

Cameron is a man who can't take criticism. He has been seen losing his temper in Westminster when rattled. This is why he lives in a cocoon-like existence, detached from the real Britain of food banks, zero-hour contracts, and thirtysomethings living with their parents because they can't afford to rent a place for themselves (let alone a mortgage). This is the consequence of his "long term economic plan".

It was Cameron who brought in Lynton Crosby as the expert to guide them to victory in 2015. So far, all his strategy has shown is that the "nasty party" are back with a vengeance. They were in hiding all along.

Fundamentally, under the stresses of an election campaign people are now seeing more of the "real" Cameron and the "real" Miliband. People will decide which person they would rather have making decisions about how society works. If it was simply about "the economy" then, yes, the Tories would probably win, but that's an overly-simplistic judgement. "The economy" is a complex idea, with lots of different factors influencing it. This explains why the Tories are not in a better position.

There is too much distrust and uncertainty about how the economy is ran in the UK. Who does it work for? This is the question that Ed Miliband poses.

David Cameron's personality and the Conservative's 2015 general election strategy - where fiction and reality meet

A week is a long time in politics. This time last week, David Cameron was having possibly one if his worst weeks in a long while.

He had first got himself into an unintended muddle over his admission in a "soft" interview he wouldn't stand for a third term, which resulted in a (still ongoing) strategy in damage limitation and clarification. As one wag said - Cameron shot the starting pistol to the election campaign, into his own foot. It was an undeniable blunder (no-one is suggesting it was said as a planned announcement), and one that would have serious implications for his party if Cameron indeed won a second term.

While this was possibly more of an issue inside the Westminster bubble, this was followed shortly afterwards by a short speech he gave at Age Concern. Apparently, he went there expected an "easy ride" - given his triple-lock for pensioners, and other give-aways - but was heckled (by OAPs!) for much of the time, with many of them clearly unimpressed by Cameron's performance and typical hand-wringing with answers. He was even called a "liar".
Comparisons with Tony Blair's painful performance in front of the WI fifteen years ago instantly came to mind. What was more revealing was that, while the WI was Blair tactically going into "the lion's den" (and in that sense, a brave - if risky - decision), Cameron thought he was on safe ground (he is rarely a man who likes taking risks). The fact that he wasn't shows how badly he misjudged his audience, and a key section of the electorate.

Then, in the last day of parliament, while David Cameron was politicking in the heart of the country (and many MPs doing the same), the Tory leadership attempted to quickly force through a motion to make it easier to dislodge the speaker, John Bercow. The plainly deceitful nature of the act was damned by MPs as an act that blatantly undermined the authority of parliament, as one Tory MP (in fact, the MP who had previously suggested motion) passionately felt that he had been played as a fool. As Leader of the House - and on his last day as an MP - it was William Hague's job to get the motion passed. And when the vote came, David Cameron abandoned his electioneering to be sent by helicopter to Westminster for the time of the vote. Imagine the poetic justice, then, when MPs voted the motion down; Cameron, in his arrogance, had come all the way to Westminster in time to see his party's humiliation.

After all this, there was the Paxman "debate", which Cameron also came off looking better overall than Miliband, but not by a convincing margin. The perception here was that Cameron looked under-rehearsed  - even bored! - by the notion of having to justify his government's record to Paxman. But what was more revealing was the public perception that the electorate had of Cameron's performance, compared to the reality of what he actually said.

Doff the cap to "Mr. Nice Guy"

What was revealing about the Paxman interview (and the audience interaction afterwards) was that  - when you listen to the Paxman exchanges - Cameron comes across as, at best, evasive ("Look,..." is a commonly-used way to start a sentence). He uses misleading and uninspired language to divert attention from his inability to answer questions properly (or at all!). In short, he looked like a "typical politician": cynical and untrustworthy, and Paxman simply destroyed his record as Prime Minister.
In spite of that, the reaction was not that Cameron was "useless at defending his record" (the reality), but that he came across as composed and more statesman-like (regardless of the nonsense he actually said).
Later on, when the audience had their turn, the mood of the conversation was much less adversarial compared to Paxman, but more relaxed, respectful; at times, even deferential. This last point is key, and taps at an underlining impression that many of the electorate have of Cameron - fundamentally, he seems a "nice guy". And more than that, his Eton-educated background seems to lend him gravitas and self-confidence in the public environment.

This says a lot about the psychology of Britain: an alarming number of people would rather have an incompetent who was "from the right background" running the country than someone who actually cared more about ordinary people. Cameron is the consummate actor, compared to the cunning George Osborne, who, from number 11, runs the show in reality.

The perception versus the reality

As well as being a consummate actor, Cameron is also a compulsive liar. Perhaps more accurately, he may well be so used to "making stuff up" that he has now long believed in his own lies, as some people with personality disorders do. There was evidence of this only yesterday.

In a speech he gave in a marginal Con-Lib constituency, he talked about the Conservatives mantra-like message of the "long-term economic plan" and how Ed Balls "broke the banks". Now, a moment's thought back the events of 2008 will tell you this is nothing less than complete garbage. Labour did not "break the banks" - they bailed them out! It was not Labour's economic policy that caused the financial crisis, it was the failures of the banks that caused the financial crisis! 
The fact that no-one (let alone Labour themselves) properly and repeatedly challenges the Tories' nebulous "take" on the events of 2008 is extra-ordinary. The reality was that, regarding financial policy, the Tories had an even more lax policy on the banks than Labour. And Cameron's economic plans only changed when he thought it would be a good way to differentiate from Labour after the financial crisis. ANY government in charge in 2008 would have had an economic crisis, due to the way the country's banks were ran; this is the reality that none of the parties are willing to properly deal with.

Government over-spending did not cause the financial crisis of 2008; no more than government over-spending in 1929 caused the Wall Street Crash. But Cameron and the Tories have to make people believe this outrageous untruth in order to keep Labour from power.

Also yesterday, Cameron made a political first in modern times by personally attacking Miliband in front of Downing Street, after (pointlessly) going to see the Queen. Again, the public perception of Cameron is that he is - possibly because of his background - a "safe pair of hands" and a trustworthy figure, compared to Miliband. He is keen to play up this perception, which, like others, is based on a facade.
Time and again, Cameron has shown the vindictive and petty side of his personality. When suitably provoked, Cameron's horrible, arrogant, bullying and sadistic personality is there to see,
This was shown with the way he continually attacks Miliband as weak, when in reality Cameron's own record as a statesman and a leader is nothing less than weak and useless. Due to Cameron's mis-judgements and poor strategy, Britain has its poorest relations with Europe for decades.  Then there was the farce of the Syria vote only last year, all thanks to Cameron's doing. His control of his party might be good now, with a strategic truce called during the election campaign, but his MPs have been running rings around him for most of the parliament. And that doesn't even include UKIP.

In many ways, Cameron is - in spite of the opposite perception - the UK's most useless Prime Minister in living memory. On the world stage, Britain is becoming an irrelevance: we no longer export things, and our balance of payments has been in a terrible state for a long time. Militarily, our armed forces are being pared to the bone, and it is a miracle that the heads of the armed forces are not screaming on TV more often. Perhaps it is only the knowledge that the Tories are "people like them" that keeps them from publicly venting their spleen.

Economically, Britain is turning into a "low-pay, low productivity paradise" of Europe, and that's due to the government's economic policy that has seen the erosion of employee rights and the hollowing-out of Britain's skills base. This is the future that Cameron offers - and that's without even getting on to "austerity" (see the earlier point about the financial crisis and "welfare reform". The ONS today has released figures that show that many of the jobs created in the last few years (i.e. the "jobs growth") have been through self-employment (see 12.05 in the linked blog). And I'm sure no-one is seriously suggesting that the UK has miraculously become a "nation of entrepreneurs"...

While to many it is openly accepted that Cameron is a "liar", the level of distrust with politicians is so high that few people seem to care enough to make a point of it.

That's what the Tories are counting on.

David Cameron and the leaders' debates: showing Cameron's personality in a nutshell

David Cameron's decision to back away from his previous commitment to participate in leaders' debates during the election campaign tells you everything you need to know about David Cameron's personality.

As one commentator on the left said: "all bullies are cowards"; while at the same time, another from Cameron's own side of the fence asks of voters: "What are they to make of a leader who constantly derides the leader of the Opposition as a joke – a dead man walking electorally – and then backs away from a live debate with him? "

What, indeed, are we to make of this man? Apart from more colourful phrasing, some adjectives that come to mind to describe Cameron's behaviour here are: cowardly, contemptuous, and condescending. More on Cameron's personality flaws here.

Explaining each of these epithets in reverse order, Cameron's attitude is condescending because it assumes that everyone has amnesia, and has forgotten that as recently as last year, Cameron was in favour of the debates as being a healthy part of the democratic process. This is before the many times he was quoted in the 2010 election suggesting the debates should be a permanent feature. As wonderfully pointed out by a commenter in the second linked article, back in 2010 Cameron said:

1. “I absolutely believe in these debates and think they are great.” –
David Cameron and Jeremy Thompson, Sky news, 14 April 2010

2. “I think it is great we are having these debates and I hope they go someway
to restore some of the faith and some of the trust into our politics 
because we badly need that once again in this country.” – David Cameron,
Leaders Debate, ITV, 15 April 2010

3.“Look, I’ve been calling for these debates for five years, I challenged
Blair, I challenged Brown, I challenged when I was ahead in the polls, 
and when I was behindin the polls. I just think they are a good thing.” –
David Cameron, 
Daily Telegraph, 17 April 2010

4. “I’ve always wanted these debates to happen. I mean they happen in 
every country. They even happen in Mongolia for heaven’s sake and it’s 
part of the 
modern age that we should be in.” – David Cameron, BBC3, 21 April 2010

5. “I think these debates are here to stay. They clearly engage people in politics 
which is what we need.” – David Cameron, News of the World, 2 May 2010

Cameron's condescending attitude also morphs into his "team" making excuses for him that are, at best, disingenuous. For example, the excuse that the organisation around the debates (the "debate about the debates", if you will) is being cocked-up by the broadcasters is patently absurd: it is the Tories that keep on throwing spanners in the works, by coming up with new conditions, such as refusing to a debate that doesn't include the Greens. This attempt to suddenly care about the voice of the Greens some weeks ago was laughably disingenuous in the extreme. In short, Cameron and his team are treating the media and the electorate as though they are buffoons who are incapable of seeing a ruse when it is staring them in the face.

Leading on from this, Cameron's attitude is contemptuous of, not only the other parties, but the electorate in general. By meaning to dictate terms, Cameron behaves as though he alone has power over the fate of the TV debates i.e. "it's my way or the highway".
The fact that a British Prime Minister can believe this tells you something about the inner workings of David Cameron's psyche. In fact, this attitude of an elected leader of a Western democracy is extraordinary: as though he has temporarily forgotten where he is and whom he is ruling over, and thinks he controls what appears on TV. Somehow, he thinks that, "if I say there will be no debates, there will be no debates". The arrogance and contempt towards the democratic process (and media impartiality) that this thinking shows us is appalling.
More meanly put, this attitude is simply childish and immature, and looks like a toddler throwing a tantrum and refusing to behave.

Lastly, and most obviously, this behaviour shows Cameron as a coward. All bullies are cowards, and Cameron has a reputation of behaving with sneering contempt towards his enemies.
Under Cameron, PMQs have descended into an embarrassing farce at times, where it is less about people asking the PM questions, than the PM evading and instead firing questions at and shouting at his critics - thus turning the purpose of PMQs on its head.

His own worst enemy?

It shouldn't really be so surprising, though. Cameron has a track record of not leading, but following. He may be "leader" of the Conservative Party, and "leader" of the nation, but apart from knowing how to look good in front of the cameras and know what to say, he doesn't really have much clue about anything.

Is this why he is running away from a confrontation with Miliband? While part of this may be cynical political strategy because the incumbent always has more to lose, this - at best - confirms Cameron as a cynical operator, and does nothing to restore people's faith in politics. And that's being charitable.

Another aspect is that Cameron - and his advisors - may well fear that he can be his own worse enemy. No longer in the carefully-controlled environment that Cameron has always relied on when dealing with the media, the simple unpredictability of a debate puts him outside of his comfort zone. He knows that he didn't do too well in the 2010 debates, being upstaged by Clegg. Miliband could do the same to Cameron - which would be all the more embarrassing, after making Miliband seem comparable to Mr Bean. No-one wants to come off looking second best to Mr Bean. But this is the bogeyman that Cameron himself has created: now he has to live with it. By being so contempuous of Miliband, he can't afford to look second-best to him. So now he would rather look like a coward than an imbecile. It's a deeply unedifying sight.

So this is the calibre of Prime Minister that we have in David Cameron: a man so pathetic and slimy he would prefer to behave as the Downton Abbey aristocrat he was born as than have to face the reality of being an elected reprentative.

Why people will vote Conservative, and the illusion of Tory competence

Recent polling for the general election has started to show the Tories slightly ahead of Labour. This can only be explained by "floating voters" starting to be swayed by the "message" that the Tories have to explain their economic plan, and the comparative incoherence of the Labour "message" (as well as people's opinion of each party's leader).

For this reason, it's worth spending some time to study the psychology of why the Tories are seen as "a safe bet", and exactly what type of "economic plan" they have.

First, some context: who exactly are "the Tories"? The modern Conservative Party stems from the old Tory party. The word "Tory" started being used after the English Civil War, to define people who supported the monarchy and represented the established gentry. This is in comparison to the "Whigs" (later to become the Liberals), who more represented the merchant class of the day, and thus in favour of greater controls on government and more effective accountability and transparency.

In this way, the modern-day Conservatives - who are essentially the same group of interests as three hundred years ago - could as well the called the aristocratic party, albeit with some cosmetic alterations to fit into the 21st century. While Margaret Thatcher arguably went the furthest to try and change that perception, the reality could never be hidden. The fact that the Prime Minister is of noble stock (more on his personality here), and many of the Cabinet went to "public school", says all we need to know about how their background influences their perception and judgement (more on that later).

The recent publicity given to the Conservatives' fundraiser, that was essentially a "who's-who" of the rich (and nefarious) elite, as well as some of the shamelessly out-of-touch antics that went on there (shopping trip with Theresa May, girls?), say more than any words could. This was the Conservatives demonstrated how the Conservatives behave on their "home turf", away from prying cameras (or so they thought). And in spite of such naked money-grubbing, many people still view the Conservatives as the most competent group to rule the country. Why?

Born to rule

It helps if, when you want to run government, you sound like you know what you are doing (even though you don't). In this area, the Conservative Party, in its leader and senior members, have a group of people who are nothing if not self-confident. One of the main reasons that Cameron became leader was his clear self-confidence in his own abilities, and his clear ability to appear statesman-like. He could talk for an hour without a tele-prompter (woo-hoo!), and knew how to "sound modern" and act like a human being. Cameron called himself the "heir to Blair", and made himself believe he was.

Since being in government, Cameron has always appeared the statesman. This explains why his leadership ratings are so much higher that Ed Miliband. The same can be said for George Osborne (who is really running the country): because he seems so self-confident, even all the people in economic institutions who criticize his policies (and are much more qualified than him) are like water off a ducks back.
These two "bright young things" are the ones who are running the show, and because they seem so self-assured at what they do, it is enough to convince those in the public, who don't have the time to check the facts. The Conservatives seem to know what they are doing; compared to them, Labour's plan is incoherent (even though it may be better!).

The character "The Joker" in The Dark Knight said that people don't panic if everything goes to plan, even if the plan is horrifying. To an extent, the same may be said of the Conservatives' economic plan.
What exactly is their plan?

As we are now looking at voting for a party that will govern for (potentially) the next five years, let's look at George Osborne's plan. As he reminded us late last year, most of the austerity measures have yet to happen. The Conservative plan is to shrink the state even further, to a point where it may not even be recognisable in its current form. Put another way, a vote for the Conservatives could be seen as a vote to destroy the UK as we know it.
Osborne's justification for this is that we can no longer "live beyond our means". But this term is highly-misleading at best, for this comes back to justifying austerity as a measure to rectify the previous Labour government's overspending. And this is based on a fabrication, or a willful twisting of the historical facts of the financial crisis. By creating this false narrative - in short, a lie - it creates a mindset in the public so that people see austerity as inevitable - or as Cameron has said "there is no alternative". In short, it is treating people as subjects.

If there is truly "no alternative", then why have elections at all (as Greece is finding out, to it's cost, at the moment)? This mentality goes back the moniker I gave to the Conservative Party - the "aristocratic party". In its heart of hearts, Britain (or more exactly, England) is a monarchy, and the centuries since the Civil War have never dimmed the instinctive respect people have for the ruling elite. Otherwise, why on earth do people find the trivialities of the royal family so distracting? The Conservatives know this. But in spite of the plethora of evidence that has damned the elite as a corrupt and instinctively self-serving institution, few people care enough (or feel powerful enough) to do anything about it.
This explains why the Conservative Party is so adept at modifying its outward appearance, and changing with the times. After all, Britain's politicians in the nineteenth century didn't give away suffrage out of the kindness of their hearts: it was a simply case of political expediency. As politicians at the time said, it was either give away some control away from the centre, or face a revolution. The Conservative Party - like the establishment it represents - has always worked to stay one step ahead of the game, predicting where future threats will come from, and seeing them off before they mature. While this hasn't always worked perfectly, the party has always done what is necessary to survive and protect vested interests - as the recent fundraiser demonstrated.

It is this self-assured quality that other politicians, and the public, naturally find disarming. But with self-confidence also comes complacency, and incompetence - and this government has been more incompetent than most.

The worst government ever?

The list of blunders of this government is analysed in the epilogue of the book "The Blunders Of  Our Governments".
I talked briefly about the government's (i.e. George Osborne's) economic policy. Even according to the government's own criteria, it has failed - by a large margin - to do what it intended. Controlling the deficit is one of the government's key objectives, and it has utterly failed to do so. This is for the simple reason that those running country have little understanding about how government and the economy really works. They think they know how things work, but in reality have little idea. This is why economic experts think George Osborne's plans are, at best, rubbish, and at worst, downright dangerous for the economy.
The deficit has continued to increase because, for one thing, borrowing has not been controlled, and government tax receipts (such as from income tax) are massively down. This is the effect of the "Osborne recovery": where many jobs are low-paid, insecure and with poor employment rights. Under the Conservatives, this appears to be the "new normal", where the UK is ran like a developing country. Sadly, most people seem so distracted by the simple act of fending for themselves in this new, much more unforgiving, environment, that few have time to think who is to blame for it.

In a sense, the country seems to be in "recovery" not because of government policy, but in spite of government policy.

Osborne's other big blunder has been the "help to buy" policy, which every respected economic institution calls a potential economic disaster in the making. If continued into the next parliament, this scheme - which effectively subsidizes home ownership - could create, not only (yet) another housing bubble, but  - due to inevitable, eventual rises in interest rates - create a mammoth negative equity crisis like twenty-five years ago. This scheme alone demonstrates how much Osborne cares about politicking, but cares little for proper economic analysis of policy.

The blunders continue with other parts of government, which often seems intent on making one bad decision after another.
In some ways, this government could also be called an "experimental government", as many of the ministers who run departments seem to use them as a means to try out new ideas - often without any serious appraisal beforehand. Of course, this idea is not new; what does seem unique is the scale of the "what about-ism" that many ministers possess, and also the purely ideological grounds for many of the decisions, without being based on proper evidence for its benefit to government finances. While Cameron publicly appears the statesman, his "hands-off" approach to controlling his ministers has turned departmental policy into a free-for-all. This is one of his (many) failings as a leader, despite the appearance of the contrary.

To name just a handful of examples, there was the re-organisation of the NHS masterminded by Andrew Lansley, which occurred without any consultation with those who worked in the sector. After some time, Lansley was demoted, but the policy (and all its chaos) has continued under his successor, Jeremy Hunt.

The raising of tuition fees to £9000 looks to have been a massive financial disaster for the government, because there is little likelihood of the government ever recouping much of the money from graduates. The purpose of increasing the fees was meant to make higher education better value-for-money while at the same time increasing the quality of university education, while the jury is still out on the latter (and who can say when we will know?), the former has been a complete cock-up, likely to cost the government untold sums of money in written-off loans in the future.

The government's much vaunted target to reduce immigration into the "tens of thousands" (which Cameron himself said the government should be held to account on at the end of its term) has seen immigration - at best - remain at much the same level it was at the end of the last parliament. Again, this was due to pleasing its party base, without any thought being put into the reality of what controls the UK government has over its border (regarding EU immigration, none). This is why some people have turned to UKIP. The government's targets here have been shown to be a laughing stock.

The reform of the Probation Service - while not on many people's radar - is one of huge consequence for the sector in question, and is - again - a victim to ministerial ideology and whim. The Probation Service is to be downsized and the probation services provided to lower and medium risk offenders will be open to tender from a wide number of companies. The service itself is - unsurprisingly - up in arms about these changes, which effectively privatise most of the sector. Many suspect that these private sector companies will cost more - they usually do - without there being any real evidence that this approach would have any beneficial effect on re-offending rates (and may well reduce the quality of the service).

The "bedroom tax" is a prime example of Conservatives in government having little idea about the reality of life for many people in the UK, as well as having no understanding of the UK's housing stock. It hasn't stopped them from making policy based on their out-of-touch understanding of reality. The result of this policy has been to cause a great deal of financial hardship for some of the most vulnerable in society, including the disabled, even - tragically - suicide. The idea of this policy was to make further savings, but the savings that have actually been made are much less than were originally anticipated.

The introduction of Universal Credit (UC) has been a disaster in all senses of the word, and has been a prime example of how not to do something. Again, this was another "project" due to ministerial whim. The fact that Iain Duncan Smith hasn't been sacked is a testament to the failings of David Cameron's leadership.

The reduction of the armed forces looks to be a blunder strategically, as well as being short-sighted and without using any proper analysis. This is most surprising (and worrying), considering that the Conservatives would have been assumed had good contacts with the armed forces' establishment.The reduction in the regular army was meant be replaced by a reserve army, but the numbers of actual recruits for the reserve army are currently running at more than five times less than the forecast numbers.

There are also the various fiascos of out-sourcing - for example, the A4e scandal, which completely missed its targets on the government help-to-work programme; more infamously, is the gross incompetence of G4S to provide security for the London Olympics, as well as costing the government a fortune.

The fact that the Conservatives still insist on using the private sector as the first port of call for service provision, in spite of the mass of evidence that few of these providers ever do the job either competently or prudently, tells you everything. It tells you that those in the Conservative Party who govern the country are incapable of making a judgement based on the facts, and will persist in doing the same thing again and again, even though it never works. Are they stupid, corrupt or both?

And people call them competent?

Cameron versus Milliband: why business hates (and fears) Labour

In the last week or so, we have seen a barrage of media stories about how Labour is "anti-business" and has few supporters from big business. The example of the head of Boots - who lives abroad for tax reasons - was emblematic.

The other side of the coin is simply that business is anti-Labour. This can be starkly demonstrated by David Cameron's piece in the Telegraph, which was a wonderful example of seeing his world-view, such as it is.

Cameron's piece was a snapshot also of his personality in some ways (more on that here), and how he sees Labour as representing "chaos" compared to the order and competence of his government. When reading this article, it's difficult to see if this is plain electioneering garbage or if Cameron genuinely believes in what he says (the latter would be almost more worrying, though).

A statement of intent (or willful self-delusion)

Why is the main thrust of such garbage? Let's look at some examples.

Cameron says "Ours is a nation that is the best place to do business  ", which translates as really meaning, "ours is a nation that is the best place for foreign companies to make lots of money by having a badly-paid workforce with poor union representation and avoiding paying tax through helpfully-complex tax arrangements" In other words, under Cameron, the UK is a developed country whose economy is technically thriving, but whose economic model really resembles a third world country. The jobs which have been created are mostly low-paid, many of the paid so little they don't even qualify to pay income tax.
This is why the government's debt is still increasing in spite of the appearance of an economic recovery: the money being generated is literally going in the wrong direction - into the foreign (tax free) bank accounts of all the businesses that Cameron and the Conservatives and not into the government's coffers. The government's tax receipts are down massively for this reason, but those in government seem to think that their plan is working. Well, if their plan was to massively reduce the government's money coming in while at the same time reducing government spending, then it's worked perfectly!

Cameron also says the UK under his government is "A nation where we have the businesses paying the taxes we need, so we can cut people’s taxes "; a statement so plainly disingenuous to be laughable. As we have seen, the sadistic drive that the government has to reduce spending on benefits may have clawed back a small amount of money, but the amount the government loses each year through businesses avoiding tax dwarfs any money lost on paying "too much" on benefits by an enormous margin. But as we have seen, because the Conservatives are the "friends of business", this means turning a blind eye to blatantly deceptive and immoral practices that deny the government many billions each year. In reality, this attitude is simply financially self-defeating, as we are now seeing from the lack of money coming in in tax receipts to the treasury. This economic "blind spot" marks the Conservatives as having a plan that not only useless, but also idiotic. The people whose taxes he is cutting (or helping to avoid entirely) are the same businesses that are creating a working regime of zero-hour contracts, and insecure, poorly-paid jobs. This is the "Cameron Economy", where the real winners are the ones who don't pay tax.

How can a government properly function if it is not serious about collecting tax?

Creating a false narrative

The government's explanation for why the economic crisis happened is also - to put it politely - novel. Another way of describing the Conservatives' explanation for the financial crisis is "complete garbage".
Listen to government ministers on BBC's Question Time (Sajid Javid, the government's culture minister, for example), and they tell you that they are being responsible and paying down the debt left behind by Labour overspending. This is an interesting statement, but happens to be total nonsense.

Yes, when Labour left office there was a massive government debt, but that debt was not created by massive, irresponsible government spending.
As everyone may remember, there was an international financial crisis that was caused by massively irresponsible and amoral behavior by banks. The USA and the UK were especially-vulnerable precisely because successive Labour and Conservative governments had centred their economic model on financial markets, at the expense of the wider economy. When the banks crashed, the government bailed out the banks by taking on the trillions of debt - so that debt suddenly became the government's debt. The "austerity" that exists in the UK is the government (i.e. the taxpayer) paying-off the debt that was caused by the banks. Why on earth the taxpayer should pay for the banks' idiocy is another question, and the ultimate "con" that people have been buying for five years. But that's the first reason for the debt.
The second reason is that when the world economy collapsed, as the UK's did, unemployment shot up and consumer spending shriveled. These two things caused a large reduction in the government's tax receipts, which accounted for the government's debt going up i.e. when your spending stays the same, and your revenue goes down, you get a debt. As a result, Labour borrowed more to pay for this. In a different way, George Osborne - who is really running the show - is experiencing this truth now with the recovery that doesn't actually give any extra money to the government.

This false narrative explains why the Conservatives need people to believe that the financial crisis was somehow Labour's fault, when really the government had very little to do with the problem. If anything, it was government's lack of control of the financial industry and the regime of no rules that caused the problem. This was the regime that the Conservatives have always supported - the same regime that caused the financial crisis.

This also explains why Labour are being targeted now by business. Having made lots of money by encouraging the government to create a "light-touch" tax regime and labour market - the very same thinking in the financial industry that caused the crisis - these business leaders are terrified of the thought that they might have to actually play by the rules if Labour return to government. This is the reality.

What Labour propose is nothing terrifying or chaotic as Cameron says in his article: it is simply wanting business to play by the rules and pay their taxes transparently like a responsible part of society. But that's the problem: many people in business treat society as something to be abused, be it the tax system or their workforce. The neo-liberal economic orthodoxy of the past thirty-five years has been responsible for turning the UK now into a pseudo-developing country, at least in terms of how it is run.
Because people are accepting the false narrative and false choice about there being "no alternative" to austerity, this is why business leaders and Conservative ministers are able to turn the UK economy into a race to the bottom. There are other alternatives, and it's only by blowing the false narrative can the UK economy change tack. People must not be awed by business into thinking whatever is good for them, is also good for the country. The evidence - and the government tax receipts - suggest otherwise.

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.