Like the Soviet Union, but without the Socialism

Under the noses of its people, the Conservative government is carrying-out an ideological war on British society. In its scale, its righteous certainty, and callous lack of empathy, it ranks as one of the biggest hidden attempts at social engineering on a national scale seen in the Western world for decades.
The evidence is plain to see; you just have to look carefully at the headlines.

Since coming to power, under the charming and harmless-looking nose of David Cameron, the Prime Minister has given his ministers free rein to take their ideological battles to the departments they run, and further out to the nation.

The most notorious of these is the Education minister, Michael Gove. Just today the news leaked out of his plan to scrap GCSEs and return the secondary education system back to the O-levels/CSEs of thirty years ago. He claims that the current exams do not adequately provide the skills and standards necessary for today's situation. Well, it may well be said that the education system is not perfect; certainly it could be improved. But what he recommends is a system that formalises Social Darwinism.
For a start, it is misleading and disingenuous to compare education systems retrospectively, thirty years apart: the methods are different, and the old system was replaced because business people saw it as inadequate for  real life conditions. How would going back the previous discredited system be better? Not only that, but any return to "O" levels would mean they no longer correlate to the following A-levels - unless Gove recommends (and secretly plans on) changing the FE system as well. People who are adults now (who look the old "O" levels) say GCSEs are much easier than in their day: but logically any exam reviewed by a 40-year-old that is designed for a 16-year-old is going to be easier. It's easy to mock teenagers when you're an adult.

But those are small points compared to the main one: that this is another example (I'll mention others later) of how the Conservatives, with Gove as one of its most vociferous proponents, are content to "raise standards" by creating a system whereby those who are unlucky enough to fail these "rigorous" exams will be effectively cast out from social mobility - in other words ensuring that there will be a permanent and significant underclass, cut off from the more well-off and socially capable rest. But he hasn't though much about this.
There are already the student fees in place (some of the highest in the Western world), also meant to "raise standards", but also guaranteeing that there will continue to be an entire generation of graduates with tens of thousands of pounds in debt with little hope of getting a well-paid job, due to the swelling ranks of highly-educated unemployable young people. They will have to resort to the growing trend of unpaid "internships", unpaid "work experience", or if they're lucky, part-time work. This is the future that Mr Gove is helping to create: a generation of graduate slave labour.

Then there is the Chief Inspector of School, Michael Wilshaw, who seems to operate as Mr Gove's ideological witchfinder-general: psychologically terrorising the schools system by constantly undermining the way schools' performance is measured. For him, no longer is it acceptable to be a "satisfactory" school two years running - to him, this represents failure. He also threatened to impose on-the-spot inspections, but with that idea leaving some school heads and teachers literally living in fear every day they come to work, this idea has been quietly shelved. Teachers are supposed to be amongst our most valued people in society, but under the catch-all excuse of "raising standards", it is being used as a weapon of terror on the educational system: terrorising teachers and students alike, and leaving many of the teachers either on the edge of a nervous breakdown, quitting, and many prospective teachers discouraged to even think about it. Perhaps Mr Gove wants this to happen as well.
The Department of Education, therefore, is ran like a latter-day branch of the KGB; declaring war on education for the sake of education.

Then there's the Health minister, who is pushing through the biggest form of privatisation in the health sector yet seen. This is on the back of continual criticisms from the sector itself, and a radical dismembering of the NHS - the government institution most cherished by the British public. It is almost as though the government is taking a perverse form of pleasure of taking to pieces that which the people most respect about government. As the Conservatives are so ideologically-obsessed with the idea that government by definition cannot do things as well as the private sector, they are determined to even destroy the one thing that government still does well (and is most respected by the public), given the alternative. By purposely undermining government as an institution, it also as though the government deliberately is courting controversy and sees unpopularity as a badge of honour. This lack of empathy and twisted logic reeks of "Bolshevik"-style ideological psychopathy, turned on its head.

There is also the issue of welfare, pensions and investment.

Welfare has seen the sledgehammer of "reform" and cuts. The disabled, families and the "working poor" are all suffering due to the government's zeal for cutting back on the state's provision to the neediest in society. One of the most disturbing developments partly due to the cuts has been that some councils have been forced to relocate some families to other (less developed) parts of the country for financial reasons: in other words, forced deportations to "the regions", or effectively economic exile.

The government has also declared an unofficial war on public servants' pensions. Its main tactic, so it appears, is through the government's intransigence to provoke the various public servants unions into going on strike in order to discredit them in the court of public opinion. So once again, we see the government playing a reckless game of brinkmanship to test the resolve of the public sector as a whole. We already saw earlier this year this same tactic back-fire spectacularly with the tanker drivers' dispute, when the government caused a national panic even though there was no declared strike. But even then, the government blamed the (non-striking) tanker drivers.

The government's resistance to promoting growth in the economy through government investment also ensures that a growing trend in employment has become entrenched: a growing and significant number of long-term unemployed (to add to the many unemployable graduates and school-leavers); and a growing and significant number of part-time jobs to replace full-time employment. It used to be true that the Soviet Union had zero unemployment: this was because many people had "non-jobs" like opening doors. The government's lack of interest in unemployment is turning the UK into a variation on the USSR's state of affairs: the UK will become a country of part-time workers.

Furthermore, there is also the Ministry of Defence, whose role in the cuts is to oversee the down-sizing of the military by twenty per cent. This is not often in the news, so some may see this as a side-issue, but for the thousands of soldiers to lose their jobs and regiments due to be disbanded, it is a shocking state of affairs: all the more so as it comes from the same Conservative Party what was meant to be the vanguard of the military's interests. Ironic, then, that the one that wields the knife is the military's bosom buddy. As it happens, I am currently reading the biography of Stalin (which partially inspired me to write this article): he who ordered the execution of many of the military leaders who had been his staunchest allies in the Bolshevik's rise to power. The similarly-ruthless psychology of the Conservative Party hierarchy is not lost on me.

Last, but far from least, is Theresa May, the Home Secretary, who is keen on cuts and "reform" to the police. Like the military, the police are supposed to be a cause close to the heart of the Conservative Party; but also like the military, those closest to the Party are those most likely to feel the knife. The police are in open revolt over the massive cuts proposed, but the Home Secretary is unyielding in her desire to see through the "reforms". By law, police cannot strike - though perhaps, like with other public sector workers, the Conservatives would secretly wish that they could, just so that they could provoke them. All the better to discredit the enemies of "reform". The Home Secretary also wished to force on the police, in the same way that the Chief Inspector of Schools is ideologically supportive of the government, a reform-friendly bureaucrat. The police wouldn't stand for this further insult, however.

One further very recent change to immigration, at the suggestion of the Home Secretary, puts the UK almost in a league of its own compared to other Western democracies. British citizens married to non-EU citizens (which includes those Brits married to Americans, Canadians, Australians, Kiwis, South Africans, as well as all other non-English speaking countries in the world) may only live in the UK with their spouses if they earn more than £18,000 - increasing to above £22,000 if they have a child, increasing with the number of children they have. The average salary in the UK is around £27,000, give or take. If you earn minimum wage, your salary is more like £12,000. The figure of £18,000 is beyond what the majority of women, and people under thirty, typically earn in the UK. Around forty per cent of the UK working population earn less than £18,000 overall.
So that puts this immigration rule into perspective: the British government has now effectively offered some of its own citizens an awful choice. For those Brits married to non-EU foreigners and not on a "high" salary, they must either live in the UK apart from their spouse, or permanently live in exile. The Soviet Union created thousands of political exiles; the government now is creating thousands of financial exiles, simply because the government doesn't approve of who they marry.
So now the Conservative government has even declared war on the "wrong" type of love.

Donkeys, wolves and headless chickens, supported by lambs: the personalities of the Coalition

I've almost lost track of the number of negative stories and negative characteristics that can be used to describe the personalities that make up the UK government, but I'll try and do the best I can.

From what I can tell, the two people who seem to have the most integrity (compared to the rest), interestingly also happen to be the "elder statesmen" representing their respective parties in government: the LibDem Business Secretary, Vince Cable, and the Conservative Justice Minister, Ken Clarke. Since holding their respective positions, they have carried out their duties more-or-less ably, and honestly, as far as I can tell.

As for the rest, their personalities can be roughly divided into a few categories: ineptitude ("the donkeys"), psychological weakness ("the headless chickens"), chilling ruthlessness ("the wolves"), and mind-boggling levels of masochism ("the lambs"). The first three apply to the various personalities of Conservative ministers; the last, to the personalities of LibDem ministers.

Some of the Conservative ministers seem to vacillate between being inept one moment, and weak the next: into this category, we can probably place the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. In other words, their way of dealing with decisions is either to make a decision without properly thinking it through ("analytical thinking" not being their strong point), and then when their decision is shown to be wrong, they either cave-in (after a period of showing mule-like stubbornness to change their opinion, despite their obvious mistake), or stick their head in sand like ostriches and hope the problem will go away.

Then there are people like Thesera May and Jeremy Hunt, the Home and Culture Secretary respectively. These are ministers who, like donkeys, clearly don't know what they are doing, and often seem like rabbits frozen in the headlights whenever a problem appears. Then when a problem does happen, they plead ignorance or blame someone else. This explains why Mrs May has little idea about how to deal with immigration and border control, and why Mr Hunt is utterly clueless about what represents improper conduct by a minister. When put in front of a lawyer in the Leveson inquiry, Mr Hunt appears genuinely surprised at the how his behaviour is seen as dishonest and prejudiced. This simply tells us how little he understands about the responsibilities of his position; the same goes for the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and the Conservative co-chair, Baroness Warsi.

There are people like the Education and Health ministers, who have the chilling characteristics of wolves; Mr Gove, the Education minister, most of all. These two ministers are the ones responsible for carrying out controversial, wide-scale reforms in the institutions they represent. These two characters have complete conviction and determination in their role, in the face of massive protest from the hundreds of thousands of public servants they are supposed to represent. They have little sympathy for the plight and chaos they are causing their industries; in fact, they seem to even welcome it, chaos being a sign that what they are doing must be right. In their mind, as no omelette can be made without breaking a few eggs, they discredit and dismiss discontent like a pair of Soviet Commissars, there to implement the dead hand of government reform, sweeping away the anachronistic regime of their predecessors. They show disturbing characteristics of psychopathy, Mr Gove most of all.

Supporting this disastrous and unparalleled combination of personalities, are the LibDems in government. It has to be remembered that it is the LibDems that allow these personalities mentioned the right to govern; and it is these above personalities that have repeatedly done what they could to discredit and damage their LibDem partners in government. Because the Conservatives know that the LibDems would be politically destroyed if they abruptly pull out of the Coalition and call a fresh election, it seems the Conservatives have few limits to how they can demean the LibDems in government in the meantime. Forced to accept Conservative policies that most LibDems abhor, while at the same time metaphorically being kicked in the teeth by their Coalition "partners", the LibDems have become lambs; too weak to stand up against their weekly humiliation in government because they are too terrified of the alternative of facing the electorate. Their credibility shot to pieces, the LibDems can only cling to their abusive relationship to their Conservative masters, in the vain hope that their loyalty and patience will be somehow rewarded later.

So this is what is called the UK government: in the worst economic crisis and prolonged slump that British people have seen for a century, the electorate is rewarded with perhaps the worst set of government personalities known in living memory.

This whole shambles of government personalities saps the morale of the public in general, feeding the impression that politics in Britain is utterly disreputable, full of people who are so clueless they have no idea about how to behave with integrity; people who are so ruthless and blind that they have no idea how to behave with humanity; and people who are psychologically so weak they have no idea how to defend their own decency.
Gordon Brown's government suffered from this reputation for much of the time; however, the personalities in the Coalition have managed to sink to even further depths, surpassing the Brown administration's often calamitous failings with its own unique meld of governmental incompetence and inhumanity.

It is no wonder that public confidence and trust in politicians is at a low point, and fringe parties see an upswing. With the abysmal quality of those who run the current government, it is hardly surprising.

The psychological state of the Conservative government

The Conservative party, led by David Cameron, have been in government in the UK (with their Lib Dem coalition partners) for nearly two years now.

Politically, if you ignore Cameron's involvement in the war with Libya, the Conservative government's time has been dominated by a series of controversies, so much so that they have defined their time in office: the austerity cuts; student fees; health and education reform; the Liam Fox resignation; the UKBA controversy (fresh in the news today); and the future status of Scotland.

That's a pretty long list for a party that's less than two years into government. And let's not forget, that's a government led by a party than didn't win an overall majority; the two main "left-of-centre" parties have more MPs in parliament put together than the UK's sole "centre-right" party. Only by the grace of the Lib Dems do the Conservatives earn the right to govern.

By comparison, when the Labour government came to power in 1997 with a majority of more than 170, its main priority was to avoid controversy at almost every turn, so that its first two years in power were virtually empty of bad headlines. The only exception was over the introduction of tuition fees. The major changes it did bring about in the first two years - on things like the minimum wage, and devolution to Scotland and Wales (and later, following the success of the peace process, Northern Ireland) - it did with broad public support.

It is obvious to say that circumstances in the UK have changed since then. Yes, the financial crisis, partly brought about through the Labour government's reluctance to regulate the financial industry, has changed things. But that does not explain, even less justify, the mentality of the Conservatives.

Depending on the issue, the Conservatives' attitude to government has varied.

On the austerity cuts, government has shown a myopic narrow-mindedness (what they call "determination to see things through"), even in the face of evidence of the folly of their approach and the clear plight being caused as a result.

On the health reforms and education reforms, the relevant Conservative ministers have shown a disregard for others (failing to ignore the concerns of professionals, let alone the principles of democracy, given that they have no mandate for "reform").

On student fees, the same behavioural pattern was shown - intransigence and lack of empathy in the face of criticism and the needs of young people.

The Liam Fox resignation displayed the arrogance and casual disregard to proper behaviour, favouritism and cronyism that many Conservatives are habitually guilty of. In other words, behaving as though they were above reproach.

Meanwhile, the way that the Prime Minister and his ministers have been dealing with the constitutional wishes of the Scots (independence or otherwise), is with a similar bloody-minded unwillingness intransigence and narrow-mindedness. Given the fact that the Conservatives' natural political support in Scotland is negligible, this attitude is even more unfathomable. The Conservatives have no moral voice in Scotland; they rule the nation as though it is a virtual colony. Thus they indirectly generate support for the policy that they say they totally oppose.

Lastly, and most recently, is the UKBA controversy. This was a border fiasco that a report has shown was at least indirectly the result of governmental confusion and ministerial incompetence; yet the minister responsible, Theresa May vents only scorn at the border officials who were trying to do their best under confusing governmental advice, while failing to take any responsibility on her part.

So, taken as a whole picture, the Conservatives' approach to government can be summed up as having the following characteristics: lack of empathy to others' misfortune, intransigence, narrow-mindedness, arrogance, failure to accept responsibility, and incompetence.

There was a documentary some years ago about the psychological behaviour of corporations, coming to the conclusion that if corporations were psychologically analysed as people, they would be considered psychopaths.

One wonders, looking at the behavioural traits mentioned above, what conclusions would be reached if the Conservative government as a whole were measured in the same way.