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.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Narcissism: "Generation Y", parenting, society, and the rise of malignant self-love
There is now clear evidence in scientific studies that today's younger generation are psychologically more narcissistic than their parents' and grandparents' generations.
There are a combination of factors behind this. Some blame a culture of over-praise from some parents: that with modern-day parenting focusing on telling your child how "special" they are , these children then grow into up into adults who believe it to be literally true. Others are more sceptical of this "blame the parents" attitude, Obviously, all children need to feel "special" in one way or another in order to have a healthy sense of self-esteem. The challenge is knowing where to draw the line, or where to find the right balance between promoting self-esteem but not encouraging unhealthy narcissism.
I've written before about some of the social conditions that can lead to narcissism (also called NPD). What's difficult to deny regarding the scientific evidence (and may seem to be stating the obvious anyway) is how narcissism seems to have expanded through society as we move from one generation to the next. Studies have shown this, as I mentioned at the beginning: the "Y generation" are much more clinically narcissistic than their parents and grandparents. The question is:why?
The Narcissistic Society
Scientific studies have shown how different societies around the world can be either instinctively "collectivist" or "individualist". Again, this may seem like stating the obvious, but it's always good to have solid evidence to dispel the idea that "common sense" notions are not just myths.
Some of the most "individualist" societies in the world are, not surprisingly,"Anglo-Saxon" societies are more individualistic, especially the USA. Staying in the West, at the other end you have Scandinavian society, which is much more instinctively "collectivist". Other societies, such as Japan and China, are also socially collectivist (in spite of being clearly Capitalist), What we mean by "collectivist" is that, for example, in an office environment, workers in collectivist societies take into consideration the unit of the workforce, and the emotional well-being of others. This isn't to mean that they are "better" exactly; rather, a worker's actions in a collectivist society are highly-influenced by his interactions with those around him, and working closely with those around him is the way to get things done. Egoism is a no-no.
In individualist societies, the workplace is a much more dog-eat-dog place, where would be considered weak to not put yourself forward when the opportunity occurs. Self-promotion and doing-down your rivals is considered normal; being a conspicuous "team player" is not really the way to get ahead.
Individualist societies have become more conspicuous in the last thirty years or so. The anecdotal evidence is there, as well as the scientific evidence. In the same way that many countries around the world actively seek to emulate American culture, the same can also be said of the technological and social changes that have happened, especially since the turn of the 21st century. Narcissists are known as having two main attributes: self-love and a lack of empathy for others. In the regard of lack of empathy, Narcissists share an attribute with (far more dangerous) psychopaths (more on them here).
And the problem is, the more individualist a society becomes, the more narcissistic (and potentially psychopathic) its people become, and the less well-inclined people are towards one another. In short, individualist societies seem to lack empathy. Society becomes more dysfunctional, sometimes frighteningly so.
The "Me" generation?
At the start, I talked about how parenting was said to be one (disputed) factor for the "Y" generation showing higher levels of narcissism. While it's not entirely clear if we can simply "blame the parents" - although it certainly could be an environmental factor - there are other factors about the modern working and social environment that make narcissism much easier to "nurture" within an individual.
"Look at my awards!": In the modern work environment, the resume/CV is an essential tool for getting the job you want in your career. Your CV has to be a statement of not who you are, but a statement of what you are. Are you a go-getter or a shrinking violet? It is expected to list all your achievements (no matter if that involves absurd embellishments - more on that in a moment), and treat yourself as less a person than a brand. These expectations naturally would encourage narcissistic behaviour in order to make you sound like you are the best at everything.
Fight for your place: One of the reasons why this is necessary is due to the insecurities that exist in the modern working environment. While in their parents and grandparents generation, "jobs for life" were commonplace, now job insecurity is the norm. For this reason, younger people are obliged to stand out from the others in order to simply get an interview; and if they expect to prosper at the company in the long-term, they will need all their skills in narcissism and doing-down their rivals in order to do so. Thus if they want to be sure of getting noticed in the first place in such an unforgiving work environment, it would be natural to embellish their CV.
"My friends always seem so much happier than me": One of the side-effects of narcissism is depression and mood swings (as well as laziness and arrogance). The explosion of social media in the last ten years - especially the "Facebook generation" - has allowed people to create and manage their own "profile" on social media for their peers to see (and admire). The problem with this is that social media by definition is not the same as reality. Anyone posting pictures on social media, for example, is always going to show pictures of them enjoying themselves with their friends. The more "friends" you have, the more you will see others having a good time. And so, in your mind, it will look like everyone else is having a good time when you are not, even though the reality is different. This feeds a vicious circle of creating a false image of what is really happening. Thus the narcissists' "supply" (i.e. source of admiration) will have to extended further.
Better, faster, higher... : Advertising is everywhere, and the expansion of technology in life has created the impression that things should be expected "now". Even in matters as prosaic as cooking, it sometimes appears that people no longer "have the time" (or patience?) for real cooking. The way that the capabilities of computers and other related technology have grown so quickly has had the knock-on effect of allowing people to think that everything should happen as quickly. Technology comes in and out of fashion in a matter of months. All these factors create a social environment that changes people's "expectation management".
"Expectation management" is considered one of the key "problems" identified in the levels of narcissism described in "Generation Y". Having been raised by parents to believe they could "have it all" because they are "special", real-life provides a nasty slap in the face.
In truth, many of the parents saying these things obviously meant well: the problem is that the social and economic conditions have changed. "Generation Y" cannot expect to get the mortgage, fast car and stable job that his parents did. But his parents didn't know this. Now stuck with a student debt, a zero-hours contract and still living at home with his parents, a "Generation Y" individual can only have the option of living out his narcissistic fantasy on social media, for example - or by abandoning responsibility and getting into financial problems, turning to petty crime, or worse.
One last point to mention is the link between narcissism (and psychopathy) and sex. Like everything else in life, narcissists have a casual and amoral attitude towards sex. For them, it is simply a way to gain temporary pleasure, and meaningful, stable relationships are very difficult for narcissists to hold down. While there is not much reliable research into this subject, the explosive growth of the availability of pornography (e.g. on the internet) has seen numerous studies into its detrimental effect on the psychology of young men (i.e. "Generation Y"), and their attitudes towards the opposite sex. In this sense, technology can be said to be having an undeniable effect on how society behaves - and not always for the better.
There are a combination of factors behind this. Some blame a culture of over-praise from some parents: that with modern-day parenting focusing on telling your child how "special" they are , these children then grow into up into adults who believe it to be literally true. Others are more sceptical of this "blame the parents" attitude, Obviously, all children need to feel "special" in one way or another in order to have a healthy sense of self-esteem. The challenge is knowing where to draw the line, or where to find the right balance between promoting self-esteem but not encouraging unhealthy narcissism.
I've written before about some of the social conditions that can lead to narcissism (also called NPD). What's difficult to deny regarding the scientific evidence (and may seem to be stating the obvious anyway) is how narcissism seems to have expanded through society as we move from one generation to the next. Studies have shown this, as I mentioned at the beginning: the "Y generation" are much more clinically narcissistic than their parents and grandparents. The question is:why?
The Narcissistic Society
Scientific studies have shown how different societies around the world can be either instinctively "collectivist" or "individualist". Again, this may seem like stating the obvious, but it's always good to have solid evidence to dispel the idea that "common sense" notions are not just myths.
Some of the most "individualist" societies in the world are, not surprisingly,"Anglo-Saxon" societies are more individualistic, especially the USA. Staying in the West, at the other end you have Scandinavian society, which is much more instinctively "collectivist". Other societies, such as Japan and China, are also socially collectivist (in spite of being clearly Capitalist), What we mean by "collectivist" is that, for example, in an office environment, workers in collectivist societies take into consideration the unit of the workforce, and the emotional well-being of others. This isn't to mean that they are "better" exactly; rather, a worker's actions in a collectivist society are highly-influenced by his interactions with those around him, and working closely with those around him is the way to get things done. Egoism is a no-no.
In individualist societies, the workplace is a much more dog-eat-dog place, where would be considered weak to not put yourself forward when the opportunity occurs. Self-promotion and doing-down your rivals is considered normal; being a conspicuous "team player" is not really the way to get ahead.
Individualist societies have become more conspicuous in the last thirty years or so. The anecdotal evidence is there, as well as the scientific evidence. In the same way that many countries around the world actively seek to emulate American culture, the same can also be said of the technological and social changes that have happened, especially since the turn of the 21st century. Narcissists are known as having two main attributes: self-love and a lack of empathy for others. In the regard of lack of empathy, Narcissists share an attribute with (far more dangerous) psychopaths (more on them here).
And the problem is, the more individualist a society becomes, the more narcissistic (and potentially psychopathic) its people become, and the less well-inclined people are towards one another. In short, individualist societies seem to lack empathy. Society becomes more dysfunctional, sometimes frighteningly so.
The "Me" generation?
At the start, I talked about how parenting was said to be one (disputed) factor for the "Y" generation showing higher levels of narcissism. While it's not entirely clear if we can simply "blame the parents" - although it certainly could be an environmental factor - there are other factors about the modern working and social environment that make narcissism much easier to "nurture" within an individual.
"Look at my awards!": In the modern work environment, the resume/CV is an essential tool for getting the job you want in your career. Your CV has to be a statement of not who you are, but a statement of what you are. Are you a go-getter or a shrinking violet? It is expected to list all your achievements (no matter if that involves absurd embellishments - more on that in a moment), and treat yourself as less a person than a brand. These expectations naturally would encourage narcissistic behaviour in order to make you sound like you are the best at everything.
Fight for your place: One of the reasons why this is necessary is due to the insecurities that exist in the modern working environment. While in their parents and grandparents generation, "jobs for life" were commonplace, now job insecurity is the norm. For this reason, younger people are obliged to stand out from the others in order to simply get an interview; and if they expect to prosper at the company in the long-term, they will need all their skills in narcissism and doing-down their rivals in order to do so. Thus if they want to be sure of getting noticed in the first place in such an unforgiving work environment, it would be natural to embellish their CV.
"My friends always seem so much happier than me": One of the side-effects of narcissism is depression and mood swings (as well as laziness and arrogance). The explosion of social media in the last ten years - especially the "Facebook generation" - has allowed people to create and manage their own "profile" on social media for their peers to see (and admire). The problem with this is that social media by definition is not the same as reality. Anyone posting pictures on social media, for example, is always going to show pictures of them enjoying themselves with their friends. The more "friends" you have, the more you will see others having a good time. And so, in your mind, it will look like everyone else is having a good time when you are not, even though the reality is different. This feeds a vicious circle of creating a false image of what is really happening. Thus the narcissists' "supply" (i.e. source of admiration) will have to extended further.
Better, faster, higher... : Advertising is everywhere, and the expansion of technology in life has created the impression that things should be expected "now". Even in matters as prosaic as cooking, it sometimes appears that people no longer "have the time" (or patience?) for real cooking. The way that the capabilities of computers and other related technology have grown so quickly has had the knock-on effect of allowing people to think that everything should happen as quickly. Technology comes in and out of fashion in a matter of months. All these factors create a social environment that changes people's "expectation management".
"Expectation management" is considered one of the key "problems" identified in the levels of narcissism described in "Generation Y". Having been raised by parents to believe they could "have it all" because they are "special", real-life provides a nasty slap in the face.
In truth, many of the parents saying these things obviously meant well: the problem is that the social and economic conditions have changed. "Generation Y" cannot expect to get the mortgage, fast car and stable job that his parents did. But his parents didn't know this. Now stuck with a student debt, a zero-hours contract and still living at home with his parents, a "Generation Y" individual can only have the option of living out his narcissistic fantasy on social media, for example - or by abandoning responsibility and getting into financial problems, turning to petty crime, or worse.
One last point to mention is the link between narcissism (and psychopathy) and sex. Like everything else in life, narcissists have a casual and amoral attitude towards sex. For them, it is simply a way to gain temporary pleasure, and meaningful, stable relationships are very difficult for narcissists to hold down. While there is not much reliable research into this subject, the explosive growth of the availability of pornography (e.g. on the internet) has seen numerous studies into its detrimental effect on the psychology of young men (i.e. "Generation Y"), and their attitudes towards the opposite sex. In this sense, technology can be said to be having an undeniable effect on how society behaves - and not always for the better.
Monday, March 9, 2015
2015 post-election scenarios: the SNP, and a sea of bad options for the UK
Barring some unexpected change in the next two months, the 2015 general election is likely to end in an unholy mess. While the last election produced a hung parliament, it was the size of the LibDems in Westminster that made the "ConLib" coalition possible.
This time around, that is extremely unlikely to be possible - and is largely due to the SNP.
Coalitions of the unwilling
With the LibDems expected to lose anywhere between twenty or thirty-odd MPs (and even Nick Clegg under threat of losing his Sheffield seat), their losses look to be gains for the Conservatives and Labour in England and the SNP in Scotland (see the excellent explainer and graphic here). And with the Conservatives highly unlikely to retain their current numbers in parliament, a "Tory-led" coalition looks mathematically unworkable, even with the support of the DUP and UKIP.
What looks certain is that, even if the Tories somehow were able to hang on as a minority government with LibDem and others' support, the "anti-Tory" MPs (i.e. Labour and the "Celtic Fringe") would have more MPs to vote against any legislation. When it came to passing the Queen's speech later in May, the "anti-Tory" MPs could veto it. Ergo, government wouldn't be able to function.
Of course, that assumes that the LibDems would support the Conservatives the second time around. That assumption is also complacent, as it would depend on the internal politics of the LibDems post-election. For example, if (in the worst-case scenario) Nick Clegg lost his seat, it would probably put the more left-leaning party figures in more prominent positions. It is already likely that Danny Alexander will lose his seat to the SNP, leaving Clegg without one prominent supporter. In the event of negotiations with the Tories on another coalition (or "case-by-case" support), the more leftish parts of the LibDems are much more likely to make their voice heard, given the mauling the party is likely to have faced after being with the Tories in government for five years. So the LibDem leadership may well be under pressure to keep their distance from being too closely linked to anything the Conservatives do after the election.
For these reasons, it would be foolishly-arrogant for the Tories to take LibDem support for granted after the election. The LibDems may well choose to support Labour, especially if they have the larger number of MPs (which was officially the central reason for Clegg supporting the Tories in 2010). As the LibDems like to say of themselves, when in a coalition they would give a heart to a Tory government, and a backbone to a Labour one. This sentiment can be easily mocked, but that is more-or-less how the party sees itself.
One of the most outlandish options - which hardly anyone has spoke of - is a "grand coalition" of the two main parties. The German government is a "grand coalition" at the moment, and was in Merkel's first term (currently in her third).
However, there are reasons why this option is outlandish. It seems highly implausible for several reasons.
First, while this would guarantee a huge majority in parliament, it would cause massive ruptures within the two parties. Defections would be likely from both parties (e.g. to UKIP).
Second, it would look like - and would be - a stitch-up. The support for the other parties - UKIP, in particular - would likely surge, and cause problems within both parties (see point one). There would likely be strong calls for a change to the voting system (again), and this time they may have to be heeded.
Third, while the other parties - such as UKIP in particular - lump the three parties together as "LibLabCon", there are still large areas of disagreement between Labour and the Tories: austerity and Europe, to name just two. While the LibDems also had disagreements with the Tories when they entered the coalition, they at least both agreed on the idea of austerity. Labour's view is different from the LibDems, and thus very hard to match with the Tories' vision. It seems almost impossible to imagine the leading personalities of these two parties in the same government.
Which leads to the last point: the clash of personalities. The leading lights in the Tories and Labour can't stand each other (or at least appear to). How day-to-day running of government would be possible with such a group of opposing personalities with mutually-exclusive visions (Osborne and Balls fighting over the Treasury?) is almost beyond comprehension.
Scratch my back...
So far, we've looked at coalition options, but haven't mentioned the elephant in the room: the SNP. The Tories are keen to emphasize the "nightmare scenario" of a Labour-SNP coalition of the UK, making the Tories as the "anti-Scottish" party. Certainly, it is easy to see why this scenario would be unpopular in England, with the threat of the tail wagging the dog.
However, it looks like both Labour and the SNP are well aware of this perception as well. The SNP have made repeated statements that they would not enter a coalition with Labour (as well as refusing any deals with the Tories). The rationale for this appears to be one of "fear of association". Looking at what's happened to the LibDems in government with the Tories, the SNP seem to have decided that they would rather have their influence from afar, than be intimately-bound with any major party, and thus tarred with the same brush. If that is indeed the case, then they have learned from observing the LibDems' painful experience. While there will likely be no SNP ministers in government (though the thought of Alex Salmond as Scottish secretary is amusing), the question is what indirect influence could the SNP have?
While Labour have refused to rule out a coalition in principle, the SNP seem to have made their decision for them. As things stand, the most likely post-election scenario is a minority Labour government supported by the SNP (and others?) on a case-by-case basis. This is, remember, what Cameron first offered to the LibDems as his preferred governing option in 2010; and now the LibDems may well rue the decision not to have taken it. But is this scenario feasible in the long-term?
Probably not.
While it's true that the SNP did rule Holyrood as a minority government for a full term, Westminster politics lacks the more deliberative and co-operative aspects seen in the devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales (and NI). Westminster is a bear-pit, as we see in PMQs each week.
It is hard to imagine a minority government of any colour surviving for a full term. Labour would be under pressure for an EU referendum from the Tories. Although Labour could theoretically ignore this, the threat of a Tory-UKIP alliance to lobby for a referendum would be hard to ignore - especially considering how UKIP are effectively the second party in parts of the North of England. This would put Labour MPs under pressure to heed to public opinion.
Secondly, assuming that the SNP gain the majority of MPs in Scotland, this would give them a legitimate right to demand another independence referendum (regardless of the fact they'd only just had one). While Scotland and the SNP may not really want independence outright, the SNPs large cohort of MPs could effectively act as leverage to campaign for "devo-max", with the emphasis on "max": to ensure that the famous "vow" for Home Rule is implemented in full. This is their real - and realistic - aim, and will likely have the support of the Tories (who have their own plans for EVEL). In this, a minority Labour government could be forced into an unlikely fait accompli between the SNP and the Tories to divide power between them. This would lead to a whole new constitutional can of worms.
Whatever the result of the election, things in the UK are unlikely to be the same again.
This time around, that is extremely unlikely to be possible - and is largely due to the SNP.
Coalitions of the unwilling
With the LibDems expected to lose anywhere between twenty or thirty-odd MPs (and even Nick Clegg under threat of losing his Sheffield seat), their losses look to be gains for the Conservatives and Labour in England and the SNP in Scotland (see the excellent explainer and graphic here). And with the Conservatives highly unlikely to retain their current numbers in parliament, a "Tory-led" coalition looks mathematically unworkable, even with the support of the DUP and UKIP.
What looks certain is that, even if the Tories somehow were able to hang on as a minority government with LibDem and others' support, the "anti-Tory" MPs (i.e. Labour and the "Celtic Fringe") would have more MPs to vote against any legislation. When it came to passing the Queen's speech later in May, the "anti-Tory" MPs could veto it. Ergo, government wouldn't be able to function.
Of course, that assumes that the LibDems would support the Conservatives the second time around. That assumption is also complacent, as it would depend on the internal politics of the LibDems post-election. For example, if (in the worst-case scenario) Nick Clegg lost his seat, it would probably put the more left-leaning party figures in more prominent positions. It is already likely that Danny Alexander will lose his seat to the SNP, leaving Clegg without one prominent supporter. In the event of negotiations with the Tories on another coalition (or "case-by-case" support), the more leftish parts of the LibDems are much more likely to make their voice heard, given the mauling the party is likely to have faced after being with the Tories in government for five years. So the LibDem leadership may well be under pressure to keep their distance from being too closely linked to anything the Conservatives do after the election.
For these reasons, it would be foolishly-arrogant for the Tories to take LibDem support for granted after the election. The LibDems may well choose to support Labour, especially if they have the larger number of MPs (which was officially the central reason for Clegg supporting the Tories in 2010). As the LibDems like to say of themselves, when in a coalition they would give a heart to a Tory government, and a backbone to a Labour one. This sentiment can be easily mocked, but that is more-or-less how the party sees itself.
One of the most outlandish options - which hardly anyone has spoke of - is a "grand coalition" of the two main parties. The German government is a "grand coalition" at the moment, and was in Merkel's first term (currently in her third).
However, there are reasons why this option is outlandish. It seems highly implausible for several reasons.
First, while this would guarantee a huge majority in parliament, it would cause massive ruptures within the two parties. Defections would be likely from both parties (e.g. to UKIP).
Second, it would look like - and would be - a stitch-up. The support for the other parties - UKIP, in particular - would likely surge, and cause problems within both parties (see point one). There would likely be strong calls for a change to the voting system (again), and this time they may have to be heeded.
Third, while the other parties - such as UKIP in particular - lump the three parties together as "LibLabCon", there are still large areas of disagreement between Labour and the Tories: austerity and Europe, to name just two. While the LibDems also had disagreements with the Tories when they entered the coalition, they at least both agreed on the idea of austerity. Labour's view is different from the LibDems, and thus very hard to match with the Tories' vision. It seems almost impossible to imagine the leading personalities of these two parties in the same government.
Which leads to the last point: the clash of personalities. The leading lights in the Tories and Labour can't stand each other (or at least appear to). How day-to-day running of government would be possible with such a group of opposing personalities with mutually-exclusive visions (Osborne and Balls fighting over the Treasury?) is almost beyond comprehension.
Scratch my back...
So far, we've looked at coalition options, but haven't mentioned the elephant in the room: the SNP. The Tories are keen to emphasize the "nightmare scenario" of a Labour-SNP coalition of the UK, making the Tories as the "anti-Scottish" party. Certainly, it is easy to see why this scenario would be unpopular in England, with the threat of the tail wagging the dog.
However, it looks like both Labour and the SNP are well aware of this perception as well. The SNP have made repeated statements that they would not enter a coalition with Labour (as well as refusing any deals with the Tories). The rationale for this appears to be one of "fear of association". Looking at what's happened to the LibDems in government with the Tories, the SNP seem to have decided that they would rather have their influence from afar, than be intimately-bound with any major party, and thus tarred with the same brush. If that is indeed the case, then they have learned from observing the LibDems' painful experience. While there will likely be no SNP ministers in government (though the thought of Alex Salmond as Scottish secretary is amusing), the question is what indirect influence could the SNP have?
While Labour have refused to rule out a coalition in principle, the SNP seem to have made their decision for them. As things stand, the most likely post-election scenario is a minority Labour government supported by the SNP (and others?) on a case-by-case basis. This is, remember, what Cameron first offered to the LibDems as his preferred governing option in 2010; and now the LibDems may well rue the decision not to have taken it. But is this scenario feasible in the long-term?
Probably not.
While it's true that the SNP did rule Holyrood as a minority government for a full term, Westminster politics lacks the more deliberative and co-operative aspects seen in the devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales (and NI). Westminster is a bear-pit, as we see in PMQs each week.
It is hard to imagine a minority government of any colour surviving for a full term. Labour would be under pressure for an EU referendum from the Tories. Although Labour could theoretically ignore this, the threat of a Tory-UKIP alliance to lobby for a referendum would be hard to ignore - especially considering how UKIP are effectively the second party in parts of the North of England. This would put Labour MPs under pressure to heed to public opinion.
Secondly, assuming that the SNP gain the majority of MPs in Scotland, this would give them a legitimate right to demand another independence referendum (regardless of the fact they'd only just had one). While Scotland and the SNP may not really want independence outright, the SNPs large cohort of MPs could effectively act as leverage to campaign for "devo-max", with the emphasis on "max": to ensure that the famous "vow" for Home Rule is implemented in full. This is their real - and realistic - aim, and will likely have the support of the Tories (who have their own plans for EVEL). In this, a minority Labour government could be forced into an unlikely fait accompli between the SNP and the Tories to divide power between them. This would lead to a whole new constitutional can of worms.
Whatever the result of the election, things in the UK are unlikely to be the same again.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
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:
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
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?
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?
Sunday, February 15, 2015
The War in Ukraine, European context and the Minsk II "ceasefire": Putin's power-play
A year ago, the "Euromaidan" protests in Ukraine against the pro-Russian Yanukovich government culminated in a mass shooting in the centre of Kiev, followed by the flight of Yanukovich himself. Since then, Ukraine has been the centre of a 21st-century power-play between the West and Russia.
While some people thought that such games of power, for control of "spheres of influence" were relegated to the European history books, the reality is that, in some ways, the ideological battles that dominated the twentieth century were themselves a historical aberration.
The twentieth century was unique in finding new methods to create mass human suffering, but it was also unique in finding "isms" to use as justification. The First World War was not, despite the use of modern warfare, any different from the pan-European wars of succession that occurred during the 18th century, in terms of the basic human causes. Like most wars, the First World War was sparked by nationalism (Serbian nationalism, in that case) but quickly spiralled out of control to include all other major European "players". The Balkans was the source of the conflict, but the Balkans had been the source of various European conflicts for nearly half a century prior to the First World War. Some people forget that.
"Right, where were we?"
The crisis in Ukraine has been a proxy war for the last eight months. The historical region of Ukraine has been a bone of some contention for at least the last two hundred and fifty years, ever since the Russians conquered the Crimea, creating the region now famously known as "Novorossiya".
The collapse of the Eastern Bloc saw the ideological battles that had dominated Europe (and the world) for most of the twentieth century come to a close. In that sense, with these aberrant ideological conflicts over, the "historical clock" was wound back to 1913, and old historical grievances were "re-discovered". Across the former Soviet Union and former Communist Eastern Europe, ethnic and nationalistic causes that had been on ice for the best part of a century, began to rapidly heat up - in some cases almost instantly. This explains why the wars in former Yugoslavia should perhaps be better seen almost as continuations of the First and Second Balkan Wars that immediately preceded the First World War: once Communism collapsed it was almost a case of: "right, where were we?"...
We could therefore re-phrase Francis Fukuyama's famous quote about the end of the Cold War being not so much the "end of history", but the "resumption of history".
This explains why the territory of modern-day independent Ukraine, itself a creation of the internal politics of the Soviet Union, found itself in an awkward geopolitical position. In effect it is - like Belgium, but much bigger - a country with two linguistic halves, and likewise with people looking in different directions. This was Communism trying to put history to one side for the sake of centralising authority - a very deliberate policy of divide and rule. This was carried out all across the various "republics" of the Soviet Union, including, for example, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan (which explains the inter-ethnic conflict that occurred there some years ago).
In Ukraine, these issues were put on the back-burner during the nineties government of Kuchma, and it was only when the pro-West, "pro-democracy" opposition became more vocal that the problems with Moscow started, ten years ago.
Putin's playground
That is the context. Ukraine is a power-play, and it is clear that Vladimir Putin doesn't want to "let go" of Ukraine. For the past year, people have been trying to fathom the psychology of Putin, and what he is hoping to achieve. Does he want to occupy Ukraine? Does he want to divide Ukraine? Does he want to create a geographical "Greater Russia"?
By now, it seems evident that he does not want to invade every neighbouring country that has a (small) Russian-speaking population. Comparisons with Hitler are unhelpful, crude and very wide of the mark. Vladimir Putin's mind is made of different stuff - he is much more the calculating opportunist, with Ukraine conveniently serving as his "playground". In essence, he does whatever he thinks he can reasonably get away with. And because he has (rightly) calculated that no-one in the West will seriously want to stand up to him militarily, this is why he sends troops and hardware into Eastern Ukraine.
This was evident back when there was the war with Georgia in 2008. No-one in the West wanted to intervene militarily. It was the diplomatic intervention of France's Sarkozy that helped bring the conflict to a close, and prevent the possibility that Russia would drive its tanks all the way to Georgia's Presidential Palace in Tblisi.
The efforts of Merkel and Hollande in "Minsk II" are noble, but pitiful by comparison. By now, Putin knows that no-one will stop his actions in Ukraine. While the sanctions are hurting Russia, Putin is able to turn this domestically into a "blame the West" action; thus, whatever the West does, Putin wins.
With Ukraine, Putin is really the "puppet-master", able to dictate events. His hope, we assume, is that by dragging out the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, it destablises and destroys the popularity of the Poroshenko government, until he is removed from power, one way or another. Who replaces him is up to debate, but as long as the war continues, and the "Donbass" remains out of Kiev's control, Putin has a mill-stone to hang around the Kiev government's neck, preventing it from ever being truly independent.
"Mr Freeze"?
The result of the Georgia war was a "frozen conflict" in the two break-away regions of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. These are now effectively Russian satellites, and since then the then Georgian President, Saakashvili, has gone and been replaced by one who happens to be more amenable to Moscow. Georgia no longer seriously talks about joining NATO or the EU - and even if they did, no-one in the West would ever take up the proposition.
Putin created the "Eurasian Union" to rival the EU. Indeed, it was this institution that Yanukovich had originally agreed to join in late 2013, that was one of the reasons for the protests in the first place. This Russia-centred economic association is another of Putin's power-plays. Initially with just two other members - Belarus and Kazakhstan - it now also includes Armenia, and is likely to include Kyrgyzstan in the near future.
The latter two are both economically reliant on Russia as much of their population are migrant workers in Russia, but also have ethnic problems of their own (Kyrgyzstan's mentioned earlier). Armenia has been locked in a "frozen conflict" with its neighbour Azerbaijan over Armenia's occupation of Karabakh for more than twenty years.
Obviously, this issue pre-dates Putin's rise to power, but the situation in Georgia does not, with the 2008 war seen as a "resolution", and effectively a method of keeping Georgia under Moscow's thumb. With the two "occupied territories", no-one in the West will touch Georgia's status with a barge-pole.
Ukraine now resembles the situation in Georgia, except that Ukraine is a far bigger country, and is part of Europe. With Russia's annexation of Crimea, and Eastern Ukraine locked in warfare over the status of the "Donbass", Ukraine's economy is in free-fall. Ukraine is literally paying the price for going against the Kremlin. As mentioned earlier, having the mill-stone of the Donbass War around Ukraine's neck is Putin's way of keeping the country from escaping Russia's orbit.
Having plucked Ukraine's prize fruit, Crimea, from under their noses, Putin is now clamping a ball and chain around Ukraine's feet, in the form of an unresolved conflict in the "Donbass".
While some people thought that such games of power, for control of "spheres of influence" were relegated to the European history books, the reality is that, in some ways, the ideological battles that dominated the twentieth century were themselves a historical aberration.
The twentieth century was unique in finding new methods to create mass human suffering, but it was also unique in finding "isms" to use as justification. The First World War was not, despite the use of modern warfare, any different from the pan-European wars of succession that occurred during the 18th century, in terms of the basic human causes. Like most wars, the First World War was sparked by nationalism (Serbian nationalism, in that case) but quickly spiralled out of control to include all other major European "players". The Balkans was the source of the conflict, but the Balkans had been the source of various European conflicts for nearly half a century prior to the First World War. Some people forget that.
"Right, where were we?"
The crisis in Ukraine has been a proxy war for the last eight months. The historical region of Ukraine has been a bone of some contention for at least the last two hundred and fifty years, ever since the Russians conquered the Crimea, creating the region now famously known as "Novorossiya".
The collapse of the Eastern Bloc saw the ideological battles that had dominated Europe (and the world) for most of the twentieth century come to a close. In that sense, with these aberrant ideological conflicts over, the "historical clock" was wound back to 1913, and old historical grievances were "re-discovered". Across the former Soviet Union and former Communist Eastern Europe, ethnic and nationalistic causes that had been on ice for the best part of a century, began to rapidly heat up - in some cases almost instantly. This explains why the wars in former Yugoslavia should perhaps be better seen almost as continuations of the First and Second Balkan Wars that immediately preceded the First World War: once Communism collapsed it was almost a case of: "right, where were we?"...
We could therefore re-phrase Francis Fukuyama's famous quote about the end of the Cold War being not so much the "end of history", but the "resumption of history".
This explains why the territory of modern-day independent Ukraine, itself a creation of the internal politics of the Soviet Union, found itself in an awkward geopolitical position. In effect it is - like Belgium, but much bigger - a country with two linguistic halves, and likewise with people looking in different directions. This was Communism trying to put history to one side for the sake of centralising authority - a very deliberate policy of divide and rule. This was carried out all across the various "republics" of the Soviet Union, including, for example, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan (which explains the inter-ethnic conflict that occurred there some years ago).
In Ukraine, these issues were put on the back-burner during the nineties government of Kuchma, and it was only when the pro-West, "pro-democracy" opposition became more vocal that the problems with Moscow started, ten years ago.
Putin's playground
That is the context. Ukraine is a power-play, and it is clear that Vladimir Putin doesn't want to "let go" of Ukraine. For the past year, people have been trying to fathom the psychology of Putin, and what he is hoping to achieve. Does he want to occupy Ukraine? Does he want to divide Ukraine? Does he want to create a geographical "Greater Russia"?
By now, it seems evident that he does not want to invade every neighbouring country that has a (small) Russian-speaking population. Comparisons with Hitler are unhelpful, crude and very wide of the mark. Vladimir Putin's mind is made of different stuff - he is much more the calculating opportunist, with Ukraine conveniently serving as his "playground". In essence, he does whatever he thinks he can reasonably get away with. And because he has (rightly) calculated that no-one in the West will seriously want to stand up to him militarily, this is why he sends troops and hardware into Eastern Ukraine.
This was evident back when there was the war with Georgia in 2008. No-one in the West wanted to intervene militarily. It was the diplomatic intervention of France's Sarkozy that helped bring the conflict to a close, and prevent the possibility that Russia would drive its tanks all the way to Georgia's Presidential Palace in Tblisi.
The efforts of Merkel and Hollande in "Minsk II" are noble, but pitiful by comparison. By now, Putin knows that no-one will stop his actions in Ukraine. While the sanctions are hurting Russia, Putin is able to turn this domestically into a "blame the West" action; thus, whatever the West does, Putin wins.
With Ukraine, Putin is really the "puppet-master", able to dictate events. His hope, we assume, is that by dragging out the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, it destablises and destroys the popularity of the Poroshenko government, until he is removed from power, one way or another. Who replaces him is up to debate, but as long as the war continues, and the "Donbass" remains out of Kiev's control, Putin has a mill-stone to hang around the Kiev government's neck, preventing it from ever being truly independent.
"Mr Freeze"?
The result of the Georgia war was a "frozen conflict" in the two break-away regions of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. These are now effectively Russian satellites, and since then the then Georgian President, Saakashvili, has gone and been replaced by one who happens to be more amenable to Moscow. Georgia no longer seriously talks about joining NATO or the EU - and even if they did, no-one in the West would ever take up the proposition.
Putin created the "Eurasian Union" to rival the EU. Indeed, it was this institution that Yanukovich had originally agreed to join in late 2013, that was one of the reasons for the protests in the first place. This Russia-centred economic association is another of Putin's power-plays. Initially with just two other members - Belarus and Kazakhstan - it now also includes Armenia, and is likely to include Kyrgyzstan in the near future.
The latter two are both economically reliant on Russia as much of their population are migrant workers in Russia, but also have ethnic problems of their own (Kyrgyzstan's mentioned earlier). Armenia has been locked in a "frozen conflict" with its neighbour Azerbaijan over Armenia's occupation of Karabakh for more than twenty years.
Obviously, this issue pre-dates Putin's rise to power, but the situation in Georgia does not, with the 2008 war seen as a "resolution", and effectively a method of keeping Georgia under Moscow's thumb. With the two "occupied territories", no-one in the West will touch Georgia's status with a barge-pole.
Ukraine now resembles the situation in Georgia, except that Ukraine is a far bigger country, and is part of Europe. With Russia's annexation of Crimea, and Eastern Ukraine locked in warfare over the status of the "Donbass", Ukraine's economy is in free-fall. Ukraine is literally paying the price for going against the Kremlin. As mentioned earlier, having the mill-stone of the Donbass War around Ukraine's neck is Putin's way of keeping the country from escaping Russia's orbit.
Having plucked Ukraine's prize fruit, Crimea, from under their noses, Putin is now clamping a ball and chain around Ukraine's feet, in the form of an unresolved conflict in the "Donbass".
Sunday, February 8, 2015
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)