I asked yesterday why it seemed that people weren't listening at present. As is true of much of what I write here, the question was really aimed at myself: this blog is a stream of conciousness written more as a way to develop my own thinking than anything else. As I mused on this point yesterday three answers occurred to me.
The first is that Brexit demands closed thinking. The campaign was built on a lie that Brexit would save the UK money and release funds for the NHS. No one now pretends that is true. But the consequence is that those promoting Brexit now have, perforce, to close their ears to rational debate because they are all too well aware that what they are now doing is both irrational and harmful. It is in fact pure fantasy.
There is a time and place for fantasy; the hard politics of international relations is not one of them and yet most of the current narratives the UK is pursuing fit this description.
The difficulty with fantasy is it ends. That's fine in the case of a film, for example: we all go home refreshed and are better able to to face reality. The Brexit fantasy has no such option built into it. That is not taking place in some safe space where all know that a fiction is being offered for entertainment. The Btexit fantasy is a denial of reality. Thosse types of fantasy are deeply troubling. They end in tears.
The second reason why no one is listening us that the UK's official opposition wants to pretend that it's fulfilling its role when only a very small number of people are really convinced this the case. Most of its own supporters recognise that this is not true and hang on in the hope that eventually good times will return again. Another fantasy does, then, close down debate and prevent any real discussion.
The third reason is maybe the most pernicious. This is the pretence that all is well in the UK. The suggestion that growth is restored, wages are rising, the fall in the pound was actually beneficial, that the basic structure of our economy is sound despite its dominance by finance, and that the promised rebalancing offered after 2008 was not really required after all are all trotted out regularly when the truth is that we have an economy laden with debt, producing massive inequality, that is deeply inefficient at cost to us all, that is only apparently capable of generating minimum pay jobs and where equality of opportunity has long ceased to even be a hope for many. But that cannot be acknowledged.
So there are at least three lies. It would be easy to note more: that Scotland has no chance of making it alone is another tht is regularly repeated to sustain a Unionist myth. And all the time the chance of real debate is suppressed so that the policies that might effect real, beneficial change can be ignored whikst the current madness is perpetuated.
People aren't listening right now because those in power are frightened of what might be said, It!s better to ignore the whispers in that case. But I have a message for them. The conversations will go on, whether they like it or not. And fantasies really do end. The only questions are how and when.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Well said Richard; there are many themes here. but one quote
According to Boris Johnson, (Daily Telegraph, May 12, 2013) “If we left the EU we would end this sterile debate and we would have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by Brussels, but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills and a culture of easy gratification and under-investment in both human and physical capacity and infrastructure.” For once I agree with him.
So do I
Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.
You can guarantee that, should Johnson get his desired tilt at the PM’s job (Heaven forbid!), he would do absolutely nothing to deal with any of those points he raised. It would be the usual SNAFU.
Comes with the territory – he’s a Conservative.
I think one of the fantasies is that the NHS thing on the bus played a big part in Leavers’ votes.
See http://natcen.ac.uk/our-research/research/understanding-the-leave-vote/?gclid=COj-_ubd4NECFVEz0wod0KEPsQ — see page 13 for a summary of the reasons for voting from a reputable organisation that has studied the issue. The thing on the bus doesn’t even feature.
I understood it 1) as referring to smallish sums in the light of total government spending 2) a ‘promise’ so far into the future it couldn’t be relied on 3) some of the people making the promise (e.g. Farage) aren’t even MPs so are powerless to cause this promise to happen anyway.
I suspect most Leavers understood this. It is only Remainers who misunderstand it (or assume others did in significant numbers).
The leave campaign – Dominic Cummins – said it was fundamental
Is this your preferred opinion on the question?
I am sorry: I am not sure what your question means
I have put a link to a paper saying the NHS on the bus thing was unimportant. This seems consistent with my own views and those of other Leavers I know. Most of understood the point being made, and found it a trivial consideration.
You seem to prefer the view of Dominic Cummings, campaign director of the Leave campaign, who unsurprisingly thinks it was fundamental.
If the Brexit campaign was built on lies, it seems strange you prefer the view of Mr Cummings on whether or not the NHS on the bus thing was an issue.
Why is it odd to refer to him?
He confirmed it was built on a lie
Yes, but my point is that few people took much notice of it, as evidenced in the article to which I gave the link, and as evidenced by my own experience.
It seems you prefer his evaluation of its impact to that in the article.
I do
Sorry, but my experience was people completely believed that claim
A subtext of all the above points, Richard, is, I think, powerlessness. We might debate to what extent this is real or perceived or some combination of the two but it is there all the same.
To me, one of the most egregious examples – though much of the media made light of it – was Osborne’s appointment to the editorship of the Evening Standard. The reasons why this should not be possible for a sitting MP are so obvious as to not be worth repeating. But the fact that he was offered the position by a member of the global elite/1%, the son of an oligarch (who owe their positions to the rape of Russian resources following the collapse of the Soviet Union in any case, but who have been given free-reign to use their ill-gotten gains to set up a now highly politically influential ex-pat community in London); felt no ethical or moral qualms about accepting the post; and has defended his “right” to do so in the most hypocritical manner without hardly any challenge from the media and particularly not from his fellow Tory MPs, shows how far we have fallen into the swamp of countries that are really democracies in name only. One of the key features of such domains is the utter contempt their politicians show toward the conventions of the state, their electors, and ethical and moral standards in general. Osborne provides no better example.
Another example would be Brexit. Whatever the outcome of the referendum the fact is that the vast majority of the voters of the UK did not vote for Brexit: they either voted against or did not vote. We can argue about how many of those who chose not to vote would have voted one way or the other. However, that doesn’t alter the fact – yes, fact – that the most momentus development in the history of the UK since the end of the 2nd WW (far more fundamental and significant than joining the Common Market because of the scale and scope of the current and future EU) is being planned and managed by politicians of extremely limited calibre, driven on by rabid supporters whose hatred of the EU is on a par with the attitudes of supporters of radical Islam so many of them purport to despise, and underscored – and indeed we now know – held to account by, an equally rabid, highly biased (and/or cowed) media. Thus, we have the sight of “Saint” Theresa grovelling to the Saudis (as has become commonplace for UK politicians) while the man who previously demonstrated in his time as Defence Secretary that his ideology long ago wiped out any interest in ethics and morality professes the UK ‘shares values’ with a self professed murderer. And this is just an early example of the stinking mess into which we are now descending at a faster rate than many of us could ever have imagined.
Building on from the cleverly crafted and now deeply entrenched austerity meme of the Cameron/Clegg government, bolstered by the knowledge no functioning opposition exists, and underpinned by an even more dogmatic media, the Tory government are now the latest bunch of politicians set on demonstrating the indisputable truth that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That we as a citizens of a democracy are powerless to do anything about this until 2020 – or at at time of choosing of those who have been corrupted – while those who have power consolidate their positions on a daily basis, should signal to everyone where we as a country are heading. The ghost of Oswald Mosley must be laughing in his grave.
What is really bizarre is you only have to use common decency, basic logic and a bit of sense to see the flaws in all that is happening
It requires no deep philosophy or any ism to understand that we’re heading for hell in a handcart
And this where I am baffled: why is there no one apparently able to say that?
We’re mostly heading for hell in a handcart because that’s what this government wants.
Brexit or no Brexit.
The truth is, the government absolutely *could* spend an extra £350m per week on the NHS, starting tomorrow.
And it always could have; Brexit or no Brexit.
The fact that it won’t is purely ideological.
True
Ivan and Richard, re your last paragraph and “Building on from the cleverly crafted and now deeply entrenched austerity meme of the Cameron/Clegg government”, I wrote up for my colleagues in the local CSM a piece of the 205 General Election, in which I identified 3 villains:
1) Blair, for bottling the “Jenkins Report”, a referendum on which he would undoubtedly have won, transforming our politics
2) Gordon Brown, for bottling going to the country in 2007 – he would have won, I’m sure, even under our palsied FPTP system, though by then a Jenkins AV+ system should have been in place, so he would probably have been in a coalition.
3) The two Ed’s, for failing to spend at least the first year of their tenure on nothing else than nailing the Tory lie about “Labour maxed out on the credit cards” as part of the totally false “household” meme about a state’s economy, especially one in control of its own currency. Negligent folly of an almost cosmic level, now that the Tory “lie” has ossified into a “self-evident truth”.
I cannot now locate it, but someone on Facebook commented that she had worked for Ed Balls up to the last Election, and in the aftermath asked him why the two Ed’s hadn’t attacked the Tory lie, and received the mind-boggling answer from Ed Balls that he and Ed Miliband thought that people were bored with all the talk about the Great Financial Crash, and the growing austerity resulting from it, even under Brown and Darling, and that they should look to the future.
So, you’re standing in the hall of a burning house, and instead of trying to put the fire out and also to find the persons responsible, you’re busy wittering on about the nice new house you’re going to build on the ruins!
I’ve said it before, and say it again, if the two Ed’s had been my counsels in a case I lost at great expense, I’d have sued them for professional negligence, which is now possible, since Rondel v Worsley (1967) overruled in Hall v Simons (House of Lords, 2000).
I think Ed M believed it
Ed B might have as well
Andrew, like Richard I too have also read that Ed M did actually believe that people had heard enough about the crash and it was time to move on. Perhaps that idea had some traction for some (short) time, but as you say but not even allowing Labour to punch back against the Tory “household budget” and we’re broke nonsence (particulary in light of Liam Burn’s stupid note) over many years was a grievous error for which many people are still paying.
Agreed
I take your points and completely agree with your view of the direction in which the UK Government is currently taking us and the prospects for Scotland, but as you’re in stream of consciousness mode, you really have to consider more of the possible counterfactuals.
An (at least to me) obvious one might be to consider whether any of the fantasies you list are more or less firmly based in reality than that of the EU changing it’s ruinous neoliberal direction in the next two, three or four decades? One entire country and the youth of at least four more have already been chucked under the bus – for them the fantasy of Europe has been over for at least five years.
Your second and third lies – about insubstantial opposition, and the dominance of finance, debt and inequality could equally easily be pointed at the EU.
Certainly it was a fantasy to think that simply leaving would cure everything, but probably no more of one than that the EU would have taken a Remain vote as anything other than a ringing endorsement of the status quo (which Cameron’s ‘reforms’ would likely have made worse anyway).
I personally think neoliberalism is at the end of the road
In that case the EU will gave to decide what it does next
I accept thus might be a very uncomfortable process
Stream of consciousness? Compared to much, if not all, of our government policies James Joyce is a rational philosopher.
Your third point: Of course all is well and all will be well because the unchained invisible hand will steer us to the best of all possible worlds.
Brexit means Brexit, best possible deal, all fantasy, but people believe in fairytales. Two instances of the biggest fairytale of all that shocked me in the last 24 hours.
1. Two posters on Comment is Free in the Guardian agreeing that the Government did not bail out the banks it was just returning some of the money it had taken from them in tax. The biggest fairytale of all, that the government takes the money that we as individuals or businesses create and either should not have taken it or should give it back.
2. Even worse. I ordered a copy of Greg Mankiw Principles of Economics which showed up yesterday (I am writing a book so need to know what all the standard texts say). Mankiw is somewhat controversial but the book has been praised for its balance and has sold over a million copies. Many students of economics are trained according to these principles. I opened the book at random and saw a picture of very distressed baby with the caption. “My share of the debt is $25,000.” There was some text presenting reasons for government debt but no picture of a happy baby with the caption. “You will keep me safe and healthy, educate me and I only have to pay if I succeed. That’s an amazing deal.” Pictures say more than words and stick. No balance here, but unless you are trained to question the paradigm you may not even notice.
A) is commonplace
B) read what the BoE said on economic textbooks in April 2014 – most of them are wrong. But they are still in use
Many people do understand and are deeply frustrated and concerned. But they (we?) are a minority. The majority have been successfully conned over the centuries by the old ‘bread & circus’ strategy of the elite. It worked for the Romans and it works today. They’re given just enough to keep them alive and distracted. So long as people can afford £5 for a latte + muffin, their monthly phone bill and the other things they consider to be ‘essentials’ then there will be no pitchforks.
OK, I’m being facetious and trivial. But there’s an element of truth in it. The fact is most people are not (yet) suffering to the point when they will start questioning what’s been done in their name. The English in particular seem to have a masochistic streak. They’re probably not happy but don’t know what to do about it, can’t be bothered, think that’s the way life is or simply exist day by day soothing their frustrations via the world of entertainment.
The 1% have won – but only temporarily because, as you say, fantasies do eventually end. As George Carlin said: “It’s called the American Dream because you’ve got to be asleep to believe in it”. Nothing ever remains the same. The universe is in a constant state of flux. Far Eastern wisdom has so much to teach Westerners, especially Taoism & Buddhism. Until ordinary people have a deeper intuitive understanding of how their lives ‘function’ (not the best word) within the context of the universe, they will forever be open to external manipulation. The ruling elite have always understood this, hence their perpetual attempts to control.
‘Take back conrol’ was a clever headline. Unfortunately it was intentionally misleading. If people would really take back control it would be of their own individual lives and not to restore some ephemeral delusion of ‘sovereignty’. When asked what to do to effect change, Noam Chomsky routinely answers ‘do something’ – at whatever level is possible. Which brings one back to your headline question. How and when depends on the level of activity by individuals. That’s why we read your blog, because it is action-orientated based on factual analysis, encouraging positive thought which is a precursor of action. There are an increasing number of people articulating similar ideas across the Internet. Eventually the fuse of change will be lit and the status quo will be blown away for something different. But there’s no guarantee it will be any better. That’s the nature of human beings.
All we can do is improve our own lives and spread the Gospel to whoever will listen.
Sorry – not a very satisfactory response to your important question. But we’re living in ‘The Age of Complexity’ and I am as confused as the next person!
Well,mi appreciated it
Thanks
Totally agree Richard.
I believe that the entire constitution needs total reform from the top down to make it fit for the 21st century. Another Great Reform Act, you can but dream!
In simple terms I think its fair to say that this country has invested in its population and infrastructure over the decades (via a government investing in NHS, education, roads, security – (of course you can argue whether more could be done or not)) but it has certainly helped to create a market place where multinationals have been able to make a lot of money without having to pay for it – in the appropriate form of tax! By diverting massive revenues offshore to tax havens. It’s taking the P***!
For the wellbeing of this nation further investment should be done by gov (not more austerity), but its time the big multi-nationals corporations paid for accessing this market!
There is a lot of assertion here
Have you done the work to show it?
There are big problems with MNC tax – but it’s not true that most pay no tax. That claim is by and large not true and in the interest of balance I have to say it
I’m not saying no tax is paid hence why I said ” in the appropriate form of tax” , but the avoidance is severe and when adding it up the numbers are *seemingly* way beyond most people’s awareness and consciousness. I do not believe that most of the public appreciate nearly how bad it is, although brexit in my opinion represents an intuitive response around this issue … hence my point about MNCs taking the P***!
Its astonishing for how long they have been able to get away with it…
And I am saying that this was true
But for all sorts of reasons it is less so now
Admittedly in part because they have captured the state so well that less is demanded of them
You mean by moving the country towards tax haven territory?
Since I can’t see what you are commenting on when moderating comments I cannot answer your question
Ok I’ll try one more time (if you don’t want to answer for various reasons I’m
Fine with that).
You wrote,”Admittedly in part because they have captured the state so well that less is demanded of them”
Could you clarify this statement?
I was wondering if you were prosing ‘in part’ due to the drop in CT in recent years, and perhaps the prospect of it dropping further (tax competition with other countries, or a race to the bottem as oft described).
You may have meant something else or much more than this, it’s unclear.
Those facts
And the change in the tax base
It’s very hard not to be repulsed by much of what you experience in Britain today especially the moral decrepitude and intellectual deficiency suggesting that such revulsion will ultimately lead to explosive revolt. Very sad!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-immigration-benefits-report-cabinet-office-brexit-sabotaged-a7669181.html
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretarys-speech-on-the-uk-eu-and-our-place-in-the-world