Twice in a couple of days we have learned that Theresa May is pursuing policies that will help define her government but in which she clearly has no personal belief. First there was Brexit, where her speech to Glodman Sachs clearly shows that all she is saying as PM does not reflect her personal opinion on the issue. Then there was Heathrow, where it is clear she believes that expansion is a mistake.
Does it matter? I think it does. People already hold politicians in low esteem. Having such a conflicted prime minister will only add to people's belief that politicians are liars. But it is more than that, because I can remember this conviction being explained to me when I was really quite young. The bigger concern is for our collective belief in the democratic process. This managed to survive the belief that politicians were liars for a very long time.
But now it is at risk. Many people now believe that there is some supra-system to which politicians think themselves answerable. I personally think that to be nonsense: I do not buy the conspiracy theory that there is co-ordinated power behind neoliberalism, thinking instead that the narrative is the power and it is definitely maintained, but in a much looser and unco-ordinated fashion than many think.
However, what is very clear from May's behaviour is that a Prime Minsiter does not now think they have the power to follow their convictions. They do think there are greater requirements than doing the right thing as they see it. And May, to be blunt, is willing to do what she obviously thinks is the wrong thing so that she can be Prime Minister. And that's where the danger lies.
It's one thing to think that politicians lie to help achieve what they think is the right thing. But it's quite another to think they lie to achieve what they think wrong for the country just so they can be in power. In that context May is dangerous and a deep threat to democracy.
Is it any wonder that we have political populism on the rise? Or that the Pirate Party is leading opinion polls in the Icelandic general election? When the belief that politicians are not even trying to do what they think is right goes then either the democratic system comes under threat or the parties within it do. I sincerely hope the latter is the case.
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:
We are in an era of poor political leadership, and one of the reasons why is that we no longer have political parties that reflect clear political positions. Instead we have vague broad tent groupings where people in the same party can have dismetrically opposed worldviews.
We need electoral reform to allow our political parties to realign.
Moreimportant – and urgent! – than changing the political/electoral syatem is dumping the dysfunctional unsustainable monetary sytem that we are lumbered with. Unfortunately it will take an almighty crash to enable the current cabal of bankers and financiers to be dragged kicking and screaming into a new era!
I completely agree that there need not be a conspiracy behind neoliberalism – it’s likely an emergent property of the system as a whole. It’s also a complete distraction as whether its being controlled by nefarious Bilderbergers or not, the remedies are the same (yes, courageous states and all that).
Personally I’m rather excited by the prospect of the Pirate Party doing well in Iceland – it seems like the perfect place to demonstrate the effectiveness of their ‘radical’ policies (complete openness, crowd-sourcing their consitition, rotating/rolling leaders etc.).
Having said that Iceland has already demonstrated the huge effectiveness of such radical policies as capital controls and jailing bankers, but they’re nowhere near being considered here.
Capoital controls is their greatest contribution in my opinion
I agree that what we see with May is a willingness to say or do anything that maintains her position, although we might note that she was willing to do much the same to become PM in the first place. In a sense this is just a manifestation of the underlying attitude of the Tory party. But I suspect that her attitude to this issue is far less blasé than it was for the posh boys of the Cameron era, and that therefore also defines her thinking and action.
I also think that we are seeing an orchestrated attempt to portray May as a latter day Thatcher, particularly in the sense of ‘the lady’s not for turning’. And again, unlike latter day wets such as Cameron (not that we would have called him a wet in his day, but given the lurch to the right under May it’s clear he was, or at least, suitably lacking in much conviction), as with Thatcher this extends to “strong” government, making tough decisions that wossy wets would not make, and so on. We shall see where this takes us once post article 50 negotiations with the EU start in earnest. But I can envisage many situations where May’s government is bloody minded enough (they would argue, tough and not for turning) to take actions that are detrimental to the wider population of the UK. And I think they’ll be emboldened in doing that as long as they can rely on the right wing press to continue to convince significant swathes of the population that that suffering is worth it.
That’s depressing
I need lunch after reading that
In that case I hope I didn’t put you off your lunch, Richard.
Whether we believe that the neo-libs are highly organised or not, they are as a group highly analogous in their beliefs and that alone makes them a powerful force which will only fill the vacuum left by poor politicians like May. Woe to us I say.
I am also sick to death of conviction politicians after having to live under people like Thatcher and Blair. So I am pleased that May is not into conviction because it usually goes hand in hand with stupidity and hubris. Rather than proudly proclaiming her stupidity like T & B, May seems more modest. Good.
As for you I would not say that you are a man of conviction either (or what passes as conviction today). The ideas and alternatives you put forward are very well reasoned and entirely rational – you write books that explain your thinking.
I dream of the day when we have politicians of the same calibre to be honest given that we now know that the ideas that have dominated politics and economics since the oil shock of the 1970’s are now thoroughly exposed as complete tosh.
PSR
Thanks
I accept your point re neoliberalism: the narrative is co-ordinated and that is enough in its case
Richard
On the subject of there being an element of co-ordination running through the NeoLiberal agenda, I have to disagree with you.
I dont see how so much can have been perpetrated in its name for so long without there being co-ordination, Bilderberg? On its own possibly not, but it represents a pretty good focal point.
I have thought about this for 40 years now and always believed there to be a hidden agenda, and also always believed it to have originated in the US, well not always per se, but certainly “crystallising” since the end of WW2.
The founding of the Fed was a masterstroke of deception, and it is still widely unknown or unnacepted that the Federal Reserve Bank is a privately run institution, as opposed to a Bank with governmental controls.
This appeared in my mail box yesterday, and it seems to explain quite a lot
http://www.mintpressnews.com/221830-2/221830/
There is a narrative
And I accept that is deliberately fuelled
But I do not think there is anything beyond that