I am revolted by Boris Johnson.
I was disgusted. But that's too good a term now. Revulsion will do.
I stress that this is not party political. To be honest, you could say it's not political at all. The sentiment is based on the fact that he fails every test of decency, integrity and empathy that anyone in a position of authority, anywhere, should be able to pass.
Worse though, he chooses to fail.
But, and here I am consciously agreeing with the Labour leadership, this is not the moment for a vote of no confidence that would lead to a general election, even though his uncouth and callous behaviour is clearly intended to build the foundation for what will be an ugly campaign. That's not to say that the time for that will not come: it very obviously will. But waiting is right.
Johnson's foul politics have a purpose, and that is to secure a No Deal Brexit. And for some his tactics are working: I overheard a coupe talking yesterday, and they thought his performance ‘amazing', in a positive sense.
The greater good must be to prevent No Deal. I am not saying any deal. I am saying No Deal. I still suspect a deal will be what happens, even if I think Remain is the only acceptable option.
So, the combined opposition has to stay calm, and collected, by which I mean united. The way to beat Johnson is to make him fail. He cannot deliver No Deal. It will not happen: of that I remain sure because I am certain that come what may the EU will grant us an extension because they will not want to be seen to be the party to force Brexit. Johnson said he would deliver. When he does not the bubble is burst.
In the face of the most toxic person to hold high public office in living memory in this country patience is required. And patience will consign him to history. Even if it will take a lot longer for his toxic stain to be erased.
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:
You are wrong here Richard. Completely and entirely.
Labour, the awful SNP, pointless Plaid Cymru and the disgraceful Liberal Democrats will object to anything and everything that is not remain. That is the only issue here.
This is a coup between the courts, the city and politicians to protect their interest by ensuring we remain.
In particular the SNP should be investigated as I suspect there is foul play at hand. They are crooks of the worst kind.
I have permitted some silly comments on this blog before
This one is not silly
You need to seek help. And I am not being silly. Paranoia at this level is worrying.
I stand with John on this.
In the last year our host has twice said he could live with the EEA Option.
Now his view is I think Remain is the only acceptable option, and he is unable to see the differences between all the so-called ‘No Deal’ possibilities.
If it’s any help the BoE analysed 4 No Deal scenarios, of which one was disastrous, and has now all but been eliminated by a bit of planning.
Wanting full Remain, rather than a more moderate 50:50 Brexit, has turned some people into deranged versions of their former selves.
I find people who log what I say in quite such detail a little hard to understand, not least because what you say appears to suggest a total lack of appreciation of nuance or context
To me Remain is the only truly acceptable option
I could live with EEA
I wonder, have you heard of compromise?
I most certainly have
Stevie Oschenko says:
“Wanting full Remain, rather than a more moderate 50:50 Brexit, has turned some people into deranged versions of their former selves.”
Seeing the prospect of ‘sticking it to’ the EU with No Deal has had a similar effect on another sector of the population.
Where is this 50/50 Brexit ? Another fantasy, I’m afraid. Labour is offering a possibility (I put it no more strongly than that) of something along those lines and being pilloried for it.
Because it is vague? Or just because it’s Corbyn saying it ? A Tory government has utterly failed to produce a credible withdrawal agreement. And you think it surprising that people are a bit cross about it?
As an Englishman who has spent most of my adult life in Scotland I have to take issue with you. Despite what the English political parties and media claim, there is growing interest in Scottish Independence. The SNP is currently the main party, but not the only one, supporting independence and is expected to return over 50 MPs at the coming GE. This is not a bad return from 59, especially when one remembers that the Lib Dems have their areas of Scotland, like the Northern Isles, which will give them a few seats. The “awful” SNP is the most trusted party in Scotland. It is hated by Unionists, but what have the Unionist parties delivered or even promised to deliver for the people of Scotland and even for England and Wales? My Welsh son-in-law who is no fan of the SNP told me this morning that he now sees independence as the way forward, out of this UK mess.
In the 1930s Adolf Hitler asked President Hindenburg to suspend the German Parliament so that he could run the country as he wished. We all know what happened then. My parents’ generation fought a war against the Nazis, and now you seem to support similar views. The Brexit vote was close, but was accepted by the country at large. The problem has always been how to leave the EU in a sensible manner which will not destroy the UK, making us all poorer. Even should we leave on 31st October, this will not be the end as there will be years of negotiations — Jacob Rees-Mogg believes we will still be feeling the effects in 50 years’ time.
Boris Johnson suspended Parliament in order to do as he and the puppet-masters wished. The Supreme Court took the view that in doing this he was removing from the 65 million or so of us who populate this UK the right to run our country for ourselves.
We were told that to leave the EU was to take back control to the UK Parliament and to British courts. We cannot take back control if that Parliament is then closed. That is the point the SC is making. The only Brexit thing about it is that it is Brexiters who are complaining most loudly because they are actually getting what they want, but they don’t like it.
You’ll be able to substantiate your wild accusations of the SNP being ‘crooks’ then..?
Feel free to try….facts are not libellous
Apologies Richard… My original remark was aimed at John Greeves
September 26 2019 at 8:14 am
What I do not understand is the constant mantra of ‘the will of the people’. Quite obviously those , like myself who voted to remain accepted the status quo whereas those who voted to leave voted for a menu of options from no deal to Canada plus etc with no coherent idea for the outcome they wished. What Johnson and Cummings et al have done is to portray those who voted to leave as having voted for no deal. He anticipates being swept along on a tide of populism to his nirvana. The comments from those in parliament and elsewhere who, out of a sense of realism, do not share Johnson’s optimism are subjected to ridicule and disparagement. He should understand that when the pessimistic forecasts are realised he will own them. He will not be able to blame those who surrender, lack courage, the Supreme Court or even call on the memory of Jo Cox but then it will all be too late for the rest of us.
He’s creating a monster. And eventually, that monster will destroy him.
The Tories should never have given in to the ERG nutters in the first place. May should have gone for a cross-party or neutral approach towards resolving Brexit. Instead, she made it into a very narrow party-political vision of Brexit which could never be realised and put us on this collision course.
Imagine, if she had instead said this after becoming leader:
– We will launch an independent inquiry which will investigate the possibilities for Brexit, taking into account the constitutional and practical implications of different types of Brexit, and then provide a report setting out feasible ways forward for the Government and possibly a future referendum.
Instead, it was my way or the highway, divide and conquer. She failed, Boris took over and amplified the division. He too will fail and will be replaced by a more extreme ERG person. They too will fail. Rinse and repeat.
As someone on QT said last night, the 52% are wanting 100% Brexit with no deal….the 48% should have some of what they want in any negotiated Brexit in my view!
Agreed
It’s really not to much to ask, is it?
It is remarkable. Cox’s performance in HoC earlier for pure fantasist claptrap was bad enough. The group currently in power are not fit for any leadership role. I am shocked that you have heard any kind of approval for BJs performance… I am taking a big interest in the comments and behaviour of folk that a) think leaving the EU in totality is important at any and all cost, b) see nothing wrong with believing complete opposites (take back control – remove all control is fine, for example), c) get very very angry that anyone could have a different opinion from them.
I don’t know enough about brainwashing to say difinitively that this has happened, but I can’t see any other explanation – there are trigger words that seem to set some people off into a state of agitation and unthinking repetition of memes (perpetuated by media recently for brexit). The ‘no surrender’ brigade. The news is reporting that ‘language matters’ – I suggest the references to ‘surrender’ is the trigger word for sectarian extremism. Indeed in glasgow a very very strange increase in sectarian violence has started up over the past month – anger, over what? There are always issues, but actual rioting and violence? Very strange.
And it is our government that is whipping up anger and intractable unreasoning opinions, on brexit – as though anarchy will benefit it – which I’m sure it could do, but it certainly isn’t of any benefit to Britain as a whole, it isn’t running the country or behaving like a world leader. The conservatives voted for this insanity, and sorry but I think the opposition is the most useless lump of inanity ever seen, and seem unlikely to offer any respite. If, if, they could pull themselves together for an ‘interim government’ then a no confidence vote could be brought forward without a GE until an extension was negotiated with the EU. For calls of this being undemocratic, it’s no more so than the current government, that government that behaved unlawfully. But, party politics, you know.
I watched this clip from the Independent Twitter, it shows BJ ‘addressing’ the UN, and I have no words to describe the performance of our supposed PM, actually writing this as a speech for presentation in front of other world leaders, he really wants Britain to be ridiculed and despised I assume, and people support this,,, (okay, I have lots of words for describing it, but can be summarised with WTF?!)
https://mobile.twitter.com/Independent/status/1176802020264570880
That speech should worry anyone
Was the person who wrote it sane?
I ask quite seriously
I would say clinically insane. I cannot fathom any reason for presenting such an incomprehensible pile of nonsense – maybe if you were presenting just-so stories at a literary fair, but at a UN meeting, addressing world leaders – I mean, you just wouldn’t, unless you were so far away with the fairies you don’t know where you were, legless chickens or no. Either serious drugs are in effect, or a serious problem with brain chemistry. BJ was a sickening embarrassment as Foreign Secretary, and I thought it could not get any more embarrassing, but that’s not true. People keep saying he’s clever and he’s playing everyone – so if that’s the case, he must be insane then.
There’s quite a few others clinging to his coat-tails who also fill me with revulsion: the rants from the Attorney General, a supposed lawyer, were disgraceful; as a Scot I was particularly incensed by Gove’s use of the term “sectarian” in describing the SNP, this from a man who happily sang “The Sash” – a thorough bread sectarian song -(http://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2019/06/11/news/michael-gove-has-long-held-orange-affiliation-1638896/?param=ds441rif44T) and whose Party is in bed with a truly sectarian Ulster Party.
But Johnson is in a different league, his (mis) use of the memory of murdered Jo Cox as perhaps the most disgraceful – some women MP’s protested that his (and others’) language is putting their lives in danger – “humbug”.
What adds to my revulsion is that so many in his party support him and so few are moved to get rid of him.
The PM is simply adhering to HL Mencken’s perceptive insight: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
Delay will simply add to the fury of those who voted to leave. And will annoy many of those who voted leave, but are resigned to the fact the leave side won. They just want Brexit done with. The PM wants an election because he knows, with Labour and the Lib Dems heading in very different directions on Brexit and being in a good position to neutralise the Brexit party, that he has an excellent chance of securing a thumping majority. David Cameron won a majority in 2015 when UKIP polled almost 4 milion votes and was saved by an equivalent drop in Lib Dem support and a poor Labour performance. The sum of the Labour and Lib Dem vote share may exceed Labour’s 2017 total but it certainly won’t generate the same number of seats in total.
Labour has finally landed on a sensible position, but (and of course it’s always easy to be wise in hindsight) that should have been integrated in to the 2016 referendum. Voters should have been asked two questions. First, yes or no on leaving the EU. Then, if the public decision is to leave, do you favour a confirmatory referendum on the precise terms of the agreement between the UK and the EU that the government will negotiate.
It’s all too late now. The PM is staking his survival on giving a majoirty of voters what he believes they want – and he’s going to give it to ’em good and hard. And a majority of voters will lap it up. The opinion polls may not be capturing public sentiment precisely, but I’m convinced they’re not that far off the mark.
I live in hope
Hope, perhaps, is all we have.
The majority of voters had no idea of the complex and lengthy negotiations that would be required to unpick 46 years of UK participation in the EU’s treaty-driven increase in competences or of the nature and content of any resulting agreement. Nor did they have any idea of the delicate interacting balances of relationships within Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and Ireland and between Ireland and the UK that define the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement – and are underpinned by EU membership. As a result, a majority appears to be totally insouciant about trampling on and tearing up binding international treaties and agreements. And sadly our governing politicians appear to be prepared to do precisely that on their behalf.
The irony is that as David Cameron gave us the ill-drafted EU referendum, he also gave us the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. And the latter, providing the opposition parties hold their nerve, is the only mechanism (when combined with the Benn-Burt Act) that is preventing the PM from causing chaos. However, the use of these parliamentary devices is simply increasing public anger and annoyance.
The build-up of pressure cannot be contained very long. It will have to burst soon. The longer Parliament tries to keep the lid on and seeks to enforce a less damaging outcome, the bigger and more damaging the inevitable blow-out will be.
It would be better to have an election now rather than later when an even larger number of the public would be even more incensed.
I have to disagree:L we only have to wait a few weeks
It is absolutely critical that Corbyn holds position and does not go full remain, like many in his party want him to, and as do I in my heart, as opposed to in my head.
If Labour go fully behind remain that plays directly into the hands of the Brexiters. The ERG and Tories will take working class seats off Labour in that situation. Labour will lose that election under those circumstances.
Labour have to maintain the position of offering a credible option for Brexit. They have to remain the calm, sensible party of moderation in all of this.
The Tories, Brexit Party and large swathes of the media have made it clear they will stop at nothing to get their shot at authoritarian rule. They would rather burn everything to the ground than allow Corbyn near no.10. For that reason the opposition have to fight smart. If they do that, they can defeat them.
I agree with your overheard couple…it was an amazing performance. I’m afraid his Little Englander followers will have loved it. They will be cock-a-hoop. 🙁
As an example of the art of coarse debating it was a first rate performance and a fine demonstration of what is wrong with the Westminster parliament. Debating is a game and yesterday he won. He didn’t win the argument he won the confrontation.
I’m afraid he WILL ‘get it done’, come hell or high water. He represents the utterly reckless attitude to Brexit that his supporters feel…..he represents it to a ‘t’. And if the ‘t’ stands for ‘twat’ that accusation is shed as water off his well-larded back.
The country is truly divided. Between those who think this is what ‘leadership’ is about and those who are appalled that a ‘once great nation’ (sic) has sunk to these depths in the 21st century. I wonder…have we sunk or just failed to drag ourselves out of the mire of the past (?)
What we have is more like the ‘the willy of the people’ because those who voted for BREXIT or think a no deal is a good result are plainly dickheads.
We hear of ‘ taking back control of our borders and our laws’ but what about the enemy within – the financiers who are backing Boris and stand to gain by shorting the British economy when it dips after BREXIT? Profits for the already rich to be made out of job losses and pay cuts to ordinary people – some of whom buy into the Leave bullshit!!!!
How people can ignore these links that out there and in the public domain is beyond me, it really is. It can only be the result of years of manipulation and general unhappiness.
Richard, I don’t have additional constructive comment to make on this particular topic. I totally share your – and other contributors’ – revulsion, not just at the rhetoric, tone & lack of decency exhibited yesterday by Johnson and others, but also at the wider dialectic now defining the national Brexit debate in which identity politics has trumped (pun intended) transactional politics. Time spent by the protagonists in a Quaker or Zen retreat would be beneficial both for them individually and the nation as a whole.
However, while reacting thus to the current news I asked myself if this disturbing and unhealthy trend we are witnessing here in the UK is maybe part of something bigger, perhaps a symptom of a wider social malaise that has been manifesting itself with the global rise of right-wing populism? If it is then it’s even more dangerous than simply whether the UK leaves the EU on the 31st October, with or without ‘a deal’.
My direction of thought-travel led me first to this piece by Michael Löwy, recently reposted in MR Online : ‘The far right: a global phenomenon’ – https://mronline.org/2019/09/25/the-far-right-a-global-phenomenon. In the essay he mentions ‘identity panic’ (a term I’d not come across before and apparently first used by the late French Trotskyist philosopher Daniel Bensaïd). This in turn led me to this analysis by Mary Eberstadt – ‘The Great Scattering’: How Identity Panic Took Root in the Void Once Occupied by Family Life – https://quillette.com/2019/08/27/the-great-scattering-how-identity-panic-took-root-in-the-void-once-occupied-by-family-life. For me it offers a valid explanation as to why and how we are increasingly in this dysfunctional state – in both meanings of the word.
I know you’ve got more to read than there are hours in a week, but I think it’s helpful (or maybe not!) to view what’s happening within our micro national communities in the context of a wider macro-scenario. Like viewing the weather as part of climate change. To mix the metaphor, the bad news is that, like cancer, it’s a very complex issue with many strands and no immediate ‘cure’ in sight.
Apologies for not making a helpful & positive contribution to the specific topic but I’m (ab)using the opportunity to share my ‘findings’ which are not completely unrelated. Also, however much there is a need for immediate action, progressives must not allow themselves to become so entwined with this reactionary, regressive and socially damaging agenda that they have less time for constructing sustainable solutions. Pessimistically I see it as a ‘perfect’ storm with a breakdown in both climate and societal norms. Maybe there is a connection somewhere. Only history will tell. Hopefully (that word again) Gramsci was right that it’s only an intermediate chaotic phase between old and new.
Finally, thank you for your extra-ordinarily insightful and voluminous output at both micro and macro levels that acts as a catalyst & inspiration for others. (Incidentally I’m much too old to be termed a ‘fan-boy’!).
Barista – due caffè forti per favore!
Thanks John
The PM’s speech to the UN has been described in the media as “bizarre”; perhaps as statesmanship it is, but it provides an insight into the nature of the problem. The references to Prometheus seem stock Boris Johnson; but I surmise that he prophetically sees himself as Prometheus; his liver being pecked by an eagle to the end of time, which suggested to me a nervous, late reflection of the predicament he now finds himself in – in the eye of the storm. A predicament that is the inevitable consequence of the path he has chosen. A path that was also to be found in the UN speech, in his references to AI and Google: rambling, perhaps subconscious expressions of revolutionary and dangerous ideas about the future of the digital age in which we live; references that for me carry the hallmarks of Dominic Cummings thought (read Cummings papers and Blog).
Boris Johnson, at least from my – I confess limited – observations or knowledge of his writing, speeches or pronouncements has never had an original idea in his life.His “Big Idea” has been to become an acolyte of Cummings, and he has tied his future to Cummings reputation as the leading political campaigner in Britain, who understands the fears and prejudices of the British electorate better than anyone; knows how to use modern digital technology and algorithms to exploit these very powerfully in a large-scale, fast moving political campaign – and can deliver a No Deal Brexit (or close to it) and electoral triumph for Johnson. Cummings is fallible and limited, but his campaign methodology and application (successful both in the EU referendum, and before that in North East England, triumphantly crushing the prospect of a political Assembly for the North East) is far beyond the achievements of those against whom he is likely to be confronted in a brutal political campaign; that seems obvious, not least to Johnson.
Checked by the Supreme Court, Cummings has raised the stakes. Perhaps the PM in New York realised that the strategy may be the brainchild of Cummings, but like Prometheus Boris Johnson alone will pay the price of executing the plan. Cummings will simply walk away; probably with a No Deal Brexit safely done, which is all he wants.
We wouldn’t be in this situation if Callaghan hadn’t caved into neoliberal ideas back in the seventies and effectively handed Thatcher and her elite backers our nation on a silver platter.
We wouldn’t be in this situation if Blair and Brown hadn’t continued the Thatcherite project.
We wouldn’t be in this situation if Cameron had addressed the real issues underlying discontent in this country instead of calling a referendum on EU membership to distract the public’s attention from what actually matters.
We wouldn’t be in this situation if parliament had accepted the referendum result and worked together in a concerted effort to secure a deal with the EU starting three years ago.
We wouldn’t be in this position if parliament had accepted TM’s deal.
We wouldn’t be in this position if parliament had agreed to a GE at the first time of Boris Johnson’s asking.
We wouldn’t be in this position if parliament had gone for a motion of no confidence in the government yesterday.
As obviously deliberately divisive and power hungry as Boris is he could not achieve this sad state of affairs alone. His opponents and predecessors had to help and that’s precisely what they’ve done.
Revulsion is absolutely right – only I don’t reserve it just for Boris and the current crop of Tory MPs.
Our parliamentarians all disgust me. As far as I can tell every last one of them is selfish, power hungry and totally careless as to what their power games do to the nation.
The only thing we wanted from them was sufficient stability and sustainability to run our lives successfully. What they’ve given us is disaster upon disaster and chaos upon chaos.
The only certainty for the future is that they’ll continue to fail us.
And would you have done better?
Are you sure?
I would not have called for no confidence yesterday, for a start
Better than who and at what?
Sorry – I cannot see what you are responding to when I moderate and so cannot answer this
Mr Sawyer,
I made this point on another thread; I repeat it here because, without wishing to be arrogant, I think you are wrong; nor do I think it useful exclusively to blame the politicians. Even if you were right, they merely reflect only too well the real nature of the society from which they are drawn.
Brexit is nothing to do with Brexit. It is much deeper. It has a long history, longer I think even than your timeline. Britain is in a long deferred, long avoided but now brutal process of discovering the nature of itself. It is not pretty.
I have no doubt that the Conservative Party, through three Prime Ministers has produced the catalyst for this catastrophe, because first and foremost it tried and failed to save itself from itself. The Conservative Party thus carries the greatest, but not the only responsibility for providing the causal impetus for all of this. In Johnson and Cummings it has finally found a mechanism to ‘play’ the British public; but if there is an ugly outcome it must be acknowledged that there is also something they believe they can ‘play’: us. Remember that Vote Leave was only too effective in 2016, and the consequence is a deeply divided and riven polity. It took the whole of Britain to find ourselves here. That, I humbly propose, is the problem.
I concur John about the politicians.
However, the other side of the coin are the citizens, voters. They/we really need to up their/our game and become more interested in what is actually going on in politics. The best form of self defence is to be informed – but about what? Who is your informer?
But even more than that we seem to have become a more unprincipled society – anything goes, especially if it makes money.
In a principled society, Boris Johnson would not be allowed have the backers that he has; the 2016 referendumb would not have been allowed to stand.
We have become so unquestioning about anything that is new or breaks down established moulds yet so often what replaces things is a Trojan horse of some kind that hides just another group of self interests to get what they want.
“I concur John about the politicians.”
My point, however was that it was not just about the politicians. It is about “us”. The public is being “played”, principally by a broken Conservative Party; this can only happen with any success if the object of the game actually possesses the fears and prejudices that are being played. In addition, in this digital age the public have rushed to acquire all the electronic tools that they think are all about easy communication and decision making for their lives, but in effect facilitate the capacities that allow them to be played, in the mass. The “players” intend to know more about the public than the public-electorate do – and now they think they can predict the public’s behaviour [read Shoshana Zuboff].
I think you half acknowledge this, at least implicitly in your reply: but only “half”. Britain has been running away from the ‘mirror’ (reality) for a very long time. The best metaphor for the nature of this problem is, I think ‘The Picture of Dorian Gray’ (to which I referred on another thread to make the same point). This is about us; nobody else, and certainly not the EU.
The earliest date for an election now is 5th November. Without an extension we leave with no deal. I am assuming those asking for an immediate election understand that only to well.
The opposition parties (and rebels) are not going to allow an election this side of an agreed extension. Then we will see just how the campaign goes. Missing the 31st Oct date will be difficult for the hard leave vote.
Paul O says:
“The earliest date for an election now is 5th November.”
An auspicious date for an election if ever I saw one. 🙂
As much as I appreciate John D’s contribution above I think the reasons for out current outlandish antipathy to Europe are more ‘prosaic’ shall we say?
1) We never apparently surrendered to the Germans (although it turns out that some of our royals might have if the right offer had been made). We’ve laboured under a superiority complex ever since. Our ‘finest hour’ is permanently rammed down our throats.
2) Europe has been a place where we Brits have sent a lot of people to die or come back damaged – sons, uncles, brothers, sisters etc. We are naturally shall we say watchful and worried – sceptical even – about Europe. There is still the pain of loss and sacrifice. And Parliament – that hard won place of our democracy – has a love/hate relationship with power sharing that has never been resolved.
3) After the war, there was a bit of a boom but as Europe (even Japan) got back on its feet and
modernised, we did not keep up and industrial decline set in as our managers and industrial owners discovered the joys of easy wealth via the City – thus we won the war and lost the peace so to speak. Our class system did not help either. People see that decline and are not happy about it and quite reasonably want to know why. Unfortunately our media are only too pleased to provide whipping posts………….
4) ………Europe has routinely been portrayed by our media as a problem since I can remember. We are always falling out with them apparently and the EU is a highway for immigrants. Instead, we always hear about our ‘special relationship’ with America (an ex colony that kicked us out) when there are disagreements, but nothing about our special relationship with Europe. The USA however has a history of undermining us on the international stage. It used WWII to get its hands on our empire and as soon as hostilities ended it pulled the plug on financial aid (within hours) whilst still supporting Germany for example. But no – Europe is still the enemy – the bogey man. And also the fall guy or a distraction from whatever the establishment want to steal from us next.
5) Since 1979, the British state has been reducing its commitment to its people in terms of supporting infrastructure, choosing market led initiatives and rolling back Government intervention using American generated economic ideas that put an emphasis on squeezing money out of assets to increase short term returns at a huge cost to society. People feel this, they sense it and look for blame. They see European countries running some of our services and must wonder what an earth is going on in this free for all the UK has become for capitalists.
6) Since 2010, we have had very harsh austerity measures and the increased withdrawal of Government support throughout the country has caused real increased hardship and resentment. This has ramped up misery and increased the need to blame someone – anyone. And the Tories have provided that in abundance with their friends in the MSM.
7) We cannot rule out the impact of the internet on all of this either – a place where just about anything can be peddled it seems – this increases exposure to certain points of view provided by unscrupulous content providers. It also helps those who know how, to ramp up divide and conquer on us – the usual British way.
I will be 55 in December and the above points sum up discussions with elders and family members and others throughout my life.
I think the English are confused. We portray ourselves as this great nation but the place has also got shittier and shittier to live in for many. And I also sense out of that cognitive dissonance a sense of shame that leads to anger and a willingness to want to have a go. And anyone will do it seems but those who perpetrate our misery.
We are a badly ruled people that’s all. That’s all. Yes – really. That’s all.
It’s a blunt summary, but not unfair
Perhaps it goes even further back – to at least 1066 when England was last conquered. Ever since then England and latterly the UK has done nothing but meddle and interfere in the affairs of continental Europe. It’s a troublesome place where dangerous ideas and movements have to be kept in check – eg the French Revolution. Meanwhile at home those born to rule have only ever given so much and no more, only sufficient to deflect discontent with their rule and then things have gone on much as before.
Now we have a real disrupter, a neo-fascist, ie someone who claims to know the “will of the people” and asserts that it only through him that this “will of the people” can be delivered. It is a very dangerous situation.
@PSR
I agree with your ‘more prosaic’ rationale re apathy & hostility to continental Europe (not to forget the cultural/linguistic divide which further enhances our trans-Atlantic orientation). And, ofc, I fully take on board the socially destructive effects of Neo-liberal policies since the mid-70s.
However, I was asking myself more philosophically if there was some macro common denominator that links the social unrest and divisiveness we are witnessing across national frontiers, rendering certain sectors within societies more likely to embrace the rhetoric of the political extremes at this moment in our unravelling history. The afore-referenced explanations offered for ‘identity panic’ simply struck a chord.
Sticking with the cancer analogy, what we have been evidencing for the past 4 decades on an accumulating daily basis are Gramsci’s ‘fenomeni morbosi’ (morbid symptoms) of an invisible ‘disease’. Inevitably there is a need to deal with symptoms; the medicine prescribed will vary according to whichever (witch)doctor the patient (electorate) has most faith in. Historical evidence now shows that the cures prescribed and implemented by Neoliberals are iatrogenic.
Yet millions of people still believe the snake oil will cure their grievances because the salesmen are really very convincing, hence Richard’s comment re. how to deal with Dominic Cummings (and henchmen). As with cancer, I don’t think there is an effective mainstream allopathic cure. Just better quality Band-Aid (fiscal stimulus?). I could continue with this medical analogy but it’ll become ever more stretched.
I’ll wrap up with an observation that is mercifully & finally getting some visibility in response to the climate break-down, which is that human beings are living cells energetically inter-connected to each other and all other planetary organisms (thank you John Stewart Bell but mystics have known this for millennia). Break that connection and you dramatically increase the risk of diseases like ‘global market capitalism’.
I hope what I’m attempting to convey makes some kind of sense to somebody. Macro v micro. Climate v weather. Thanks Newton & Descartes but, actually, no thanks. We now need quantum solutions to ever more complex socio-economic problems necessitating a total soft-ware reset. In the meantime I’ll settle for GND Band-Aid powered by MMT!
Gramsci to the rescue again: “I’m a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will.”
The End 🙂
Thank you John D. Always a good read you are.
PSR.
So. I’ve been thinking. It has been really bothering me, some of the memes that are oft repeated, particularly ‘the 17.4 million’ and ‘the will of the people’. These are new things just for brexit, never before have I heard a count of the number of people that voted for one thing mentioned more than a couple of times before – but then 52% doesn’t sound that good does it, while if you talk raw numbers it’s sounds like an awful lot. So, that’s fine, that makes sense if you are trying to promote one view. But politicians and the media constantly shove it down our throats, even the independence referendum is quoted in percentages (I suppose 55% sounds a tiny bit better, and the numbers aren’t as huge, but still, it’s a comparison). Then we have ‘the will of the people’ – well, constitutionally, by law, that is irrelevant – parliament is sovereign in England/the UK, and they don’t have to care about will of people unless they choose to (and want voted in again). ‘The will of a few people but only if we agree with them’ might be a better descriptor.
The will of the Scottish people is to have a second independence referendum (the polls say so, consistently), but that has been happily, and forcefully, dismissed. Where’s the ‘will of the people’ rhetoric there? Only the correct sort of will is accepted it seems.
So, anyway, what my actual thinking is: since WHEN did people get the idea that ANYTHING we vote for will be delivered at all? When did this sudden faith in our polititians happen? It’s such a rarity, surely most people thought the politicians would just fumble about for a while and then leave a bill sitting in the Lords for a couple of centuries? Isn’t that what normally happens? On a vote without a plan anyway. Is it just anti-neoliberal Scottish people (who don’t matter anyway, obviously) that feel wholly disenfranchised by the Westminster system? Actually that’s probably the case when I consider it. Politics is definitely different in Scotland, I look on in wonderment as you all discuss whether or not the LibDems/labour/Tories can work together on something – well I can assure you they CAN, they do it every day in Scotland, councils have Tories in coalition with Labour (to keep the SNP out), they worked together at the last GE to return 13 conservative seats – there wasn’t a surge in Tory support, it’s just that they somehow accidentally happened to have no competition for any of the ‘unionist’ votes is key seats when the LibDems and Labour mysteriously didn’t stand anyone (real) in those seats or campaign much. Well, it’s a mystery to the electoral commission anyway. Apparently some candidates didn’t even realise they’d been selected until after the GE. Nope, no collaboration there at all. The tired old lack of faith in the British electoral system is fairly common in Scotland (though I suspect that a fair few of the 55% that still had some faith in it – and may have believed the false promises – are beginning to realise ‘strong and stable’ isn’t the best description now).
As to the extreme views people have suddenly conjured up regarding the EU – I must still be living in 2010 when no one cared that much, because I still think there are arguments either way to membership (if TTIP – remember that? – had gone through, I’d have grave doubts about the EU, but it didn’t. And I’m in favour of more things EU than against for sure, but maybe not forever) – all the faults people complain about though are with our own government and governance – but those extreme views on the EU have been manufactured by that same government or the state, and the populace is constantly being prodded to adopt those views. Constantly. Prodded. You don’t even realise it’s happening. Drip drip drip, water on stone. We all fall for it, even when aware of it, so there’s no shame to it.
Inciting violence? The government has been doing it for a while, it’s just been ramped up now – if you consider the disregard the current government has for the law, consider how much power they will wield when a state of emergency is called and we become a police state – and what other reason could there be for calling for riots? I refer to the periodic release of information regarding the government’s (previous one and this one) plans for extra police and the army to curb civil unrest,,, um, what civil unrest? No one even thought about it until they mentioned it,,,
It is not even 52% – 17.4 million was actually a shade under 51.9% of those who voted. The 48.1% means that 16.1 million people voted to Remain. And another 13 million registered voters did not express an opinion either way.
17.4 million does not sound quite so good when expressed as 37.4% of registered voters (34.6% remain, and 28% did not vote).
So in fact, the perceived opinions of a third of the voters are driving this forward (and probably much less, because many of them will have been led to expect an easy comprehensive deal).
Andrew says:
“So in fact, the perceived opinions of a third of the voters are driving this forward (and probably much less, because many of them will have been led to expect an easy comprehensive deal).”
That’s about the same proportion it takes under FPTP to produce a Conservative landslide majority in the Commons, isn’t it ?
Contrary: Only one point I’d raise with you…TTIP (if I’m understanding you correctly) had little to do with the EU.. My memory tells me the first “T” stood for “Transatlantic” so I’m struggling to equate that with the EU…?
Having recently had a couple of TIA’s I may well be not seeing thangs with 50/50 vision but..?
Hi Ian, the EU was in negotiations with America in,,, um I’ve forgotten 2014-2015-2016? – to bring in TTIP, the EU had gotten quite far in those negotiations, but then huge protests started up objecting to it – only a truly neoliberal governing body would actually want to be beholden to private companies, and I think it was the clause that said any company could sue a government if their policies caused those companies to lose profit, that made it a no-goer,,, don’t you remember the furore? It was an American idea I believe.
Whoop! Whoop! Oxymoron alert !!
Contrary says:
“… American idea …”
Hi Contrary… You’re quite correct… But was it not in fact that the USA would have wanted/been given access to the NHS that caused most of the furore? De nada,, water under the bridge NOW (!)
John S Warren
I don’t get your literary metaphor – it doesn’t resonate with me for some reason although I’ve read the book and seen the rather excellent B&W film as well.
Tell me – is the emaciated figure at the end in your metaphor the people or the country? I think it should be the latter.
The focus of blame still resides in our politicians as far as I am concerned as well as an antiquated political system that has for some time been past its sell-by date that has been ruthlessly exposed by BREXIT.
The political system has just enabled vested interests (like those City folk who joined the Tory party for example) to capture our legislative processes and make day light robbery perfectly legal. It has also enabled people who hate Government to get into Government and seems happy to ignore MPs who just sign their businesses into the names of their spouses and if by magic have no conflict of interests anymore as they set about our rules and regs in a way that an outsider would not get away with.
We’ve had years of political abuse covered up by a co-operative media creating imaginary other threats whilst the enemy within gets away with murder.
Johnson is just the latest iteration – icing on the cake – of an unprincipled polity that began in 1979 and may be earlier.
The “unprincipled polity” is not restricted to politicians and a few rogue elements; the “unprincipled” are in the warp and weft of our culture and society; and even if we were able neatly to separate and stigmatise the “unprincipled”, we would still be left with those who do not recognise the nature of the prejudices or contradictions within their own principles and values; to say nothing of the gullible, who are so easily swept up by the capacity of this Conservative Government to separate words from context; attach them to the long established methods of the tabloids and present the terms “surrender” or “capitulation” not as epithets, but stand-alone definitions of their opponents: conflating denotation and connotation into a single and final, faux-authoritative, abusive verdict. Then repeat the dosage ad infinitum through media/social media propagandising. This has a long history in the British press, long before 1979. It is not new (the use of vast databases tied to algorithims is the modern embellishment), nor especially clever; but it is powerful and effective.
I do not know how you are defining “country”, so I can’t answer your question. More generally, a mirror (the painting is a mirror of Gray’s life and values) is personal. It is for everyone to reflect.
Johns S
I tend to disagree. Sorry John – please don’t think that I’ve taken some form of disliking to you or anything like that.
It all starts at the top – it really does (in my view of course – only mine FWIW – not much I grant you).
There is ample evidence even in America of all places that common sentiment in societies is more to the left than the right. This a theory that seems to chime with other theories about how human beings have come to dominate the planet. Rather than just competing we also co-operate and help each other – we know of kindness, we know of empathy, we know of altruism.
I see – even in these most twisted and economically sacrificed of communities – those who want BREXIT, are racist, where thieving is common place etc., showing real kindness (although maladaptive) to their own kind in ways that make you wonder how they would be if they had good jobs, a future, a bit of the country’s wealth for themselves. If they could stop worrying about making ends meet, running too many jobs, being ripped off by profit mongers and when the next recession takes place because the rich have bought too many yachts.
As soon as the UK Welfare State and America’ s New Deal came into being they were attacked and undermined – rolled back even – from day one by forces that just got themselves into politics to undo it all and claim it as rent for themselves. And so they have and so they continue to do John S. Politics still sets the scene for society’s behaviour and conduct. That is why I believe Richard wrote a book called ‘The Courageous State’ not ‘The Courageous Voter’.
Modern Politics speaks of freeing individuals without clarifying that it is only a few of these individuals will actually benefit; it seeks to set the scene – to commission things – and then stand back and let us get on with it and fight it out against behemoth corporations and the well heeled. That is because to much of democracy has been captured by those vested interests. It is a failure of politics underpinned by lies that we can’t afford things and that all the money in the world has been created and there is no more of it(but it is OK for some to get more of it than others, it is about how it is divvied up).
As for Cummings and his ilk, they need to be smoked out – cause and effect – challenge and then see what happens (like Jolyon and Gina and John have done). Draw them out – draw out the infection and expose it. And then end it. End them.
The only reason this has not happened is because of crappy Opposition politicians who cannot work together (what an earth is Scotland first minister prattling on about Corbyn for? It is Cameron, it is May it is Johnson who has reduced us to this AND austerity to boot?!!! At least give someone else from a different party the chance to at least make a mess of it!). A concerted effort to draw out Cummings, Odey etc., and expose them would be start. But no – Opposition (with say the exception of the Greens) are all vain glorious and think that this is THEIR moment only.
Another failure of politics. Not the people.
Back to square one. Groundhog day in Parliament. Oh dear.
@Pilgrim
“what an earth is Scotland first minister prattling on about Corbyn for? ”
Eh ?
You’re not succumbing to the English disease and blaming Scotland for English ills surely.
We do get rather sick of that nonsense.
Thank you for the discussion. I think I have made four comments on this thread that present different parts of my argument. I am content to leave it there; the readers may draw their own conclusions of the merits of the case we each made.