The Tory party leadership hustings are over. Only extreme optimists think Sunak has won, and even they know that his doing so would be a disaster. The rest are resigned to Truss. The descent into neoliberal hell continues.
If Truss was going to be a normal prime minister I might at this point be writing about my hopes for her premiership. I would even consider suggesting some priorities, although not with any realistic expectation that they might be read. But Truss is not a normal prime minister.
Let me take that idea a little further: it's more accurate to say that Truss is not normal. To explain that I must suggest that most of us live life in one of two states.
One, which is probably the most commonplace, is denial. In this mode of operation we simply ignore the evidence of what might be happening around us and hope that, despite it, we will get through what is coming our way. It is a remarkably effective technique. It stops us over-worrying. And experience has taught us that, firstly, there is not a lot we can do to prevent most that is going to happen and, secondly, that most of the time we can manage whatever it might be.
The other mode is to plan within the constraints of uncertainty that face us, hoping that what we do now might make a difference in the future. We fret, in other words, seeking to improve outcomes. Most commonly associated with parenting, it's also true of career planning, management in its broadest sense and care about relationships.
There's nothing dismissive about this summary: this is the reality of much of life. We can only deal with so much. We pick our priorities to address and with regard to the rest we have to hope for the best because it's pretty much beyond our ability to control.
There is a third option. It is reserved for those who think that they can change the world. Mostly it is the preserve of politicians, or those who write about such themes. The belief, whether well placed or not, of those pursuing this option is that they can change what is usually considered beyond control. In other words, the rules of the game are in play, with the aim of altering outcomes.
We are familiar with this third option. A politician suggests that they will use the power given to them to legislate with the aim of effecting a change in the system of government to deliver something that will improve society. This is the standard politician's offering. It is what we expect.
But this is not what Truss does. Her aim seems to be to be threefold. She wants to reduce the power of the state, rather than redirect it. In that sense she does not want to reduce uncertainty, but increase it. That's contrary to a lifetime's experience of what politics is all about.
Second, in the process she denies what the state can do. So she says the UK cannot deliver Brexit, rather than try to do so, meaning she will tear up the Northern Ireland Protocol that the government of which she was a senior member signed. Similarly, she says she can't solve the economic crisis to come, so she will give some tax cuts to the rich instead, with their purpose being to reduce her imagined capacity to act for anyone else. She is defining herself around what she cannot do.
Third, in the process she is seeking to increase the stress of those she governs. Many now realise that the awfulness of the winter to come cannot be denied any longer and requires active management. That is mainly because as a result of Truss's planned inaction she is forcing people to plan for situations beyond their control. What she is demanding is that they face a situation where formulating any reasonable plan is nigh on impossible because the rules of the game are stacked against them and she does not intend to change those rules.
Truss is, by denying that the role of the politician is to at least seek to effect change for the better, planning to make the lives of tens of millions of people immeasurably worse. She is now dragging them out of denial. She is forcing them to face reality. They are realising that reality is unmanageable and she is refusing to help, so far. The consequences of this are deeply worrying.
What cannot be denied is that this is a bold political strategy. It is also utterly reckless. It is the action of a psychopath (appropriately described because of the actual harm that will result from it). It indicates a total lack of empathy on Truss's part. It might also suggest that Truss is no politician, but is instead either mainly in denial, or lacks the ability to manage, let alone imagine what might be better.
Whichever way this is looked at the Truss era could well bring us a type of politics we have not seen before, which is one that denies there is a political realm and that does instead throw problems back at the populace and says it is for them to deal with them as best they can. How might we describe this? The politics of neglect might be appropriate. I think that's what is coming our way.
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:
The Politics of Neglect might have worked pre Vivid but I suggest that in the current situation it is extremely dangerous.
Might Madam Truss also be about to promote a phase of late stage financial capitalism in which the strong and successfully devious benefit from encouraged chaos and lack of pro social regulation and expectation?
Yes
Seems a bit worse than Neglect. She seems to have the same psychopathy and ruthless self serving ambition as Johnson – but hitched to a dogmatic ideology about getting rid of the State, ‘bombing Russia’ etc which Johson didnt have to the same extent, and which is even more likely to end in the destruction of society and the economy and eventually (far too late) the government.
‘Politics of Destruction’?
A fairly common trait of tory leaders since 2010 is to dismiss detail. Cameron, Johnson and Truss suffer from this affliction. In dismissing detail they also dismiss consequence. This may be because they still cling to Dominic Cumming’s successful twin strategies during the Brexit campaign. He admitted that when an answer was ‘inconvenient’ it was perfectly permissible to lie. He also described the strategic overview as being Deny, Delay and Deflect. This seems to fit comfortably with Ms Truss’ campaign so far. Truss engages tongue before brain, remember her telling the Russian Foreign Secretary she was not prepared to return Voronezh and Rostov to Russian control? Both are towns to the east of Moscow. Having got detail wrong and rather than admit error Truss, Johnson and Cameron would offer some sophism or other.
In this household we are planning for a bad winter followed by a worse spring. The nightmare of neoliberal ideology will only end when the house of cards comes crashing down. The tories want a return to a (fictional) glorious past Truss may achieve it. Whether it is a return to 1945 or 1845 remains to be seen.
1945 saw the election of a radical government and the defeat of the Conservatives.
1845 saw the start of the Irish famine. Reading that many will be cold and hungry, unless the govt act, I do hope it is 1945, not 1845.
The only one of the Chartists democratic reforms not enacted was the demand for yearly General Elections.
For the last two hundred years its has been considered incompatible with effective government.
In the age of Johnson and Truss it is beginning to look ever wiser.
It would certainly stop Truss in her tracks,
How would long term planning every happen?
I agree, five years is too long though
Richard
I’m assuming you have been following the (lack of) progress on OECD BEPS 2.0 initiative (i.e. Pillar 1 and Pillar 2).
Have/would you like to make any ccomments on this (apologies if I have missed it on here)?
What do you think Truss/Sunak would do in relation to the above if they were PM? There are rumours and speculation that it will be ditched. So I’d be interested in learning more about what you think.
This deal is poorly designed overall and tries to achieve an outcome that has pushed the focus in international corporations too far when the real solution has always been unitary apportionment of the whole profit
The evidence is that the existing system has reached its limit and more fundamental change is needed
The possibility that other issues were of higher priority in tax reform also exists
If we are to literally have a state that neglects its people, this seems to beg the question of what is the state for? It seems that any sort of social contract is being abandoned and therefore the state only serves the interests of itself.
Truss will be a disaster I think the stick conservative MP’s will get from constituents will lead to a quick demise. She may get through some terrible legislation fighting against the unions over winter but if they stand together it will be difficult to implement. I fear that that the tories will be in such disarray that the call to “Bring Back Boris” (a nice 3 word slogan for you there) will trump all reason and the liar in chief will be back.
This is already known to be the subject of Tory MP discussion
The fantasy is next June
Look on the bright side. Maybe Truss is a secret Marxist. After all, is it not so that, according to Marx, and confirmed by Lenin, in the ideal communist society, the state will wither away and be replaced by popular assemblies (soviets) and egalitarian societies will effectively run themselves? Truss’s mum and dad are/were active socialists, so maybe her toryism is simply a cover. Well, maybe we can hope……
I think you are an optimist on many fronts
Sadly Richard, so do I. Didn’t Marx also say something to the effect that left to itself, capitalism would eat itself, which appears to be the state we’re in now, i.e. all the wealth to the property/asset owners, none (or virtually none) to the workers? Rent seeking parasitic capitalism bringing about it’s own demise when the majority of the populace suufer under it rather than gain from it.
Or put it another way (IRO the climate emergency), the invisible hand of the free market has now got it’s owner by the throat and is strangling him.
I completely agree with that
Neoliberalism has worked out exactly as Marx predicted
And I can’t say that brings me enormous pleasure because of the pain it will cause
Truss must be unique in having parents hoping their child doesn’t become Prime minister
Richard
In response to Paul Langston and your reply…
I regard the UK as ungovernable (like all states with large populations) and politically unstable. The policy flip-flop that occurs when Labour and Tory governments are replaced often undermines long-term planning, which is surely essential.
Having had experience in elected public office with three-year terms (New Zealand), that was not long enough apply the mandate we were given, nor to iron out the kinks in our policies.
Yes, five years is too long, but not long enough to entrench sustainable policies and long-term planning that should not depend on the length of the parliamentary term.
What to do?
I propose six-year terms with one-third of the House or Council being subject to election every two years (with a limit on their total time in office at that level).
First, an elected member has plenty of time to achieve something in office. Second, it avoids the violent swings as have been seen in the UK. Third, it gives electors plenty of time to assess new entrants (ie. new parties) before they could gain a majority and take over. Fourth, the stability of policy would be welcomed by the electorate. Fifth, the brouhaha that accompanies UK national elections would disappear in favour of closer examination on a local basis of the individual member’s contributions while in office. Sixth, the power of parties over members would be reduced.
There is much more required to reform politics in the UK. Independence for Scotland and Cymru would be a helpful start, and allow England to focus on England for a change.
Never a general election?
I am not convinced
What is worst to me is the Truss thinks she’s following Thatcher.
However – privatisations aside (and boy how they have come undone eventually) and yes the anti-union laws have stood the test of time unfortunately but the record will show that Thatcher actually ended up disowning monetarism and in the end we saw benefit spending and inner-city investment rising once she realised she’d made a mistake. In other words, the Tories needed having to spend more to put it right through things like the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) and Urban Development Corporations (UDCs) and the like because of places like Toxteth and Brixton.
Yet the myth persists in the Camerons, Osbournes, Rees-Moggs, Truss’s and other Tories – and particularly the not very bright membership – that Thatcher was uncompromising and ‘not for turning’.
It’s pure hogwash. Somehow Thatcher back tracked but was still able to come across as radical whilst maintaining support.
This generation of Tories now completely ignore these subtleties and seem committed to something that Thatcher herself never really was. Like all politicians she would turn if she felt she was becoming unpopular (until of course the poll tax).
They are committed to a myth.
Only a myth.
Modern Tories have also lost sight of context. In Thatchers day, you could still afford to buy a house on a medium or less income – I know because I’ve done it and seen others do it.
But today? No chance. Not a chance.
So Thatcherism – as well as it being not what people thought it was, has also gone out of date.
And yet still, Thatcher is invoked as some ‘golden age’.
And that’s really sad but also acutely dangerous.
Agreed
Agreed, Pilgrim.
It is worth remembering that a myth is not a fairy tale-made up. It is a story with a meaning. The Bible is an example. This is not in any way to deny a universal consciousness or a post mortem existence. I am a believer in that sense but not from the Bible. The history of the Old Testament is more akin to Hollywood. Some of the events of the Gospels seem to be parables to highlight the teaching. But the Bible has had a huge inspirational role.
Myths move people more than facts. I am a historian and would prefer people to judge with reason and compassion but I have to acknowledge that myths speak to the parts reason can’t reach.
The following is an extract from an article published (Thursday 01/09) by Open Democracy. Follow the link to read the full article
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/liz-truss-think-tanks-cost-of-living-iea/
The secretive think tanks behind more than a dozen of Liz Truss’s campaign pledges have proposed cost of living solutions including scrapping childcare regulations, abandoning net zero, allowing AI to diagnose patients and abolishing the energy price cap altogether.
Between them, the Truss-backed think tanks have also lobbied against a windfall tax on gas and oil companies, called for a windfall tax on renewables firms instead, and urged ministers to cut taxes rather than provide further support for those who will struggle with soaring bills this winter.
Analysis by openDemocracy has identified a string of Truss policies and campaign staff originating from the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the Adam Smith Institute and the Centre for Policy Studies.
MPs and campaigners have raised the alarm about Truss’s closeness to the groups, saying a government led by the Conservative frontrunner would be a “puppet” for the organisations.
I share all those concerns and no one knows who funds these people
Thank you for your comment, Richard.
That is precisely the point.
All current self-styled democracies (I consider them proto-democracies) that I know of have general elections. They reflect their top-down politics. I seek a bottom-up democracy in an independent Cymru (too democratic for England!).
It is not as if more frequent elections would be devoid of drama. They might not permit the ‘winner-takes-all’ of an absolute majority, but would usher in a more consensual politics and invariably coalition governments. That continuity and stability would avoid the wild fluctuations of change that occur especially under FPTP, and the interruption of sound governance.
Election years (every second one) would still be major events. In Years 2 and 6, there would be community council elections (4-year terms), and a presidential election in Year 4 (6-year term). Instead of a mandate of 5 years as now in the UK, that mandate would be tested every two years. Policy change would be smoother.
The dictatorship that is the environment will in any case soon require one economic policy (sustainability) with one objective (survival). Politics will become less about the economy and more about culture. No place for a Tory!