In the last fortnight, the UK Truss government has presided over a debacle. Following the government’s mini-budget which cut taxes, financial markets reacted negatively, triggering U-turns and political turmoil. On Friday, Truss sacked Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng, seeking to salvage her premiership but probably only postponing her own demise.
En pointe, as ever, with a more insightful angle than the rest of the commentariat - thanks.
Isn’t it alarming that an effectively unelected administration has been hobbled by an entirely unelected entity. While the rest of us just watch what is supposed to be OUR government.
This is vague drivel, low on detail, high on sophistry and emotion.
You sound like yet another Social Democat lefty or Blairite, trying vainly to hold on to the policies of the last 25 years, but which you refuse to accept is responsible for the U.K's continued economic and social decline, as do the media, a large contingent of MPs (including the Conservative Party), Civil Service, Quangos, NGOs, charities and academia (what some term "The Blob", or more politely, "Shadow Establishment").
What you and your ilk do not seem to understand, and abjectly refuse to countenance, is that the U.K. is in dire fiscal and monetary straits and has been for some time, as we simply do not produce enough to pay for the "jam today" policies of deficit spending and consumption, nor are investors willing to lend us the money to do so (unless compensated by a large increase in risk premium or other words yields), and as a result, since 2008, the Bank of England (BOE) has printed over one trillion pounds to underpin the Gilt markets.
As was warned by the "radical populist right" this would result in uncomfortable price rises (what is now termed incorrectly as inflation), and is now doing so because the value of our currency has been seriously undermined by the long term actions of the BOE and the government.
Such fiscal and monetary policy has seen Sterling decline against the dollar since 2008, from over 2:1, to almost now parity, but we are supposed to believe, as a screeching media and lefty cabal of politicians would have us, all been the fault of the "mini budget".
Worse, post 2008, the establishment bizarrely and repeatedly decreed, like Moses descending from the mountain, that we were in a "new normal" of zero percent interest rates (ZIRP) and low growth (when the reality was they were in fiscal trouble, so they set interest rates to zero and printed billions to suit themselves, cook the books, kick the can down the road, and avoid embarrassment/responsibility), unfortunately coming to believe in the delusion with which they thought they had cast over plebs, such that state spending began to rely on the support of ZIRP and further money printing, further encouraging and compounding on the profligacy that led the crisis in 2008.
Again the gall of politicians and the media to blame the rise in bond yields on the mini budget, rather than investors looking at our long term stalling/failing productive capacity and our ability to repay them, is abjectly ludicrous.
All of this you seem to blame on "populism", which is nothing more than a meaningless pejorative thrown at someone who merely questions or disagrees with the prevailing political consensus, supposed to signal an equivalence with early to mid 20th century continental politics (I won't be specific, Godwin's law, etc, also read the history, these political parties had their own personal militias fighting a low level civil war. If you believe the likes of Trump, Johnson, or Truss have such an entourage, then you are living in an alternate reality to everyone else).
Quite how your appeal to proportional representation (PR), and yet more constitutional vandalism (we should be mindful of such changes, as Edmund Burke warned over 200 years ago), is supposed to solve our economic and social decline (something thrown in occasionally by Blairite lefties when they have no other excuse for their failing ideology), if the prevailing consensus or shadow establishment won't allow change? Which is exactly why you propose PR, as this is exactly what PR ensures, a rump of consensus politicians that will block any change to the prevailing orthodoxy, and as aptly demonstrated by Italy, that has seen several parties win the largest share of the popular vote, on a platform of radical change, but be utter paralysed into accepting the consensus of a rump of politicians elected in great enough numbers, not to overtly form a government, but control the direction or policy toward further EU integration and stifling economics in favour vested/unproductive interests.
You then mention "Control of party leaderships"!? By who exactly? Who best decides political party membership? Would it be the prevailing orthodoxy again?
The U.K. is following a ruinous path towards inflation, economic decline, and sectarianism, that we have to honestly acknowledge, and I'm afraid cajoling/shaming/name calling those who disagree, as "populists" or whatever else, until presumably negative emotions lead them to hold the same identikit social democratic/lefty opinions, whilst it may make true believers feel better about the growing disparity between their will/intentions/policy and the actual result, it will do nothing to address our rather serious and ever growing problems.
Bear with me for an introductory analogy: Some would argue that an entity such as the BBC has passed its sell-by date. Try floating a business model today in which the maker of things not only has a monopoly, but in later years indirectly extracts money from rivals who sell similar products. Even if you do not use this product, you must pay this maker of things anyway, on pain of fine or imprisonment, to use those of their rivals.
It would go down like a cup of cold sick. Nothing lasts forever. So what about democracy?
A good idea at the time? This article appears to be an argument against it. Like it or not, Trump did not jump out of his own specially prepared box; he was elected by millions of voters. Brexit, for which I voted, likewise. That's democracy isn't it? It may be worth explaining why I voted Brexit because this reason is precisely the same reason I am beginning to doubt my decision. Democracy is faulty. I believed at the time of the referendum that democracy was under attack, that the EU was anti democratic - which it is. However, is this a bad thing?
The last few years of UK governance should be a clue. The last few weeks, an even bigger clue.
Our model of FPP voting has scraped the barrel of mediocrity. The Tories would have voted for a bladder on a stick as long as it promised Brexit, and that is exactly what they got. As you point out, we seem to be at the mercy of unrepresentative sub-groups. As for referenda we are just not used to them like the Swiss are or anywhere near as competent at them.
So what are the alternatives? Whatever they are, it is clear that democracy as we know it is no longer fit for purpose.
You really can't blame the members when they only had their say in the last round of the leadership. It actually speaks more of the low quality of MPs, who mostly wanted to get into cabinet and so if they backed a 'winner' first they would get best dibs.
Good stuff, Thomas. Over here us Colonials watch with great curiosity how your system works.
You might refer to the term "Overton Window." Seems it applies to your situation in the U.K.
En pointe, as ever, with a more insightful angle than the rest of the commentariat - thanks.
Isn’t it alarming that an effectively unelected administration has been hobbled by an entirely unelected entity. While the rest of us just watch what is supposed to be OUR government.
This is vague drivel, low on detail, high on sophistry and emotion.
You sound like yet another Social Democat lefty or Blairite, trying vainly to hold on to the policies of the last 25 years, but which you refuse to accept is responsible for the U.K's continued economic and social decline, as do the media, a large contingent of MPs (including the Conservative Party), Civil Service, Quangos, NGOs, charities and academia (what some term "The Blob", or more politely, "Shadow Establishment").
What you and your ilk do not seem to understand, and abjectly refuse to countenance, is that the U.K. is in dire fiscal and monetary straits and has been for some time, as we simply do not produce enough to pay for the "jam today" policies of deficit spending and consumption, nor are investors willing to lend us the money to do so (unless compensated by a large increase in risk premium or other words yields), and as a result, since 2008, the Bank of England (BOE) has printed over one trillion pounds to underpin the Gilt markets.
As was warned by the "radical populist right" this would result in uncomfortable price rises (what is now termed incorrectly as inflation), and is now doing so because the value of our currency has been seriously undermined by the long term actions of the BOE and the government.
Such fiscal and monetary policy has seen Sterling decline against the dollar since 2008, from over 2:1, to almost now parity, but we are supposed to believe, as a screeching media and lefty cabal of politicians would have us, all been the fault of the "mini budget".
Worse, post 2008, the establishment bizarrely and repeatedly decreed, like Moses descending from the mountain, that we were in a "new normal" of zero percent interest rates (ZIRP) and low growth (when the reality was they were in fiscal trouble, so they set interest rates to zero and printed billions to suit themselves, cook the books, kick the can down the road, and avoid embarrassment/responsibility), unfortunately coming to believe in the delusion with which they thought they had cast over plebs, such that state spending began to rely on the support of ZIRP and further money printing, further encouraging and compounding on the profligacy that led the crisis in 2008.
Again the gall of politicians and the media to blame the rise in bond yields on the mini budget, rather than investors looking at our long term stalling/failing productive capacity and our ability to repay them, is abjectly ludicrous.
All of this you seem to blame on "populism", which is nothing more than a meaningless pejorative thrown at someone who merely questions or disagrees with the prevailing political consensus, supposed to signal an equivalence with early to mid 20th century continental politics (I won't be specific, Godwin's law, etc, also read the history, these political parties had their own personal militias fighting a low level civil war. If you believe the likes of Trump, Johnson, or Truss have such an entourage, then you are living in an alternate reality to everyone else).
Quite how your appeal to proportional representation (PR), and yet more constitutional vandalism (we should be mindful of such changes, as Edmund Burke warned over 200 years ago), is supposed to solve our economic and social decline (something thrown in occasionally by Blairite lefties when they have no other excuse for their failing ideology), if the prevailing consensus or shadow establishment won't allow change? Which is exactly why you propose PR, as this is exactly what PR ensures, a rump of consensus politicians that will block any change to the prevailing orthodoxy, and as aptly demonstrated by Italy, that has seen several parties win the largest share of the popular vote, on a platform of radical change, but be utter paralysed into accepting the consensus of a rump of politicians elected in great enough numbers, not to overtly form a government, but control the direction or policy toward further EU integration and stifling economics in favour vested/unproductive interests.
You then mention "Control of party leaderships"!? By who exactly? Who best decides political party membership? Would it be the prevailing orthodoxy again?
The U.K. is following a ruinous path towards inflation, economic decline, and sectarianism, that we have to honestly acknowledge, and I'm afraid cajoling/shaming/name calling those who disagree, as "populists" or whatever else, until presumably negative emotions lead them to hold the same identikit social democratic/lefty opinions, whilst it may make true believers feel better about the growing disparity between their will/intentions/policy and the actual result, it will do nothing to address our rather serious and ever growing problems.
Please define neoliberal, Tom.
If it helps, I'll define populist for you: something or someone popular with voters but unpopular with the governing classes.
I’m a Tory member and didn’t like either of the candidates on the shortlist. And who was responsible for that?
Bear with me for an introductory analogy: Some would argue that an entity such as the BBC has passed its sell-by date. Try floating a business model today in which the maker of things not only has a monopoly, but in later years indirectly extracts money from rivals who sell similar products. Even if you do not use this product, you must pay this maker of things anyway, on pain of fine or imprisonment, to use those of their rivals.
It would go down like a cup of cold sick. Nothing lasts forever. So what about democracy?
A good idea at the time? This article appears to be an argument against it. Like it or not, Trump did not jump out of his own specially prepared box; he was elected by millions of voters. Brexit, for which I voted, likewise. That's democracy isn't it? It may be worth explaining why I voted Brexit because this reason is precisely the same reason I am beginning to doubt my decision. Democracy is faulty. I believed at the time of the referendum that democracy was under attack, that the EU was anti democratic - which it is. However, is this a bad thing?
The last few years of UK governance should be a clue. The last few weeks, an even bigger clue.
Our model of FPP voting has scraped the barrel of mediocrity. The Tories would have voted for a bladder on a stick as long as it promised Brexit, and that is exactly what they got. As you point out, we seem to be at the mercy of unrepresentative sub-groups. As for referenda we are just not used to them like the Swiss are or anywhere near as competent at them.
So what are the alternatives? Whatever they are, it is clear that democracy as we know it is no longer fit for purpose.
You really can't blame the members when they only had their say in the last round of the leadership. It actually speaks more of the low quality of MPs, who mostly wanted to get into cabinet and so if they backed a 'winner' first they would get best dibs.
Sounds a bit elitist this. Lets keep the plebs out of the deliberations of their betters eh.