WE STILL HAVE A BIT OF CACHET

I apologise for past behaviour. I am informed that my blogs are too depressing and full of tedious statistics. My friends do not need to be assailed with grumpy and annoying ennui. It might also smack of preaching to the converted; not that my friends are in any way grumpy or brimming with annoying ennui. Indeed, most are upbeat, but with a realistic appreciation of present world difficulties.

I believe they are discontented with the current political leadership, in particular, a conservative government that seems intent on fulfilling some notion of small central government. At this exact moment they are demonstrating the positive effects of no government at all. Mr Johnson and his cabinet have ceased to govern. The strikes on the public transport network are being echoed by the government, but not just for the odd day, but for the last four weeks and continuing for another two weeks at least. Everything has been put on hold till the 5^th September, when it is assumed that government will go back to work.

In the meantime, no repressive legislation will be enacted and the country will not do anything to breach international law. The only thing to worry about is the ability of the NHS to cope with the fallout of inaction, increasing inflation and whether or not some citizens will manage to survive the assault on their savings/income, and likewise small businesses, including farmers and the self-employed, as well.

If and when the Government returns to work under the new direction of Ms Truss, then the full horror of her regime will reveal itself as she “hits the ground running”. If would be lovely if she hit the ground and kept on running away, but that is another dream. In saying this, I do not seek to sound curmudgeonly. It must be accepted on faith that there is a tongue in the cheek. La langue dans la joue as the French might say, but never do.

There was an editorial in the Economist in connection with the current conservative party leadership election. It reads:

Britons will not choose the next prime minister: he or she will be imposed by the Conservative Party’s factious members. They are facing a choice between an urbane technocrat, with a sounder grasp of what needs doing, and a tested politician, with a cannier instinct for how to do it. As prime minister, Mr Sunak would be unlikely to act foolishly, but the job is inherently political. Ms Truss would be a riskier bet, but may also be more likely to succeed. Whatever their reasons, it looks as if the Tories have opted to be risk-takers. They may be proved right. 

I find it difficult to accept this view of the prospective contenders. To describe Ms Truss as a tested politician with a canny instinct for doing the job, makes me throw hands in the air shouting “You cannot be serious!”. That she may be ‘more likely to succeed’, and that the local Conservative membership in selecting her ‘might be proved right’, renders one speechless.

Ms Truss, even more so that Mr Johnson, has only an uncanny instinct at strategic condescension. She will dress the part and say anything her audience wants to hear; in the manner they would like to hear it. She will adapt her whole persona to play the part her audience most wants her to play.  I have no doubt she has a stylist, voice coach and PR guru to assist her in dressing up for the part at every husting and every venue she is likely to attend. One only has to observe the detail in the pictures of her addressing various rooms. For the most part, where there is a younger, mixed group she is wearing heels, whilst in front of groups looking like residents in a care home, she is wearing sensible shoes. If that is not deliberate, I give up.

The difficulty with this approach to governance, as Boris Johnson has discovered, is that, at some point, posing for photo-opportunities has a limited shelf life.  Inviting the press into a cabinet meeting, to make a speech, purporting to be demonstrating leadership, with smiling members looking on, is no substitute for the actual work of administrating a program of government.

I merely make these comments from direct observation of the images cast across my television screen and whilst surfing the internet. I hope that the view I extract from these observations is tending towards an objective perspective rather than subjective, but from whatever perspective, it is a personal view. The present state of affairs is worrying, so I worry. I do not mean to impose my apparent pessimism and lack of constructive alternatives on others. My lack of constructive alternatives is simply a matter of my own ignorance.

I am a firm believer in higher education, and there are many areas of learning that have eluded me, or I, them. I did not study economics, but I do have an inkling of Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations, although more so his Theory of Moral Sentiments. I can only suggest that the idea of the ‘concerned individual’, and ‘trickle down wealth’ is a construct that comes from a more generous mind than mine. I do not see either view applying to the average man today.

Wealth does not trickle down. Just because one lowers the rich man’s tax burden does not necessarily imply that he will invest more, become more entrepreneurial, or create employment and wealth all around him. He tends to divide the spoils amongst his own supporters and his own people, as for example the higher dividends paid out by BP to its own shareholders in the light of windfall profits. There is no windfall employment as a result. So the fantasy of a lower tax burden for people who actually pay tax, is not a sure fire means of creating productivity. Productivity has nothing whatever to do with tax.

As far as I can make out productivity is to do with the market place. When you reduce the size of the market place and make it smaller, there is little incentive to invest in it. Not enough footfall. By pulling out of a larger common market to create one’s own personally controlled smaller niche market place, there is little incentive for larger and major international entrepreneurial investment. The smaller market will suffer but might possibly pick up the dregs of the larger market place. The amount of tax they pay is up for negotiation after business is concluded and does not have so much sway in initiating enterprise in the first place. The tax burden does not start or stop initiative, the character of the market place does. Britain has become an open field car boot sale of a market. There may be the odd bargain to pick up on an early morning Sunday, but beyond that, the idea of grand economic growth on the basis of weekend trading is a bit of a joke.

There is nothing wrong with being a nation of small shop keepers and market traders, but if one wants a functioning and efficient National Health Service, the tax burden on such small, ticking over business will not do it. There are other matters as well, such as National Education, National Defence, National Public Safety etc.  Those matters require more personnel and more expansive economic enterprise than are available in the British Isles alone.  Being a party to world economics is more than just being a part of the world. You have to be in it and not on the side.

As General Archibald Murray (Donald Wolfit) said in the film “Lawrence of Arabia”:

“In my opinion this whole theatre of operations is a side-show. The real war’s being fought in (Europe), not (here)… not here but on the western front in the trenches. Your Bedouin Army, or whatever it calls itself would be a side-show of a side-show.”

Britain has become that side-show, and as long as it remains such, it will continue to fester under the likes of small minded, antiquated repressive politicians of the likes of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Suella Braverman et al.

Again, I do not say these things to be depressive or merely a malcontent. The United Kingdom still has some cachet. It is a nation that promoted the codification and expansion of human rights and firmly established the duty of care and the rule of law. It is those qualities that attract refugees from round the world. They come because they believe in the promise of Britain to fight for and uphold freedom, human rights, equality before the law and respect for the individual, and therefore for all. These are not to be taken lightly.

The current crop of ministers however, do seek to limit these principles to maintain their control of the state. Their idea of levelling up is to create the lowest common denominator in order to do so, and prevent dissent or criticism of any kind.  So in whatever way you can, speak out and when the time comes, vote them out of office as well as encouraging others to do the same. It will be time to bring the side show back under the big top into the centre ring.  Celia says we should take to the barricades.