Disenchantment, Division and Disunity - The Next Five Years (Part I).

The next five years -  for most, a portent of things to come

The inquests following last week’s general election have been painful reading for supporters of both the Liberal and Labour parties. The pundits have had a field day as have the many “insiders” who now profess, like Peter Mandelson, to have known all along that things were going to go wrong. Mandelson, a thoroughly unpleasant, manipulative and devious man is, however a skilled and experienced politician so I am sure that his analysis of the Labour failure is sound. But this blog is not about Mandelson nor is it is about analysing Labour’s election defeat: were Labour too left wing or not left wing enough; did they shoot themselves in the foot by not cosying up to the City or did they try to be all things to all men (and women); did they concentrate on the very rich and the very poor but miss out a whole swath in the middle; did they offend “white van man” and did they not appeal to the “aspirational” voters in society; was Ed Miliband the right man for the job – and if not who was and importantly, where is he or she? The answers to all these are beyond me and greater brains than I will have a million answers to them. And in any case they do not overly concern me.

And another

No, what I am concerned with is what the Tory victory says about us as a nation and how I feel about it.

At its most superficial and selfish level I suppose that I am not unduly concerned. Being entirely selfish I might say that the Tory victory is very likely to ensure that Pat and I come out of it reasonably well. We are not rich but “comfortably off”, we have satisfactory pensions, own our own home and, if the pundits are to be believed will probably fare quite well in any future Tory legislation. And, as senior citizens the government know that our views are of some importance; all politicians know that to annoy people like us is at their peril for we are likely to vote. Politicians are well aware that it is easier and far less politically dangerous to annoy, take on, unfairly treat and disadvantage those with little voice in the affairs of the realm – the young, the very old, the weak, the vulnerable, the already disadvantaged and the poor for not only are they easier pickings but statistically less likely to show their feelings at the ballot box. And that superficial and self satisfied, “I’m alright Jack” reaction of mine is exactly the problem and the key to what I really feel about the election result - namely, that I am angry at what so many have done in voting the Tories in. In short, a week after the election (and I have waited this long to comment so that I didn’t make rash comments) I feel ashamed to be British. We have, once again, shown our capacity for self interest and parochialism over more important and justifiable considerations.

Division, disunity, self centred and
crude nationalism

Why do I feel this? – mostly because, as a nation, we have voted for a divisive government and a crude nationalism based upon this self interest. At its most obvious the rise of the Scottish National Party and UKIP - both of which hit the Labour Party hard - indicate that the 21st century electorate of this septic (yes, I did mean septic and not sceptic) isle care little for their neighbour – be he from a different culture, a different class or a different part of the UK. The result in the longer term, I have absolutely no doubt, will be to further sour what was once the “community” of these islands. Cultural/religious groups will be increasingly on the defensive, other parts of the UK will increasingly demand their share of “independence” and thus become more sectional in outlook. The rich will move increasingly into their gated communities and the rest into their ghettos. The Tory government will further ramp up the disunity volume by introducing ever more draconian legislation to enhance or dismay various groups and inequality and disharmony – be it financial, social, cultural or religious - will grow. On the day of his election victory David Cameron said that his government would be about bringing people together as one nation, he used the well worn phrase “a one nation Tory”. But like all sound bites it doesn't strand scrutiny when one looks at the policies that will bring this about.

 In recent days the Tory chancellor George Osborne has set in motion the promised legislation to devolve more and more power to areas and cities across the country. Already we are hearing talk of Manchester becoming a ”a northern power house” and soon to be followed by others – maybe Newcastle, Leeds, Birmingham, Norwich and the rest. At one level no-one seems to realise that this also allows elected national government to walk away from its responsibilities, the buck is being passed further down the line. But far more importantly we are already talking the language of division – for that is what devolution means. Carried to its logical conclusion we will have a geographically small nation split between factious “city states” of the kind that ran riot and ravaged Italy in the Renaissance – Florence, Rome, Venice or Ancient Greece at the time of Athens, Sparta and the rest. Europe’s history has been one of coming together – Italy becoming one nation; England unifying the warring kingdoms of the Saxon world of Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria; the Germanic states coming together as one nation - but we are now bucking the trend and fracturing our small islands. You may think that  my concerns in this area and my examples of the ravages caused by the city states of the ancient and middle ages a bit of an exaggeration. Maybe so and I cannot deny that they also brought benefits - not least the glories of ancient Athens or mediaeval Florence as they became supreme under rulers such as the Medici. But this is the key; true, they flourished, but  at what cost to the rest - leechlike they sucked in the talent and the expertise to the detriment of everywhere else. And if you think that this is just some odd historical quirk that could not happen today then think again. In October 2013 the right wing journal and |Bible of the Tory Party "The Economist" proposed the following in their leader: "In their day they [ the industrial towns of the north such as Burnley, Wolverhampton, Preston, Middlesbrough] were the engines of the world economy, noisy with steam hammers and black with soot - in 1862 William Gladstone called Middlesbrough an “infant Hercules”—but most are smaller than they once were. Despite dollops of public money and years of heroic effort, a string of towns and smallish cities in Britain’s former industrial heartlands are quietly decaying...... The fate of these once-confident places is sad. That so many well-intentioned people are trying so hard to save them suggests how much affection they still claim. The coalition is trying to help in its own way, by setting up “enterprise zones” where taxes are low and broadband fast. But these kindly efforts are misguided. Governments should not try to rescue failing towns. Instead, they should support the people who live in them......spending money or cutting taxes to encourage people and businesses to settle in run-down areas can help those areas, at least for a while. But it diverts talent and business away from places where they would be more successful.....That means helping them to commute or move to places [the big cities such as Manchester or Leeds] where there are jobs—and giving them the skills to get those jobs.....Big cities would be finer still if they were allowed to grow. Many are hemmed in by green belts, where development is all but banned. These push up property prices, putting them out of reach of many people from poorer places. If the green belts were done away with or (more realistically) thinned, some people’s house prices would drop but the nation as a whole would benefit....." 

The Economist's ideas are a blueprint for the Tory of policy of northern powerhouses - pure free market economics - let the market decide and to hell with the lives of people or places. And it is as well to keep in mind the context to this: the Economist is owned by the Financial Times and the Rothschild family and it takes its stance of classical and economic liberalism supporting free trade, globalisation and free market liberalism from the right wing philosopher/economists Adam Smith and David Hume. Margaret Thatcher was said to carry a copy of Smiths "Wealth of Nations" in her handbook. In short, The Economist's ideas are clearly visible current Tory policy. They are ideas which are ultimately divisive and detrimental to whole swathes of the land and the population. But they will make sense and appeal to the Daily Mail and Telegraph readers. When they see an phrase like "northern powerhouse" their hearts will swell with pride - not able to think that the "northern powerhouse" has other less appealing aspects. Manchester, of course, is currently rubbing its hands with glee; Leeds and other large cities are also desperate for some of the action - but not so much enthusiasm in other places where a bleaker future is the most likely outcome.

Devolve, disintegrate and divide are the new 21st century mantras. Other headline Tory policies are similarly divisive: a school system that promotes division and inequality in its organisation, funding and ethos; a welfare system that does increasingly little for those in need or those most at risk and where resources are increasingly cut back in the name of austerity and efficiency; a health service that is to become even more fractured and dependent upon wealth rather than clinical need; a social policy which is increasingly based up private profit or big business rather than upon fairness, civilisation, compassion, and protection from the power of the big corporations. We are, indeed, on a crash course for disenchantment, division and disunity.

And hovering over all this will be the Tory Party’s promise to review/renegotiate our membership of Europe – the crusade of the Tory Eurosceptic, the classic little Englander. Whether we stay in Europe or not is not my concern – although to leave would, I believe be an act of almost criminal proportions. No, my concern is the very fact that we are even considering this avenue seems to me to be saying much about us as a nation.

We have stood on the touchlines of Europe for 4 decades now since Ted Heath took us into the Community and in that time we have, as a nation, consistently moaned and complained, like spoiled brats shouting “It’s not fair, others get more of the European goodies than us”. Our right wing newspapers, sections of the Tory Party, parties such as UKIP and increasingly the wider electorate consistently complain about one European nation after another – the warmongering Germans, the unreliable Italians, the indolent Spanish, the devious French, the dishonest Poles, the work shy Eastern Europeans. And all these Johnny Foreigners, the little Englanders of Tory Britain constantly tell us, come to the UK only to enjoy our benefits and put nothing back. And so it goes on....all races are, it seems to the Tories (and now much of the electorate) inferior to we little Englanders. And yet, and yet, perversely and to illustrate our consistently inconsistent views we envy others like no other nation does. Everyone it seems is better off than we, better paid, better educated, better provided for with health care, better life styles, shorter working hours and the rest. Many of those who disparage most the foreigners who come to the UK to work voted Tory or UKIP last week and they will go off for the summer to their holiday homes in France, Spain or Portugal such is the hypocrisy and double think of our modern electorate. In the “Daily Torygraph” a couple of days ago there was a half page article under the headline “Britain could add trillions to its economy if it only had the education standards of Poland, Vietnam and Estonia” – following years of spiteful criticism of eastern European people by middle England and the political right they actually now applaud them and wish us to copy their institutions. It would be laughable were not so depressing and hypocritical. This is the politics of envy and electorate increasingly subscribe to it. We are increasingly the unthinking sheep led by the dishonest goats.

Oh I do wish we were Polish or Estonian or Vietnamese
then all would be well - says the Daily Torygraph

In recent years this right wing view of the world has had another worrying dimension. Increasingly it has mean that we ramp up legislation to curb free speech and previously accepted basic freedoms all in the name of “security”, the “war on terror” or simple lack of common humanity. England of the 21st century would not win the prize for “Good Samaritan of the Year” for we view others as leeches, lazy layabouts and potential dangers. Members of the blue rinse brigade, the Colonel Blimps, and the Mail and Torygraph readership would have undoubtedly, unlike the Good Samaritan, “pass by on the other side”. In the nineteenth century we solved all problems with Johnny Foreigner by sending a gun boat we now send in the troops, the helicopter gunships and the special forces with great gusto and at any cost. When there is any chance of a good scrap somewhere in the world we are always up for it, money is no object and we can move with lightening speed to bang the militaristic drum and bash Johnny Foreigner wherever he might be. But ask us to play a leading role in humanitarian situations and there is rather less alacrity. Funds are rather more limited, more is left to the goodwill of the great charities and individual efforts and donations. It is both a national disgrace and a telling indictment on the ethics and morals of our government that we are largely washing our hands of the growing time bomb in the Mediterranean and parts of Europe as the inevitable influx of refugees from war ravaged areas rises – all largely war ravaged because we have in past years ramped up campaigns to unseat governments and are now left with the unconsidered consequences. We have happily signed up to the American political and military machine and now dislike the consequences as North Africans and Middle Easterners flee their homelands and head our way – while America sits happily secure pulling the strings on the other side of the world.

Refugees crossing the Mediterranean - our government, a
few months, ago felt the best solution was to leave them to drown
in the event of an overcrowded ship sinking. This would, we were
advised, discourage them. It didn't,
Not exactly a caring sharing position I think.

I began this blog by mentioning Peter Mandelson. In his analysis of the Labour defeat he suggested that the party had not appealed sufficiently to the “aspirational” voters. This theme has been taken up by a number of commentators and pundits and today one of the contenders for the Labour leadership, Liz Kendall has reaffirmed this – that Labour if it is to win power must appeal to the Waitrose shoppers John Lewis shoppers who are deemed to be these aspirational types. (For those not in the UK Waitrose is an upmarket supermarket chain and John Lewis – who own Waitrose – an upmarket chain of department stores). Their analysis is probably correct in so much as it might be saying that in order to win Labour has to appeal to a wider cross section of the electorate than its accepted base. But to use the term “aspirational” in this way links one’s aspirations with economics and wealth – to shop at John Lewis or Waitrose clearly defines you in economic/social terms and the briefest of looks at a map of the UK showing Waitrose/John Lewis stores and the Tory voters will confirm a very high correlation: that these are the very people who voted for the divisive Tory policies that so concern me. And if Labour is to develop their policies to satisfy the Waitrose shopper then who, I might ask, will now speak for those dependent on food banks, who may have aspirations to afford to shop at the cheaper shopping outlets like Aldi and Lidl?

He has one set of aspirations, she (maybe the Waitrose shopper)
has another.

Clearly Labour have to widen their appeal but I might also ask what of those with different aspirations rather than just those dictated by economics or class. What of those who have aspirations for a fair society, a more equal society, a more caring and compassionate society, a society that is greener or reflects cultural diversity. What of those who aspire to a society which doesn’t worship capitalism or one that safeguards the rights of very individual. All these are perfectly legitimate aspirations – it is not just about John Lewis and Waitrose Shoppers. And in any case, I might argue, just maybe the aspirational John Lewis voters so beloved by Peter Mandelson and the Tory party might just be the problem; in the end they represent the unacceptable face of UK society – the self centred, the divisive and the selfish.

Miliband's decency and idealism has been
caricatured as stupidity by the electorate and right
wing press  

Last weekend, only hours after the election result was declared the nation remembered the end of World War 2 – or at least the victory in Europe – VE Day, seventy years ago. The wartime songs were sung, the flags were waved, the bugles sounded, the soldiers marched, heads were bowed in remembrance for those who died and the nation said thank you. It is perhaps a sobering thought, however, that in 1945 when the soldiers returned and the country once again was at peace they said thank you in a rather different way. They turned out and voted heavily against the Tories led by Churchill and voted instead for a better future – for a future where different rules applied. They voted in the Attlee government who promised to bring a caring, compassionate and more just society that eradicated the old divisions and inequalities. They promised a better tomorrow but also one where everyone was valued and cared for. They promised a world where nations would come together rather than drift apart – where unity and brotherhood would be the watchwords and not division and envy. The Attlee government set down the foundations that brought peace, greater equality, improved welfare, care, fairness, justice and compassion and yes, wealth, for the next generations. That different future that the returning soldiers and their family imagined, worked and voted for was rooted in the knowledge of the past - two great wars, division, gross inequalities, rampant capitalism,a great depression, hunger and the rest - they knew that there had to be  a better way.

Maybe says it all about 21st century Britain - we prefer a bunch
of snake oil sellers, spivs, and con men to  simple but honest
 integrity. Miliband's approach may have been naive but it was
 also honest. In the end I ask the question, who would I rather be
marooned on a desert island with? There is only one answer.

It is my view that if Labour and in particular Ed Miliband made a mistake in their election campaign it was one of good faith and naivety in that they imagined and desired a future similar to that imagined by the electorate of 1945 - sadly they were wrong. That Britain non longer exists. Miliband is a thoroughly decent man but sadly maybe out of touch. He thought the best of people and didn't understand well enough that the electorate of of 21st century Britain does not respond or aspire to ideas of fairness, compassion, rightness, equality and the rest that he cherishes. The electorate  may pay lip service in opinion polls to these ideals but in the end, in the secrecy of the voting booth, they consistently vote for greed, self interest and division as they all scramble for themselves. In short, and as I have said in previous blogs, we are now a society that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. And that is why last week's election result made me ashamed to be British.