The political atmosphere in Britain is rather peculiar just now. One of the more interesting things to ask of public opinion at any particular moment is: Who exactly does public opinion think are the people who are most blatantly and most undervedly robbing us. It was a decisive fact about the 1979 general election that public opinon’s answer then was: The Unions. It was a decisive fact about the next big electoral upheaval, in 1997, that public opinion’s answer then was: the Conservative Party. Now, public opinion seems to be arriving at another answer to the who-are-the-biggest-plunderers? question. It seems to be deciding that the answer now is: Members of Paliament of all parties. If this opinion solidifies in time for the next general election, it will be very interesting to see what it does to the Conservative vote in particular. What if all the major parties do worse? Since they have all done so badly, this would make sense, I think.
But surely the plunderings now being contrived and the further plunderings being attempted by the people who are politically well above the average MP in the plunder pecking order make the petty pilferings of our Members of Parliament look very petty indeed. Has any MP put in a claim for even so much as one billion pounds, to pay for a second West Indian island? If so, I missed the news. It’s almost as if the powers that be want the mere MPs to take all the blame for everything. It’s all a dastardly establishment plot, orchestrated by evil pseudo-libertarian Guido Fawkes!
Of course, it could just be that regular people can get a handle on the fraudulent expenses claims of MPs, because these are the kinds of amounts they deal with themselves, and sometimes even pilfer themselves with morally questionable expenses claims of their own. On the other hand, the sums of money being slung at dodgy banks and political-donation-wielding bankers, and now being further unleashed by “monetary easing”, well, these are just way beyond all normal experience. Pile up all those bank notes and they reach far off into the Solar System, or deep into our own galaxy, or the next, or to some such unimaginable never-land. (Thus also does a council planning committee debate a patio extension for an hour and a half, before letting an oil refinery through without further discussion, that being another insight, to add to this one, that we owe to Professor C. Northcote Parkinson.)
Speaking of the really serious plunderings that are now being perpetrated, by those at the Obama/Brown level of operations, the other odd thing I have been reading lately, this time said by commentators like Peter Oborne and Fraser Nelson, is that Mr Brown is bad, because he is not stealing as much money as he is pretending to steal, in order to “stimulate” (the new word for wreck) the world economy. Oh Mr Brown claims to be stealing a thousand gazillion pounds! He would, wouldn’t he? But in fact it’s only a hundred gazillion pounds, because he has counted most of the gazillions in question twice or even three or four times. Most of the gazillions he is now promising to steal anew have either been stolen already or won’t be stolen at all. Bad Mr Brown!
But surely this is a case where words on their own are greatly to be preferred to words followed by or accompanied by actions. Our best hope now is that, when Obama and Brown and the rest of them promise that they are now taking decisive, radical and above all very big and very expensive actions of various kinds to save the world, they are lying. Heaven help us all if they are telling the truth.
I thought of some ideas for the Tax Day Tea Party protests in Amurrica.
I really want to get a T shirt with bold lettering:
BHO:
GFY!
And I want to hand out little plastic embryos like the pro-lifers use, with a big sign,
TAXATION WITHOUT CONCEPTION
Follow me here – the 1773 Tea Party was about Taxation without Representation.
Now we have taxation without conception.
The bill for the stimupork is being passed along to people who haven’t even been conceived yet.
My high school age nieces and nephews know they’re getting stuck with the bill for this–and their future children too.
They’re also mad about the potential prospect of conscripted “volunteer” service for a year or two of their lives–in violation of the 13th Amendment–the GIVE Act.
Suddenly the youth aren’t so enamored of Obama.
BHO:
GFY!
Observing the goings on within the Labour party from the other side of the Atlantic, Smith and now Hoon and the distaste with MPs generally, males me wonder how well the BNP will do in your next General election.
Across the pond, the Market Ticker is reaching for his pitchfork(Link):
Brian, I think you identify one of the basic problems with the commentary from the likes of Guido, Peter Oborne, and the rest. While these men are good guys for most of the time, they are very much caught up in the parochialism of the Westminster Village.
So it becomes a matter of great significance if a Lord Chancellor decorates his office with £400-a-roll wallpaper, or if John Prescott has two Jaguar limos, or if he shags his secretary, or if David Blunkett blags a rail pass for his girlfriend. On the other hand, if Brown, The Community Organiser or some French central banker “spends” gazillions of funny money propping up a bunch of quasi-state banks, then these commentators want to change the subject, and go on about Jacqui Smith’s hubby putting smutty films on expenses, or that Derek Draper is a loon who needs to shave more, or whatever.
Weird.
I don’t find it at all odd that people are blaming MPs, (or MEPs or Senators or Congresspeople), of all parties for the current situation.
These people are elected, in part, to protect us from the depredations of the thieves and plunderers and they have manifestly failed in that task. In fact they have amply demonstrated that they are, to use the trite phrase, part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
It may be that the reasons Joe Public are evincing sound petty, but my sense is that this lot, (trite phrase alert), have dragged the institution of government into disrepute. They are all about personal power and perks and nothing about service to their constituents.
I have been trying to push the meme, both here and on US blogs, that the next chance the electorate gets we should ‘Throw the Bums OUT!’
Indeed, I have suggested that November 2010 in the US should be targetted as the ‘Slaughter of the Incumbents’ even to the point that I don’t care what policies the challengers put forward, only that the message gets across that we can and will throw them out if they treat us with the contempt that they are doing now.
If you aim only to change from one faction of those who see themselves as our natural rulers to the other, equally venal, faction then not a lot will change.
Oddly, the media may well be a great help in this regard. Labour will try to hang on to power by digging up real or imagined scandals on the part of the Tories, and the media, particularly the TV news media, will go along with this. But the public are well aware that the current incumbents are sleaze bags and are not going to be inspired by a ‘They’re as bad as us’ argument. The right push at the right time will have them voting for UKIP, various nationalist parties and the Monster Raving Loonies in their droves.
Hopefully, this will result in a hung Parliament, (ah, I wish), but it will also be a big kick in the nuts for those who see themselves as entitled to rule.
Kevin B: “the media may well be a great help in this regard”.
In the case of the US, I disagree. Our news media still believes that Obama will end all famine, poverty, and war, and that he has the power to heal the sick by touching their sores.
Nick, I agree that the media will carry the Dems water, but when people are hurting – when unemployment is up and inflation is up and the sleaze stories about Dem Congressmen are circulating – and all the media are able to counter with is that the Repubs are just as bad, then a move to chuck all the bums out will resonate with a lot of people.
Just a thought, given the various efforts by both major parties in Britain to attack and discredit any alternatives [including making them functionally illegal by playing with their bank accounts]. Let us say that UKIP, BNP, or whatever party or combination actually came out with a majority. Would the current government allow them to take office? Or for that matter, even assuming that they won seats in Parliament but could not form a government, would either Labour or Tories allow them to be seated? Given that y’all have pretty much handed over what passes for a Brit Constitution for, if not a mess of pottage, then for a Muslim tajine; can you conceive of Brit subjects actually doing anything if Labour refused to go? And no, I do not have confidence in the Queen doing anything, given that she signed over British sovereignty to the EU.
Subotai Bahadur
Interesting point SB. I recall that a year or two ago an analagous situation cropped up in Belgium where an opposition party was banned despite winning a lot of seats in their Parliament.
Anyone remember what happened there?
From the point of view of kicking the present incumbents up the backside, a constitutional crisis might help rather than hinder the cause.
The trend towards none-of-the-above appears to possibly be developing in the United States. Democrats are down several points, but Republicans are down by half a point, not up.
Subotai, the day the Crown refuses assent to what is presently claiming to be ‘the people in parliament, assembled’ is the day that the UK is effectively at civil war. It will be an absolutely last resort.
If it came to the situation you posit, then it is plausible that the Crown, both to honor the historical constitution of the UK and to avoid rubber stamping its own dissolution when that may in fact be against the will of the people, would chose to recognize the actual people rather than the politicians/EU who have epoxied themselves to the levers of government. It would also be a good time to remove constitutional recognition of life peerages and restore Lords to its historically understood constitutional role. Life peerages have destroyed the intended function of HL in the same way the 17th has the Senate’s in the US, but whether enough people realize that is doubtful.
Just an aside, while BNP has a more loyal core support, I think UKIP has a much bigger tent and will benefit the most from a none-of-the-above backlash.
That’s right: it’s just “this lot”. None of the others, past or future would ever make the same mistake. So quoting Herbert Spencer(Link) is completely irrelevant, so don’t read this:
The case of the Flemish opposition party is interesting – it has been banned several times.
And of course there is the endless propaganda from the “education system” and the mainstream media.
And other tricks have been used – such as banning private donations to political parties, and then denying state funding.
My favourate was a BBC disinformation campaign (why the BBC thought it had a role doing this is beyond even my paranoia to explain) which translated the slogan “balance the accounts” (an attack on the vast Belguim government debt) as “no Africans”.
In this country Mr Cameron has already smeared UKIP as “racists” (amongst other lies).
It is odd being involved in politics in this country (and I have been invoved with Conservative party since the 1979 election).
For example, the vast majority of Conservative party members (and voters) hate the B.B.C. – and hate it with a passion. And they hate most its “serious political education” programmes (the news and current affairs stuff).
So the Conservative party leadership suggests that (you guessed it) that the B.B.C. concentrate on making serious political education stuff.
I can not explain it – Cameron and co have no motive for what they do (after all the B.B.C. will savage them at election time no matter how “moderate” they decide to be).
Dr Sean Gabb tries to explain it by talking about the enemy class and red Tory types.
But to me the elite are just barking mad.