The meltdown of Gordon Brown’s Labour government continues. I was struck by this passage of resigning Cabinet minister James Purnell’s letter to the Prime Minister. It is very revealing in what it says not about the differences between these men, but their similarities:
“We both love the Labour Party. Party. I have worked for it for 20 years and you for far longer. ‘‘We know we owe it everything and it owes us nothing. I owe it to our party to say what I believe no matter how hard that may be. I now believe your continued leadership makes a Conservative victory more not less likely.
That would be disastrous for our country. This moment calls for stronger regulation, an active state, better public services, an open democracy. It calls for a Government that measures itself by how it treats the poorest in society.
Quite how one can “love” a party responsible for so much mayhem is an interesting question. There is something distinctly creepy about a man who says that he owes “everything” to a political party founded upon socialist principles. Everything? Does this man have no conception of a life beyond party politics? Does he not understand the concept of civil society, of a world outside government?
And although one can possibly agree on the need for better public services and open democracy, there is something revealing in his call for “stronger regulation” and an “active state”. We have, as this blog likes to point out with reference to the financial crisis, for example, had a bucket-load of regulation and state activism, and these have arguably helped create many of our problems, not solved them. I am also not aware that Mr Purnell, or his peers, would be any better than Brown in their stance on issues such as civil liberties and the database state, for instance. They might simply try to make it a bit more palatable.
So although one might be glad that this man has helped plunge a dagger into Mr Brown, it is not entirely clear to me that this fellow would represent a significant improvement. He wants the NuLab regulatory, interfering state to continue. I see no awareness of the disaster caused by runaway public spending. In other words, he’s not much of an improvement. A spell in the private sector, away from the party machine he claims to “love”, would be the best thing that could happen to Mr Purnell, if he wants to develop a wiser worldview.
Meanwhile, the BBC is asking the question about Gordon Brown: “Why has the man once regarded as one of Britain’s finest Chancellors [finance minister] in such trouble?”
Hilarious. This is a man who, as Chancellor, took hold of a relatively strong set of public finances, and over a course of 10 years, ran the UK into the red even before the credit crunch hit. Far from having been a “brilliant” finance minister, he has – apart from his keeping Britain out of the euro, arguably – been a disaster.
Update: the political situation in the UK is now having direct effects on financial markets.
Update: more resignations. It could all be over for Brown by the end of the weekend. Goodness knows what other countries must make of this.
Arguably? I cannot come up with a single area of society which is not grotesquely malformed by over-regulation: felonious crime goes unpunished while everything from smoking to excess salt intake becomes illegal; health care is byzantine and a mess; financial rules devastate 2 jobs for every one ‘saved’ in Obama’s despicable turn of phrase; energy policy is schizophrenic; treaties with men in business suits in Belgrade and Khartoum whitewash mass murder in the wastelands; and so on.
I’d want no part of defending regulation. It is the losing side of a debate.
Very Astute. So is Mr Purnell jumping ship in the hope that sometime in the future he can get hard left and union support to become Labout leader?
Vercingetorix, be careful on this regulation point; it is a myth, for instance, that classical liberals are against regulations per se. What I oppose is state regulations, since they tend to be a one-size-fits-all thing.
There are all kinds of examples of rules and standards that develop within private, autonomous organisations such as sports clubs, stock exchanges, auction houses, trade associations, and so on.
Proggies, as IanB calls them, love to portray free marketeers as mad anarchists who see no need for rules. It is important that we do not play into their hands by saying we are against all regulations. It is, admittedly, a subtle sort of point to make, but then I am not interested in debating these things in crude soundbites.
Truth. I had hoped my first example – leniency to the point of tacit approval of real felonies such as robbery, assault and murder and the explosion of silly infractions such as parking on your own driveway (in Washington D.C.) among many others – would have made clear that I am not an anarchist. Any system needs wise governance. No system needs exhaustive governance, unless like a prison, you wish it to fall into submission.
As an aside, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse were Conquest, War, Famine and Death. Note that Conquest and War appear to be the same thing, but are different. No religious undertones intended. I simply find the poetic image of Conquest to be powerful, not just over lands, but the human condition itself.
Too many laws want to re-engineer human nature versus protect and further justice. This destructive invasiveness is what I abhore, not rules – however few or many are required – themselves.
So now he’s reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titan…….etc.
“What I oppose is state regulations, since they tend to be a one-size-fits-all thing. ”
Exactly. I am the warden of a religious building. I am covered by elfnsafety rules which are probably appropriate in an iron foundry or shipyard. I am not allowed to go more than three steps up a step-ladder without… I dunno – never bothered to find out – but it’s training or supervision or something daft.
Christ almighty. We even have the official no smoking signs up defacing this fine old building. Nobody smoked here before. You just don’t in a place of worship do you? The rules were already there but no that’s not enough because they weren’t government rules.
It’s insane. If it carries on you’ll need a chitty to take a shitty.
I see Sir Alan Sugar has decided to be the rat to jump on to the sinking ship. Apparently he will be the “Enterprise Tsar”. God help us. I imagine his grandad came to this country to get away from tsars and all their bullshit. Anyway, he will get a peerage, so now the hopefuls on The Apprentice will have to kiss ass to Lord Sugar.
I quite like The Apprentice as a TV show, though it bears no resemblance to reality. I recall in last year’s series, “Siralan” proudly boasting to the hopefuls that he was off to lunch with the Prime Minister. We were clearly meant to be impressed, though I don’t think I could eat in the same room as that man. But Siralan is clearly, for all his buccaneering persona, a corporatist at heart, happy to do the bidding of the state in return for a shiny bauble. Maybe he’s got a lock-up full of Amstrad E-Mailers that he’s going to flog to the DWP. Who knows? My dear old dad never liked the cut of his jib, he always called him “Dirty Sugar”. The old man was a good judge of character.
This article is very informative. Keep rocking.
Gotta admit: this bloodbath is great theatre, from this side of The Pond.
Ours will follow shortly. This is not a prediction but a statement of fact.
Mr. du Toit @ 1549 hrs.
From your mouth to God’s ears.
Subotai Bahadur
It just gets better and better.
Jeff Hoon gone and Caroline Flint too!
And she isnt going quietly!
Apparently they’ve drafted Glenys Kinnock!
He sounds just like the Trashcan Man in Stephen King’s novel, The Stand:
“My life for youuuuuuuuuu!”
MPs should only be paid the minimum wage. The public spending cuts should start with our ruling elite.
This would ensure that only those who want to serve the country would enter parliament.
Also make it illegal for MPs to sit on the boards of banks and companies.
It is time to consign Labour and the Conservatives to history. Lots of small parties would be better for this country.
To quote a commenter on Guido’s;
“Shits leaving a sinking rat”
Yes Ian they have.
As Nick M said to me on the phone a few hours ago, they are not just scrapeing the barrel, but have worn right through it, to some ancient seepage beneath.
And boy is Glenys the pit of the pits!
Smarter than Neil ever was of course, but then my dog is.
Considering that this is the Labour Party we are talking about, you know the ones who hate toffs and lords, what is this desperation about drafting in the Unelected?
Cant they find anyone to fill these jobs that we, the public, have actually elected?
Lord Lumpa Sugar???
Holy fuck!
Lord Rumba of Rio? (twice resigned).
Gordon, please,
Do the right thing.
Do a David Carradine in Cabinet.
At least your last Gurning smile might be a genuine one.
Mr. du Toit @ 1549 hrs.
From your mouth to God’s ears.
Aye, but we don’t have one of those “no confidence” thingees. There’s no way to force a US president out without impeachment.
So there is a cabal then! Aha!
How do you love a party that has taken so much from others and given so much you? That’s a rhetorical question, right?
And for my follow question I’d like to ask; is it, like pubescent coppers, a sign of old age that national politicians increasing resemble local ones?
IncreasingLY, increasingLY. Stupid old bugger.
Government in 1997 was already bloated – both in both spending and in regulations.
However, Mr Brown (first as Chancellor, his first action in 1997 was to impose commulative taxes that have undermined private pensions in this country, and then as Prime Minister) has made regulations and government spending much worse.
Indeed he has borrowed more money than all other British governments combined since World War II.
This is not “growing our way out of recession” as the B.B.C. types claim. This is burying the country in a moutain if debt.
Even if Mr Brown is forced out of office soon, history must not be allowed to let him off the hook for destroying the British economy.
So there is a cabal then! Aha!
Ian,
I sent you an email from my cats address, did you get it?
CC
I’d hardly call it a Cabal Ian B, just a few folks who picked up on each other from posting here, and talk about all sorts of things, public and personal that it would be rude to clutter up the Bandwidth with on here.
We’ll add you to the list if you like 😉
Brown gets booed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahyIaZgNaNQ
“Cabal” is so much cooler, though, don’t you think?
I consider it more Illuminati but then that’s just me.
We’d be up to some right skullduggery but for the want (very rare in these parts) of three wise men and a virgin.
Shake dem bones!
Is it more cabal or cartel?
Are you describing the cabal/cartel/illuminati or my high school?
We’d be up to some right skullduggery but for the want (very rare in these parts) of three wise men and a virgin.
Not necessary if this is the aim(Link).
Jonathan,
So true.
This morning the Orwellian Sir David Pepper(Link), who ran the GCHQ listening centre for five years, was interviewed by the BBC on the subject of telephone intercepts.
The government already has access to the details of the times, dates, duration and locations of mobile phone calls, the numbers called, the websites visited and addresses e-mailed but the public should not be concerned that this might be,well,’Orwellian,’ because the secret services couldn’t monitor the precise content of telephone calls as that would require too much manpower, he explained.
Incredible.
“We both love the Labour Party. Party. I have worked for it for 20 years and you for far longer. We know we owe it everything and it owes us nothing.”
The psychology of that statement strikes me as creepy and in some ways quite fascistic. It also has religious overtones.
Of course, it fits so well with the progressive mentality which hates all the groups, institutions and interests that have to be squashed under equal opportunities.
It’s a useful statement also, because it reminds us that they are not merely a bunch of careerist chancers, but actually intend so much of the destruction that they effect.
The want is rare? Are you quite sure?
Alisa,
Narrow and unusual but legitimate meaning for the word want, used as a synonym for ‘lack’.
Unless, of course, you are aware of this, were just making a pun, and I have just exposed myself as a humourless pillock.
Cats, I am aware of this meaning, hence the question (not a pun): Nick’s sentence seems to imply that there are in fact plenty of wise men and virgins around. But I am obviously missing something, therefore I am the one standing exposed as hopelessly thick, not to mention OT…
“But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”
Alisa, I think the problem is that Nick’s sentence was somewhat inartfully drafted. My interpretation is that the parenthetical was intended not as a modification to the word “want”, but rather as an illustration of the problem. The parenthetical would have been better placed at the end of the sentence (and preferably preceded by the words “which are . . .”).
Laird: yes, most likely.
Of course, between us we’ve now completely sucked out whatever humor there once may have been in his remark!
The devotion of some people to the Labour party is weird – it goes beyond anything in the Tory tribe (full disclosure I have been been a Conservative party member for 30 years).
No one I the Conservative party would ever say “I owe the party everything and it owes me nothing”.
People do form close friendships in the Conservatives and there is also the general feeling of “I would not like to upset the elderly ladies who do so much work and who I have known all my life – and if I say X, Y, Z, too crudely they will be upset” but the Conservative party is (for all its other faults) not a religious cult.
I suppose if one sees government as the source of “compassion” (rather than local people helping out themselves) then one can see “the party” or “the movement” in cult like devotion terms.
The left are weird.
Yes Laird, now you know it: there is another compulsive pedantic nit-picker on this forum, and that is yours truly:-)