“The overwhelming issue facing any UK government is: what do we stop doing? Governments over the last two decades have pretended, especially to the media, that they can tackle any issue that either journalists or lobby groups get upset about. But that is patently impossible within current resources of people, money & political consent.
So what we get are nonsensical policies to ban advertising of junk food – who knows what that is – online or before the evening watershed. Lots of people waste large amounts of time trying to write & interpret regulations that won’t have the slightest impact on the problem of obesity. This is all displacement activity for governments that are clueless and utterly incompetent. All the signs are that the current government is doomed, both because of the personality of the Prime Minister and the inclinations of his party. Since any outsider can read the runes, why would anyone commit money to underpin economic growth without being heavily bribed to do so? That is not a viable way of turning the ship of state around.”
I came across this comment, by a person called Gordon Hughes, in the UnHerd website article about the problems in the current UK government civil service machine and cabinet structure, and thought it was so good and incisive that I take the liberty of sharing it here.
Also, I take the opportunity for another plug for a book that I recommend about how a lot of people, including journalists, seem to think about everything today: Seeing Like A State, by James C Scott.
“Something must be done!”
Actually if you had a clear view of what tasks the Government should do then you might easily reply “Not in this case – start your own charity!”. But if you don’t want to turn away anybody with a ‘special interest’ then you will end up with an expensive dog’s breakfast. Trouble is that dispensing patronage is a popular way of gaining support.
Johnathan Pearce and the people he cites are absolutely correct that the British state should do less – however, it committed to do far more.
There are no limits, none at all, on what the establishment want the state to do here – and even if people are elected who want the state to do less, they find they have no power to enforce that.
For example, it might be thought that locally elected councillors decide what a council spends money on, and how much it should spend – but this is NOT the case. In reality what a council spends money on, how it spends it, and how much it spends, is largely (not totally – but largely) determined by regulations – that are not made by locally or nationally elected politicians. Elected politicians, locally and nationally, do have some influence – but it is clear they can not (whatever they may wish to do) make the state, overall, smaller in either size or scope, rather than bigger.
As for policies to make the British people do, or not do, this or that – again this is not really decided by locally or nationally elected politicians.
The chances that the British state will be rolled back in either size (its spending) or scope (its regulations) are now ZERO – the basic structure (structure) that has been created is only capable of expansion – it can not be rolled back, it is not structured that way.
“But that means the United Kingdom will collapse – both economically and culturally (societally)”.
I am aware of that of that danger.
It is very unfortunate – but it is hard to see what can be done about it.
Although the growth of British state bureaucracy, and Collectivist attitudes, can be traced back to the 19th century – it is interesting (in a horrible way) to see how the British state has changed even since the 1980s.
The growth in the power of unelected officials, even over a few decades, has been quite astonishing. And it is much more than officials.
An interlocking system has grown up – of Civil Servants, officials of independent agencies (such as the Bank of England), charitable bodies, and commercial Corporations.
They all (including the supposedly “capitalist” corporations) seek “funding” from the taxpayers, and spend much of their time in various complicated processes to get this “funding” (there are no real fixed budgets any more – everything can be expanded in various complex ways) – and they all (again including the supposedly “capitalist” corporations) have “Woke” cultural agendas.
The taxpayers have no direct power over any of this – and the people they elect (politicians) do not have much power either – some influence (yes), but certainly not “in charge” or “in power”.
As for individual freedom – Americans used to mock British “gun control” with the words “are you going to ban knives as well?”
To which the British establishment answer is YES – yes we will ban knives, and (eventually) ban private cars, and anything we want to ban.
Freedom of Speech?
Freedom of Speech is very much considered an evil – after all if they had Freedom of Speech people might say “racist” or other bad things.
This is clearly true – if people had Freedom of Speech people might say bad things, therefore (the thinking goes) Freedom of Speech must not be allowed.
Ditto all other Civil Liberties.
I find that most people, even most journalists, do not know the basics – for example what a “Demand Led Service” is.
If a department is spending vastly more than the budget laid down, “you can stop it” – so most people think, but they are quite wrong if it is a Demand Led Service, if it is such a thing (and most local government spending is) then you can not just “stop” it – as there is a legal duty for this demand to be met. “But that means that local councils will all, eventually, go bankrupt” – well there is that unfortunate possibility, but a fixed budget would be “Reactionary”. It is much the same with “Entitlement” spending in the United States, as-the-name-suggests there is an “entitlement” to X,Y,Z – regardless of cost.
Turning to cultural policies – it might be thought that socially conservative politicians do not have to promote “Progressive” agendas on sexuality, race and so on, but they do. All public bodies (local and national) have legal duty to promote the “Woke” agenda – it is laid down in several Statutes (such as the Equality Act).
Even verbal criticism of this agenda attracts punishment.
Again, it is important to understand the stated objectives of government verses the actual objectives. The real purpose of government from the point of view of the people who actually run it is to grow its size and power, and, as part of a faustian bargain, to get politicians re-elected. So to suggest that governments should not do something is like suggesting fish shouldn’t swim. It isn’t what governments are about.
For sure they display a patina of “helping people” because that is a necessary facade to justify their activities. But nobody ever got elected for saying that they plan to do nothing. The delusion is that the average citizen, who often feels powerless, has some power in this electoral vote they have. Now anybody who thinks about it sensibly knows that an individual has effectively zero power electorally. However, it is a delusion of power that gives people some comfort.
Which might, in a sense, be OK, except that it distracts people from the actual power they have — the power to take charge and do the things they want without imagining that they can somehow steer the ship of state or wield the hammer of power. If, for example, you are concerned for children’s welfare, then go help some actual children. If you are concerned about social security payments, instead find a way to earn money and save it in a manner outside the control of the government. The key being to find actual power in our lives rather than deluding ourselves that we have some influence in Westminster or Washington.
The whole power structure in a sense rests on this delusion, and it is very toxic indeed.
Government isn’t even a parasite, which at least has an interest in the survival of its host, but a cancer which will suck the life out of the nation and both will die together.
As the scorpion said to the fox, it’s what I do, it’s who I am.
A simple starting point that despite his ‘libertarian instincts’ seems not to have been tried by even Mr Johnson is to ban bans.
The next step is to make pressure groups staff and donors pay personally jointly and severally upfront the costs of all policies they propose for the next 5 years. This will reduce the political hack class around our politicians.
Mr Ed – the “libertarian instincts” of Mr Johnson seem to be about unlimited welfare immigration (in the 19th century there was indeed “free migration” to the United Kingdom but there were also no benefits or public services – so few people turned up), when put to the test on Covid – Mr Johnson gave in to the pressure of Mr Cummings and others.
Frasor Orr – nothing to do with getting politicians re-elected – why should officials and “experts” care about that? Indeed the policies forced on the last Conservative Party government were carefully designed to alienate Conservative minded voters and lead to the worst defeat in two hundred years. And these policies (higher taxes, unlimited immigration, endless regulations, “Wokery”….) had this result – the intended result.
Rour le Jour – yes current policies will destroy society, which is the deliberate intention of the academic experts who are the real creators of Policy (the capital P is deliberate).
Perhaps these academic experts still tell themselves that they want to create a wonderful new society on the ashes of the “capitalist” West – or perhaps they have finally admitted to themselves that the objective is destruction for the sake of destruction.
Any agenda to roll back leftism is responded to with artificially created outrage.
Look how President Trump has had to dissociate himself from the plan for 2025 prepared by the Heritage Foundation and others.
To really roll back the state in a modern Western country one would have to repeal basic laws (which are written to the Constitutions of various countries – although not the United States or Britain – as Britain does not have a Constitution) and dismiss the officials and experts – which means that Civil Service “protections” would have to go, as would the “independence” of Quangos (such as the Bank of England or the Federal Reserve system) which should not exist.
Honest money, commodity money, is a necessary foundation – as is an honest financial system, lending out Real Savings (the actual sacrifice of consumption – so that cash-money can be saved) rather than creating Credit Money from NOTHING and dishing it out to politically connected Corporate entities.
This is not likely before economic collapse occurs.
I long to witness a journalist ask the Prime Minister when and how he acquired his apetite for coercive control.
Paul
To which Presidente Milei has a four-word riposte:
‘¡Porque son una mierda!
And you ignore the outrage and carry on, defunding directly or indirectly the opposition and obstacles.
decnine – if it is a mainstream journalist he will share the desire for coercive control.
There is nothing special about Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer – there really is not. He is just a faithful servant of Collectivism – like the rest of the modern establishment (including the media), it is what they are educated to be. If he had a Road to Damascus conversion to liberty he would be removed (as Liz Truss was – by the Bank of England the Corporate entities that depend upon the funny money of the Bank of England).
And it is not really different in the United States – few journalists in America carry a firearm (although a few independent ones do), which means they know the establishment does NOT want them to “have an accident” or “commit suicide”.
And if the establishment does not want them dead – they are clearly NOT a threat.
They are not going to ask difficult questions about rigged elections or anything else.
Although, it could be argued, that it does really matters this time if the election is rigged or not – as the economy is going to collapse regardless of who is elected. This system is coming to an end (and good riddance to it) – the question now is, what will replace it? So perhaps the America election IS important after all.
“It is easy for you Paul – you have got nothing to lose, and do not care if you live or die”.
True enough – and I have certainly never claimed to be heroic. A hero is someone who has a lot to lose, who desperately loves live – wants to live, and yet puts their life on the line anyway.
People, such as Peter Navarro, have been to prison because of their opposition to the regime – they knew there was a possibility they could have a (induced) heart attack or be found hanged in their cells.
They are the heroes – not us keyboard warriors.
Mr Ed – quite so, and President Milei does just carry on, if only Liz Truss had been elected President (not a Prime Minister who could be removed on a whim of the establishment) – but, yes, Liz Truss also could have fought back, against the Bank of England the other Corporatist vermin, much more than she did, turning on her own Chancellor did not save her – on the contrary (as he said at the time) it was signing her own death warrant.
As for the media – President Milei pointed out in a recent speech that the “mainstream” media in Argentina, far from standing for freedom of dissent, LOVE the idea of anti statists being sent to prison in Britain and the United States, and would do the same in Argentina as is happening in Brazil and Venezuela.
The American and British media?
When Mr Ray Epps, and other servants of the FBI, first suggested entering the Capitol building – many people around them chanted “Fed, Fed, Fed” (sadly a few people, less than one-percent of the crowd at the speech, LATER, did not heed the warning of the chant). I heard the chant myself, even though I was thousands of miles away (thanks to the wonders of modern technology).
However, the international media claim not to have heard anything. “False Flag operation?” “What is that?” “We have no idea what a False Flag operation is”.
The entry to the Capitol building was indeed “sinister” – but in exactly the opposite way to the way the media pretend.
The pipe bomb at the DNC was also very clearly an operation of the security services, which is why they have not arrested anyone concerning it – as they would have to arrest themselves (or someone who could easily be shown to be a servant of theirs).
Hundreds of thousands of people turned up on January 6th – but they turned up unarmed. The Battle of Athens this was not – and was never intended to be.
Some people have suggested that this (turning up unarmed) was the mistake – that the option of Civil War should have been chosen, but such people would NOT, I believe, have sacrificed themselves in any such conflict – indeed I firmly believe that the people who suggest Civil War are themselves Feds (or blackmailed by them).
The standard rule applies – someone who suggests an illegal action is a Fed, or is being blackmailed by the Feds.
Defund scientific research and all the grant making bodies, £10B pa saving, half the so called black hole.
thefat tomato
The government sector pay deals and the new “Green” spending are already far more than the so called “Black Hole”.
Destroying the economy is not a bug of the policies being followed – it is a feature, it is the objective of the policies being followed. The reasoning being that one can only create a new society (which will, supposedly, be wonderful – “you will own nothing and you will be happy” as the World Economic Forum put it), by destroying the old society.
The last elected British government were horribly weak – their resistance to the officials and “experts” was half hearted at best.
No such criticism can be made of the present elected government – as they are very much on the same page as the officials and “experts”. It shares their objective.
It is the same in the United States – people like K. Harris are not weak in their resistance to plans of international Collectivism, they very much support these plans (in the case of K. Harris – right from the time she was a little girl, indeed her father, the leading Marxist Donald Harris, dedicated some of his books to her).
The future they offer (both in the United Kingdom and the United States) is NOT strictly Marxist – but it is Collectivist, it is Totalitarian.
But there are powerful people opposing them – the war is not lost.
There is more than one vision of the future. Not all of the wealthy and powerful people in the Western world are on the totalitarian side.