With our crippled health services, inadequate care services, local authorities in or approaching bankruptcy, crumbling schools and other public buildings, overflowing prisons. pothole-pitted roads, inadequate housing, overcrowded roads, failing public transport, falling pound, reducing life expectancy and declining international standing it is difficult to describe the UK as anything other than failing.
It is tempting to see this failure as a result of the shambles of the Johnson and post-Johnson governments, or maybe the policy of public sector austerity since 2020.
However, if believe the real causes go much further back, at least to 1945
They can be categorised under five headings.
Exceptionalism
Our part in the victory (alone and unaided?) in the Second World War generated, the delusion of British exceptionalism: we were somehow a super-clever people and the world should learn from us rather than for us to learn from them. We have consequently failed to subject our institutions to critical examination and to look to other countries for examples of how to do things better (Why should we? Our systems are the best in the wold and the envy of the world).
Our “winner takes all” electoral system
We have clung on to the dysfunctional First Past the Post system for electing MPs, which, after all but one post-war election, has handed virtually unfettered power to governments supported by only a minority of the electorate, and with few checks on their enthusiasms. Constructive argument has been avoided and elections fought on slogans and presentation rather than reason. The campaigns have become increasingly less truthful.
Neo-liberal economics
The wholesale adoption of the neo-liberal economic policies of privatisation and deregulation by the Thatcher government elected in 1979, and pursued even more damagingly since.
Over-centralisation.
Political power is concentrated in Westminster and Whitehall with little devolution or fund-raising powers to the nations, regions and local government. What autonomy local government had in the Victorian era has been gradually whittled away
Money and the press
Finally, public opinion has been and continues to be hugely distorted by inadequate limits on financial contributions to political parties and ownership of the press, which has led to one party having unjustifiable dominance over the media.
There is no sign that either of the two major parties are likely to alter any of the above. The Tories love them, and Labour lacks the courage to do other than tinker with the system. An infusion of Liberal Democrat and Green MPs might just “break the mould (remember that?)
One way we might achieve it is to insist on the setting up of Citizens’ Assembles to hammer out the fundamental root and branch reforms we need if we are to stop the rot of our gradual exit from the ranks of competent and effective developed democracies.
We have consequently failed to subject our institutions to critical examination and to look to other countries for examples of how to do things better (Why should we? Our systems are the best in the wold and the envy of the world).
ReplyDeleteWell, that's true. For some reason we cling onto the idea that the NHS is 'the envy of the world' despite no other country trying anything like it, despite the fact that it consistently ranks at or near the bottom of global comparison tables for results, and despite the fact that it's long past time we got rid of it and replaced it with a system based on one of the many, many other systems out there which get better results for less cost — which includes pretty much every single system in the world except for the one used by the United States, so there are plenty of better options to choose from.
We have clung on to the dysfunctional First Past the Post system for electing MPs, which, after all but one post-war election, has handed virtually unfettered power to governments supported by only a minority of the electorate, and with few checks on their enthusiasms.
ReplyDeleteIt has, but that's a good thing because it means that when voters are fed up of a governing party they can vote for change and chuck it out — something which is next to impossible under proportional-representation systems, where whatever the result the same parties usually get back in, just in a differently formed coalition.
The wholesale adoption of the neo-liberal economic policies of privatisation and deregulation by the Thatcher government elected in 1979, and pursued even more damagingly since.
Ah, yes, clearly we should have continued with three-day weeks, constant strikes, and taxpayer money propping up uncompetitive and badly-run industries. We'd be much richer now if we'd taken that path (we wouldn't).
Finally, public opinion has been and continues to be hugely distorted by inadequate limits on financial contributions to political parties and ownership of the press, which has led to one party having unjustifiable dominance over the media.
Yes. It is annoying the way the media is almost entirely slanted towards the Labour party. But still, freedom of the press is vital.
An infusion of Liberal Democrat and Green MPs might just “break the mould (remember that?)
Backed away from Nationalists now?
One way we might achieve it is to insist on the setting up of Citizens’ Assembles to hammer out the fundamental root and branch reforms we need if we are to stop the rot of our gradual exit from the ranks of competent and effective developed democracies.
Citizens Assemblies are, as pointed out before, inherently anti-democratic because they try to take power of decisions-making away from the people as a whole and give it to selected groups force-fed particular perspectives by unaccountable controllers in order to influence them to come up specific pre-determined conclusions.
I think you should be honest and just say that you hate democracy because if you let people think and read for themselves and vote, then they might vote for things you don't like.
You think things would be much better if the country was run by committees of experts selected for excellence in their fields, who would decide what the issues facing the country were and how to deal with them, liaising with similar expert-groups in other countries to ensure a co-ordinated global response, and who would regulate the press to ensure that the population weren't exposed to any 'misinformation' (ie, anything that might question their narrative); and then at election they would present the population with a carefully-selected pre-screened range of options, to ensure that the public had some input into the process but that they couldn't upset things by voting for something outside the window of what the experts had deemed 'acceptable'.
Basically you think China is a great example of how things should be done.
Thanks as always for your detailed commentary, but it's hard to give credence to someone who appears to believe that "the [British] media is almost entirely slanted towards the Labour party." You confirm the truth of advice to campaigner I read recently: "Understand that feelings don't care about your facts."
Deleteit's hard to give credence to someone who appears to believe that "the [British] media is almost entirely slanted towards the Labour party."
DeleteOkay, fair enough, I'm slightly out of date: there is now one (1) news channel which is slanted the other way, GB News.
Other than that every single broadcast news operation is heavily slanted towards the Labour party, and you can't claim otherwise.
The "media" include the press, which, with the exception of the Mirror and the Guardian, are heavily biassed to the right, the Mail and Express rabidly so.
DeleteThe "media" include the press
DeleteBut nobody reads newspapers, so they don't matter. Everyone gets their news from the television, so that's what matters. And all television news (except one channel) is heavily biased towards Labour.
The print media are not only widely read, but tend to set the agenda for the broadcast media.
ReplyDeleteThe print media are not only widely read, but tend to set the agenda for the broadcast media
DeleteNeither of those things are true. The most popular non-free UK newspaper is the Daily Mail which has a circulation of 740,669, or 1.6% of the adult population.
For comparison, the news at six gets 2.7-3.2 million viewers, the news at ten slightly less (and they can’t all be the same people), and ITV’s evening news in the low two millions.
And the agenda for broadcast media is set by — unsurprisingly — what they can get pictures of (that’s why politicians like making visits to construction sites where they can wear hard hats and orange waistcoats.
Newspapers don’t matter. Nobody reads them, nobody pays any attention to them, they don’t make any money, and in a few years they won’t exist.
People get their news from the television and television news operations are with one single exception heavily biased towards Labour (I note you didn’t try to deny that).
I think the BBC are heavily biassed towards "balance" and therefore tend to over expose minority views (eg the climate-change deniers and neo-liberal economists.) Politically they are probably biassed towards "the establishment" and so lean towards which ever party is in power.
ReplyDeleteIt is a nonsense to claim that "nobody" reads newspapers. I do, and I bet you do too.
True the readership of newspapers is relatively small and falling but it is the accepted view that they do influence the agenda of the broadcast media. I don't know becasue I'm not a radio or TV editor, but that's what "the experts" tell us.
I think the BBC are heavily biassed towards "balance"
DeleteThe BBC likes to think it is ‘balanced’, but its idea of ‘balance’ is hopelessly skewed by the fact that everyone who works there is pro-Labour. That’s why they keep broadcasting stuff which they later have to admit isn’t impartial at all (eg, the Emily Maitless rant) but that they don’t pick up in advance because everyone who works there things that the centre-left technocratic managerialist viewpoint is just ‘the truth’ and therefore doesn’t have to be ‘balanced’.
It is a nonsense to claim that "nobody" reads newspapers.
A very, very few freakish individuals do still read newspapers, but they are statistical outliers and so should be disregarded.
True the readership of newspapers is relatively small and falling but it is the accepted view that they do influence the agenda of the broadcast media.
If that’s the ‘accepted view’ then the ‘accepted view’ is wrong. As ‘accepted views’ usually are; you should read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
Thinking about it, the BBC's guiding principle is what you might call 'Douglas Jay-ism' — that is, the firm conviction that the man in Whitehall always knows what is best for people, certainly better than they themselves do. And therefore the BBC sees its 'balancing' duty not as what it ought to — to present all sides of an issue to the viewers without favouring any one, so that they can make up their own minds — but rather as trying to guide them through the various factors considered by the men in Whitehall so that they can understand how the men in Whitehall came to their decision which is, ultimately, the right one.
DeleteAnd this naturally aligns them with the Labour party which — in its modern incarnation at least — is the party of the public sector, and most specifically the party of the civil service; the party, in other words, of the men in Whitehall.
Whereas ITN and Sky are just more openly Labour-leaning.
So again we return to: newspapers don't matter, and broadcast news is almost entirely Labour-supporting. Or to put it another way,
"the [British] media is almost entirely slanted towards the Labour party."
Q.E.D.
I think you're the outlier here. if the press is so inconsequential why was Tony Blair so anxious to gain the Sun's support, and Starmer now keen to do the same?
ReplyDeletethink you're the outlier here. if the press is so inconsequential why was Tony Blair so anxious to gain the Sun's support,
DeleteBecause that was twenty-six years ago!
and Starmer now keen to do the same?
Because Starmer isn’t very good at politics, and doesn’t realise how much things have changed in twenty-six years!
Maybe, but I'm pretty sure that if the Sun endorsed Labour that would be a great help to them. Read today's article by Jonathan Freedman in today's' guardian (23 September) and, if you dare risk contamination, the Editorial
ReplyDeletebut I'm pretty sure that if the Sun endorsed Labour that would be a great help to them.
DeleteBased on what evidence? A feeling you have? What you dreamt last night? Vibes?
Read today's article by Jonathan Freedman in today's' guardian (23 September) and, if you dare risk contamination, the Editorial
Yes, we know that Rupert Murdoch is to Guardian writers as windmills were to Don Quixote. But you don’t actually have any evidence or any arguments, do you? Just a firm conviction that you know better, that you are smarter and more moral, than the general public, who you are convinced are feeble of mind and easily led by wealthy demagogues and charlatans. And based on nothing but that firm conviction, you want to get rid of democracy — after all if the public really are such stupid sheep we can’t have them deciding anything of substance, they’d probably just rename the nation Boaty McBoatface or something — and replace it with a system for ensuring that the voters only ever get to choose from a narrow range of options which are considered by the technocrats in charge to be within the bounds of acceptability.
The fact that on the one simple matter you picked up to challenge me on you haven’t been able to provide any arguments or coherent evidence, instead instantly resorting to ‘but the accepted view is’ (because God forbid you should think for yourself instead of accepting the expert consensus!) and empty assertions about what you think or are ‘pretty sure’ of, should really give you cause to re-examine your highly inflated self-image vis-a-vis the average member of the public that you hold in such lofty contempt. But it won’t of course, because if there’s one thing I’ve learnt over the years it’s that the thing which makes someone a Liberal Democrat is a truly Olympian superciliousness that is utterly impervious to anything which life might throw at it.
To adapt what David Steel said of Mrs Thatcher:"I wish I were as certain of just one thing as [you are] on everything." I'll leave it there.
ReplyDeleteI wish I were as certain of just one thing as [you are] on everything
DeleteOh but you are; you’re absolutely certain in your belief in paternalist technocracy. That’s the problem.
I believe in democracy. devolved to the lowest practical level
ReplyDelete