![](https://i.postimg.cc/L6NZ9DFK/Boris-Johnson-and-Liz-Truss.jpg)
This argument is reactionary and anti-democratic. It's assumpting MPs know politics better and have a stronger handle on what's happening in the country, and so choosing a leader should be up to them. It's a dangerous argument as well. There is no qualitative difference between this and thinking the franchise should be withdrawn, because ordinary people have a weak grasp on political issues and only a fleeting interest in the Issues That Matter. Also, the suggestion MPs are more representative than party members is preposterous. True, an MP is voted in to represent their constituents but they are elected because they're on a party ticket. Only a tiny handful of politicians can claim to have a personal mandate. And second, far from knowing their constituents the £85k salary, the drama of the Westminster village, the status and the freebies that come with it, and their access to the media offers a very privileged life that puts social distance between them and their voters. The membership of a political party is much more representative, sociologically speaking. Yes, even the 170-odd thousand Tory members have more in common with 'the people' than their parliamentarians. They feel the pressure of everyday life, and it speaks of Liz Truss's stupidity - and isolation from the membership - that she inadvertently targeted the Tories' voter coalition for a round of attacks.
It's not enough to set out and repeat the argument. A blue tick is not about to have a light bulb moment because these points are politely explained to them. There has to be something driving this surge of reaction toward its elitist consensus. I would suggest two things. We have had three leaders in the two main parties voted in that threatened this country's political and economic establishment. On the right there was Truss and Boris Johnson (and maybe him again, in the future), and on the left Jeremy Corbyn. The first two did untold damage to the legitimacy of the British state, while the latter threatened a fundamental rewriting of politics and the reversal of 40 years of ruling class gains at the expense of workers. To be a paid commentator is a small-c conservative endeavour, because one has a stake in maintaining all that is as is. If party members' democracy impinges on their role, then it needs putting to bed.
The second is power play. It takes time to cultivate trusted relationships inside Westminster, and as we saw when Corbynism erupted the hacks were caught off balance because they had no lines to the new Labour leader nor his team. Without those lines, not only could they not say what was going on with any accuracy but their avenues for influencing proceedings were shut down too. To a much lesser extent, the same was the case with Johnson and Truss. They were doing their own thing, in the main, regardless of what the briefcase-adoring commentariat thought. With Keir Starmer and Labour's return to suited-and-booted politics, that influence and framing of issues is working again. The media obsession with trans women, for example, finds an echo in the timidity and capitulation of the shadow cabinet. The commentariat's 'there's no money left' take on the economy after Truss is repeated in Starmer's commitment to "wait" to do Labour things and work on the problems. If Rishi Sunak wins the Tory leadership, that same soft influence over policy will be there in ways that wouldn't have been the case if Johnson had won. In other words, the hacks are protecting their unspoken power and reach over ministers and MPs generally - something that can be pushed back against if a leader's legitimacy lies in a democratic vote outside of Westminster. Corbyn and Johnson are both examples of this.
It's very obvious we need a new politics in this country, and one that better reflects the dynamics and preferences of our class than the exclusionary and corrupt Westminster system we're stuck with. And such a renewal means tackling and curbing the institutionally conservative influence of our thin, unaccountable layer of professional gawkers and talkers. They enjoy too much influence over politics than they warrant.
8 comments:
This was a Guardian headline, but maybe not written by the journalist.
Headline, “Labour membership soars….”
Labour has gained 20,000 new members since the end of the party conference season as it gears up for a general election following the Tory party’s implosion and Liz Truss’s disastrous premiership.
Thank you for this Phil. The complicity of the press and broadcast media in all of this is frightening and depressing in its unsurprising-ness. I’m sure everyone here already reads https://brokenbottleboy.substack.com/, but if you don’t then please do.
I doubt that Labour accurately knows it's membership, as the database hasn't been fully reconstituted since it was hacked a year or so ago.
In reply to Ken. When the membership was declining I don't recall the headlines saying Labour membership 'in freefall' or anything similar. Perhaps you should read some more of Phil's blogs about the role the media play in maintaining the status quo.
There isn't really a single establishment in the sense implied by this article. There are a number of different sets that make it up, with some common agendas, but also a range of different interests, some which may conflict. The establishment represented by Sunak is very much that of the internationalist finance ilk. People who are entirely invested (literally and metaphorically) in the globalisation of finance, and in the movement of wealth outside national boundaries and beyond state control. As such, he represents the 0.1% who are happy for "the markets" to dictate what governments can and can't do, so long as it means they can do what they want. It is the dominant, and most dangerous establishment set. Now it has its man in number 10. This is very bad news for the 99.9% of us who can't shift our fortunes around out of jurisdiction - mainly because we don't have them.
Sunak believes the neoliberal line, and is probably sincere in thinking he has the expertise to manage the economy and restore it to health. Unfortunately, his idea of health will be very different from that of the average citizen. We can expect pubic service cuts and privatisation by stealth to scale up. The reverse robin hood policies of the past few decades will continue, as the flow of wealth from bottom to top continues.
The harsh anti-protest laws brought in to the delight of gammons who think they are targeted at environmentalists will prove very useful in stopping outpourings of anger as more people lose their homes, and poverty and food bank use surge. Grim times are ahead.
my usual proposal for more democratic parties are one member one vote and mandatory reselection: each member to be elected by the vote of their constituency MP, each member subject to mandatory reselectipnby their Mp every year, and the leader of New Labour to be elected by the one vote of member Peter Mandelson.
«There isn't really a single establishment in the sense implied by this article.»
That seems to me to be belied by the treatment dished out to Corbyn, which obviously was not considered "one of us".
I reckon that there is indeed a single establishment, in effect a caste, and that its main priority is to remain in control of "our state"; consider for example the web of personal relationships (spouses, cousins, uncles, ...) among the upper and upper-middle class, which occasionally come to light; some sociologists call it "the 2,000 families".
«There are a number of different sets that make it up, with some common agendas, but also a range of different interests, some which may conflict»
I agree with that but they are factions of the same establishments, their conflicts are squabbles within the caste, they all fight together when their domination of the state is threatened (e.g. Corbyn).
Consider the recent squabbles (since 2016) among Conservative big cheeses: they are largely family fights among Bullingdon club members, among Old Etonians, among cousins, uncles, second degree in-laws. Beyond the family fight the establishment caste all scratch each other's backs when it comes to their personal interests.
The establishment caste has a very strong sense of "our own", my usual quote from Nick Timothy, political strategist of Theresa May:
«He has some harsh words for what he calls the snobs and libertarians in his own party: “We all know the kind. They reveal themselves through minor acts of snobbery, strange comments that betray a lack of understanding about the lives of ordinary people, or when they are councillors or Members of Parliament by the policy positions they take. I remember one MP who, as a member of the Shadow Cabinet, once said: “school reform is all very well but we must protect the great public schools, because we need to look after our own people.” Quite how many of the millions of core Tory voters he thought had attended public schools was never explained.”»
Good article, Phil, but the overall siuation is even more serious. The sheer level of our UK 'managed news' nowadays is really quite scary. At present France is in the grip of a huge nationwide strike wave and associated mass street demonstrations against the cost of living crisis. Fuel has run out in many regions due to strikes, and Macron is unable to fully embrace the US/NATO orthodox narrative on the Ukraine/Russia proxy war because of French mass objection to that madness.
Look for any reports of all this on the MSM in the UK, and you will look in vain. Go to the 'Europe' news subheadings on the likes of the Guardian, Sky News etc, and all that will be covered is the standard NATO warmongering line on the Ukraine war. The huge French unrest has been covered briefly by Al Jazeera, and Reuters, but look in vain to our MSM. Pretty sinister collective 'one message only allowed' news management for a supposed 'free society' methinks.
We really are in serious trouble on so many fronts in the UK. Good article in The Guardian today though covering the innumerable times the Cuban Missile Crisis very nearly turned thermonuclear - purely from accidents and misunderstandings. This could easily happen in the Ukraine debacle . in fact a Russian fighter has already accidentally fired a missile at a UK surveillance spyplane recently. One slip and we are all radioactive dust . Yet even the 'liberal press' is gung ho for ever more escalation .
Post a Comment