Monday, 7 September 2009

Festering and Figleaves

Nothing has moved since the summer began, which does not mean that nothing has changed during the six weeks of villeggiatura. Festering requires stillness to develop florid fullness (and foulness). The extent of corruption in our democracy is now breathtaking. What began with the sequestration of a sitting prime minister's parliamentary majority by coup, and continued with a refusal to face any kind of electoral validation either of Party or national electorate, produced a wholly improper Executive as well as Prime Minister. Appointed to ministerial power by an invalid holder of office, all of the current government have been acting outside of formerly accepted practice when exercising the powers of their office.

Only in an underdetermined constitutional system, blighted further by lack of any system of validation other than the purely ceremonial, and offering no system of redress against the arbitrary seizure and use of state power, could such a democratic demolition have taken place without a democratic outcry. It doesn't look, superficially, as if anything bad, other than a slipshod attitude within a political party to the transfer of Leadership, and an act of cowardice in gaining democratic consent to the Leader's assumption of the prime ministership, has really taken place. And, anyway, if it has it will all be put right in the next few months. It is frightening that assent to what has happened, even its denial - though this is now less widespread, and the manner of Brown's accession to power has been widely dissected and condemned - or, most prevalent of all, lack of awareness or of interest, that this assent has been guaranteed by the assurance of its very temporariness. The assent is vaunted even, by New Labour apologists, as an indication that there has been no impropriety. In truth the whole Executive, which is now on its second renewal and remote from any contact with democratic choice, is irremovable from office, and, more importantly, opaque in its agenda while it is answerable to no one.

The perception that Brown is superceded, already far from power but sustained, stumbling and incoherent, through the results of his years of Treasury incompetence, is widespread also. We are now at the third generation of dictatorial governance (for Blair could not have been forced to concede office without his connivance in the ushering-in of administrative, post-democratic rule, even if that connivance was extracted by threat as much as by promise of high office elsewhere). There are few in England who are not recipients of some income administered by the government; over a third of those employed are employed on government wages. That is a large vested interest in not being interested.

The greatest shift in the way we are governed (regardless of the interference from European Union membership) has now been effected. There remains the removal of the last constitutional provision that has been used, up to now, as a tranquilizer for the unease of any not bought and paid for. For those who subscribe actively to post democratic ideologies (and they are always with us as they have been since the 19th century democratic embrace of all advanced capitalist countries, we've fought wars against them) all of this is to be applauded and assisted. How, then, is the expectation of a general election in the coming months that will remove the head of the Project from the shoulders of its support systems, to be avoided or subverted?

First is the preservation of the status quo, what might be thought of as the festering: bad as things are throughout the world the job is being got on with to preserve things as they are and restore gross consumerism. Second is threat and example of what happens to any kind of public or private protest: go out on the streets andd face incredible levels of peacetime violence; withdraw affermation of the current regime, particularly in its local and regional expression, and lose promotion, and then your job. Third is the partial withdrawal or denial of monopoly public services, and most people are not well to do enough to pay for what they have been forced to pay for already, but just watch if a public service dispenser is challenged. Fourth, as final days grow close, will be manufactured crisis; not as some have feared, a violent or life-threatening crisis, but a crisis that is part of the ending of democracy. A constitutional crisis that requires resolution before plunging the country into the political 'turmoil' of a general election. A crisis that is part of what has already happened. The best bet is a crisis over the propriety of an hereditary head of state.

There are attractions in this: all the festering arrangements apply - lack of interest bolstered by self interest; incomprehension; relative passivity in political activity accessible to general response. This coupled with a sharply divided attitude on the centre left to the monarchy that can be exploited to offer those who care what they would like, the abolition of the monarchy's role in government, at the cost of abandoning opposition to other constitutional vandalism.

We can hear it now. Should Charles be allowed to take over effectively or even formally as head of state? While this question is answered, temporarily the current regime must remain in place, possibly under a caretaker prime minister, until this crucial constitutional matter is resolved. It is not good for the country to have both Executive and Constitution in disarray. We should have a referendum, (non-binding of course), on whether or no the Head of State should be elected, (indirectly of course) by a reformed Parliament. During the caretaker interregnum a Commission will sit and when it has reported, then we will have the general election, under the new constitutional aegis. You can just hear them can't you, as the discussion piles into irrelevant bye ways and the 'caretaker' regime proceeds in its unscrutinised, unspeakable pursuits.

Yes, we hear of Conservative shadow ministers being briefed by civil servants. We hear of their, and their aides' attendance at advanced seminars on pensions at the LSE and, doubtless at SOAS and Chatham House for foreign affairs, being coached in the arcane problems of health care provision, frequenting the Institute of Education, and the run down former stately homes where conferences on government are held. But that is not enough, it's almost a reassurance that contributes to the festering. Nor is waiting for the end of these illicit years since 2007 to arrive naturally enough. These years are, from their inauguration, unnatural, and will not readily reach a natural end.

The Conservatives must push New Labour off its perch before the impropriety of their hold on power, so settled and steady informally now, is realised formally by whatever means or combination of means, adopted when their constitutional figleaf is removed next year.

13 comments:

Botogol said...

Perhaps Afghanistan might provide an alternative crisis that do as well, and more plausibly.

Although in reality no imaginable manufactured crisis would suffice, and we will surely have a general election by May 2010.

lilith said...

Steady HG, you are giving them ideas again...

hatfield girl said...

I hope you are right, B. Our political arrangements are astonishingly unstable.

hatfield girl said...

On the whole, its better to talk about things than aid them with silence, L.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

Botogol is right; there will be an election. It's not a foregone conclusion, though, that labour will lose; there are a lot of deluded people out there who don't understand the causes of the financial crisis, and the headlines will get better before next May - power, patronage, and Lord Mandelson will make sure they do. And the arithmetic is not helpful, in our skewed electoral system. The Tories must do MUCH better than Labour need to, before they win.

HG I think you are a bit obsessive about Broon's "coronation". One could make all the same points about Major's succession after Thatcher, up to the point of his surprising electoral confirmation, but I don't remember that anyone did.

The real problem for our democracy is its complete undermining due to the abject surrender of everything to the unelected and anti-democratic EU. The House of Commons should have prevented this - it still could, theoretically - and frankly deserves its current irrelevance and dishonour, since it did nothing to assert itself when the danger arose.

Botogol said...

indeed, I reckon three or four green shoots of recovery, and a new leader - and labour could win.

green shoots they will be able to demonstrate, even if they are a mixture of the real and the merely hopeful.

but a new leader? I see brown as a bitter-ender who would never willingly give up the leadership, and the cabinet too spineless, too divided amongst themselves, too self-interested individually and too hamstrung by the labour party rules, to mount a successful challenge.

Nick Drew said...

don't know how much UK TV meeja you get to see, HG, but even the BBC has pretty much thrown Brown over now; the Guardian too; and the reaction to an engineered delay in the election would be wall-to-wall fury in private and public domains alike

the mob wasn't of a mind to allow Churchill off the hook in 1945 and this time I do believe they've got it in for Brown too - and it's a bit hard to see anyone in the Commons (except possibly Straw) having the nerve to ditch him in order to front an illicit election-staying ploy

even (even) the Police might conclude there wasn't much to be had for themselves by propping up an unconstitutional Mandelsonian confection

Botogol said...

maybe there is a potential scandal that could *invalidate* a general election - postal votes.

See this and this

hatfield girl said...

ND, Certainly we'd all be very cross. Though there is no more that we could do about it than we have been able to do since 2007. Absolutely Brown is a fig leaf for maintaining democratic propriety, but his final, dead man's role, is as damaging as everything he did when he was alive.

How much I know from what I hear isn't measurable, obviously. I imagine I don't know much, but as a practitioner of intellectual opportunism I shall keep saying what I think.

At the moment there is heaps of stuff on how the transition economies are faring (infinitely better than the UK considering their starting point, and even not considering their starting point) which is all to be gone over in Helsinki shortly. Which data casts a deep shadow over the enthusiastic greeting of green shoots in the UK.

The 'upbeat news at any cost, including vulgar lying' from the English media, though not the blogs, I find rather shocking. Passers through tell me that nothing but nothing is to be anything other than supportive of the election narrative of saving the world and imminent recovery. Recovery to what goes unanswered. We all know the lives of a generation are blighted, and the chances of employment for anyone out of work now are remote - remote for ever.

The regime cannot justify its past actions, nor propose future plans of any worth. They will lie and they will, in the end, refuse to yield office. Anger is not enough. The Parliament Acts are certainly not enough. But I would be very interested to hear what, other than those, indicate that a removal of New Labour from office, is expected.

dearieme said...

Look, it's perfectly normal for someone to become PM without leading his party in a General Election campaign. From 1940 alone there's Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas Home, Callaghan, Major and Brown. It is not, of itself, reason to have a fit of the vapours. What is alarming, I'll grant you, is that people like me who assumed that Heath-Wilson would be the nadir of British politics were revealed as starry-eyed optimists, since Blair-Brown have proved so much worse even that those plonkers. And so we speed down the helter-skelter.

hatfield girl said...

Until Heath all Conservative leaders 'emerged', as did senior judges, so the first four are not comparable. Major was elected by his Party, under extensively discussed and chosen procedures. Callaghan was elected by his Party.

Brown was not. If the Labour Party changes the way in which the Party leadership is to be determined, either in or out of office, it is commonplace democratic practice for the rules to be known by both the electorate at large and the narrower Party electorate who claim to be in a democratic party fit to offer itself for government in the UK. When people voted for the pre-elected leader Conservative party they knew what they were getting and that's fine. But it's not fine for Labour. The UK is not the GDR. Well, actually it's getting remarkably like now.

Botogol said...

HG, when you wrote this in September I dismissed it entirely. But now... well did it strike you that Queens Speech was, in fact, preparing the ground for a national emergency based on economic circumstances? The proposed bill to make the budget deficit illegal seems very odd, how else to explain it?

Could it actually be possible that Brown could seek a reason to avoid calling an election?

Botogol said...

btw HG. it's superseded. With an S :-)

(the C betrays your classical education, only someone who has studied latin makes that mistake. But actually it its super sedere, to sit upon, not from cedere, to yield.

(he! he!, you don't have to approve this comment!)