Politics moves to a new phase

surveillance3If it had come from the left, I’d not have bothered with it but it comes from the centre-right:

Under Lord Pearson, UKIP won an increased number of votes at the General Election, but it has gone backwards in terms of its profile and standing as a political force.  It is a regression that UKIP will find pretty much impossible to reverse as it has such a thin and shallow pool of talent from which to fish for a new leader.

What must be most worrying for UKIP’s remaining members is that Nigel Farage is thinking of tossing his hat into the leadership election.  Farage is charismatic but he just cannot be taken seriously as a politician.  He is straight talking but he cannot connect with voters.  Farage gets attention not for the important messages he should be conveying but for the stunts in which he engages and behaviour that can be likened to that of an upper class twit trying to act like a rebel.

A bit harsh and yet there is truth in that post by Autonomous Mind.  There is a huge difference between a single issue lobby, as the Albion Alliance is/was and a party thinking it can govern. It was illustrated in a different way in a conversation I had with a customer who bought the Kathy Reichs promotion I put up.  She said that Reichs was better than Cornwell because the forensics had got lost with the latter, in favour of conspiracy theory.

And there it is – anything the average punter doesn’t understand, neatly labelled as conspiracy theory and rejected.  Oh what the powers-that-be can get away with, eh?  That’s what anyone who sees and reads and listens has to put up with – the impossibility of getting anything across to the apolitical masses who are living their lives free of long term worry, yet weighed down by current anxieties such as job security and being manipulated into austerity and dependence on the State.

The call for a new centre-right party is born of the understandable disillusionment with the hijacking of the Tories but in the light of the state of politics overall and the Westminster parties playing deckchairs on the EU Titanic, it’s a meltdown we’re looking at and from it, a new order we neither need nor should have any truck with.  Naturally, we dissident malcontents will oppose it but they’ve factored that in and new parties of any form are an anachronism now.

There is a different type of politics coming up and it is called State [the oligarchy] v People.

7 comments for “Politics moves to a new phase

  1. August 18, 2010 at 08:04

    It’s not as simple as State vs The People.

    There are various large rent-seeking vested interest groups who all need the state to oppress somebody else, such as:

    1. Favoured industries (primarily pension insurance but there are many others, e.g. films) and corporatists.
    2. Pensioners and welfare claimants.
    3. The quangocracy, do-gooders, Righteous, EU and so on.
    4. The Home-Owner-Ist coalition (partly banks, landlords, estate agents, but mainly NIMBYs and homeowners generally) who needs lots of explicit or implicit subsidies.

    I know of very few people who don’t fall into at least one of those categories, and all these people like the status quo. They don’t mind about the smoking ban or whatever, as long as subsidies/pensions/salaries for non-jobs/house prices etc keep going up.

  2. August 18, 2010 at 15:16

    Tend to agree with Mark, and this quote springs to mind, a reminder of why that total crash is necessary before anything will change:

    “The American Republic will endure, until politicians
    realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”
    — Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. August 18, 2010 at 17:51

    Right, firstly, thanks for that, Mark and it does broaden the scope of State and who the enemy of our comfortable way of life actually is.

    At some stage, we’ll have to discuss this homeownerism which I don’t understand. If you mean that things need to change because properties are fewer on the ground now and an increasing population needs to be housed affordably, then OK.

    If you mean that those who paid their mortgage off according to the rules of the time and don’t wish to lose what they put in, then to dispossess them – i.e. the State comes in as says sorry, sport, your home is ours now- then that is pure socialism and I oppose it vehemently.

    So what is this homeownerism thing? No one will explain it clearly, [in words of one syllable or less].

    Ian – yes, that quote is true.

  4. JD
    August 18, 2010 at 18:30

    A house is somewhere to live, a roof over your head, a shelter from the elements, a refuge from the madhouse outside.

    “homeowneritis” is the notion that a house is an investment which should increase in value year after year.

    You do not buy anything else on that basis – cars, clothes, books, etc. Why should houses be any different?

  5. August 18, 2010 at 18:41

    JH: “If you mean that those who paid their mortgage off according to the rules of the time and don’t wish to lose what they put in, then to dispossess them – i.e. the State comes in as says sorry, sport, your home is ours now- then that is pure socialism and I oppose it vehemently.”

    Nope, nothing of the sort. What the purists say is instead of taxing hard work and enterprise, we tax people according to the benefits that accrue to them by virtue of their state-protected quasi-monopoly position (mainly land values but lots of other bits and pieces like radio spectrum, drilling and mining licences, cherished number plates, airport landing slots).

    If we had full on land value tax and got rid of VAT, income tax and so on, then let’s say house prices halve – for three quarters of owners, this would still be equal to or more than what they originally paid for them, they have lost nothing at all. And by and large, their future LVT bill is less than what they currently pay in income tax.

    You say that LVT is akin to saying “your home is ours”, which is quite simply not true (it’s typical Home-Owner-Ist, as it happens). What LVT is saying is that all landownership is a form of taxation – under current rules, it is a privately collected on a publicly created value. So why not let the general public keep that value for itself, and let individuals keep the value of their own hard work and enterprise for themselves (i.e. as a quid pro quo, scrap income tax, VAT etc)? Render what is Caeser’s unto Caesar, and all that.

    And I could simply bat that straight back and say “Taxes like VAT or income tax are the nationalisation of hard work and enterprise, ergo these taxes are tantamount to slavery”.

  6. August 18, 2010 at 19:40

    OK, I’ll have to work through that one. My concern is that those who already own outright don’t have it summarily taken away [probably you have answered that in your middle section] because they were playing by the rules of the day. I agree those rules need to change from now on.

  7. August 18, 2010 at 22:36

    “My concern is that those who already own outright don’t have it summarily taken away”

    We live in a property-owning democracy. You can’t seriously suggest for more than one second that many people would actually be repossessed?

    In the crazy Home-Owner-Ist world we live in, not even banks are allowed to repossess people who fail to pay their mortgage, and the taxpayer is expected to pay the mortgage for him!

    We can invent all sorts of relieving provisions, collect the tax from the payroll instead of collecting income tax from the payroll, have deferments and exemptions for pensioners for a … year transitional period until it all beds in. That’s just boring political details and nothing to do with economics.

Comments are closed.