2013-05-24T06:15:04-04:00 George Chesterton http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=george-chesterton Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for George Chesterton Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2237276 2012-12-04T10:46:51-05:00 2013-02-03T05:12:01-05:00

George Chesterton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-chesterton/
The Thatcher revolution has been accepted by the four prime ministers who followed her, but none shared her power to remould society. A leader's ability to convince the public of the need for change was key for Thatcher and remains at the root of political possibilities as we stumble from one consensus-obsessed, risk-averse administration to another. Just as Thatcher persuaded enough people that self-interest was the route to a better society, any brave Labour leader must persuade enough people that a better society is the route to self-interest. To enact this requires the right circumstances and the right leadership. Britain's economic and social stagnation and the sense of rottenness at the heart of public life mean the first of those criteria is here. The second depends, barring something unforeseen, on Ed Miliband.

To challenge the status quo on the truly corrosive issues - public/private ownership and outsourcing, wage inequality, tax and financial regulation, transparency in public life - would require a level of conviction akin to that of Thatcher at the height of her power. Miliband must choose whether he wants to transform the country and its politics or settle for more tinkering as her latest successor. It would cause as much upheaval to address the wrongs of that legacy as it did to initiate them 30 or so years ago and releasing the tentacles of powerful vested interests would be a dangerous and arduous business. Upheaval is hardly one of Britain's recent strengths.

During the last time of great change none of Thatcher's achievements, however damaging and painful, could have been realised without an unusually strong conviction that what she wanted to do had to be done. This is what makes her such a different and difficult figure, though in a paradoxical sense, a model for Miliband. Just as in 1979, here is an opportunity to turn anxiety into an acceptance that radical change is needed. Whether that opportunity is taken may hinge on Miliband's ability to persuade the electorate that he is not just the latest alternative, but fundamentally different. It is at this point that conviction becomes decisive.

In the 1980s it was Thatcher's conviction that won her such loyal support and she persuaded sufficient numbers to join her in a radical and fractious change of course. The infamous housewife economics had a simplistic and intoxicating appeal and this myth is having something of a resurgence, though David Cameron and George Osborne are mere followers. They simply want to fulfil her project and their timidity has a stifling psychological effect as well as an economic one.

Tony Blair had the money and mandate to transform society, but despite some worthy investments, particularly in the NHS, New Labour was about gaining power first and governing second - a strategy all post-Thatcher governments have followed and been fundamentally weakened by. It's no wonder New Labour failed to live up to expectations. Nothing has done as much to damage the idea of politics as the agency for change in Britain as the wasted opportunities of the Blair years. This is what Miliband must not forget. For Blairites their leader was Labour's Thatcher, but unlike her, his beliefs and convictions remain a mystery. That is not a compliment to a prime minister who was in power for 10 years.

The success of Alex Salmond in Scotland is due in a significant part to his overt belief in something. Salmond can stand, and is thriving, on his difference to the rest of politics, however true this may be. His conviction is akin to Thatcher's in that it carries with it the potential for transformation. But even in the case of Scottish independence caution may turn out to be the nemesis of change.

Not only was Thatcher a divisive, destructive force in British history, but that is exactly what she wanted to be. That was the result of her conviction and we are still living with it. Her free market orthodoxy has barely been challenged and it would take a politician of unusual bravery to do so - and an uncharacteristically brave electorate to encourage them. But now may be one of those rare occasions when it is possible. That is not to say such circumstances could open the door for extremism; that is not the situation we face. However bad the recession and the resultant problems, the appetite is for a more equitable society and a balanced economy, not scapegoats and persecution.

Miliband's perceived weakness, that he is uninspiring and, dare it be whispered, "intellectual", could turn out to be his greatest asset when swing voters are faced with the prospect of more years of Conservative drift. His challenge then will be to persuade them that the status quo works against their interests - just as Thatcher did. But if he is to bring about substantial and lasting change it will only be achieved if he can make the link between prosperity and fairness, self-interest and public responsibility. He has already made one symbolic break with the past by ripping up her rolling contract with Rupert Murdoch. Perhaps Miliband will be the quiet radical some suspect him to be - William Rees-Mogg, of all people, has even made comparisons with Clement Attlee.

If he were to win office he would he require Thatcheresque zeal to combat the damage to social democracy accrued since her time in power and what fresh anxiety might that zeal, in turn, cause a generation who have accepted the Thatcher way as the norm? Fear of change keeps society stable but it also leaves it atrophied. This is our very British compromise and it is the history Miliband will be fighting against. The last time enough people demanded a political leader with conviction they got Margaret Thatcher. Change requires conviction, but conviction is a hazardous path into the unknown and it is one we are rarely willing to take. Miliband's job should be to convince us it is worth the risk.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1664310 2012-07-11T07:40:08-04:00 2012-09-10T05:12:03-04:00

George Chesterton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-chesterton/
Time is running out to reconnect with a public who are already responding to the calls of those outside the political establishment. At least there are a few signs of life from Ed Miliband and Ed Balls as the coalition appears to be disintegrating. But Labour's message has to be: "This is what we believe and this is what we want to do. We are not like the Conservatives and this is how we intend to prove it to you. The spin is there is no spin". There is a rare window in which policy and principle can dovetail.

A fundamental of the new discourse should be an openness about past mistakes, including admitting personal involvement in those mistakes. This goes against every instinct of post-Blairite orthodoxy, but it is to the unorthodox that people are now turning. (Incidentally, this week's sashaying up to Tony Blair would appear a significant misjudgment by Miliband). The public's desire for honesty is regularly underestimated and the Labour leadership does appear to be getting this message. PFI and private investment in the NHS and banking deregulation and are probably the biggest issues of this kind that need addressing.

The second fundamental should be to outline core principles for a future administration now rather than wait until 2014/15 - a brand of popular radicalism mainlined unmediated into the veins of the electorate. As the sense of economic and social dysfunction grows it creates an environment ripe for the opposition to talk, paradoxically, in terms that address both practical "pound in your pocket" matters and in the broadest concepts of the health of the nation. In a society of individuals, many individuals are waking up to what happens if they are abandoned by society. Some things are better run in the public interest and people are now seeing this beyond the prism of Thatcherism. There is an appetite for what could be called "pragmatic idealism".

Through simple and explicit promises to, for example, keep private money out of the NHS and policing, reform party funding, invest in infrastructure, technology and manufacturing with some help from publicly owned banks and eradicate tax avoidance, honesty could become the great political weapon it has always threatened to be. Labour could reclaim the dreaded phrase "common sense" that has traditionally been the province of right-wing columnists and talk radio hosts.

There is some scope for taking the moral high ground too - admittedly a dangerous habitat for politicians - particularly when the Conservatives appear to be heading for the valley below. With merely the graze of the cuts visible before the wound really opens up the coalition is only going to become more unpopular. The Lib Dems are already facing a catastrophe for surrendering their principles because the public see they have turned out to be little more than a cheap date for David Cameron.

Party funding provides a useful example of the need for a new direction. Instead of attacking the prime minister as having something to hide - something most of the public would assume whatever the truth of the matter - Miliband should be doing everything in his power to show he operates in a completely different world: either by promising to set a much lower level for individual donations or by making the case for fighting corruption through funding parties with public money. If the case can't be made now, it probably never will be.

Another open goal for Labour is the rare dissent of the right-wing media towards the government. If Labour took control of the agenda it would make it very difficult for most of the media to welcome, however reluctantly, the new political landscape. Newspapers that have spent weeks attacking the government would be cornered by an opposition who made commitments to deal with the problems that their readers care most about. Even something unexpected, such as promising to look at the feasibility of taking the railways back into public ownership would be difficult for the press to attack because after year-on-year price rises and the continual deterioration of services it has become an issue their readers get hot and bothered about.

A series of hapless public appearances and interviews has demonstrated to a weary public the Tories' strange brew of contempt and ignorance. But there is also a perception that Labour's leadership comes from the same political class, and although Miliband is not tainted by the stain of aristocratic or corporate privilege he does personify the inward looking cabal of PPE graduates that leaves people cold. Miliband can talk about "responsible capitalism" but until the majority of voters understand what he means in terms of policies that affect them, he is as ethereal as his rhetoric. Give the public something to vote for - policies - and they will vote. If Labour plays the long game it could be too late by 2015.

What happened with Muslim voters in Bradford West is an extreme case of desertion from the political establishment but it provides a handy demonstration to other single interest groups about what can be achieved relatively quickly, relatively easily. The prospect of angry GPs standings against coalition candidates at the next election should also focus minds on the urgent need to reach out in a new way.

If Labour act now voters might believe they actually mean it. With the assertion of strong principle-backed policies - something a limping coalition will find it awkward to counter - Labour could create a bond with the electorate, a rallying call to prevent the opposition sliding into ignominy as one of the great political chickens of the era. To rise to the challenge would not only be in Labour's interests, but in those of democracy itself. Voters don't expect miracles, but a touch of honesty and bravery - compared with the inutile atrophy we see now - could be a winning combination.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1630434 2012-06-28T00:43:26-04:00 2012-08-27T05:12:06-04:00

George Chesterton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-chesterton/
The policy pronouncements and the language used to make them do not merely demonstrate contempt for nurses or teachers or the unemployed - they demonstrate contempt for almost every voter in the country (including most of the people who supported coalition parties at the last election).

Nobody likes to feel their intelligence has been insulted. When you sense a falsehood is being peddled as fact it makes you feel violated, as if you've just come home to find your house has been broken into. But that is what is happening on a weekly basis in British politics. And with no one of any party able to offer much hope of better economic prospects in the near future, it may be that the next election will be won and lost on issues of trust. Consider the gap between the absurdities of what is said and what many voters are beginning to understand.

George Osborne recently blamed the Euro crisis for his inability to do anything about the recession. Until that point it had been the fault of last Labour government (although he once also blamed the Royal wedding). But Osborne supported Labour's spending plans right up their final year in office. The deficit reduction drum is still being beaten threadbare in speeches and interviews, yet this week we again see government borrowing rising. This abnegation of responsibility runs through the entire administration. It is like Moses blaming pharaoh for the golden calf. People sense they are being conned.

Then there is the temerity of the doublespeak. Michael Gove claims "competitive dumbing down" has dropped GSCE standards (an exam introduced by a Conservatives in 1988). This presumably is also an indictment of school league tables (ditto in 1992). But more bizarre is the implicit condemnation of competition itself, a concept so beloved of Conservatives that has been used as an excuse for almost anything, from the disastrous privatisation of the railways in 1993 to the proposed privatisation in the NHS, the police, prisons and education. Just how stupid does Gove think we are? The answer, it appears, is very.

In the last week David Laws and his successor at the Treasury, Danny Alexander, have called for more benefit cuts and austerity, even though they were both elected as Liberal Democrats on a platform of increased public investment and higher taxes for the rich. Laws had the brass neck to endorse a proposed cut in housing benefit despite being caught fiddling his expenses over a second home. In which parallel universe is this a credible politician, let alone a moral one?

Another example of how little regard leading Conservatives have for the critical faculties of the great unwashed was William Hague's decision that Foreign Office representatives would not be attending Euro 2012 in protest at Ukrainian treatment of Yulia Tymoshenko. They did, however, admit that if England progressed further than expected in the competition they would reconsider their position, the clear implication being that should the nation become intoxicated with patriotic football fervour, the government reserved the right to cash in on it.

And then there is David Cameron, who intervened with spectacular cack-handedness over reports of Jimmy Carr's tax avoidance, then went on to attack what he called - with a straight face - the culture of entitlement in the benefits system. Carr's scheme helped him save about £1.5m, something the prime minister described as "morally wrong" (Osborne went one better in March, calling tax dodges "morally repugnant"). Vodafone alone was let off around £4bn in corporation tax, which is twice what Cameron says the government would save by cutting housing benefit for the under-25s.

The industrial-scale hypocrisy of the tax situation is cranked up another notch by the well-founded suspicion that many, if not most, of the individuals and businesses which fund the Tory party employ some form of tax avoidance scheme. And we are sold this spiel as the government says it will stamp out tax avoidance while making massive cuts to HMRC, the people who are supposed to stamp out tax avoidance. Figuratively speaking, I feel like these politicians have not just broken into my house but have also taken a dump on the floor.

On top of all this is the continuing employment of Jeremy Hunt. It is perhaps this, more than any other policy or PR exercise, that defines how Cameron's clique sees itself and how it will come to be regarded by the rest of the country. However feeble reporting of government spin can sometimes be, Hunt's survival is an insult the public will find hard to ignore.

These examples - and there are many others - show what little value most coalition members attach to their role as representatives of the electorate. This government is disappearing into the distance, out of sight from any notion of serving the interests of the vast majority of voters. So the critical issue is this: if the government thinks we are too dumb or venal or lazy to register any meaningful response to the rhetorical camouflage behind which its leading figures hide, we can either prove it wrong or prove it right. The consequences of the latter are almost too frightening to consider.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1565663 2012-06-03T19:00:00-04:00 2012-08-03T05:12:17-04:00

George Chesterton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-chesterton/
Not only is 'respect for the Queen' the default position in the media and politics, but in a recession the idea of something as unsettling as ending the monarchy can be dismissed as a waste of money and a priority of abyssal insignificance. However, in the long term it is anything but.

The removal of the monarchy would have a slow-burning but ultimately dramatic effect on how we see history and, of course, how we see our future and so its end would be tied in with almost everything people think of as of important - the economy, foreign policy, social mobility and our identity as a nation or nations.

The fall of the monarchy would be painful and there is no purpose in pretending it would be anything other than a traumatic jolt (as it was in 1649). But fairness is like justice: it has to be seen to be done - even though the effects of this great act of fairness and justice would take time to register in the public consciousness. Dethronement would not dismantle our adaptable class system, but until it happens the national psychological handbrake remains on.

In terms of collective identity we remain prisoners of the past, and our very prominent and conspicuous monarchy is probably the greatest contributor to this. It focuses the minds of subjects and students of all ages on the 'natural' order of rulers and the ruled. British history is literally defined by kings and queens, despite a shift in the post-war academic and populist teaching of the subject. The end of the monarchy as a living entity would allow psychological space for the belief in new possibilities to grow organically among the wider public. There are huge and daunting unknowns about such a drastic reordering of the establishment, but that is a crucial part of its appeal.

Nobody has ever come up with an exhaustive list of what constitutes the values of the nations that make Britain and long may that continue. Not knowing who we are is what makes us who we are. It is often argued that the Queen is a kind of fixed point that helps us keep our bearings in a changing world, but even if that were true it should not be enough to justify the monarchy's continued existence in a society so riddled with inequality.

She, without wishing to be personal, represents that inequality.

Perhaps the best reason of all for ending the monarchy is because it would be a symbol of fairness in a world where most people are reminded of unfairness in public life on a daily basis.

Symbolism is very important, as the Queen no doubt understands. Being the nation's grandmother is all very well (grandmothers are important too) but her role precipitates the privileged peerage, an unelected house of lords, an established church and a host of other iniquities that do not so much support the foundations of the nation as lie rotting behind the paintwork as the house slowly crumbles.

Britain is post-colonial in many ways: its interconnectness with Europe, its ethnicity, its plurality. But still the monarchy keeps our eyes locked on to notions of Britain as a great power, something that has contributed indirectly to a foolhardy foreign policy and even to post-industrial decline. Involvement in conflicts since 1945 has largely been an attempt to hang on to a semblance of international influence and such a mindset has been at the expense, sometimes literally, of a focus on economic modernisation. It is as if we have never had a free hand to concentrate fully on the wealth and health of the nation because of our inability to resist the pull of global power games and costly, bloody interventions. It is not that the monarchy in itself causes wars or damages the economy, but its presence makes it almost impossible for Britain and its constituent parts to face the future with any sense of vision or vigour. The country is like middle-aged man constantly trying to relive his youth - full of guilt, regret and longing. Constitutional change would effectively force us to see ourselves as a "new" country.

Change would not mean breaking links with the past, but merely one version of it. A republic could reconnect the nation with its own dynamism, its own slightly mad journey through the centuries. It is precisely because our history is so rich, so multi-layered, so engrossing that it would survive. Our heritage isn't going anywhere whatever happens to the monarchy. Change might even give us a chance to see more of its compelling narratives and make us feel like we are involved in it rather than sensing it as something apart from us, like ol' man river, rolling on inscrutably to the horizon.

British politics, especially when it comes to constitutional matters, is a litany of expediency and that tradition has become an excuse for doing nothing. Getting rid of the monarchy isn't going to "solve" anything - but it would remove the great barrier to democracy that we have been parked behind for so many years. We need to become a nation of voters and an elected head of state (whatever the limits of its power), the end of hereditary titles and an elected second chamber would send out a clear message that though inequality exists, it is no longer built directly into the constitution itself.

The problem with removing the monarchy is that people assume it would be so difficult it is almost not worth bothering with. Even republicans respect the Queen, but respect shouldn't be confused with approval for the institution. Getting rid of the monarchy is a bit like Everest. The answer to the question "why?" is because it is there.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1476755 2012-05-04T05:21:04-04:00 2012-07-04T05:12:04-04:00

George Chesterton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-chesterton/
The result is a poll that has the Conservatives on 29%. It's easy to see why David Cameron, George Osborne and friends have fallen so low in the public's estimation. What is really incredible is how they were ever popular in the first place. That people felt they should elect this Conservative-led government is a national tragedy that is turning into a farce.

Many commentators on the left have been saying: "I told you so" about the Tories, and quite right too. But that does not explain why so many voters felt comfortable backing a clique who were so obviously driven by entitled arrogance and the influence of corporations seeking to turn government policy to their advantage.

Phone hacking, police corruption, party funding, Leveson, ministers genuflecting before Rupert Murdoch, the dismantling of the public sector and the failure of austerity - they all share an important connection. They were all 'revealed' to an apparently ignorant public, who are now enraged and showing their disgust in the polls. For those who suspected the failings and unpleasantness of this government its current predicament is no surprise at all. But what about those who voted for them in 2010?

The lack of media dissent that so helped shore up Tory support over the past two years has been bordering on conspiratorial. But the old accusation that the media can influence voters by telling them what to think is misleading. It isn't what the papers say that wins elections - it's what they don't say.

The best example of this is, of course, over the economy. Scaremongering over the national debt and the 'deficit' (how many really knew what it meant, let alone how to make a judgement) turned austerity into an unquestionable orthodoxy. Only the media could have done this. But suddenly it's okay to talk about Barack Obama's infrastructure investment and Keynesian economics again. Where was all this two years ago?

The public outrage over the exposure of apparent corruption and economic incompetence suggests the surprise was genuine. But it also illustrates how uninformed so many people have become. This current unravelling was precipitated by the right-wing media's (reluctant) acceptance that Conservative mistakes and scandals could not be ignored. In a sense, the phone hacking exposé was the genesis of the government's entire public relations catastrophe, but if the Daily Mail had not been forced to engage in the process it would have withered and died. What this shows is that our media is, in large part, responsible for the subjects and standards of national discourse and it has been the suppression of other voices that has done such long-term damage to the public's understanding of the issues and ability to engage in active political thought and discussion. Fundamentally, this is about how people decide who to vote for.

What really gives the game away about the relationship between public opinion and political control is the way the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph have turned on their former allies. If the media still backed the government they would not have fallen so low in the polls. But the right-wing press are now lancing the boil of ignorance and misinformation that they had been responsible for nurturing. Of course this change of heart is a business decision, just as it had been to attack opponents of the free market up to this point. They probably would still be backing the Conservatives had not the phone hacking scandal and the aftershocks of Leveson exposed the web strangling any hope of decency and honesty in the system.

There has never been a politician without some vested interest, but the dismemberment of the public sector for corporate vultures marks a new low for a brazen plutocracy whose only defence under questioning is to hide, delay or lie. Suddenly many Conservative voters sense that they backed an administration almost unique in its hollowness and lack of ideals.

For years the right-wing media - along with a centrist but brow-beaten BBC and populist ITV - have controlled the agenda. But now the agenda is controlling them. Leveson, or rather the ripples that emanate from Leveson, is doing to the Conservatives what Toto did to the Wizard of Oz. That the curtain has been torn down as time their economic policies are being discredited is a (un)fortunate coincidence, depending on your colours.

There are no prizes for guessing who has been the overarching figure of this starvation diet of ideas. Murdoch was given permission to control the agenda, the agenda was rigged, the politicians benefited from the agenda but then owed him something in return. It applies to Murdoch but also to every private power seeking influence.

Of course he was pursuing the interests of his company and as a businessman of genius he should not have to apologise for that. But perhaps we should all apologise for permitting this arrangement at the heart of modern politics for so long. It's one of the main reasons we find ourselves in this mess today.]]>