Know Your Place
Wednesday, December 19
Permission withdrawn
Seriously: can you tell the difference?
They look the same. They sound the same. They're both ambitious, young media types-turned party leaders. They believe in more or less the same thing. And they both - oh, Jesus - give the same speeches. Have a look at some of these titbits from Clegg's acceptance speech:
" ... Today is about two things: ambition, and change.
It’s about renewed ambition for Britain.
Because we want to change politics, and change Britain.
Above all, our politics is broken.
Out of step with people.
Out of step with the modern world.
That is why I have one sole ambition: to change Britain to make it the liberal country the British people want it to be.
I want a new politics: a people’s politics ..."
It makes you want to gouge your eyes out with pencils. Verbless sentences. Vapid sentiments. The usual demand for 'change.' This is a style of speaking created and perfected by Blair and his minions and it utterly dominates British politics now. Ming and Gordon can't do it convincingly - which is one reason they were sidelined. It's the politics of the marketing department: dress up your lack of ideas with idea-free words. Sound inspiring whilst saying nothing. It's Orwellian, in the accurate sense of that overused word: deliberately designed, meaningless language 'falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details.' This way you can claim to represent something different whilst representing something precisely the same as you will get from the rest of them: the vapid market worship of our ruling elites.Already the political journalists and 'commentators' are twittering on about which section of the electorate Clegg and his gang will choose to 'target' at the next election; how they will 'position' themselves; what 'tactics' and 'strategy' they will use to persusde we foolish many to loan them our permission to form part of the cabal that runs this shabby little nation on behalf of the masters of the global economy.
Well fuck them all. This latest feeble charade in the long feeble charade that is our 'democracy' has made my mind up about something I have been considering for a long time. From now on, I am not voting. I will not give these people my permission. I will not take part in this game. I will not participate in their jostling for scraps from the table of power. I will not legitimise them; any of them. That's it. I'm out. Do you what you want, you fresh-faced, power-hungry bland little boys. Enjoy yourselves. Just keep away from me.
Posted by Paul at 10:52 AM 
11 Comments
Looks like you've bought the line of the right wing press. The same? You wish. Read any of Clegg's political writing, I dare you.
Right wing? Hmm. There was a whole Newsnight discussion last night about the LibDem's probable 'shift to the right' under Cleggy boy. Starting with the notoriously right-wing 'Orange Book.' I suppose I could read that.
I would expect a Lib Dem to disagree with me, of course. But since the point of this post is to point out that the Cleggster's words are largely menaingless - as are those of the political class as a whole - I can't say I'm very interested in seeking out more of them. I'll keep an eye on his actions instead.
Damnit, Paul! You should've nicked my line:
http://charliemarks.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/david-cleggeron-is-new-liberal-leader/
Here's what the FT said on the lack of a clear win:
"The lack of a resounding endorsement from the party’s left-leaning activists may make it harder for Mr Clegg to establish his authority and pursue more radical public service reforms to extend choice and diversity"
Translation: aw shee-it, our boy's gonna find it hard to call for more public services to be handed over to big business.
BTW, can't wait for the new book.
Posted by: 
Charlie Marks at 8:04 AM
The rest of this post is fine, but this line....
"I will not take part in this game. I will not participate in their jostling for scraps from the table of power. I will not legitimise them; any of them. That's it. I'm out. Do you what you want, you fresh-faced, power-hungry bland little boys. Enjoy yourselves. Just keep away from me."
... is a cop out Paul. Democracy has many failings, but there are sections in at least two of the main political parties (I'll give you a clue - neither of them begin with a 'C', end with an 'E' or rhyme with 'Wonservative'.
Join either. Or join another. Or form one. Or stand on your own ticket.
But if there's a general 'they' in that post of yours, 'they' don't want you to vote.
Fuck 'em. Vote.
Apologies - there was an unfinished sentance in that last comment. It should have read...
There are sections in at least two of the main political parties that promote decentralisation and a return to the values of representative democracy - better, principled representation and a less reflexive approach to public policy.
Afraid I have to disagree Paulie.
It's not a 'cop out' at all. It's an honest recognition, built on the back of many years of writing and campaigning, that the political system is unable to solve these problems.
There are 'sections' in all three parties - including the Tories actually - which are strong on these things. But those 'sections' will be sidelined if they ever reach power - precisely what happened to NuLab when we all had such high hopes in '97. Clegg and his gang are the same bunch of market freebooters in liberal clothing.
I could vote Green, but they have no chance of getting near government. I could form my own party, which would have no chance of even getting a seat.
Or I could choose to look elsewhere for new ways of doing things. I have simply become convinced that this system is too big and entrenched to change in the ways it needs to. I would be very surprised if I was wrong, about this if nothing else.
It's the worst way of running things - apart from all the others.
Do you think that the reason that the political parties behave like they do once they achieve power is because they are all secretly centralising spin-doctors, or is it that there are factors that none of them can ignore - particularly, the way that their work is reported, the way that civil servants react to new faces that don't share the same strategic intent as they do, the way that pressure groups can hi-jack policymaking, etc.
Two of the main parties (at least) have people who are committed to doing something to minimise those factors - the ones that diminish and compete with representative democracy.
Political despair leads to something far worse than what we have now...
I think it's because the system they find themselves running is really not theirs to control. They can do nothing about the global markets, for a start, which will determine the limits of their policy within a very narrow field. No mere UK political party can challenge this. In my last book I have a chapter on how the South African government had its well-intentioned plans for racial equality and poverty reduction torpedoed by globalisation, how they were quite aware of that, and how they knew they could do nothing about it. Just one example of many.
They are also wedded to an international system of political alliances and rivalries they cannot change significantly. They are committed to never challenging the appetites of their voters, who continue to demand more roads, cheaper petrol, more goodies and more flights even as they tell pollsters they are concerned about the environment. They are lobbied hard, and sometimes controlled, by vast and powerful multinational companies And yes, they have the media and the NGOs to contend with too.
No political party can produce anything useful out of this mix. The odd new law here and there, or the abolition of an old one, will of course be forthcoming, as will endless 'reforms' of everything they can get their hands on. But the direction of overall travel remains the same.
I wouldn't like to suggest that politics achieves 'nothing' because that would obviously be untrue. But if you are concerned, as I am, about the overall direction of travel of the modern world, this is not something you should expect a politician - who, after all, wants to help run it - to do anything useful about.
As I say, I would love to be proved wrong. But I don't think young Mr Clegg is going to be the man to do it.
And, finally, it's not about despair - it's about the joy of letting go. I recommend reading the Jensen essay to which a poster linked above. it's very well put.
I think that the degree of control that can be exercised, say, by an EU member state, and South Africa as it emerged from the trauma of Apartheid, is quite different. But we can go around this one for ages chucking Naomi Klein and Stiglitz books at each other.
I think you are absolutely right not to put faith in individual politicians. But I also think that there is a workeable approach that the centre / left (and even elements within the Tories) would largely agree upon that could reduce the degree of political centralisation and allow politics to be a worthwhile diversion again.
And you can't advocate these kind of approaches without being active in electoral politics (and being prepared to acknowledge that there are the occassional developments that *are* driven by politicians that are turning the centralising tide in places).
I'm glad I've voted for a party that devolved power in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London - and that my last Labour vote will probably result in the end of hereditary peerage and a largely elected Lords.
Paul - I love your words "it's not about despair - it's about the joy of letting go".
Some have said I'm opting out because I refuse to abdicate personal responsibility to a bunch of ego-centric morons.
I used to vote, purely because women died for my right to do so, not because I thought voting changed anything. Then I realised the giant con 'allowing' women to vote has been - simply getting them to opt into a self-perpetuating scam that gives a select few, complete (mainly patriarchial) power over an even wider mass of people.
That aside, if anyone has a love of self-determination and autonomy, of real justice and equality and community, they couldn't prop up a system that so devastatingly undermines these things. How can you stand up to corporations that wreck society and the environment, yet support their actvities through the ballot box and their chosen representative. How can you be against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and our other wonderful foreign interventions), yet support them through the pretence of 'democratic' voting. That's the very hypocrisy we accuse politicians of.
The trouble with the 'joy of letting go', is that it isn't enough as we realise our potential! It's soon replaced with the joy of living outside the State wherevever possible, of finding/forming societies of like-minded escapees and helping others to dig a tunnel too. (That's usually when you start getting arrested - ha!)
