The current state of affairs in the United Kingdom
A rough and somewhat bizarre impression of the current challenges facing the constituents of the United Kingdom can be summarized in the GEL cartoon which appeared recently on CybaCity.com and which we reproduce below.
The United Kingdom is already in an economic crisis which is inadequately covered in many UK media. This dulls the popular perceptions as to the associated risks on the part of many leading to a lack of urgency in preventing an inevitable transformation of this state of affairs into a constitutional crisis. This situation has been created by inappropriate decisions and policies, introduced by past governments led by the prime ministers: Margaret Thatcher (Conservative), Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (New Labour), the David Cameron-Nick Clegg coalition (Conservative-Liberal Democrats), Theresa May (Conservative) and Boris Johnson (Conservative). The cumulative result, for all to behold, is a decadence in the structure and operation of the UK economy which is prejudicing the wellbeing of increasing numbers of constituents.
If one reviews the number of issues needing to be addressed it becomes apparent that the government is unlikely to be able to address them all in a timely manner.
Although Boris Johnson's strategy is managed by others, including "special advisers", his ability to deliver an effective message is declining rapidly. Tony Blair, for example, had a more effective and deft ability to mould misrepresentations of the facts into convincing messages delivered with a completely straight face.
A significant problem facing the Conservative government is their need to realize that the ways and means they won the election do not translate into the most effective ways of creating appropriate policies and governing in a manner that will maintain public support (see box "Exasperation" on the right). This particular topic will be reviewed in future articles in Emancipation since it is a significant component of the emerging constitutional crisis.
In the future editions of Emancipation we will explore all of the constitutional and economic challenges facing the United Kingdom. Much of this analysis will concern inappropriate decisions made by different "leaders" which represent a mix of belief in unreliable economic theories which in practice failed. There is also the ingredient of the taking of tactical decisions to maintain the power of private political parties with tiny, almost, inexpressive memberships. It is often not fully appreciated that the governance of the Britain has been dominated by factional minority political parties. This has had a significant impact on the quality of governance over an extended period. This is a direct cause of the apparent lack of intellectual critical mass and relevant talents within the body of Members of Parliament and from which political parties select ministers and a leader (prime minister). Such governments are not at ease with an impartial civil service but normally wish to push an agenda. This has given rise to the need to contract in unelected "special advisers" who have not been subjected to adequate scrutiny. Naturally with such deficits in the capabilities of politicians justifying the contracting of "special advisers" the balance in decision analyses invariably ends up with the adviser gaining too much influence over decision-making affecting the wellbeing of the population. This reality appears to have resulted in dishonest election tactics deployed by political parties and, in government, assertive, poorly designed actions and non-participatory decisions to implement them.
This analysis will not be aimed at attacking individuals but rather will attempt to highlight what were often honestly held wrong ideas leading to inappropriate decisions. It was inevitable, and is no revelation to state, that the leadership of the country, under such circumstances, has increasingly lost grip of an adequate understanding of constituent needs and has increasingly shifted emphasis towards identity and dog whistle demagoguery.
Government social and economic policies have multiple implications arising from their impacts on families, individual wellbeing and state of the economy. The analysis of the likely impacts of policies is somewhat of a maze. A significant problem facing constituents is misrepresentation and propaganda disseminated by the leading UK media and some representatives of political parties.
However, it is important to be able to review and compare the significance of each type of policy decision for families. We therefore intend to provide analyses that are balanced, thorough and presented in an easy to understand format so that constituents can identify those options that are preferable and worthy of support.
This work has been initiated through Policy Forum a site for the development of propositions for change focusing on the interests of the majority of UK constituents and involving constituent participation. This new iniytiative was launched and is supported by APE (Agence Presses Européenne). The site can be accessed by clicking on the image on the right.
We have recently passed through a period where proposed policy benefits have been misrepresented though exaggeration of benefits when in reality they are likely to benefit very limited numbers of individuals who are closely associated with political parties through financial contributions and influence through the media. Unfortunately politicians make promises to gain votes and yet they will abandon such promises if their majority is sufficient so as to enable them not to be bound by their mandate promises. Under the UK electoral and parliamentary arrangements parliamentary opposition can achieve little under such circumstances. Naturally, transparency on the actual balance of distribution of benefits and prejudice throughout the population is an essential factor in policy analysis. It provides a basis for voters to identify those policies they should not support.