Perhaps there is a
lesson in all this civil unrest and the rise of populism for 'those who would be Kings'; what happens when higher
education is made less inclusive, more unaffordable and less
academically attainable to larger numbers of people, while increasing numbers of them find it harder to find work thus attain the symbols of success and happiness, we are perpetually encouraged to dedicate our lives to the pursuit of?
Not like usWhy do the vast majority of MPs put loyalty to their party leaders ahead of the promises they make to their electors? Maybe because the decision to enter Parliament for most MPs is a career decision, and voting against the decisions of the party leader can be a very bad career move. The career culture gives an MPs an incentive to go back on the promises that got them elected.
Maybe, or maybe not, for a start, rather than continually misrepresenting the general situation, Occupy would be well served by focusing on a concrete example where any MP has made a promise to them then reneged on it, as it stands the Occupy movement appears as a child who isn't getting their own way moaning; "but you pwomised", shouting "i hate you" towards the reified concept of "most MPs", acting as the oppressive father figure they apparently perceive everywhere.
Individual MP's overwhelmingly stand as members of a political party in various different constituencies, their party's manifesto is a collaborative document based on thorough research of what reforms or policies are possible, what will increase their popular support and thus increase their chances of getting elected.
This manifesto, and the individual MPs decision to join and stand for a particular party, is underpinned by their respective ideological positions, this determines what direction policy will take, in what way, and what popular interests they will appeal to, the party is a collaborative project who's individual politicians elect their leader, in this regard there are very clear ideological distinctions not only between but more implicitly within the parties.
While the Conservatives vowed to tackle the deficit with austerity measures; cost cutting applied to public services decreasing Government expenditure, while increasing corporate and foreign investment by lowering corporate tax and tax rates for top earners, in contrast Labour would have done so through higher taxes on top earners and by investing in public services to create economic growth, there are more extreme attitudes towards both these policies within each party, so to create a unified front compromises are inevitably made, and personal views are of secondary importance to the health of the whole.
Each party openly serves particular interests, directly their membership and doners to the party and indirectly various members of the public, who have variously more or less to gain by the election of one or the other, for instance those earning more than £1million per year, with large homes, raising the top rate of tax and introducing a mansion tax would be issues to vote against, for those on benefits the Conservative policy of freezing benefits and attempting to remove them altogether would be an issue to vote against.
Were this not merely a flawed attempt to justify the authors cynicism, they might have been more accurate and said "perhaps because the decision to enter Parliament for most MP's is based on their desire to help people" and voting in a minority of one to make some symbolic point doesn't ever achieve that.
This manifesto, and the individual MPs decision to join and stand for a particular party, is underpinned by their respective ideological positions, this determines what direction policy will take, in what way, and what popular interests they will appeal to, the party is a collaborative project who's individual politicians elect their leader, in this regard there are very clear ideological distinctions not only between but more implicitly within the parties.
While the Conservatives vowed to tackle the deficit with austerity measures; cost cutting applied to public services decreasing Government expenditure, while increasing corporate and foreign investment by lowering corporate tax and tax rates for top earners, in contrast Labour would have done so through higher taxes on top earners and by investing in public services to create economic growth, there are more extreme attitudes towards both these policies within each party, so to create a unified front compromises are inevitably made, and personal views are of secondary importance to the health of the whole.
Each party openly serves particular interests, directly their membership and doners to the party and indirectly various members of the public, who have variously more or less to gain by the election of one or the other, for instance those earning more than £1million per year, with large homes, raising the top rate of tax and introducing a mansion tax would be issues to vote against, for those on benefits the Conservative policy of freezing benefits and attempting to remove them altogether would be an issue to vote against.
Were this not merely a flawed attempt to justify the authors cynicism, they might have been more accurate and said "perhaps because the decision to enter Parliament for most MP's is based on their desire to help people" and voting in a minority of one to make some symbolic point doesn't ever achieve that.
The fact is there are numerous "rebellious" politicians who frequently vote against their Party leaders and Chief Whips, and it does their career no harm, infact quite the opposite; the continual affirmation of this symbolic rebellion goes some way to convincing the people who matter, the people who vote to elect them, that they are being represented properly in Westminster, for example George Galloway earned far more for his appearances on Iranian State TV as a Respect MP, than he ever did as a rebellious Labour politician.
This goes back to a point made in the previous entry, people will generally not base their vote on appearances, on a few sweet nothings whispered into the electorates ear prior to an election, elected politicians in a certain region reflect the ideology of the populace within that region, those with political nous, those with a grasp on the history of politics and a tradition of support for a particular party, will not be moved to vote against their party, regardless of what "promises" are made they won't betray their personal ingrained cultural perspective, their political self; somebody with right wing views on race, nationality, capitalism or the economy, will never vote for the Labour Party, likewise those on the Left with a genuine Left-wing perspective will never vote for a party like UKIP or the Conservatives, it would be a betrayal of their political self.
There are regions where the Labour Party have never, and in all likelihood will not in the next hundred years get the majority of votes, regardless of what carrots are dangled in front of the electorate, unfortunately I live in one of these constituencies.
Where this idea of promises is relevant is in reference to those without any political sense of self, those who base their concept of self on idealist or utopian notions of "love", religious idealism or "spiritual revolution", or who define themselves by what they consume and what is produced to appeal to them, these are the people easily manipulated by spin, promises and PR campaigns designed to seduce them into voting one way or another, or even not to vote at all, appealing to people's basest instincts through media coverage during the run up to elections, this decision is even sometimes based on the physical appearance of the potential candidates on offer, no less superficial is the way they allow themselves to be manipulated by Right Wing fearmongering over the EU or immigrants.
This is an inevitable side effect of the Neo-Liberal revolution in economics since Thatcher, people bought the lie that they could escape their traditional socio-economic status if they became individualistic, aspirational, worked hard and embraced the concept of consumer credit, rather than being defined by traditional notions of class or culture.
The overwhelming majority has embraced a hollow culture of consumerism, using the means available to them they have become defined by the objects, images and ideas available for purchase, this is the ultimate bargaining chip for any political party willing to appeal to the basest instincts of the electorate, and it inevitably benefits the "Party of Free-Trade" the Conservatives, also being used by others on the Right such as UKIP, who portray 'the freedom to consume' as being under threat by immigration, the equality driven Labour Party and antithetical reforms proposed by the Green Party.
This is an inevitable side effect of the Neo-Liberal revolution in economics since Thatcher, people bought the lie that they could escape their traditional socio-economic status if they became individualistic, aspirational, worked hard and embraced the concept of consumer credit, rather than being defined by traditional notions of class or culture.
The overwhelming majority has embraced a hollow culture of consumerism, using the means available to them they have become defined by the objects, images and ideas available for purchase, this is the ultimate bargaining chip for any political party willing to appeal to the basest instincts of the electorate, and it inevitably benefits the "Party of Free-Trade" the Conservatives, also being used by others on the Right such as UKIP, who portray 'the freedom to consume' as being under threat by immigration, the equality driven Labour Party and antithetical reforms proposed by the Green Party.
One of the causes of this is that MPs today are increasingly unlike the people they represent. This is particularly true for government ministers. They are drawn from an increasingly narrow social spectrum: MPs are much more likely to have a relative who has served as a politician, they are more likely to be from better off backgrounds, and most of the cabinet were educated at public schools (the leaders of all three main parties, including Chancellor and Shadow Chancellor, went to Oxford.) Too many have limited experience of work outside the Westminster Village.
If you ever get the chance to go to a Primary School ask the pupils there, or if you know a Primary School teacher ask them "what do your pupils want to be when they grow up?"
Having had younger Brothers and Sisters, also having been a Child not too long ago myself, fortunately retaining a fairly decent memory of this nostalgic time, I think it's safe to say out of 100 less than 10 would say "Politician", you may get one or two who say Prime Minister, or a 'smart Alec' who says "King", but overwhelmingly you will find young people are more interested in being: sportstars; popstars; moviestars; celebrities; or rich, rather than construction workers; politicians; architects; dentists or administrators.
This is perhaps a cynical perspective on my part, but put yourself in the child's perspective, whenever they do see a Politician their parents are in all likelihood shouting at them via the television, or it will be via a distasteful picture in the Newspaper with an obviously negative headline, it's not politicians their Dad's dotingly watch week in week out on Sky Sports, or who all their friends are talking about and trying to emulate at school.
This is perhaps a cynical perspective on my part, but put yourself in the child's perspective, whenever they do see a Politician their parents are in all likelihood shouting at them via the television, or it will be via a distasteful picture in the Newspaper with an obviously negative headline, it's not politicians their Dad's dotingly watch week in week out on Sky Sports, or who all their friends are talking about and trying to emulate at school.
Children do not look up to politicians, despite there being a great many wonderful, selfless and determined politicians fighting to improve the lives of children, and the world in general; a wonderful public servant like Caroline Lucas, Alison Mcgovern, Liz Kendall or Stella Creasy will generally be unknown to them, while they probably have posters on their walls of a hedonistic, drug using popstar from Barbados known as Rihanna, the fact young people in general don't have respect for these determined and ethical individuals, is not helped by erroneous accusations such as those produced and cast indiscriminately by the Occupy London movement, gradually ossifying into a general milieu of ill feeling.
Children want to follow in the footsteps of the adults they respect and admire, this is evident in smarmy rich go-getters like David Cameron or George Osborne, and the leader of the opposition and his brother David who hold Marxist political perspectives; all following in their father's footsteps to some degree, it's even evident in me the Son of somebody who was long term unemployed despite not living within 600 miles of him for most of my youth.
But this is all besides the point, there is nothing stopping working class people joining a political party or working within the Parliamentary system to get elected as an MP or MEP, are the Occupy movement up in arms about the severe lack of Pakistani migrants working in Chinese takeaways, or the lack of Women working in painting and decorating or construction firms?
There is nothing stopping either group from doing so other than traditional cultural preferences, the only thing stopping the Occupy movement becoming politicians is their own personal ideology, the only constraints they have are of their own cynical making, take their talisman and Political spokesman of the celeb-mediocracy Russell Brand; does he become a hard working politician dedicated to political change, or merely carry on being an extremely rich writer of trivial teen-fiction, paying lip service to such things in "booky-wooks" and the mainstream media?
There is nothing stopping either group from doing so other than traditional cultural preferences, the only thing stopping the Occupy movement becoming politicians is their own personal ideology, the only constraints they have are of their own cynical making, take their talisman and Political spokesman of the celeb-mediocracy Russell Brand; does he become a hard working politician dedicated to political change, or merely carry on being an extremely rich writer of trivial teen-fiction, paying lip service to such things in "booky-wooks" and the mainstream media?
This attempt to frame all politicians as out of touch is merely a very crude attempt by the author, to falsify and reproduce the notion of Us v Them along lines more fitting with their own ideological position, it obfuscates the actual division inherent to the two-party system while garnering support for their own cynical perspective, they accuse politicians of looking up to the leader, but it's evident in reading their diatribes against all politicians and the Parliamentary system in general, that it's the leaders, and worst ones at that, that they themselves base their opinions of the majority, and accusations of elitism on.
Most of the current cabinet (and shadow cabinet) worked as ministerial aides, party researchers or as lobbyists. They see themselves as different from the people they represent. While most people have seen their wages stagnate since the recession, MPs awarded themselves an 11% pay rise. Only ten MPs saw fit to oppose this increase.
Perhaps the author would be better served looking through their own eyes, then they might notice less qualified managers employed in far more insignificant positions, bearing far less responsibility, working far shorter hours but earning substantially more money per year, for a much easier occupation than our Politicians, even in the same profession, most countries Politicians are far better paid than our own, but bankers, the initial ideological enemy of the Occupy Wall St movement, earn substantially more for contributing far less to society, their reward for serving the agenda of private acquisition ahead of the public good, makes an absolute mockery of the way we reward our public servants in the UK, if MPs are obsessed with "their career" and earning more wealth then why don't they become Bankers, Entrepreneurs or Salesmen instead?
This whole list of demands the more I read it appears to be little more than an ideologically charged attack on Politicians in general, it's clearly not based on concrete facts, rigorous logic or any form of political awareness and insight, but instead on a superficial understanding of modern society, Parliament and the way they operate, garnished with a desire for superficially appealing, punitive means of catharsis such as financial retribution and causing problems in public places.
There was a period when membership of the "upper house" was purely hereditary and was the dominant force in writing British Laws, a closed shop of the Aristocracy who governed the country on behalf of the Monarch, now the Hereditary privilege has been almost abolished, rather than those with valuable land holdings, the Lords is predominantly comprised of those with valuable expertise, the function is quite an important one, around 60% of its time is spent on legislation, where they are involved throughout the process of proposing, revising and amending legislation, while the remainder is spent scrutinizing Government aswell as debating relevant issues and policies, the Lords is actually a rather informative place where interesting, non-Government, non-Media opinions can be freely offered, not only to MPs, but to the people of the UK aswell, giving an independent insight to the workings of Government and various aspects of their work.
On the one hand Occupy asks for a more representative system of checks and balances in place, while on the other they condemn anyone attempting to partake in this system of checks and balances of "putting the interests of the party leader before anyone else", this is itself a gross misrepresentation of the facts, the party leader being little more than a figurehead elected by the party, it's infact the other way round, they have to show their party that they will do the best by that collaborative organization.
Cameron’s best chance of winning the next election is in using Lynton Crosby and the mainstream media to portray the Labour party as incompetent, a less economically viable version of their own self serving ideology, accusing them of being beholden to private interests (the democratic Trade Unions), convincing people to believe politicians are “all the same”[1], by a coordinated media attack on the only party representing the working class.
But are politicians really that far removed from "the realities of their constituents", are the people that utterly blameless and innocent that they wouldn't fiddle the expenses of an employer they feel grossly under-values them?
I'm not saying this is the case merely asking the question, many MPs have remained adamant that rules governing expenses were poorly explained, therefore ambiguous enough to facilitate such brazen abuse of the system as did occur, as for stating this was conducted by "many MPs" conveys the idea a majority were guilty of wrongdoing, when in actual fact it was a tiny minority who were convicted of any wrongdoing and forced to repay money, every large organization inevitably attracts a small number of bad apples, if indeed there was the intention of stealing in the first place.
It's apparently just Occupy misrepresenting the facts once again, in attempts to support their rejection of the entire parliamentary system, substantiating their own ideological bias, a vain attempt, in true populist fashion, to create the false dichotomy between "us (the people) and them (the politicians)", to appeal to the cynicism of the electorate, the youth and disenfranchised, by reproducing these superficially plausible, ideologically charged accusations, in much the same way as UKIP blames all problems on Immigration and Westminsters refusal to deport immigrants or asylum seekers, as the Nazi's pinned all blame for the depression and mass unemployment at the door of Jewish business owners and Jewish German citizens, and as the Conservative Party continually blames the global Banking crash on the Labour Government of Gordon Brown.
____
[1] BBC’s Tory correspondent Nick Robinson quoted by Kitty S Jones on her wonderful blog
This whole list of demands the more I read it appears to be little more than an ideologically charged attack on Politicians in general, it's clearly not based on concrete facts, rigorous logic or any form of political awareness and insight, but instead on a superficial understanding of modern society, Parliament and the way they operate, garnished with a desire for superficially appealing, punitive means of catharsis such as financial retribution and causing problems in public places.
One of the quickest routes to a peerage is to become a donor to one of the main political parties. The going rate seems to be about £1.4 million. And many peers are former MPs who have served their time in the House of Commons. The furious response from many conservative MPs at the planned cap on the number of peers, which Cameron soon abandoned, would indicate that the Lords is seen as a reward for putting the interests of the party leader above anything else.Without showing any understanding of the ideological differences between the Lib Dems, the Labour party and the Conservatives on this particular issue, the author again attempts to use this subject, generalizing it as a negative aspect of the British Parliamentary system, to further entrench their personal cynicism and justify the rejection of the entire Parliamentary system in the mind of the reader, they don't make a very convincing case.
There was a period when membership of the "upper house" was purely hereditary and was the dominant force in writing British Laws, a closed shop of the Aristocracy who governed the country on behalf of the Monarch, now the Hereditary privilege has been almost abolished, rather than those with valuable land holdings, the Lords is predominantly comprised of those with valuable expertise, the function is quite an important one, around 60% of its time is spent on legislation, where they are involved throughout the process of proposing, revising and amending legislation, while the remainder is spent scrutinizing Government aswell as debating relevant issues and policies, the Lords is actually a rather informative place where interesting, non-Government, non-Media opinions can be freely offered, not only to MPs, but to the people of the UK aswell, giving an independent insight to the workings of Government and various aspects of their work.
On the one hand Occupy asks for a more representative system of checks and balances in place, while on the other they condemn anyone attempting to partake in this system of checks and balances of "putting the interests of the party leader before anyone else", this is itself a gross misrepresentation of the facts, the party leader being little more than a figurehead elected by the party, it's infact the other way round, they have to show their party that they will do the best by that collaborative organization.
It's apparent that anything which can be used to substantiate the idea that all Politicians are self interested, self absorbed careerists, will be used by the Occupy movement, this is undoubtedly a Right Wing tactic, for Right Wing parties actually are composed of self interested, selfish careerists who care little about the plight of most people, as their attempts to appeal to the basest instincts of the electorate during the run up to elections also indicate, likewise the core support of the Conservatives and UKIP is also overwhelmingly inward looking, self obsessed and out of touch with reality.The expenses scandal revealed a sense of entitlement from our elected representatives that is completely divorced from the realities of their constituents, who are struggling to pay the rent, the fuel bills or feed their families.Are we all in this together? Apparently not, as far as many MPs are concerned.
Cameron’s best chance of winning the next election is in using Lynton Crosby and the mainstream media to portray the Labour party as incompetent, a less economically viable version of their own self serving ideology, accusing them of being beholden to private interests (the democratic Trade Unions), convincing people to believe politicians are “all the same”[1], by a coordinated media attack on the only party representing the working class.
But are politicians really that far removed from "the realities of their constituents", are the people that utterly blameless and innocent that they wouldn't fiddle the expenses of an employer they feel grossly under-values them?
I'm not saying this is the case merely asking the question, many MPs have remained adamant that rules governing expenses were poorly explained, therefore ambiguous enough to facilitate such brazen abuse of the system as did occur, as for stating this was conducted by "many MPs" conveys the idea a majority were guilty of wrongdoing, when in actual fact it was a tiny minority who were convicted of any wrongdoing and forced to repay money, every large organization inevitably attracts a small number of bad apples, if indeed there was the intention of stealing in the first place.
It's apparently just Occupy misrepresenting the facts once again, in attempts to support their rejection of the entire parliamentary system, substantiating their own ideological bias, a vain attempt, in true populist fashion, to create the false dichotomy between "us (the people) and them (the politicians)", to appeal to the cynicism of the electorate, the youth and disenfranchised, by reproducing these superficially plausible, ideologically charged accusations, in much the same way as UKIP blames all problems on Immigration and Westminsters refusal to deport immigrants or asylum seekers, as the Nazi's pinned all blame for the depression and mass unemployment at the door of Jewish business owners and Jewish German citizens, and as the Conservative Party continually blames the global Banking crash on the Labour Government of Gordon Brown.
____
[1] BBC’s Tory correspondent Nick Robinson quoted by Kitty S Jones on her wonderful blog
