An English saying goes; ‘A change is as good as a rest.’ Undoubtedly observable truism, let’s briefly look at the two concepts under the microscope. Perhaps, as many have suggested, the Labour Party could do with a rest. A bit of a respite from governance and power politics, then from its timeout position in opposition, the natural fallout of electoral defeat would tone the party once more, allow a new generation of new thinkers to emerge, and proceed to power once more.
The concept is Khaldunian. Ibn Khaldunian was a medieval Arab philosopher who observed that life on the margins of power engenders vitality and dynamism. In stark contrast extensive tenures in power corrupt, negate and ultimately lead to stagnation and decline. What eventually occurs is the dynamic outsiders usurp the stagnant powerbrokers and form a new government. Over time the recently dynamic decline as well, power sapping at their vitality until they too are usurped. The idea is known as a Khaldunian Cycle.
This is what happened to Labour during the late Thatcher and Major premierships. The party moved closer to centre ground, reformatted itself, gave way to a new generation comprised of the now familiar names. Indeed, the time out has forced the Conservative Party to reconsider its own style, status and position. So hopefully, in the limited space available for a blog one can see the merit of ‘rest’.
Now the Tories claim they are the party of change, but can they really claim that. Time for a change is an ambiguous statement – what really irks me about it is the amorality of the sound-bite. Change doesn’t necessarily mean better, or worse. Consider then, is the change, as advocated by David Cameron, for the better or the worse? He doesn’t say, no doubt he would claim for the better, but as always the devil’s in the detail of the party’s manifesto.
Change for the sake of change is not good enough. That might work in a more flippant environment when deciding to have an unhealthy takeaway, rather than cook a healthy meal at home, or going on holiday when you can scarcely afford it, justifying both instances with; ‘I fancied a change’. Sure change is good, but one can’t afford it so flippantly on a governmental level. Policy is what counts, not change for its sake alone.
There is no substance behind Cameron’s assertion. It is merely a sound-bite, and an attempt to imitate the success of such mantra’s that characterised Barack Obama’s campaign. I don’t know what’s more tragic, that our politicians here feel the need to mimic the presidential politics of America, rather than tailor make a strategy unique to Britain, or that the whole concept of politics is reduced to populist maxims, totally divorced from substance.
Change is an empty sentiment in effect. As with most democracies Britain’s governing system is divided between the government, elected with a mandate from the political parties, and the bureaucracy, unelected, unaccountable to the electorate and who don’t leave the job every five years. The bureaucracy is continuous and from its ranks emerge the so-called ‘Whitehall Mandarin’s and figures who will advise any government as to how to proceed. Real change would require the replacement of the bureaucracy. This won’t happen. That’s why changes in government don’t necessarily lead to change in policy, as the rapidly deflating Obamania has illustrated. In fact as Albert Camus has argued, historically only bloody revolutions such as the French, Russian, Iranian and Chinese revolutions have succeeded in effecting ‘change’, and with devastating consequences.
See Cameron is just clever with words. He appeals to change by just uttering the word, repetitively, he shore’s up his legitimacy by citing how popular high street names support him, but not suggesting there’s might be a vested interest. Cameron tells his audience, if you work hard you should keep the fruit of you labour. Sure, who doesn’t like that? It’s a streamlined argument appealing to common sense. But reconsider it in light of the Labour criticism.
The contingent policy to the claim will allow for the super-rich, people like Lord Ashcroft, who has contributed next to nothing to the Welfare System of Britain, will get to keep their millions, untaxed. Meanwhile, if you work every hour God sends for minimum wage, in the austerity Britain that the Conservatives envisage, you will have little more to show for it in terms of disposable income. What’s more, Cameron’s proposed cuts would mean that you’d receive less by way of public services. In reality you would be worse off. The policy appeals to common sense, but in application will affect only a minority.
Take other proposals too. Cameron would allow parent’s the right to set up and establish their own schools. These would receive only limited government funding. On the face of it, it once more appeals to good sense – why not, you might ask. Again, reconsider; only those families that could afford one parent to not work and run a school would be able to do so. Those single-parent families or less than £50,000+ salaried households would never be able to afford to take time off to set up a school. The result could end up being segregation, with children from more affluent backgrounds educated separately from those with less means, of which a large number are likely to belong to ethnic minorities. The ‘success’ of such a scheme would in turn justify cuts to education services in accordance with less children going through state education.
There is a lot more one could criticise about the Conservative policy, like their scaremongering about Europe, which is really the only way Britain can punch above its weight, and their implicit suggestion that foreign military adventurism in the vein of Iraq is not unlikely.
What scares me is that politics has been redacted to populist maxims of dubious quality that reek of the kind of newspeak that George Orwell spoke out against. Furthermore the vainglorious Cameron, plays upon his poreless pretty-boy image and utilises his oratorical skills – laced less with substance and empiricism and more with anecdotalism – in order to juxtapose with Gordon Brown. True, Gordon Brown is not the most charismatic leader, but he is a decent steward whose leadership has averted total crisis, who has not mimicked Obama, but had Obama imitate him, at least economically.
Fine Brown made a gaffe, and it wasn’t nice, but it shows he’s human. We’re all guilty of losing our temper, as he did. What does Cameron, or indeed any politician say in private? Brown hasn’t hidden his character faults, nor has he hidden away his cabinet from public scrutiny throughout the campaign, as Cameron has done as though he has something to hide. This election should be about substance, which Brown has in abundance, whilst Cameron and the Tories can only promise diminished returns.
