Skip to main content

Me, me, me...

Oh dear... the launch of the "unofficial" UK election campaign in a blaze of posters seems to have begun.

Discussion about the profound, existential crisis facing the country is reduced to some unilluminating truisms- preferably banal ones. The absurdly airbrushed David Cameron announces that he will cut the deficit and not the NHS. Hmm... The NHS is in another crisis. Not, it is true, the funding crisis that it endured under the Conservatives, but a far more serious one. The system as it currently stands soaks up more money and delivers generally worse outcomes than most European comparables. The lack of accountability and responsibility is leading to gold plating at every level: the tripling of GPs compensation over the past decade has not delivered triple the care- indeed GPs now work a fraction of the time that they worked 15 years ago. Hospitals struggle to cope with basic cleanliness- and unrestricted visiting is sending MRSA and other superbug infections out into the community. The NHS is highly dysfunctional, but Mr. Cameron dares not be seen as a threat to this holy cow.

Meanwhile the use of the personal pronoun "I will..." underlines the central role of Mr. Cameron in the campaign, but the reality of our Parliamentary system and indeed the scale of the crisis requires huge collaboration and much high level teamwork. Apart from the potential hostage to fortune that taking the challenge personally represents, the fact is, it is not true: Mr. Cameron can do nothing on his own, and it is a mistake to pretend that he can.

As the first salvos are loaded the fight a long election campaign, my heart sinks at the prospect of shrill trite, dishonest and just plain stupid political debate, when all the time the hour of economic reckoning comes closer.

This is not a very adult way to start the debate.

Comments

Anonymous said…
With a commentary like that, you should be a conservative.

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie. 

The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship. 

The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and the j…

Breaking the Brexit logjam

The fundamental problem of Brexit has not been that the UK voted to leave the European Union. The problem has been the fact that the vote was hijacked by ignorant, grandstanding fools who interpreted the vote as a will to sever all and every link between the UK and the European Union. That was then and is now a catastrophic policy. To default to WTO rules, when any member of the WTO could stop that policy was a recipe for the UK to be held hostage by any state with an act to grind against us. A crash out from the EU, without any structure to cope, was an act of recklessness that should disqualify anyone advocating it from any position of power whatsoever. That is now the most likely option because the Conservative leadership, abetted by the cowardly extremism of Corbyn, neither understood the scale of the crisis, now had any vision of how to tackle it.

Theresa May is a weak and hapless Prime Minster, and her problems started when she failed to realize that there was a compromise that w…

The rumbling financial markets

Security specialists use a variety of ways to address the risks that they face: and these risk assessments are made in the certain knowledge that the actors in the system hold only incomplete information. Although much mocked at the time, Donald Rumsfeld’s categorization of “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”, is now generally recognized as a succinct summery of his strategic quandaries.
By contrast, actors in the financial markets have a more sanguine assessment of the risks they deal with: they divide them into two kinds of risk: quantifiable and unquantifiable. Unquantifiable risk is not generally considered, since there is usually no financial profit that can be made except from pure supposition. Therefore for the purposes of the financial markets, any given event is priced relative to its level of probability, that is to say its quantifiable risk. 
Depending on the market, higher levels of risk generally carry higher prices, lower levels generally lower prices. Clearly such an…