Skip to main content

The Politics of Jelly and Ice Cream

As a child you may have wanted to eat jelly and ice cream for every meal, to eat it until you were sick. Yet, for most kids, there were adults to prevent such greed from causing their offspring such harm. In the end we put away childish things and if we eat jelly and ice cream today it is with an adult sense of moderation. Learning such moderation is a large part of growing up.

Yet our society today seems to reward the infantile and the irresponsible. The adult equivalent of jelly and ice cream is probably sex- and here we seem to revert to our inner child. The tawdry succession of sex partners that Katie Price, aka "glamour" model Jordan, has left in her wake has enabled the manipulative owners of the "Big Brother" franchise to populate their nasty programme with quite a few of Jordan's former bed mates. Ms. Price's candour- on the front page of gossip magazines, newspapers, and in a series of ghost written books- about her complicated, even tortured, love life is supposed to show her as some kind of empowered new woman. Of course it does not: her infantile screeching towards one of her ex-husbands, and the father of some of her children makes her out as a child inside a cartoon of a woman's body.

Yet, Katie Price is held up as some kind of role model in certain circles, which is pretty worrying if we want to bring up well adjusted, thoughtful, mature and kindly children. Jordan is a symptom of a widening coarseness in Britain: a country that is seemingly unprepared to impose adult disciplines of moderation upon itself.

Instead of saving-up for furniture or electronic goods, or any other "must-have" in our consumer society, people now buy them on the never-never and sometimes even throw their goods away before they have even finished paying for them. Nothing: not lack of money for consumer goods, not damaging your physical health with drink or emotional health with promiscuity must get in the way of the hit of immediate gratification.

Our politicians can recognise the zeitgeist. In order to get elected, it will not do to give the voters too many home truths. As a society we insist that we can have it all: material progress, environmental protection, deficit reduction, full employment, economic growth, universities and apprenticeships, housing and the green belt; but we can't, we must make choices. Leadership is being able to articulate these choices and convey the benefits, and the costs to the rest of society.

We have few leaders in the UK today. A very small number of political leaders since Margaret Thatcher, have been prepared to defend their positions when they face unpopularity. Whether it is the short attention span of the media, or the growing complications of modern society, the fact is that the masculine, goal-oriented traits of decisiveness and tenaciousness in the face of unpopularity have been drowned by more feminine, process-driven traits of consensus building and compromise. This is not altogether healthy. We see the emergence of moral relativism: one can not condemn Jordan as the sad slapper she is, because "slapper" is sexist and demeaning to all women, not just slappers, and anyway who are we to condemn any one?

It is how we have become a society that is puking on too much jelly and ice cream- in the case of 60 stone men this is literally true- too much debt, too many broken homes, too many sick and dying alcoholics. Yet, if we may offer no condemnation to people who are sick, are we to make no judgement at all? Surely to recognise- to judge- aberrant behaviour is the first and necessary step to finding solutions to the problems that are created? Yet the compulsory social consensus - cheaply called "political correctness"- will not allow society to make such judgements and to impose discipline upon itself.

If, as a society, we have become addicted to the jelly and ice cream- of things that are bad for us without moderation- so our politics reflects this. Political leaders will not take a stand, they will not offer difficult choices, only the bromides that are so banal as to be a lie direct.

It is a tragedy that "tough choices" has become a meaningless cliche that exists to give the impression of decisiveness in a political class that reflects the social crisis but lacks the detachment or discipline to understand it, still less to address it. In the meantime our social, economic and political infrastructure are devalued by our inability to control ourselves and make responsible -adult- choices in the face of temptation.


Newmania said…
Well yes C but ...oh you`ll never get it will you , who do you think is responsible for this ?

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

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo