Power sans Personal Consequences.

Power sans Personal Consequences.

One is not sure that if this really matters, other than just as a relaxed ineffectual observation, but, in a scrutiny of worrying occurrences that is probably viewed by others who may take an interest in the direction the occurrences seem to be moving, should look upon one occurrence, the abuse of administrative powers that has begun to ferment in the corridors of weakening democracies, as an existential danger to the continuance of legal peace and stability. One might be taking a too critical view and overlooking the overall established structures that combine even in a reductive democratic artifice no matter how undervalued participation in the exercising of citizen’s power is spelt out; there is still the assumed foundation of expected laws, custom and practice within democracies upon which there is an expectation that overall many will have access to and be able to call upon such foundations for safety against irrational illegal controlling influences from whatever source however this is to ignore the power that one or a few individuals can have on the direction and application of power that shifts the balance of public perception of ‘normal expectations’ and corrective influences away from accountability via the democratic process and acting to consolidated authority to the closeted interior and deliberately enacting long term change to established structure that infect beyond the period of fused (misused?) authority.

There is a very peculiar swing that has taken place over the past few years, one would fixed it at over the past 40 years, at its most noticeable but certainly it has become more obviously volatile within the last 10 marked by the rise in popularism. This is a word, a phenomena,  that is now banded about as a term of abuse for things of simple intent, insubstantial, a narrow facade of constructed interest for deliberate attention seeking; projected onto any public outlet driven as it is by the rise of acquired public support for a presentational style that more resembles a media celebrity, pop star etc reaching overweening adoration with a particularly pronounced style of the personality presentation by being  loud, subtly conceited, (or not) exudes bonhomie, jokey, rabble rousing, specious factoids, divergent flexible verbosity, controversial, assemble power seeking support, feeding back to an audience what they want to hear thereby calculated to court and seek more public exposure; potentially a ‘one trick pony’.

To consider popularism as a phenomenon trend that panders to narrow interest concerns can be perhaps disregarded under close scrutiny of the basis of the substance supporting the rise of such a focus of popularism in a personality, does not rise to the challenge of really understanding how it came to be or why and offers nothing on the interfusion affect such a persona has on civil structures. Such persona do not stand on their own but rely on the closed coterie promulgating their vision behind the popularism messages and perhaps see no need to seek confirmatory powers for any action they wish to engage in, in the process looking to circumventing any evadible statutes that limit their intentions.

With the above this is not to say that throughout the modern democratic (or dictatorial) age there has not been egotistical personality ‘notables’ (persons of effective power) that have had an impact on the direction of administrative and civil structures however they did not have the immediacy of modern communicatory ability to gather nor project their individual predilections, onto a wide platform of easy exposure to an expansive audience, other than later over the 18^th – 20^th centuries as with; newspapers, radio, TV or PR-rallies. And due the public’s (now vanishing) deference given to administrative direction, they could disguise or hide, should they so wish, behind the available anonymity of a state organisations power in the event of an exposed governmental fuck up caused by the ‘notables’. However such exception to the open exposure of political or personal narcissistic misdoings propagated in public office that derives from distorted power systems embodied from ‘notable persons’, does though rely on the strength, reliability, integrity and combination of the whole democratically legal applied authority that can and does acknowledge where the power of democratic consent comes from and the systems actively guards that power. If participants within the systems are willing to acquiesce to the degradation of that power, to refuse to challenge the moral or legitimacy of rogue ‘notables’, such failure hands greater undemocratic power to the rogue ‘notable’ and weakens the whole structure of democratic legitimacy.

Even though it is complicated to notice the initial slow transfer of democratic power to a protected evident popular ‘notable’, there are often unusual aberration indicators, things that are taken as remarkably ‘newsworthy’ that can be taken as incidents for the potentiality of the misapplication of power by an executive cadre led and directed by the ‘notable’. It is not unusual for any democrat system, similar to the UK parliamentary and civil machinery to; in the first instance be used and made to support the executive cadre, and it will protect, in the expected exercise of its duty, the ‘notable’ and help deliver policy drawn up by the elected executive party (cabinet) but only in so far it can be effective without undue derogatory investigative public media exposure and excluding any exposed personal obviously unethical, illegally unacceptable serious incidents by the ‘notable’ (or the cabinet) beyond any measure of strained normality for the time of their instigation. Unless the combination of all legal civil applied authority has been threatened and discouraged in the face of the ‘notable’s popularism from acting, the dissonance being caused to the political and democratise power base has to be eventually ameliorated or suffer long term consequential damage to the administrative and civil structures from which uncontrollable events can arise.

Most civilised countries will consider that they are immune to the excesses of "uncivilised, excessive executive societal harmful acts. Or that they can fall prey to dictatorial influences". Until it happens to them! And it has happened by unchallenged, seemingly innocuous, incremental (sense of uneasiness?) steps, steps probably obtained no easier than being open to myriad forms of popularism manipulation focused by, for and on, a personality notable. Anyone of which being lifted prominent, who is uncontested by media or the unapplied strenuous administration of a vibrant democratic mandate, has covert within, the potential hidden for the germination of democratised destruction by self interest equivocation of those unwilling to confront popularised notables. Such a democratised destruction is particularly available in times of civil stress.

Consider, within Europe the nearest neighbours to the UK of recent past, although there are political/ethnic dimensions, one does not think it is unreasonable to use the history of European countries such as; Spain, Germany, France, Italy, Greece, Poland, Yugoslavia or Russia, as principle examples in which there has been individuals of influence that eventually led to a collapse of civil structures and destruction. These like others in situations of incremental fractured direction, have pressed up popular expressions to simplify ‘solutions’ for extracting out social tensions but then overwhelm what may have been seen as (debatable) but accepted civilised stability. Once a cult base of popularism gets a hold manifest in a ‘notables’ stance generating simple pacification messages to the proffered problems of an electorate and convince enough not to believe or trust the established governmental / legal mechanism of state administration, to move ‘authority’ in favour of the ‘notable’ chimera personality; then they (countries) are not immune from an alternative diametric direction falling further into the grip of ‘notables powers’. They find then they cannot control what they have let loose.

The nature of uncontested influential power is, one thinks, that once it is play it is inclined to become potentially systemically sustained by subtle deceits, arrogance, fear, supportive abrogation’s, greed and momentum. Once a state apparatus is given or takes popularity power to manipulate or control civil action or laws it inevitably want to absorbs more power for the use of the administration and ‘notable’ to enact unscripted un-mandated polices disregarding any or all rational contra options.

Some would say that a collapse of a vibrant democratic philosophy leading to an eviscerated parliamentary system and control without an elected mandate could not happen to the UK, well. This is to ignore the lack of any enforceable constitution, the assumed robustness and veracity of the parliamentary establishment, the weakness and deception of the whole elective ‘democratic’ process, undependable discriminatory party mandates and perhaps most important of all; there is absolutely no real fiduciary personal penalty for lies, or deliberate devious malfeasance carried out by the ‘notable’ or their executive support that eventually causes stupendous losses to the country’s economic or structural existence, all against profession, expert, validated evidence of consequential, then proven dangers.

Perhaps if one considers some slight variation of the appearance of exercising authority, by looking at what has occurred in the past, one might offer a view of a perspective that has had a profound effect on the nature and standing of the UK, which in many ways depict issues which are still impacting on how people are reacting today and are incapable of really resisting a latent rouge regime imposition.

In 1979 thacher won an election with a 43 seat parliamentary majority. In 1983 she had a 144 seat majority and in 1987 it came down to 102 seats. Over her period she served as PM for 11+ years. The % range of votes was just 43.9% to 42% of votes cast.

This was an effective elective dictatorship by her with the Conservative Democratic Unionist Party (CDUP) without an explicit clear mandate from which came the destruction of industry, attacks on dissenting labour, the capitalisation of public assets, the rule of monetarism, gross financial rampage of London, poll tax and near disastrous but (for her) fortuitous Falklands. There was little restraint or effective opposition to her parliamentary power. Although the poll tax eventually finished her dictatorship off, due to her popularity she was dictatorially unassailable from rebellious elements of her own party over this and Europe. Of the policy effects which have had and still impact the country, it was the financial deregulation of London that could be said to be the prime driver of the causes of financial crises which culminated in 2007/8.

She and her cabinet all faded away unrepentant into the comfort of affluence unlike the fallout left for the populace from her annihilation policies.

John Major took over from thatcher in 1990 when she was forced to resign. He became the unelected appointed “Prime Minister” (designate) of the Conservative Democratic Unionist Party (CDUP). As he was not elected by the country and had offered no manifesto to be given his own democratic mandate, he simply rolled forward on the basis of the CDUP 1987 election albeit he changed some policy direction. This was an administrative dictatorship. In 1992 he called an election and gained a 21 seat majority with 41.9% of votes serving a total of 6.5 years. He changed the poll tax, joined in with the Gulf War, started the extortionate Private Finance Initiative (PFI), signed the Maastricht Treaty, supported the ERM, and presided over recession, high inflation, high interest rates and (Lamont’s) Black Wednesday. Although caught by circumstances of the time (left over from thatcher) he was more balanced but not strong enough to nail his own ‘back bench bastards’ dissents over the EU developments and caught with unravelling financial confidence resulted in loading debt onto the economy.

He lost his initial popular appeal but gained a lordship. Like all those before, none of the cabinet participants suffered from depleted financial resources as a result of their decisions.

Following on came the (conservative) Labour leader Tony Blair as Prime minister with the 1997 election. He took a 179 seat majority. In 2001 this reduced to 166 seats and by the 2005 election fell to a 68 majority with a range of the votes taken 43.0% to 35% albeit on a trend of reducing voter turnout. He served as PM for 10 years.

This again was an elected dictatorship gained in the basis of trouncing the CDUP rightwing actions and sleaze of the previous periods and moving the Labour party to appealing to the middle ground of politic expression, with the “new labours”,  “third way”. He managed to bury Labour Party socialist progressive policy tendency and present a soft conservative type of manifestos with diffident ideas to maintain popular voter labour appeal. In his time he carried through the minimum wage act, expanded the costly off book PFI, invested heavily in the NHS, Schools, overhyped academies, gave (via G. Brown treasurer) the Bank of England ‘independence’, devolved powers to Scotland and Wales, paid lip service to welfare reform, oversaw the imminent and actual raising gap between rich and poor and used ruinous policy of expansive immigration to hold down wages, interest rates and inflation. In 2003 he unwisely fell in with the USA to invade Iraq on ‘spun’ false information on WMD against strong opposition. This effectively undermined his authority and popular support. Beyond the Minimum Wage and the new power given to the BOE and Scotland there is little in Blair’s terms in office that has had a long lasting ingrained benefit for the economy or the broad labour working classes. He was much too cautious in exercising power to instigate effective social change and ignored systemic divisive economic adjustment affecting society. What investment that was done, has been undone by subsequent governments, unlike the lasting damage with dictatorial power used by thatcher!

Again there is no evidence that any within his governments have become anyway poorer in comparison to labour class support.

In June 2007 the maligned in- fighting between Blair and Gordon Brown, finally resulted in Blair stepping down from PM in may 2007 and Brown becoming the unelected appointed Prime Minister (designate) of the Labour Party without a public mandate, this was administrative dictatorship up to the election he called in May 2010 but lost, holding 258 seats and 29% of votes but had no majority to form a new government. During this time as he was unsure of his authority position, he never really gained directive traction and he attempted to have a more inclusive government, a less ‘presidential’ style as run by blair. He rolled back on the direction blair took and tried to bring in an outward looking popular agenda such as: - Freeze on income tax, no VAT on children’s clothes or food, a bank levy, limit stamp duty for homes below £250K, a raise in minimum wage, propose change to the voting system and House of lords, more paternity leave and wanted to save the Royal Mail from being sold off. He established an inquiry into the Iraq fiasco which continued to dog politics in parliament but it was his miss-handling of the 10p tax rate cut and indecisiveness over an election date late in 2007 that failed him. He was in some ways unfortunate in gaining the position he most wanted at a time of overall falling Labour Party popularity and most of all stepping into the contrived PR assassination unjustly levelled at the Labour Party for “causing” the Credit Crises of 2007/8 however there is little doubt that his handling of the whole Crises period could not have been handle better, by any opposition party! It is probably true that the all labour classes became poorer in this time due to the CC but the loss of good remunerated governmental positions by MP’s did not compare with what was to follow for social systems or working labour.

The 2010 election which Labour lost produced a hung parliament and failing to negotiate to break a deadlock, the hung parliament gave rise to a coalition between the CDUP and (surprisingly) the Liberal Party. The CDUP gained 307 seats with 36.1% of votes but fell short of a majority by 20 seats and suckered the Liberals who took 57 seats with 23% of votes to ‘share’ power. David Cameron became Prime Minister (designate) of the CDUP with Nick Clegg as deputy but without a specific democratic mandates it was a matter of ad hoc policy directive with the main concern of reducing government debt, deficit and hide the shrinking of the state roll back under the guise the “austerity” plan. As no party gained overall control this was another administrative dictatorship. Given the tension such coalition can cause and after successfully skewering the Liberal Party on policy directions, including a pretence on a move to a form of Proportional Representation and bringing in a largely un-scrutinised “Fixed Term Parliament act”. In 2015 Cameron won that election as head of the CDUP with a majority of 12 seats with a manifesto that was devoid of substance and based on ‘fixing the mess Labour left’.  

There is too much lasting damage to the economy with his naivety on the lasting effects of the CC exacerbated by him on society and infrastructure that can be laid on this period of government., A lot what was done was on the basis of pure ideology dogma linking to the thatcher days ideas and the CDUP grip on exercising the affluent class abuses of power.

The main elements on his brief fell under: - the forced unnecessary austerity drive, losing the UK triple A credit rating, cutting billions of pounds in public expenditure, creating financial instability for local authorities, the disastrous and costly health and social care bill and welfare reforms, excitedly and incompetently participating in the Libya debacle blamed entirely on Cameron. The growth in food banks which he said was due to the government encouraging Job centres and local authorities to promote them! He lauded the rise in the low wage ‘gig’ employment as welcome new jobs being created in a buoyant economy and despite passing a law to prevent raising income tax, NI, and VAT; to pay for tax cuts and fund deficit, pursued a policy of alternative tax increases.  His most serious and damaging actions was the increase in the use of ‘statutory instruments’ to pass legislation and bypass parliamentary scrutiny, together with his suspect affiliation with News International and the News of the World phone hacking scandal. Ultimately it was his submissive compliance to demands from the ERG and the ‘right wing’ anti-Europeans to hold a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, which took place in 23.6.16. Realising had made a terrible mistake of judgement, on the 24.6.16 he promptly said he would resign, which he did on the 13.7.16.

There is no evidence that any of his cabinet or him suffered injurious finance loss as a result of his degradation policies afflicted onto society and economy,  on the contrary they have moved on to other affluent sustaining positions not to be worried by austerity or his bungled ill-considered referendum.

In July 2016 with Cameron’s resignation, Teresa May was elected as leader and Prime Minister (designate) of the CDUP without an election manifesto, relying on the impetus of the unfinished business of 23.6.16. This was another administrative dictatorship.  She began the task of leaving the EU by, in March 2017 rushing to triggering Article 50 with her asinine “Brexit means Brexit and Strong and Stable” memes. On the 8.6 2017 she threw a snap general election under the new Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 (requiring 2/3rds of MPs to agree to it) to gain a larger seat majority in parliament against the disunity beginning to hamper her actions. The result was the CDUP gained 42.2 % of votes with 317 seats on a turnout of 68.7% but in doing so lost 13 seats down from 330 and lost her parliamentary majority giving rise to anther hung parliament resulting in a “confidence and supply arrangement” with the DUP and a bung of £1bn+ to gain control of a government. This was a continuation of the administrative dictatorship. In her narrow focus haste to drive forward with Article 50 she moved to appoint ‘leave’ diehards to the cabinet and the Brexit negotiating team but in doing so made a fatal strategic error in assuming that she could negotiate and ameliorate the demands of the right wing ERG anti euro block within her cabinet and party, not appreciating that they would destroy any terms with the EU that did not meet their own demands. As part of the desire to maintain secrecy in her actions, her government was for the first time in history found in contempt of parliament by refusing to put to the whole parliament the legal advice on the proposed withdrawal agreement and on what terms there were in it for the UK to leave from the EU.

Disregarding her valiant attempt (against large numbers of resignation attacking her) to gain a ‘red line’ deal to leave the EU with the “backstop”, it was rejected 3 times by parliament driven by the poisonous ill disciplined uncontrolled cabinet of her own making and it was clear that after losing these votes the CDUP ‘Leavers’ orchestrated “no confidence” vote on her leadership showing that her party wanted her gone.

She resigned in July 2019 after the CDUP ran a selection process.

As for her achievements as Prime Minister of the CDUP, there is little of good notoriety. Her long stance at the Home Office was controversial and her stance of attempting to correct the nasty party image of the CDUP by proposed actions leading to a more inclusive society with her desire to tackle the “burning injustices” and “the left behinds” in modern society, stood no chance as her whole period was consumed with the infection of Brexit and her inflexible robotic approach to any oppositions to her ideas. The survival of the CDUP, to hold it together, was preeminent in her mind against other parliamentarians. This was an early mistake not to seek a much broader consensus for an acceptable ‘deal’ across parliament and it was the hard anti EU caucus that dictated her direction resulting in her 3 years being a salutary and tortuous effort; all to no avail.

Although she ejected some of the early ‘soft remain’ members of her inherited cabinet to be replaced with Brexit accolades, there is no evidence that any of those involved in the cabinets have suffered from the austerity pogrom or penury by loss of position, or will be in anyway made less accessible to affluent opportunity, as they drive the UK over the Brexit hidden rocks.

The resignation of the Maybot produced in June 2019, from the ballot of CDUP MPs, two candidates that were to be offered up for selection by CDUP members from which to choose a new leader; J. Hunt and B. Johnson. On the 23^rd the result was Johnson gaining 66% of members’ votes of just 138,809 ordinary subscribing members thereby wining the leadership contest and becoming the Prime Minister designate of the CDUP. He had no popular elected mandate and started the latest of administrative dictatorships.

He stated his main intention was to exit the EU on the 31^st October, picking up from all that had already failed.

In the mould of actions of the Maybot, he dismissed 11 senior ministers and resigned 6 others in order to form a “cabinet for modern Britain” but in doing so made his intent clear, which was to enact an extreme hard approach to EU negotiating with the purpose of leaving the EU ‘with or without a viable deal’. The ministerial selection he made produced a stronger cadre of cabinet members of affluence while also being a more acquiescent militant cabinet made up from definite ‘leave’ MPs and those of the extremist ERG; the same elements that had consistently stiffed the Maybot.

As one of the prominent drivers of the Brexit period, from his history and action he has been noted, as being privileged affluent Oxford educated, a disarming bumbler, egotistical, opportunist, dissembler, fabricator, lazy, uses racist homophobic language, untrustworthy, unreliable, self serving, unconcerned with the concept of untruth utterances or writing and is capricious with any sense of obligations. As one paper intimated ‘Johnson being one of the Architects of the Brexit catastrophe is the most irresponsible Politian the country has seen for many years’ and is the UKs version of the US Trump.

Due to his public antics to garner media popularity, he carries a great deal of responsibility for the Brexit Leave vote with his unrelenting bigotry against the EU. He is now bolstered by a cabinet of power carpetbaggers that see no restraint on any actions to try force parliament to do what he (they) demands.

Now the UK is in the grip of the most dangerous and contentious period with all semblance of political administrative competence, in the view of external observers, in shreds. It is in effect being forced to go through potentially long, expensive and far reaching readjustment on its whole foundations as it is being argumentatively moved from a parliamentary system in which “parliament is sovereign” to an unscripted regime. This is caused because Parliament is now in uncharted constitutional-less position relating to, whatever happens with Brexit, the damage to the economy, society, world position and stability has been started as it is inexorably moving towards the last days of the consequences of the hastening of Article 50; well perhaps these last days of July and still what is to come?

From all the above it must be obvious that it would not take much for the UK to have imposed an actual unwarranted dictatorship, after all the country has had since 1979 two elective dictatorships and five administrative dictatorships the later comprised of people called ‘Prime Minister’ but who were only every Prime Minister (designate) of their own party. They were not Prime Ministers of the country until having gone through with a formal democratic popular election with an ‘agreed’ mandate from the people. The power of democracy is only a thin veneer overlaid by assumptions that a parliament is sovereign but it survives on the basis of no written legal constitution, custom and practice, conventions, good will, and a government (cabinet) that is acting through that ‘sovereign parliament’ responsively for the benefit of the country without resorting to any misuse of forms of Royal Prerogative. Without an effective ‘sovereign parliament’ it is a myth that the people should believe parliament/government/country cannot be taken over. Of influence in this one must also include the power the people have had to help direct government to install an existing regime change, one that will have implication for the popularised exit from the EU, unknowing what the consequences will be for them, how much are they prepared to pay or suffer for the privilege of exercising that power?

It may be thought the use of above examples as dictatorship periods is ridicules but it assumes in doing so that there is negative connotations of understanding attached to the idea of dictatorships as in the extremes of history however dictators do not obviously promote themselves as dictators, they morph into one as a result of dismantling oppositions power, influence or legitimacy and using abusive powers ultimately bringing a country to ruin. But exercising authority on the basis of no electoral approved mandate, or a low electoral turnout of the whole electorate giving anything less than 51% + (?) of the total electoral listing, can only be seen as a minority dictatorship in action even if policies are or not overtly immediately ruinous. Linked to this, any cabinet in government with an large overall parliamentary majority can and has push though policies without proper scrutiny that cannot be overcome, in essence dogma wrapped policies which formed no explicit part of their offered manifestos are in part dictatorial circumventing public awareness. Dismantling democracy relies on the apathy and ignorance of an electorate who in the first instance will put their personal (popular) desires to be met in a choice first, over seeking the good of the whole and may change position if or when they know what they did not know before. A rouge operator will know which emotive issues to manipulate in the furtherance of offering to meet provident but illusive desires while enacting none-mandated deeds. Therefore one contends that the UK, as in other civilised democratised countries does fall under the authority of dictatorial inclinations by popularised neglect leading to "uncivilised, excessive executive societal harmful acts” and democracies can only survive if robustly defended to bolster the democratic premise of ‘power within the people’ and everyone is educated to be duty-bound to vote understanding what is being asked of them and how their choice of action shapes a future.

One thinks wisdom from actions may only come after suffering personal consequences from misguided ignorant choices but for now with power without consequences it is unlikely to end well however it is certain that those now driving unknowingly for the best worst of outcomes will not to be too troubled or pained by any lack of financial affluence when it comes to pay the bills.

© Renot

47191972