I haven't written much on the British elections currently in their final stages because there has not really been that much to say. A pleasant man with a Dutch accent and a Spanish wife, from a party of abortionists and euthanisers, has been flirted with by an electorate who do not like an obsessive Scottish man with a nice wife from a party of statists and hysterics which used to represent the working people. The same electorate seem unable to sympathise with a posturing minor aristocrat who refuses to say if he has ever consumed the sort of serious drugs that alter neural pathways and who has an aristocratic wife who doesn't speak properly but who is pregnant, after an unspeakable personal tragedy. All three pander to anticatholicism and, if prompted, to anti-Israeli posturing whilst supporting the enemies of the Jewish future who are turning Israel into some sort of neurotic fortress state with fantasies about an Iran war.
No one has mentioned a looming crisis both in the capacity of the country to generate or to pay for energy, no one has mentioned how to restrain the housing madness that has derailed the past forty years, no one wants to discuss spending cuts in detail, and (apart from what seemed a rather sensible Liberal Democrat proposal that was immediately caricatured and discarded) no one wants to discuss immigration in serious terms. All worship at the broken statue of climate change, none seriously question the wars and sundry mincers into which good young men and women are being thrown without the proper equipment, and everyone is avoiding the pension crisis, intimately connected to the demographic troubles of the country, which is lapping at our feet.
The word election means choice. In British circumstances, it means a sort of festival of denial. This is in part because the circumstances of the political parties almost exactly parallel those of the newspapers and banks which reflect their oligopoly, and their closed circle of acceptable opinions.
Oligopolies are large bodies with no incentive to efficiency that basically make the same product a little different, and which sell it to captive audiences. They collude not to allow people to become really aware of price or cost, and they develop ways to cultivate the appearance of loyalty between customers and companies. They set limits, if unregulated, against any new entrant to the market, and they lie about their support.
This is currently a country in which journalists talk rubbish to each other whilst their newspapers, which are run for advertisers or for their classified pages, are haemorrhaging money. The said journalists really worship those who have been successful in some sphere they do not understand, like business, whilst patronising those who don't have a sphere and tearing away in oedipal rage at those in professions that their parents came from and into which they failed to get. Seeking drama, they over-dramatise everything minutely without actually ever reporting very much. Those in television news are much the same, and the product of a sort of hazed, brainwashed culture in which people spend long hours constructing stories according to corporate procurement rules which are then dumped or ruthlessly edited.
Banks are little different in this country. They are big operations. This allows them to run a good many overdrafts and to put up with bad debts a lot better than American competitive banks do, but the quid pro quo is that those who do not want to pay their charges and sundry non-price ways of generating revenue have no option but to accept them. Banks, too, are in decline, and are tapping government via panics in the press for huge amounts of money which they are then rebranding shamelessly as profit. A portion of this profit is going to the bankers themselves, who are used to taking slices of other peoples' money. That is their job and function. I am a non practising member of the bar and I make good money sometimes from giving tutorials and lectures to order. I cannot look down on them for it, but I am surprised that anyone is deluded enough, or lacking enough in the capacity to see the obvious, to note what is going on.
British politicians, high on north sea oil, used to look down on Japan for its Keiretsu and Korea for the Chaebol. These were strange arrangements in which businesses, producers, distributors, and regulators all owned portions of each other or leant like drunks in a bar on each other. British politics, British banks, and British media, are all now in exactly such a relationship.
When they are--and when commenting on an election requires one to pretend that that is not the case and that instead, what the politicians say actually matters--the only thing that a person can do is to just ignore them. Rock paper, scissors; denial meets denial and allows one to get on with life. Yet I don't want to do that, because I will unless something lucky happens to me, be in the country to pay for the mess and to experience the economic disaster that is gathering all around me as will about forty million other taxpayers. I will also be unable to do anything whatsoever about it.
Meanwhile, the bar in England and the lawyers in Scotland are selling themselves out to 'tesco law' in the name of choice, and adopting structures of business that will enslave them, and leave the future judiciary to be produced by bankrupt Marxists in universities. The law will not save us from these people because its practitioners are currently dissolving themselves.
Oligopolitics. What metaphors are there for this madness? Thomas Hobbes once compared a political system to a body. This one needs all fluid of any sort drained from it, tout suite, and replaced. Where that all will come from is anyone's guess.