It is a day when the choice of new political leaders tops the news.
Kamala Harris appears to have sewn up the race to be the Democrat presidential nominee in only a little over 24 hours. Whether or not she is the right candidate is now an irrelevant discussion: she is the one the Democrats have got. The job required of her is clear. She has to beat Trump.
Here, there is another leadership campaign underway. By 2 November, the Conservatives will have a new leader. Rishi Sunak is staying on as leader until then. The role of whoever gets that job is utterly unclear. They will, undoubtedly, become the official Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, but will anyone be paying attention? Indeed, will anyone show much interest in a leadership contest between candidates who are so uninspiring that excitement is the last thing that any is likely to create, while some revulsion may be the best reaction that they can hope for?
Both of these situations matter. It is clear that the Democrats in the US did not prepare well enough for the possibility that Biden might not seek a second term, even though that eventuality was entirely predictable. As a result, they have a candidate by default, and not by choice.
In contrast, Conservative party members are going to have to choose a new leader for the fifth time since 2016, and it is still very apparent that there is no succession plan in place in that party.
In fact, the characteristic of both parties is the absence if a plan. The Democrats and Tories are both neoliberal to their core, but have ceased to understand what they mean by that, and as a result cannot see that neoliberalism has run out of road, as have they.
I very much hope that Harris beats Trump, but that's pure pragmaticism on my part.
In contrast, I would be happy if there was never another Tory government in the UK. We have suffered enough of them already.
But, in both cases, what these parties make clear is that there is a vacuum in politics. The populist extremists have plans, albeit that they are for the destruction of democracy. The supposed mainstream parties, Labour in this country included, are simply adrift, quite unable to work out a reason for their existence.
Democratic politics should exist to improve the lot of the people of a jurisdiction. It does not exist to enrich politicians, their friends, or those who lobby them most successfully. At its core, it is all about meeting the need for a stable society in which all people can thrive, which term is vastly more comprehensive than any financial concept, let alone one related to either growth or profit. But neoliberal politicians, dedicated as they are to corporate interests and managerialism, have forgotten all that.
No wonder the Democrats have got a candidate who no one seems to really want, and the Tories are in a total mess. That's what happens when you don't know what you're doing and why you should be doing it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
An “Empire of Lies” exists both in the United States as well as the United Kingdom and all driven largely by the mainstream media owned by the rich or have their place persons in organisations like the BBC. How else can you explain the support for Trump in the United States who achieved very little during his four year term of office other than a meagre attempt to increase tariffs on Chinese imports but did massively reduce taxes on the rich? I know I was there.
Thank you and well said, both.
Not unrelated.
Yesterday evening, it was interesting to read an Irish commentator online highlight how British commentators have the excuse to resurrect their obsession with the US and minutiae of its politics, this time the arcane rules about how a VP can replace the incumbent as candidate, and ignore the UK’s neighbours and where the UK’s future lies.
In November 2022, a young French journalist, who had arrived in the UK, pointed out the same after the US mid-terms and marvelled at the British commentariat’s obsession with the US, this time polling in Nevada suburbs, and ignorance of European politics. She wondered if British politicians and MSM and wannabes want to cosplay the West Wing.
I have observed similarly. So do EU officials and politicians and UK trade body missions to Brussels. This is why there’s little EU interest in a rapprochement with the UK apart from a technical tidy up. It took my City professional body the best part of a year to get a meeting with the EU ambassador. Remainers should be aware of this.
I forgot to add that the French lady had arrived in the spring.
“that they are for the destruction of democracy”
But it’s about more that just that isn’t it?
At base, what these ‘anti-democrats’ are about is the wholesale plundering of society. It is no coincidence at that this bunch of crooks esposuse the economics of Carl Menger/ Von Mises/ Hayek and Ernest Benn
Coupled with the Economic Social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer (as formulated in the 1840’s)
And be they Labour/Lib Dem or US Democrats. Politicians of the centre are unable to challenge the sociopaths because they have essentially bought into the Von Mises/ Menger/Spencer view of the world……..
@ tom anderson. Thanks you made me think what is the “democracy” element in human society’s use of money? The answer is simple enough because its use requires a large amount of redemption and that redemption needs to be equitably apportioned. How much in total needs to be redeemed in a democratic society is determined by vote. Again the voting system needs to be equitable. Sociopaths are predominantly at the “only I matter” end of the caring spectrum (uni-caring) as opposed to the balanced end (caring about both self and others) or bi-caring. Why we human beings have this spectrum is answered in part by the following paper:-
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247759661_Evolution_of_Parental_Caregiving
The question why as a species we’ve moved on from being reptilian isn’t!
It is curious observing the leadership manoevres in the US, but on the flip side they aren’t as absurd as what has happened in the last few years here.
To be fair, with not much more than 3 months to the election the Democrats needed someone already having a national profile. The American system of a cabinet by nomination means there is a dearth of elected politicians who have established a reputation in office. If Biden had decided not to seek a second term a year ago, we would have seen some Senators known only to followers of debates, and State Governors with a largely local reputation, establish a bigger profile by campaigning via the primary process.
The soap opera will continue. Assuming Harris is confirmed they will probably identify a Vice President candidate by focus groups rather than on ability; here the Tories will no doubt come up with someone about as inspiring as Ian Duncan Smith was during the last Labour administration, chosen to square wings of the party rather than act as an effective Leader of the Opposition.