Having read, very briefly, some of the reactions to the debate, it seems that the vote hinges largely on appearing to be competent (not the content itself). This is, of course, bad news for the Tories: Osborne looked beyond pathetic tonight - with some wonderful hints of the auld patronising Tory tone: 'I wish you well (snigger).'
So the fact that it's bad news for the Tories is, broadly speaking, good news for Britain. Still, what no one seems to pick up on is the fact that in fact all three agree! Indeed, throughout the programme all three - Darling, Osborne, Cable - appeared to be agreeing here and there (needing to be more 'savage' than Maggie etc...).
Well, of course: All three are essentially conscripted to neoliberal ideology. What the public now votes on are differences in accent within that ideology. The nightmare vision of TINA has, sadly, become reality as far as election choices are concerned for the voting British public.
What has replaced ideological dialogue and discussion are debates on appearance. It so happens that within that debate the party I detest and disagree with most - the Tories - also perform worst. But this is not what politics should be about.
Simon Cowell's ignorant suggestion on introducing a political X Factor may have already become reality.
9 comments:
Damn right olching...
These ""leadership""Debates"" (notice that the ironic quotation marks now have to embrace each word as well as the entire phrase in a true festival of caricature) mark the beginning of the end of the hope for truly diverse political thinking...
...as you mention, just like in the US they represent the extraordinary level of Baudrillardian Simulacra that neo-liberal dominated "politics" has become...
...when there is no difference in content then create the appearance of difference through form...debates offer up intrigue and disagreement and possibility and conflict to a political system that by it's very definition depends on diversity - after all what is democracy without option? - but which in reality is an ideological monopoly...
...what's really incredible is that even so shortly after this deep crisis in capitalism our political system is able to offer up a three headed chancellor in a pseudo-debate with itself and claim this to be the presentation of alternatives!?!
...we've suffered this for so long now that people have internalised the faux-Left-Right battle to such a degree that they perceive oscillation where in fact only a long three decade lurch to the Right has occurred...and of course these "debates" keep the simulation alive...
For some reason I haven't participated here before. Anyway, you won't be surprised that I agree with all that you and Lester have said. I had exactly the same reaction when I watched it. It really is managerial politics - even the first question unwittingly gestured towards this by saying it was like a job interview, and that is right - hiring a Finance Director for 'UK PLC'. And as with such an interview issues of ideology are irrelevant, or, rather, shared, assumed and embedded.
There was a sense of there being the ghostly apparition or echo of some long distance relationship back to something ideological when Darling invoked the notion of 'justice' and Osbourne that of 'individual responsibility', but it was so muted and vapid as to be less than a watermark.
And in the same way, despite everything, as we get nearer to the election I still find myself with the ghost of a feeling that Labour would be slightly, slightly less bad than the Tories.
By the way, I thought the idea that we should regard Cable's 'pinstriped Scargills' as the height of political repartee fairly bizarre. What would F.E. Smith have thought, I wonder? And the idea that such a sentiment is refreshingly radical not just bizarre but depressing.
On the other hand, having seen the appalling cif poster PeterBracken describe himself as the authentic voice of the Left I suppose nothing should surprise me.
Hi both,
Been away...
I agree with both your comments.
Lester, I think it is precisely the crisis that has allowed neoliberal politics and politicians to come back, as bizarre as it may sound and indeed appear. My sense is that - like similar ideologies - it doesn't concede an inch but in fact asserts its strength in moments of its own demise and crisis.
Peter, Cable's comment about pinstriped Scargills was disgusting populist politics, nothing more nothing less. I, like probably many others, had some vague 'respect' for Cable (not on an ideological level but in terms of gravitas, perceived or otherwise). That comment really highlighted the ludicrous nature of our mainstream political landscape: Reduced to the most ignorant one-liner I've heard in a while (he is of course aware of the ludicrous nature of his comparison, which makes it worse - I'd kind of expect it from Osborne).
The less said about PeterBracken the better really.
Hope all is well with both of you.
Hello Olching,
I agree to a certain extent with the general yearning for a more ideologically diverse politics, but I have to ask myself to what extent is this simply nostalgia for the "interesting times" of the cold war ideological battles, compared to which the "managerialist" politics of today seems unsatisfactory and bloodless.
The truth is though, that times of ideological division represent the exception rather than the rule, and since the the end of the cold war one particular ideology has emerged as dominanant and all mainstream political parties have converged around this ideology, thereby reverting to the historical norm, in which the problems of the world are tackled with respect to the dominmant paradigm, rather then by seeking to replace the paradigm with another.
In this respect the actual nature of the dominant ideology becomes almost incidental. (If all three parties had all been competing for custodianship of the Social Democratic hegemony, say, would you be expresing the same reservations, or would you rather by nodding along in approval that politics had finally "come of age" in settling on the "correct" course?)
On a final point, I'm out in Hungary at the moment, where they have elections of their own this weekend, in which the Jobbik could realistically poll more votes than ther outgoing MSzP. You have to be careful when you call for more "ideological diversity", because you just might get what you wish for...
Cheers
Pat
Hi Pat,
I'm nor sure ideological politics do represent the exception. Pre-war, pre-WWI, C19, C18 etc, most of it was pitched in terms of clear ideological divides (we cannot reduce ideology to the Cold War).
One of the main problem I have with neoliberalism is that it is philistine (leaving aside my ideological revulsion towards it); it reduces human activity to economics and gain, hence the erosion of the public sphere.
But you are right with your word of warning with respect to Hungary. I've been following the run-up and, indeed, such a scenario isn't great, at all, in fact quite frightening. But of course it isn't either or.
Hope all is well.
Hi Olching!
I saw your comments on the MacShane's.Hope you don't mind me saying so, but it was a word in right time. I’m sure most of the posters are better than they appear over there, it is just that the setting on those ‘social media’ catches us and exploit the most primitive instincts we have. To be reckoned with, to be approved of. I even have to ask myself if I write this on your blog because you are the only one who hasn’t told me to f**f off. To have a go at MacShane obviously gives more browniepoints(don’t know the story about that; I recall I have agreed with him in the past, but can’t remember in what context) than to simply express condolences for the victims. I am sorry you take it so seriously. I suppose many of you old tymers know each other better than I can know, but still, and though the thoughtlessness can be trying at times, it would be a shame if you stopped posting on CIF. You are needed. Too many bad voices are heard and they don’t give a f**k if the thread looks like a cesspit. So why should you? They and the rest of us are quite able to see the difference. They just pretend they don’t, but they can see it. And they enjoy to spoil a debate by their repetitive nonsense. Well, just want to say I appreciate that you are on CIF and people like you./Ellymiranda
Elly,
Thanks for your comment. Both MacShane's thread and the Spain thread were absolutely astonishing. Either these people are genuine arseholes in the real world or their online personae have become so 'real' that they no longer understand that any discussion online should be about the 'real world' and not (as seems to be the case) about imaginary feuds and e-rhetoric.
Who told you to fuck off? You're always welcome here.
Thank you Olching, didn’t mean to complain; I am not exactly an angel of complacency myself but more of a fierce swordsman, be it windmills or couch potatoes I target. Big issues indeed. On the whole I can’t complain.
I had another look at the Spanish thread. Having read it when it came up, I thought it was a very good article but did not particularly read the comments later on. I see what you mean about a-holes, but considering what came up thanks to their posts: some excellent comments from the rest of you including the author, on the whole I think it was for the better. exiledlondoner made one of the best serial postings I have ever seen on CIF.
It’s all in the past now, but when I lived in Spain for some time, there was a peculiar duality as I suppose is the case in any dictatorship. On one hand you live in the modern world with work and every day life. On the other, when you sit a few people for a quiet conversation, it comes back: the stories of the days of Franco. The guilt of collaboration, of contamination and the regret of not knowing where the lies of the government started and ended. Also the acceptance that Spain was for ever a backward corner, poorer than the rest of Europe. The jokes about it. ‘Secrets’ about extramarital children with high officers and prelates who later appeared as benefactors, keep up the solidarity with the falangistas. Many bonds on many levels but also an openness to talk about it. Oh, the stories!
It is something very Jesuitish about Garzón’s pursuit of justice that I always thought was one of the most compelling features of Spanish civil service, although suppressed during the Falangist era when absurdity was a rule.
That was me, Ellymiranda. I forgot the password I used the first time. Sorry.
Post a Comment