Victims of the “the overwhelming might of the state”

This is a quote from Rishi Sunak, who is profiled in ‘Tatler’, which although I feel sure absolutely all our readers subscribe to, I will offer the link nonetheless.

When your Chancellor is in ‘Tatler’ you have to realise that he has arrived – even if none of the rest of us has. (The article is actually a bizarrely interesting read)… And when he has arrived, surely the big state must be getting more popular as he has pointed out its power – this is certainly contrary to the narrative that was spun before – where the state was completely adrift and simply subject to the ‘invisible hand’ of market forces.

I rather fear he’s actually fine with the power – but he certainly doesn’t want any defined responsibility.

Thus we have to ‘pay back’ this money he himself has created.

Jonathan Cook suggested:

Trump proved popular because a lot of the problems he identified were true, even if he raised them in bad faith himself and had no intention of doing anything meaningful to fix them.

Perhaps the UN and IMF suggestion of an increase in public investment banks is a good sign, though of course France, Germany and Italy have long had them. Even Britain had one – if since, naturally, sold off by the Tories. Never mind, in an example of a continued, coherent and clear-sighted policy, there is the possibility it appears, of them starting another one.

The journalist, Ian Dunt, thinks our current government [has] “no principles, there’s no politics here, there’s no ideas…it’s just a bunch of people who want more power.”

It does seem to me that this load of charlatans know government produces money and seem determined to keep it for themselves – that’s why they suggest we will have to pay it back.

The power of the state seems actually to have been given most recently to importers of Chinese PPE rather than UK manufacturers – so precisely avoiding a ‘Make Britain Great Again’ policy

There is a rather mild article in the LRB – and also as far in the past as from October from Peter Geoghegan who is investigations editor at OpenDemocracy. (His latest book is Democracy for Sale: Dark Money and Dirty Politics). He quotes:

They are so corrupt,’ a backbench Conservative MP said to me recently of his own party. ‘Which I almost wouldn’t mind if they weren’t so crap at it.’

And concludes saying :

‘Our problem is not really about individual politicians, nor even political parties. The problem is our political system and culture.’ The author? Nick Timothy [Policy Advisor to Theresa May] CBE.

So the state has power , and power also – even- to create banks. That’s some progress. But that is a money creation power which cabinet and non cabinet members are fighting over.

Yet none of them have sufficient empathy to ‘afford’ a decent social security system without a five week initial delay – even when they all seem to know the money they create is at will.

It is as Ian Dunt says, unfortunately, simply a power game.

That, it seems to me is one reason why we have people elected who are devoid of proper thought.

Even more unfortunately we ourselves are mostly the unwilling victims of this power game…


  1. Gerry Toner -

    Westminster is full of the credulous or as your colleague Ian Dunt refers to them, ‘people…devoid of proper thought’. The system has always been for the perpetuation of elites and as Richard Murphy usefully calls it the promotion of the ‘Cowardly State’. We seem to be at a crescendo of lunacy. Unfortunately Richard is in thrall to a concept of the state that does not exist, the neutral nice state. Nevertheless unless we, the ‘passively willing’, throw off these shackles of subservience, we cannot exercise our hidden mandate for a ‘decent life’. The population is not full of speech makers and thinkers and so believes that one day the Westminster ‘ship of fools’ will deliver. The state must represent the many and inform the few they need to pay up or shut up. Can we achieve that in a measured and managed way or must it be by blood?

    1. Peter May -

      Let’s hope not the last – but it is looking increasingly difficult to see a way through.
      Certainly I feel the opposition is not critical enough….

  2. Jim Osborne -

    There may well e blood but the instigators of the bloodshed will not be the people when they rise up, it will be instigated by the vested interests who the current state and government serves. Contrary to popular myth the October Revolution in Russia in 1917 was not a bloody revolution – it was achieved without a shot being fired – the bloodshed started when the imperialist powers in western Europe launched the Civil War and supported the “Whites” in a campaign to crush the revolution. Just as they did in the Middle East around the same time western European imperialism f**ked up the history of the rest of the 20th century.

Write a reply or comment Comments Policy

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *