Chasing Contradiction

There’s an oft overlooked reason to why Britain is suffering. We’ve pursed contradictions for too long. A contradiction of the nation. And eventually, cold hard reality hits back. Many governments, both Labour and Conservative, both majoritarian or coalition have done the same thing; pursue contradiction. To give a few examples:

• Endless economic growth whilst protecting the environment

• Endless jobs with endless population increase

• Printing money whilst controlling inflation

• Negative interest to protect the financial system

• Enforced social harmony within conflicting cultures

• Litigious compensation culture with endless human right protections

• Greenfield wind and solar farms that ‘protect the environment’

• Reducing energy production whilst electricity demand increases

• To name but a few

Few question these contradictions. In part because policy is never framed like above. It’s drip-fed instead. Usually with catchphrases and slogans.

‘We will build a million houses.’

‘We need to protect our economy.’

‘We will grow the economy.’

‘We must let refugees in.’

‘We need to borrow more to fix the NHS.’

‘We will protect the environment.’

These sound faintly noble, a bit boring and quite tiring at this point. Not because they’re bad aims; but because often, one aim will undermine another. You cannot have all solutions for all people. Rearrange the order and see what emerges:

‘We will protect the environment.’

‘We will build a million houses.’

‘We must let refugees in.’

‘We will grow the economy.’

‘We need to protect our economy.’

‘We need to borrow more to fix the NHS.’

A horrible pattern becomes clear. A pattern of violently clashing contradictions. It soberly reminds me of the great Thomas Sowell’s quote:

“There are no solutions - only trade-offs.”

Sowell’s adage is true. Yet in our modern, comfort worshipping age, we don’t imbibe this. We’ve not only forgotten it – we’ve rejected it. We’ve told ourselves all things can work for all people. If we try hard enough to escape painful realities, there won’t be consequences. That we’re advanced enough to make the nation everybody wants. This subtle rejection of reality began in Britain in what will be remembered by historians as a momentous year: 1997. Tony Blair was elected. And Blair brilliantly, cleverly, deliberately embodied contradiction. And he did it to win support. To elaborate:

• A soft socialist praising Thatcher

• An Oxford-grad ‘everyday’ man (‘just call me Tony’)

• A lawyer ignoring international law

• A Member of Parliament having contempt for Parliament

• A war leader becoming a member of ‘the Board of Peace’ for Gaza

  And so on

Such contradictions of a person affect their politics. This is very true with Blair. Blairism was more than a flash in the pan; Blairism has endured for decades after Blair’s premiership. In large part because Blair was brilliant at winning elections. Blair was brilliant at covering his tracks. Blair understood law. Blair understood power. And if you’ll pardon the pun, Blair had flair. Since he won 3 elections as a Labour leader, Blair became the model every prime minister followed since. Not just personally, not just electorally, but politically.

• Brown was the economic architect of Blairism and his appointed successor – the father of modern ‘quantitative easing’ (printing more money to boost the economy (in theory))

• Cameron called himself ‘the heir to Blair’

• May called her own party ‘the nasty party’

• Johnson revived Blair’s Downing Street delivery unit

• Sunak (reluctantly) copied Brown’s quantitative easing methods with the Furlough scheme

• Starmer picked Blair to be one of his off-the-books unofficial advisers and has cultivated a close relationship

• Even Thatcher declared that ‘my greatest achievement is Tony Blair.’

This is important because politics is not just policy. I agree with Starkey’s view – politics is architectonic. It shapes culture. It shapes the environment. It increasingly shapes language. It shapes slowly and not always steadily, but sometimes very surely. And whilst England and later Britain have always retained degrees of contradiction, it was a healthy contradiction. A healthy tension. Like the tension a pillar feels to hold up a roof. To clarify, Anglo/Britain had:

• A republic with a crown

• Liberty with law and order

• Representation in an executive Parliament

• A Parliament both executive and legislative

• Policing by consent

  And so on

We have slid into unhealthy contradiction. Irreconcilable contradiction. The contradiction that rips itself apart. Less akin to a pillar holding a roof, and more like hypertension within the heart. We now have:

• Law without justice

• Borders without restrictions

• Rights without responsibilities

• Consumption without production

• Building without restraint

• Noise without reason

• Speed without rest

And when there’s too much tension, too much contradiction, things start to strain. Things start to bail. Pillars start to crack. Things become unbalanced. And cold, hard, nasty reality hits. Finances become strained. Spending becomes too much. Building targets become unfeasible. Nature is hurt. Costs soar.

Put another way, what was healthy tension has become unhealthy strain. And such strain is hard to manage. And when strain increases, many decrease in the face of it - least of all our current leaders. People who aren’t able to make the right choices nor the hard choices. Only the easy ones. With this in mind, what can be done?

As usual, we already have the answers. And as usual, they lie not in abstract reason, but in our concrete past. The general idea is this: good governance is not efficient, not based in expertise, not powerful nor based in ideology; it’s found within the structures of government itself. We just have to nurture them. Some of these are very very old. Some of these come and go. But some have endured for a very long time, and have endured for many good reasons.

One is the Cabinet. Why do we have a Cabinet? So ministers and secretaries can debate. They can argue. They can weigh things up. Good government is about weighing issues against each other. It delicate balancing act. And for far too long British governance has been based in avoiding choices. Chancellor Osborne’s austerity cuts reflect this trend deeply. Instead of making those weighted, careful, difficult and sometimes brutal decisions that are absolutely necessary, he did not do so. He cut everything equally. He refused to make choices. And we wonder why things have gone wrong. They are not decisions based in malice, but in human weakness.

Another is Parliament. The Parliament is around 800 years old. Why do we have a Parliament? So that people can debate the government. Not to make a nuisance (hence why there’s a Speaker, a strict set of rules, a particular seating arrangement, etc.) It’s there to debate. To discuss. To weigh things up. It’s why the government has to sit in Parliament and rule through it. Parliament's endured not out of nostalgia or respect, but because it’s genuinely useful. It contains poor government decisions. It contains egotists, despots and demagogues. It refines laws. It decides taxes with (and against) the Chancellor. It brings up local issues. It’s vital having everyone in the same room for big decisions. Hence why it's stayed. It’s certainly imperfect, but we’ve forgotten why it’s there in the first place. It’s no coincidence Blair hated Parliamentary sessions and prime minister’s questions. And it’s no coincidence Britain has become unbalanced post-Blair.

Another is the Royal Audience. The Prime Minister meets with the Monarch once a week. As a counterweight to the PM’s ambitions, desires, powers. To question their decisions. To weigh things up. All for similar reasons as above. It resembles the Roman Republic’s system of having two consuls simultaneously. Britain has two consuls in a sense, and we’ve forgotten why.

Dining with the Opposition was a tradition we’ve lost. Once a week, the Cabinet would dine with the Shadow Cabinet (the opposition who sit opposing the government in Parliament.) Once again for reasons similar to what was touched upon. It also humanised political opponents. We’ve lost it, we’ve forgotten it, and a future government would be wise to revive it.

There are many more examples. Many more cases of what our unwritten, deliberately contradicting and counter-supporting constitution could do for us. Many treasures waiting to be rediscovered. Structures as guides and tools. Not as a binding from the past, but as a support for the future. Balance in Britain will only return when we use the past to structure the future.

"People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors."

Edmund Burke