Comments on the Election

Hello readers!

As of this morning, Friday the 13th, the UK General Election 2019 results have been declared. This post will be separated into multiple parts, to account for my predictions before the campaign (spoiler: I was right); to the result here in Scotland; and to the reality in England, and what it will mean for the future. I aim to provide a preliminary analysis of why the results turned out as they did, though we will need more in-depth data to uncover some of the mysteries.

My Predictions

In this post written six weeks before the election, I made three concrete predictions, and raised the point that the NHS would be a major part of the election campaign. The polls agree that, besides Brexit, the NHS was indeed a big part of voters’ concerns.

As for my three predictions, I was correct on all of them, though some were more prescient than others.

Claim 1: “I don’t think the Liberal Democrats are going to do as well its leader, Jo Swinson, hopes.”

This proved fantastically accurate, or dare I say, prophetic. It’s true that the Liberal Democrat vote increased 7.4% to 11.5%, but this did nothing other than gift seats to the Tories. Jo Swinson lost her seat, confirming what I thought and what the polls were saying: no one likes Jo Swinson.

Moreover, judging from the campaign, Jo Swinson’s Lib Dems lost for the exact reasons I predicted: their revoke policy was undemocratic, and a large number of Remain voters (especially we, the young) care about the NHS, education and welfare. Jo Swinson’s record in coalition was less than stellar on those counts.

Claim 2: “the Green Party will do pretty well, though it probably won’t gain any new seats.”

This was precisely correct: the Green vote increased from 1.6% to 2.7% and they retained their 1 seat. The high profile of environmental issues in the media helped them. I should say that Labour would have won some more seats if the Greens had stood down in some constituencies, but hey, who cares about Brexit if we can pretend to save the planet?

Claim 3: “The Conservative Party will be punished hard in Scotland.”

This one turned out to be mostly correct. The Scottish Tories lost 7 of their 13 seats, and their vote share decreased by 3.5%. I was hoping for a wipe-out, but I’m sure my fellow SNP activists are happy with the result.

As for why the Scottish Tories got 25% of the vote, I’ve tried to understand it, and I’ve come to the following conclusion. About half of Scottish Tory voters do see Boris Johnson’s policies on the economy and NHS as being pretty despicable. I think they justify voting for the Tories with the idea that those policies can be fixed, whereas the breakup of the UK—and exit from the EU—are permanent decisions.

The thing with identities is that they are powerful. Unionists in Scotland believe they are British, and it’s incredibly difficult for them to give that up; they will vote to keep it, even if it means enormous child poverty, homelessness, and decimating the NHS.

What will happen to Scotland?

In one word: Independence. In two words: EU membership. The long, in-depth explanation is going to be too complicated to discuss here. The road to independence will be long, hard, and treacherous. An almighty confrontation between the Scottish government and the Tory government in Westminster will be just the start.

I wish I could be optimistic and say that everything will be alright for Scotland. I think it will—in the future. But the next couple of years are going to be chaotic and uncertain. The double whammy of Tory government and Brexit is going to devastate this country.

What happened in England?

I don’t need to tell you this: Corbyn lost and BoJo’s Tories won. But you know who also lost? England, as a nation. British democracy. Rational thought and truth.

As for why this happened, I’m not sure yet. There are many obvious answers: the antisemitism debacle which was parroted by the media ad infinitum—and which Corbyn would have nipped in the bud long ago, if he had any sense. It’s true that the media coverage was pathetic, and incredibly hostile to Labour; but that doesn’t excuse Corbyn for giving them ammunition.

Then there’s Corbyn himself, who could not get across to the electorate like he did in 2017. But hey, I predicted this long ago. I loved most of Jeremy Corbyn’s policies, but I was always sceptical of the man himself; I called him “less than prime-ministerly” and pithily remarked: “Corbyn? Get a tie.”

I was hoping the young were going to save Labour the same way they did last time, particularly since 1.5 million people registered to vote. Source I don’t know what the hell happened. Did the young vote for the Lib Dems and Greens in a grand act of irony? Did we not come out to vote on polling day? Or was it simply not enough to outvote the bloody pensioners and turkeys?

All of this pales in comparison to the biggest reason for why the Tories won the election: “Get Brexit done.” As John Crace has remarked, this was the biggest lie of the election—and it will cost the English dearly. Look, English voters: the Brexit paralysis we have experienced for the past three years has not been because the Tories didn’t have a majority in Parliament. It’s because Brexit is complicated, difficult, and costly.

The media has encouraged this foolish, self-regarding stupidity. Brexit isn’t hard because British Remainers don’t want it. It’s hard because I, along with the 440 million people in Continental Europe, aren’t going to hand your unicorn on a silver platter. Neither will Trump’s America or China. We have our own interests and we are going to protect them.

I repeat: you are not a world power anymore. If you try and force a deal, you will get nothing, and your economy will implode.

I’m going to abandon my normally calm, rational tone and say it like it is. If you voted Tory, you’ve fucked the young. You’ve fucked the disabled, the homeless, and the people on low pay. You put a noose around the neck of the NHS. Don’t come begging to me when Brexit screws you over; I told you so.

The SNP & the Election

Hail reader!

I will be taking a short break from my usual stream of updates regarding Fallen Love and the Vampire Eirik, in order to talk about something else: politics. As usual, I am writing about a specific issue from a specific viewpoint—Scottish independence as a European citizen, to be precise. You American readers may tune in to my existing backlog of posts if this doesn’t interest you; you can take a look at the search bar to the right or the archive on the left.

With that out of the way, let me start with the first piece of big news: I’ve joined the SNP and resigned my Labour membership. Why? Well, I’ve already written a detailed and succinct explanation in my 2-page resignation letter: you can read it here. The short version is that, although I agree with the Labour Party’s policy and direction in England, I support Independence, and that practically means I have to support the SNP—or the Greens.

I did not choose the Greens because, as outlined in a previous post, I think this country has bigger priorities at the moment.

Right! Onto the other topic for today: the December 2019 General Election. I would like to share a few choice observations that have not, to my mind, been sufficiently emphasised in the discourse.

Oldies Don’t Like the Cold

Everybody knows that people aged 50+, and especially those over 65, are by far the biggest supporters of the Tory party. There would never have been a Tory government for the past 9 years if the vote had been decided by the under–40s.

In light of this fact, it may not have been the best decision for the Conservatives to hold the election in December. Old people don’t like to go out in the cold because it hurts their bones, and they are likely to slip and require a hip replacement on the NHS; this article provides a good explanation of the underlying physiology.

Speaking of the NHS

Precisely because of the above reason (and due to some other reasons as well) the NHS is at its most over-crowded and stressed during the winter months. Though the descriptors “over-crowded” and “stressed” don’t really do justice to the situation: NHS England is usually at “breaking point” or “collapse” during the winter. NHS Scotland is managing a bit better, thankfully.

This does not bode well for Boris Johnson’s Conservative party. A couple of alarming headlines, combined with a few angry parents and doctors asking him tough questions on TV, will shift the conversation away from his Brexit and towards the NHS. This will play right into the hands of Labour, and to a lesser extent the SNP as well.

The Psychology of Winter

The UK does not generally hold elections in winter: the dark nights and freezing temperatures reduce turnout, and make campaigning harder. A winter election brings to mind such evocative, poetic one-liners as “The Winter of Discontent” (which brought down the Labour government and ushered in decades of Tory government under Thatcher). It also cost Stanley Baldwin, a Tory Prime Minister, his majority in the 1923 election.

This is the least well-understood factor of the three I have presented here. The majority of commentators interpret winter elections as benefiting the opposition at the expense of the incumbent Government—people are at their most miserable and least optimistic during the winter, and are more likely to punish the Government of the day. On the other hand, the SNP and Labour campaigns rely on optimism to succeed, not misery.

Any Predictions, Alex?

The only predictable thing about this election is that it will be unpredictable. I certainly don’t know which Party will gain a majority—or which will form the government in a hung Parliament. Even so, I am willing to make three predictions.

Firstly, the Conservative Party will be punished hard in Scotland; it is not inconceivable that they will be down to one seat, or even zero—a complete annihilation not seen since 1997. Three factors play into this: the departure of Ruth Davidson; the massive unpopularity of Tory economic policies in Scotland; and Boris Johnson himself, who goes up like a lead balloon with the Scottish electorate.

Secondly, the Green Party will do pretty well, though it probably won’t gain any new seats. This is on account of the high media profile of environmental issues at the moment (which I find somewhat bizarre given the severity of the constitutional and economic crisis the UK is going to find itself in). Thirdly, and finally, I don’t think the Liberal Democrats are going to do as well its leader, Jo Swinson, hopes.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, Remainers (and plenty of Brexit voters too) have a strong sense of what is right as being democratic. The Liberal Democrats’ policy—to unilaterally abrogate Brexit without a referendum vote—will be seen as arrogant and disrespectful of democracy. (I would also add that it is fantasy: you can’t just roll back the clock to 2015. Too much damage has been to this country’s social fabric, and too many bridges have been burned with our friends in Europe.) Secondly, I think lots of Remain voters—most notably the young—ultimately care more about housing, the NHS, jobs and education.

It’s A Time to Say Goodbye...

I suppose I could say that today is a dark day. I suppose I could say I didn’t expect it—though I did. But in truth Brexit was a predictable enough disaster; the best we can do now is control the damage and teach some hard lessons to those who would rather believe fanciful lies.

I shall begin with Scotland.

It’s Time to Leave, Scots

The ‘United’ Kingdom may have chosen to leave by a 2% margin, but Scotland voted 61% the other way. In essence Scotland is now, in the words of Nicola Sturgeon, being dragged out of the EU against its democratic will.

Those of you who have read the Magical Realm over the past couple of months might know what my position used to be on the Independence question; but since most of you probably haven’t, allow me to clarify. Before today, I used to think that Scotland was, ehm, Better Together. It wasn’t that I was particularly against independence; I actually had quite mixed feelings about it.

It was just that—to my mind—the Independence question had a two key problems. Firstly, there was the question of devolution; and secondly, the problem of UK business and EU membership. The latter made independence economically risky, while the former seemed like a more sensible, pragmatic choice.

I was also skeptical of the SNP brigade: I thought their criticisms of Westminster, while not unfounded, were nevertheless exaggerated. I also believed that they promised too much. They promised a united Scotland that would finally be free to tackle its many social and economic problems; but in reality division would continue to exist within Scotland, and problems of such a sort rarely have easy answers.

But today changes everything. It is pointless to ask about business, since there already rumours that Morgan Stanley is planning to move its offices out of London and into Frankfurt and the financial markest are in chaos with recession considered extremely likely by economists. (As one banker, Dominic Rossi, put it: “European stocks are reflecting some economic impact from Brexit but I don’t think [the] eurozone will enter a recession – the UK will have the privilege of that.”)

Nor can one bring out the argument about devolution. If Scotland is to be dragged out of the EU against its will, then devolution is obviously not good enough.

And this time, the SNP has a point. Choosing to leave the UK and rejoin the EU will have far more dramatic consequences than independence would have had last time. This time, Scotland really can choose a better future.

The beautiful irony implicit in Brexit is that it is not a vote to break up the EU; it is a vote to break up the UK.

This Earth, This Realm, This Little England

Yes, I know I’m misquoting the Great Bard. But the point is simple: England is a reasonably wealthy country that has enjoyed a relatively privileged position in Europe until now. It has a good relationship with the Americans. It had access to the common market. It had exceptions inside the EU. It got away with taking only a few thousand refugees.

But today marks the end of privileges. Allow me to put it simply: it is not in Europe’s interest to give the UK a shiny new deal. The EU and national leaders across the continent have been clear that England cannot expect to enjoy club membership without giving anything back.

In fact, it is very much in Europe’s interest to teach England a lesson. A profitable and convenient deal outside the EU would bolster other anti-EU movements across the continent; but recession, unemployment, and the breakup of the nation? Suddenly it no longer sounds so attractive.

Indeed, if I were the sort of bureaucrat that Brexiteers like to pretend make up the EU, I would see Brexit as a potential opportunity. What better way to crush anti-EU sentiment across Europe, than through making an example of England? And what better a way to humiliate England than by giving to Scotland the benefits England so glibly threw away? (And if Scotland decides to join the euro, well; that would be perfect. Scotland can maintain a stable economy in the eurozone while England suffers recession under the pound.)

Of course the consequences of Brexit go beyond this. England will no longer be at the negotiating table of a vast economic and political union; instead it will see itself divided and weakened, the Scots and Irish outside of the union, and its politics increasingly inward-looking and toxic.

Brexit also has consequences in the form of lost rights. Today I had to tell a Y12 student that her plans to study in the Netherlands would have to include the very real possibility of student visas, proof of finance and a quadrupling in tuition fees. Today over a million Britons living across the continent—in Spain, France, Belgium—are left wondering what will become of their pensions and their residency status.

What got lost in the abusive rhetoric against immigrants was that Britons can be immigrants too—immigration is, after all, a two way street.

The Irish Dream

The situation in Northern Ireland is, to say the least, uncertain. With a majority to remain—and Sinn Féin already calling for a united Ireland—things could get very interesting. Of course NI isn’t Scotland and the possibility of leaving is not so clear-cut as it is across the Irish sea.

But if Ireland does become a united republic, what better an irony? Decades of internicine war and sectarian struggle—brought to unity by British arrogance?

And of course, there’s that currency question again. Ireland is in the eurozone. Will another formerly British nation adopt the hated euro?

Corbyn—The Prophet Doomed?

Another interesting piece of news is that two rebel MPs, Margaret Hodge and Ann Coffey, have submitted a motion of no confidence. Now—this motion may not get put to the ballot. Senior figures in the party have already called the motion self-indulgent.

Nevertheless, it is a serious possibility. Brexit changes a lot of things, as we can see—and since the vast majority of the PLP is Europhile, Corbyn’s failure to convince Labour voters and the country to back Remain is obviously not good. What’s more, Labour MPs see Corbyn as a reluctant and skeptical defender of the EU—a perception that is not entirely without justification.

In his defence, Corbyn did what he could. It’s not his fault the kippers and the Tory right were obsessed with voting out. The demons Boris and Farage unleashed—fear of immigrants, fear of an imaginary Brussels monster—are difficult to contain.

And let’s face it: Corbyn’s skeptical support of the EU may have done more good than harm. People are often more willing to listen to a man who shares the doubts they share—but nevertheless supports the EU project—than one who is adamantly pro-EU.

That’s the theory, anyway. The problem is really that we don’t know why Labour failed to get our supporters to vote Remain en masse. It can just as easily be argued that Corbyn would have swayed the vote towards Remain if he had been more like Nicola Sturgeon—a bold politician making a positive case for Europe.

My take on this is that we should wait. Wait and see who the Tories elect as leader. Wait and see whether the post-Brexit polls are kind to Jeremy—or not.

As some of you may know, however, my support of Corbyn has been lukewarm rather than jubilant. I like Corbyn: he’s a man of principle who has successfully recognised the problems this country faces and proposed serious plans for how to deal with them (unlike the vapid soundbites of the Blairites).

But politics is a dirty business, and I’m not sure Corbyn has what it takes to be a successful leader. The reality of being a politician is that you have to sometimes be economical with the truth; that you have to tell a convincing story in order to win. If you don’t, others will. And you may not like where those stories lead to...

Hail Our Dear Leader, BJ!

The last of the political fallout to emerge from this debacle is of course Boris Johnson. The man who, but weeks before the referendum campaign, claimed to be for Bremain—and then became a convinced Europhobe. The man whose ambition sees no bounds; the man who wears the mask. A charming fool on the outside. A dangerous and cunning politician underneath.

Will this man as Prime Minister be disastrous for this country? Of course. But, then again, you deserve what you vote for.

What Broke the Camel’s Back?

Among the last question I will be addressing here is perhaps the most important. What swayed the out vote?

Through examination of the polls, Leave’s campaign, and personal experience, I will offer the following:

1. Xenophobia and nationalism. No doubt some will accuse me of being elitist. Honestly, I don’t give a damn. Racism is not okay if the southern states of the America vote for it. Anti-semnitism is not alright even if 40%+ of Germans voted for Hitler. Xenophobia is a dangerous populism with a long history of bloodeshed—particularly in this dear continent of ours.
2. The belief that immigrants ‘take away our jobs,’ crowd up our NHS, and do other terrible things. While not strictly xenophobia, this is still an irrational belief that has resisted all the reasoned argument and evidence thrown against it.
3. The Brusselero. A fictional monster of faceless EU bureaucrats propagated by decades of gutter press sensationalist nonsense .
4. Wishful thinking. Britain outside of the EU will not suddenly become a bastion of democratic socialism; it will find only recession, diplomatic impoverishment, and more fanciful lies peddled by rightwing politicians.
5. And finally, there was the fact that the electorate treated the referendum as a way of saying f-you to the establishment—to Cameron, Osborne, Brussels, and much of the political class. Those who live in places like the North East and the coastal regions—areas of the country left empty by a globalised, post-industrial economics—felt that their low pay, insecurity, unemployment and degrading town centres were... the fault of the European Union. Of course, this is completely false, and they’ve shot themselves in the foot. Loss of EU membership will allow the likes of Boris Johnson and Gove to continue their austerity programme with even greater zeal—aside from there being no more pesky workers’ rights regulations or environmental laws to worry about, they themselves have been boosted politically while the only party capable of doing something about the poverty, unemployment and decaying town centres is now trying to get rid of its leader. And of course declining trade and investment, plus the dangers faced by the financial sector, will only make the poverty worse. The Leaves of small-town England probably don’t realise that London pays for their NHS through tax revenues. A decline in London’s economy will have consequences for them, not just for London. But when the turkeys vote for Christmas, they’re always surprised to find themselves in the oven.

To Conclude

Yesterday, I made a Faustian pact with myself. If this country voted Brexit, I would do two things. Firstly, I would—like Scotland—leave. My parents are already going to move to Strathclyde, where they shall enjoy a more competent leadership under the ever handsome Nicola Sturgeon. As for moi? My offer from Amsterdam looks increasingly attractive...

The second promise I made was that I would read HL Mencken’s Notes on Democracy. As a critic of democracy, Mencken made many a wise observation. This is perhaps his wisest:

‘For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.’

Final Words Before the Referendum

I have written extensively on the issue of the EU referendum; the most detailed post is of course my essay, A Socialist’s Case for EU Membership, along with my more digestible post on the Jo Cox murder

This post will be the last before the referendum tomorrow. Incidentally, tomorrow I also have my transport economics exam—an apt coincidence if ever there was one.

Of course, this makes me very busy. I have a significant amount of practice and revision left to do for tomorrow’s exam. And, to top it off—tonight I will hopefully be getting feedback on the cover for the Necromancer! This is courtesy to the company that helped me find my editor, Reedsy. Reedsy is a marketplace dedicated to writers looking for editors, marketing people, and designers; as part of this goal, they are hosting a live video on Facebook with one of their professional cover designers. My own book should be on the list. Hopefully, I’ll get some good advice!

Anyway, since I am so busy this post will be brief. It will mainly focus on the BBC’s ‘Great Debate’ (haha) and on the points there made.

Logic is Not Leave’s Strongpoint

One of the claims made by our very own Gisela Stuart—a Labour MP (!)—is that the EU is responsible for Greece’s 50% youth unemployment, and for the economic problems of southern Europe more generally.

Of course, this is nonsense. In fact, Greece’s situation would be worse if it weren’t for the EU.

Why? The answer is simple: a lot of the Greek government’s debt belongs to foreign creditors. Among them are Italy, France and Germany (yes, Italy loaned Greece money) but a lot of money is owed to the IMF and other international creditors.

Now, Greece is in the euro. The euro is a much maligned currency, but Greece’s financial problems would be quite a bit worse if it wasn’t in the euro. This is because of a simple reason: if Greece still had the drachma, the drachma would have devalued hugely in the course of the crisis.

This would have been disastrous for Greece. Greece would have seen its debt multiply before its eyes; for the money it borrowed it borrowed in euros and dollars. If, before the crisis, 300 drachma = 1 dollar, and if, after the crisis, 1 dollar = 900 drachma, Greece would effectively have to pay 3 times as much to service the debt denominated in $.

So if Greece wasn’t in the euro, it would either have to pay vast amounts of money servicing the debt, or more likely it would default. Now: defaulting isn’t such a bad thing in the long-run, but there’s no doubt it causes a lot of short-term pain. Without the euro a default would have been inescapable. With the euro, Greece at least has a choice.

A large depreciation in the local currency—such as the one Iceland saw, and which Greece would have seen if it wasn’t in the euro—would also have terrible consequences for inflation. Economists lament Greece’s 1% deflation, but history shows us that 100% inflation is far, far worse. The Weimar Republic saw hyperinflation like that. They ended up burning money for fuel, unemployment was sky high, and they eventually elected Hitler. (Another little known fact.)

A Greek hyperinflation would have left Greeks freezing in their homes—foreign gas being too expensive to afford. It would have left cars unused, with no petrol to fill their tanks. Those who bought mortgages in foreign currency would lose their homes.

So you’ll excuse me if, when seeing a Labour MP so unwittingly suggest the destruction of a country’s economy, I feel my blood boiling.

You’ll also have to excuse me if I scoff at the notion that the euro caused the Greek crisis. Let me put it simply: a country whose government accrues debt for decades (even before joining the euro), whose politicians lie to its people and claim there’s plenty of money, and which has seen its largest employer and revenue stream (tourism) decimated by the global financial crash, is going to suffer—euro or no euro!

Sadly, blaming the European Union for the failures of national governments is a common tactic of the Leave campaign. The truth is often harder to swallow.

My Faustian Pact

I promised that this would be a short post. I aim to fulfill this promise. I have, incidentally, also made a promise to myself: if the UK leaves the EU, I will do two things. Firstly, I will leave the UK. Going to university in Amsterdam or Leuven suddenly seems like a much more attractive proposition than spending £9000 a year to study in a country that will soon become isolated by a wave of nationalism.

And secondly, I will read HL Mencken’s Notes on Democracy. As one of history’s more prominent (and perhaps most eloquent) critic of democracy, he believed that the masses would always be too ignorant to make good decisions; that they will always be manipulated by demagogues and populists for their own ends.

Eighty years on, Mencken’s argument has more than a ring of truth to it. Tomorrow he will be put to the test.

I hope he will be proven wrong. But I suspect his timeless words will prove correct.

On Democracy

As of late, my efforts in the blogosphere have been somewhat lackadaisical. I do apologise, dear readers; but the work of a writer is varied, and my upcoming novel—the Ark—is no small endeavour. Not only am I continuing with writing it (Chapter Six, as of present time) but I am also receiving feedback from a secret beta-reader.

Furthermore, I have also applied for the annual Jefferson Prize, hosted by the Missouri Review. This has involved a careful consideration of my current poetry, and certain improvements: the Necromancer, for example, has received changes in language and expression to certain strange or overly archaic sentences; other poems, such as Essence and Objet D’Art, have also been edited.

But no matter. Today I shall be writing a relatively brief (but hopefully informative) essay on democracy.

The matter is naturally very complex, and the following assumes basic familiarity both with current political events (such as Osbourne’s ‘Charter of Cuts’) and the principles of political philosophy as elucidated on by the likes of John Stuart Mill, Hobbes, etc. There will also be some matters of economics being debated; but I shall explain those with (I hope) sufficient clarity to avoid prior knowledge requirements.

Anyway: down to business.

Against Democracy—Part One: Tyranny

In any debate concerning systems of government, one must firstly consider what one wishes to achieve and the priorities thereof. Let’s take some basics—good government should be the following:

1. Just. It must act in a manner that is fair to all members of society: tyranny is something best avoided.
2. Effective. Not only is effective government desirable generally (no one likes a government perpetually frozen in gridlock, like the American one, or tending to compromise to the point that it pleases neither side) but it is also imperative in meeting the condition above. Bad government results in corruption, incompetence and economic meltdown. A government that wastes its citizens’ money, or reneges on its citizens’ trust, is fundamentally unjust.
3. Pleasing. It is desirable for government to please all those who differ in opinion; for dictatorships and (to lesser extent) monarchies are often found lacking in engagement with the all opinions present. It is also to some degree necessary for condition 1, since a government run by the few tends to be… for the few, and is once more unjust.

For condition 1, democracy initially seems a good idea. After all: tyrannies usually develop in non-democratic nations—like Syria or Saudi Arabia—due to, in theory, the fact that government is run by a small and very specific minority (typically old, wealthy, religious and powerful men) and not by the people. Hence, the answer is democracy: demos (the people) and kratia (power). Right?

Well, no. Firstly, it is quite plausible for the majority to act tyrannically towards the minority. Uganda is a democratic country, but it behaves tyrannically towards its gay citizens; the US, also a democracy, behaved tyrannically towards black people. Democracy is no guarantee of justice—and the sooner we dispel this myth, the better.

But democracy doesn’t just suffer from the problem coined ‘The Tyranny of the Majority’; it also suffers from the tyranny of the minority. Yes, you heard that right. Governments are highly able to deceive their citizens using outright lies or, more commonly, sophisticated misinformation and obfuscation.

The Commons recently voted against the Assisted Dying Bill by a 2/3 majority. But 80% of the populace supported the Bill, according to the polls (which have predicted general election results quite reliably, for example). Why is there such a disparity? Well, it seems that the House is composed disproportionately of a minority, that is both more religious and has very little experience of what it means to be in hardship.

But suppose the UK was a direct democracy, and not a Republic. What then?

There are several practical problems with direct democracy: the majority of people are busy with work and family, and don’t have time to consider and debate complex issues of government.

But even if the UK was more like Switzerland, there will be other instances when the majority still manage to vote against their own interests. One such example is to do with taxation. Watch the following:

Notice, after around 2:30, the lady who believed the rich should not pay more tax; and yet was on £16K herself? The people earning enough to pay the top rate of tax in this country are on £150K: this is nearly 6 times the median wage, and only 1% of the populace earn it. If the lady were actually making decisions based on her self-interest, she would want the rich to pay more taxes. If they pay more, she pays less. Likewise would the other 99% of people earning less than £150K.

So why doesn’t this occur? The cause lies with ignorance and misinformation. Firstly, the lady may well have been ignorant enough to simply not know this simple fact. But the Tory government and its proponents are also very good at misinformation generally: they claim ‘trickle-down economics’ as a basis for their policies. The trouble is, if the rich get richer everyone else stays where they are. ‘A rising tide lifts all boats,’ may be good rhetoric, but it isn’t good economics.

The theory has already been debunked even by such conservative bastions as the IMF; but let’s briefly examine the claim a priori. How can the rich getting richer make life better for the poor? Why, by buying things from them! If there are more rich people going to the restaurant, the waiters get more tips. Right?

Wrong. The theory fundamentally misunderstands the workings of a trade economy. When the rich buy something from a poor person, they exchange money (a proxy for wealth) with a resource, e.g. being served food. But so too does the poor person exchange money with the rich when they, for example, buy a computer with Microsoft Windows. Is this to say that the poor make the rich richer, and the rich make the poor less poor?

That’s one way to think about it. More correctly, a trade economy is one in which one good is exchanged for another; the goods are equal in value (theoretically, at least) and so all that happens is that one agent exchanges a good they consider less useful with another agent in the same situation. To take an example: consider a baker. He has baked 100 pieces of bread that day; but since he cannot eat 100 pieces of bread, he exchanges 95 of them for a new coat. The taylor, for his part, gets bread for the coat he doesn’t need.

The point is: neither is materially worse off, or better off, following the transaction. All that occurs is that one good, of equal value, is exchanged for another that the persons involved find more useful to them personally.

The Tories use many more such myths to lie to the population. Jeremy Hunt would have you believe that taxing the rich makes them work less; but the empirical evidence doesn’t support him. Not only is there no connection between marginal rates of taxation and earnings in the data, but even countries like Denmark are still highly wealthy despite (it would seem) having marginal rates of taxation in excess of 50%. Indeed, the UK had higher rates under Thatcher, and higher rates still under Churchill. This and other claims I address in further detail here.

Which leads me onto…

Against Democracy—Part Two: Ignorance

The above has shown us that democracy often is tyrannical, either because it is majoritarian or because its citizens are ignorant.

But ignorance is problematic not only for the cause of justice, but also for the cause of effective governance. One prime example is Osbourne’s ‘Fiscal Charter’—or as Labour call it, the Charter of Cuts.

Osbourne’s piece of legislation effectively requires governments to run surpluses under ‘normal times’. The rationale? ‘Saving for a rainy day,’ or, perhaps more fittingly, ‘fixing the roof while the sun is shining.’

All of which is very relatable for the general public. But the general public doesn’t have a degree in macroeconomics; and this is poor economics.

Why? Because it belies an irrational aversion to debt. Debt is not all bad; a business, like for example Apple, borrows money to hire software engineers, to buy processors for their first machines, to build factories, and so on. Should they give all of that up because they have to go into debt to do it? Of course not! We’d never have economic growth otherwise.

And why is it a good idea for Apple to borrow? Because the profits they make from selling their machines far outweighs the cost of their loan.

The situation is precisely analogous in the case of the government. Should the government not borrow to build roads, and allow our manufacturing to grow, our transport to be faster, and the goods from Tescos to be shipped more cheaply? Should the government not borrow to build schools, and teach the engineers and writers and accountants of tomorrow?

But Osbourne’s charter effectively outlaws this. And that, frankly, is stupid.

Furthermore, there is also a great deal to criticise about Osbourne’s little piece of Keynesianism. The idea that governments can save money to pay their way out of future recessions is tempting for the household economists—but national economies are not households. If a government runs a surplus, it is effectively taking resources out of the economy. It is taking schools away, it is taking roads away, and it is taxing everyone to breaking point. Government savings won’t bring us out of recession; it will take us there.

The real way to prepare for recession lies neither with Osbornomics nor with Gordon Brown’s fictitious ‘light-touch’ regulation. The solution lies with preventing the causes of recessions: insane and stupid risks taken by banks.

But I digress. The problem with democracy is that voters simply have no idea of the complexity behind issues of governance. They vote in ill-qualified and dangerous politicians that run bad governments. And the irony? The voters can’t even see it. Until it’s too late.

For Democracy

I make no secret that I have a somewhat dim view of democracy. But there are important reasons to consider for why democracy may be the least inadequate of the many inadequate forms of government (to quote Winston Churchill).

For one, it is true that other forms of government are not without problems. Hereditary monarchies tend to give ill-qualified and unsuitable individuals high office; while hereditary dynasties can lead to oligopolistic and dangerous groups of people controlling the fate of the nation.

Dictatorships have a nasty tendency to lead to tyranny—few men can hold absolute power without temptation. Furthermore, dictators are still human; and individuals are more likely to make errors of judgement than groups of individuals, particularly diverse groups that can disagree.

It seems that the perfect form of government would allow the people to make their own choices, except where they are stupid; after which a benevolent, omniscient governor will intervene. Or perhaps the people may be wise enough to avoid making stupid decisions to begin with.

Since the former is implausible, and other forms of governance are yet even more inadequate, there is only one conclusion to be drawn here. We must continue with democracy. But it must be a better democracy. For the key behind good democracy—or indeed good governance in general—is in defeating ignorance.

Ignorance: The Root of Bad Democracy

Democracy is a misunderstood idea. The purpose of democracy, as we have seen, lies not in populism and majoritarianism; indeed, these are the very vices of democracy. The idea behind democracy is really quite simple: it’s not as bad as the alternatives. And to make it any good, we must free ourselves of believing that decisions made by the majority are in any way sacrosanct.

No: good democracy lies with reason, debate, and evidence. It is therefore crucial that the general populus is well educated; that our information is accurate, and if not unbiased then at least from multiple points of view; and that we consider carefully the matter of who can vote, and how.

The UK suffers from poor governance for many reasons. First among these is education—or our lack thereof. The UK does not have any formal politics or economics taught in school; and this, quite simply, is a problem. A lack of familiarity with the basic principles of economics allows dangerous ideas to foment and spread. A lack of political awareness, and of historical awareness, can lead to citizens accepting political soundbites naïvely and unquestioningly.

Indeed, many of our citizens seem to lack even basic education. They lack critical thinking; the ability to look at statistics and counter-check claims; and some of them are just plain ignorant.

The Tory government likes to implicitly feed the myth that there is a large number of illegal and spurious benefit claimants—the ‘scroungers’ to use their terminology—happy to leech off the hardworking taxpayer to buy flat-screen TVs. If our citizenry could actually read the statistics published by the government’s own agencies—the ONS estimates that only 0.9% of claims are fraudulent—or even apply basic critical thinking (are they still talking about how they’re going to make the benefits system fairer, after being in government for 5 years?), the situation would be very different.

The UK suffers from other problems too. The FPTP voting system is not only disproportionate—read this for more—but also has a nasty tendency to ensure that political parties always retain a share of power no matter what they do. If you happen to like much of what Labour says, but don’t like Jeremy Corbyn’s foreign policy; or if you happen to think that Cameron might be right on some things, but perhaps the railways should be in public ownership; hard luck for you then! New political parties in Britain cannot rise easily. Why? Because if you vote this new and exciting party—say, the Green Party—you’ll split the left vote. Then the Tories will get the seat.

The final cause for concern is called the ‘media’. Much of it is owned by a right-wing billionaire called Rupert Mudorch. He and his kind are responsible for why much of the public believes in ‘scroungers and skivers’. Why? Because they repeatedly publish the most egregious and infuriating stories of benefit theft their grubby little paws will catch—like this delicious gem:

The Mail publishes many more tales such as this. And they may be true. But they’re not the majority—not by a longshot. (I will repeat: 0.9%.) And if our citizens read this regularly—which they do: the Mail is the second most widely read paper in the UK (Wikipedia)—will their perception of benefit theft not be distorted? Will the family on £40k benefits not be on the forefront of their mind when they put the tick next to the Tory box?

Conclusion

My essay has indeed been substantial; nevertheless, I hope I have made my point. Accepting democracy as the least inadequate form of government does not mean accepting that the majority are sacrosanct; it does not mean accepting any ignorant and illogical argument or policy on the basis that it has been voted.

What it does mean? Education, evidence, and critical thinking must become the purlieu of all.

Very well; the Ark beckons. Until then—may the stars be with you…

PS: if you thought this essay worth your time, perhaps you may consider recommending it on Google or sharing it on Social Media. The buttons below are good for this.