Many thanks for an excellent article. I was inspired to read Iain McGilchrist's "The Master and his Emissary" by one of your earlier posts, and the links are quite plain, aren't they. Starmer - and probably his entire government - are extreme examples of "left brain thinking". Relentlessly focused on decontextualised issues, failing to see the whole picture, and largely oblivious to feedback which does not confirm their prejudices. Starmer himself seems to have some kind of schizoid personality disorder, and I find myself surprised that he ever took enough interest in another person's emotional life to give rise to a plausible sex scandal.
The wheels are fast coming off, of course, but I do worry about the appointment of Morgan McSweeney as Starmer's chief advisor. Although he is another technocrat who is doomed to failure, he is likely to exercise a better grasp of the optics, and will nudge the government in the direction of more effective dissembling and subterfuge. The patently useless technocrats like Miliband and Lammy will do less damage in the long run.
As McGilchrist points out, left hemisphere dominance replicates and intensifies itself throughout society. It creates institutions which embody its concerns, nurtures those individuals who display those characteristics, and trains new recruits. Nearly 50 years ago, I did a degree in Government and a Master's in Political Theory at a university which had a superb reputation in that area. Looking back, we studied "comparative cribs". In a way it was fascinating stuff, and perhaps it was significant that so much time was spent on the ongoing spat between Nicos Poulantzas and our Energy Secretary's dad. Oakeshott, though, was just a name in a book, never mentioned in lectures or seminars. So he's now another one on the list, and thank you for bringing him to my attention, and - more importantly - for your superb output here.
Thanks Simon. Oakeshott's essays in the collection 'Rationalism in Politics' are a good place to start. Some of his output is extremely dense but those are all very easy and enjoyable to read. You might also enjoy his collected lectures, delivered at the LSE - I think the title is 'Lectures on Political Philosophy'.
I remember the past.... our Grammar School was designed as a feeder for Oxford or Cambridge universities and back then (way back) an O Level in a classical language was required as one of the entry requirements. We studied Caesar's Gallic Wars Book 1 ("All Gaul is halved into three quarters") and Vergil's Aeneid. We naturally used cribs to help us with the translations... and we learned as a by- product not to rely upon them. One of the characters in the Aeneid (according to Brodie's crib) "weaved hazy orbs across the battlefield". Repeat this translation and our Latin master (Brutus) would be very scathing.
And the by-product realisation is that cribs were unreliable... they translated a 2000 year old text in one language (with a social context of the time) into an equivalent in a relatively modern language (with a social context of the time) for the students of a more modern time still. No wonder the cribs were unreliable.
So... do Socialists use Marx as crib? Probably. And perhaps it explains why socialists keep applying the same principles and keep failing because the 'crib' is not fit for purpose in a radically different world to the one that Marx inhabited.
As the article suggests the crib-based politics (of most parties) is always going to come unstuck, especially as most crib authors (think tanks and the like) only ever propose one-size-shall-fit-all answers. And one-size-shall-fit-all is bureaucratic rather than pragmatic thinking.
The Marxist crib was not fit for purpose at the time either, resting as it does on the Labour Theory of Value. This base prior was shown as false by the ‘Marginal Revolution’ with the understanding of the importance of supply and demand, with subjective human judgement, in determining value. This occurred in his (and Engel’s) lifetime. The invective on exploitation and all the rest of it flows from a completely flawed premise on the nature of reality. Consequently, it can never work, not because it ‘has never been tried properly.’
Yes, although in many ways it's even worse and more simple than that: Marx and Engels appear genuinely to have believed that it was possible to abolish scarcity. It isn't!
The chaos of the first 100 days of 2TK shows how little, in reality, the modern Administrative State can be controlled. Euggypius and NS Lyons write cogently on this on their Substacks. Much of the wisdom of practical politics is understanding the limits of what can be done, with colossal scope for unintentional harm, with commensurate circumspection in taking action. This wisdom is inimical to government that must act to justify itself. Net Zero is so deranged that if pursued with the current alacrity, I can see David’s third outcome as the most likely by 2029. The societal consequences of prolonged power outages, with all the downstream consequences, will be hugely corrosive of legitimacy.
It's kind of a toss up between whether it will be that, or some sort of serious fiscal crisis - or both. Or (fingers crossed) we pull back from the brink.
Fabulous! Patently if we have a system of governance that allows stupid people to run the show, that system is not fit for purpose. When you think about it, the very idea that what should be some sort of organisation that ensures that there are standards so that buildings don't fall down or criminals can't enter our country is actually an enterprise where low grade people can impose their fatuous political philosophies on people who are forced to become their subjects for 5 years at a time, shows we still believe in the divine right of kings (elected now, rather than born). Otherwise, why do we give them power? Take politics out of government would be my answer.
The Age/Era of Technology has promoted the technocratic way of 'doing', the technocratic mindset which, as the Article says, reduces 'problems' ( invented or otherwise) to X plus Y WILL result in Z. It is like the technological era magnetically draws to power bases ( politics)the technocrat, the unthinking hubristic kind of technocrat, eg, Milliband .( There are probably lots of technocrats with both brains and hearts doing all sorts of useful stuff to help humanity).
The technocrats wielding the reigns of political power are a like minded bunch, lacking intuition, intelligence, acumen and heart. They serve themselves and their power base to further their numerous twisted causes....which don't marry well with the complexities of the planet and the humans inhabiting it. These technocrats are alarming 'reductionists'.....because doing X and Y ( removing all fossil fuels) will lead to Z ( the fantasy of Net Zero carbon emissions)....it's our lives being 'reduced', not theirs. But, that is how the political technocrat thinks and operates.
In some ways these types ( like Milliband, Starmer, Blair, Sunak and others) will continue to thrive because of the era in which we are living......they have risen to the surface with the backing of technocratic philanthropic dosh ( joke) and settled on it like algae, and spreading as it does.
When money and influence funds the 'unthinking' technocrat their power bases become unassailable....well, it would appear that way. Politics needs the 'thinking' technocrat but 'money' isn't interested in that type.
An excellent analysis David, thank you and spot on IMHO. UK is facing serious problems and it is anyone's guess as the direction HMG will take in the coming years. I will offer a precis in my next Letter from Great Britain and link your essay on October 26.
Excellent article and it's made me think much more deeply about the obvious incompetence we see demonstrated everywhere. You might disagree, but I see the Blair years as the true beginning of political glibness and following the next Will-o'-the-wisp idea just for the sake of saying something every day in the press.
It goes without saying (but I'll sqy it anyway) that Blair to me is the worst politician who has ever led a government and I remain astonished that he is still quoted and influential.
The civil service needs to stop briefing ex-prime ministers -- then maybe they'd do us all a favour, and shut up.
I know what you mean, but Blair was also in his own way a genius - he did a huge amount of harm but he was astonishingly political capable. I think he's worth listening to at the level of political insight, provided he is allowed nowhere near the levers of power!
Agreed ... But the self-aggrandisement and the entitlement and the lack of understanding he has about what he did when supporting George Bush are astounding. So his 'political insight' to me is completely tainted by his echo chamber existence.
Machiavelli, despite being remembered mainly for his crib "The Prince," shows his republican colours in his far more thoughtful and profound "Discourses on Livy." Well worth a read.
David, I want to share some of your posts but as a paying subscriber I'm not sure how I tell if a post is one just for us or not. There's probably an easy way I'm not aware of, but I know others who make it clear at the top: 'This is a post for my paying subscribers' or similar. Would it be possible for you to do this too? Thank you!
I think it says at the top in small writing 'paid' if it's paid. But you're right, I should probably put something in. (This one isn't paid by the way!)
It's in little purple letters - there should also be a padlock sign next to them. It should be right under the headline of the articles, but it is small.
Many thanks for an excellent article. I was inspired to read Iain McGilchrist's "The Master and his Emissary" by one of your earlier posts, and the links are quite plain, aren't they. Starmer - and probably his entire government - are extreme examples of "left brain thinking". Relentlessly focused on decontextualised issues, failing to see the whole picture, and largely oblivious to feedback which does not confirm their prejudices. Starmer himself seems to have some kind of schizoid personality disorder, and I find myself surprised that he ever took enough interest in another person's emotional life to give rise to a plausible sex scandal.
The wheels are fast coming off, of course, but I do worry about the appointment of Morgan McSweeney as Starmer's chief advisor. Although he is another technocrat who is doomed to failure, he is likely to exercise a better grasp of the optics, and will nudge the government in the direction of more effective dissembling and subterfuge. The patently useless technocrats like Miliband and Lammy will do less damage in the long run.
As McGilchrist points out, left hemisphere dominance replicates and intensifies itself throughout society. It creates institutions which embody its concerns, nurtures those individuals who display those characteristics, and trains new recruits. Nearly 50 years ago, I did a degree in Government and a Master's in Political Theory at a university which had a superb reputation in that area. Looking back, we studied "comparative cribs". In a way it was fascinating stuff, and perhaps it was significant that so much time was spent on the ongoing spat between Nicos Poulantzas and our Energy Secretary's dad. Oakeshott, though, was just a name in a book, never mentioned in lectures or seminars. So he's now another one on the list, and thank you for bringing him to my attention, and - more importantly - for your superb output here.
Thanks Simon. Oakeshott's essays in the collection 'Rationalism in Politics' are a good place to start. Some of his output is extremely dense but those are all very easy and enjoyable to read. You might also enjoy his collected lectures, delivered at the LSE - I think the title is 'Lectures on Political Philosophy'.
I remember the past.... our Grammar School was designed as a feeder for Oxford or Cambridge universities and back then (way back) an O Level in a classical language was required as one of the entry requirements. We studied Caesar's Gallic Wars Book 1 ("All Gaul is halved into three quarters") and Vergil's Aeneid. We naturally used cribs to help us with the translations... and we learned as a by- product not to rely upon them. One of the characters in the Aeneid (according to Brodie's crib) "weaved hazy orbs across the battlefield". Repeat this translation and our Latin master (Brutus) would be very scathing.
And the by-product realisation is that cribs were unreliable... they translated a 2000 year old text in one language (with a social context of the time) into an equivalent in a relatively modern language (with a social context of the time) for the students of a more modern time still. No wonder the cribs were unreliable.
So... do Socialists use Marx as crib? Probably. And perhaps it explains why socialists keep applying the same principles and keep failing because the 'crib' is not fit for purpose in a radically different world to the one that Marx inhabited.
As the article suggests the crib-based politics (of most parties) is always going to come unstuck, especially as most crib authors (think tanks and the like) only ever propose one-size-shall-fit-all answers. And one-size-shall-fit-all is bureaucratic rather than pragmatic thinking.
Yes, although it's important to remember Marx was himself a cribber. He didn't actually have the faintest clue about what economics was all about!
The Marxist crib was not fit for purpose at the time either, resting as it does on the Labour Theory of Value. This base prior was shown as false by the ‘Marginal Revolution’ with the understanding of the importance of supply and demand, with subjective human judgement, in determining value. This occurred in his (and Engel’s) lifetime. The invective on exploitation and all the rest of it flows from a completely flawed premise on the nature of reality. Consequently, it can never work, not because it ‘has never been tried properly.’
Yes, although in many ways it's even worse and more simple than that: Marx and Engels appear genuinely to have believed that it was possible to abolish scarcity. It isn't!
The chaos of the first 100 days of 2TK shows how little, in reality, the modern Administrative State can be controlled. Euggypius and NS Lyons write cogently on this on their Substacks. Much of the wisdom of practical politics is understanding the limits of what can be done, with colossal scope for unintentional harm, with commensurate circumspection in taking action. This wisdom is inimical to government that must act to justify itself. Net Zero is so deranged that if pursued with the current alacrity, I can see David’s third outcome as the most likely by 2029. The societal consequences of prolonged power outages, with all the downstream consequences, will be hugely corrosive of legitimacy.
It's kind of a toss up between whether it will be that, or some sort of serious fiscal crisis - or both. Or (fingers crossed) we pull back from the brink.
I hope we see sense. Otherwise we get both, as a fiscal crisis and energy crisis are two sides of the same coin. Industrial Engineer and Economist Richard Lyon explains here: https://open.substack.com/pub/richardlyon/p/net-zero-and-the-end-of-our-pensions?r=z3b3q&utm_medium=ios
Fabulous! Patently if we have a system of governance that allows stupid people to run the show, that system is not fit for purpose. When you think about it, the very idea that what should be some sort of organisation that ensures that there are standards so that buildings don't fall down or criminals can't enter our country is actually an enterprise where low grade people can impose their fatuous political philosophies on people who are forced to become their subjects for 5 years at a time, shows we still believe in the divine right of kings (elected now, rather than born). Otherwise, why do we give them power? Take politics out of government would be my answer.
This is what we're confronting I think - the realisation that our entire governing framework is an outrage.
Thank you. The basic problem identified by Oakeshott - "the privileging of technical over practical knowledge" - arises from distortions built into our language and education. Complementary to your excellent article above those distortions are the topic of https://www.hughwillbourn.com/book and I explore their relationship to authority in https://www.hughwillbourn.com/post/54-madness-and-the-evaporation-of-authority
The arrival of a News from Uncibal drinking game is the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime. 😂
Ha!
Machiavelli - one drink
Oakeshott - one drink
Modernity - one drink
Political reason - three drinks....
The Age/Era of Technology has promoted the technocratic way of 'doing', the technocratic mindset which, as the Article says, reduces 'problems' ( invented or otherwise) to X plus Y WILL result in Z. It is like the technological era magnetically draws to power bases ( politics)the technocrat, the unthinking hubristic kind of technocrat, eg, Milliband .( There are probably lots of technocrats with both brains and hearts doing all sorts of useful stuff to help humanity).
The technocrats wielding the reigns of political power are a like minded bunch, lacking intuition, intelligence, acumen and heart. They serve themselves and their power base to further their numerous twisted causes....which don't marry well with the complexities of the planet and the humans inhabiting it. These technocrats are alarming 'reductionists'.....because doing X and Y ( removing all fossil fuels) will lead to Z ( the fantasy of Net Zero carbon emissions)....it's our lives being 'reduced', not theirs. But, that is how the political technocrat thinks and operates.
In some ways these types ( like Milliband, Starmer, Blair, Sunak and others) will continue to thrive because of the era in which we are living......they have risen to the surface with the backing of technocratic philanthropic dosh ( joke) and settled on it like algae, and spreading as it does.
When money and influence funds the 'unthinking' technocrat their power bases become unassailable....well, it would appear that way. Politics needs the 'thinking' technocrat but 'money' isn't interested in that type.
Yes - the only thing I'd add is that nobody's power is ever actually unassailable.
An excellent analysis David, thank you and spot on IMHO. UK is facing serious problems and it is anyone's guess as the direction HMG will take in the coming years. I will offer a precis in my next Letter from Great Britain and link your essay on October 26.
Thanks!
Excellent article and it's made me think much more deeply about the obvious incompetence we see demonstrated everywhere. You might disagree, but I see the Blair years as the true beginning of political glibness and following the next Will-o'-the-wisp idea just for the sake of saying something every day in the press.
It goes without saying (but I'll sqy it anyway) that Blair to me is the worst politician who has ever led a government and I remain astonished that he is still quoted and influential.
The civil service needs to stop briefing ex-prime ministers -- then maybe they'd do us all a favour, and shut up.
I know what you mean, but Blair was also in his own way a genius - he did a huge amount of harm but he was astonishingly political capable. I think he's worth listening to at the level of political insight, provided he is allowed nowhere near the levers of power!
Agreed ... But the self-aggrandisement and the entitlement and the lack of understanding he has about what he did when supporting George Bush are astounding. So his 'political insight' to me is completely tainted by his echo chamber existence.
Machiavelli, despite being remembered mainly for his crib "The Prince," shows his republican colours in his far more thoughtful and profound "Discourses on Livy." Well worth a read.
He does and he doesn't. There's an awful lot to say about the Discourses even after all these centuries.
the fact that he can't be slotted into a theoretical position highlights what he brings in practical wisdom
David, I want to share some of your posts but as a paying subscriber I'm not sure how I tell if a post is one just for us or not. There's probably an easy way I'm not aware of, but I know others who make it clear at the top: 'This is a post for my paying subscribers' or similar. Would it be possible for you to do this too? Thank you!
I think it says at the top in small writing 'paid' if it's paid. But you're right, I should probably put something in. (This one isn't paid by the way!)
I can't see the 'paid' at the top of your articles on my phone. Maybe it appears on the laptop? Anyway, great - I'll be forwarding this!
It's in little purple letters - there should also be a padlock sign next to them. It should be right under the headline of the articles, but it is small.
I'll pop my glasses on!