Game Ain't Based On Sympathy (GABOS).

The many fronts the Coalition have opened can seem bewildering (from the NHS, to LA funding, voluntary and community sector, schools, cancelling the Building Schools for the Future programme, teacher training and higher education funding, tuition fees and Welfare reform, Trident, Social Work reform, Forests, Police pay and conditions, the list goes on).

Arguably, this is intentionally confusing; the interconnectedness of the system is disregarded and broken down into constituent parts, by disaggregating the system in this way it becomes very difficult to track the overall impact of the reforms. The subsequent impacts are impossible to reassemble and the result is chaos; chaos that facilitates pushing though changes more radical in application, than even the Thatcher Government dared. This is, in fact, the point; by creating chaos and fracturing systems, society fractures into many smaller groups, many of whom become disempowered. Overall, attention then becomes focused on what directly affects us, rather than the implications for the whole system.


Some have argued that the plan is actually not working. We suggest that it really depends on what the real plan actually is. The lessons learned as a result of Blair's reflections on Government have not gone unnoticed. He reflected that within the first couple of years of Government, New Labour wasted much time being concerned about the relative distractions of public and media opinion, rather than implementing the scale and pace of change they wanted to see. The speed and depth of change under the coalition has been staggering. This 'lesson' has been learned, and developed, by the right and coupled with their effective management of public opinion and media campaign of 'we're all in this together', which has led to dramatic results. At time of writing, the Liberal Democrats are being hounded for 'selling out to right wing ideals', whilst the Tories are actually gaining in the opinion polls, currently balanced with Labour. This learning curve and revised approach of the right, has been pointed squarely and firmly at public sector reform and the welfare state. This approach to speed and pace of their 'reform' is consistent with, and common to chaos theory. It is also known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Just a small change in the initial conditions can drastically change the long-term behavior of a system. If we consider the initial changes as being public sector funding and delivery and the long-term behaviour of the system being the welfare state, it would suggest that despite the ‘chaos’ plans in this context are firmly on track.

The excellent 'All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace' highlights the work of Ayn Rand and her theory of individualism that has gained ground and acceptance in many areas. Rand postulated that one's self-interest should always take precedence and that selfishness is, in fact, a virtue.  This finds a comfortable home in the current ideological stand point of the Coalition; to go further, political chaos theory serves to create such uncertainty that the ideologues in the Tory party can push through change more quickly and isolate us further.

Tory led policy that isolates us in our own experience has been very effective in the past, making community cohesion difficult; a recent example being welfare reformist Lord Freud, who is stating that spare rooms in social housing is something that the country can no longer afford. The fact that this in many cases targets the vulnerable and fractures communities, appears not to have registered, it certainly has little or nothing to do with reform. The challenge is to remain united in opposition to such attacks. To track the impacts and maintain a clear vision of what we need to develop inclusive systems and reject the scapegoating of some sections of our communities, whether they are demonised as 'chavs', immigrants or the vulnerable.

The recent furore surrounding both Dorries’ and Clarke’s comments about the sexual abuse of children and rape respectively demonstrate a remarkable lack of understanding about complex issues. Dorries’ comments that abstinence and children saying ‘no’ to their abusers would lead to a reduction in the incidence of child sexual abuse is unhelpful, at best. To follow this maxim the abused adults in last weeks excellent Panorama programme on the BBC should have objected to their treatment and accepted their personal responsibility for the situation. These comments minimise the impact of such offences and makes the victim complicit in the abuse. Clarke’s comments fail to address the nature of male sexual violence and concentrate instead on categorising 'types' of rape. To understand these somewhat blinkered views one must acknowledge the way in which Tory policy is made. The isolation of both privilege and the Palace of Westminster seems to make it difficult for ministers and MPs to engage with subjects in a rational manner. Opposition for the Tories should have facilitated the kind of listening exercise in which they are currently involved in relation to the proposed reforms of the NHS. The NHS reforms have failed spectacularly to gain support from anyone other than the most ardent and sycophantic implementers of this right-wide ideology as they were hatched behind closed doors by those with a lack of insight.

This ideological standpoint of simply ‘knowing’ what is right because of a quirk of one's birth or by one's position manifests itself in policy that is roundly condemned by those working in the sector.  The slavish promotion of, and use of moral language to justify, individual responsibility affects even the politician here and Ministers are hung out to dry by the Party if policy fails to garner public support. Arguably, this scapegoating of individuals is again intended to deflect our attention from the whole; to take the NHS reforms as an example, Lansley is to blame for this not the Tory Party or the LibDems, despite the fact that both party leaders signed the policy off.

There was much talk by the Coalition of a new politics, this has not materialised; our current version of politics is not new, it is old and rotten to the core. The Coalition has no mandate for these reforms as much of it was in neither Party's manifesto nor the Coalition agreement. We find it shameful to hear the Foreign Secretary speak of supporting democracy in the Middle East (whilst waging war there) as our own model of democracy is broken, more broken now than it has been in living memory.

Is this the democracy we want?  We value our personal freedoms, of course, but should they take precedence over the need to develop a coherent whole?

Thanks for reading.

Best

The HullRePublic Team