Published On: Sat, Aug 13th, 2016

Archive: Why Everyone Hates Politicians

In 2011, I attempted to critique “The Plan” by Carswell & Hannan. After 3 installments I’d had enough…

First Published on Luikkerland website, Sun, 04 Sep 2011

This is the first instalment of what I intend to be many in which, section by section, I criticise and react to “The Plan” – the book co-written by Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan. Each post in this series will be named after the corresponding section of the book.

The design is to contribute to an essential movement to discredit so-called conservative politicians who act as “lightning conductors” by feigning nationalistic, anti-Statist, low-taxation, constitutional conservatism to draw support from that element of the electorate who consider themselves of the same political persuasion.

The second instalment can be found here.

In the opening section of their book, Hannan and Carswell (H&C) explore the reason for voter apathy in the UK. They conclude that voters hold politicians in contempt, and while this is correct, their supposition – that the cause is perceived powerlessness and irrelevance of MPs – is erroneous. In the process, H&C reveal that they are Progressive Statists rather than politicians who believe power inherently resides in the common realm and with every individual.

HC suggest that one’s propensity to vote in an election is to do with having experience of a legislature that can demonstrably make a difference in one’s life. Hence, pensioners who grew up with apparent Parliamentary sovereignty are more likely to vote than people who are used to decisions coming from the EU. In general, say H&C, the inclination to vote declines as people increasingly see quangos, judges, civil servants, Eurocrats and other unrepresentative and remote governmental decision makers as the power brokers.

Younger people – statistically, the younger they are the less likely they are to vote – are not oblivious and not apathetic to politics – or so say H&C; they are not too dedicated to Manhunt 2 (and other computer games) to care about certain issues. It is elections that they are alienated by, and again, because they feel that the elected have no power to affect the issues. We are meant to suppose that older people continue to vote out of a force of habit despite understanding that elections are increasingly futile.

People hate politicians, conclude H&C, because of their powerlessness to “ameliorate their constituents’ circumstances”. This failure has led to a loss of constituents’ respect. “Ceasing to be authoritative”, say H&C, politicians “have become contemptible”.

I would argue that politicians are contemptible because of their own criminal tendancies. Although they do mention the fact that people see politicians as a self-interested, seperate and robbing class, H&C treat it as a contributory factor. And so, typically, H&C attempt to install a false reality in their readership even while flaunting evidence for the real causes. Even before the expenses scandal, it was a common complaint that politicians could not give a straight answer; that they were devious and slippery. H&C cite a survey by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in which only 29% of respondents said that they trusted politicians to tell the truth. After the expenses scandal, it became clear to many that politicians lie because there is a great financial benefit in it. H&C even cite a poll of 2008 in which most respondents indicate that they believe that politicians use public office to “make money improperly”. This is why people hate politicians, and further resentfulness stems from believing that politicians are a necessary parasite. The public’s acceptance of this state of affairs is largely due to the conditioning that the Establishment inflicts upon them.

As H&C know full well, the British Establishment works tirelessly to give the British public the impression that politicians do have a significant impact on people’s lives. Even with 70-80% of the legislation coming from what is equivalent to a foreign Emperor, British people are perpetually made to understand that Parliament is sovereign. This is the real reason why old folk still vote in elections; there is in fact very little cynicism in large parts of an electorate who think that their ballot paper really is making a difference. If it was otherwise, they would not vote for the LibLabCon.

As for the youngest and so-called most-cynical, I suspect that they do not vote because they are inculcated to believe that government is always good, and always has their best interests at heart; they have been brought up in an age where government is all pervasive. Naturally, they do not have any inkling that government is inherently dangerous and needs to be curtailed, and that their being franchised is an invitation to be involved in this, or that being involved is a responsibility. It doesn’t matter for these people which political party is in power; the government will always be a factor in their lives. I also suspect that for most younger people who vote, and thanks to a university indoctrination, whoever comprises the government is good – unless it is the Conservatives, who are mythologized as dismantlers of the State (and the fake intra-opposition of the Westminster Triumvirate is maintained for another generation).

British people, by and large, thanks to the perception-shaping inflicted upon them by the Establishment, think that there is no alternative to the current system. They hate politicians because they think that politicians are exploiting a status of being a necessary evil, of being irreplaceable. This reality is the one that induces the attitude noticed by H&C in the British towards their politics – an attitude that is “disquietingly similar to that of the captive peoples of the Comecon states: sullen, cynical, fatalistic.”

Naturally, H&C contribute to the idea of Parliamentarians being essential and inevitable when they write their book based on the premise that a politician’s primary function is to “effect meaningful change in his constituents’ lives”.  This is not a conservative’s point of view, but H&C seem to think that a politician’s existence is justified by his interfering in the lives of his constituents. H&C reveal that they consider themselves part of the beneficent elite who know better than the people they rule; such an approach always requires big apparatus of the State. Quite simply, H&C are Elitist Statists. Furthermore, the idea that change, for good or bad, can be justified because progress is always best is a philosophy that belongs to a Marxist Progressive, not a conservative.

The Plan is undermined even in the very first section because starting from a premise that dissatisfaction is caused by the powerlessness of elected officials, H&C will naturally suggest the wrong solution (and this will be examined in later instalments). A more effective solution to voter apathy, which they could never invent, would be to break the illusion of the inescapable inevitability of LibLabCon politicians, and even a Parliament as we know it. The only essential instrument of good government is a constitution. A representative assembly is one way of making the executive branch of government adhere to the constitution – to make sure that there is as little change as possible.

In truth, achieving the kind of change that is actually required to fix the country will not come through a Parliament that has always been the instrument by which those dedicated to improving their own interests have obtained a thin veneer of democratic legitimacy. The contemporary crop of politicians are probably the least interested in the common good as ever sat in the House of Commons, and even as their criminality is discovered,  will be keen to maintain the idea of the necessity of their system. The most devious of them will pretend that they are interested in changing the system, just as they will pretend that they want the UK to leave the EU.

A hint that this is what H&C are about comes in their reaction to a poll they cite. It is a YouGov Poll for the Daily Telegraph in which 56 versus 19% applauded Gordon Brown’s appointment of four non-politicians – a former CBI chief, a doctor, a retired admiral and an UN bureaucrat – to his ministry. H&C think it is strange that people should prefer unrepresentative government officials over ones that have been elected. They put it down to the electorate being alienated from the electoral process; again, that people think that elections are futile for effecting change.

I happen to think that the public understand that those who seem to be best qualified and able to do a job are the ones that should do it. On the other hand, it is natural for two self-interested, elitist politicians to imagine that winning a popularity contest makes them qualified to make important decisions. After all, the legitimising election is the instrument that turns the unqualified and unable into the qualified and able, and this is why democracy is a favourite for criminals. It is not a surprise at all that the criminals, who are past masters at sleight of hand, while pretending to be interested in what is best for the electorate, will bemoan the fact that elections – by which they themselves profit – are futile.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.