The managerial politician can't be put together again

Hi All,

In my previous post I wrote about the idea of party before country or country before party and how such a statement is objectively meaningless (with a caveat). 

Of course in today's political world, political parties are shells of the mass movement of yesteryear , whether on the left or right (in Britain at least).  This means that party members can hold - I loath to write this- more extreme views than either their voters or the public at large.  At the same time membership has atrophied (conservative)  or being taken over (momentum in labour) , at the same time people within parties hold more ideology than the public, we have seen the rise of the management politician. Or at least at first glance.

This particular politician at first glance is best personified by the Blair and Clinton years of the 1990s. After the Reagan and Thatcher revolutions of the 80s ,  in the USA and UK the left foundered. The answer was Blair/ Clinton .  At their peak these two were articulate, excellent speech makers who promised to keep the economic policies of the right , whilst promising "social justice/equality"  in terms of social issues. In Blair's case he extended this to his foreign and defence  policy (a story for another time). 

 In effect it was as Clinton perceived "the economy stupid".  Provided that the left could be seen to managing the economy in a right wing way then they would win. The right would flounder , because, stripped of the economic aspect, all they'd have is to attack the equality and social aspects of the left  (ie social conservatism vs social liberalism) and be called bigots and racists / xenophobic in places where increased immigration and (thanks to the free market ideas)  social liberalism became more acceptable to the public.  

This strategy worked for a while.  In fact it resulted in David Cameron being elected in the UK , as conservative leader, he would articulate both the managerial right wing economics and the social liberalism of the left. He did of course aim to be Blair's heir: another young fortyish politician who's non threatening , hugs huskies and will competently manage the economy. 

The trouble was it was an utter charade. There was an ideology in economic policy even then.  Labour borrowed billions to pay for their pet projects , often off books or via PFI . Taxes , stealth taxes, were increased , but so did spending. Eventually this came crashing down in 2008.

The crash of 2008 finally saw the demise of the management politician as a credible force (hence the conservatives mistake in appointing Thersea May, another management politician without the charisma of Cameron or Blair). The idea of economic competency of the left was shattered by the bank bailouts. The consequences of the two decade charade of £100 billion deficits were finally coming home to roost.  Taxes were to rise, services slashed, by the new conservative coalition  government . Ten years later we're still not sorted out the budget deficit- it's been cut, not halted, rather embarrassingly for the conservatives who've missed that target many times . The total national debt is higher than ever as a consequence.  Yet people perceive that despite the cuts and tax rises , they have gained little. Employment is at a record high. Yet these jobs are minimum wage jobs, people can't aspire to own their own property: conversely the ultra rich and corporations, especially banks have never been doing so well. 

Is it any wonder that in such times people turn to alternatives than the management politician?  Populists, brexit, Trump even,  didn't come by way of a stalk and a baby. Yet rather than trying to engage these forces or to offer alternatives, the current politicians seem to want it all to go away and act as if nothing happened. Back to managerial politics. Unfortunately whatever happens, like humpty dumpty , the management politician model is in pieces . I don't think they will be put together anytime soon .