Is 'Trumpism' an ideology? Ye-es, but ...

When I first joined the Conservative Party as a teenager, many long years ago, the opening sentence of the rules read thus:  

Membership of the Conservative Party is open to anyone who opposes Socialism and Communism ..."

And there you have it in a nutshell.  Conservatism, and the Right in politics generally, isn't really any kind of ideology - it even has to define itself negatively, by what it's opposed to.  It's essentially an unintellectual, not-very-articulate Burkean tendency.  Genuinely articulate Rightists such as Roger Scruton are few and far between - and they don't have cults, cliques and followers.  Leftists, who really are ideologues and can't envisage any other way of life, spit out words like 'capitalism' as if that, too, is a competing ideology - and that's an ignorant misunderstanding, too.  'Thatcherism'?  Not really: Keith Joseph notwithstanding, Thatcher's was a forceful petite bourgeois tendency on HRT.  'Reaganism'?  Not much up top, is there? - as Thatcher herself said.  'Gaullism'?  Nah - just nationalism.  'Neo-liberalism'?  If anything, an expression of the desire to clear the decks for some fairly aggressive money-making.  Etc etc etc.

So if you'd asked me any time up until very recently, I'd have said that in my political lifetime the Right has been essentially non-ideological.  Frustrating for the Left because, for all their fervour, ratiocination and well-written 5,000-word essays peppered with nicely-turned neologisms, they've nothing intellectual to grapple with except the splitters in the other Leftist factions. 

Until very recently.  Because now, it's quite evident from the voluminous output of what we might loosely call the 'Trumpite' camp, there is thinking going on that is identifiably ideological.

Of course, it's also messily bound up with some entirely mercenary motives; and as with any broad movement, one can readily discern several camps whose varying emphases in their pro-Trump enthusiasms are really quite different - the makings of fissures and splits yet to become a serious problem for The Donald's regime; but that will come.  IMHO it's rather too early to attempt to systematise all this; but it's brewing up to a point where one will be able to.**  There are some early attempts at articulation - here's one - but not perhaps very convincing yet.  (This of course isn't to be marvelled at, because being essentially Right-ish, the whole Trump thing will have a strong tendency to inarticulacy.)   

Meanwhile, as all this is slowly coagulating into something with defined contours we can pin down and gaze at, we face the sobering fact that many of its leading lights in the highest of high places are unhinged, messianic, in a massive hurry, drunk on power, and untouched by normal considerations of prudence.  We need no better evidence than the truly amazing spectacle of grown men in high office, with all the resources in the world should they care to use them with due deliberation, conducting their communications like a bunch of doped-up teenagers on their mobile 'phones plotting a Friday-night fight with a neighbouring crew.  The average County Lines drugs gang isn't as crass in its actions as these high-ranking promoters of the Trumpian Flame.  FFS, what is to become of the 'Free World'?

ND  

___________

** if anyone knows of a good early attempt to do this, or would care to try themselves in less than, say, 100 words, we'd all like to know!

Labour & local government 'reform'. Hmm

Some years ago I had a long stint (3 terms) as a local councillor.  Local government has changed in various ways since then, but I remain very well tapped-in locally and have plenty of first-hand perspectives.  I like to think I've seen, and indeed participated in, some genuinely useful Local Authority actions over the years. 

Lots of folk reckon that giving local people "more say" in matters makes for better, more informed decision-making, as well as creating an important cadre of people that step up to take responsibility for stuff.  Doing this for the most part in the properly-constituted, formal Local Authority framework is only right to protect all concerned.  But we can also applaud, for example, the many benefits of healthy local media organisations, albeit precious few local newspapers survive that are worthy of the name.

From Burke and his "little platoons", through Simon Jenkins and his localist enthusiasms, to Andy Burnham et al with some decent track record to display, there are many advocates of wholesale transfer of powers to local authorities.  I should stress that I, too, see major benefits of localisation in sectors where / governance arrangements under which, it is shown to work in practice.  These should be carefully identified and reinforced.  But there are just so many examples of utter nonsense in play.  To take just a few:

• Lutfur Rahman
• the outrageous goings-on at the Teesside Development Corruption - sorry, Corporation, that would disgrace a banana republic
• Rebecca Long-Bailey

Ah, LRB - remember her?  In a substantial pre-GE 2019 document (by weight, that is, not genuine substance) she planned to hand the whole of our energy infrastructure, physical and supply, over to local authorities (the irony! when you see what a cock-up they've always made of their energy endeavours), right down to the level of parish councils and even "local communities ... of around 200 homes"; and of course all workers in the sector to be unionised.   200 homes!  That's when you know you're dealing with a doctrinaire head-case.  OK, nobody ever paid it any serious attention at the time; and she languishes, whipless, on the back benches now, having been the "continuity Corbyn" candidate in 2020, thoroughly trounced by Starmer, and reduced to feeble parliamentary protest-votes.  But still, it shows what some people mean by localisation.

There are other worries, too - see this article by the intelligent-for-a-Grauniad-writer Martin Kettle.

The Labour government itself is of course deeply conflicted on all this right now.  More power for LAs - but don't dare stand in the way of our house-building or energy plans, because we ain't gonna let you.  Ah yes, local people know best - until they run into a Thatcher or a Starmer who "really knows best".

What do we all think?

ND 

Mandelson's 'Starmer' strategy looks like a winner

The bulk of the Left of the Labour Party, having thoroughly swallowed the mendacious soft-focus "I'm really a Corbynite" leadership pitch of Kier Starmer, rapidly became disillusioned (and in some cases, defenestrated) when he started purging the Peoples Party in a singularly calculating manner. 

And we know whose are the calculations: it's Mandelson, the preeminent British political strategist of the age. 

I feel we may now summarise his 2019 thinking, and estimate his chances of success.

1.  Corbyn has done a Thatcher**, potentially sterilising the Labour vote for years to come

2. The only chance of reversing that lies in someone who looks the part (besuited, established), grabs all the levers of power within the party  AND ...

3. ... methodically, gratuitously, ruthlessly and flamboyantly takes every opportunity to do Corbyn and his acolytes down (in ways that Hague, IDS and Howard could never do to Thatcher).  You don't want an excrescence of people who remind the electorate of Corbyn and, crucially, you don't need them; neither for their pitiful subscriptions NOR as election-time infantry  -  because elections are lost by sitting governments, and won by clever media strategies funded by big donations, not knocking on doors

And now we come to the reason why this all might come to fruition in less than a single political generation.

4. Johnson is always going to self-destruct: possibly sooner rather than later: the key is to be in position for when it happens

With any luck (thinks Peter) it'll be Johnson who, in turn, sterilises the Tory Party as did Thatcher, for another decade of Mandelsonian influence.

Looks like it's going to work.  Still: at least Mandelson is intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich, eh?

ND

_____________

** there's many a Thatcherite that has been in 30-year denial on this.  They have forgotten, or may never have tried, getting support for the Party during the leaderships of the aforesaid Hague, IDS and Howard.  Some things are never forgotten or forgiven by the electorate: Corbyn committed that kind of sin, and so IMHO has Johnson.  

Can Blair ever match Thatcher....for being hated by the Left?

Tony Blair is trying, without much chance of success, to stop Jeremy Corbyn being elected as leader of the Labour party.


(I never did get round to registering to vote as it happens...)

In an article in the Gaurdian, he makes a plea for sanity to a whipped up tribe of lefties. His article is very 'meh', of note is that he even feels he has to start it with 'even if you hate me....'

But the comments, wow they are amazing. The level of vitriol is outstanding. Blair had a checkered time as PM but his worst legacy was to let Brown have the keys when he left.

The Left now hate him, indeed, it had me wondering. Can he achieve the impossible and be hated as much as 'Fatcher' with every evil in the world his fault. I would never have believed that anyone else could be lifted to that level. Perhaps like Iran, where the US is the Great Satan and others can only attain 'Little Satan' status.

An  strange turn of events though. I am glad I am not a lefty, all that confected hate and angst must be very trying to live with.