It’s clearly true that we need the politicians to decide upon something here. Are we leaving, when are we leaving and how are we leaving the European Union, obviously enough. They asked us in that referendum whether we should and we said Yea, even Yay! So, is this leaving happening? Not obviously, no. And as Aditya points out it has instead turned into a bunfight over which politician gets to advance their career of milking the rest of us.
He’s entirely right in the analysis:[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Brexit is a national crisis. Not a careers fair for 22 Tories
That headlines’ – and note writers don’t create those for their pieces – not quite right for of course the complaint is that it is a careers fair but it shouldn’t be.[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] Even in the matter of her self-destruction, Theresa May remains stuck in someone else’s shadow. She is not the first but second prime minister whose career has been destroyed by Brexit. The referendum result, remember, forced David Cameron to quit within hours. Unlike 2016, this time the possible replacements are already champing at the bit. The Saj, The Truss, BoJo and Michael Gove: they’ve been on manoeuvres for months. When a normally adult Tory like Jeremy Hunt starts chest-thumping about how he’s not frightened of no deal, you know he wants to be party leader. Today’s papers contain plenty of boilerplate about how a leadership race will begin in summer, which raises the obvious question: how will anyone tell the difference? Hanging over all of this is the sense that who gets to be prime minister of Britain is a private matter for the top of the Tory party; that a national crisis should somehow be a careers fair for 22 people. You can put some of that down to Cameron’s law for fixed-term parliaments, but there is also the thick, sweaty air of entitlement. [/perfectpullquote]
OK, the laddie knows how to do an intro, that’s for sure.
But think on this. A national crisis is being subsumed into political egos and job hustling. Well, yes, this is the very argument against politics being used as a system of running anything. Any and every question becomes not some technocratic search for the best available solution but an orgy of political egos and job hustling.
Who really thinks that Dame Margaret, Lady Hodge, – she of the Stemcor shareholding, the only known and named user of the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility – championed tax justice for any other reason than to add the DBE to the K she’d married?
That is, using politics to do anything at all degrades down to this gissajob jostling. So we should use it sparingly, only when we must. Like, how to change who is in power without garottings perhaps. But that then leaves us to wonder at the manner in which it’s me arguing that politics rule less of our lives, Chakrabortty more.