top of page

The Accidental Death of "Meaningful" Politics, or The "Bearpit of Democracy"?

Bertrand Russell argued that the fundamental motivation of man is self-destructive, but I want to take issue with that. Man is capable of great nobility honour and respect in most situations.

Question: How can I prove that? Answer: I believe the qualities mentioned above are even displayed when in the heat and chaos of battle, when man is faced with the ultimate of loyalty tests. Man here demonstrates his capacity to follow orders from a hierarchical chain of command in extremis, defending his comrades, his position on the battlefield, conserving his resources and remaining steadfast and loyal to his status quo in the face of all the hellish mayhem and destruction surrounding him. Ergo, I can argue positively for man’s virtues which the sceptical overlook. Indeed it is no surprise to anyone concerned that this demonstrates that the ‘sacred cow’ of the monopoly on idealism, loyalty, positivity and moral compass, isn’t monopolised by the ‘Left’ at all. Such social bonding, I believe is replicated in every corner in Britain despite man’s flaws, and represents the ‘greater good.’ In fact it is because of the British peoples’ inclination to tolerance and moderation that Brits display a need to test such qualities. The British generationally risk its bonds of allegiance militarily, politically, socially economically and even artistically. My interest here in this blog is however, of a political nature.

Example: The political experiment of both UKIP and Corbyn’s Labour offer radical agendas that would trouble any status quo. UKIP are just a rabble of those who wear political fancy-dress for a while and then melt into the background of anonymity; I won’t spend any time on them here. However, Russell would exaggerate a left-wing agenda, and would also like to join its antagonistic rebels. Instead of jumping on this rebel bandwagon, we should acknowledge that all Britons require heroism, villainy, controversy and naive idealism as a garnish to Britain’s favourite dish of pragmatism. In this British D.N.A we fight ferociously to defend our borders and way of life from threats within and from without. Our security is imperative, friendly fire a hazard of the job, and democracy will always be a ‘Hobson’s choice’ of luck or fate. The British are a nation of inventors that gives birth and death to original ideas and qualities of a creative instinct, and then devour them. We have leadership qualities, and global history has frequently called for Britain to stand firm as well as being trailblazers. Marx thought that Britain would invent a ‘Socialist revolution’, but Britain invented industrial capitalism instead. Therefore, in this context I’d say that history, collectively and individually is another reason why Britain might only flirt with UKIP or Corbyn’s labour; Britain might be open for organic change but not of such a radical nature. Moreover, if Corbyn works on the unpopularity of Tony Blair as a popularistic measure to unite his party, he’s going to face the “bear pit of democracy” from loyalist New Labour front and back benchers, who will relish the opportunity to re-launch New Labour by differentiating between the figurehead and philosophy of New Labour – a perfect storm for Tony Blair, and a salutary warning for those who feel they are above mud-slinging tabloid politics. Oh dear, Mr Corbyn, are you being used? Did the unions who backed your leadership want to win the next general election at all anyway? Are you an electoral sacrifice so that the unions will be able to justify a New Labour candidate for 2025, because they want to appear as though they have no choice?


There are many other reasons why left-wing and right-wing radicals are not integral in law making in this country, but they do play a ‘part’, well more like the 2nd tree on the left in the pantomime of politics part. They are invariably used not to contribute but to be an illustration of political failure, that must be seen to threaten but to ultimately itself be destroyed. They provide the ‘human’ sacrifice for the ‘greater good.’ But there is an Achilles heal in such an open democracy in that Britain is ruthlessly moderate and potentially exposed to fanatical tolerance at the expense of progress that modernises the British way of life. Or not? You decide.

bottom of page