Contentious Limitation


A rigid definition of a society mutually inclusive or exclusive from the economy is a limitation that is contentious! Why? Let's see!


Chicken or egg? All society or all economy society before economy? Welfare provision before society? What is the most relevant today? Is this a series of scenarios that a evolving or repeating? In patterns similar to economic cycles - like a social cycle which polar opposite is more extreme - a social production of economic collectivisation or economic individualism, or is an integrated system the real unrealistic ideological scenario? Society or economy - does it require state imposition? What part of ideology is not state diktat? A political overreaction? Or political design by efficient human software engineering? Positive or negative? Naive or contrived? Can a society or economy or a Frankensteinian enforced outcome be most cost effective or profitable by levels of permanency? Take one's medicine short-term to alleviate stress on society and the economy? Can human political interference ‘become’ compatible with cycles? Can moderation and tolerance start or end with cycles? Can a cycle be mistaken for an established practice traditional or context? Do cycles, patterns, associations, occur in isolation from acts of manipulation? Can manipulation afford transparency? Does the ‘dialogue’ between ‘states and conditions’ between society and the economy provide the true accountability of ‘the state’ (as opposed to the state and condition) and the sustainability of open social and economic growth (or either social or economic growth)? Is the ideological mutual dialogue an enabler and an empower of the true definitive existence of a ‘society’? Is this a definition of society? Is a society an enlightened opportunity to self- and mutually- regulate the state apparatus as open, transparent, accountable, and sustainable? Are the polar opposites of ‘all society’ or ‘all economy’ the individual and state (the rigid opposites) feasible as long as the interference of the state is minimalized? Is a self-regulating soft-touch society possible within the free-market Thatcherite 1980s model of ‘the economy, the individual and the state’? Was Thatcher wrong to exclude ‘the dialogue’ within an economic political and social system of democracy within a globalised community? Did Thatcher try to contain an economy without a social system (a society) and fail because she didn't embrace the economic stability and huge potential that society has to offer democracy because she wrongly limited the association of society with egalitarianism? Did she open Pandora’s Box of economics without re-aligning and accommodating an economy to realise the competitive potential of a self-generating concept of society? Did she exclude compulsive opportunity because she was intimidated by a flexible social policy anticipating society of competition? Did she turn her back on ‘a big economy’ by social transformation and not social paralysis or social exclusion because of unresolved ideological limitations compounded with the sub-text of political implications that were not ‘politically correct’ for a Tory government to explore? Or was she preoccupied with her free market liberalism as a focus and fixation on winning The Cold War? The Cold War is over guys! Don't freeze at the sign of the discomfort of unravelling an ideological taboo that's ready for competing with, and not just against? Or is that one form of competition too far? One victory too much? One implication of Brexit ‘too soon’? Don't or do back away from the fight? Or could it be a ripper!?!? Or are you going to let it slide? Don't let Tory ‘hospitality’ fall short of the challenge of shaking up the comfortable welfare of its invited guests with some ‘ideological punch’ added to the party spirit! Or the Labour will be on your ideological doorstep asking, ‘Is this party private and exclusive only!?’ Nobs allowed only by bank balance and the higher ‘high-est’ only? The Labour will say ‘what's their big deal? It’s rudimentary! You speculate to accumulate! Or do you accumulate and let someone without ‘connections’ do all the speculating for you?


A Tory society of exclusive mutual welfare is not a welfare that works! Mutual self-interest? Let me pre-empt labourers “this is a Tory mutual welfare that works for them and does not want to work for all!” Tories cannot be allowed to be dependent on a Tory welfare of self-aggrandising at the expense of people Who labour and struggle to climb above the literal or metaphorical poverty line. A comfortable Tory means a multitude of people who labour that struggle. There is no class proletariat anymore. There are just people who labour with all the hours that God sends them, struggling. The labour has always had its mantra of ‘The tougher Labour gets, the more it does not crawl!’. Tougher thicker skin must make labour win, but it can only win if it competes and not bleats! Induce a streamlined economy for all, let people who labour shine through the social fog that no longer haunts like it did in social-class ‘pre-clean air acts’ Labour, only by competition is there a Labour that has political ‘Swing Bling’. The Northern new Tory kings off the block will have to build hospitals, schools, transport links to stay in power! Isn't that what Labour wants - to make new and old nobbery be competitive and fight for the right to upgrade their party and benefit all? In opposition, Labour has perhaps more influence over ‘Tory World’ than when in Government? Labour must make the Tories work and Tories must govern ‘hard light’ of touch to let society find its natural organic self-evolution by and through the economy and natural social selection enhanced by empowerment and not by artificial intrusion or contrivance. Can Labour deliver in opposition? Let the facts speak let the facts speak for themselves - if you're a labourmun then you've left the Tories out of power (without being dependent on a Liberal coalition) from 1995 to 2015! That's the longest ever that those who Labour have removed power from the Tories. The switch from New Labour to Labour at Work to Modern Labour even en-route ditched the Liberal Democrats and even Brexit voters piled the pressure on PM May who had to fight with and for Toryism on too many fronts until Boris beat Labour. Electorally and politically, he's had to switch from ideology to management of the economy under the pandemic! There may be Tories who resent Tax and spend ideologically but reluctantly approve of managerial pragmatism during Covid and during Labour ‘Captains of Business Hindsight’. Boris may yet reshuffle his ideological deck of cards to win Tories over, but the misfortune of Tories since ‘austerity from the credit crunch generation’ and now Covid has been playing into the hands of oppositionism big time. Labourmun is now not seeking short-term personal power when the Tories have had their dreams and ideals shattered whilst in power. The economy and society have nose-dived before the Tories were handed the poisoned chalice of ‘nightmare town’! Those who labour to face a distraction by a leadership contest have redirected all the heat upon the Tories. Why would labourmun want to win a phoney pyric electoral victory when the Labours quest and raison d’etre is to watch the Tories fry? The message is unambiguous! Labour has new personnel, new demographics, new and older principles run by a decorated barrister who may prefer Tory scrambling to a career move into number 10. Why? Because he has to balance on the Labour high wire of principled precariousness with an economy and a society evolving faster than most ideological opinion can compete with. Playing catch-up is when a hypothetical Starmer Government can observe Tory innovation and not ideology being disrespected in the present and the future. Power does corrupt, but so does a global pandemic on the back of Cameron’s legacy of austerity. A perfect storm where Cameron has over-committed the Tories and left his final mark on a Boris Government when the real permanent threat of Labour watches Tory against Tory slugging it out, leaving the electorate to play Emperor Nero’s thumbs-up or thumbs-down when Covid Rome is burning and ‘our’ Nero plays ‘who is more the liar?’. Welcome to political victimhood of both political parties locked in mutual opposition but mutually acquiescent when things have to be done! Becker and Elvis may touch gloves first before they pummel each other, but is Boris determining the agenda or is Kier manipulating ‘the powerful’? The Tory work is never done, that invisible hand of the market has taken a vacation and not a vocation. The labourmun may have overdone and over-worked its past - can it wrestle back control? Labour labours on, but it’s oppositionism remains and prolongs Tory agony who are desperate to exit being driven by circumstances beyond its control. However, if Tory Brexit can bring the passions of all its supporters to want to get on with Brexit by exiting Covid and a decade of austerity, then this first exit might prove as popular (and divisive) as Brexit because they’re now symbiotic and the Tories may offer Boris the world for pulling off a great generationally significant escape! But will Keir interfere? Or where will Keir steer the Tories? On the rocks or back on to the well-established Tory path unwittingly? Government status may well be secure today, but will Keir ever establish a breach in Tory offences? So, issues of how far society and the economy ‘interact’ is hugely topical now and will divide as well as enlighten! The key will be - how far will Boris invest in Tory thinking of today?


So, can a welfare society become more functional and also induced to be more proactive whilst sustaining an economy that is self-evolving and only regulating by managerially higher but not intrusive a productivity that enables without abandoning the free-market economy principles to dialogue with ideological over- and under-restraint by better practices, streamlined accountancy and less passive conduct towards lazy, free-for-alls that are defined by boom and then blame? Pick up the mercantile spirit of Britain and not under-develop its enterprising status and stimulate, incentivise, and run with it without waiting or risking nothing! Becker versus Elvis will tease out who is better placed to make managerially entrepreneurialism work in the next few years of political interaction! Who will seize the day? Who will break party convention by not being fearful of challenging ideological taboos? Who will hold their nerve by not being overkill or underkill, or steer or understeer?


Who will give way to party undercurrents pulling them under and drowning transformation? Who will prove themselves worthy of the British people? If Brexit had devoured traditional voting patterns, has Becker rallied behind his backhand? Has Elvis litigated once too many times in a smash volley against his own ranks? Can Becker be king, relinquish his leadership during prosperity in order to do ‘return of the king’ thing to extend in a second administration? Or will Elvis wriggle his way into joining and signing up to do his Labour bit? ‘Return of the king’ or ‘the king never died’.


Who will govern against obsolete nationalisation with new public institutions offering accountability, access, and social and financial investments for the individual and not subjected to the pendulumic swing of too much too little taxation? Whose annual profits can be reinvested and not exposed to a rogue chancellor? Which model of public ownership is the least damaging to the wage packet of all? Which ‘little less conversation and a lot more action’ pleases the public the most?


Can any Trade Union acknowledge that its domestic pre-1950s popularity was based upon an empire (that no longer exists) being ‘forced’ to pay for products and British domestic welfare of British heavy industry and manufacturing goods by a British monopoly subsidised by an Imperial capitalist exploitation with an uncompetitive product? Likewise, when will Thatcherite Britain therefore admit that ‘privatisation programmes’ of the 1980s were an acceptance that Imperial Britain was not just in full retreat but in full acceptance that a ‘Tory Empire’ was more uncompetitive for too long and indulged by too many Tory governments in Blighty? Was Thatcherite Britain just ending its Imperial gravy train and not investing original policy? The Becker spirit or crooning Elvis must accept its own idealogical pasts before it can be honest to the nation. Who will govern against obsolete nationalisation with new public institutions offering accountability access and social and financial investments for the individual and not subjected to the pendulumic swing of too much too little taxation? Whose annual profits can be reinvested and not exposed to a rogue chancellor? Which model of public ownership is the least damaging to the wage packet of all? Which little less conversation and a lot more action pleases the public the most? Can any trade Union acknowledge that its domestic pre 1950s popularity was based upon an Empire that no longer exists being forced to pay for products and British domestic welfare of British heavy industry and match manufacturing and manufacturing goods by a British monopoly subsidised by an Imperial capitalist exploitation with an uncompetitively product ? Likewise when will thatcherite Britain therefore admit that privatisation programs of the 1980s were an acceptance that Imperial Britain was not just in full retreat but in full acceptance that a Tory Empire was more uncompetitively for too long and indulged by too many Tory governments In Blighty? Was that's right Britain just ending its Imperial gravy train and not investing original policy? The Becca spirit or crooning Elvis must except its own idealogical pasts before it can be honest to the nation. The health of Brexit Britain should not only be judged by the efficiency of its NHS - it has a past to admit to!