Contentious Limitation

Updated: Dec 18, 2021


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 or vice versa? What is the most relevant today? Is this a series of scenarios that are evolving or repeating? Is it pre-determined and imposed? Re-evolve and repeat together. By nature or nurture? Economic cycles and social cycles too? Are they mutually exclusive polar opposites? A social production of collectivism or a social production of economic individualism? Is an integrated system a fudge pr a quantum leap forward? Such a transformation is a permanent or a short-term ideological or pragmatic scenario? Is it a popular device or a provocative weapon needing state imposition? Society or economy? 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? Which model of public ownership is the least damaging to the wage packet of all and most convenient for all? Which action is most popular compared with the blunt instrument of saggy political institutions? But things aren’t what they seem; we find that extra-parliament political institutions (like the trade unions) are not wielding direct parliamentary legislative power but must acknowledge their own hypocrisy first, and not just the mud-slingers in the House of Commons or Lords! It may be symbolic and long overdue that in the pre-1950s, the Unions were demanding domestic, social, economic and political radical change whilst tacitly supporting and colluding with the Empire that was metaphorically ‘taxed’ to pay for the very British domestic welfare policies by an imperial British monopoly. All the trade of heavy industrial product subscribed to the British Imperial agenda, and dumped on the unfortunate. Welcome to unsustainable, uncompetitive British product – it was called ‘The British Empire’. That involved upstairs and downstairs and dumping of coal, steel and shipbuilding by Britain and included the vested interest of Britain’s export of hypocrisy from the upstairs of the Trade Unions to the downstairs of the Empire. Isn’t it ironic that Thatcher privatised heavy industry when socialist British Trade Unions should have at least opened up to competition 80 years before? Thatcher would make obsolete, for example, coal climate changing uncompetitive production and Thatcher just confirmed that heavy British industry and its unions were still over-reliant in the face of a British Empire in full retreat just as social defence and class politics were. Monetarism and Thatcherism were academic tags that just hid the economic and social audit that was post-imperial thinking; the ‘public sector’ was regarded as like residual imperial inefficiency the UK could no longer afford or patronise. Whether Thatcher was self-aware here is in doubt, but her backlash against over-regulation was uncompromising. She made war on the past and deals with an ideological future.


So hasn't the NHS been subsidised by trained professionals from overseas from the Commonwealth, which is, in part, pre-post Imperial thinking or post-post Imperial thinking. So the NHS is not part of the Commonwealth, just exploiting and stimulating the Commonwealth brain drain. Do you smell a rat too? Or perhaps the post-Cold War NHS Britain evolved into a persistent idealogical independence by social and cultural diversity rather than cling on to divisive negativity and moribund Imperial stereotype. But these very independent values ditched the old Empire of ideas to such a similar narrative before Brexit was even dreamed up! The Commonwealth facilitated the blue print of health and wealth care for cohorts of all the UK that the Scots want to divide... and rule!


The inventor and the invention of new demographics and skill sets has been welcomed by hitherto Conservative sceptics that have recalibrated their understanding of public health by ‘disinheriting’ Labour from its ‘monopoly ownership’ of the NHS just because it was established after the war by a Labour commitment that was overdue. The NHS now shares power of health care with Labour and Conservative, and if the city of business and Tory favoured financiers and bankers can ‘share the economy with New Labour’, so Labour can share. Certainly an SNP independent Scotland will not share Scotland's NHS with the UK wide NHS or with British Tories, leaving a permanent derailing of Tory philosophical enterprising expansionism as it seeks to free up new political markets and deregulated old habits with a fresh political broom not intimidated by hackneyed no-go areas of taboo-saturated agendas. Of course the SNP will want to shut down post-New Labour thinking and post-Red Tory positivity! Welcome to a permanent Tory electoral Scottish exile and not a level playing field that balanced UK-wide politics! Tax hikes to frustrate ‘wealth and health care’ (the levelling-up agenda) will follow, leading to ‘blaming permanently’ the very ‘English landlords’ that a new establishment of SNP/Labour by narrow national Scottish interests that Scottish independence was meant to impose and eradicate! Such self-invested nationalism just gerrymanders politics in Scotland by political divine right of SNP/Labour that abandons a UK wide balance that will by self fulfilling prophecy impose not independence but naturalistic division that isn't even of an egalitarian nature either! Welcome to a Scottish gates community!


But in such circumstances will it be labour who will fulfil the good-cop bad-cop of the economics and society in the type of 2 party politics that has served Westminster for years? Will building programmes be subsidised by whose economic policy of austerity? Labour invests, Tories save at Westminster - each new political administration requires new income by taxation or by budgeting. Which will be which in an independent Scotland?


Only global economic and societal cycles stand in the way of ‘erudite conserving’ of 2 party political consumerism - one supporting the other demands, but both antagonist's benefit from such ‘mutual political warfare’ that is attritional no doubt but also charts and is the constantly evolving classes of society that swap or regain bandwidth of unconventional support from social classes not known for its allegiance to one of the 2 party system in full or partial pendulumic swing. So we’re in a 2 paced self and mutual transformation and ready for tacit dialogue to ferment transition and exchange that is both potentially inflamed and yet persuasively progressive.