We need change but won't get it with a protest vote

****

In today's Daily Telegraph, Alistair Heath explores some of the reasons for the dissatisfaction being expressed by Europe's voters. Building on a recently published book - The Fourth Revolution: The Global Race to Reinvent the State (which I haven't read so can't really comment) - Heath argues that government is overmighty, that it does too much and much of this badly, and that this stands as a barrier to economic progress. I broadly agree with Heath's analysis but am struck by the fact that the logical place for these ideas to be translated into action - centre-right political parties - are as much of a barrier as the 'progressive' parties of the centre-left.

Across Europe an odd collection of political parties will take advantage of this failure by the centre-right parties. They'll range from the studiously considered anti-Euro, Alternative für Deutschland through the slightly manic MoVimento Cinque Stelle of Italian comedian, Beppe Grillo to varying degrees of nationalist parties ending with the openly Nazi, Golden Dawn in Greece. Plus of course, our dear friends in Ukip. These are the parties of dystopia.

All of these parties adopt - as do one or two left-wing parties in Spain and Greece - a 'plague on all your houses' positioning. The endless repetition of 'LibLabCon' by Ukip supporters is intended to capture the essential sameness of centrist parties. And nowhere is this sameness most starkly displayed than in the European Parliament where the policies, outlook and programmes of the two big blocs - the EPP and Socialists - are almost impossible to untangle.

The problem is that these insurgent political parties simply do not offer any coherent vision of a better government. By way of parallel, here's a quote from Neal Stephenson, the SF writer on how dystopian fiction is cheaper:

...it is much easier and cheaper to take the existing visual environment and degrade it than it is to create a new vision of the future from whole cloth. That’s why New York keeps getting destroyed in movies: it’s relatively easy to take an iconic structure like the Empire State Building or the Statue of Liberty and knock it over than it is to design a future environment from scratch.

What these parties do is paint the worst picture possible - a world of unwashed foreigners arriving to take our jobs, of corrupt officials and venal businessmen. If some truth exists in these pictures (and it does) then that acts to substantiate the argument - that the 'established' parties and 'mainstream' media are culpable. The problem is that, while the need to destroy is clear in these insurgent parties' agendas, what comes after isn't. There'll be grand, sweeping statements about 'getting our country back' or 'protecting jobs' but there is no coherent programme for government. And certainly no indication that the 'fourth revolution' described by Heath will be set in train by putting these parties into parliament, let alone government.

The task for centre-right parties is to understand that they must stop being 'conservative' and start being 'radical' - there's a few people in the UK's Conservative Party who recognise this but they are stifled by the majority who opt for a safe,'lowest-common-denominator' approach. And the centre-left cannot get all smug here - it offers nothing new or different, Green politics aside. There are little glimmers of a future post-fourth revolution world - the idea of localism, 'Big Society', free schools and digital government. But these haven't yet described what has to change in the wider economy or started to challenge a welfare system designed for a very different world.

Until this vision is articulated better we will be at risk of two things - voters protesting by electing the parties of dystopia and government (and millions of government employees) putting its interests before those of the people it serves. And unless the vision is articulated and right-wing politicians are brave enough to promote its positive message, we will remain trapped in a world of big government run badly and in the interests of government not the people.

We will vent our anger at the beast by voting in protest - just as many will do tomorrow across Europe. But it will change nothing. Oh, there'll be some tweaks to policies but the main message will be business as usual. Worse still the odder opinions of the parties of dystopia will make it easy to dismiss them as nutters, racists and opportunists - the process of change will be associated with the mad or the bad and the change won't happen. In a strange way, allowing people to vent their rage by electing Ukip MEPs - members of a parliament with no powers and no sovereignty - rather suits those who want to protect big, badly run government. It doesn't affect what actually happens at all but gives people the grand illusion that they've stuck it to the man!

....

it is much easier and cheaper to take the existing visual environment and degrade it than it is to create a new vision of the future from whole cloth. That’s why New York keeps getting destroyed in movies: it’s relatively easy to take an iconic structure like the Empire State Building or the Statue of Liberty and knock it over than it is to design a future environment from scratch. - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/dystopian-science-fiction-is-cheaper.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+marginalrevolution%2Ffeed+%28Marginal+Revolution%29#sthash.VKRMKfJN.dpuf

it is much easier and cheaper to take the existing visual environment and degrade it than it is to create a new vision of the future from whole cloth. That’s why New York keeps getting destroyed in movies: it’s relatively easy to take an iconic structure like the Empire State Building or the Statue of Liberty and knock it over than it is to design a future environment from scratch. - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/dystopian-science-fiction-is-cheaper.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+marginalrevolution%2Ffeed+%28Marginal+Revolution%29#sthash.VKRMKfJN.dpuf

Life, death and why 'assisted dying' shouldn't be legalised

****

This afternoon we watched 'In Time', a dystopic science fiction movie based on the idea of immortality:

It is the year 2169 and humanity had been genetically engineered to be born with a digital clock, bearing a year's worth of time, on their forearm. At the age of 25 a person stops aging, but their clock begins counting down; when it reaches zero, that person "times out" and dies.

Without dwelling too much on the plot (or indeed on the rather predictable rich/poor dichotomy) there are some moments in the film when characters discuss the idea of immortality. And the idea that we really don't want to be immortal regardless of whether that immortality comes at the cost of others' lives. Implicit in the story is the idea that a short time of interest, excitement and fun is better than a drawn out life spent avoiding 'doing anything stupid'. The core principle of public health as lifestyle control is rudely countered - why shouldn't we eat, drink and be merry just because some doctor says it will shorten our life?

The idea of immortality is important to us. It lies behind the continued popularity of major religions - follow this life and you will life forever in paradise - and in our attitude to modern medicine. Anything that might shorten our lives - drinking, smoking, bacon sandwiches, cave diving and, of course, driving fast on drugs while getting your wing-wang squeezed - is to be frowned upon, discouraged and even completely banned. Especially where such activity grants us pleasure.

Our doctors, the media and the government is entirely wedded to the idea that life must be prolonged and that adding a few extra months through medical intervention after medical intervention is the right thing to do, is the embodiment of Hippocrates principle. In the Spectator's Coffee House, David Blackburn questions this view:

...Hunt says nothing about the elephant on the operating table: what is the purpose of modern medicine, on which ever greater sums of public and private money is spent? The grandfather mentioned above died after a short illness in January 1991 aged 78; nowadays, he would have been kept alive in some discomfort and for little purpose for many more months. Men like him lived for golf and conviviality, not morphine and daytime TV. I can’t say whether I or anyone else would chose death over life in such circumstances; but how dispiriting to think that the last thing over which you imagine to have control – one’s will, one’s iron in the soul – is actually tethered by a public servant, empowered (perhaps against his will) by the choices of others.

We all have some sympathy with this point of view - it seems intolerable for a once active and engaged person to slip into dementia, to end trapped in a wheelchair or lying prone in a hospital bed surrounded by bleeping monitors and plugged with drips and wires. And the logic of such a concern, of the pain of watching someone die slowly, is to adopt the position of A N Wilson (cited in Blackburn's article):

‘I believe it is not those who support assisted dying but those who oppose it who have a moral case to answer.’ He quotes, at length, the daughter of Dr Ann McPherson, whose protracted death from cancer — despite palliative care — makes painful reading.

It seems to me that there is a moral case against this argument, one that isn't trapped in the religiosity of much right to life campaigning. In explaining this position I will draw on my mum's experience - more poignant because mum has spent much of the last year tiptoeing closer to death.

A while ago I wrote this about assisted dying:

 Every day, my Mum would tell us, one or more of the people she saw would proclaim – in that depression of loneliness so common among the old and infirm – “I’m just a burden, I’d be better off dead”, or some similar formula of despair. Mum’s response would be to tell them not to be so silly, have a cup of tea and a chat.

It is only a short step from the pain of Dr McPherson's daughter to a different sort of relative. The relative who sees the chance presented by a old person, perhaps housebound, who worn down by pains and aches declares a desire to die. How easy will it be to - if we allowed it - take that next step to getting a form signed and proceeding to that gentle injection and death?

And how much closer are we - for this is implied in David Blackburn suggesting we can't afford 'modern medicine' on the universal basis we afford it now - to a different science fiction dystopia?

....