An infinite number of flunkeys

A month after the petition to call a fresh General Election, the Government has issued an official response. It appears to have been written by an infinite number of monkeys.

“This Government was elected on a mandate of change at the July 2024 general election… The Government was elected by the British people on a mandate of change at the July 2024 general election… On entering office, a £22 billion black hole was identified in the nation’s finances… The Government will continue to deliver the manifesto of change that it was elected on.”

We have a whole sentence repeated, a black hole entering office and a last line that should read ‘on which it was elected’ rather than ending in a preposition.

Who wrote this drivel? More to the point, who approved it? Perhaps it escaped the notice of the current Cabinet Secretary Simon Case because he is sadly unwell and it was not yet technically under the purview of his successor Sir Christopher Wormald, due to take over soon. Or maybe it is a touchstone exemplifying the mediocre quality of staff that Dominic Cummings sees throughout government and bureaucracy.

My wife suggests it was given to ChatGPT to write. Or possibly some half-educated researcher – a Chap-GPT? – was tasked with it; if so, the Cabinet Office needs to recruit a subeditor from Fleet Street, for the carelessness of the prose seems to betray a panicky haste – not so much spin as a ‘flat spin.’

We turn now from the grammar to the content, a by-the-yard wallpaper of political assertions, offcuts of which are served weekly in PMQs. The petition claims that Labour has gone back on its promises; paste this question into your AI chatbot and judge for yourself: ‘What pledges in the Labour 2024 manifesto have been abandoned in practice since the General Election?’

Presumably when the Government refers to a ‘manifesto of change’ it does not mean a number of retrospective changes to the manifesto itself. Also the claim to have a ‘mandate’ is leading with the chin, since only one-fifth of the electorate legitimised Starmer’s victory and many of them must now be experiencing ‘buyer’s remorse.’

It would be far better for our masters to take down this nonsense and reconcile themselves with having allowed the debate scheduled for 6 January; which will of course ‘change’ nothing.

Yet something should change. As Sarah Olney noted in her ten-minute-rule speech advocating the Single Transferable Vote, only 96 out of 650 MPs won a majority of their constituents’ votes in July’s General Election. How, on such a slender basis, can Labour repeat Blair’s claim to be the ‘political wing of the British people’?

Naturally Starmer will dismiss the 6 January Westminster Hall debate as merely ‘noises off’, taking the legalistic view that he won by the rules and waving his lottery ticket of validation.

His thinking is limited. Rules, like the Sabbath, are made for man, not the other way round. They are downstream of power, which in turn flows from the collective identity of the populace. Our customs precede our statutes.

For decades that commonality, a willingness to live and let live learned the hard way through centuries of blood and strife, has been under attack from multiple ideologies. Our governments have tried to shore up our unity with an ersatz culture of abstract rights and principles as though there is a Platonic world more real than this one. Lawyers may live in it, but we don’t.

Democratic control is minimal: our representatives ignore us and please themselves once elected. We may throw out a rascally government yet our ability to choose its successor is warped by the oddities of the constituency system. Starmer rejected Ed Davey’s call for proportional representation, but then why expect the cat to bell itself?

A Prime Minister with a large Parliamentary majority has five years to wield a monarch’s arbitrary power. Sir Keir is on plan to inflict huge damage to the country and only a disaster – likely one of his making – can save us. For who can otherwise stop our ‘red-green’ General?

Despite our young – less than a century old – democracy the State apparatus he has inherited can enforce its fantasies with spies, police and propaganda. It has limitless numbers of servants – flunky monkeys – to do it, thanks to their taking and spending half our earnings. Chattering and screaming, they will destroy the machine.

Source: http://theylaughedatnoah.blogspot.com/2024/12/an-infinite-number-of-flunkeys.html