The American Punch & Judy show and Brexit, the Shadow of English Democracy.

Listening to all the opinions that have recently filled the much overloaded media in cyberspace, I was reminded of G.B Shaw’s intuitive perception in his play “Back to Methuselah”. Hidden in this gem of literature, is Shaw’s disparagement of the stupidity of politicians from the history of earliest man to a future in centuries yet to come. Several acts presaged the attitude of England’s so called democracy which was claimed as the reason for going ahead with the referendum which has already faded into a memory. Notwithstanding, the present tense aftermath, has already replaced it with a consequential significance that becomes more convoluted with the passing of every week. The general public are in a daze apropos both” for” and “against” factions and both factions carry a sense of betrayal. Sharing this confusion are the politicians who are bitching over numerous aspects of specious arguments given by Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the noble interpretations that emanate from the crowded House of Lords. Recently, more turmoil resulted from the High Court’s judgement as to whether it is legal for the government to activate section 50 without first ratifying the action with legislation. This newly created, bewildering argument and the considerable, political discombobulations expressed by the vulgar headliners of the press, only extended the confusion. The red tops, the Sun and the Mirror, the in-betweens, the Mail, the Express, and the intellectually upmarket, Guardian, Telegraph and Financial Times, together with the BBC, Radio 4’s Today program, all of whom compete for celebrities who want to promulgate a diverse conglomeration of disparate political perspectives.  I was very surprised that Theresa May (she of the red shoes of vanity) recently referred to the UK populace as the ordinary working classes. That’s an epithet that large numbers would object to. Ms May wants to help the ordinary people of which she implied that she was a club member. However, her annual salary of approximately £143,000 plus expenses and a considerable drinks/entertaining allowance would be the equivalent of approximately seven years of Ms May’s ordinary working class person’s wage. Already, there are chinks showing in her armour pertaining to the newly elected American president who has had a meeting with Nigel Farage. Theresa May has given the thumbs down to using him as an intermediary contact; this gives an indication of the beginning of prejudices that will develop as she gains confidence and feels at home in the No10 slot. I have doubts about Theresa’s ability to communicate and negotiate with an instinct and empathy that will get the necessary results and there are many who agree with me. 
      So, Trump isn’t approved of because of his hustings activities. Well, he did go over the top as indeed did Hillary Clinton, but it isn’t only the Americans who create political fantasies that are forgotten as soon as their efficacy achieves the desired result of winning election. The English certainly took a well established second place during the recent referendum although their political creativity is better disguised and more hypocritical than the Presidential elections of America. Both England and America are in a mess. The Referendum activities of England competed with the “all American conflict” Trump v Clinton, the present Punch & Judy performance of the United States show. Both the Referendum and the American pantomime created obsessional problems of a political nature which are a long way from a frictionless solution. However, there is one big difference between Trump and May. Whatever he is, Trump, has incredible confidence, probably sourced by his role as a billionaire which does help! He also has a powerful personality and apparently, a seductive charisma, also rooted in his multi billionaire status. As for the UK’s referendum aftermath,  I sense that Theresa May’s motivation is a subtle, if not inscrutable, vanity.       
     So where did English politics go wrong? Perhaps the referendum should never have happened. It was a gamble that Cameron took thinking that the public would vote to stay within the community. He didn’t have to have the referendum but one supposes that he wanted to be known as the man of honour who keeps his pre election promise even though few politicians bother to. He kept his word but sent the UK into utter confusion when the “stay ins” lost; then he showed his lack of fibre by not only resigning as the Prime minster but also giving up his constituency seat. So much for his passion for politics, which evaporated like a morning mist! I wonder if he ever had a real passion for politics other than the Eton/Oxford, politics of “de rigueur” ambition. Of course it is possible that he was obeying the dictates of a strong wife imposing her matriarchal suggestion of spending more time with the family. This excuse has been used by numerous failing politicians although Cameron gave no proper explanation as to why he simply gave up. I suppose he doesn’t have to worry with his considerable pension of £ 56,000 which, together with books lectures and numerous peripheral incidentals, will raise him far above the suffering of fiscal torture of capitalism and its association with the ruthless banks that initiated the 2008 recession; a recession that continues to hold the economy in a downward spiral of massive borrowing which is only partly saved by Theresa May’s “ordinary working class” people who pay their taxes and the middle classes who nobly saved for old age and have been rewarded with an insulting 0.05 % interest. If it doesn’t reward the saver, at least their savings are happily received into the coffers of the major banks before being lent out to companies and organisations that see eye to eye with the establishment. Even George Osborne put in his half penny legislation, purportedly for the benefit of the army of impoverished residents who lacked the finances to survive the rigours of survival debt. Both Cameron and Osborne mouthed trite clichés of doubtful authority about the wonderful things they had planned for the benefit of the poorest members of society. Meanwhile, the IMF supplied handy cheap loans for the government although the noble savers have to suffer the indignity of middle class poverty, wondering what happened to the 5% interest on their savings and where had the promised social assistance disappeared to? 
     Frankly, I have always had suspicions about the validity of the altruism of Cameron & Osborne both of whom have the comfort of being in line to inherit trusts of considerable fortunes. It was also convenient for them to exit the stage before embarrassing questions could be asked. As for Osborne, the erstwhile Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have a pronounced scepticism about his knowing how to handle the financial problems that beset the nation, and frankly, I don’t think he is even aware of the difference of gambling at the tables and gambling with political economic pragmatism. One thing is certain; the answer does not lay in printing money or, as it is portrayed, “quantitative easing” which I consider to be a fiscal dissimulation which helps the wealthy, the major banks and big business.