Comments on: Britain’s forty year political crises/2015/09/13/britains-forty-year-political-crises/Andrew Curry's blog on futures, trends, emerging issues and scenariosThu, 15 Aug 2019 07:01:25 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: Brexit and long wave thinkings – the next wave/2015/09/13/britains-forty-year-political-crises/#comment-33035Thu, 15 Aug 2019 07:01:25 +0000/?p=4846#comment-33035[…] landscapes is that there are financial crises approximately every 40 years, and political crises following them along at a distance of about a […]

]]>
By: Oligarchs and executives | thenextwave/2015/09/13/britains-forty-year-political-crises/#comment-6361Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:25:41 +0000/?p=4846#comment-6361[…] you don’t buy the psycho-social generational analysis that goes with it. It also pops up in David Runciman’s heuristic about 40-crises in modern British history (financial crisis leads to political crisis leads to […]

]]>
By: Ian Christie/2015/09/13/britains-forty-year-political-crises/#comment-5986Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:38:04 +0000/?p=4846#comment-5986Thanks Andrew. Very interesting and compelling. I think the generational theory makes some sense; ditto the idea that democratic institutions generate their own form of ‘lock-in’ – if arrangements work well over a whole generation or more, it becomes hard for those involved to see deep problems with them, or to make change a priority even when problems are obvious (see eg the case of the House of Lords – always a problem, rarely a crisis, never a priority). This is linked to Runciman’s idea that democracies get into ‘confidence traps’, complacent mindsets that mean elite stakeholders can’t believe that their familiar institutions and approaches won’t get them out of trouble every time, or that time-tested systems won’t adapt. (NB the US constitution has not been amended for 40 years – yet everyone admits the system is now dysfunctional.)

One difference from 40 years ago is that then the aftershocks of the 1973-4 oil crisis and great inflation disoriented both left and right, eventually leaving the way open for the waves of neoliberalism since 1980; whereas now the left is clearly a lot more disoriented than the right – the crisis of neoliberal finance in 2008 did little to destabilise the right in most of the West, except in the USA where the Republicans have been having a psychotic episode ever since. Even there, though, the GOP’s deep divisions and instability haven’t led it to lose power in states and congressional districts.

The other difference from 40 years ago is that then the neoliberal insurgents had a fully worked-out ideology and programme that was a clear alternative to everything that had gone before. That is not true of Corbyn’s Labour, which is a very uneasy blend of backwards-looking trade unionism and would-be Podemos-style new leftism. Corbyn also has no story to tell about institutional lock-in. Would he campaign for a constitutional convention? I doubt it.

The other story that is emerging is that Corbyn’s win marks another step towards the break-up of the UK. He might well help UK leave the EU – in which case Scotland will vote for secession. And even if he doesn’t, if he proves to be a no-hoper in England, the SNP can claim union is pointless as it means permanent rule by the Tories.

]]>