The Abusive State – politicalbetting.com
The Abusive State – politicalbetting.com
Even in the best run societies or organisations, matters will go wrong. It is not this which is the problem but the response to it. This more than anything else shows its true character. Judged by this, the British state is an abuser of its citizens. Too harsh a judgment?
4
Comments
What, if anything, can be done? Is our society any longer underpinned by a value system beyond 'getting ahead'. Maybe we get the leaders and bureaucrats we deserve.
When the Water companies were on state ownership, investment was regularly blocked by the Treasury and waivers for breaching regulations were given instead.
One of the reasons for privatisation was that drinking water quality rules were coming in and would require vast investment to deal with. Which actually happened.
I'm sure that none of us want to see the postmasters, victims of infected blood etc suffer... or we certainly don't want to think about their suffering... but compensating them is awfully expensive. We'd msotly rather have the tax cuts, thanks.
I'm pretty sure that there's an aphorism (though I can't find it quickly by googling) about virtue when it costs you personally not being a special category of virtue; instead it's the only sort of virtue that really exists. If not, I'm claiming it. I'm also pretty sure that we get the state we collectively vote for, and in some sense deserve. Which isn't a cheering thought.
Although from a comedy perspective, Burnham losing wouldn't be the end of the World.
https://www.thejusticegap.com/miscarriage-of-justice-victims-no-longer-lose-means-tested-benefits-if-compensated/
What we are seeking is a system which falls between these two extremes.
One in which promised investment is forthcoming whilst providing a reasonable return to shareholders which doesn't leave the company effectively bankrupt and the billpayer or taxpayer permanently on the hook.
Surely that isn't an overly naive goal?
Sadly the very old saying that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is completely correct - and the state wields absolute power.
Any powers we give to the state can be abused, and given the amoral way the state acts, as described they do tend to be.
Too often people propose granting powers to the state in the view that the best intentions will be followed, but in actual fact the most amoral and self-serving intentions end up being followed instead, which is why the state should only ever have the powers it actually needs.
The Treasury blocked borrowing because this would have added to the national debt.
The easiest compromise was to pass a law allowing the companies to ignore standards.
Support a new leader, eg Pahlavi, to take over the powers of the state and get their own army running things in Tehran and the oil fields etc (to control money) not the entire mountainous country, then let that leader take it from there.
I mean, I guess Michael Lowry and the Healy-Raes aren't involved, so Britain at least has that comfort, but, well.
Is there another option?
Well done.
Their dividends were limited by statute, so investors got a decent, safe, return. Also their borrowing was limited. To borrow above the limit meant going to Parliament for approval. So borrowing to build a reservoir or water treatment plant would be approved, but borrowing to just hand cash to investors would not.
Historically, they came into being because the old Rural Districts, Urban Districts and Boroughs prioritised keeping the Rates down over investment.
https://unherd.com/2026/05/its-time-to-bring-back-blair/
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5500799/#Comment_5500799
Clueless on how many Belgiums that is.
After the first half dozen get life for misconduct in a public office, things will change.
Does not Scotland have non-profit train companies, and Canada non-profit airports, for example?
We still have certain community owned water companies, though I am not aware of any large ones. My favourite is near here in Youlgreave, which is regulated by the local authority not OFWAT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youlgrave_Waterworks
One of our local Drs had a weekend house there, and they always claimed that because they were no. 2 on the pipe they were one of the few in the village with a power-shower. That is pushing it a bit because all you need to have one is an accumulator or a tank and pump.
The more crucial thing is having political parties who believe in the public good as part of their value system.
Try reading what you respond to next time.
Necessity involves things like a jury of your peers.
And the system now requires.... vast investment.
Bottom line is that either taxpayers or bill payers fund investment in the end.
"The Treasury blocking investment", into a natural monopoly public utility, is a very, very poor reason for privatising it.
If we simply nationalise the water companies (as before) the politicians will set the prices, the Treasury will block investment and the same comedy will ensue.
We need a better answer. What is it? I don’t know at this point.
A first step would be to stop propping up those water companies. Let them go bankrupt. That, at least gets some hazard into the game.
What then?
They borrowed against the assets and future bill income, took huge dividends and have sweated the assets to a desiccated husk while gaming regulations and testing.
I understand that it could make it harder for other water companies to borrow, but then if they have the same corporate behaviour as Thames then it should be hard, if not impossible, for them to borrow. Most of the current bondholders have bought in at a discount and are relying on the state to underwrite a potential substantial profit.
In the current situation the state (taxpayer) is underwriting borrowing at a higher rate than the state would pay while having no effective control of the operation or sanction for underperformance.
We're just being rinsed, and with effluent.
He's more the aging rock star who has reinvented himself as a minimalist neoclassical composer and demands to be taken seriously purely on the strength of his name.
My other question is what needs to change? Attitudes, clearly, but would further legislation help, or only make things worse?
OTOH it has accelerated my garden creation with some mesmeringly beautiful and high stone raised beds near completion, the Gertrude Jekyll roses are doing brilliantly, the garden room - designed by me (afternoon tea below plus roses) - is finished, my book proposal is coming along well, am doing lots of other writing and my humour has become blacker than ever. Also reading lots of great books. Plus today I bought two rather nice paintings by a local and very good artist, Jim Billsborough. There is an exhibition this weekend of his work at the local church which was sketched by Turner.
Oh - and I have still written vastly more headers than you! 295 in fact.
PS Thames Water are utter scumbags.
But the government should back the suppliers bills.
With a loan to reconstituted water companies. Which, since they will be relieved of their other debt, they will repay easily. A smart negotiator could get a profit out of such a loan.
I have reassuring patriotic news for you. While Dutch railways are efficient, joined up and slick, the German excuse for an intercity rail network makes our own Cross Country or Transpennine express look high speed and punctual. The reputation of DB seems well deserved.
It’s literally dawdled all the way on what look like rural branch lines and is running an hour late. 7 hours to cover what a bog standard TGV would do in 3.
Question though. Is it really such a slam dunk that on the reversal of a wrongful conviction compensation should *automatically* be paid regardless of context and circumstances?
What about (say) an overturned conviction where evidence of guilt remains compelling but is later discovered to have been inadmissable on account of how it was obtained?
Two comments here - while she is right to condemn the "cheeseparing' when it comes to compensation, the figures government pays out in compensation every year are quite significant. It's difficult to get a total figure, as government doesn't publish one, but it's likely well over £5bn excluding exceptional cases like the blood, and Post Office scandals.
I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from that, other than just doing stuff better would save us an awful lot of money.
Secondly, it seems to me that there's little reason we shouldn't pick out the most senior figures in the PO scandal who are most clearly likely to have been in breach of the law, and save years of investigation by concentrating on investigating and prosecuting them first.
That ought to be doable with existing resources.
We have a new garden built from scratch following our self-build. It's looking a bit stark at present as we had to put in quite a bit of hard landscaping* for wheelchair access but we now have some plants in and our first flowers out, including Nye Bevan - which was a must for lefties like us:
The cost to get to that point, though, was rather large.
No ifs, no buts. Imagine you or a loved one on the end of that "cheeseparing". Yep, we'd both be incandescent.
I think those two examples were rather the inevitable consequences of an existential fight thankfully won by the Allies.
(@MattW too)
1. Re the cost of compensation, one reason why it is so high and, therefore, why we / the state are so willing to endure delay to minimise the cost is because we repeatedly and very very stupidly allow small problems to fester and grow and turn into bloody big crises which then cost the earth to solve. The answer is to deal with them at the start, to have proper investigations which can get to the cause and which it is a whole load easier nd cheaper to resolve and Lao avoids the institutional self-defensiveness which you find in so many scandals.
This is not rocket science. I was saying it over and over at work and eventually they got the point and were delighted that there was someone there to sort out problems early. But most organisations - and I include government in this - do not understand what a good investigation is, appoint the wrong people to do them and do not see this as part of sensible risk assessment / problem solving but as denial and avoidance. It is another example of a false economy which is one of the fundamental failings in Britain's governance.
2. It's not more legislation we need but a change in attitudes and a problem solving approach.
Finish your new build and it can be turned over to a hippy commune 👍
In Ireland, there were the Magdalene laundries for "fallen women", the last of which only closed in 1996. Sexual, psychological and physical abuse was all too common. The Irish government acknowledged the problem in 2001, but resisted calls to do anything until 2011. You could look at the actions of the tobacco industry to deliberately conspire and lie about the dangers of tobacco for decades, or of the fossil fuel industry to do the same around climate change. Or how Volkswagen tried to cover up its emissions scandal.
I that case the public body/surviving policemen should become liable to their actions and be sue able. And liable to prison.
No hippies on site or in sight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDr1tThDQ0c
I remember various pb notables defending conscience based jury decision making when it cropped up before.
Iraq? Oh my, definitely not.
Grenada?
Jurors Are Upending The Legal System By Using Their Conscience | Max Hill KC (former DPP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDr1tThDQ0c
Funnily enough, juries sometimes find people guilty especially in emotive cases like sex crimes or terrorism, leading to miscarriages of justice like Andy Malkinson (see Cyclefree's header) but hey, who cares?
As an aside, it is said that one of the reasons for abolishing the death penalty was that jurors had become reluctant to convict.
Here is a one minute sketch featuring Lee Mack returning the jury's verdict:-
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/r85Lz-VGEgc
On the debit side: Libya, Iraq, Iran (1953), Afghanistan, Chile (1973), Guatemala (1954)... Plus various abject failures like Suez that didn't manage to effect the regime change.
1 Fess up, and face a ruinous cost and professional humilation
2 Cover up, and you might get away with it. You might not, which might lead to an even more ruinous cost and even more professional humiliation. Except the cost and humiliation were going to be off the scale anyway, so who is counting?
It's not nice, but it is rational. The best answer is to never put yourself near a hole in the first place, but that's not the spirit of the age.
(The other answer is the engineering one- do accident enquiries to find the technical cause, rather than the moral culpability. That's fine if the cause really is technical- but often there is a moral failure at the root of these fiascos. And, as examples like the Magdalene laundries or the Iwerne camps show, even a strong moral compass is surprisingly easy to switch off if necessary.)
1688 was regime change driven from within, which is a completely different beast.
In some ways the recent success of Manchester is down to having the airport as a good source of revenue and (i reckon) good consistent work over a lot of years by previous Manchester leader Richard Leese (I think there was also a CEO that hung around for a while doing similar but name escapes me). Burnham has in many ways been the beneficiary of the solid and, fairly, forward looking way that Manchester has been run. In comparison to many other local authorities / city regions it is top drawer - although if you read the Mill not without its own controversies.
A decade was lost in the case of Malkinson too.
The blood contamination case is even worse. I've read the report. It makes you weep. I and my brother have a rare blood condition and we were treated for it at the Royal Free's haemophilia unit run by Dr Kernoff. He was one of the doctors who warned government about the problem with infected blood products. It was our sheer good fortune that we did not get treated with any of the infected blood. I have lost all trust in the authorities to behave with any sense of decency towards me should something dreadful be done to me by those authorities. Such good behaviour as there is comes from individuals trying to behave professionally within a system which either makes this harder than it need be or does not reward or value it. And it is incidentally one reason why I am against AD - give the state the power to suggest suicide to those people who will cost it a lot to treat or help (like me, now) and that power will, without question, be abused - no matter what any procedure says.
Cool Britannia is great isn't it.
Just posting out that there's an awful lot of money paid out every year.
Burnham says we need a stronger response on small boats and implies Mahmood is making good progress. I suspect she stays in place.
Overall, it went very badly indeed.
He should ask a Streeting to come back to Health
Promote Nandy to replace Lammy.
Then when the stories came out of the cruelty and abuse the nuns rightly got blamed. But Irish men were perfectly content for the nuns to take on the burden. They did not give a toss about what the nuns were doing when it happened. They did nothing to help those girls or their own children. And then they turned round and blamed the women for dealing with the consequences of the men's own behaviour. And congratulated themselves on uncovering abuse they'd happily participated in and turned a blind eye to for decades.
Utter bastards, the lot of them.
The calculus for the organisation which employs you is very different, since they are more likely to have to pay up for your misdeeds whichever of the two outcomes happens.
I would add that one of the most nauseating forms of official hypocrisy in the modern era is to give eloquent apologies for the actions of people long dead, while evading responsibility for far more recent misdeeds.
I think it is more interesting to think, for example, of post-1991 Eastern European countries, where democratic Western values were introduced somewhere on the spectrum between "imposition" and "adoption" - eg EU Membership had attached requirements around governance,
Equally there are some countries in S America, Asia, Africa, where Western values an practices were imposed as a requirement if support, whether direct or via eg the WTO, or adopted - with very varying results.
What about Taiwan? Ghana? South Africa? Costa Rica? Namibia?
There are many types of influence, and many tools in the box.
Taiwan is one of the top 10 most democractive countries in the world in most ratings I see. How did it turn into that - I don't know the history?
What Trump has done is throw out all the tools except the lump hammer (and he does not want to impose Western democratic practices anyway - he wants banana republics).
Blairism was essentially buying of key swing voter groups with public money from a flourishing economy delivered by the Thatcher and Major governments. Other components, like flooding the country with immigrants, worship of "spin", i.e. lies, bungled wars and constitutional vandalism were peripheral.
As the Heir-to-Blair Conservative government didn't deliver a flourishing economy, Blairism now would be impossible.
So Blair should slither somewhere far away.