Skip to content

Explaining Will Hutton

What matters is winning and holding political power.

Not doing something useful with it, bettering the country or anything. Just having it, to be able to pay with peoples’ lives by using it. Explains a lot.

20 thoughts on “Explaining Will Hutton”

  1. Things that make you go “hmm”:

    The empire Gorbachev presided over was ruled by an unimaginative gerontocracy and an entrenched bureaucracy of midwits, living out the failed economic and strategic ideas of their youth. Its society was militantly atheist, and one where a specific governing ideology had a stifling hegemony over every stratum of life, including academia and media. Its government paranoid about foreign influence with an elite edifice desperately trying to promote ideas that defied both logic and sensory evidence of eyes and ears; overstretched militarily beyond means in places of peripheral strategic interest. A society where abortion, addiction, and suicide rates were off the charts; where all crimes were forgiven, only if one could manage to be on the right side of the governing ideology.

  2. Step 1: Means are needed to get to the desired ends.
    Step 2: The ends justify the means.
    Step 3: The means justify the ends.
    Step 4: There are only means.

  3. If winning power, even if you do nothing with it, was important the conservatives have had over 12 years (many with an 80 seat majority) to implement the 2010 Boundaries Commission recommendations and remove the inbuilt 20-30 seat Labour advantage at every election.

    In all that time they’ve done nothing about it. Will Liz be any different or is she another globalist whose loyalty is to a higher authority?

    As Mark Steyn, among others, has said “Republicans/Conservatives occupy power, Democrats/Labour exercise it”.

  4. Dennis, Satan's Editor-In-Chief

    Ah yes, the semi-annual “This time the political groundswell is real! Not like all those other times.” article. A mandatory masturbatory exercise for all left-wing writers.

    All this means is that Hutton had a deadline, was stuck for an idea, and one wank in him.

  5. I’ve often wondered if we’d be better governed by a parliament of 650 people selected at random every 5 years. At least some of them wouldn’t be narcissistic borderline psychopaths, which is all we get under ‘democracy’.

  6. Xerxes Did Nothing Wrong

    Jim – the Thirty Tyrants the Spartiates imposed on Athens after that Peloponnesian punch-up would be better than what we have now.

  7. Jim.. It wouldn’t matter… The actual Establishment in the Ministeries would ensure nothing actually useful happened..

    The Enemy is not just HoC/HoL.. The unelected and entrenched bureaucracy behind the benches is responsible for at least half the insanity currently going on…

  8. Said this before, but if you see power as the power of individuals. And all of the individuals are pursuing what they perceive as their own personal advantage, it makes the whole thing much easier to understand. In this view there are no political parties, no HoC or HoL, no Establishment or Ministries. Only the individuals that comprise them & the coinciding of their personal interests.

  9. Bloke in North Dorset

    I saw this on Twatter and thought it a reasonable point, of course political patronage means the jobs have to go to buying off the support of boys and girls who put you there.

    “ The funny thing here is that even if he was the best candidate Frost couldn’t be Foreign Sec bc he’s not an MP & it’s rare for major offices to go to Lords. In a normal country, *anyone* can be appointed to almost any govt post. UK drawing 100 from a pool of 350 MPs is bonkers.”

  10. It’s one of the best endorsements of anarchism I’ve seen. In order to have a representative government, you have to allow free and fair elections. If that results in a back and forth between reasonable and tyrannical leaders, then it’s ultimately pointless to even try to improve the system when those improvements will only be reversed four years later. May as well just get rid of the system altogether, take away all power from all those leaders—even the “good” ones, and citizens can decide in their own households and communities how liberal or conservative they want their lives to be.

  11. BIND
    In a normal country, *anyone* can be appointed to almost any govt post. UK drawing 100 from a pool of 350 MPs is bonkers.

    Absolutely, most will be perfectly fine constituancy MPs. Very few will be of the calibre for high office.

  12. Civil servants are drawn from a pool of millions (in theory , at least). I don’t detect that the calibre of the individuals at the top of the CS is far greater than ministers – they all seem equally incompetent.

  13. I don’t detect that the calibre of the individuals at the top of the CS is far greater than ministers – they all seem equally incompetent.
    The competence required to rise to the top of the Civil Service is the competence to rise to the top of the Civil Service. It may well have no other application. In fact, bearing in mind its very specific requirements, it’s unlikely to.

  14. Similarly, the competences required to rise to a position of power within a political party bear no relationship to those required to provide a competent government. One might say, the more competent the politician the less competent the administrator.

  15. BiS, Wasn’t there some ancient Greek or Persian that already came to that conclusion?

    ( I am not nearly versed in ancient Egypt to know if there’s an earlier example, but….)

  16. Very few CS recruits will make it to senior level , let alone the gilded realms of mandarin

    The latter are selected from the same miniscule gene pool from which all our illustrious leaders are drawn,
    Look at senior politicians CS, media, industry, the ‘professions’, charities the commentariat…

    That’s why nothing works at high level in this country

  17. Chris Miller,

    “Civil servants are drawn from a pool of millions (in theory , at least). I don’t detect that the calibre of the individuals at the top of the CS is far greater than ministers – they all seem equally incompetent.”

    Who appoints the public sector? I mean, ultimately? You can say that this mandarin hires this bloke, and he hires this woman, and she hires this bloke and all the way down. But ultimately, that mandarin was put there by a minister. The reason the civil service is so shit is that the politicians are in charge of them.

    I mean, you can see this in the private sector. A new CEO takes over and for better or worse, the atmosphere starts changing quite quickly. They reshuffle things, some people leave because they realise they don’t fit with the new regime. Different types of people now want to join because of the perceived culture, or not (15 years ago, Google was the coolest company going, now it’s a bureaucracy).

  18. CEOs can hire and fire, it’s impossible for a minister to get rid of a civil servant (unless they do something insane, like saying or writing something non-woke). Have your Read Dominic Cummings on the topic?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *