State of Neglect

Whitehall, 25th November 2010. The big clear up is almost complete after a demo the previous day which despite a slew of glorious moments will, almost certainly, be remember most fondly by connoisseurs, for the 'poking of the duchess' incident. By mid afternoon when I cycled past only superficial scars remain. The serene elegance of the Foreign Office has been temporarily disturbed by three words of  graffiti fashioned out of spidery writing and hot pink spray paint - Smash The State. I know what the writer meant by this and emotionally I'm sympathetic, but intellectually I need more. I'm beginning to think that far from smashing the state what we should be giving it is a hot bath, a sharp haircut and a stiff drink. After all if you want to see the end of the state just sit back; the current government are busy sorting that out as we speak. Admittedly they won't be smashing it, but they will be systematically draining it of it's life blood, until it is left zombie like and pugnacious, capable only of the most perfunctory task, such as breaking up demonstrations of dissenters, for the sake of a handy example.

When I think of the way the state is routinely denigrated and derided it puts me in mind of those terrible stories of animal cruelty which occasionally emerge when we are treated to the harrowing sight of a poor creature, dazed and wounded staggering into harsh daylight. Open your eyes and ask what state your state is truly in. We have neglected it horribly. Starved it one day, only to force feed it the next. Allowed it to become infested by parasitical opportunists. Dragged it round the world for no clear purpose. Ignored it's successes and beaten it mercilessly whenever it failed to deliver.

It's no mystery why MPs were found with their smooth, pale hands in the public purse when you think about it. The state is being run by people who don't actually believe in it. Do we really think they would have been quite so eager to drink from it's wounds if they demonstrated, or better still, if we demanded, some degree of reverence towards the institutions we jointly own and must be ultimately accountable for?

I'm sick of the snide cries of 'nanny state' which go up now almost as often as the moronic chant 'that's it's political correctness gone mad'. One day you may actually see political correctness lose it's mind completely and on that day you'll be begging for a nanny state to come and pick you up and tuck you into bed and tell you everything is going to be alright. Until that day dawns ruminate on the fact that most of the nanny state stories are prompted by institutions attempting to protect themselves from over-litigious, greedy chancers looking to rip their lump from the carcass because they're too stupid to realise, before they get up and try and walk away, that it was their own leg the were happily tucking into all the time.

We have been sold the myth for too long that the state is incapable of fulfilling any function satisfactorily. Is that really the case? Let's glance back at recent history and ask ourselves if it was market forces which commanded the victory over fascism in the Second World War? Was it multinationals that helped to forge a sense of common purpose during the Blitz? Did they ever consider the idea of contracting-out Operation Overlord? No, it was all done by the state and overall I don't think it did do too bad a job. This may all sound uncomfortably jingoistic for some of the comrades, but it's really not. This isn't about flag waving; it's about acknowledging that a nation is a political body and that the state is the responsibly of it's citizens. It is indicative of their collective values. And if it's not indicative of their collective values then it's indicative of their collective failure to assert sufficient control over it.

The state is a fact of life and one we should all get used to. Let the far-right wing of the Tory party waste their time in constructing ideological models of just how much flesh can be cut from it's weary bones if they must. The progressives need to concentrating on how to resurrect this much maligned enterprise, transforming it into a noble beast of burden, harnessed by law and custom, piloted by the popular will, fuelled by prudent and fair taxation, charged with championing unity through diversity and protecting the social stability of the nation. Does that sound utopian and idealistic? Good. It was meant to. Since when was dreaming for more than you're likely to get something to be ashamed of?

I am not arguing that we should abandon ourselves wholesale to the whim of the state or that we should curtail our legitimate criticisms of it's deficiencies. In fact quite the reverse. However, I do think we should build it's existence into our political calculations, accept that it is not by definition a bad thing and that it is our duty to wrestle with the idea of a common good in the hope that one day our state may genuinely reflect it.

Now about those banks we own...