by Hannes Wessels

I’m no fan of English politicians, having been on the receiving end of their deceit and moral cowardice when they deemed it expedient to abandon principal and promises simply because times and attitudes had changed.   But watching the shambles unfold at Westminster is not something I celebrate.   If the English got nothing else right, they were the absolute masters of good governance.   Thanks, in no small way to them, the structures of government and law they introduced to countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, Singapore and New Zealand, to name only a few, provided the bedrock for the success of some of the most stable and prosperous nations in history.   But they seem to have lost the capacity to do what they once did so masterfully, and a once great power seems well on the way to self-inflicted anarchy.

Part of the problem may lie in the lamentable arrival of the age of the professional politicians who now dominate the country’s political space.   Jeremy Corbyn, a Trotskyite, who is in with a good chance of forming the next government is a charmless party hack who has never had a proper job and doesn’t seem to like his country much.   John Bercow, the influential Speaker and former right-winger, who has added to the parliamentary chaos with his arbitrariness has spent most of his adult life in politics.   Diane Abbot, who seems possessed of the same mathematical acumen as Jacob Zuma is another brain-dead political-pro who may be the next Home Secretary guarding the country’s borders and keeping the citizenry safe.   The British ruling class is awash with like people who have devoted most of their lives to climbing the party ladder as an end in itself and in the process, have lost touch with the ordinary people that elevated them in the naïve hope that their MP’s cared about them.

Looking at the country’s political leadership, one is struck by an overwhelming sense of weakness and mediocrity.   But maybe this is democracy, in action, reflective of an aimless, docile electorate that has lost confidence in itself.   This loss of self-belief and pride in country has its roots in a school system that enforces a history curriculum designed to induce a sense of shame.   As Lenin, famously and accurately said, “Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world.”   Since the end of WW II Britons have been exposed to a relentless barrage of guilt-inducing propaganda aimed at convincing them that they should be ashamed of themselves because they once ran a great empire based on pride in their systems, their military-might and their economic success.   This has all been snuffed out and this is why the sudden rise of Donald Trump was greeted with a profound sense of dismay by so many Brits.
Trump’s campaign horrified millions of cowed Brits and triggered outrage from the press, and the politicians who have done such a thoroughly good job of whipping the electorate into submission.   They were and remain terrified of the prospect of the British working class being roused into the same sort of sweeping response to a similar message.   Such was the fury of the leadership, some of their politicians, including Corbyn and London Mayor Sadiq Khan, have considered refusing the leader of the country’s most powerful and loyal ally entry into the UK.   One cannot help but think it is the messenger not the message that has enraged these people.   Why else would a man be so loathed because he wants to secure his borders, cut the best trade deals for his country, grow the economy, cut taxes, reduce unemployment, make peace with North Korea and withdraw from senseless wars.

It struck me the British attitude to Trump is comparable to their treatment of Ian Smith and the government and people he led.   Prime Minister Harold Wilson was essentially a communist, one of the early architects of the nanny-state and an intellectual (in his eyes anyway) whose heart seemed to be in the Soviet Union rather than with the people and country he was elected to lead.   He was ashamed of Britain’s colonial past, it’s tenure as one of the great world powers and all associated with it.   When confronted by a rugged individualist, farmer and former fighter pilot, a product of this era, who projected unabashed pride in his heritage, his homeland and his ability to govern honestly and effectively this was utterly repugnant to Wilson.   Smith, his government and the people he led had to be destroyed regardless of the merits of the case.   The British succeeded.   Luckily for President Trump, he’s got a lot more firepower at his disposal than Ian Smith had.