The Birth of the Political Philosophy of Status Quo

 To start to tell the story, of the birth of the political philosophy of Status Quo, I need to go way back in time, to the year 2014. It was in this year, that a referendum was held in Scotland, on the question of Scotland becoming an independent country, or remaining as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As this momentous referendum approached, I decided that I would accept the result, and when the result came in, I continued to hold to that position of acceptance. Indeed, as time went by, my acceptance became firmer and stronger. The more that I thought about it, the more did I adopt the position, that a referendum decision must be accepted. If a referendum is not a device for making a decision, then it is nothing. Logically then, it also follows, that not only is a referendum a device for making a decision, but to really be a decision, that decision has to be implemented. Further, that decision, cannot be reversed, nor can a second referendum be staged to overturn the first. Indeed, a second referendum, not only invalidates any first referendum, it would also invalidate that second referendum too. A second referendum would only be one of a series, which would never end, as one referendum after another was used to overturn the result of the previous one. No real decision would ever be made. No referendum would be binding. The whole purpose for having a referendum would be destroyed, as a referendum would be meaningless.

Thus it was then, that I came to accept the referendum to be the supreme decision-making device in politics generally, and that in particular, that it was the will of the people that Scotland should remain within the UK. I therefore adopted this position in my political thinking, and made Scotland remaining in the UK, the central position in my political thinking.

In 2016, there was a UK-wide referendum, on the question of the UK, leaving, or remaining, part of the European Union. After all the thinking that I had put in on my political position regarding the 2014 referendum, adopting a similar position of accepting the result, and being opposed to any attempt to overturn that result, was merely a natural continuation of that position. For me, supporting the two referendum decisions, would become the core of my political position.  

I had always been a great fan of the referendum, and believed that it was a device that should be used much more than it had been previously. I did not accept the criticism of it that some constitutional and political figures had made. However, in the years that followed the 2016 referendum, the flaws of having a binding referendum in a representative democracy in which the parliament was sovereign, became as clear to me, as they were to previous critics, and the population at large as well. We saw the spectacle of a Parliament that did it's best to overturn the decision made by the people in the referendum. Even when Boris Johnson became Prime-Minister, this runaway, renegade, Remainer, Parliament, imposed humiliating demands on the PM to write a letter, dictated word-for-word by the Parliament, to ask the EU to delay our leaving of the EU. The PM, unlike in former times, was constrained by the Fixed Term Parliament Act, brought in by the coalition of 2010-2015. Eventually, as history will recall, the PM finally got a General Election in December 2019. It was an election that the PM convincingly won. Withdrawal was quickly negotiated for 31/1/2020, with a transition to the end of the year. The UK thus fully left the EU at the start of the new year of 2021. As I write this, the Government is engaging in it's new legislative programme. The abolition of the Fixed Term Parliament Act is one of the measures planned. For myself, I now believe, that all the opposition that was shown by the Parliament and the people, against the referendum result, shows that any further referendum is to be avoided. Constitutionally, it is hard to make a Parliament accept it. Indeed, they can refuse to accept the result. So too the people! Many have just refused to accept the result.

In Scotland, the Scottish National Party, committed to both Scottish independence, and EU membership, refused to accept the referendum results for both 2014 and 2016. Myself, being that political animal that I am (and that Aristotle tells us we are) decided that I would stand as a candidate for the last time in the Scottish Parliamentary elections of 2021. I wished to joust with the SNP, whilst also laying out a great swathe of policies I believed in as my final political testament.

It is not my intention to tell tales out of school, so I will merely say, that I became aware of others who wished to take the SNP on head-on. Nor do I intend to play down the activities of these others. Tribute must be paid, to those who proposed the creation of an anti-SNP alliance and the use of tactical voting. It was a valiant effort, that deserves much praise.

One interesting idea, was the proposal to package the anti-SNP message, as a 'Unity' message, rather than a 'Unionist' one. The argument was that for some sections of the electorate, the term Unionist was a toxic one. Indeed this is so! For the Unionism that is talked about, is not about an English/Scottish union, as many think, but rather originates in Ireland, and is tied to the Irish Question. To this day, Northern Ireland is divided on this question, as is Scotland. Thus, the Unity label was a clever one, but one that sadly never took off. For better or worse, like Tory, (or Whig in previous times), Unionist is the shorthand term, that is in everyday use, and which people take their position on.

A bigger question, was the issue of what an anti-SNP alliance would present to the people as an election platform. There were two positions. One, was that a basic anti-SNP one policy position would be adopted. Counter to that, was the argument, that the media demanded a detailed policy platform, and that to be heard, this had to be delivered. Eventually, a compromise emerged, that offered an interesting platform, but one that in reality, and it was designed as such, was a bland motherhood and apple-pie exercise. I had originally wanted to lay my own stall out in great detail, but decided that I should support this alliance as the only logical thing to do, as I accepted the logic behind the creation of the alliance, and thus decided to sacrifice my own personal ambitions for the greater cause, which would be more effective.

Whilst interested in putting forward ideas and policies, I felt that the one policy position was the right one. I do not accept that a party should pander to the media because they demand it. The reality, is that the media are whores always demanding more, until they force you to give them enough rope for you to hang yourself, for that is what they want more than anything else. For it is the scandal that generates most interest and sells most papers. That is the job of the media. Some will attempt to destroy in a disinterested way, as that is their job. Others, for their own political interests, will attempt to destroy those they see as their political enemies.

Thus it was then, that this anti-SNP alliance, rolled out it's manifesto, that was then widely ignored. The alliance felt it should pitch itself as 'the change' to the SNP Government. Of course, the SNP also pitched themselves as 'change'. In fact, so did nearly everyone. All were putting themselves down as being the change candidates and the reformers. Some of these reformers campaigned to intergrate schools. Of course, in reality, this was just an anti-Catholic position, no doubt intended just to garner votes on that basis. Sadly, misidentifying the colour of ballot-papers, can be judged on a similar basis. Attempts to get votes from one side based on this type of positioning, merely means they are lost on the other side.

For myself, a change position seemed in contradiction to opposing the change of Scotland becoming independent. I began to think, that no change was the correct position. This was an idea that grew in my thinking. When I was younger, I wanted to see radical political change, viewing it as needed, and had no time for those who were content with the status quo, be they politicians, or voters. In recent years, I have mellowed, and can understand now, a voter, who has a decent life, not wanting to see great change or upheaval. If you have a decent stake in society, why risk it? If you have houses, and jobs, and money, why risk all that on some political adventure?

At the same time, that I first started seeing status quo as a political position for now, I was also doing some historical research on the French Revolution and Napoleon. Although familiar with the history before, now I wallowed in the detail, and it now had an effect on me that it had not before. I knew that Edmund Burke's Conservativism stemmed from his fear of the French Revolution. Now I too felt that same fear. To sum up the history, the French Revolution of 1789, led to The Terror, then the rise of Napoleon, then his final fall in 1815. Thus, after a quarter of a century of complete mayhem, France ended up where it had started, but at the cost of a huge number of lives.

Status quo then, seemed a viable position. Certainly for the 2021 Scottish election it was. I started to think it could have a wider application too. I began casting my mind back over the previous decade. The 2010 General Election had delivered a coalition government. This had in turn produced the Fixed term Parliament Act, a referendum on the voting system, and a referendum on Scottish independence. This broadly centerist government also saw the emergence of a strong anti-EU sentiment. The 2015 election saw the destruction of the Liberal Democrats as a major political party, and saw the Conservatives elected, unexpectedly, on a promise of a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU. The failure of the government to secure anything more than some shameful document about a one-off halt to immigration that was lodged with the United Nations, led to the 2016 referendum vote to leave the EU. Then, from 2016-2021, we have had five years of political turmoil as a titanic political battle ensued to implement that referendum decision. It dawned on me, that after ten plus years of political turmoil, the British people were wanting no more adventures and excitement, and instead, desired a return to a more boring and calm political scene.

I began to think that I had stumbled on some great political idea. The more I thought about it, the more sure I became. For British politics, the status quo position seemed the correct position. It also seemed applicable to other democracies. Even for rather grim authoritarian states, revolutionary change can often make things worse. Could status quo be the answer to life, the universe, and everything? No! A moment's thought, made me realize, that complete status quo, would mean that children would never leave the parental home, and even worse, no one would ever get out of nappies. So I realized that status quo could never be a rule to live your whole life by, however, I did have some second thoughts, as I watched the birth of football's European Super League, quickly turn into the European Super Small League. Perhaps, status quo could play some small part in life, however, in reality, I consider it applicable for certain, only to politics.

If status quo was really the great political position that I had discovered, then it had to be a real political position, philosophy, and theory. If it were merely a slight tendency, a slight leaning towards caution, a slight preference, then it would really be nothing. As a position, philosophy, and theory, it required a definition, and to really be a clear position, philosophy, and theory, it would require a hard definition. If it were a mere soft fluffy definition, it could easily be bent to mean anything, or ignored because it meant nothing. I therefore spent a little time, drafting a definition, that was so bluntly and brutally stated, that it's meaning would be quite plain to all, and that it was so hardline, almost to the level of a fundamentalist religious position, that it would be almost impossible to ignore, or misinterpret, or water-down.

Thus my definition of the political philosophy of 'Status Quo', is the following; 'The correct political position, on anything, for everything, is, always, status quo. Change should only be the option, if there is complete proof that change is required, that it needs to happen, and that the cost of change is minimal'.

This leaves just enough leeway for some needed changes and reforms to come in, whilst all the while, stating that the starting point is status quo. This does not mean that there is never change, as things do change over time. However, any change, would then become the new status quo. Reversing it, would require reaching the same high bar as any other change, though it still leaves reversal possible. This theory of mine, is not aimed at taking us back in time. I am not arguing that small boys should be sent back up chimneys. That practise was banned. The status quo, is to not send boys up chimneys. The reintroduction of boys as chimney-sweeps, would require a very high bar to be reached to be adopted. Less dramatically, a proposal to build a new road can be opposed as it is not the status quo. If the argument is good enough for the road it could of course be supported, but the argument for the road must be proved. If it is not, opposition is the status quo position. However, once approval is given for the building of that road, then that becomes the new status quo. There is perhaps a grey area of the time period when appealing against a decision is allowed, but once that road is approved, that is the status quo position. Proof would then be required to stop road-building from starting. Once that road is started, then that is the status quo position, even for the unbuilt second half of the road too.

My status quo theory, seems like a joke! A big nothing! A sort of anti-politics! I am not arguing the extreme position that no decisions should ever be taken and thus an abstentionist position is adopted by elected politicians. If that were the case, then there is no point putting forward the status quo position. It would be best just to stay at home! No! I am not advocating that! I am merely advocating a status quo position. However, I am wide-open to the charge, that I am merely seeking to stir up apathy. Guilty as charged! I know, that the young me that I was, would hate the old me that I am now! The old me, is what the young me hated and despised, and wished to replace! It is what it is! Old me really believes that opposing new adventures and excitement, and returning to a more boring and calmer politics is the correct position. Of course, this also rules out all those 19th and 20th century political philosophies that demand radical transformations of society, because that is not status quo.

"It's better to have fought and lost, than not have fought at all!" Now, though, old me has sheathed his flashing blade. I have fought my last battle! General Douglas MacArthur said "Old soldiers never die--they just fade away" So now, like the old condottieri, like Fabrizio Colonna, and Castruccio Castracani, I too wish to sit in the garden under the shade of a tree, and advise a new generation of young blades, how to best use their flashing blades. Or rather, in this modern age, I am more like Niccolo Machiavelli, weilding not a trusty sword of truth, but more a mighty pen, with which I will fight my final battles, or rather, train others to do battle on the political battle-field.

For me then, this is like the end of the film The Wild Bunch. I do not mean that it is time for me to 'go'. Nor do I mean that I am thinking of going out in a blaze of glory. No! I am thinking of the final scene. The two old friends, who had been apart during the film, who were enemies throughout the film, now met up again. It was a tense scene! Things had changed! The old days, and the old ways, had gone. So too, had gone their old exciting life-style. No longer could they pursue their own selfish ambitions like they used to. Now though, with a little adaption, they could do something else, something similar, perhaps not quite as exciting as before, but the work was perhaps more worthy.

They say that for footballers, nothing beats playing football. So what does a footballer do when he retires? Many try their hand at management. Of course they will tell you that it is not quite the same, that it is not as good, but it is a decent second-best.

So, perhaps, I can get the chance, not so much to ride out into the sunset, rather, to go off on on a quest, and seek out the Holy Grail of Status Quo. Perhaps I may be lucky enough to have some peasants singing songs as I ride out of the village.

Now I am old man Sykes! His thoughts are my thoughts! His words are my words!

"It ain't like it used to be, but, er, it'll do!"

"You wanna come along?"