This is not a work of sociology; it is not based on polling of peoples changing views; it is not a sub-Hayekian/Rawlsian analysis of the constitution; it is not a relation of the extended Marxist family; and it does not apply evolutionary perspectives. It has a Christian, often a Judeo-Christian, refrain but it is not harking back to a different era. It values the judgements and experience of the man and woman in the streets where most struggling households live; the role of experts is considered alongside these. The issue of terminating life prematurely is emphasised as a profound moral consideration, which economic considerations alone cannot resolve, and is prior to consideration of the quality of our lives, fairness and redistribution. It is a plea for simplicity so that the ordinary citizen can comprehend proposals, an important form of fairness.
It flows from a fundamental objection to the unfairness of the prevailing political economic Zeitgeist of globalisation, a policy fully supported by the governing elites throughout Britain, the rest of Europe, and the United States. This policy has consciously increased inequality to the benefit of the elites and justified this by the purported benefits for all classes in society. The objections of the lesser-educated, lower-earning, under-skilled workers have been discounted as arising from populism, which often seems to mean holding uneducated, prejudiced and intemperate opinions, a racist nationalism, and a lack of appreciation of the benefits of globalisation for all including those non-compliant. This further corrodes relations with our political government which have become permeated by a profound distrust, one product of which was the Brexit breakout that the ruling groups attempted to thwart at great cost to their democratic legitimacy. UK citizens perceive ambiguity and dissembling as systematic and deliberate misrepresentation. Party politicians routinely mislead for party advantage, clothed in the rhetoric of beneficence and a more generous offering than the other parties. This fiscal dishonesty follows from their priority for the most effective presentation of vote-winning promises, rather than responsible policies, which have slipped the mooring of transparently balanced budgets. It cannot be readily fitted into the Left Wing or Right Wing categories that assist academic and commentariat simplifications.
