What possible motivation exists for labour MPs to criticise a Labour Council in a district of London which is perhaps best characterised as a "hegemonic kakistocracy" or "electoral auto-anocracy" ?
I use these clunky and unfamiliar terms to try to emphasise how the system under which we live is so unlike the electoral democracy that we would like to believe it is.
How would standing up to the Council benefit these MPs ? They are certain to be re-elected for as long as they want to stand, whatever they do or don't do. They could all just stay in bed eating hobnobs, and they would still be voted back in, forever. Why cause a fuss, and then be chastised by the Labour Party Head Office for inciting internal strife that would attract media attention ?
I came a across a statement recently, which has been haunting me, as it seems to explain so much:
The purpose of a system is what it does
coined by Stanford Beer, a pioneering cyberneticist. He said:
"According to the cybernetician the purpose of a system is what it does. This is a basic dictum. It stands for bald fact, which makes a better starting point in seeking understanding than the familiar attributions of good intention, prejudices about expectations, moral judgment or sheer ignorance of circumstances."
It's a statement that seems both trite and profound at the same time. But consider for moment that the current state of affairs of Lambeth is actually just what it is intended to be by the system-as-a-whole, which, although not alive, has developed a mission of its own, which is goal-seeking towards uncontested self-preservation. While each individual in the system believes, to at least some extent, that they are working for the common good, their collective output is what we see now.
So the only purpose of what we think of as “Lambeth" is: to continue to exist.
www.lambeth.gov.uk
