Why is anti-establishment sentiment thriving even after Brexit?

Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

There was quite a gloating article in the Guardian this week on Brexit and its consequences on the rest of Europe. In a nutshell, it said that Europe had been revolted by the self-harm the UK has inflicted on itself and the instability it has unleashed on the British economy, its politics and society in general. Despite its "I told you so" theme, it is not wrong. But the battle for the soul of Britain has been hijacked by two opposing factions: the rich on one side and the poor on the other, with paradoxically the poor unwittingly doing the bidding of those who would like to subjugate them. Anti-establishment fever tilted the vote towards Brexit, not a genuine desire to leave the EU.

Oh David Cameron, what have you unleashed? In fact, I could replace the former Prime Minister in that sentence with a number of people, like the present incumbent (whoever that is at the time you read this), or maybe a few media moguls. But this all goes back decades. It is a seething collection of pustules that has been awaiting its time to spew its fetid contents all over the skin of public life and drag the victim into a chronic downward spiral of health and well-being.

There is a correlation between the Brexit vote and the current malaise in society - let me explain...

Successive governments have run public services into the ground through cutting costs, economy drives and selling off tenders to the private sector. None of this needed to happen if it were not for ideology-driven politicians whether in national government or local councils, and their chums in the private sector from lobbyists to energy conglomerates, pharmaceutical companies to building contractors. Every one of them is partly to blame for the current situation. The situation is clear: for the last 40 years, cheap is best, and to hell with the consequences. Hospitals and health workers, infrastructure building, public hygiene, education facilities and staff, police, firefighters, the military, even libraries, have been affected by the scything down of their expenses all so that governments, councils and their contractors can say to their clients (that's you), that they have been saving money in your name.

Well I don't know about you, but as far as I am aware, it's the exact opposite of that method that leads to good running of public services. Money needs to be put into their systems, not removed. That means that instead of reducing our income tax bills, VAT payments and council charges, the powers that be should be raising them, or at least looking for ways to maximise returns. When some suited chinless wonder from the richer side of public life comes on TV and warns against voting for various politicians because "your bills will go up", people need to remember that this bozo from the landed gentry is actually worried about his own costs going up. He will be the first to see a reduction in his own income because he is earning more per year than most earn in ten or twenty years. Why is Jeremy Corbyn being picked out for special treatment? Precisely because of that. He wants public services to run properly and rich dudes fear that if they do, not only will they lose money, they'll lose the opportunity to buy into them when lobbyists have finished convincing politicians to sell.

Back in the 1980s, public services were run into the ground until the public clamour to sell those services off was so loud, that this was the most logical step. It was a tactic used time and again by the then government to make the case for its sale. This was true for water, energy, gas, telephony, public transport, even security services. What we saw, though, was a change in the accountability and rights of those public services, now they were private. Trains that were before late or didn't show up at all were blamed on strikes and militant worker-related action, whereas now the services are not much better and in some cases worse, despite being sold off. Outsourcing and selling off public services has led us nowhere, except that now those services need no longer be directly accountable to the government, and ultimately, the public. It also gives carte blanche to those companies to limit pay, reduce workers' rights and entitlements, all in the name of saving money. They have effectively written themselves out of any social responsibility.

It is this selfish ideology that has led to this moment in history (and yes, this is history - PhD theses will be written about this period in the not-too-distant future) where the gap between rich and poor has finally become too wide, and where injustice in society has become plain for all to see where once it was easier to sweep it aside with gimmicks and distractions, fobbing people off with standard soundbites and impersonal press releases.

And things are a lot more complicated than on the face of it. Far from being a country that's full to bursting, as landowners, right-wing politicians and lobbyists will tell you, there is plenty of room. Indeed, only a very small percentage of the land has been built on. The real issue is that it is a country whose infrastructure has not been invested in for a very long time, and citizens' roles in society are becoming less and less welcome, and it shows:

• the hospitals are maybe fully equipped, but many times there are staff shortages or there are not enough beds for patients, leading to dangerously long waiting times. If real investment were made to ensure there were enough fully-staffed hospitals for everyone, we would need to delve deep into our pockets 
• you should send your child to a local school no matter its ranking, meaning that pupils are liable to be turned down if their parents try to apply for a place in what might be a more suitable school outside their catchment area, even if it is just over a designated line. This means house prices in certain areas rise, and the rules prevent any logic from being used. The fallout from this is that people are being forced to do irrational things to get their children into the school of their choice
• the Royal Navy, once the envy of the world, is now a shadow of itself, as is the British Army and the Royal Air Force, all so the defence budget can be spent on a nuclear arsenal that nobody dare use
• there is a huge swathe of building land that is lying unused and empty because building companies refuse to build on it, meaning prices of houses go spiralling up, but more shockingly, their untouched land turns them a huge profit

There are many more examples of this, and people have become sick and tired of being treated like commodities. They know that successive governments have cut everything to the bone, they know the country is dangerously paired back to the very limits of manageability, they just haven't joined all the dots yet, but they are slowly becoming aware of it. 

Having an ideology of saving money for the sake of it has proven recently to be a myth that has badly exposed the long-term dangers of such recklessness in playing with people's dignity and respect, and nowhere has that been more evident than in the case of Grenfell Tower in West London. What has struck me is how someone came up with the idea of saving a few thousand measly pounds by choosing an inferior cladding material in a refurbishment project to make the outside of a tower block more aesthetically pleasing while neglecting the inside, where residents - who are human beings, by the way - live.

The sentiment of grief turned to anger very quickly, leading to a general feeling of ill-will towards the Prime Minister, the government, Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council, and various contracting firms. This is not surprising, but it is a microcosm of UK life in general. The protests we saw in Whitehall and at Kensington Town Hall are just a spit in the ocean of general British dissatisfaction with the way life is going at the moment, and this is manifesting itself in so many ways.

The Brexit referendum last year, in my opinion, was won by a three-way split between different sections of the public: 

• easily-led individuals who believe everything that the right-wing press tells them, as well as unadventurous, stay-at-home monolinguals who know nothing about the wider world except the two-week drunken jaunt they undertake every summer to some touristic Mediterranean concrete jungle
• people with vested interests in pulling out of the EU, such as some unscrupulous employers, financial investors and politicians, who have been heavily sponsored to say negative things about the EU, and finally
• genuinely disaffected, forgotten and ignored people all around the country who wanted to vote for a change and saw it as their way to stage a protest; effectively kicking the government where it hurts for their constant overlooking of their issues (it is these people I can forgive for voting the way they did - so would I, probably)

What the last group fails to realise, is that by voting the way they did, they have done exactly what the people who are profiting from making their lives a misery wanted them to do; that is to say, they are turkeys voting for Christmas, which makes this such a national tragedy. There is also a gap between the educated and the under-educated, leading to a startling decline in trust in true facts and expert opinions, and a worrying rise in people's willingness to tie their misery to any popular movement that will get them out of the terrible hole they are in, whether that be extremist religion, militant political organisations, support groups, pressure groups or general grumbling to mates at the pub. Brexit had very little to do with many people's actual wishes and more to do with a genuine national mood of dissatisfaction with their circumstances.

What the UK needs right now is a long healing process and a coming to terms with the fact that the people have been lied to for many years for profit and nothing more. The recent election on 9th June reflected people's mistrust of the current incumbents and their handling of social matters as well as Brexit negotiations, where even the Daily Mail has revealed that 69% of people favour a softer departure from the EU. People need to regain a modicum of trust in their politicians and their public services.

Anti-establishment sentiment is thriving in lots of little pockets like local issues, or even as a cause of adverse personal experiences with authority, but when the dots get joined up and everyone realises that it is a national issue, there will be a mass protest at the gates of the high and mighty. People just don't realise yet who is to blame, but this is slowly revealing itself now that people see that cuts in services and selling out to corporate greed have led to the situation we find ourselves in the early summer of 2017.

If you want nice roses, you do not cut at the bottom.

The pursuit of happiness is based on lies

Hey everyone, get yourself a new car - you'll feel so much better! You can't afford it? No problem, we'll fix you up with our financial adviser who will talk of the various ways you can own your very own car without paying for it in one lump sum! The interest is higher than a bank account but it's lower than a mortgage and at the end we'll only make about 10% profit on you.

Or why don't you go on a holiday? Take yourself to Sicily, Barbados, Amsterdam or even Cannes for a couple of weeks. Go on - you can do it! Yes you can! Bah, don't worry about money - we'll sell you a deal unbeatable anywhere else! Too much time off in one go? Worry about that afterwards! What you need is a holiday, my friend!

Have you got the TV everyone else has? No? your model too old? Well then: come to our superstore and we'll sell you one that not only everyone else doesn't have, they won't have it for several years! And we'll make sure you've got TV in digital as well! Yes, digital TV is the future - no, it's the present too, and you should be in on it. If you're not, you must still be watching the pictures in analogue, and that's so nineties. We're all watching the TV on plasma these days, where you can watch the stars without pixels!

Have you got a supermarket fidelity card? If not, you may be missing out on deals you surely should be part of - you can get 10 cents off every bottle of ketchup you buy after your fourth purchase! You could be getting ads sent to you telling you about our deals year-round! You could be the winner of our fidelity card lottery! A winner every day! Umbrellas, toasters, freezer foods, ready-made meals, fizzy drinks and so much more to be won! We guarantee you'll be so much more contented with our bargains than any other superstore in the land! Collect our tokens to save up to 50 euro per year!

Is your house insured against fire? And theft, adverse weather conditions, children, bad workmanship or vandals? If not, call us to arrange a free estimation. We'll send along a highly qualified expert to tell you what could happen to you if you don't! We have all kinds of deals available to homeowners and renters alike and we guarantee money back if nothing happens to you! But we'll keep your place safe - we'll also advise you on how to reduce your insurance bills by purchasing alarms, roof protection, shutters and vandal-proof paint! We promise you'll feel the safest person in your neighbourhood!

Oh please, shut up!

Can I buy happiness? Nope. Can I buy health? No. As long as I've got a roof over my head and food on the table, none of the other stuff should matter.

Oh but it does. You wouldn't believe the amount of adult people I make contact with who are fascinated by all the latest technology, all the best deals and who religiously save up all the tokens for the supermarkets, even going to a different supermarket to get a cheaper deal on one item of food than another. I have contact with individuals who don't fail to tell me about where they bought their new suit, sunglasses or mobile phone. Does it really matter? I have one I like - is it important how much it cost and where it came from?

I'd rather have my happiness than a new gadget. But even then, I find it hard not to conform. I have a lot of bills each month, mainly household, but even then certain bills I get are rather useless, to say the least. But I have to pay them because we're all tricked into thinking that we need them.

Recently I've lambasted bad parenting, attacked public transport, gone crazy over bad mannered kids, so before you think I'm exaggerating by turning my anger on the consumer market, I'll shut up now and go and watch the US Grand Prix on my super-deluxe, home cinema complex with digital surround sound and a million colours.

I'm lying of course - it's a TV with a remote control. Do I need anything else to watch TV? You tell me!

A short advert for parental education

Education and upbringing just isn't what it used to be. People don't have respect for one another, don't seem to care about the community spirit of past generations. The solidarity of the social states has given way to materialism, selfishness and decadence. Although most remain good mannered people at heart, there is a tendency towards the attitude that it's not worth being too helpful, because you're sure you wouldn't get it back.

There are several layers of this social inertia - on one hand whilst some smile or say hello to you, half of the time you don't receive a greeting back. On another hand this is minor compared to the following, which is my pet hate and, I honestly believe, the root of our social ills today:

MP3 players on public transport. I hate them. I despise everything about people who feel the need to let the rest of the bus hear the "music" these individuals need to listen to in order to feel like they're still at the weekend's party and looking forward to the next one. I feel nothing but contempt for those who destroy the peace. I can't concentrate on reading my book when I hear these noise machines blasting out their satanic messages. Can't these people find something else to do? Read a book, for example. Although by the look of them I'm not sure they have a concentration span long enough to manage. But we can tie other anti-social, or even aggressive, acts in with this: feet on the opposite seat, talking loudly on the mobile phone, putting bags on the seat beside, talking loudly to others, refusing to get up for an old person or pregnant woman, spitting chewing gum on the floor, etc. If you do one of these things, you'll probably do the others.

And why? It came to my attention on the number 44 tram the other day - a woman of about 30 was occupying a four-seat section with her 9 or 10-year-old child next to her. The tram was quite empty to begin with but the amount of passengers built up gradually. Nothing unusual yet. Until you note that she allowed her daughter to put her feet on the chair opposite her and she kept her handbag on the seat next to her, thus occupying three of the four seats. If the parents don't say anything, the children think it's OK to carry on doing these things.

Another time I witnessed a family of four out for lunch - but that quickly became three when the youngest, no older than 6, got up to run off his half-eaten sausage and chips. The mother called the child back to finish off his "meal" but was ignored. So she got out a sweet and said he could have it if he sat down again. Nope. The boy carried on running. The plates were taken away and
the little shyster carried on annoying people. Mum and dad continued their chat as though everything was all right. That was, until one of the clients got up to complain to the parents.

He told the mother that the child was really disturbing him and the others around him by staring at them and every now and again shouting, running away in that heavy-footed way kids like to make noise. The mother was so astounded at this unusual and daring act that she even raised her voice to the child. But still she didn't get up. It took the little blighter to have an accident with the waiter carrying empty cups back to the bar for her to motivate herself. The child was unhurt, the waiter only unbalanced, but the cups had made a heavy landing on the concrete. Now he was seated, he began to clap his hands, put his fingers in his warm and gasless fanta drink and make monosyllabic outbursts but the parents did not tell him to be quiet. I then wondered why potential stepparents are unable to adopt children without the most rigorous of tests, but anyone with the right sexual organs can just make their own.

A third event took place last week when I was in Germany. I was at a village celebration where they set fire to a load of wood to commemorate the arrival of spring. They had set up a bar in an open tent and tables and chairs were placed outside to sit and have a good drink and chat. I noticed that all the adults were sitting or standing around getting slowly unconscious on alcohol while the kids were running about the field, playing with the fire and putting drinks down each other's shirts. I remembered one of the children from a previous visit and had got chatting to her - her friends were interested in the arrival of a foreigner so we all had a chat in the dusk light. Some of the questions were typical of kids to try and embarrass you, but I handled it fairly well, considering German is one of my weaker languages. When I said goodbye to them and headed back to the house I was staying in, two of the less-than-vertical fathers shouted at me to stop where I was. One asked, "what have you been doing with our children?" I didn't quite understand the nature of the question and felt quite threatened, so I asked the spokesman to repeat it. He said he didn't like strangers hanging round the kids and wondered what I was doing with them. If he had looked up from his glass, he would have seen. I told them what happened and they went away.

However, I felt like saying, "and what did you do with them?" Because it was plain to see that they just parked their kids on the grass while they went off to get drunk. Saves on the babysitting costs.

But I didn't, because we don't, do we? We don't correct others because it's not our responsibility. We are too shy to interfere in the lives of others for fear of upsetting them, or even worse, being the victims of violence. And the only thing the police would do is tell you to keep your nose out.

[That reminds me of the ultimate keep-your-nose-out example: not so long ago, in Brussels, a family called the police because the television had been on in the house next door all night for the past two weeks, and there was a terrible smell of rubbish. What they found was horrific. The old man who lived there had been dead for two weeks at least and had obviously passed away while watching the television. God help us if that is the way of the future. I think we need to make subtle inquiries into the health, wellbeing and stability of those around us. If we carry on getting more and more insular, we will end up all in a dysfunctional society, with relationships and families where we barely communicate to each other.]

Parents have great responsibilities to society as a whole - they need to pass on the social and moral ethics which allow our society to function. But many don't, or cannot. Many are far too lenient. In the case of the child in the restaurant, if that had been me as a boy, I'd have got a slap. Oh damn, we can't punish physically any more because some researchers told us it could psychologically damage you in later years. It didn't damage me. It didn't damage my father, who had it far worse. In fact, out of all the people I know who were punished as children, they have turned out far more balanced than those who grew up without it. Bullying damages you, punishment does not. It puts you in your place. Having a sense of justice helps, but these days, teachers are losing control of the classrooms, parents need to work all day because they can't live off one salary and so friends, computer games, DVDs, TV and the Internet take over the role of chief educator and kids create their own Lord-of-the-Flies view of the world.

I am not a traditionalist, but I firmly believe that a return to stay-at-home parents is a must for the future, but it is not important which parent stays at home. The main obstacle is the lack of policy to bring this about. I believe that the unemployment figures can be dramatically reduced and the amount of parents bringing up their children at home can be raised in one go by creating a partnership between the government and the business world where companies who offer an employee whose spouse quits work to look after their children a significant rise in salary. The companies taking part are offered tax breaks of the equivalent amount or more to compensate. This not only places the family at the heart of government policy, it also creates space for another potential employee who would be otherwise unemployed. This could have knock-on benefits, for example an incentive to produce more children, thus an upturn in population figures setting off the aging population.

This will not happen though, because governments of our day are only interested in offering cheap, temporary and diluted policies. They need to continue filling big business with tax incentives and helping reduce expenditure. The age of the benevolent government is over, stand by for the end of society.