2013
06/18

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:

COMMENTS:
2 Comments »

An apology

Said apology is due for the lack of posting today. A friend and I have spent the day (10 hours) laying 16.7sq mtrs of engineered wood flooring; and not only has each plank to be “glued” to the concrete floor, but each plank has to be glued to the adjoining one. The area covered amounts to just 31% of that to be done. Readers acquainted with the work involved will understand that I am, as a result, a tad “kernacked”. On top of the day’s work I have had a two hour drive back this evening from Shropshire in order to fulfill an early morning charity job – and have the return journey to do in the afternoon.

It is hoped that “normal” posting will resume tomorrow evening; however, as our politicians have shown, there can be a marked difference twixt that for which is hoped and that which is actually delivered.

 

2013
06/17

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:



COMMENTS:
3 Comments »

A good question

“But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?”

Ronald Reagan

Tanya Gold, who we learn is a freelance journalist, writes in the Guardian about the antics of politicians in the House of Commons. She mentions that “poor” Julian Huppert suffers the taunt of being called a “Muppert” – yet are not 99.9% of politicians “Mupperts”? She intimates that the treatment handed out to female MPs is derogatory to them as women – yet do not those women of the feminist movement not cry out for equal treatment?

In her article, Gold ask if Cameron does not respect the females in the house, how will the yapping pack and that in his victory speech in 2005 Cameron said, “I’m fed up with the Punch and Judy politics of Westminster, the name-calling, backbiting, point-scoring, finger-pointing”. Tanya Gold’s point is, exactly, what? The first point I have countered in the preceding paragraph; the second is no more than a selling point uttered by a politician desperate to climb the political ladder, who has no intention of attempting to change things but who is well aware that it would capture the attention of the attendant media and would thus make good copy.

What is the charade which is hailed as “democracy in action” that passes as such in the House of Commons? Gold mentions, in her article the word “statesmen”; yet where are the “statesmen” of “yesteryear”? Whilst I abhor the system under which they were part, where are the likes of Enoch Powell, Anthony Wedgwood-Benn and Michael Foot? Not that I agreed with much that the latter two said, but they were always worth listening to. Where are the days when a parliamentarian would rise to speak and the chamber would immediately fill to hear what amounted to words of wisdom?

While I may laud Powell, Wedgwood-Benn and Foot, all three were believers in “parliamentary democracy” – aka democratised dictatorship – wherein we elect people to make laws with which we may not agree but have no means of altering.

Which brings me back to the quotation that forms the heading of this post, an extract from the first inaugural address by Ronald Reagan. Much as I admire Ronald Reagan, it is a tad ironic that one who believed in “government by a select few” should pose a question which only makes the case for the adoption of direct democracy.

Just saying…………

 

2013
06/16

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:




COMMENTS:
2 Comments »

Welcome to the real world, Ms Wollaston

Sarah Wollaston, the subject of an article in  the Observer by Toby Helm, complains:

“The thing I find most frustrating here is that what’s really valued in politics is absolute loyalty, and I am often told that in saying things that are awkward I am damaging the chances of some of my colleagues being re-elected. I am told that what the public want to see is a united front. Well, I think we need to change the narrative. I think the public dislike the cardboard cutout, the lobby fodder, the sycophantic [planted] questions [in the Commons] … they don’t like it.”

Sarah Wollaston may have been chosen by the people in a system that David Cameron stated “ ”bust open” the old closed methods of selection”, however no matter what the political elite may say, what eventually happens is another matter – in fact events bear no relation to what is initially promised.

What Sarah Wollaston has learnt is that representative democracy and elements of direct democracy do not – and will never be allowed to – mix because the political elite will never, ever, allow their central control of both the political system and those they are meant to serve to be subverted.

For Wollaston to be frustrated at what she has found since her arrival at Westminster suggests a certain naivety on her part in expecting a leopard to change its spots. It is indeed unfortunate and a tad disappointing that Sarah Wollaston has not realised that she is part of a rigged system of democracy and – in effect – suffers from exactly that which those she represents, experience on a daily basis. This further begs the question whether Wollaston actually realises whether she is there not to be part of setting laws, but actually passing laws that those who elect her, want. It then follows whether Wollaston has even heard of Direct Democracy.

Just asking………

 

2013
06/15

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:

COMMENTS:
3 Comments »

“Politics” is not a career?

And politics is not a path to become a “democratised dictator”? From Matthew d’Ancona’s regular Sunday Telegraph column :

“ In my experience, there is a pocket of impermeable self-belief in the psyche of each and every MP that says: “I could be party leader.” Indeed, it is one of the secret affirmations they whisper to themselves when the going gets tough. In 99 per cent of cases, of course, it is pure delusion. But it is part of the senior politician’s psychological profile: a necessary component to keep them toiling away, holding surgeries on wet winter evenings, trudging into the division lobbies as the whips instruct them, driving to down-at-heel venues to eat rubber chicken with angry men in cummerbunds, rarely seeing their families.”

So why the surprise that Theresa May has made a rather unsubtle bid for leadership of her party, “post-Cameron”? Yes, the public know that – why else are MPs held in such disregard? Why else has Theresa May spent hours – no doubt to the detriment of her “family life” – ensuring that she does not join her predecessors in that job and thus being “buried”, if not to attain the “top job”? I repeat my earlier question: that is not politics a path, for the careerist, to become a democratised dicatator? Are not all politicians, deep down, careerists?

Politicians continually inform us that they enter politics to benefit their fellow man yet they adhere to a system that does anything but, other than allow their own personal advancement within the political system. Has not Claire Perry complained, asking what does it take to be noticed around here? Why would she pose such a question if it was not due to frustration at lack of her personal ambition to advance up the political ladder?

What is obvious, under representative democracy, is that our elected representatives care not one iota about representing those that elect them and cannot, due to the opportunity for personal advancement presented under the existing system – so why the hell do we allow said system to continue? It is also necessary to remember that the higher up the political ladder a politician climbs, their ability to represent their constituents diminishes – lack of separation of power and cabinet responsibility?

How long will it be before the taxpayer – and the remainder of the electorate – realize that they are funding the personal ambitions of a select few? How long will it be before they accept that “he who pays the piper calls the tune”? How long will it be for those that fund the State realise and accept – nay, make it a condition – for acceptance of the 6 Demands?

Again, just asking……….

2013
06/15

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:

COMMENTS:
4 Comments »

Honours for the Dishonourable?

Politics Home reports that Sir Menzies Campbell is to be made a Companion of Honour while Andrew Stunnell and Edward Leigh are to receive Knighthoods. It is also noted that Tony Robinson is also to be knighted. We also find that honours have been granted to a water boss who failed big time; a police chief who tragically failed Victoria Climbie; and a hedge fund tycoon who bankrolls the Conservative Party.

When one considers the Wikipedia entries for Campbell, Stunnell and Leigh, ask yourselves exactly what have they done but pursued their parliamentary careers. What has Tony Robinson done other than, through luck, manage to land himself a part in a popular series and then manage to engineer another series digging holes for his further self-glorification? Robert Collington p’d water away and then charged us for his incompetence; while Sue Akers is rewarded for failure to public services.

That we condone what amounts to the ruling elite making a mockery of the system to reward people for public service actually beggars belief. Why should those who have done no more than use the opportunity to feather their own nest be rewarded? Why have those who have, unpaid and unasked, spent years of their lives devoting themselves to better their fellows in their communities, been ignored. Is this what the Big Society is all about – ignoring those that provide the Big Society?

Should not “honours” be given to those that have benefited society by meaningful acts and selfless devotion to that cause be the ones “honoured”? Should not those who have lost their lives defending what is laughingly called our democracy; who have also been maimed, not be the ones “honoured”? Should not the recipient of honours be decided by those that have benefited from the actions of others?

Just asking……….

 

 

2013
06/15

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:




COMMENTS:
2 Comments »

Can’t care for them? Then don’t have them!

Ruth Porter, writing in the Daily Telegraph:

“The idea of using more schools-based childcare is – on the face of it – a fairly simple solution to a massive problem. According to Liz Truss, the Education Minister, proposals to enable schools to add childcare provision to the school day, to provide more flexibility for parents that work, are finally being considered.”

On the face of it this might be considered a laudable idea, but wait, the detail is scarce and it has to be remembered that everything has a cost. Will use of the school premises be free of charge? Will the equivalent of what used to be a school caretaker be asked to work extra hours for nothing?  Will those stay-at-home parents have the time to run such childcare programmes, bearing in mind they have their own children to care for and evening meals to prepare? If private sector providers of childcare are used, who foots the bill for them?

We also find Ms Truss contradicting herself by initially stating that this would not mean teachers working longer hours and then maintaining that in schools already providing such childcare services it is being provided by either using teaching staff, teaching assistants and/or local nursery staff. Er…..

There are two further important considerations in this latest attempt at social engineering; namely why does such a scheme need to be managed by central government? Why should those who manage to have one parent at home to provide childcare be, in effect, penalized providing childcare for their more wealthy fellows?

This last point brings me back to the title of this post, which at the end of the day, is about life choices. You want children? Fine, then you look after them. You want the best of both worlds? Then you fund your own childcare. After all, remember that everything has a cost.

 

2013
06/14

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:


COMMENTS:
No Comments »

Trust in MPs – Opinion Poll

Whose interests do MPs put first? The polling, from Ipsos MORI: Their own 52%, their party’s 31%, their constituents’ 8%, the country’s 6%. Whose should they put first? The country’s 56%, their constituents’ 40%, their party’s 2%, their own 1%. Responses are those that may well have been expected, bearing in mind the low esteem our political class are held by the electorate; yet a question can immediately be posed:

If people believe that, in general, 52% of MPs put their own interests first, then how can 51% of those same respondents believe that they can trust their local MP to tell the truth?

On such level of intellect is the next government chosen…………

2013
06/13

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:

COMMENTS:
13 Comments »

A repeat post of two years ago……

…..on which no comments were received(!). (Original article posted on 18th May 2010)

“Democracy – Indirect? Or Direct?

With this rather long post I crave your indulgence and ask: pray cast your mind back to 6th May 2010 when you made your mark on a ballot paper. What exactly, were you voting for? Yes, accepted that foremost in your mind was the wish to get rid of Gordon Brown and New Labour, but of the alternatives on offer I repeat my initial question – what exactly were you voting for? In asking that question, in effect a rhetorical question, I do not wish to know the party for whom you voted, nor what policies on offer made you choose the candidate that you did.

Initially, let us consider the form of democracy under which we now live – what may be called ‘representative’ or indirect, democracy. It works like this: every four or five years political parties present to their electorate a complicated list of proposals, called a manifesto. This document contains some items we like and also some we don’t like – and those proposals are worded in such a loose ‘form’ as to be virtually worthless – yet we are forced to choose one party over others. Following that choice by the electorate usually one party will emerge with a majority over all the other parties and thus forms a government.

The present British Parliament is an odd body in that it claims ‘legislative surpremacy’ when it suits it, yet is supposed to be subservient to the people. In fact the only time Parliament accepts subordination to the people is when it comes to the people for the people to exercise their periodic right to choose a new parliament. In the intervening periods it practices what I have in the past termed ‘democratised dictatorship’, in that Parliament decides what laws will be passed, often bearing no relation to those proposed in the governing party’s manifesto including some laws that were not even mentioned.It might be said that there is an illogicality at the heart of representative, or indirect, democracy in that the basic premise of democracy is that all adult men and women should have an equal share in deciding how their country is run. Those elected at election-time – the new Leaders of parties and their Members of Parliament accept this principle when it applies to their election. They accept that the voters had to make a complicated choice having heard from candidates and read long multi-issue programmes – aka manifestos – but, provided the votes were lawfully cast, those elected do not challenge the result. Yet from the day after the election these elected representatives of the people claim that only they are capable of making the decisions that produce the laws of our land – a claim which challenges the entire principle of democracy.

‘Representative’ democracy, it can be argued, is bad both for the elected representatives and their electorate. Elected representatives only too often conceal from the electorate what they are doing with their power and become corrupted by that power – witness the last New Labour government ‘gerrymandering’ by allowing in unlimited immigration on the assumption that most immigrants will vote for them; and the new Liberal Conservative government attempting to change the rules by which Parliament can be dissolved, neither of which two ‘ploys’ were contained in their respective manifestos. Witness also the corruption of those Members of Parliament who ‘twisted’ and ‘bent’ the rules governing their expenses and in so doing made capital gains in the property markets by means of what is generally accepted as ‘misuse of taxpayer’s money’. For the electorate, it means they become ‘divorced’ from democracy with no means of questioning and correcting their elected representatives behaviour and decisions. Because Parliament only subordinates itself to the will of the electorate every four or five years, in between times the electorate grows increasing cynical and disinterested in politics.

Politics has changed during the last 20+ year, to the extent that previously the election of a government was always to some extent governed by a principled confrontation between the policies of socialism and the command economy and individualism and the free market. Unfortunately, with political parties now wishing to occupy the ‘centre ground’ there has been a dilution of ideology with the resulting consequence that the electorate’s choice is limited. Whilst still having to vote for a party, some of whose views the voter may like and some not, the ideological difference to help make up the voter’s mind has disappeared resulting in a ‘spin a coin’ situation.

In attempting to change the voting system to better reflect the voting intentions of the electorate, various methods have been suggested such as proportional representation as used in the European elections and the Alternative Vote. This would admittedly provide each party with an allocation of parliamentary seats much closer to its share of the actual vote although as Anthony King writes in today’s edition of the Daily Telegraph (not yet online, it appears) “The promised referendum on the Alternative vote (AV) is another matter. If adopted AV might reduce the number of safe seats and also increase voter satisfaction by giving individual voters an increased chance of participating in the election of ultimately victorious candidates. At the same time, AV is not a proportional system and tends if anything, to discriminate against smaller parties.” There is also the risk that parties would be encouraged to be even more ambiguous than they are, at present, in their manifestos in the hope of picking up votes from their opposition and thereby able to join the ruling coalition.

As part of attempts to change the voting system, referendums on selected topics are now being offered – the drawback being that the questions asked are drawn up by the elected representatives and do not address those topics that the electorate would wish addressed. Witness the Alternative Vote has been ‘decided’ by the ‘representatives’ as the alternative method, whereas if the voting method is to be changed then it should be the people that decide which method is used, their having had the pros and cons of each explained to them.

The current system of government is failing the nation as successive governments have increasingly taken responsibility away from civil society and local government, resulting in a situation whereby regardless of the party in power our public services, managed by politicians, are ineffective and costly. Through this Britain has become less cohesive, less caring, less respectful and a less self-disciplined nation. People are powerless to change anything as politicians do not appear to respect the judgement of the people who are only allowed to vote for parties not individual policies. The people have a right to determine the kind of nation and society they want and they should therefore have the right to vote on major policy issues. This brings one back to the basic problem with our democracy as it is – politicians should be the servants of the people, not their masters.

So what is the alternative to ‘representative’, or indirect, democracy? The answer, quite simply, is to take the ‘in’ out and consider ‘direct’ democracy. Direct democracy uses referendum and ‘initiatives’ to supply direct democracy. A true referendum or initiative is one which is put to the voters whether the government of the day wants it or not and it is through this means that the people control the government and negates the situation, as at present, whereby the government controls the people. The big difference between indirect and direct democracy is that the voters do not merely vote every few years to elect a Prime Minister and government and then leave it to them to decide their future, until they have the next opportunity. Under direct democracy there is still a Prime Minister and government, however at any given moment voters who have collected the requisite support can insist that a law proposed by the government, or elected representatives, be submitted to the electorate for judgement in a referendum. By utilising the ‘initiative’ aspect of direct democracy it is even possible for the electorate to submit proposals for a new law, one that may not appeal to the government or even appear in their manifesto. By both referendum and initiative the electorate stay in command of politics between elections and not just on a once-every-x-years basis. Direct democracy also encourages participation in politics by the electorate and thereby negates the apathy all to prevalent today.

To those sceptics that say direct democracy would never work and that people don’t want it, one has to ask how the sceptics know that. It has never been put to the electorate; it is debatable whether the electorate even know another method of democracy exists. Also to those sceptics who maintain it will never work, all one has to say to them is go take a look at Switzerland! Therein lies the problem in that for direct democracy to become available, a change to our electoral system would be needed and it is hardly likely that our elected representatives would agree to loosening their grasp of power, privilege and position. Hopefully, as the system of direct democracy becomes wider known, in time, a political party will ‘pick up’ this idea and run with it and it is through this that the system will get adopted.

When one considers the mess in which our country finds itself, both financially and socially, having been run by our elected representatives, it can be argued that the people would hardly make as big a mess. People with ‘property’ – and I do not necessarily restrict ‘property’ to houses, but anything that is owned – are more independent and independent-minded people are better at making their own political judgments. It is worth recalling the words of a ‘thinking politician, one on a par with Enoch Powell, Keith Joseph who famously stated: “When you take responsibility away from people, you make them irresponsible”. Conversely the opposite may also well be true, that if you give people more responsibility then they become more responsible.”

Hindsight is a wondrous attribute, consequently my hope that a political party would “pick-up” the idea of direct democracy and “run with it” was, to put it mildly, a tad wishful. Understandable, all things considered, do turkeys vote for Christmas? Since political parties and politicians will not “pick-up” on the idea of direct democracy, there is an urgent need that said turkeys need to be roasted, basted and, subsequently, served up on a platter to us. Is it not time that we became “chefs du jour” and decided the menu we wished to cook – rather than fulfill the role of “sous-chef?”

My apologies to regular readers for “banging-on” about this “democracy thingy”, but it is important – and it is about time the people of this country recognised that fact! To those who believe in this fact, I have but one question:

What are you doing to change the attitude of the sheep among us?

Once again: just asking………

2013
06/13

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:


COMMENTS:
2 Comments »

Doctrinaire

Doctrinaire adj & noun  - adj: seeking to apply a theory or doctrine to all circumstances without regard to practical considerations; theoretical and impractical - noun: a doctrinaire person,  a pedantic, theorist.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary

Yesterday Theresa May gave a speech to mark the 10th anniversary of the Reform, a right-of-centre, think tank and one word she used does not seem to have been noticed or commented upon – that word was “doctrinaire”. Christopher Hope, the author of the Telegraph article, writes that: “Mrs May…….. took aim at big companies such as banks and power firms which stand accused of exploiting consumers.” . Oh the irony of a politician taking aim at sections of our society that are accused of exploiting consumers – have not politicians exploited the people of this country? May is quoted as stating that the Conservative Party have to reassure people about their motives and their values and that they have to show them that they’re committed to universal public services and must never appear to be doctrinaire about what they’re doing.

Is not a commitment to universal public services doctrinaire> Is not a commitment to the imposition of representative democracy doctrinaire? Is not a commitment to membership of the European Union doctrinaire? Is not commitment to repatriating powers from the European Union doctrinaire? Are not the LIb/Lab/Con doctrinaire in that they all seek to base their policies on theory without regard to practical consideration? Are not Ukip doctrinaire with their mantra “Referendum Now” without regard to practical considerations? In respect of Ukip I refer to any public announcement of how and what happens should the UK leave the European Union?

May may well speak about Conservative Party “values”, but what of the “values” that we as individuals hold; and of we the people as a collective? Lord Ashcroft may well believe that come a general election  the winning party will be the one that pays attention to the voters and their priorities. I have tried, in vain it seems, to find the text of May’s speech but in the quoted extracts there is no mention of we, the people. In regard to paying attention to the voters and their priorities, what is the point of that and exactly how can any political party do that when they are constrained by diktats that originate from Brussels?

What we have with May’s speech, as we would have from any representative of any other party is: don’t listen to the others, we know what you want and we will provide it. Such a statement is vacuous in that (a) never mind listening; but:(b) they never ask us what we want, only tell us what we can expect. On immediate reflection, there is a (c); invariably what they tell us we are to receive is never the actual result. Where, exactly, is there one iota of democracy in that situation?

We all know – and I use the word “all” in the general sense – that there is something wrong with this country; we all know that the political elite have what amounts to dictatorial powers for their 5 years of tenure “in office” – and we do not rebel against a system with which we disagree; neither do we engage brain – because our media most definitely won’t – and it is upon our media that we rely for information, having lost the power of thought and reason, as individuals, as a result of what can only be described the “indoctrination” that the State is a benign provider.

Unless we, the people, begin using what remains of our ability to think and reason, we will lose what remains of those two abilities.

Just saying…….

Update: Courtesy of the “Speccie” here is the text of May’s Speech which I have still to read myself, so maybe more later.

Update (2): May’s speech starts of with a heading of “There’s no other way”, but taking the subject of “government” per se we now know there is another way, don’t we? She talks about the fact we have paid our taxes, so where are the services. But we didn’t pay our taxes, they were extorted from us with our having no voice in whether we wished to pay for services that we may not have wanted.

May talks about the fact that we all want to have the best public services in the world – so why can’t we decide what public services we want in our own area? Why must we accept the blanket provision of services? Plus there is the added fact that we don’t even get asked if we agree to more of our money being “thrown at public services”.

May continues:

“Chris Grayling is reforming the prison system.  Philip Hammond is getting to grips with the defence budget.  Iain Duncan Smith is bringing his revolution to the welfare system.  Eric Pickles is cutting local spending while making sure council tax doesn’t shoot up.  Francis Maude is delivering civil service reform and saving a fortune on public procurement.”

So they may be, but where is the voice of the people in all this?

May states:

“we must do everything we can to make sure that the debate in this country never returns to the false choice of more spending or worse services.”

Is it not up to those who pay for said services, whatever they are, to decide the level (cost vs provision) – and since when have the people been given that choice?

Wherever you look in May’s speech it is all about what political parties and their politicians want – never what the people may want. I repeat May’s words: “Reform has to fit in with our wider mission”. (emphasis mine).

On the question of the very recent announcement by the Labour Party that they would abstain on the forthcoming Second Reading of James Wharton’s “Referendum Bill”, James Landale has a most telling comment in this BBC article; “….. what matters is who wins the battle for public opinion”.  Unfortunately for public opinion, said opinion is formed on the basis of half-truths and downright lies issued by our political class aided and abetted  by our “independent” media.

Again, just saying……..

2013
06/11

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:



COMMENTS:
4 Comments »

Democracy requires the attention to views of ordinary people

The heading to this post is the  sub-heading of an article which appears in The Irish Times under the headline: “People have a right to be heard on Europe”. Never mind about Europe, the people have a right to be heard and, under representative democracy, that right does not exist.

The article mentions Peter Sutherland who, readers may recall, was the person who appeared beforte the House of Lords Immigration committee and maintained that the EU should encourage more immigration especially to “break up the homogeneity” of national poulations. Nothing like that happens by accident – as Andrew Neather revealed of Labour’s programme to “elect a new people”.

One extract from The Irish Times article is worthy of repetition:

“We now have a form of representative democracy whereby almost the sole independent function of our elected representatives is to choose a Taoiseach, after which the government formed by the Taoiseach is effectively immune from accountability during its period in office. A government that regards election promises as disposable at will. Is it tolerable that the people are denied, effectively, any means of changing that?”

Substitute Taoiseach for Prime Minister and where, in that extract, is there any difference twixt Ireland and the United Kingdom where representative democracy is concerned? If a government is effectively immune from accountability during its term of office, how can that be democracy? If the people are denied a means of changing the direction of those who are supposed to represent them and their views, how can that be democracy?

As always, just asking……….

H/T: Edward Spalton for bringing this article to my attention

 

 

Older Entries

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012