Yesterday morning, in an effort to re-circulate my post about the Labour Party’s plans to lower the voting age to 16, I tweeted a link to brackenworld’s artice on the same subject and commented that that made two of us agreeing on this policy – a tweet that was promptly RT’d by HouseofTwits.
Totally out of the blue (or should that be red?) I received a comment from Barry Sheerman MP, the Labour member for Huddersfield, who stated: Some of us believe it criminal to shrink childhood undermine child protection create adults at 16! I replied: So I take it that makes three of us then? This brought forward the response: Many more under the radar! - to which I replied: Question is that if this is in the Labour manifesto, will you campaign on it?
This ‘conversation’ took place during a period of approximately 15 minutes – and as I write, my question remains unanswered. Barry Sheerman thus becomes another on the growing list of MPs with whom I have entered into ‘correspondence’, seemingly in vain.
It is understood and accepted that MPs are busy people with many calls on their time; but unfortunately for one who is a member of a body of people worried about the disconnect that exists between them and their electorate, one cannot but notice that on every occasion I have put what may be considered awkward questions to a politician, they are suddenly ‘struck dumb’.
Also yesterday we were blessed with another Ed message from Mount Miliband the text of which can be read here. This speech was most notable for what it did not contain – and that which it did contain, where phrases are concerned, was disingenuous to say the least. Witness the phrase: ‘productive investment’ – this is politic speak for borrowing, pure and simple; and what about: ‘sensible spending cuts’ – what is ‘sensible’ to one man is madness to another. The most hilarious of all the phrases Miliband used was: ‘as soon as possible’ – again another open-ended ‘promise’ which, in the context used, is meaningless.
Setting to one side the glaring faults in this speech, the phrasing leaves a great deal to be desired and also raises questions to whoever composed it. Once again witness Miliband blaming his opponents for ideological commitment to a shrinking of the state, come what may – yet is his party not also guilty of ideological commitment to an expansion of the state, come what may? Labour is just as guilty as their opponents in that that which they wish to do is not because they have to do it, but because they want to do it.
One has to ask just how is the country – and its peoples – served by such vacuous speeches containing equally vacuous promises? Just how is the electorate best served by a political class who deliberately refrain from engaging with them; and especially by their use of phrases which mean nothing?
It is undeniable that we are being manipulated but the burning question is to whose benefit – and on the face of it, not ours. We are presently caught between political parties all intent on waging ideological war, the aim of which is to have power over us. Not once are we asked what we would like, we are told what we will receive; not once are we asked if we are prepared to pay the cost of their dreams, we are told we will pay – that is not what I believe democracy is.
And mores the pity, we meekly go along with it – which begs the question: who is the bigger fool?