AK Haart questions whether democracy was wasted on us, illustrated with a superb cartoon, in the course of which he points out:
“For example, why would anyone but a lunatic vote for Dave, Nick or Ed? ……… We voted for them and will do so again and again and again until it doesn’t matter any longer. Waste, incompetence, routine lying, bungling, expenses thieving and an endless litany of failures make hardly any discernible difference.”
Mark Wadsworth – and if you want cool analytical de-bunking, especially of political
lies crap, then he is most definitely ‘the man’ – rips apart a statement by Nick Clegg about welfare spending, summarising:
” The whole thing is meaningless guff and the closer you look at it, the more meaningless it becomes.”
If we are talking about ‘meaningless guff’ and it becoming more meaningless, then the latest offering from Ed Miliband must be in contention:
“I have a real sense of the pain lots of people are feeling and the struggle in their lives……I went to my local comprehensive and that was an incredibly good education for me, not just about how to pass exams, but about life.”
Even more ‘meaningless guff’ comes in an ‘interview’ published by the Guardian, in which Ed Balls assures us that:
“The public want to know that we are going to be ruthless and disciplined in how we go about public spending.”
So why do we vote for Dave, Nick and Ed? Why do we accept incompetence, routine lying, bungling, expenses thieving and an endless litany of failures? Why do we accept, unquestioning, all the political crap that is regurgitated by our media? Just how does Miliband ‘sense’ the pain we suffer – and forgive me asking, but just who was party to creating an education system wherein the means to pass an exam appeared to be the core aim? Why should we accept an assurance of ruthlessness and discipline where public spending is concerned from someone who was party to financial-mismanagement during his mentor’s terms in office? Why do we allow politicians to control our economic pursuits which means they then control everything? Would not negating that ability deprive governments of not only damaging our economy and subjecting us to restrictions of our freedom, but also deprive government of one of its chief causes of expansion?
One of the criticisms of representative democracy is that the more power an elected assembly acquires by way of inflicting taxation on one group to benefit another, the more it lays itself open to opportunity for lobbying. Such lobbying groups support and promote those politicians and parties that promise them benefits; and by promising enough such groups political parties secure a majority for government. That process is, as FA Hayek stated, legalised corruption. So why do we accept this?
If the public have been so ‘conditioned’ by our political class to the extent that they appear not to have even one brain cell left between them with which to reason, then those of Harrogate do indeed have mountains to climb.