Paul Waugh, Politics Home, writes on the proposal by David Cameron to appoint more peers to the House of Lords. As the article reports Cameron has, since 2010, appointed 128 new peers at a cost of £131,000 each – a total of £16.7million. The additional sum of £16.7milion may be peanuts when looking at the total cost of running the country, but it is yet more public money that is being spent without any attempt to ask us whether we agree to provide it. Setting the matter of cost to one side, we then come to the standard of those appointed by party leaders to the House of Lords – and of late the public has every right to question said standard. I remain continually amazed that people will allow money to be forcibly extracted from them without complaint.
The Conservative Party appears to be embroiled in yet another internal spat about activists being considered “swivel-eyed loons” – but then, are not all political activists so called? And why should they be called “activists? Are they not the people? Why does party membership fall? Are not party membership, the people? Why should it be necessary for a political party to survive,for it to be dependent on its membership? Why should it be necessary for the membership of a political party to decline to dictate how a democracy functions? I would even question why there is a necessity for membership of a political party to affect which political party governs us. Why should we belong to a political party to have a voice in how we are governed? Why, even, should we be governed?
These last few points brings me back to a statement made by Ronald Reagan in his first inaugural speech:
“But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?”
Ergo, why should we accept “government by a few” for the benefit of the majority? Why should we not be able to govern ourselves? If, as Reagan said:
“We hear much of special interest groups. Our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and our factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we are sick—professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers. They are, in short, “We the people,”
So, are not “the people” a special interest group? If so, why is that that special interest group is ignored in favour of much smaller groups to whom the political class “listen” to the exclusion of the majority? When did these “smaller groups” elect, as a small group, our “representatives”?
Those that keep a nation “functioning” must logically be the most important “special interest group”, yet it is their voice that is currently being ignored – not just nationally but locally. Just ask yourselves, where is your voice in that which affects your daily lives? You have no voice, yet that is what we are informed, continually, is democracy. Really? Is it democracy wherein 650 can dictate to 60 million?
It is impossible not to refer to the 6 Demands - where is our voice on taxation? Where is our voice on what laws are passed? Where is our voice on what treaties are agreed? Where is our voice when military action is instigated against another country? Where is our voice in who is able to dictate our lives? More importantly, ask yourselves where is our voice where the election of any of the current political parties is concerned and that includes Ukip who wish to restore us to being an independent, self-governing nation? Self-governing? How can Ukip, if elected, be granting self-government when they too believe in representational democracy?
Now adoption of the 6 Demands would be democracy – so what the hell is everyone waiting for?