Fox Hunt – the pack is in full cry

Well, it was obvious that you can’t snare a Fox without a Hunt – and with the latter you need a pack of dogs. The politicians, together with the media, are in full cry today baying for blood and what a disgusting, despicable display it presents to the rest of the world where the standing of our nation is concerned.

The probity of not only Jeremy Hunt has been called into question, but also that of David Cameron – and with the evidence of Rupert Murdoch to follow at a Select Committee hearing it could well be the list of politicians involved will grow. Harriet Harman tweets this morning: “We have to ensure that never again do we allow a media mogul to get so powerful that he subverts the political process.”; and as nothing is certain, she may well regret that tweet as events unfold. 

Richard North, EU Referendum, in a post today talks of cyclical politics and therein lies the problem with the political process that we currently endure. Since the Liberal administration early last century, governments of this nation have been formed by either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party; and thus has this nation been no more than a ping pong ball whose direction of travel has been at the whim of two players who will use any cheap shot to ensure that they win.

The two players involved in this game possess no sense of fair play, no sense of honour and no sense of principle – and, unfortunately it seems, neither do those players waiting in the wings for their turn in the arena. It is ironic that Harriet Harman declares that which she has when it is the politicians who have themselves subverted the political and democratic process – something obvious to anyone with any nous.

The future of democracy and this nation can only be considered as dismal – and frightening – if this game of political ping pong is allowed to continue; dismal for the spectators as it is becoming boring; and frightening because as the spectators leave in droves due to the boredom, the players will be able to bend the rules even further to their own advantage without an audience to shout ‘foul’.

Of course the audience do not realise that they do have the ability to control the game in that they have the ability to set the rules by which the game is played – sadly and more importantly, neither do they appreciate that that which they consider a game is anything but. Our politicians have been extremely astute in ensuring that the system of representative democracy under which we live is the only system of which the public are allowed to be aware.

When the people are made aware that other systems of democracy do exist, that they can control the political class, then they will cease behaving as compliant sheep and rediscover that they are in fact lions – and that is what, I believe, the Old Swan Manifesto will accomplish. On the basis that the fire of true democracy is now but an ember, I am reminded of a verse by J.R.R. Tolkien that is quite pertinent:

“From the ashes a fire shall be woken,

A light from the shadows shall spring,

Renewed shall be the blade that has broken,

The crownless again shall be King.”

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

12 Responses

  1. Andy Baxter says:

    well said….

  2. Good comment David…

    However, in the interests of pedantry, may I make a couple of critiques of a couple of your points?

    First, I don’t think that the two major parties have been playing a game of ping pong throughout their period of supremacy at Westminster… I reckon that the Labour party was a genuine radical movement (whether one agrees with the aims or not)… That is, until the 1970′s, when they both started to head in precisely the same direction, more like sitting side by side in a pedalo, than ping pong.

    Secondly, your dismissal of those that have yet to make their voices heard “…unfortunately it seems, neither do those players waiting in the wings for their turn in the arena.”… could be construed as being a little bit defeatist, because we do not know what any of these voices may or may not actually do, even if we have some clues from their policies and manifesto’s.

    I don’t know whether you saw Newsnight on Monday? Emily Nomates, delivered her standard partisan abortion of a show, as the interview with the bloke from the French National Front demonstrates… Anyway, at around 15 minutes, she introduces (among others) NF, and she tries to spring all the usual traps that he formerly would have just stepped into… not here though, he seems to have upped his game…

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01gxn08/Newsnight_23_04_2012/

    As I commented to Andy Burgess last week on your blog here, I do not believe that “movements”, “pressure groups” and elected representatives that share some (if not all) of our views are mutually exclusive, indeed any agreement that emerges from the “Old Swan” in July specifically requires a strong representation in Westminster of likeminded representatives, if we are to avoid engendering an uprising or succumb to a military or social defeat.

    • david says:

      Thank you too.

      However, I would disagree in that it has been a game similar to ping pong in that the country has been taken one way and then another as a result of their differing ideologies. Since the 70s they may have been coming together (exception the Maggietollah in some areas?) but have taken different routes to reach the same goal.

      On the question of those waiting in the wings, they do believe in representative democracy and therefore we do know that continuance of the status quo will continue.

      No, I did not see Newsnight – I wouldnt waste the electricity.

      RN was totally correct that a movement has to be the first step and logically from that a party will appear that will provide that change.

  3. Please accept my apologies Andy, I have just taken your name in vain in my reply to David and referred to you as Andy Burgess…

    Slap myself and take the time to refer back rather than rely on my aging memory.

  4. Peter C says:

    I also disagree with the ping pong metaphor, David. From my point of view we, like the rest of Europe and even the US, have had social democratic government since WW2. The ’45 Labour Government was obviously far left, really a British Communistic Social Democracy movement in outlook and policy. The Conservative government that followed reined back very little of their excesses. Indeed it wasn’t until Maggie Thatcher came along that any real redress of the foolish post war policies occurred. And that really involved industry, even then Education and the NHS were sacrosanct. She had policies that looked as though they were breaking away from the Social Democratic consensus in those areas but that was an illusion, they were simply trying to get some degree of economic sanity into the same old social democrat inspired behemoths, not replace them root and branch as should have been done.

    In truth as I see it the basic difference has been Labour acting with no economic sense whatsoever for the most part, busily engaged in redistribution and levelling down until they run out of money and then Conservatives trying to apply some economic rectitude to the results of those policies which by default means they are complicit in those same policies of redistribution and levelling down.

    So no ping pong, just the same policies progressed by different means.

    The reason why the two parties seem so identical now is because Labour under Blair actually displayed some economic sense, or what appeared to be economic sense but was actually economic legerdemain, too sophisticated for the MSM to see it for what it was.

  5. david says:

    ” just the same policies progressed by different means.”

    It matters not how you get the ball over the net – hence ping pong is I believe still a valid simile.

    • Peter C says:

      Nope, can’t have that. Ping pong is a metaphor for abrupt, reciprocal changes in direction.

      Of course, it is your blog so if you want to you can negate a hundred years of literary attribution or is it alliteration? But at least it explains our befuddlement at your use of metaphor [pokes out tongue, slams door and runs giggling for safety] Methinks I’m feeling a little puerile today, must be spring.

      • david says:

        Simile, metaphor – whatever…….

        When viewed from the sidelines a table has a ‘left’ and a ‘right’, the ball’s (the nation’s)direction of travel is dictated by one side or the other, hence my use of the term ping-pong – simples, no?

        *smiles and walks away, unable to slam door as hinges now missing*

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012