Concentrating on ‘matters du jour’, a few initial comments on what can only be described as ‘media pap’.
1. Today we are inundated on ‘matters World War I’; and what each of us should be doing to commemorate the start of that particular conflict (lights out and a candle). This ‘gnashing of teeth’ is on a par with the faux ‘remembrance’ held each year on the second Sunday in November, which is the Sunday nearest to 11 November Armistice Day, People do not start wars between nations, politicians do.
Has any war been fought where the people who have to do the fighting been asked whether they are prepared to fight and possibly lose their lives? Yes, treaties have been signed wherein one country has been obligated to come to the aid of another should it be invaded; but when have the people, who would be required to uphold that treaty, been asked whether they agreed to said treaty?
As on Remembrance Sunday, so today we have politicians paying homage to those that lost their lives in a conflict that they, who lost their lives, had no input where the decision to fight was concerned. Where is democracy when one’s fellow man can decide whether another lives or dies?
Should not those whose lives are finite, have a voice in how their lives should end?
2. There would appear to be ‘a bit of a spat‘ brewing about the messages on wreaths that were laid in Glasgow. At a remembrance ceremony is it not the Head of State (Monarch or President) and Head of Government who should lay a token of remembrance on behalf of a nation? In which case why do we need the ‘bit-players’? If said ‘bit-players’ feel ‘hard-done-by’ because they may have been ‘out-manouevred’ by someone who has more say than they do, then why not arrange a private wreath-laying ceremony on which the damn card can say whatever they wish it to say?
3. We have been informed today that the tenure of Boris Johnson, as London Mayor, has been disastrous for women, according to a Labour report, one cited in the Evening Standard. The report in question cites a number of statistics, to which it is possible to throw into the discussion subjects such as immigration and zero hours? Not forgetting the opportunity of a politician to raise the question of gender – but I digress.
4. We have a comment on ConservativeHome about how some feel lukewarm in regard to the recent re-shuffle. This then begs the question that if we, the people, are allowed to choose those who are supposed to represent out views, then should we not also be allowed to choose those who would presume to ‘safeguard’ our country?
5. With respect to those who are supposed to reflect the views of the people, why should they be allowed to impose on us their views? Who the hell asked the learned doctor what she thought? Is she not supposed to pronounce on the views of those whose views she is elected to represent?
6. Isabel Hardman writes about the latest ‘outpouring’ of Boris Johnson and a report he has commissioned, adding to the view that Cameron is becoming more to being a proponent of ‘Brxit’ and quoting the appointment of Philip Hammond as foreign secretary adding to that view; Hammond being portrayed as a eurosceptic. Hammond is no more eurosceptic than is Nick Clegg because both are career politicians and both will swallow their principles and beliefs if it means personal power and position. Where the views of Boris Johnson are concerned, I can only suggest readers read this view of that. It would seem that Boris has more than one ‘fantasy island‘ in mind.
That the foregoing but demonstrates that two section of society can feed of a common menu; to the detriment of a third and more important element of that same society; then begs the question just where is there any element of democracy?