Janet Daley would like to slap David Cameron for being so relaxed – personally, I would just like to slap him for being David Cameron.
Dan Hodges doesn’t think much of Ed MIliband – and I would like to slap Ed Miliband for being Ed Miliband.
Where the child protection system is concerned I would like to slap all politicians for allowing this unacceptable state of affairs to continue.
Why, I hear the cry. Why? For believing that having been elected to govern our country, they then impose their ideology on us without having spelled out exactly what that is. Who but moronic sheep allow themselves to be herded by the human equivalent of a collie dog (with fleas); dictating their direction of travel; controlling what they can and cannot do?
If a politician publicly states on taking office that he and his ilk must revert to the situation of being the servants of those that elect him – and promptly does everything necessary to continue in a “mastership role” – why should we even consider re-electing him? But no doubt those sheep corralled in Witney and Doncaster constituencies will. Why, when the same politicians who were complicit in the economic mess in which we find ourselves now present themselves as our saviours – are, if opinion polls are to be believed, forgiven for their sins?
Has the electorate of this country totally lost the ability to reason and think? Have they lost all understanding that the lives they lead are theirs – and, as such, it should be they who decide how those lives are led? Have they not realised that they are not sheep but are actually further up the “brain-cell chain”?
Politicians chase the “centre ground”, yet that ground is basically “middle Britain” – and middle Britain seems to accept that if taxation only rises by a few pounds, why should they worry? There is talk of a pay increase for Members of Parliament, a matter over which we who will be providing said increase will have no voice. Where is the public outcry over that? Writing on Conservative Home, Marina Kim suggests that any recall system for MPs must be one where the decision rests with the public; also suggesting that the subsequent process of electing a replacement should be funded by the party in question on the basis that political parties may be more selective in their choice of candidate.
In her article Kim also touches on the matter of equal pay and a situation whereby one MP may not be as good as another; and suggesting that this is unfair on those industrious MPs who “do the work” – while querying who should make the decision. The solution is simple really – all that is necessary is for each constituency to decide the level of salary they are prepared to pay plus the level of any increase; or, come to that, any decrease. Likewise if a constituency is to fund their MP’s salary, then they should also have the ability to select the candidates of each party – and not have one imposed upon them. That of course is the situation that would arise from extrapolation of the 6 Demands.
We read today of the “arrangement” that the Conservative and Labour Parties have arrived at in order to get the Same Sex Marriage Bill through Parliament – just what business is it of the political elite to decide such matters~? Is it not for those that it affects to make whatever decisions they wish? Is it not for the people, per se, to decide what law should be in their country?
Richard North, EUReferendum, writes about an article by Christopher Booker that was “spiked” by the then editor of the Telegraph on the basis that what he had written was “unacceptable” as part of which castigated David Cameron for his inability to gain a majority at the 2010 general election; and from which:
“The tragedy is that, confronted by the most corrupt, hypocritical, inefficient, illiberal, discredited government in history, what millions of voters are looking for is an alternative which might put an end to the sleazy, self-regarding sham of the Blair era by displaying some “masculine” firmness: in cutting back on the bloated public sector and the out-of-control bureaucracy which is destroying our health service, education and police; which might encourage enterprise; which might restore democracy to local government; bring back some balance into our public finances; sort out the shambles into which our Armed Forces are sliding; uphold Britain’s national interest, as we suffocate under the malfunctioning system of government represented by the European Union.”
Where I may take issue with Christopher Booker is where he implies that corrupt, hypocritical, inefficient, discredited government dates from the Blair era, as one could argue that all governments before Blair could have some, if not all, of those labels attached to them. (Corrupt, hypocritical: Wilson, Macmillan, Heath, Major?).
Much is made, especially by Ukip, of the need for a return to self-government. Where that party – together with supposed Eurosceptics – and I disagree is over the definition of the words “self-government”. Being subjected to “rulings” by an elected, dictatorial, political party is not “self-government”! For the avoidance of doubt “self-government” is having a small group of pe0ple, elected by the electorate, to manage the wishes of the people, said wishes having been arrived at by majority vote, both on a national and local level. “Self-government” is the ability of the people to halt legislation proposed by politicians with which they disagree; and to force politicians to enact legislation that the politicians may not want.
Now that is “self-government”. Anything else is an abomination of the word democracy!
