Doctrinaire adj & noun - adj: seeking to apply a theory or doctrine to all circumstances without regard to practical considerations; theoretical and impractical - noun: a doctrinaire person, a pedantic, theorist.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary
Yesterday Theresa May gave a speech to mark the 10th anniversary of the Reform, a right-of-centre, think tank and one word she used does not seem to have been noticed or commented upon – that word was “doctrinaire”. Christopher Hope, the author of the Telegraph article, writes that: “Mrs May…….. took aim at big companies such as banks and power firms which stand accused of exploiting consumers.” . Oh the irony of a politician taking aim at sections of our society that are accused of exploiting consumers – have not politicians exploited the people of this country? May is quoted as stating that the Conservative Party have to reassure people about their motives and their values and that they have to show them that they’re committed to universal public services and must never appear to be doctrinaire about what they’re doing.
Is not a commitment to universal public services doctrinaire> Is not a commitment to the imposition of representative democracy doctrinaire? Is not a commitment to membership of the European Union doctrinaire? Is not commitment to repatriating powers from the European Union doctrinaire? Are not the LIb/Lab/Con doctrinaire in that they all seek to base their policies on theory without regard to practical consideration? Are not Ukip doctrinaire with their mantra “Referendum Now” without regard to practical considerations? In respect of Ukip I refer to any public announcement of how and what happens should the UK leave the European Union?
May may well speak about Conservative Party “values”, but what of the “values” that we as individuals hold; and of we the people as a collective? Lord Ashcroft may well believe that come a general election the winning party will be the one that pays attention to the voters and their priorities. I have tried, in vain it seems, to find the text of May’s speech but in the quoted extracts there is no mention of we, the people. In regard to paying attention to the voters and their priorities, what is the point of that and exactly how can any political party do that when they are constrained by diktats that originate from Brussels?
What we have with May’s speech, as we would have from any representative of any other party is: don’t listen to the others, we know what you want and we will provide it. Such a statement is vacuous in that (a) never mind listening; but:(b) they never ask us what we want, only tell us what we can expect. On immediate reflection, there is a (c); invariably what they tell us we are to receive is never the actual result. Where, exactly, is there one iota of democracy in that situation?
We all know – and I use the word “all” in the general sense – that there is something wrong with this country; we all know that the political elite have what amounts to dictatorial powers for their 5 years of tenure “in office” – and we do not rebel against a system with which we disagree; neither do we engage brain – because our media most definitely won’t – and it is upon our media that we rely for information, having lost the power of thought and reason, as individuals, as a result of what can only be described the “indoctrination” that the State is a benign provider.
Unless we, the people, begin using what remains of our ability to think and reason, we will lose what remains of those two abilities.
Update: Courtesy of the “Speccie” here is the text of May’s Speech which I have still to read myself, so maybe more later.
Update (2): May’s speech starts of with a heading of “There’s no other way”, but taking the subject of “government” per se we now know there is another way, don’t we? She talks about the fact we have paid our taxes, so where are the services. But we didn’t pay our taxes, they were extorted from us with our having no voice in whether we wished to pay for services that we may not have wanted.
May talks about the fact that we all want to have the best public services in the world – so why can’t we decide what public services we want in our own area? Why must we accept the blanket provision of services? Plus there is the added fact that we don’t even get asked if we agree to more of our money being “thrown at public services”.
“Chris Grayling is reforming the prison system. Philip Hammond is getting to grips with the defence budget. Iain Duncan Smith is bringing his revolution to the welfare system. Eric Pickles is cutting local spending while making sure council tax doesn’t shoot up. Francis Maude is delivering civil service reform and saving a fortune on public procurement.”
So they may be, but where is the voice of the people in all this?
“we must do everything we can to make sure that the debate in this country never returns to the false choice of more spending or worse services.”
Is it not up to those who pay for said services, whatever they are, to decide the level (cost vs provision) – and since when have the people been given that choice?
Wherever you look in May’s speech it is all about what political parties and their politicians want – never what the people may want. I repeat May’s words: “Reform has to fit in with our wider mission”. (emphasis mine).
On the question of the very recent announcement by the Labour Party that they would abstain on the forthcoming Second Reading of James Wharton’s “Referendum Bill”, James Landale has a most telling comment in this BBC article; “….. what matters is who wins the battle for public opinion”. Unfortunately for public opinion, said opinion is formed on the basis of half-truths and downright lies issued by our political class aided and abetted by our “independent” media.
Again, just saying……..