Wherever one cares to look, where representative democracy is concerned, we the people get led ‘by the nose’ by the politicians we elect.
It can be said that no one enters the field of politics but for the wish to attain power in one form or another and thus have a form of control over their fellow man/woman.
We can all see that politics has become a means of climbing the ladder of success; and with a bit of luck the top prize is to become the leader of their party with the result that ‘if the wind is blowing in the right direction’, said person can then become prime minister – a dictator in all but name.
Margaret Thatcher is upheld, by her ‘disciples’, as being the best prime minister we ever had; yet she had faults, one of which was she appeared to ‘talk down’ to people, with the subsequent reaction that this brings – although this seems to be a present day problem amongst politicians.
Fast forward and consider another example of a politician who had pretensions of ‘glory’, although, in his case, he knew not that about that which he spoke and who ‘crushed’ any pretenders to his throne, namely: Nigel Farage. He, too, had the ‘gift of the gab’ – yet like Thatcher never really convinced people he was ‘one of them’.
I get the impression that one of the ‘gripes’ the people of this nation have with our politicians is that those we elect feel able to impose austerity on us while enjoying a lifestyle beyond the means of ‘we the people’ – (shades of the old Soviet Russia?) – while at the same time the people feel powerless to curb the ‘excesses’ of those elected who then ensure they set the rules by which they are to be judged.
One aspect of the foregoing point is the situation whereby a politician who having served in ‘Defense’ (a subject of which, being a medical practitioner, his knowledge of which by comparison must have been minimal) returns to the back benches for reasons of a personal ‘misjudgment’, only then to return to a Cabinet position in charge of trade, a position for which he must be equally unqualified.
John Redwood (MP) is fond of referring to this nation as UK plc – in which case the question is asked that if the UK were a quoted FTSE company, would the shareholders allow the directors to appoint someone to be head of trade whose background was that of the medical profession? Why should those subject to a political appointment be forced to accept decisions made by someone with no knowledge of the subject to which they are to oversee; an appointment over which they have no control?
On 4th March the people of Switzerland will have the choice whether to abolish the license fee of the state broadcaster. Two views on the matter can be found here and here, with ‘background‘ to how other countries ‘manage’ their public media. It is noted that France wishes to use as a template that of the BBC; yet the question arises: how can a state-funded broadcaster be impartial when it is reliant on the state for its income? Likewise, where commercially-funded broadcasters are concerned, how can those who listen/watch such be sure the news presented to them is impartial when those organisations advertising their wares may impose conditions on the content of their news output ? A vexed question is it not; but at least the people of Switzerland have a choice – which the people of the UK do not.
One commenter has taken issue with the following paragraph from this post:
Had we had direct democracy and the inherent ability to raise ‘people’s initiatives’ it could perhaps be argued that we would not be in the mess we are with Brexit. But then to those who ‘took over’ the idea of direct democracy and write/talk about it, one could levy the accusation that ‘talk is cheap’. So the question has to be asked: just where does the blame lie for our ‘Brexit Mess’? Politicians who most obviously do not have greater expertise; a media which fails to grasp the complexities of Brexit; a ‘commentariat’ likewise failing to grasp those same complexities; or those who could and should have sown the seeds for a change in our system of democracy.
It is logical to assume, if we are to have true democracy, that the question of Brexit and The Harrogate Agenda are ‘entwined’ because did not the author of The Harrogate Agenda (who resigned from the board of directors in 2012) not write (and I paraphrase): there is no point in reclaiming power from the EU only to hand said power back to those who gave it away? So where is the voice of the people in what passes as the shenanigans of the current Brexit process?
In respect of the above question regarding the absence where the voice of the people is concerned, one can only direct it to those who usurped an idea and have failed to progress it.
Afterthought: I am often accused of ‘carping from the sidelines’ where the progression of The Harrogate Agenda is concerned; yet is that not what those of us who believe in EFTA/EEA, where Brexit is concerned, are trying to do in refutation of the ‘status quo opinion’ held by our current government, official opposition and so-called experts’; namely ‘carping from the sidelines’ because we have no other means of registering our disapproval due to the fact that those in control will not accept any deviation from the path they have decided we must follow?
In ‘carping from the sidelines’ not once, to my recollection, have I received any refutation of the points I have made regarding the ‘stagnation’ where the non-progress of The Harrogate Agenda is concerned – a tad like attempting to approach one’s Parliament; but yet again, I digress.