That problem is manifold.
Politicians of all parties promise to provide ‘this, that and the other’; yet no-one seems to ask from whence comes the money to provide ‘this that and the other’?
We have people complaining about electoral fraud in regard to postal voting with, it would appear, some justification; yet each local authority states their procedures are ‘correct’ and above reproach. On each occasion where electoral fraud is alleged we have interminable investigations, with it seems no ‘result’.
We have general elections wherein it matters not for whom people vote as those voting know not for what they vote, other than that is what their parents did, or because they like the ‘freebies’ promised by a certain political party without having any idea how, or by what means, it will be funded. Consequently, where ‘free’ this, that, or the other’ is concerned, we have a ‘milch-cow’ element of the electorate on which political parties rely where their election to form a government is concerned.
All the foregoing have become the expectations of an electorate who have been ‘conditioned’ to believe that the ‘State’ will provide, yet who fail to realise that the State, be that national or local, has no money of its own other than that which it extracts, by force, from those it professes to ‘serve’ – and so does without even asking if we, the providers, approve. In this regard, there is a great deal to be said for the idea of ‘Referism’, is there not?
Where Brexit is concerned we have politicians who know nothing about the European Union; nor have any idea of what constitutes a safe and workable method of leaving the aforesaid trading bloc. We have one political leader who reckons he will get Brexit ‘done’ – which he wont, while another political leader reckons he will agree a new deal with the European Union in 6 months – which he can’t.
We have witnessed many, many promises of ‘this, that and the other’ with the release, this general election, of party election manifestos, yet such ‘promises’ cannot be held to account – as a court case from 2008 shows – so why are they published if those making such promises cannot be held to account when they fail to implement them?
We have elected politicians passing laws that dictate how we, the people must act, speak and behave, yet those passing such laws find them flouted with impunity – albeit in the House of Lords.
We have a system of democracy that creates a ‘democratised dictatorship’ as those making our laws cannot be questioned by those who elect them; ie, the electorate. Those elected can make public statements, but when questioned fall back on the ‘excuse’ they can only be questioned by those members of the public that live in their constituency.
We have a system of democracy wherein the leader of a political party – elected by a cabal of his peers – can only be questioned by a constituent of his constituency. Living in Witney, this I tried to so do, yet when ‘boxed into a corner’ my Member of Parliament and Prime Minister informed me that he would entertain no further correspondence on the subject in question. This calls into question the subject of democracy because by so doing David Cameron acted like a dictator.
As the preceding paragraphs show, we have an elite section of our society who are given power by their electorate to act in the best interests of same, yet who are prepared to use their exalted position to ignore their mandate and, if necessary, shut down debate.
But hey, our political elite with their iron grip on democracy are content to allow we sheep to graze, but only where they choose.
Can anyone explain why democracy per se is flouted by our politicians, yet we all sit back and accept the situation? Can anyone counter the argument that direct democracy should be the norm, similar to that practised in Switzerland; a system that allows the people to tell their politicians: oh no you will not; or, this is what you will do?
Can anyone explain why we should even bother to attend a polling station?