Janet Daley and Tim Stanley both have articles on the Telegraph blog site about democracy – and both seem not to understand the meaning of the word, nor seem to have any idea how to rectify that about which they complain where the defects in our democracy are concerned.
Daley considers the intention of Nicola Sturgeon to ‘lock David Cameron out of Downing Street’ an outrage that would be committed against the most fundamental principle of modern democracy: that the legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the people. If the legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the people; since when,under representive democracy, has any government had the consent of the people, when not one government in recent years has received the support of the majority of the electorate? Also it is worth pointing out to Ms. Daley that neither has the most fundamental principle of democracy – that of people power (from the word ‘democracy’: demos-people; kratos-power) been practiced in this country. Stanley, meanwhile, complains that with the Conservatives launching an ‘English Manifesto’ it leads inexorably to greater devolution – and devolution, so we have discovered since Blair, leads inexorably to fragmentation. Yet it does not have to, but to expect young Stanley to realise this would be akin to wishing for the moon – it aint going to happen as he is but yet another journalist/commentator who either does not want ‘to rock the boat’ – or more likely just another one who is ‘brain-dead’.
Daley and Stanley both fail to acknowledge that devolution, within the confines of representative democracy, can only lead to fragmentation of the United Kingdom – which, after all, forms part of the process to ‘Balkanise’ the United Kingdom, something which the European Union seeks as they wish to undermine nation states and create a ‘union of regions’ under the ‘governmental magnificence’ of Brussels. Daley and Stanley are but two of many ‘political commentators, a class of our society wilth which, unfortunately, we are blessed; and if these articles are illustrative of such in our society, then the heart can only weep and the mind boggle at the limited knowledge and understanding of the problems about which they write.
It is worth considering that political commentators are not the only ones in our society ‘selling us a pup’ – consider those who profess to be ‘eurosceptics’, in particular various Members of Parliament, ‘pressure groups’ and ‘think tanks’. With the exception of Owen Paterson (who I have yet to meet) I am at a loss to think of one Member of Parliament who has exhibited any understanding of what it means to be a ‘eurosceptic’; not one who has written/spoken against the UK’s membership of the EU appears to have the slightest knowledge of that which they oppose.
Not to be overshadowed, existing ‘pressure groups/think tanks’ fall into the same criticism, one of not seeking to have any understanding of that which they oppose, or why – nor appear to realise the futility of reclaiming the nation’s independence and soverignty from one set of dictators, only to hand said powers to yet another set of dictators, because that is what the present form of government in this country is.
When mentioning ‘eurosceptic’ ‘pressure groups/think tanks’, Better off Out, The Freedom Association and Business for Britain spring to mind, to name but three. In this regard it becomes extremely difficult to differentiate the Broomfield from the Richards or the Elliott – in other words, to see the wood from the trees. What is easy to see is the egotism that surfaces – and it is only necessary to read the responses to my initiative of a few months ago to see said egotism immediately surface.
Not one of the ‘eurosceptic’ ‘pressure groups/think tanks’ has produced one plausible paper on how to leave the European Union, nor produced a reasoned paper on what should be done once we have – save for Flexcit. Even when Broomfield, of Better Of Out, did submit such to the ‘competition’ run by the Institute of Economic Affairs, it was of such poor reason and content, it failed to win – not that the winning entry was any better.
Two ‘Eurosceptic’ groups – Open Europe and Business for Britain – seem intent on promoting the views of David Cameron, based on rengeotiation of that which cannot be renegotioned, with such fervour that it is difficult to understand why the heads of those two organisations (Mats Persson and Matthew Elliott) are not already sitting in the House of Lords; because is such elevation not what repetition, over time, of any meme from a political party leader (aka brown-nosing) brings?
Reverting to Dalay and her assertion about an affront to democracy, has she considered the affront to democracy by political leaders promising this, that and the other to minority groups with a view to buying their vote? What has happened to political parties, at election time, ‘going to the country’, rather than just bits of it? Has she considered that whilst promising this, that and the other, it has to be paid for and that those who will be doing the paying have not been asked if they agree to pay? That in in itself is an affront to democracy. Whichever way it is looked at, this general election is a travesty of democracy, with party leaders in effect standing behind a market stall, offering their wares for sale knowing any shortfall in their balance sheet won’t have to be subsidised by them.
To any thinking person it is obvious that there is ‘much wrong with the state of Denmark’ (to coin a phrase), yet those same people seem unable to ‘engage brain’ and think about what the problems actually are and how they might be resolved. Which bring me back to the title of this article – namely when will the people come to their senses and how long will it take them.
Where this election is concerned, the political class would not listen to anything I have to say, so why should I listen to one word they say? As a result, come 7th May I shall adopt the only protest I currently have available – and mark my ballot paper: ‘None of the above’.