Agenda(s) – and ‘Stitch-Up’ of Democracy (2)

Following on from the preceding article, we today find yet another example of our politicians, in this case those in government, arranging a deal with another political party so that (a) the current largest party can remain in power and (b) a minor party gets a taste of holding the levers of power; the latter having agreed themselves a ‘bung’ in the process.

This ‘deal’ involves, so it is reported, £1.5bn of taxpayers money; and it has been agreed without any involvement of those who will be ‘footing the bill’. What kind of society is it that allows a portion of their hard-earned income to be spent (and increased) by a political clique over whom those that will be ‘footing the bill’ have had no say?

Where the tax-paying members of the electorate are concerned, it is noticed with wry amusement that one party leader ‘may’ increase the burden of taxpayers without, it seems, adoration, while another who also promises to do likewise by providing ‘freebies’ for which the tax-paying members of the electorate will also bear the burden, receives adoration. Funny old world, politics, is it not?

With regard to the preceding paragraph, there is, unfortunately, a ‘dark side’; and that is those members of the ‘tax paying’ electorate have a vote on matters of great importance, come local or general elections. If, as it would appear, they are unable to differentiate between one ‘money grab’ and another (both of which will ‘cost’ them, one way or another), it begs the question whether they should have to demonstrate their right to vote rather than have that right handed automatically to them on attaining the age of 18 years. Also bearing in mind, as I feel sure most would admit later in their lives, that which they ‘knew’ at 18 years of age amounted to ‘squat-diddley’, where stands the argument that the voting age should be lowered to 16 years-of-age?

With regard to that point, it behoves me to raise the question of ‘opposition’ to those that pursue the aims of representative democracy, be they members of the political class or their sycophantic media commentators. Whilst I agree with this blogger that it is permissible to be as rude as possible (within the confines of civility) to said factions (after all they know nothing and refuse to listen to any alternative/opposing view), I vehemently disagree with the ‘lavatorial’ language of his son – both on his blog and output on twitter; but I digress a tad.

We all know that sheep are brainless and will follow a leader (be that a Judas Goat) or be ‘herded’ by a dog (be that a breed of the political class) – but is not the human race supposed to be a step or two above that of sheep? It has taken thousands, if not millions, of years for the human race to become better than sheep – one can but hope the ‘faux-evolution’, engineered by our politicians, does not take that long to be reversed.

Planet of the Apes, anyone?

2 thoughts on “Agenda(s) – and ‘Stitch-Up’ of Democracy (2)

  1. Off topic perhaps but musings on Governance. No joy on The Harrogate Agenda yet then?

    Feel free to use.

    Government: ten rules it promotes to survive and thrive.

    1) Government always grows in size and scope — it never shrinks — whether times are good or bad.

    2) In each area Government purports to “assist”: Government always attempts to replace local and individual decision-making with central planning and control.

    3) In order to implement its grand central plans and solidify its power, Government must take from one citizen to give to another and increasingly with coercion, backed by threats of prosecution and denial of liberty; this is, in effect, akin to a Mafia protection racket.

    4) No matter how many times Government central planning fails, the self-appointed masterminds in Government assert that “this time is different” and that with only a few tweaks, “lessons learned” and more of our wealth taken under threats and pain of prosecution, their delusional plans will succeed next time.

    5) Because it uses wealth confiscated using threats of prosecution from taxpayers, self-restraint is no obstacle to government’s ambitions.

    6) Government‘s fundamental misunderstanding of natural law and the God given rights and liberties that come with such means that: Government therefore must claim to grant those self-same natural “rights”, which require it to then steal the toil, effort and wealth of one citizen to give to another (i.e. Food, shelter, profits, employment, education, health care, “rights” et al).

    7) No matter how damaging or widespread the harm it causes, Government will never accept responsibility nor provide an honest and historical accounting of its failures.

    8) As more individuals and families are harmed by the failures of central planning, Government must find suitable scapegoats, must lie to do so, and therefore must also repress dissent and silence those who seek to expose the mendacity of Government.

    9) In order to build its network of redistribution and grow a culture of dependency on its services, Government must inevitably and purposefully sets out to, undermine the family unit, religion, free thinking educational establishments and the notion of God-given rights in order to cow, bribe, or intimidate its citizens.

    10) As Government grows ever more powerful, it must also become increasingly oppressive through coercion, compulsion and force by creating ever more legislation. To do otherwise would mean Government must shrink, and this it cannot do.

    1. I fell to wondering recently what governments of 200 years ago actually did? They had no welfare state, no NHS, no national education, no pensions, no income tax and none of the many, many other things that todays governments take control of. They had an army and a navy but I really c\n’t think of much else. So why do we need all these people so busy running and controlling our lives?

Comments are closed.