And we do not live under democratised dictatorship?

If our life is ours and belongs to us, thus ensuring that only we can take decisions affecting the content of that life, by what stretch of the imagination does a politician justify attempting to control it?

Jeremy Corbyn is on record stating that fox hunting is barbaric and any government of which he is head would never allow ‘blood sports’.

By what right does Corbyn wish to ban something that should be a matter for those in a county or even a community to decide?

Labour are against privatising the health service, yet private medical heath care is available and one can even take out an insurance policy for the provision of same. Is someone who wishes to provide the means whereby he/she can decide to choose another path and enjoy an alternative aspect of society then to be considered ‘barbaric’?

Why should anyone with a terminal illness who wishes to end his/her life for reasons of personal pain, or a wish to save his/her loved ones seeing them suffering, be prevented by politicians from solving the ‘life problem’ they are enduring? I repeat, whose life is it?

Should not any parent be able to decide how their children are taught – and what they are taught? So what gives government the right to decide that; and depending on the political ideology of what political party is ‘in power’, resulting in education becoming yet another ‘political football’?

Why should, for example, law and order be decided by one political party, who forms the government, affect the entire nation? If the people of Durham collectively decide they want a zero tolerance of crime, why should they not have that choice? Why should the people of Surrey – a more affluent county, subsidize the people of Durham – or vice-a-versa  – bearing in mind the fact that County Durham has one of the lowest crime rates in the UK?.

On a personal level, I object to ‘know-nothing’ politicians informing me how I should/can lead a life that is mine and mine alone. What is your life worth if you have no opportunity to shape that life, it being dependent on those whose life it is not?

Readers will, hopefully, forgive me if I yet again return to the definition of democracy – that name being derived from the Greek: Demos – people; and Kratos -power; which can only mean that democracy must be based on ‘people power’.

If one is of Christian belief – and Christianity is the religion of this nation –  then there is only one Deity that has the power to order our lives. Politicians may believe they have elevated themselves to the level of a Deity – but they have not and it is about time they recognised that fact.

Another fact is that the people of this land quickly need to recognise that their life is theirs and belongs to no-one else and began to take an interest in that which is happening around and to them – and the reasons why it is happening.

There are calls for ‘electronic voting’, instead of having to traipse to a polling station or fill in a form for postal voting. Regardless of the method – whether it means putting an ‘x’ in a box on a piece of paper, or pressing a key on a computer – until people are ‘educated’ in what democracy ‘means’; politicians, their ideology and their ‘sound bites’ will always ‘hold sway’.

On that point – and allied to it –  we witness the belief of some politicians that the voting age should be lowered to the age of 16. Bearing in mind the nadir to which education has sunk in this nation it is easy to understand their reasons for so proposing. Think back, dear reader and ask yourselves just what did you understand of politics and world affairs at that age? Never mind lowering the voting age to 16; methinks it should be raised to 25 or even 30 – unless of course we can reintroduce a ‘decent’ education system.

If we are to have ‘true democracy’ – and here I am indebted to ‘wg’ commenting on my preceding article (and do watch the link included in his comment) then we need to  ensure that we have ‘open primaries’; coupled with donations to political parties being limited to members of the electorate, with such from corporate entities (and the like) being prohibited.

The foregoing illustrates just why this general election, like the previous, is an affront to democracy; and why like many others I shall be ‘spoiling’ my ballot in protest at that which is being imposed on me – which ain’t democracy by any definition.

 

 

 

6 thoughts on “And we do not live under democratised dictatorship?

  1. “Never mind lowering the voting age to 16; methinks it should be raised to 25 or even 30 – unless of course we can reintroduce a ‘decent’ education system” –

    This blog seems to focus on education on a regular basis, well here are my thoughts. Years ago higher education was supported by a grant paid to the student and there were strict entry requirements for courses. It was if the universities were nationalised and run for state rather than student benefit. Then we moved into university expansion on a grand scale. This ushered in the idea of running a university as a business, the income, like student numbers, went up but alas it looks like the quality went the other way.

    We now have a university and education network where the management are wholly fixated on expansion as if the profit and prestige will as automatically follow. While on the other hand the students fuss about trivia. Student unions have sought to ban sombreros, clapping, whooping and cheering at their functions, we may assume this is all part of their desire to create a ‘safe space’ for students. Although quite what the danger is if these things were allowed to happen is never stated.

    Now students pay for their education, or usually their parents do, their approach to education has more in common with consumer law than anything else. If you buy a pair of shoes you expect them to be fit for purpose. Likewise graduates expect to be taken seriously, if you question their pearls of wisdom on a subject in rather a huffy mood they say they have ‘done a course’ on this so continue to parrot out the half truths. But then perhaps we should feel sorry for them, the lecturers being simply older but not wiser?

    They cannot think for themselves it’s as if the more they ‘learn’ the less they question. Traditionally a university education was a basic process, you learnt to learn. Not now. So the PC position on Islamism, climate change and the EU is all they get, which they absorb without question. Just look at the last few student leaders of the NUS, narcissistic and gormless. One historian has claimed that applicants to read history at Cambridge muddle up historical fact with the novels of Hilary Mantel. If this be so we stand no chance!

    1. i also think we suffer from far to few who study “real” subjects like technology or engineering ….but the real culprit is post modernism…you then create a culture of post truth…

    2. Yes, I focus on the need of good education because is not good education the foundation of a successful nation?

      1. along with critical thinking , which appears to have become a thing of the past, almost totally purged from the current group think way of doing things.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*