Sam Hooper, Semi-Partisan Politics, writes about Iain Duncan-Smith’s ’emotional’ BBC interview. While there is much to be echoed in what he writes, the cynic in me rises to the surface and questions whether that which we witnessed is ‘real’ or only ‘political acting’.

Those entering a political life invariably assure us that they wish to make our life better; that they will work for us – but then, again invariably, it seems they realise a career beckons, one with power and privileges.

When a system of democracy conflates the aim of ‘doing good’ with ‘career prospects’ then surely we have to question that system of democracy. Presumably Duncan-Smith, who was at the time a Secretary of State and thus was bound by Cabinet Responsibility, was referring, in this interview, to a meeting he had with a constituent at one of his ‘surgeries’.

In this interview IDS refers to this person as a ’19-year-old’ with no skills, someone who had fallen out of school, who had written off her life; and was a ‘product of the system’. Yet who created ‘the system’ other than those of his ilk, ie politicians? That is not to solely blame our politicians, as are not as guilty the electorate who allowed said politicians ‘free reign’ to do as they  liked without their consent?

One would like to believe the apparent sincerety of IDS, unfortunately when we see, time and again, ‘faux concern’ by our politicians who then appear more concerned with their careers and the attainment of power than representing those they are supposed to represent – is it any wonder my cynicism rises to the surface?

Where the source of ‘rules’ and ‘standards’ is concerned at least one Member of Parliament (Owen Paterson) understands that one  source of such is the United Nations Economic Commission – Europe (UNECE) – that is not to forget all the others, such as for example Codex etc – and that ‘individual’ membership of those bodies then bypasses the need for membership of the European Union, thus who needs membership of a ‘middle-man’, or a law-taker, not a law-maker.

Yet when discussing the subject of democracy I have yet to see Owen Paterson – or any other Member of Parliament – acknowledge that, in accordance with the accepted interpretation of same, it is the people who are the masters not our politicians; something accepted by David Cameron when he ‘usurped” power in May 2010.

Until such time as our politicians are subject to the will of the people – as encapsulated in The Harrogate Agenda – then readers (and Sam Hooper) will forgive me if I do not succumb to the ‘crocodile tears’ of politicians who might, being kind, just mean them.

Red Cliffs of Dawlish kindly pays me a great compliment in this post; but I have to ask just who is the ‘Stoic Minority’ (stoic: seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by pleasure or pain; impassive) – those of us seeking a re-assertion of democracy, who are in the minority, or those of the minority who wish to impose their views on the majority? Just asking, RCofD ………




One thought on “But……

  1. I would imagine that no MP or any public servant would support THA. For them it’s a case of, ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’. Which for them is a valid position as they cannot see the problem. But to keep this short let’s just concentrate on the government. The Tory party is now both government and opposition.

    This has come about as the LibDems had trouble being both liberal and democratic and so lost support. The Labour party flirts with the electorate, and got Jeremy Corbyn for leader, but is really married to its union other half. This leaves the pro and anti-Brexit split in the Tory party as the major political activity going on at the moment. With all the ‘party people’ so occupied new political ideas don’t stand a chance.

Comments are closed.