When the ‘Maid of ‘enhead’ called the forthcoming general election in April, she and her party were, reportedly, enjoying a 20% lead in the opinion polls, which to all intents and purposes we are led to believe, has all but been wiped out. Ever since the 18th April she and her party have been, to coin a phrase, on the back
‘Michael’ foot in the ‘battle of the manifestos’ – what with ‘u’ turns and a mixed-message of her own making. One immediate thought is that if she cannot manage to produce a ‘cast-iron’ manifesto and run a successful political campaign, then how on earth can she present herself as a potential prime minister who would have to juggle far more balls than she would have us believe she has.
Whether she and her party, current opinion polls not withstanding, manage to achieve that which now seems impossible and form a majority government, then logic dictates it would only be by a small number of seats, possibly less than she enjoys at present. At the time of writing it cannot be beyond the realms of certainty that the ‘Queen of May’ will discover, during the night of Thursday and the dawn of Friday, that she has lost the crown she inherited.
It stands to reason that win or lose – and especially in regard to the latter – there will be a ‘putsch’ to remove her. At which point it has to be queried what is the point of replacing failure with potential failure? The question is raised because just who could succeed her? He of the Gove from the Heath of Surrey, the bumbling ‘B’ from Uxbridge, the Munnyrede from another bridge called Wey, he from South West Surrey (perhaps that is why their party’s manifesto wishes to recall the ability to hunt – but I digress)?
Not that the main opposition party is any better placed when one looks for talent to lead and thus guide this nation of ours. We have the ‘Abbott’ from an area possibly renowned for London Cabs (one could hardly call her ‘Hansom’ – but again I digress) and Stoke Newington (and rumour has it that she has been ‘stoked by Islington North – see, I said politics in this country is a bit of a closed shop). Not only the foregoing, but we also have he of Holborn & St. Pancras who could have played a ‘blinder’ but appears to be more intent on playing a ‘Starmer’.
When considering with whom could we replace those currently at the forefront of our political parties, there is no choice as it has to be said that we would not even be scrapping the barrel if we tried as the barrel appears to just be regurgitating the sludge.
Those of us who follow politics in this country, including the state/level of democracy, know only to well that our system of politics and democracy is ‘shot to hell’; the former being riddled with sinecure, which allows nonentities of ‘know-nothing’ to achieve high office, while the latter is but a ‘closed shop’, one which does not allow the participation of the electorate. It is ironic that when our politicians ‘outlawed’ the ‘closed shop’ , where trade unions are concerned, true to form they ignored their own.
Not that political parties are guilty of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It is noted today that one blogger chose to write about the defects in our democracy, (vis-a-viz the forthcoming general election) in the course of which he mentions The Harrogate Agenda (THA).
Those of us who were associated with the development of THA will be aware that the basic idea behind this movement grew from an article I wrote in November 2011 – as acknowledged by the ‘Higher Farm’ in Somerset; and who will, no doubt, come galloping to the defense of his ‘guru’. However, before he sets forth it is perhaps worth suggesting that his ‘sat nav’ could do with an update.
It can also be said that having usurped the aims of THA, the aforementioned blogger is guilty of having put the cart before the horse. When one considers the usurpation of THA took place approximately four years ago, had the horse been put before the cart then it must be logical to presume that the electorate would not have been placed in the ridiculous position they now find themselves with having to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea – neither of which know owt about owt.
Where those who usurped an idea which could/would have revolutionised politics in this country are concerned, I am reminded of a statement by Thomas Sowell:
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.