Is May ’owen’ Paterson, or is Paterson ‘owen’ May?

Regular readers of Witterings from Witney, who have followed me to Seaham, will recall I am partial to the odd pun or two. Consequently, for any new readers, I ‘translate’ the heading to this article, bearing in mind that our ‘ever-knowing’ (not) media have their finger on the pulse of important news in their reporting that ‘Our Revered (not) Leader’ is planning a cabinet reshuffle.

In view of the foregoing, the question has to be asked whether she is ‘owing’ Paterson a ‘return to government ‘ for his undoubted allegiance to her ‘programme’; or he thinks she is ‘owing’ him a ‘return to government’ for ‘promoting’ her ‘programme’ – albeit her ‘programme’ is a load of crap (of which more shortly).

This question is raised as: this was Paterson in 2014 and this is Paterson in 2017, just a few days ago speaking in Washington. There would appear to have been a change in his thinking. Originally, I thought Paterson firmly believed in UNECE becoming the ‘standard-setter’ for Eurpope – and thus replacing the European Union – thereby allowing nation states of the continent of Europe to retain their ‘sovereignty’. Unfortunately it appears he is no different to any other politician in that it seems he is more concerned with his ‘political career path’ and thus personal advancement.

The foregoing begs the question: just where does the allegiance of our politicians lie, bearing in mind the ‘path to power’ that our current system of democracy allows – and as such, is this current system one that we should allow to continue? Should not the allegience of an elected politician be first to those who elected him or her, rather than to the party which they represent, or their own careers? If the answer to that question is the first, then should not their electorate have the power to remove them immediately – following ‘due process’ – where they cease to do just that, namely to represent the wishes of their constituents? The foregoing can apply to any other current politician you care to name – be that Davis, Fox, Redwood, Corbyn, Jenkins, Starmer etc – the political ‘colour’ matters not.

To turn to Theresa May, the same question(s) can be asked; namely, just who is she representing and where lies her allegiance? During her recent statement in the House of Commons, just why does this woman – who professes to know, but does not – still maintain EFTA membership has no say and no vote in ‘matters EU’ when Norway – a member of EFTA – sits on more than 200 ‘EU committees’ and thereby has input into such law; sits on UN ‘standard-setting’ bodies (such wp29 and Codex) and thereby has ‘input’ into standards before they even reaches the EU? For those born under the sign of Libra one of the qualities supposedly inherited by such people is that of leadership; unfortunately Theresa May (born 1st October) exhibits only failure. In her dealings with Brexit one is justified in stating that if anyone has put the cart before the ‘hoarse’ then it is her. Like all her predecessors, Theresa May will retire to a well-paid sinecure, having left behind her a mess from which we will all suffer – with the exception, naturally, of Theresa May.

Any nation can only be as great as its people; and until the people of this nation wake up and realize that our current system of democracy is no longer fit for purpose (likewise those that are elected) and demand change – said change to include a system for day-to-day control of their politicians – then I fear this nation of ours will continue down the road to ruin.

9 thoughts on “Is May ’owen’ Paterson, or is Paterson ‘owen’ May?

  1. Absolutely agree, David – we have a political class that doesn’t have a connection to a lot of the general public. It actually seems that our politicians don’t have too much of a connection to each other at present.

    Our democracy needs a good sort out, and I maintain that we have moved beyond the old relationship of trust and respect, to that of one built on hard bargaining.

    If they have no responsibility to us, why should we owe them anything.

    Bring it on.

    1. The burning question of how to ‘bring it on’ seems one I am finding rather difficult to solve. I have tried with DD4UK and the response has been a tad pathetic. Others are trying an meeting the same lack of success. Those who have ‘taken over’ The Harrogate Agenda appear content to let it die a death – so what would you do?

      1. I’m sorry I haven’t replied, David – busy.

        I share your pessimism, but there is a direction in politics at present: a huge dissatisfaction that we saw played out during the EU referendum.

        The traditional ‘block votes’ of certain demographics can no longer be relied upon, and ‘if’ we remove ourselves from the EU I believe that this new zeitgeist will offer up a new kind of politics.

        Read any local newspaper comments section and note the hostility to the present three party arrangement. And I believe that it is at a local level where the three-party assumptions can be met – through independent-minded, community-serving, agenda-free candidates.

        I’m afraid that I can only repeat that until this EU thing is settled we are always going to be dealt political cards from a marked deck, but once free of the EU sleight of hand, direct democracy and the Harrogate Agenda will come into play.

        You and I will most probably not be about to see it, but our children and grand children are going to need an alternative to the present charade.

        It’s passing on the idea that matters, because that is what we inherited.

        No consolation, I know – a matter of working with what we have and persuading others; just as this, and many other, blogs have been doing for some amount of years now.

  2. Should not the allegience of an elected politician be first to those who elected

    Rhetorical – no?

    You know, probably better than me, that his allegiance is to those who *selected him* , or rather those in central HQ who control the selectors.
    Or maybe to those who control Conservative HQ – [insert favourite conspiracy theory here] etc etc.

    The poor electors have merely the option of hoping to get the least worst “representative”.
    Is it right – no!
    How to change it? I wish I had an answer.
    After some 70 summers I only see things getting worse as we circle the drain to totalitarian serfdom.

  3. ‘The foregoing begs the question: just where does the allegiance of our politicians lie’ –

    Indeed it does, but there is more. People can and do change their minds, Liz Truss and Jeremy Hunt have done this along with Mr Johnson Snr, father of Boris Johnson. I think we take time to wonder how MPs get their information to make up their minds. We know about the civil service and the bias that drives it. But what about the many advisers who ply their trade, some directly to the MPs and others on behalf of business interests? The allegiance of these people and their relationship to the MPs is interesting.

    1. ” But what about the many advisers who ply their trade, some directly to the MPs and others on behalf of business interests? The allegiance of these people and their relationship to the MPs is interesting.”

      Now that is a Gordian Knot (or knots) which begs the question how do we untie that one (or those ones).

      You raised the problem, so your answer is?

  4. Never a member of the Scouts I have limited ability with knots. But from working for a local authority I know that letters from the public are dealt with in a routine way. Letters from a councillor or MP to the same department get the gold standard treatment. They are rushed to the most senior secretary who clucks and coos with a sense of importance. The councillors and MPs know this is going on and join in, as do their SPADS with a sense of self worth which is comical.

    Now if your take on democracy is based around a concept of equal opportunity, one person one vote then this is worrying to see a two tier system in action. Some may defend this saying that ordinary voters have written to the elected member, indeed they have. But the usual suspects are playing the system and doing well from it while others fall behind. There is also a tendency for the elected members to ignore awkward letters, as this blog has reported.

    So no, I cannot offer solution other than to suggest the elected members have even more responsibility. At the moment the elected simply observe on our behalf the mess left behind by the last administration, very often members of their own party. The bulk of money coming to local authorities comes via central government if the elected members were more involved in both collection AND spending we might get a better result.

  5. Never a member of the Scouts I have limited ability with knots. But from working for a local authority I know that letters from the public are dealt with in a routine way. Letters from a councillor or MP to the same department get the gold standard treatment. They are rushed to the most senior secretary who clucks and coos with a sense of importance. The councillors and MPs know this is going on and join in, as do their SPADS with a sense of self worth which is comical.

    Now if your take on democracy is based around a concept of equal opportunity, one person one vote then this is worrying to see a two tier system in action. Some may defend this saying that ordinary voters have written to the elected member, indeed they have. But the usual suspects are playing the system and doing well from it while others fall behind. There is also a tendency for the elected members to ignore awkward letters, as this blog has reported.

    So no, I cannot offer a solution other than to suggest the elected members have even more responsibility. At the moment the elected simply observe on our behalf the mess left behind by the last administration, very often members of their own party. The bulk of money coming to local authorities comes via central government if the elected members were more involved in both collection AND spending we might get a better result.

Comments are closed.