People of the United Kingdom, we are well and truly ‘procreated’!

Well may you ask where the fault lies.

Sometimes I think that a parody of democracy could be more dangerous than a blatant dictatorship, because that gives people an opportunity to avoid doing anything about it.
Aung San Suu Kyi
Discerning the difference between a dictator and a leader is quite easy. The former cannot help but see ‘leading’ and ‘serving’ as stark contradictions that by their very nature are utterly incompatible. The latter can’t tell the difference
Craig D. Lounsbrough

When a nation leaves the fate of his country to an ignorant and fool person, then that nation itself will be remembered in history as an ignorant and fool nation!”
Mehmet Murat ildan

From Wikipedia we learn that: Dictatorship is a form of government where a country or a group of countries is ruled by one person or political entity, and exercised through various mechanisms to ensure that the entity’s power remains strong. A dictatorship is a type of authoritarianism, in which politicians regulate nearly every aspect of the public and private behavior of citizens. Dictatorship and totalitarianism societies generally employ political propaganda to decrease the influence of proponents of alternative governing systems.

When reading the preceding paragraph is impossible not to compare those conditions with those currently in existence in the United Kingdom. Accepting those conditions as fact – and it is difficult not to – then it must also be logical to describe our present system of representative democracy as democratised dictatorship because this nation is ruled by one person (a Prime Minister) and his/her political party, their power is exercised through various mechanisms (the media and fake charities); and nearly every aspect of the public and private behaviour of people is regulated. Once elected the power of politicians is virtually absolute and they will go to great lengths to ensure that their ‘coterie’ is not ‘invaded’.

Where the quote by Lounsbrough is concerned, its relation to our political class is particularly apt. When David Cameron made his statement in 2010 on the steps of Downing Street about politicians not forgetting that they are but the servants of the people and that it is the people who are the masters, he knew damn well that it would never be actionable as he had no intention of ceding one iota of power to the people. The people of any nation need ‘leaders/managers’ to direct the day-to-day functioning of their nation, but those leaders/managers need to be ‘controlled’ by their people – especially when the politicians introduce policies with which the people disagree. Returning to Lounsbrough’s quotation it is becoming more and more obvious that politicians need to learn to combine ‘lead’ and ‘serve’ – and that would be forced upon them by the adoption of direct democracy.

Turning now to the quote by Mehmet Murat ildan, the United Kingdom is a prime example of a nation that has left its fate in the hands of ignorant and foolish people. Where our society and its ‘mores’ is concerned, what greater mistake could be made but to allow – and promote – the idea that different cultures could live in ‘peace and harmony’? What greater mistake could be made but to hand the nation’s sovereignty to a supranational body over which our nation had no control – and in allowing that, to blatantly lie to the people in the process in order that it may happen? When one considers the forthcoming general election on June 8th, bearing in mind the political class have now decided that they – and only they – will decide on what constitutes an acceptable ‘Brexit’, what greater mistake could the electorate make but to vote for any politician who has no understanding of matters EU?

Following on from the preceding paragraph, ‘du jour’, the forthcoming election will, contrary to the efforts of Jeremy Corbyn, be ‘centered’ on Brexit and all its remifications – and the LibDems appear ‘hell-bent’ on making it so, as does the leader of Ukip, the biggest  ‘Nutt(of)all. All political parties will produce a manifesto containing many ‘promises’, none of which, we  have discovered, can be enforced by those to whom they are addressed. So, a further question: of what use are political manifestos if a prospective government, at election time, says it will do so-and-so and subsequently reneges?

Daily we read in the media about how the people are unhappy with ‘government’ and its proposals/direction; yet why is it that those objecting seem unable to research a system of democracy that would, in fact, give them ‘a voice’ in the future direction of their nation?  Such a system has been promoted, known as The Harrogate Agenda (THA), yet what has happened to it?

From this post we read:

  • Thus, the election-winning slogan “Labour isn’t working” did not succeed just because it was a clever play on words. It spoke a fundamental truth, based on the distillation of thousands of statistics, gathered by hundreds of people over time, and distilled down into that single phrase, to form a succinct, coherent message – so why no such slogan for THA? Distill: Be a nation of participants, not just observers?
  • So we return to Autonomous Mind, one haven of reflective calm amid the baying mob, who has concluded that The Harrogate Agenda cannot stand aloof from the anti-EU movement, and wait until it has achieved it aim, in order that we should be able to progress ours……..a small group of us are to meet to discuss integrating the anti-EU agenda with The Harrogate Agenda……There are those who then come to us to sneer and jeer, telling us that The Harrogate Agenda is almost completely unknown, as if that is news to us. Yet we intend it to be that way – er, the logic of formulating a new idea and intending it to be unknown? The logic of having THA as Stage 6 of FlexCit must be open to question when, if you wish to hit the nail on the head, it should be Stage 1?

If, as I am, discussing logic; in view of the foregoing just what is the point of the electorate visiting a polling station, or casting a postal ballot – the validity of which is open to question – if their  voice doesn’t count, which as explained above, it doesn’t. In which case just what is the point of representative democracy?

Somewhat like those of our political class, who profess to serve but don’t, there are those in the blogosphere who do serve, in that they educate those of the electorate who read their work by means of their expertise in the area of research.  However, they also attempt to lead, but then appear to adopt what may be termed  dictatorial attitudes in their responses to those who disagree with the ‘content’ of their leadership – which is hardly the best way to gain adherents to one’s ideas.

It is noted from the Wikipedia link above that dictatorial and totalitarian societies generally employ political propaganda to decrease the influence of proponents of alternative governing systems. Another ploy used in the United Kingdom is that whereby those of the public questioning policy or talking about direct democracy are just ignored by the political  class and, more importantly, the media. This begs the question, proposed a few times on this blog, which asked, when discussing the relationship twixt politician and press, in whose pocket is who. Both are reliant on each other: politicians need the publicity of the press; and the media need politicians for their ‘newsworthiness’. When one, or both, deign to ignore that which they should be discussing one can only assume there is collusion – each so doing to preserve the ‘cozy club’ which they have created; one to the detriment to society and the people that they should both be ‘serving’. Unfortunately both have forgotten the ‘serving’ and ‘leading’ bit, while imposing the ‘dictatorial’ aspect.

Aung San Suu Kyi stated that a parody of democracy could be more dangerous than a blatant dictatorship, because that gives people an opportunity to avoid doing anything about it. The people have, no doubt, been conditioned by the political class to believe they must be led, that the state will ‘provide’; hence her point is well made that the people can avoid doing anything to rectify that which they obviously know is wrong.

On the other hand, direct democracy is based on the principle that the people are the ‘masters’, not the political class; thus the people must decide the future direction of their nation. Yet given the opportunity of a public forum, even those who expressed an interest in direct democracy appear apathetic. Yet given the opportunity to ‘start the ball rolling’ in the effort to rectify their current dire position vis-a-vis democracy per se, it would appear they cannot be ‘bothered’. In which case, please let me not see another tweet, article or comment from one person, or a group of our society, bemoaning their fate.

To the electorate of this nation, I can but repeat something I wrote a day or two ago: As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

33 thoughts on “People of the United Kingdom, we are well and truly ‘procreated’!

  1. I agree with John Malpas as this blog post is not up to your usual standard and it would appear you are about to give up on the ‘People’ as they refuse to listen and act as you would wish it.

    This is a great pity really as you have talent but sadly, from my experience, you find it impossible to work in a team so will remain a lone voice crying in the wilderness until such time as you give up altogether.

    1. That John Malpas has not bothered to follow up on his comment and my response leads one to believe he is but another attempting to write what may be termed a ‘snide’ comment and then disappearing into the internet ether.

      To work in a team, as I am sure you would agree, requires one to have faith and a belief in the team leader – which sadly, where your team is concerned, I do not.

      I seem able to recall a few ‘lone voices crying in the wilderness’ who have eventually ‘won through’………

      Over to you……………………

  2. That is true but ONLY if you don’t give up.

    However I still maintain that THA team is a broad church and being a constructive part of a team supporting the aims and objectives is what matters and would be a better use of your skills and talents rather than in the main talking to yourself ………………..well and me from time to time as I pass by your blog to keep and eye what you are up to!

      1. Good throw away line and I readily admit the church is far from full but since our conception more people are becoming aware of us and it is therefore simply not true to say that the church is empty.

        1. Niall, in your opinion what is the single most important “demand” of THA?
          which one would you make an absolute priority to promote?

  3. We have always been very clear that are six Demands cannot be separated and they all have to come together.

    I know you wanted me to say Demand One so you could say well THA should have been Stage One of Flexcit. But Flexcit and the THA are not the same animals and the Stages of Flexcit do need to taken in order. let me remind you what theyare:-

    1. Invoke Article 50.
    2. Tackle immigration.
    3. Reform Single Market with UNECE.
    4.Reform CAP & CFP.
    5. Open up trade to the world.
    6. The Harrogate Agenda.

    Clearly one would hope the THA starts to pick up coverage and importance from Stage One but the chances of enacting our Demands before we have left the EU is extremely unlikely.

    I hope this satisfies you but I doubt it will.

    1. well thanks for your answer,however you didnt need to be so arsey!
      actually i didnt have any expectations of how you would answer i think youre projecting your own prejudice.

      1. I am indeed guilty of making an assumption as the real point of your question but I had no intention of being arsey.

        I think you doeth protest too much.

        1. do the people think they are sovereign?
          did you ever ascertain this through qualitative research methods?

          ….just for the record i personally think this is absolutely central to THA all the other points follow from this,and no its not dependent upon Flexit or leaving the EU, it transcends all other issues, its the wall between freedom and domination, be it the EU or so called trade deals such as CETA,TTIP,etc.
          sovereignty is the ability to say no!…. i think to many people who follow Flexcit have given up on being sovereign and have become nothing more than a bunch of shills for globalization, they can talk until they are blue in the face about “the top table”
          but it wont give them,or you, or i any more say, it will continue to subvert democracy and place the interest of ” investors” first.
          …or maybe i protest to much Niall?

          1. Just to chip in: Quite agree with you. Yes we, as a country, must ‘pay court’ to globalisation but at the end of the day the people must have the right to say no to anything they do not like or want.

            On that basis and with the Brexit negotiations commencing, then THA should have been stage one and also promoted with the same vigour as FlexCit.

            1. In an ideal world I will agree there is some value to your point.

              However convincing TPTB that we should leave the EU, via the Efta/EEA option, is leaving the EU, is difficult enough without the distraction of trying to sell the need for radical constitutional reform and we cannot of course get our demands enacted while still in the EU, as we acknowledged from the off.

              As I see it a lot of this argument hinges on the issue of time scale. If one believes, as I believe you do, that THA’s demands could have been enacted within a few years of its conception then it is obvious that you would want to grab every opportunity to promote the six Demands.

              However, if as the rest of THA team agree, you take into account a multitude of factors and accept that our reforms may take many years to be enacted then whether THA is Stage one or six of Flexcit is not a major concern.

              That I believe is the crux of our difference.

              1. However convincing TPTB that we should leave the EU, via the Efta/EEA option, is difficult enough without the distraction of trying to sell the need for radical constitutional reform and we cannot of course get our demands enacted while still in the EU, as we acknowledged from the off.

              2. you have to start from your strengths,and the general population understand the concept of sovereignty,the meme
                ‘taking back control’ is really another expression of sovereignty,this is your starting point,you should build on it,the other 5 points aren’t that important,they’ll only confuse people,remember the KISS principle.
                oh, i would also suggest you drop the word “demand” its a bit confrontational.

                1. ‘Demand’ was agreed way back and we certainly do DEMAND our six points.

                  I find it amusing that you are concerned about being confrontational when it is our aim to completely change the face of our democracy, its structure and processes!

              1. ….you need to be persuasive, not confrontational, perhaps thats why you haven’t had much success so far?

  4. ….David the trouble is the liberal progressives agenda doesn’t understand the word ‘no’
    sovereignty is the only game in town, its enshrined in the UN Charter and our government signed this document, it’s therefore made a declaration to honour its treaty obligation, which it has so very obviously not done.
    THA is vital to communicate this obligation, therefore yes i agree, its also a concept which most people find easy to understand, infact its a very natural part of human nature to choose to create your own laws and rules unique to your own culture,society and economy, unfortunately once you put the ‘free market’ first you surrender yourself to forces beyond your control.
    Its now obvious that free markets,and globalisation have failed to deliver,its vital we get back to first principles….
    …we the sovereign people will rule,not the cold, impersonal ‘free market’

    1. I agree sovereignty is a key demand but the ‘People’ won’t latch onto the significance or the need for them to reclaim it until things get much worse for them in their daily lives – it was ever thus and always will be – Amen.

      1. Niall they already understand it thats why they voted out in the referendum,the momentum should be with THA, but unfortunately it hasn’t developed.

        1. I do not think the 52% who voted leave were thinking about the fact they are not sovereign.

          The ‘Take back control’ stuff was all about Westminster regaining control not the People. Then there was immigration for some with others wishing to leave a ship that they believe is heading for the rocks etc.

          So our Demands will only be enacted when the People get behind them and DEMAND them from their existing politicians and at the moment they are still too comfortable to be bothered.

          Now if Brexit is handled badly and the People feel some real pain then they may find us and latch onto our Demands with the express intent of never letting their elected representatives have free reign again to act without consulting us – Demand four ‘Peoples consent’.

      2. well that doesn’t sound very positive, its almost as though you want disaster to fall upon your fellow citizen!
        if that happened i doubt very much if anyone would be much bothered by THA.

        1. I’m simply facing the reality of the situation which is that even amongst my keenest followers it is difficult to keep them motivated.

          So while I do not wish disaster to fall on my fellow citizens the facts are that until they are hurting they will clearly show no interest in constitutional reform.

          You see while a committed and interested group of people got together in 2012, from which the THA was born, the fact remains we are a movement well ahead of our times.

          I believe there is no disagreement that our Demands will only gain traction when the People push for them and this will ONLY come when they have a good reason to be bothered.

          Therefore THA will happen one day and is there when needed BUT there is no short cut to reaching the parts other beers cannot reach apart form time and ‘Events dear boy events.’

Comments are closed.