Tag Archives: Referism

Do you really ken (d) all, Liz?

Liz Kendall, wanna-be Labour Leader, has an article in the Guardian in which, lamenting her party’s failure to win the 2015 general election, she writes: ……We talked about what we would do to them and they didn’t like us. We rarely spoke about what we would do with them……… She also writes that her goal is to get power out of Westminster and into the hands of local people; citing that: …….Labour councils have been leading the way in putting power into people’s hands. In Milton Keynes, communities are trusted to help run libraries and leisure centres. In Glasgow, employers and young people helped design the apprenticeship service……..

Oh dear. Helping to run libraries and leisure centres, helping to design apprentiship services is not putting power back in the hands of people – who has the final say and who controls the money, Liz?

She mentions it is her belief that her party lost the election because Labour spoke about what they would do to the electorate and that they rarely spoke about what they would do with them – but hang on, is that not what all political parties do: tell the people what they will do to them – and when has any political party asked whether we wanted to be part of the process?

She writes about devolution of power – but, for example, giving Scotland power of taxation is not giving power to the people, it is just giving power to local politicians. Think ‘Referism‘ which would give power to the people. Think The Harrogate Agenda and the 6 Demands which would give power to the people.

What we have with Liz Kendall is yet another politician attempting to con the electorate that they are different, when they are not. Yet another example of plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

So continues the tinkering with representative democracy and the dictatorial power that it affords our political class over we the people that fund them and their hair-brained schemes.

 

What about living within ones ‘means’

David Cameron is reported to have said that, if relected, he would not cut child benefit.

So the rest of the tax-paying electorate must continue to fund couples having child after child after child so that they, the parents, can continue to have their ‘Costa Del Sol’ holidays, their plasma televisions, their new cars, etc, etc?

Not only that, but a politician can promise a burden on the tax-paying electorate without their being given an opportunity to agree, or not? Wherefore democracy? Or, come to that, Referism?

I can but come back to the title of this short post – and the old idea; if you can’t afford it out of your earned income – don’t get one! 

A lesson people and governments would do well to remember – not that governments have earned income; but you get the idea I’m sure.