When a general election is called in this nation of ours, matters discussed/proposed by our political parties are highly complex. Without doubt the media has a special role to play in assisting the electorate to reach a well-informed opinion and thus make a reasoned decision at the ballot box. Actually, this does not just apply to general elections, but also in the period between said elections.
Reading the media daily, it becomes obvious that not only does it ‘home-in’ on emotional subjects and the plain fact is that the more ‘populist’ the issue – especially if it has an immigration slant – the more articles get written about it. Unfortunately, the journalists so doing are writing with what appears to be ignorance of the subject matter, mainly relying on the words of politicians who also exhibit a similar lack of knowledge. As a result such articles become endlessly laborious and/or futile in that they do not assist/educate the electorate on the matter in question.
The most pressing matter ‘du jour’ is that of Brexit where, as far as I am concerned, the only journalist writing from knowledge of that subject is Christopher Booker in his Sunday Telegraph columns. The remainder just offer ‘pap’, based on the utterances of a political class who have not the faintest idea on the subject.
About what might be said to be of equal importance to Brexit is the question of retaining our nation’s nuclear deterrent, yet while it is still the infancy of the coming June General Election campaign, Her Majesty’s Opposition still cannot decide whether it wishes to retain or scrap it; instead coming up with the idea that our nation needs another four Bank Holidays a year – a subject which captured the headlines on today’s BBC political news.
Other subjects worthy of the media’s attention are (a) the question of the state of our NHS, whether we should continue to inject yet more public money into a health system, the current format of which seems long past its ‘use by date’; and (b) whether our nation should continue to set aside 0.7% of GDP for foreign aid. In both the latter case, where is an ‘in-depth’ media article to assist the electorate?
For yonks now, we have been led to believe that the State will care for us. Brenda from Bristol would appear to typify this reliance on the State when she pleads for ‘someone to lead us’: er Brenda, just where is your power of thought – and were you to be given the opportunity of having a vote to decide the future of your nation (via direct democracy – assuming you know what that system of democracy encapsulates) what would you do? Brenda does however make one extremely pertinent observation: There’s hardly anybody in any of the parties that you would put your life on the line for. But that, Brenda, is just what you are doing by casting your vote under representative democracy.
Brenda from Bristol, unknowingly, is an example of the apathy which pervades the electorate of our nation today; and where apathy among the electorate exists it can only breed extensive power-grabbing among our political class. I can only, once again, repeat something mentioned just days ago; namely if you want democracy – which encapsulates the ability to have a voice in how you wish to lead your life and decide the future direction of your nation – then it is necessary that you become one of a nation of participants, not merely an observer.
Representative democracy can be likened to a programme of a decade or two ago: One man and his dog wherein a shepherd and his dog had to ‘corral’ sheep into a pen as quickly as possible – regardless of the wishes of the sheep. For ‘shepherd’: think prime Minister; for ‘dog’: think a sycophantic political party, coupled with NGOs and fake charities; and for sheep: think electorate.
For what we are about to receive…………………………