The system of democracy under which we presently live, namely parliamentary democracy, has many inherent drawbacks, even though we elect the representatives to the institution known as Westminster. Regular readers will be aware that it is a system which I term democratised dictatorship, or as some would prefer: an oligarchy. Even allowing for these drawbacks it is a far better system of government than that practised by the European Union, one that is by no means democratic but based on totalitarianism, in that, for example, those at its head are not elected by the people and have to swear allegiance to that entity, forgoing any wish they may have to safeguard their national interests.
Within the United Kingdom we presently have three political parties that perpetuate a system whereby money is taken from the people, both taxpayers and consumers and channelled into the coffers of central government, from whence it is dispersed to their departments, non-governmental organisations and the civil infrastructure that supports the incumbent government. It is a system that has bred corruption resulting in a loss of trust in those we look to protect us; it is a system that has allowed succeeding governments to condition society to act, speak and think in ways that only they define; it is a system that has spawned – and continues to spawn – incompetence resulting in further cost; and it is a system that has been changed to the extent that honour and principle no longer matter.
The irony that, by compartmentalising sections of society in the name of equality has resulted in minority and ethnic groups being granted special status and privileges, each thus receiving special treatment in the eyes of the majority, would appear to have escaped the political class. Or has it? The implementation of equality & diversity requirements has produced divisions within our society, divisions that argue amongst themselves, thus taking the eyes of the people from yet further restrictions to their liberty that are being introduced. Divide and Rule?
The fact that behaviour of minority groups, which to the native population of our nation is offensive and unacceptable being overlooked and condoned by means of equality & diversity, can be illustrated by a post from Inspector Gadget, who writes he was told at a police Diversity Training session in 2010 that:
“Spitting is a cultural issue. Young, jobless working-class men spit on the ground as a way of expressing frustration and powerlessness. It is also a way for young men from poor communities to mark territory, a kind of warning to other men in the street that they are present. For successful men, spitting on the ground is a way of demonstrating victory against the harsh realities of modern life, a challenge to others who may wish to rob them of their success.
It is judgemental for a police officer to challenge this behaviour. It shows an ethnocentric approach; why are the cultural norms of the young jobless community less acceptable than those of their more fortunate peers? To achieve the Public Confidence aspirations required by the National Policing Plan, police officers must begin to embed themselves in these cultures. This way, we can achieve our ultimate aim of policing our diverse communities with fairness and understanding.“
Politicians continually complain about proposals that they consider would undermine the ‘will of parliament’, arguing that parliament is ‘sovereign’. That argument is, in itself, a contradiction in that if politicians consider themselves representatives of their electorate (and should therefore reflect the wishes of their electorate), then the ‘will of parliament’ cannot exist as it would be the ‘will of the people’. Neither can parliament be ‘sovereign’ as to be a ‘sovereign parliament’ it would need to act as a ruler and with the powers of a supreme ruler – which some would argue it tries to do, but I digress. The fact that, even if it wished to act as a supreme ruler it cannot is illustrated by parliament having ceded the powers necessary so to do to a foreign entity, namely Brussels.
As we are all aware, the political class of our nation, for days on end, have exhibited a field of vision comparable to a blinkered horse – aided and abetted by the same media about which they complain. That both have been – and still are – dependant upon each other has been the one obvious factor that has been the sole cause of the present problem that so engages their time and effort. If politicians lie and obfuscate in their dealings with the electorate then how are the people to know the truth if the media do not perform what is the core reason for their existence? Klein Verzt, writing for a Dutch readership but equally applicable to this country, queries whether journalists are really nothing more than political prostitutes and whether the pretence of being a watchdog for the people has been forgotten.
The fact this nation is in such dire straits is due to it having been in thrall to three parties with basically the same policies, albeit written in different ways, which result in the ship of state being piloted onto the rocks with headstrong and, in some cases, gay abandon. Neither is the nation served by the one party, who do have policies to avert the impending disaster, not recognising the necessity to go out advertising and selling their wares on a daily basis, instead appearing to wait for people to come and buy their products – hardly the recipe for becoming a brand leader.