Mid-November 2019 … Close your eyes for a moment, and try to imagine a time when nobody had ever uttered the ‘B’ word. You are now in a time when the word has no meaning. Imagine that the UK never joined the European Economic Community. In fact, try to imagine that EEC had never been invented. Difficult, I know, but try.
Now think ahead a few weeks to our imminent general election and try to imagine the things politicians would try to persuade us to vote for. No ‘B’ word, don’t forget. Only humdrum matters that are raised at every election time – just as they were last time. Words like NHS, education, police, democracy – but at all other times placed on the back burner, simmering, unfulfilled and unresolved, ready to be promised again at the next election. Truly, it was well said by someone who understood these things: “If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let you do it.”
“We fall under the illusion of freedom when we consent to be governed. We believe we live in a fair and democratic society yet we fail to grasp the true meaning of words such as democratic, republic, inalienable, and consent. When we decipher the words, we find that we live in a reality of inequity; a ‘world for the taking’ by a few at the expense of the many. Only when we know who we are— a spiritual being having a human experience— will the system of slavery be changed.” – Rosanne Lindsay.
Do we yet know who we are?
It is a truth that politicians will say almost anything to win your vote. And you don’t even have to vote for the individual candidate. A vote for the Party will do very nicely, thank you. Once the votes have been collected and counted you can go away to do more or less whatever else you like, until the next time the illusion of democracy and/or freedom is played out. (I say ‘and/or’ because they aren’t the same, even if you think they are).
Don’t ever overlook the fact that ‘the Party’ exists to maintain the existence of the Party, preferably in authority. It doesn’t exist for your benefit or mine. In this respect the willing but generally unsuspecting PPC (Prospective Parliamentary Candidate) is just as much a victim as you are. Woe betide the party member who fails to comply with party rules. The Whips will devour him/her and spit him out. Or the NEC will have him for breakfast. How free is that?
I recall an instance years ago when I urged some younger work colleagues to vote at the imminent general election even though none had ever voted before. A day or so later one young person came back to tell me that, because of what I had said, she had decided to vote this time. I congratulated her but that wasn’t enough. She wanted me to know who it was she intended to vote for. Even though I protested that it was none of my business – it is a matter between her and the ballot box – she insisted.
“I’m going to vote for Tony Blair”, she said triumphantly. Picture her face, if you can, when I replied: “You cannot vote for Tony Blair!” Confusion and hurt rolled into one. “Tony Blair is the PPC for the Labour Party in Sedgefield, County Durham. You don’t live in Sedgefield so you cannot vote for him. You can only vote within your own constituency.” It turned out she had chosen Tony Blair because ‘he seems a nice man’. Weep because this story is true. It also turned out that she didn’t know who her local candidates were!
Despite all that I’ve written here none of us can truly ignore that the ‘B’ word follows us around everywhere – has done for three years – and there are brand new parties on the scene that weren’t on the scene at the last election. How bad is that?
‘The System’ works after a fashion when there are only two contestants – and the First Past The Post (FPTP) winner takes all. It means that whichever party has the most votes, wins, regardless. Even if fewer than 50% of the electorate voted! The other party becomes Her Majesty’s virtually powerless, supposedly loyal, Opposition. Additional parties, if there are any, become the ‘also rans’. And I haven’t even mentioned the probability of fraudulent postal voting.
Under no terms could anybody describe that as evidence of democracy. Evidence of suffrage – yes, but not evidence of democracy. The opposite of democracy is autocracy, communism, fascism and tyranny. And if it isn’t democracy or freedom, why do we consent to it? Why do we accept the limitations placed upon us by the party system and their preferred FPTP? Why?
Our consent binds us into the master/slave system. Withholding our consent restores our natural freedom. Without this change we fall under the illusion of freedom which, years ago, could be summed up with “I’m free, white and over 21.” It was a lie then and it is still a lie today. (Over 18 today unless one particular party leader can persuade us to agree to the lower age of 16. Heaven forbid.)
What to do?
- If our comfortable, mostly docile population would awake to the political dangers surrounding us and gather, constituency by constituency, to select from among their number, independent candidates (not representing a party) to represent them, we will have begun the change.
- If election to parliament is limited to a 12 months period and then subjected to annual satisfactory performance review (satisfactory to the voting constituents), just like any other employee would expect, we could virtually do away with general elections and career politicians at the same time!
- Sovereignty would be seen to be restored to the people and not claimed unlawfully by parties and parliamentarians.
- The rights bestowed on the people by Magna Carta 1215 would be restored, as could the restoration of Common Law courts Trial by Jury and Jury Nullification of bad laws. (Restoration isn’t revolution).
- The Monarch would again be able to appoint a Prime Minister (and any other Secretary/Minister of State), instead of the self-interested Party Members of Parliament doing so. Magna Carta 1215 has already determined that the people may lawfully contest the Monarch’s decisions, if the need arises.
To quote the late visionary, George Orwell:
“In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.”
We, the People, are no more puritans then are they, the politicians. People tell lies, too. But if We, the People, don’t change (ourselves, the things to which we consent, and our ways) it seems to me that there is not likely to be a future in which to live worth voting for.
Can we do it? YES, WE CAN! So let’s DO IT.
I like the Cambridge Dictionary definition of democracy:
“the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves”.
The key word here is believe and the whole Brexit process eroded this believe in many people by showing the naked truth: ordinary people vote (opinion) does not matter even when expressed directly, simply speaking we are powerless in this system.
As Lord Acton said: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” We are living in system that is a modern aristocracy system pretending to be something else.
The real question is will we be able to restore democracy and freedom in this country and how to do it? I know one for sure “bad people” with power will not give up it peacefully.
I thought at first Michael Dunn was advocating Anarchy as the only true Freedom/Democracy. I was going to point out that even living in my Mothers Cave I was not Free – I had to leave it and live alone! Then I realised he wanted to take our present system back to A Better Past. So I should point out that Magna Carta only gave Rights/Freedoms/Sovereignty to the Baronial Class – against the Tyranny of king John. The vast majority of the People were as much enslaved as they had been since 1066.
However – he DOES make some valid points. The Party System grew up I believe in the 19th century, or was it earlier and has been an anti democratic influence on our Constitution. FPTP ‘worked’ – ish while there were basically 2 Main Parties – and that other lot supposedly in the middle. Personally I think a sensible form of proportional representation would be an improvement.
But – It is unrealistic to propose all prospective MPs be Independents. Unrealistic to have elections every year. And also his suggestions about choice of Ministers just would not work.
BREXIT has brought many issues to a head. First get that sorted. Then repeal the FTPA. Make sure the EU Napoleonic law system is abolished from Britain in all it’s ramifications.
Only when UK is a Sovereign Nation can we try to give Sovereignty to THE PEOPLE rather than to The Party(s).
I can only implore every voter to, for the present, to forget about any changes to the voting system. Except for the fact that TBP have that in their new ‘Contract’ ( Formerly referred to by various older Parties as a Manifesto/Promise to Deceive, favoured by no less a personage than the brilliant David (We Promise) Cameron.)
We all need to face the facts – forget about wishful thinking and the serial liar and Master Waffler, Boris Johnson.
Do we imagine for one moment that Boris will adhere to any of his ‘promises’ any longer than it takes to change his tune?
Has he convinced the voters that he will stick with ANY pledge he wistfully makes as he bumbles his way to achieving our subjugation to Europe?
Of course he is a VERY committed type of person – Will ‘O’ the Wisp comes to mind?
By the way, have any of you Uxbridge and South Ruislip voters spotted Boris in the area in the last couple of years, except for a photo-shoot or two?
When the Courts have an issue with you, they invariably research your character and trustworthiness – No?
Does this not happen with an MP and/or a Prime Minister?
When all is said and done – having carried out a little research on Dear Boris – I am certainly not the only one who has referred to him as a ‘bastard’ – I defer to one of his daughters for that eloquent statement – and he may not go down in history as the Prime Minister with the most votes – but it is quite certain that he could go down as the one who has deceived the most females in his life.
He might also end up as the least trustworthy person to stand at the Despatch Box, with Blair a close second.
Now that’s a magnificent record!
What would be the betting on Boris one day becoming President of the European Commission?
Who said ‘even-money’?
The piece Michael didn’t quite include is how the parties obtain our consent and thus control us.
The trick is to push a manifesto which is a “package” and if you vote for party you are obliged to consent to the whole package. There is no opt out of the bits you object to. Since it is a system (read Hilaire Bellocs book “The Party System”(free download) and I believe centrally controlled behind the scenes then the controllers don’t mind their next objective being put into first one party and then the other party,hidden amongst all the other policies depending on public mood..Or indeed, not in the manifesto at all until POWER is achieved.
The critical point is this: since the Monarch and the English people have been linked since time immemorial and since the Coronation Oath Act of 1688 that link has been expressed by the Coronation Oath, taken by Elizabeth in 1953 something has broken that link, leading to what we have now. Chaos.
That something is the party system whereby any party leader can claim, having acquired a majority of votes that he/she has the “democratic will of the people” and all power resides in his/her lap. Therefore that implies that no ancient law or ancient custom or ancient Royal Prerogative ( to appoint Ministers of the Crown) however venerable and protective of the people’s liberty to choose can trump the collective “democratic will” of the party process!!! If readers contact me via john.cruttwell@sfr.fr they can have the full story FREE.
I have just been reading the most disgusting piece of ‘journalism’ it has been my bad luck to read in the last sixty-five years.
The Daily Mail is the rag I am referring to.
It ought to accurately be described as ‘THE SURRENDER ISSUE+’
A couple of clicks tells me that this assembly of c*ap is owned by one of our rulers – The Viscount Rothermere – no less.
Well, with him at the helm, where’s the problem in terms of the EU? I am not about to count them.
Suffice to say that staying in ain’t gonna do HIM any harm, is it?
All my life I have been a ‘Royalist’ – what a mug.
But I suppose that people of his ilk know what’s good for us, every man-jack of us. And of course, for himself!
But it has done one bit of good for me I suppose.
It has convinced me of TWO things. Firstly NO MORE Daily Mail for me – and secondly – without the shadow of a doubt I will be voting TBP.
I must confess there was not much doubt that I would do so – but the distinguished and Honourable and highly esteemed Viscount’s little rag has cemented my decision beyond argument.
Daily Mail editor is an old Etonian and a citizen of nowhere. Perhaps a pal of Boris and Dave! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geordie_Greig
‘Dave’ was alleged to have approached Rothermere to remove the previous Leaver editor Paul Dacre before the referendum but Rothermere denied this during the Leveson Inquiry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Harmsworth,_4th_Viscount_Rothermere Non-dom status. Another citizen of nowhere.
George Grieg took over from Paul Dacre in Sept 2018.
Many thanks Jake – “it all seems to fall into line” – these buggers the Eton Cabal (yes, I do mean it literally!) are like a bunch of rabid dogs fighting over a bitch (the bitch being the future of the UK).
This past couple of years has exposed the Tories as never before.
And behind it all again are the ‘aristocracy’ – how can any ordinary Brit give any one of this bunch a single vote?
They say Nigel Farage will help to destroy the Tory Party. Good for him and perhaps us too.
As for his losing Brexit – I am even beginning to find that eventuality appealing, because Corbyn, should he make it to Downing Street will be such a disaster probably one of his own Party will get rid of him – one way or another- where are you now Mossad when we really need you…..?
I am seriously reviewing my opinion on the Royals – Yes, astounding as it may seem ( and I have always been a Royalist) what is the truth behind the involvement of The Queen in our current politics? Boris was accused of manipulating the House of Commons – the Million Dollar question is surely – could he do so without the compliance, nay connivance of HM?
I am sure one of your readers can find some kind of a ‘plot’ if they have studied this quite complex area sufficiently and deeply.
No, I am not suggesting a Conspiracy Theory – but rather a Conspiracy Fact.
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy…………..”
This definition of a ,” Conspiracy Theorist is “, is one that quite appeals…..”Somebody who questions the statements of known liars”……
Nota Bene……..I sincerely hope that all you nice people who contribute to this excellent site ensure that you pass the details of the site to your friends, colleagues- and perhaps even some of the ‘non-believers’.
It is essential that we cultivate and populate this site as enthusiasticaly as WE read and contribute to it.
Didn’t we used to say…..”It pays to advertise”, sometimes it only takes a couple of ‘clicks’ but it could reap many rewards.
I realise as do you that this will be a GE to end all GE’s in our lifetime – jump to it!!!!!
Incidentally, this really IS an unsolicited plea from myself as an avid contributor.
RATHER THAN OPINION POLLS OF PARTY FOLLOWINGS, A PERCENTAGE CHECK OF THE FOLLOWING ABILITIES OF VOTERS WOULD BE OF CONSIDERABLE INTEREST TO ME, AND MAYBE TO MANY OTHERS !
1. The voter that reads manifesto promises, in parallel to the history of a Party keeping their promises. (The Floating Voter).
2. The politically ignorant who vote only for one Party ever, in spite of World or National events, or the changes within that Party.
3. The voter that likes the Leader of a Party, irrespective of the Party’s standing, and with no interest in the Party’s local candidate.
4. The voter who dislikes one Party, and so works out the best vote to hopefully ensure that the disliked Party does not win.
5. A pox on the lot of them, and won’t vote at all as it only encourages the bastards.
6. Haphazard voter who votes only if they remember to, and makes their choice only when confronted with the ballot form.
7. Voting for a laugh. No Looney Party, so a spoilt ballot form with some ‘Joke’ written, like Father Christmas.
8. The even-handed voter, who puts his cross against all the names, or writes ‘None of the above’.
Whilst this can be amusing, a Party might be voted into Government with the power to make laws, and adjust taxation charges ! Waiting for a bus, I heard two old boys talk about a coming election. – ”I’m a working man, so I vote Labour” ! ! ! (That’s deep thought) !
I have explained over and over again on this website, why I believe that any new system is a delusion and misguided by wishful thinking.
Was the referendum democratic or not. Should MPs be our representatives of an area or not, Is FPTP the simplest and easiest to understand or not. Finally my trump card. Nick Clegg believed it would work for theLib Dems. What actually worked for the Lib Dems was that the people actually believed and many still do ( Hilariously and for a while ), that lib dems are half way between Tory & labour..
And the strength of the parties and the party sysem is all down to the Tiny little progressive corruptions of the above, carried out cynically by party leaders since the war
If I didn’t know better, I would say this is a plea for proportional representation. At the risk of repeating myself, it’s a barmy idea resulting in the minor parties tail, wagging the dog.
As to having a new parliament every 12 months, with people moaning about having to vote three or four times in three years, your comments about less than half of the electorate voting for the winners would become worse – much, much less than half.
Take a look at UKIP and its policy (almost) of an election every year. Who is king of the castle this week – no I don’t know either
What about the House of Lords? There are a number of things you could do such dis-lord, or whatever the expression is, all the embezzlers, kiddie fiddlers and so on. Agreed there might not be many left – and your problem is? To get the numbers down to a sensible level, for every two bodies in the upper house who leave voluntarily or in a Coffin, will be replaced by one person. That one person could be decided by proportionality of the last election. This would give you a moving average of the voting public representing them in this house. And 4 million votes may translate into many upper house seats.
Expected result – a chamber that might be allowed to do something other than rubberstamp legislation?
There’s nothing you can do now – valid or otherwise, at least not in five weeks.
SO VOTE BREXIT PARTY AND DISCUSS ALL THIS STUFF LATER.
No where do I advocate a new parliament every 12 months.
I always thought the original purpose of the house of lords was to inject some stability, deeper consideration, monetary stability, longer term effects, and suchlike into the rabid house of commons.Perhaps I was idealistically naive.
You are correct on all items, sir.
Biscotte,
In your own words, you are advocating the preservation of LabCon. I have heard it now from three Tory MPs that without FPTP the Parliamentary Conservative Party would fairly quickly shrink to a size reflecting its true percentage of support in the country. People are voting not FOR the Conservatives but AGAINST the Opposition due to the Vote-Tory-Otherwise-You’ll-Let-Labour-In factor under the FPTP.
It is a strange idea of democracy where perhaps millions of people want to vote Brexit Party but daren’t through fear. I mean you might as well banish all parties except the two main ones we’re already stuck with. I take it you’re a Tory, your encouragement to vote TBP notwithstanding. Coalitions work quite well in other countries and at the very least, the contents of their parliaments reflect the overall politics amongst the populace.
Having said, I do agree with you for the most part on your ideas on the House of Lords.