A tad late but I have just discovered an article, on the Telegraph website, by Jon Cruddas and Jonathan Rutherford: Cruddas being the MP for Dagenham and Rainham and Rutherford being a Professor of Cultural Studies at Middlesex University. It is an article which, if illustrative of his political colleagues in Parliament, demonstrates why there exists a great "divide" twixt our politicians and the people. Crudddas and Rutherford begin their article with a statement which I believe is purely the result of central government control in all aspects of the live of an individual:
"Last night Westminster was abuzz with news of Alan Johnson’s departure. Why has he gone? What does it mean for Labour? Will Ed Balls recalibrate Labour’s economic policy? But the gossip and the questions are not shared much beyond a small elite. They do not resonate in the daily lives of people."
For too long our national politicians have exerted control over the people in every aspect of their daily lives and in so doing have spoken "at" the people, rather than "to" the people. As a result, is it any wonder that Johnson's departure and Balls "accession" did not extend beyond a small elite and that the news had no "resonation" in the daily lives of people?
The article makes the following points:
"In Dover, the port is up for sale and the people are campaigning to buy it and create a community asset. They don’t want a foreign-owned port, they want a port that is “forever England”. Football fans are building community-based organisations by share purchase – in Liverpool, for example – to save our clubs from foreign corporate power. In the Forest of Dean, thousands are protesting at the plans to sell England’s woodlands. In London, porters at Billingsgate fish market are campaigning to stop the City of London abolishing their role and making them redundant."
But seems to ignore the question: why is this so?
The question is then posed:
"Where is Labour in the fight for England?"
Where, indeed, is Labour in this fight? Where, indeed, are the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats? Surely the "fights" that the people of England are engaged in are to preserve their "Britishness" and also shows that they do not wish to be part of a country called "Europe"? Yet why do what are termed the three main parties continue to ignore the views of the people and force them down a path that is not wanted?
Cruddas and Rutherford then continue to pose a conundrum:
"Labour is no longer sure whom it represents. It champions humanity in general, but no one in particular. It favours multiculturalism, but is suspicious of the symbols and iconography of Englishness."
Just how does one force disparate beliefs to live together without "tensions" arising? As with so much of the social engineering that politicians have implemented, a policy has been introduced without any thought being given to possible ramifications that may, or probably will result - and then the politicians sit back in amazement when it does not work and ask themselves why that is.
Yet another telling part of this article is where the authors write:
"It is as if we do not live in a country so much as an economic system that is owned elsewhere and over which we have no control."
Just how can the authors make such a statement? Have they been walking round with their eyes shut since 1972? That is exactly how we do live! Yet these two men make a statement and ask us to believe that it has only just arrived within the range of their vision? Ye Gods!
I have to question also the authors use throughout of the word "England". Are they accepting that because of the Labour policy of devolution that the concept of a United Kingdom is now broken? This is yet another example of a policy that was introduced for electoral gain and not "thought through". Yet with the right reform Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could have had the local autonomy for which they wished and the concept of a United Kingdom retained. This could not have been accomplished whilst the United Kingdom remained a member of the European Union, which begs the question why the Labour Party, then the government, did not present a fair and balanced manifesto to the people when their policy was first introduced.
As with devolution, so with the problems created by the lack of control over immigration and the ensuing problems of multi-culturalism. Like devolution, so with the gerrymandering idea of Labour to open the doors to immigration with a view to increasing their voting base - another idea whose ramifications were not "thought through". But hey, it provides the politicians to practise that art with which they are so expert: passing yet more laws to counteract problems that they themselves have created!
Cruddas and Rutherford may well, within their own fields, be a respected politician and academic - however the question has to be asked how they achieved such status whilst not possessing a brain!