A leftward drift at the expense of choice

"Half of you may not be here in 30 or 40 years' time, but I will be and I want to be free."
William Hague, Conservative Party Conference 1977

To which one can only say that William Hague has an odd idea of what being 'free' entails. To be 'free' means freedom of action, freedom of thought and freedom of speech, not just for the individual, but for the nation - a state of affairs that neither the individual, nor our nation, has any longer.

Ever since 1997, when Labour became the government of this nation, the United Kingdom has moved steadily to the left. Halfway through Labour's tenure of 'the levers of power' the Conservative Party elected a new leader - someone who, now that he has assumed control of 'the levers of power', intends to continue the leftward drift, if present events are any indication.

With three parties now on the left, all proposing virtually the same policies whilst using different words, come the time of a general election what choice does the electorate have? Labour, Conservative and LibDem politicians all talk about radicalism and change, yet the result is just more left-leaning policies leading to even more loss of freedom for the individual.

The only choice is now offered by what the Lib/Lab/Con, almost sneeringly, refer to as the 'minor' parties, whilst seeming to forget that at the start of their evolution they were of 'minor' status too. It has been suggested that these 'minor' parties suffer from a situation whereby they have to fight an election using a form of electoral process that was designed for a two-party system. This, I venture, is but a 'red-herring' argument as the drawback that these other parties face is having to fight a media that, for a variety of reasons, does not provide the level of publicity that is provided to the Lib/Lab/Con. Reportedly, James A Garfield once said that he who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation, however it is also true that he who controls the press controls the nation.

During this progression to the left, our country has been gradually, but subtly, brainwashed by our politicians into accepting what most believe to be unacceptable change to our society and way of life. I present as an example, Cameron's Big Society with its in-built idea of 'state-driven' volunteering - a policy that he introduced as his idea. However, for some time it has been known that the European Union had designated 2011 as the European Year of Volunteering, a policy which all Member States are meant to support. So, was not Cameron 'brainwashing' the country by presenting a policy idea with which he knew full well whoever formed the next government would have to comply? Is that not 'brainwashing'?

Another example can be found in the the Hungarian Presidency 'programme' for their six-month tenancy of this post, which has just been published from which it can be read (page12):

"Better management of migration flows is important to maintaining the stability, security and prosperity of the European Union. Europe needs a geographically balanced migration policy, which should benefit society in the home as well as in the host country, and of course the migrants themselves."

By means of this policy will individual nation's societies be changed, thus forever banishing the belief in ones country of birth and likwise the fear of a resurgence of xenophobia, both of which could wreck the the European Union's creation of what would in fact be a country called Europe. Is not the idea that accepting balanced migration in order to benefit society and maintain the stability, security and prosperity of the people not brainwashing people to forget their heritage?

Regardless of what 'hold' a government has over its people, eventually an electorate will decide that they want change and will vote for that change. If none of the 'recognised' parties offer that change, voters will turn to what are presently small parties who, as a result, then become big parties - and that is a process which I believe will become more visible during this current parliamentary term.

Of course, if those small parties are unable to get the support of the electorate because of what amounts to 'behind the scenes' censorship of their activities and policies, then electorates tend to take matters into their own hands - to the physical detriment of the 'ruling clique'!