"The object of the state is always the same; to limit the individual, to tame him, to subordinate him, to subjugate him."
"A lie told often enough becomes truth."
Nick Clegg has launched the Yes2AV campaign. (A transcript of Clegg's speech can be found here, courtesy of ePolitix.)
Clegg talks about various 'wrongs' that exist today in politics: the expenses scandal; the reputations of MPs and Parliament being tarnished; huge numbers of people not voting because they believe it does not matter as their voice will be ignored; that Westminster is often referred to as the Mother of Parliaments and that our democracy should be a shining example to the rest of the world.
What correlation is there between all that and the method of selecting our representatives when, (a) political parties control how their MPs vote; (b) politicians continually break their manifesto promises (c) political parties control the process whereby their candidates are selected, including who that candidate is; (d) regardless of the system of selection, expenses irregularities will still continue; (e) whilst promising devolution of power and a recall system for MPs, politicians still retain the final veto over whether either will happen.
Apologies for, yet again, 'bangin on' about democratised dictatorship, but if a change to an alternative system of electing a representative of the people is to be made, should not it be the people who decide which of the available systems is used? Should not the people have all alternative systems explained to them and then be given the choice? The forthcoming vote on AV is undemocratic in that it is one being forced on the people by the same politicians who are, rightly, accused of ignoring those they are supposed to represent.
What difference does the method of selection make when the end result is still, in the main, a collection of venal, dishonourable and unprincipled representatives?
8 comments:
Completely agree. I'll not be voting for or against AV because it makes no difference to our loss of democratic accountability. I just hope the turnout is embarrassing, although the disgusting swine seem to be immune to embarrassment.
Apologies for, yet again, 'bangin on' about democratised dictatorship
Apologies? No - forthright statements until the buggers hear you, lad!
I intend to write An Independent Scotland on my paper. Trouble maker that I am. :)
T: Thanks your agreement.
JH: OK, anything you say, Boss
SR: You, a trouble maker? Surely not? Go for it lass!
England cannot ever be a fully democratic country until the competition between Whitehall Departments and the power of the Civil Service is crushed.
The whole electoral system, devised in the 19th Century needs reform, but the Whips and the Civil Service are the biggest obstacle to the realisation of anything truly democratic about the 'Mother of Parliaments.'
TGM: No argument from me about the content of your comment.
I am against a change to AV however I am rather taken with Tufty's approach, particularly given the rejection of the Lord's 40% amendment. I quite like the idiocy of us changing voting systems on the basis of a less than 10% turnout. How embarrasing would that be for the government?
paulsc: I know, delicious thought is it not? Unfortunately unlike the discretion that central government has passed to local authorities who can now ignore the result of a local referendum, I dont see that they have given themselves the same discretion!
Post a Comment