Duty of care

A phrase normally heard when the subject is related to hospitals/patients; housing associations/vulnerable tenants; and care homes/elderly residents, for example. One area to which the phrase never seems to be applied is that concerning our government where the well-being of our people is concerned.

This point can be illustrated with this report in the Daily Telegraph dealing with the fact that various charities and think tanks are calling for the Lib/Lab/Con to sink their idealogical differences to ensure that the elderly are looked after properly. Yet another report in the same paper states that it is likely MPs will recess earlier than normal this year due to the difficulties they will experience attending Westminster, said difficulties relating to tight road restrictions around the Palace of Westminster in the run-up to the Games, arguing that they will make travel to and from Parliament difficult. We also learn via Bruno Waterfield, writing for the same newspaper, that it is likely British families will face an additional tax burden of £200 per annum if the EU gets its way and imposes a system of direct taxation as a form of rising funds for the EU - and this at a time of supposed austerity where our national finances are concerned. On the same theme, we have David Cameron maintaining that, whilst our own people are suffering deprivation through cuts at home, we should continue spending 7% of GDP on foreign aid.

The fact that governments do have a duty of care to the people of this country cannot be in doubt. The policial class continually inform us that only they know what is good for us and that that is their 'raison d'etre' - and who are we to argue with them?

I have to ask how any government can exercise their duty of care towards the people they are supposed to govern when they have submitted themselves to a higher authority, one over which the British public have no control? One of the basic tenets of a democracy is that of "no taxation without representation", meaning that those who impose taxes must be directly answerable to their electorate via the ballot box - so how, pray, are those who wish to impose a possible additional tax bill of £200 answerable to the British electorate? In their manifesto for the last general election the Conservative Party stated: "We will honour our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on overseas aid from 2013, and to enshrine this commitment in law.", which immediately begs the question who but an incompetent financial fool promises to spend money without knowing beforehand how much money will be coming in and what other obligations he/she has?

All the foregoing are but a few examples which demonstrates that which is wrong with the political system presently practised in this country. We have a situation in which:

• the choice of those presented from which we can elect as our representatives is one decided by each political party
• there is little difference between the views of the Lib/Lab/Con, other than the means by which they all seek to reach the same conclusion, thus rendering the electorate dependent on which political dogma triumphs
• the political class is intent on dictating to the electorate their views, whilst remaining deaf to the voices of those they are supposed to serve
• there is no control of how - and on what - the political class spend money which is not theirs
• the political class make financial decisions, whilst demonstrating a lack of financial acumen
• that the Lib/Lab/Con instigate policies for which they have no direct mandate
• manifestos are non-binding, consequently are not worth the paper on which they are printed
• that our politicians rely, in their utterances, on obfuscation and downright lying in their dealings with their electorate
• those elected are forced by their party to place party before country and their constituents, who's views they are supposed to represent
• the state has changed from being a facillitator to that of a provider, one who's decision is 'final'
• that regardless of the problems being experienced by the people, the comfort of the political elite should be catered for
• that the above demonstrates we do indeed live in a 'democratised dictatorship'

(As an aside, all the above bullet-points are applicable to both national and local politicians.)

The foregoing also demonstrates that at present the elected representatives are masters of those they are supposed  to represent - which is a complete reversal of the natural law that those who provide the funds and those that appoint 'representatives' are in fact the masters.

It must be obvious that this situation cannot be allowed to continue, because if it does continue the people of this country will be no better than those who live/lived under communist regimes. It is for that reason I am throwing my weight behind the idea of Richard North and his campaign for the introduction of "Referism", an idea that would be a step to reintroducing the true master/servant relationship.

The British people have been led into servitude, that servitude being one of dependence on the will of our political elite - and therefore the State - and one practised by themselves or their paid lackeys (charities and quangos). It is a fact of history that the British people do not take kindly to being told what they must do and how they should behave, the eventual realization that they have been will hopefully produce a result well worth seeing.

However, those of us who accept the basic beliefs of "Referism" have, unfortunately, still to resolve one (or maybe three) problems:

1. How to restore sight to the blind that they may see that which is happening around them

2. How to restore hearing to the deaf that they may hear that which is happening around them

3. How to restore the power of thought to brains that have been 'lobotomised'.

Answers please (although not on a postcard.....)