With thanks to Edward Spalton who brings this post to my attention, a post about Spain, by a Spaniard, in which the question is posed:
"YOU KNOW it's a weird country one where someone who has been in government for seven years is declared as his party candidate and starts saying that he has the recipes to put the country on track."
It is a question that can be asked of virtually every western democracy and lends argument to the proposition put by some commentators to this blog who propose the abolition of all political parties, which all things considered is not a bad idea. In regard to the UK perhaps Cameron, Clegg and Ed Miliband, together with their robotic colleagues, would care to refute this idea? Just how many of our MPs have not campaigned at more than one general election that they have a new recipe to cure the nation's ills? The fact that on each occasion the British public fall for this scam, electing either Labour or Conservative on half-baked, half-explained manifesto promises - or in some instances policies not even mentioned, shows that the idea of political parties has outlived its existence.
If one believes, as I do, that those elected to a 'parliament' have but three main areas of responsibility; the defence of the realm; foreign relations and immigration, then why do we need political parties? The responsibility of those elected representatives would be but to see that the will of the people in those areas is maintained - ie, all they have to do is to manage those three operations. The only matters on which the electorate would have to choose is who can do just that the most efficiently and at the least cost. The same process can be then applied locally, whatever the subject in question, whether it be the type of education, the level of policing, healthcare, taxation or the regularity of bin collections.
What is not to like, remembering of course the simplest of ideas are the easiest to implement - and they always work!
I have deliberately left the suggestions above vague in the hope that it will produce a reasonable number of opinions, resulting a good discussion!
11 comments:
Witterings from Witney: ...shows that the idea of political parties has outlived its existence.
Including UKIP?
(UKIP member here.)
P: As a member myself, Yes! Prove to me why we need any political party? They have all had accusations of wrong-doing thrown at them, including Ukip.
Small government, both national & local, liberal use of referenda - what can beat that, we can govern ourselves...
How is Belgium getting on without a government?
Every election we are urged to go out and vote for party X. Certainly both of the major 2 parties churn out the same rubbish in their manisfestoes only to bin them once in government. UKIP at least offers an alternative to the 2 plus the Limp Dims.
I agree that government should be responsible for the Defence of the Realm, foreign relations and immigration and maybe the law of the land.
I believe that businesses should have a bigger say in education and maybe investing some of their own money. A sort of co-operative education if you like.
For health, the NHS is a monolithic institution that takes too much money from the taxpayer and is so inefficiently run. I have a relative who has been a nurse for about 25 years and tells the truth. Unlike politicians and the unions. Where I work we have an ex-junior doctor who got out of the NHS early in her career because it is a disaster area.
Councils should go back to being run by local people with only giving locals what they want. Not giving vast salaries to 'climate change co-ordinators' etc. Local builders, postmen, bakers and if there are any left candlestick makers who can relate to the majority. Who don't want £250,000 per year.
Have I gone on too much?
tso: You say what and how much you like on this blog comments section. The only proviso is acceptable language use and no libellous statements.
It does un-nerve me when political parties talk of being in 'power' rather than being in 'office'.
The 'specialone' includes law of the land which is right but that law should have greater emphasis on protecting private property and personal freedom.
A: Yes, would agree about law of the land - however that must be what we, the people, say it is and not what politicos say it is!
Is there a democracy on the planet which doesn't have a party system? I can't think of one. Even the ulta-democratic Swiss have political parties do they not? Nice idea but if it worked it would have been tried elsewhere (That's why the NHS hasn't been tried elsewhere!).
k: But don't you see? Why do we need political parties? Justify their need then please? If we the people are deciding what is to happen, making them justify their need for money etc, ("Referism") then all that is needed is administrators to make that happen.
wfw: "Justify their need then please". I'll have to sleep on it and respond tomorrow morning. G'night.
wfw: I've slept on it and, to be honest, I can't really find a justification. I would be concerned, however, if only the wealthy could afford to run an election campaign.
I do think though that we should concentrate on that which is achievable rather than the theoretical. Introducing ideas such as a parliament of independents and Dr North's "referism" are all very well but are clearly very much long term and we just don't have the time. In the short to medium term we should focus on helping UKIP gain as many votes as possible at future elections and how that is best achieved.
k: Justification is hard to accept, isn't it?
It need not be limited to the wealthy, just those who can exhibit an expertise for areas of administration.
Accept your comments about supporting Ukip, but at the same time Ukip need toget their act together!
Post a Comment