"If you can control a man's thinking, you do not have to worry about his actions. When you determine what a man shall think you do not have to concern yourself about what he will do. If you make a man feel that he is inferior, you do not have to compel him to accept an inferior status, for he will seek it himself . If you make a man think that he is justly an outcast, you do not have to order him to the back door. He will go without being told; and if there is no back door, his very nature will demand one."A quotation that sums up rather succinctly all that is wrong with our 'representative democracy' and the system of government that that entails. Every statement made by politicians is couched in terms of vagueness or is a downright lie and has the underlying intention of maintaining their superiority whilst ensuring that the people remain conditioned to the idea that they must be led. In other words it is all about control - and do politicians just love that! When considering vagueness, one only has to turn to the promised recall of errant MPs made in the Coalition's programme for government and then consider what has actually occurred, likewise with the promise of Open Primaries. When considering the accusation of lies, regular readers will know that I have documented how Cameron, of late, has admirably demonstrated the ability to lie. But it is not just the deceit and lies that illustrate why the behaviour and 'terms of reference' of our political elite and politicians must be changed, it is the dictatorial attitude with which they operate in order to retain that control.
George G. Woodson
When considering that dictatorial attitude, an insidious example of what may be termed dictatorial control is today reported in the Daily Express with an article ('indented' within this article) which does not appear to be available online. For the interest of readers who do not take the print edition of this newspaper, it reads:
"Ministers provoked fury yesterday by blocking an inquiry into the £51million-a-day cost of Britain's membership of the EU. Government whips ensured that a backbench Parliamentary Bill to set up the investigation was thrown out of the Commons. Critics last night accused the Government of seeking to hide the truth from voters about the colossal burden of the UK's links with Brussels. The outcry came after recent Treasury figures showed that the UK paid !18.5billion into Brussels coffers last year, equivalent to £51million per day. Eurosceptics strongly believe the true figure is far higher once you take into account the financial effects of EU regulation and red tape. The Bill was introduced by UK Independence Party peer Lord Pearson of Rannoch. He said: "The Government trumpets its transparency and openness but is desperate to block any proper debate over the very real costs and even the possible benefits of our membership of the European Union. At a time when they are considering ramping up our loans to the International Monetary Fund with the express purpose of supporting the euro, this debate deserves to be heard. It is obvious they are terrified of the truth.". Lord Person's bill which was backed by Independent Conservative Lord Stevens of Ludgate, was passed through the House of Lords. Tory backbencher Philip Hollobone, who sponsored the bill, said: "It is very disappointing"."Lord Pearson's bill, European Union Membership (Economic Implications) Bill (which in effect called for a cost/benefit analysis of the UK's EU membership) had its second reading yesterday - yet there appears to be no Hansard available for proceedings yesterday - at least at the time of writing - which is rather odd. It would appear that the second reading has been postponed until 3rd February according to this entry on the parliamentary website. Why were there cries of "Object", who made them (I think we ought to be told) - and at whose instigation? If, as the Daily Express reports, those cries were made by Coalition MPs at the behest of the whips then it speaks ill of democracy, the Coalition, its whips and MPs. We are continually informed that the benefits of EU membership are self evident - so why will governments of all hues not provide one? Logically one would have thought they would welcome the opportunity to make their case - or is there, indeed, something to hide?
We have another example of dictatorial control within overriding national policies. The Localism Act, so we were informed, would put local people in control of planning. The Localism Act could have done that were it not for something called the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Providing a structure in which people can make planning decisions for themselves is all well and to the good, but if national planning policies which say there should be a default yes to development are unchanged, local communities may as well not bother voicing any opinions - as this letter in today's Daily Telegraph illustrates:
"Localism a lost causeDon't you just love being 'governed? Why should politicians assume an automatic right to dictate what should be in the public domanin for discussion? Why should politicians assume an automatic right to dictate that which affects your lives? Don't you know that an alternative system exists, one that allows you to govern? Its called Direct Democracy, a system that prevents politicians acting as dictators - which they so obviously do at present - and is presently up for discussion. Wise up people, you don't have to think and act as you are told - you can throw the intrusive bastards onto what would be akin to a political scrapheap!
SIR – Ours is a large village of nearly 2,500 people in rural Bedfordshire. For three years, we have been fighting a plan to build a wind farm of 10 turbines, each 400ft high and as close as 820 yards from the edge of the village – against European Commission recommendations, which are for a minimum of 2,187 yards.
After two public meetings, at which 95 per cent of those attending were against the proposal, and a full public inquiry, the development has been given the go-ahead on the basis that the public need outweighs any potential problems for the village. Once constructed, we fully expect a further application to complete the 16 turbines originally proposed.
One must conclude that the process is predetermined by a “presumption to approve” and that we might as well have rolled over at the start and saved ourselves much time, money, and frustration.