Friday, 10 February 2012

But, QM, they're all parasites - especially the political class!

The Anger of a Quiet Man posts on the matter of Emma Harrison (a4e) who "pocketed £8.6million last year - most of it from the taxpayer". QM also quotes from the newspaper article:
"MPs voiced astonishment at the size of the payment to Mrs Harrison, and questioned why the firm had continued to win contracts despite the ‘abysmal’ record.The company even received a share of £63million in ‘termination fees’ when the DWP ended a previous back-to-work programme in which the firm was involved and replaced it with a new one. MPs were told that A4e had missed its target of getting 30 per cent of people on the previous ‘Pathways to Work’ programme into a job. The committee heard the success rate was 9 per cent. The company last night claimed a 24.2 per cent final figure. Despite missing its targets the firm was taken on to run five lucrative contracts."
It does beg the question whether Emma Harrison, in gaining five lucrative contracts (having previously 'screwed up') hit upon an idea that had 'legs' - and promptly opened them; but I digress.......

In accusing Emma Harrison of being a parasite on society, are not MPs parasites on society? At general elections party candidates present themselves as representatives of a political party that will form the government of our country - yet we all know (well, some of us do) that they will form no more than a willing herd to do their party's bidding and that of their leader who, in turn, will do the bidding of Brussels. In other words they are presenting themselves as being able to do something which they cannot, the end result of which is they become parasites on our society by being paid by society for 'non-performance'. It is also worth remembering that phrase "representatives of a political party"; because that is exactly what they are, even though they would have us believe they are our representatives.

Where any group manages to instill a system that perpetuates their continued existence, it is understandable that they will do everything in their power to maintain that situation, by whatever means. Our politicians may talk about 'localism' and 'devolution of power', but they have no intention of doing anything like that because that would immediately result in their own impotence. Our politicians may talk about 'transparency', but have none; our politicians may talk about the fact that only they know best, but don't; our politicians may talk about the fact that they are the font of all knowledge, but aren't. I am reminded of a quotation by Honore de Balzac, one which I paraphrase: "Politics is a giant mechanism operated by pygmies". If one considers any political ideology, it has but one aim and that is to distance the political class from those they are meant to represent - and it is done by the pretence of making the electorate believe they have power when that power actually resides with the political class by means of 'hidden' central control. As part of that 'control' one only has to look at the number of advisory bodies and quangos that have been created to assist 'government' to control those they are meant to serve and also, in so doing, distance themselves from those they are meant to serve.

The Bruges Group have just published a paper written by George Buchan (do read it) in which, discussing "National Interests and the European Union", he writes:
"Particularly in Europe, however, national interests are very politically expansive and partisan because government itself has become very expansive in size and scope. The narrower the size and scope of government, the less chance national interests have to be politicised and politically manipulated because governmental responsibilities themselves remain narrow. Therefore, the more the size and scope of government goes outside its core responsibilities (and therefore vital national interests), the more opportunities it has to design and create national interests which are not vital to the survival of the state (i.e. secondary), but to the survival of the government in power....."
And that last sentence has been embraced by our political class with enthusiasm as it ensures their own survival.

QM ends his post by mentioning 'tribal voting', something which the political class have furthered by their own underhandedness, epitomized by statements couched in 'politicspeak' where truth has no place. How else can one explain a situation whereby a political party, rejected by the electorate for incompetence, finds itself 5 percentage points in the lead in opinion polls once unpopular policies are announced by their opponents in government? In Parliament politicians talk about 'sovereignty', yet were the average member of the electorate to be asked what that word meant, I suspect most of them could not even spell it let alone define it. Why? Because the political elite don't want to engage in a conversation with the electorate about something that would immediately show that they, the political elite, are but a self-serving collection of egotists and careerists.

When writing "1984" it could be said that George Orwell got his date wrong by 18 years - but hey, at least he got two of the digits correct!


TomTom said...

What is interesting about "1984" is that like Animal Farm it was published AFTER WWII and not before.

It is clear where Britain was going from the sheer bankrupting of the nation through war - a theme throughout "1984" about a bombed-out economy.

This War was the Triumph of Stalinism with the Roosevelt Administration heavily infiltrated by Communists and the British Intelligence Services likewise.....the Media refreshing itself on the New Left

graham wood said...

"The narrower the size and scope of government, the less chance national interests have to be politicised and politically manipulated "

True! Not sure where I read it but Mark Steyn has just said someting similar - succintly:

"The bigger the government the smaller everything else"