"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience."
John Locke (1632-1704)
"I believe its better to tell the truth than to lie, better to be free than to be a slave and its better to know than to be ignorant."Perhaps the greatest of all properties that the people own is their own freedom, yet politicians through the ages have usurped that freedom and done so by dictatorial means. Consider, why is this country still a member of the European Union when that body is far removed from that on which the people were last given a choice? Why have draconian laws been introduced - and are still being introduced - which bear no relation to that which political parties promised in their manifestos? Immediate examples of the latter question that spring to mind are the smoking ban, the recall of MPs and the devolution of power to the people, including a right to request referendums.
When the Coalition was created the public were led to believe that political differences had been put to one side for the good of the country and the Foreward to their programme for government intimated that. The people were also assured that the two parties realised that by forming a coalition their visions would not be compromised by working together; that they would be strengthened and enhanced. Strange then that those differences which were supposed to have been put to one side, have resurfaced; that the visions would not be compromised but would be strengthened and enhanced, have not been strengthened, nor enhanced. We are treated to articles in the press detailing what amounts to internecine warfare between the two Coalition parties, here and here (free registration available for access). How can such a situation arise if the two parties are supposed to be working harmoniously together for the good of the country? How is the good of the country served by two parties, supposedly working together, yet spend what seems to be an inordinate amount of time 'point scoring' off each other?
The answer lies in every political party's inherent lust for power - and absolute power - because, under our system of representative democracy, why else would people enter the field of politics? It most certainly is not to act in the best interests of those they are supposed to represent - and if it is, then it is indeed odd that they form what is called a government, a word derived from 'govern', ie, to 'rule'. It also begs repetition of Ronald Reagan's question from his first Inaugural Speech "But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"; so by what 'right' do politicians continue their usurpation of power via the practice of politics?
No country can be served when those elected to work for that country's benefit are at virtual loggerheads. No country can be served when those elected have, in effect, unfettered power whilst holding office unless the people have the means to halt those policies which they are against. No country can be served when those elected to office assume the belief that they and only they have the right to dictate to their fellow man. No country can be served when those elected to office are untruthful with their fellow men, through omission of all the facts, or in some instances resorting to downright lies.
Through the lack of transparency and truth, one of the deficits within our democracy and one practiced by our politicians, the people remain ignorant. As an example, let us consider that of membership of the European Union, in which the political mantra is maintained by all parties, that the benefits are obvious. Is it any wonder that this subject does not appear very high amongst concerns expressed to MPs by their constituents when it is rarely raised by those MPs - and on the rare occasions it is, is ignored by the MSM? It is logical to assume that were that not the case the subject may well rapidly rise up the list of consituent's concerns.
Daniel Hannan has just posted, 'railing against HS2" (pun intended), and quoting the old line that it matters not for whom you vote as nothing changes. He points out that while Councillors, MPs and even MEPs are against the new line, it has mattered not and questions is it any wonder people have give, up at the ballot box. Towards the end of his article he laments the passing of Sir John Hempden who, he asserts, lived and died for the democratic cause: for the ideal that the executive should not be allowed to disregard the people's representatives -- unfortunately he omits to state that neither should the people's representatives be allowed to disregard their constituents - a fact that is probably the root cause for why the electorate has 'given up a the ballot box'.
The sorry state of our democracy is further illustrated by a another quotation from H.L. Mencken, one most pertinent to our politicians:
"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."and then, in accordance with present political principles, rescind that promise once elected.
Afterthought: In answer to a parliamentary question, details of all consultants used by HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport have been published, details which includes their names, remits and costs to date. (H/T: Sue at Muffled Vociferation and @EU_Dictatorship on twitter)