The future of our country

With the way in which the present political landscape stands - and whether or not this Parliament lasts its 5 year term - our country faces what may be called Armageddon in that at the next election the people can expect to be governed by Labour; a continuation of the Lib/Con Coalition, or a Lib/Lab Coation; or the Conservatives.


Can any reader, hand on heart, tell me exactly what the difference will be? Will we not continue to suffer the indignity of governance from Brussels? Will we not continue to suffer governance by the State? Will we not continue to suffer, as a result of the governance by the State, yet more interference in our lives? Will we not continue to suffer yet more curtailment of our freedoms?


For those of us who know that our system of representative democracy has failed and has been infiltrated by those with what may be termed a common purpose, what avenue exists for us to make our voices heard other than blogging and/or commenting on other blogs? For those of us who know that an alternative system of democracy exists - one encapsulating direct democracy and referism, or either individually - what opportunity is there for us to get our views more widely known? The only method is utilising the 'services' of the MSM - but what if the MSM does not wish to 'know', or print/repeat our views?


Where are think tanks such as the Centre for Policy Studies or the Bruges Group - organisations that have a virtually immediate access to the MSM? Where are 'independent' journalists, such as James Delingpole, Ed West, Gerald Warner or Simon Heffer - journalists who continually write about the benefits-not of the status quo? I have 'fed' them 'intros' to what are 'matters of concern' on a number of occasions, but to no avail. At the last general election I alerted them to the campaign the Albion Alliance was conducting, one in which those of us involved in that campaign attempted to email every candidate who was standing, requesting that they stood for the return of our country's independence - to no avail. I have 'fed' them 'intros' about the demand for direct democracy and/or referism - to no avail. Or have they too been 'subverted'? Or are they - as are politicians - only interested in their careers?


I am beginning to think, admittedly belatedly, that the PTB (both political and journalist) are indeed members of the same club - due, of course, to their dependence on each other. There is, of course, no point in appealing to Members of Parliament, such as Carswell, Hollobone, Cash, Bone, who are obviously 'career politicians' - likewise Hannan, an MEP - all of whom espouse 'direct democracy' without appearing to completely understand what that form of democracy actually means. Their idea of direct democracy entails no more than continuance of the status-quo, ie continuance of central control by them. Shame on all those named!


Which begs the question whether the only alternative for we the people, who are only too aware of the deficits in our democratic system, is outright, armed rebellion.


Just asking......................

So much for political principles - Cleggstyle

A good spot from Paul Waugh who tweets: "Clegg rails against 'brutal' Remploy factory closure...in 2007"


If nothing else brings home that our politicians are 'men (and women) of the moment' then this video does! They care nothing for those that vote for them and subsequently fund them; they care nothing about principle and honour; they care nothing about the country they are meant to safeguard; they care nothing about anything but themselves and their careers!


The sooner we, as a country, adopt direct democracy and referism the better and freer we will all be, as the Judas Goats amongst us will be castrated and we sheep will learn that we can think and decide matters for ourselves!


Just saying.........................

C'mon Ukip, make your mind up

I have been reading the 'New' Constitution on the Ukip website and am slightly puzzled by apparent contradictions where the granting of referenda are concerned.


In the section "What We Stand For" it states: "Give the public power to require binding local and national referenda on major issues."


In the section "Criminal Justice" it states: "Allow binding national referenda on controversial public law and order issues that are outside party politics. The public must have the final say."


In the section "Constitution" it states: "Introduce ‘Direct Democracy’ whereby 5% of the national or local electorate can demand a binding referendum on any issue."


So, are referenda to be allowed on "major issues", or "issues that are outside party politics", or "on any issue"? What are the definitions of 'major' and 'issues that are outside party politics'? If referenda are to be granted 'on any issue', why are the others mentioned?


If there is any member of the Ukip NEC or party heirachy among my readers, perhaps they would care to solve my dilemma? I do not mind waiting whilst 'New' policy documents are drafted..........

The case for direct democracy

Regular readers will know that I have, of late, become an advocate for direct democracy, encapsulating 'referism', to be introduced in our nation; a system to replace the present 'representative democracy' which I maintain is no more than 'democratised dictatorship'.

Politicians present themselves as the only means wherein their forming a government is the only vehicle by which a nation can deal with the outside world through international relations and in so doing decide, facilitate and guide what are a nation's interests; as it is maintained by politicians that only they can protect and safeguard all that lies within its borders. In which case a democracy would only permit a government to be responsible for its military, defence, security and economic policy. Contrary to current political belief it is not the role of government to create wealth and prosperity - although they have this idea that that is something they can do.

The 'primary' responsibilities of a government are those set out above, which means that any others are 'secondary' and are, therefore, not concerned with the survival of a nation but more of development of a nation and its society. Bearing in mind human nature, whereby once an individual gains a power it attempts to acquire yet more power, politicians have a tendency to confuse and conflate secondary responsibilities, thereby creating a suggestion that those secondary responsibilities are in fact of vital national interest - and must be 'regulated' by them - and thus increasing their power.

In a true democracy national interests cannot be removed from an electorate's interests otherwise what has been created is government by fiat. If democracy is to be the system by which a nation is to exist, then the benefits that the people enjoy and the rules of the society in which they live must mean that the people have a fundamental role to play in the guidance of a nation's future and must be able to act as the "port of last resort" where decisions affecting that nation are concerned. It is for that reason - and that reason alone - why the active and participative involvement of the people is not just desirable but is, one could suggest, mandatory. It therefore follows that the more distant from the people that decisions are taken, the closer democratised dictatorship becomes.

Where 'government', as presently practiced, is concerned it will always be rooted in a possession of power and expansion of that power, or a preservation of the status quo with a view to expansion of that power - and therein lies the danger of the people's individual freedoms being eroded - which in turn means that there can be no 'demos'. Clausewitz famously declared that a nation's behaviour  is motivated by its need to survive and prosper - and who better to make that decision than the people of a nation? The fact that the European Union is desperately seeking "a soul" - a "crie de ceour" of Jacques Delors - a characteristic that it surely lacks, shows that because each individual nation wishes to be itself, the European Union cannot, logically, succeed in its aims.

That the foregoing shows the present system of democracy cannot be allowed to continue, is undeniable. That the people who fund democracy must be allowed to dictate the system of democracy under which they live, is undeniable.

In ceding the power to dictate, guide and decide our nation's future - have not our politicians abrogated their right to 'power'? Is it not time that the people reclaimed their right to decide their nation's future? Is it not time that the people re-assumed their inalienable right to decide their own future?

Does not the piper call the tune?

Just asking...............

Sounds like direct democracy to me...........

"The peace that comes from.......being able to run your own lives, spend your own money and make your own choices........"

 If only she had taken those extra steps..........