WHERE HAS ALL THE POLITICS GONE?

I have many decades of political awareness behind me. I remember some real ideological battles in the British Parliament. The political agenda was always full, with plenty for the philosopher and the barman to argue about.

That was the good thing about the British confrontational style of politics. It really brought out the issues – yet at the end of the day, policy seemed to be watered down at every stage, good old British compromise always winning in the end.

It seems that the more Parliament argues, the more sensible are the laws that they pass. So I look forward to good old political arguments in Parliament. But something strange has happened this year.

 I find myself asking: where has all the politics gone? We could say New Labour is wanting a calm for the anointing of Brown when Blair goes. But if so, why isn’t Cameron and the Tories screaming loud to fill in the political vacuum?

Bearing in mind my above words about much argument leading to sensible policy, we must ask, if debate is dead, as it appears to be, is it inevitable that policy will get more dictatorial and extreme?

Bring back the political argument. I don’t want to live in a country where politics is dead, and policy surrenders my freedom to the state.

© Anthony North, Feb 2007

 Have you tried NewsFlash, my general news blog?

Beyond the Blog (News page) lists my latest posts elsewhere.

THE ROLE OF THE MALE

David Cameron wants to make it socially unacceptable for fathers to duck responsibility for children. But the failure of the male today is an inevitability of history. If we go to prehistory we find religions based on fertility and the feminine. Latest theories even point out man was a scavenger rather than hunter.

We can see that before history came along, the feminine and gathering food was the main human activity. Man seemed to be only required for procreation. However he eventually forged a role as a hunter, giving us a diet of meat that we did not naturally need. But man did need to be on the ascendant.

From this initial step of the male into society, history began to form around the male ego. Chiefs, kings and eventually emperors were the result, thrusting mankind into history by submerging the feminine and creating a patriarchal society.

The whole of known history has been the result of the male feeling lost and devising a system where he could be seen to be supreme. However, over the last 40 years, the feminine has again arisen and masculinity has been in decline.

If we accept this history as accurate, we can therefore see why the male seems to be failing. He no longer has ego and patriarchy as his purpose.

Hard feminists will, of course, love the idea of a man ridiculing the male in this way. But it is more serious than this. History and society in human terms is as unnatural to life on Earth as male ego, so we must ask what human society would have been like if male ego had never arisen.

Chances are we would never have had history and advancement in the first place. Rather, embedded in the feminine, we would have remained virtually prehistoric. As to the proof of the idea, with the feminine on the ascendant once more, society has embedded itself in a never ending cycle of consumerism. It seems we have become gatherers once more.

© Anthony North, Feb 2007

See Beyond the Blog (News page) for my latest posts elsewhere.

TERMINAL CONGESTION

What are we to do with road congestion? We keep coming back to this point in Britain. The roads are full and people are buying and running cars in greater numbers. The time is fast approaching when congestion could become terminal.

The basic problem was created about a decade ago, when the government decided to virtually stop road building programs. This was, in fact, a good idea. Environmental consciousness was just becoming popular, and it seemed a good idea to help the environment. But in typical governmental fashion, the problem was dealt with half-heartedly.

In taking away road improvements, they didn’t even attempt to deal with the car itself. Of course, they appeared to do so. They put a green tax on petrol. But this had two effects. First of all it threatened commerce, and second, it made drivers so fed up that they brought the country to a virtual standstill in a few days of protest.

The environmental solution to road use must be found. But it must be found without destroying the freedoms of the person and business. Public transport improvement in town centres is one obvious answer, but we must also radically look at the car.

Whilst we should be building eco-friendly cars in greater numbers, people are turning to 4×4 battlewagons. The car makers are the only ones to answer this problem by creating eco-cars that people will want to buy. And with eco-friendly cars, road building could begin again without affecting global warming needlessly.

Of course, this won’t happen because of enterprise’s love of oil. A proper eco-car could have been here for decades if this had not been the case. But it is clear that the true answer to congestion is to change the way we make cars, sticking rigidly to the environmental agenda.

A counter argument is that road congestion will sort itself out. Eventually, people will become more time-flexible, working out when congestion won’t be as bad, and traveling then. Hence, what the government is doing is to exaggerate the problem in order to create more stealth taxes to hound the motorist.

One option that must not be tackled is the idea that you pay for road use as you drive. A tariff is set for the road and time of day and your car is tracked by satellite, adding up the miles. At first hand it seems a commonsense thing to do. But it is a system that reaches right to the heart of what a free country is.

Regardless of the advantages, the simple fact is an agency will then know where you go, and can track you throughout the country. Maybe this is why government is being so terrible at sorting out the congestion problem. Maybe it is this system of control that they are aiming to impose in the end. We must beware of this.

 Technology is now at the stage where it is easily capable of being the tool of control of increasingly totalitarian states. We must beware that the order such technology gives to our lives does not become the order of a new police state.

© Anthony North, Feb 2007

See Campaign page for how to produce a better politics.

Go to Beyond the Blog for preview of my alternative network.

I AM, THEREFORE I INTERFERE

The proposal to make getting a passport harder in Britain is symptomatic of anti-British New Labour. Yes, we have identity fraud. Yes, it is a big problem. But is this a problem we must all pay a price for?

There are about 5,000 cases of identity fraud involving new passports a year. Once upon a time, the police would devise measures to fight crime. Now they leave it up to government to legislate against the rest of us.

 On the one hand, this shows how the police have become lazy and incompetent in many areas. But this is so because they have warmed to the attitude of New Labour. And this attitude is entrenched in an anti-British philosophy.

There are two ways of looking at politics and society – the ‘little’ and ‘big’ government ideals. The big version is what leftist policies are all about. The idea is to have big government which finds its way into every nook and cranny of life.

This form of government has a simple credo – laws and interference must be based on the assumption that the population is inherently criminal and stupid. Hence, a law that should only affect a few transgressors has to cover the entire population.

New Labour has taken this idea to its extreme. Hence, because a few criminals indulge in identity fraud, we must all be put out in case we are one of them. And this is why New Labour is so anti-British.

Britain was built upon compromise and a sense of fairness. Government was supposed to be small, and as long as the Brit paid his taxes and obeyed a fair common law, the government had no right to interfere in his life.

This is the Britain that is now disappearing. Yes, it is right and proper to have a good social services network for those who need it. But in all other respects, the authorities should do their job better, and government should get the hell out of our lives.

© Anthony North, Feb 2007

Go to Beyond the Blog for preview of my alternative network. See Blogroll.

JUDGE THEM NOT

In recent times the Judges in England have been getting militant. People have varied opinions on this. Some say they should stay out of politics, to which I would say: very true – as long as the politicians stay out of matters judicial.

In their drive to control everything, New Labour has repeatedly stuck its nose into the courts where, in a democracy, they have no right. The offering of constant guidelines to sentencing does nothing but try to take away ages old roles in crime and punishment.

 If democracy has a father it is the 18th century philosopher John Locke. It was he who devised the Inalienable Rights that we take so glibly these days. But he also devised the idea of the Separation of Powers.

Although the Judiciary was a later addition, he said the Legislature and Executive should be separate powers so that those who devise the law should not run the law. With the addition of the Judiciary, the people who decide between the two should also be separate.

 In this system, no one is above the law, and dictatorship should be impossible. The system has always had an uneasy relationship in Britain. For instance, the Prime Minister is in the Legislature (Parliament) and Executive (Cabinet). The Lord Chancellor is in the Legislature (Lords), Executive (Cabinet) and actually runs the Judiciary.

But regardless of this, there has been an unwritten understanding that the three powers of State should interfere with each other as little as possible. Until New Labour raised its ugly head and decided they know best.

They don’t. History has shown which is best. So my message to New Labour is simple. Get the hell out of the Judiciary’s face. If not, another slice of freedom will be gone. Either that, or the Judges will become so militant that the law really does become as ass.

© Anthony North, Feb 2007

Go to Beyond the Blog for preview of my alternative network. See Blogroll.

TOTAL ITARIAN

Forgive the bad English of the title, but there is a reason, as will become clear. The subject is: as suggested earlier this week, is Britain becoming a police state? The obvious answer is no – when you compare it to known police states, that is. But …

A police state can best be defined by what the authorities want to control. For instance, in many police states, as long as you do not come up against authority, you are free to live pretty much as you like – in private, at least.

Taking this definition, can it be applied to Britain? I’m afraid it can. You are free to be who you want, and have any lifestyle you choose, but this comes with a proviso. The ideal citizen should also have a mortgage, new car, designer clothes, zillions of gadgets and holiday twice a year.

Ideally, the citizen should embrace globalization in all its forms, and indulge in the trivia-based consumer society that has now been created. However, if you choose not to live this lifestyle, you will find yourself increasingly marginalized and disenfranchised.

We can see, here, the genesis of the police state attitude if the way of life the authorities deem acceptable is not undertaken. Indeed, we can trace how this unnerving attitude came about.

Globalisation is said to be all about consumer society and diversity in lifestyle. The two vital elements that must be fought to allow this system to flourish are tradition and loyalty to the local, be it religious, cultural, or the family itself.

Commerce could never achieve this, but from the 1960s social revolution onwards, the liberal ideal began to creep into society. Commerce embraced this, not because it was particularly appealing, but it did a good job at smashing religion, tradition and the family.

Today, this process has evolved into political correctness. Now, whilst I agree the lifestyle freedoms we have are vital, and must never be taken away, could it be that clever corporate control of the media has turned political correctness into the new Inquisition?

We are already beginning to feel this way. Terms such as ‘thought police’ have been used, and for the first time in decades, writers are having to think what their words could do to their career and reputation. Simply disagree with the politically correct credo and you could be branded racist, homophobic or sexist.

This is a most definite move towards a police state mentality, even if it doesn’t seem to be the authorities behind it. But then again, would our present authority be in place if it did not have corporate backing – the multi-nationals in particular being the authorities behind the consumer society we now have?

Essential to the police state mentality is the ability to con the people into compliance. Our seemingly comfortable, affluent lives go a long way to achieving this. But they must also be fuelled by a cause above lifestyle. This has been done, in the past, by way of religion or ideology. We are told that, today, both are dead, so how does authority achieve this vital requirement?

Just as political correctness fell into the lap of corporate society as a form of control, so did Al Qaeda and the new wave of terrorism. Again, Al Qaeda is a dangerous threat, and measures must be taken to protect us. But we must also beware of a ‘politics of fear’ replacing ideology as a means of control. For instance, totalitarian Christendom was kept together by the fear of witchcraft from within, and Islam from without, instigating the Crusades.

As the title suggests, we are not quite, yet, in a totalitarian, police state. But by subtle means, we are most definitely heading in that direction. Perhaps we should remember a simple mantra: nothing destroys freedom more than the idea you have it.

© Anthony North, Feb 2007

Go to Beyond the Blog for preview of my alternative network. See Blogroll.

WHAT TO DO WITH THE LORDS?

The question of the House of Lords has raised its head in the British Parliament again. The latest suggestion is that it should be half elected and half appointed – hang on a minute, didn’t I hear that argument a while ago, and a while before that, and a while before that?

The problem we face with revising the upper chamber is simple. For centuries it had undertaken a vital function – to allow, into the legislature, a higher think tank, undeterred by party politics and fear of the vote.

Yes, many of the hereditary peers were a joke, but many were not. Further, the introduction of life peers meant that a wealth of experience and wisdom entered the chamber from politics, law, the military, industry and the trade unions.

In the final analysis, the House of Lords could not decide law for Britain. It could delay legislation – demand revision – but at the end of the day, it was simply a safeguard against over-zealous MPs. It was privileged, yes, but it worked.

The first law of commonsense is that if something works, don’t fix it. But with the arrival of New Labour, nothing worked unless it satisfied two major criteria. First of all, was it new, and second, did guarantee absolute authority in their hands?

The House of Lords satisfied neither of these criteria, so it had to go. But the problem of trying to remove something comes when you try to find something else to replace it with. Hence, we hear the arguments again and again and again. And nothing seems to ever get done.

Well, I have a suggestion of my own. If the House of Lords is meant to be a break on over-zealous MPs the answer is staring us in the face – and an answer that is, at the same time, quite cheap.

Elections in Britain tend to be simple things. In most constituencies, the candidate returned to Parliament is more likely to be Labour or Conservative, with the poor little Liberal Democrat trailing in second place. They get the votes, but never seem to grasp power.

I suggest we give them a chance. I suggest that, in each constituency, the candidate who came second is returned to help form a new House of Lords – or at least, an upper chamber.

The result of this is that the Upper House would be primarily Liberal Democrat, and with a hand, at last, on power, they’d no longer suck up to either of the other parties, and they just might become good legislators.

Of course, I would also suggest retaining the Lords Spiritual to remind them there might be a higher authority, and the Law Lords to curtail their habits. But if we decide the Upper House should still be there to curtail the party in power, I cannot think of a better solution.

 Do you think Labour or the Tories will buy it?

© Anthony North, Feb 2007

LOANS FOR PEERAGES, OR, BUSINESS AS USUAL

The saga of the ‘loans for peerages’ scandal in New Labour drags on and on. At the centre of the controversy is a simple question: Did New Labour break the rules by attracting money by offering honours to tickle the ego of rich and successful men? The question must remain unanswered at this time, for obvious legal reasons.
This, though, is hardly the point. From the beginning of civilization authorities have heaped favour on those in a position to help keep them in power. Whether that involves giving them a palace, a huge chunk of land, or taking money to help fight their cause in the media, the system has remained exact.
Bearing this in mind, it would be strange if New Labour hadn’t used every trick in the historic book. Their ‘crime’ appears to be being found out, and doing so when their glory days are over and people are sniffing around to find trouble.
Call me a cynic if you like – it is always the best defence when dealing with politicians. But this kind of problem will remain for as long as we allow political parties to gain so much power. What we need is a better way – and a way that dilutes the power a political party can hold.
This site exists to further this cause. If you want to do something, see the Campaign page, and help me popularize a better way.

© Anthony North, Feb 2007

Find more politics on my Beyond the Blog. See Blogroll.