POLITICAL PARTIES

As I have observed elsewhere, in my view, for what little that is worth, political parties, in practise and even in concept, stink. And from where I’m sitting so do most of their members. They encourage tribalism. They divide the loyalty of an elected member, of whatever national forum, away from their electorate. They enable the pre-selection of candidates and frequently, if indirectly, of actual elected members. They unnecessarily, and usually undesirably, enhance the power of a few who have done little to earn it and frequently abuse it. They perpetuate the stupidity and encourage the idleness of an electorate that has become ever less interested and /or involved as the whole process of government has become increasingly centralised, remote from reality and apparently beyond their influence.

It all started very simply, of course. In the case of ‘The Mother of Parliaments’, in this country, members were elected to represent their electors. The franchise was very limited and their first allegiance was to those who elected them. If they deviated too much from what they were told to do then they were they were either deposed or eliminated – the net effect was the same, a new member who followed instructions ! Once elected, those members with like views grouped and formed allegiances. The largest group would carry the most clout in influencing the King and a policy would result. These groupings gradually became ‘official’, for want of a better word, and allowed the electorate, such as it was, to compare the broad views of candidates merely by ascertaining the group view. The electorate was, for the most part, educated and had, in a variety of ways, a direct vested interest in what was going on. The rot really began to set in as we progressed steadily through the 19th. Century with the 1832, 1867 an 1884 reform acts and the resultant ballooning of the franchise

The electorate rapidly became more diverse, more fragmented, frequently less well educated, more introspective and decidedly more selfish. It was now a case that very few electors even knew of their candidate, prior to election time, and even fewer actually knew him (because ‘him’ it always was!). This was when the ‘party’ really began to come to the fore. It was a totem around which electors of a particular persuasion could rally without any specific personal knowledge of the actual candidate. It was small wonder, therefore, that in these circumstances and as the possibility of instant retribution faded, candidates’ allegiances gradually transferred from the electorate to the party. The take over of the system continued unabated reaching a high point in the in the late 1930s when ‘The Ministers of the Crown Act 1937’ mentioned, in passing, that there were, actually, such things as political parties !

However, it was not until 1969 that MPs came out of the closet, publicly acknowledged that the voters of this country were now far too stupid, far too idle, far too politically useless (all true, of course !) to be able to find , select, identify and vote for a candidate of their own choosing, and allowed party descriptions to be printed on ballot papers. This was largely because, it was argued, voters were inadvertently voting for the wrong candidate! A very interesting argument, actually, because unless you are going to assume that those voting for one party are much more stupid than those voting for another then statistically this is probably a self-cancelling error. That really was the beginning of the end for the independent – sometimes even intelligent M.P.

We now have a system where we do not, in practise, vote to elect a candidate into office as an M.P. It is much more subtle than that; we actually vote against a party to put it out of office. I can hear the howling already – go away and think about it. The result is that without even thinking about it, until it is too late, we consistently elect bunches of bungling amateurs, usually by a minority of the vote, and give them more or less free reign to wreak whatever havoc they will with little if any fear of being called to meaningful account either at the time or subsequently. The fact that we still can, and indeed do, get rid of them after they have done their worst is really of very little consolation as we survey the mess that made us vote them out. And to cap it all we still fondly imagine that the equally useless lot that we threw out last time will do better this. We have even reached the point that these ‘servants of the people’ now claim that they need not in any way consider the wishes of their electors but can vote on any issue just as they see fit – which actually means doing as they are told by the party bosses or risk the consequences. Just how stupid can we get ?

In the 1990s we got rid of one lot as the media raged about the sleaze within its ranks. Now, in the following decade, we find the media, apparently with equal justification, raging about sleaze at the highest levels within the ranks of the other lot. Are we going to assume that after 10 years the first lot will have reformed itself –are we really that stupid ? Are we going to assume, after some of the revelations in its recent internal elections, that the third lot is any better ? They’re politicians for goodness sake and they have nearly reached the top – with everything that that implies. Politics and sleaze are bed mates – they were made for each other. World wide there is nothing more corrupt than the political scene. Do you really believe that it is any different here?

There’s nothing new, as far as I’m aware, in the well established practice of awarding peerages for services rendered; the apparent re-introduction of money into the transaction does, however, introduce a sour note - particularly when it involves a so called socialist party. I know that this was made illegal in 1925 after the furore caused by the activities of Lloyd George but since when have governments taken any notice of the law. They ignore it, as consistently as do the rest of us, for as long as they think that they can get away with it – which is usually a lot longer than can you or I..

Actually I am a little puzzled by some of the figures being bandied about. The Labour Party, we are told, received loans of around £14m. to fight the last election.  Fighting the last election actually cost them, so I see in the news, slightly more than this at around £15m. Given that for a full turn out they would have had 646 candidates this represents an expenditure of around £23,000 per candidate. I was under the impression that a candidate’s expenses were limited to rather less than half of this so is it my arithmetic that’s wrong or is there some other fiddle going on that I don’t know about ? And they want state funding………………………..

As in the 1990s all involved in these shenanigans are running around like demented hens pleading innocence, vowing to change the law so that it can never happen again (how often I’ve heard that phrase) and busily setting up committees of enquiry all over the place. For goodness sake, it shouldn’t require any law, changed or otherwise. All it needs is a bit of plain straightforward old fashioned honesty. But there we have a problem. If you consider the mindset of those who looked for, found and used the loopholes in the rules that they did, are you convinced that even with new laws they will not be minded to look for new loopholes and do it all over again ? As I observed above – they are politicians and playing for high stakes. As far as I can see these people wouldn’t recognise truth and honesty if they were to jump up out of the gutter and bite them. I say again, they are playing for high stakes – pure naked power, the drug on which they thrive.

We are left with the sober realisation that our political parties all appear to be not only technically financially bankrupt but morally bankrupt as well. I can’t help feeling that if they weren’t what they are they would be out of business on the one count and shunned by all decent people on the other. They are, after all, only private clubs – rather like working men’s clubs or golf clubs in fact - membership available upon payment of the appropriate subscription and always providing that the committee do not find some reason for refusing entrance. We are effectively being governed by one or another of an assortment of private members clubs. It’s little better than asking the local golf club to form a government – although on reflection they couldn’t really do much worse.

The leadership of the private members’ club in power at any given time governs through a collection of clones ostensibly voted in by the electorate but actually pre-selected by them. We pay them a grossly inflated salary (with additional expenses) and an even more grossly inflated pension for actually achieving very little. We pay the leaders even more excessively to do little extra except ponce around the planet trying to look as if they are important. I have already referred to possible state funding for these working men's clubs because they now want us to fund the farce, in the form of an election, which is used to try and legitimise the whole total confidence trick. There, indeed, is a recipe for disaster, for corruption on a grand scale, if ever there was one. With a gravy train like that there’d be no stopping them. You have to give it to them; they’ve certainly got a nerve.
 
So why do we accept these parties ?  Why do we put up with them ? Why, on the face of it, do we positively embrace them ? Why, apparently, can’t we do without them ? Are they necessary ? Are they, in fact, even desireable ? Do you really, really trust them ? You don’t ? Then why the hell do you elect them ?? The answer is the same as for so many of the questions I have asked in this series. Pure bloody minded idleness on the one hand and wanton bloody minded stupidity on the other.

We are too stupid to work out that we are being conned. We are too stupid to work out that the lot that we threw out last time will not be any better next time. We are too stupid to work out that our representatives do not, in fact, represent us and too idle to do anything about it. We are far too busy pleasuring ourselves to accept a little bit of responsibility and find ourselves a candidate who will represent us - as in a democracy, by definition, they should. We have been brainwashed into an acceptance of the dictum that ‘only a party with a substantial majority can provide the strong government’ that we need which is a load of crap and actually translates to ‘only a party with a substantial majority can (and will) abuse its trust by doing just as it damned well pleases (as they do) until the next election and to hell with the lot of us’. We really have got to get this rubbish back under control, but I have to confess that now that they have more or less successfully and more or less completely robbed the British people (with their active connivance) of their birthright, I do not quite know how.

How sad !!!!!