Corruption and stagnation

Politics is all about power and the use of power. We elect politicians to fulfil a set of promises (aka their manifesto) in order to make our lives better or sort out a set of issues that’s currently making our lives less pleasant. Or that was the theory anyway. I know we’ve always had corrupt politicians, occasionally they’ve been outed and dealt with, sometimes by political pressure from their parties, oft times enough by public outrage forcing the hand of the political parties.

The coalition is barely a year old yet we’re already getting the hints of scandal plus a return to old habits with the expenses scheme. Also the extent of the power our politicians have is more restricted due to several areas that are now EU competences as well as other Europeans polities such as the ECHR which means the areas in which our politicians can really make a difference in is more or less limited to education and we can see what a mess they’ve made of that. They can’t even make a European court take a flying one over prisoners votes, even though they voted to tell the ECHR to take a flying one.

Cameron seems equally to be surrounding himself with people that think his way as well as his old habit of parachuting like minded and obliged candidates into safe seats in a sort of Romanesque patron client system. Problem is, that leads to a situation where you only hear what people think you want to hear, rather than that which you need to know.
Yet it all boils down to the same, politicians are increasingly putting themselves and their parties first and no longer seem to have the best interests of the public at heart but rather hold their own masters in the EU and elsewhere’s interests first and foremost.

Yet all governments suffer a recurring problem in that power attracts pathological personalities. It isn’t that power corrupts, but that power is a magnet to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on political power, a condition to which they become addicted and this has never been so apparent in UK politics over the last 15 years, though I suppose some would point to Thatcher as at least a catalyst for the current rogue crop of corrupt/corruptible politicians. Yet what we have is a situation where politicians will hold onto power and influence way beyond the bounds of decency and good taste, recent arrests notwithstanding, few in Parliament actually got what they deserved for stealing our money.  This is one of the reasons why politicians are held in such contempt and why more and more people reject the voting system with their apathy, after all, why vote if it changes nothing?
What this situation eventually leads to is reform, either internally (best way) or by revolutionary means, complete with the hijacking of the revolution by extremists, usually of the left and usually leading to oppressive dictatorships in the name of the people but not remotely connected to them. The current situation with the economy, mass uncontrolled immigration, European interference and political chicanery may eventually force a change by the people, for the people, though sadly such revolutions often go through a period of terror before real reform happens, assuming it doesn’t go into a period of repression which in the communist block lasted for decades.
So, where will the UK be in say 5 years time if the current leaders (and their successors) follow the paths to EU serfdom and/or the deliberate destruction and dismemberment of the people of Europe from their national roots?

5 comments for “Corruption and stagnation

  1. derek M
    May 23, 2011 at 11:14 am

    On the Eurpean mainland, it could easily come to violence. This may be what the extreme politicians want. Look at all the dictators that have bedevilled Europe in the last 300 hears. Napoleon, Lenin/Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler. They all came out of some violence and defiance on the streets. They never of course, started it, but benefitted from the ensuing chaos. At the moment, it could not happen here. The Monarchy could (not would) instruct the police, or the armed forces, to remove any dictator who tried his luck. The police, and the armed forces owe their allegience to the monarch. They only do the bidding of the politicians as they are “officers of the Crown”. The Monarch can dismiss the politicians should it be required. It is the same with the judiciary. If the judges get above themselves, the monarch can dismiss them. It would be interesting to see if all this ever happens.

  2. Robert Edwards
    May 23, 2011 at 11:35 am

    I think that the last Prime Minister to be kicked out by a monarch was Lord Melbourne, slotted by William IV.

    I did hope (at the time) that at least some consideration was given at the Palace about the possibility of removing that odious snotgobbler Gordon Brown, proving as he had his complete inability to actually govern the country. But could it be done?

    We are led to understand that constitutionally, a change of PM is a bilateral affair, but it would be interesting to see that put to the test. Meddling with Parliament didn’t do Charles I much good, it must be said, but the first test of any display of Palace independence would surely be a point-blank refusal to give Royal Assent to a piece of legislation, or the appointment of membership of the House of Lords.

    • derek M
      May 23, 2011 at 1:58 pm

      The last prime minister to be chucked out by the Monarch was an Australian. Very interesting in that the Govenor General, who he appointed (to represent the Queen), did his job, and advised the Queen to sack the prime minister, whose name I forget, but I think it was in the early 80s. He went, there was a general election, that party lost, and all proceeded as normal.

      • Robert Edwards
        May 23, 2011 at 4:04 pm

        Ah, yes; I’d forgotten him. Was it Gough Whitlam? (q. spelling).

        • ivan
          May 23, 2011 at 10:10 pm

          Yes, I was there at the time.

Comments are closed.