Absolute Monarchies versus Absolutism delivered by a Whipped Two Party Tyranny

How does an ordinary individual climb to the top of one of Britain’s two main political parties? Look at the Conservative and Labour Party of today, cast your mind back over their recent leaders, and then place yourself in the shoes of any young person deciding that they would wish to devote their lives to climbing to the top of such thoroughly despicable organisations.

Louis XIV in France is a good example of an absolute monarch. At least there was a chance his successor might have proved an improvement. In the two party system as operated in Britain today, only the most venal low lives have any chance of making it to the top of the two main political parties, where being all things to all men, changing views depending upon your audience are but two of the essential character requirements.

Once in power, putting aside the EU aspect for once, the leader of a majority party in the Westminster Parliament, can pretty well act as he/she wishes, because the party dependent dummies, sitting alongside and behind him, have zero independence of mind or action, as had they ever enjoyed such attributes, they would not have demeaned themselves in the first place, by becoming a mere cog in their party machine!

Monarchy at least provides a fighting chance somebody decent might come along once in a while, the whipped two party system ensures that is an impossibility.

The Conservative and Labour Cabinet Ministers of recent years provide several splendid examples of just how ghastly our system of governance has become. The handing of our independence and right to self-governance to foreigners further proves the point!

 

11 comments for “Absolute Monarchies versus Absolutism delivered by a Whipped Two Party Tyranny

  1. WitteringWitney
    June 18, 2011 at 11:20 am

    Which is where real “Localism” comes in to break this dictatorial situation we presently have in our political system.

    Modelling ourselves on the Swiss we then have people in control, MPs who are merely there to administer what the people want, less MPs required and less parliamentary sitting, no need for second homes – if they have to be there two consecutive days, then a hotel – present PM becomes no more than a CEO overseeing the entire operation, etc etc.

    But I repeat previous posts and comments……….

    • June 18, 2011 at 1:42 pm

      Quite so! The Swiss provide a perfect response to the argument sometimes put forward, that democracies will always be doomed as the electorate will eventually demand more than an economy can provide.

      Two examples from fairly recent Swiss referenda, a roughly 5% hike in retail petrol prices to cure a deficit in their health care service and approval of the purchase of F15 fighters for the country’s defence, albeit when supposedly surrounded by the peacefully intentioned EU!

    • M
      June 18, 2011 at 2:04 pm

      What are the chances of an ordinary individual ending up at the top of a party? What are the chances of even making a difference in a political party? I’m afraid the answer to both is bugger all, really, unless you’re cherry picked by some bloke to join the cliques that run the parties.

  2. Sackerson
    June 18, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    Actually, I suppose you could say that only ordinary people make it to the top, because the mavericks don’t make themselves amenable to control by the machine. It’s only when survival is threatened that we finally turn to talent (e.g. Churchill, Montgomery) – and even then, turf it out pdq when the all-clear sounds.

  3. David Capman
    June 18, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    I’ve started recommending to friends two things these days. I’ve been kind of political since a teenager, but most of my friends have historically held little interest in the subject.

    Just in the past few years – maybe since around a year prior to Brown usurping Blair, the greater bulk of those friends have become more and more jaded with their respective politicians in many ways. One good friend is a service providing contractor to one department overseen by the Home Office. His wife is a supply teacher. Another friend works as a manager in a company which provides wide transport links in London, and has nothing now but contempt for his MP in Hayes and Harlington. Other friends around the bazaars but they all have employment links and contact with Government bodies, red tape, Union activism. No need to go into that, we all know the score on such things.

    Whilst they’ve recently been asking me about a greater immersion on why we actually don’t get the Politicians we deserve, just the ones we are given, I don’t like to recommend how they vote, since it’s a freedom I don’t like to interfere with. However lately, to act as a vehicle for their frustrations, I’ve suggested simple rejectionism. Vote anyone but LibLabCon – and if it means you are compelled to put your ‘X’ beside Socialist Labour then so be it. But simultaneously advise everyone they know to do the same thing. If it begins to work, it will mean that it is possible to make every constituency in the country a marginal. Slowly, but I think it’s possible.

    Second recommender, forget your MP. Don’t write to your MP, write to your local opposing parties. The local Labour Chairman, or Tory or whoever, and tell them how you will be voting at the next election – that you expect their candidate to represent at the local level and that you would not vote for a poodle of the whips. That you would expect – well, whatever it is, but talk to the opposition and give them unambiguous points to answer. If you recieve ambiguous answers, simply reply politely advising them that due to their nebulosity of language, you will be voting against them, and advising all your friends to do the same.

    Create an anti-agenda. Don’t let their agendas gain momentum – use yours to pre-hobble. It’s worth a try.

    • WitteringWitney
      June 18, 2011 at 3:38 pm

      Not too sure about voting for Socialist Labour!

      Quite like the idea contained in your penultimate paragraph, though I would also include the sitting MP’s party too. The sooner they all know that they have to represent the majority view of their constituents the sooner the whip system can be broken.

      • David Capman
        June 19, 2011 at 2:32 pm

        Hello WW,

        I agree with your point with regard to the sitting MP’s Party – the Party, and not the MP. There are a couple of benefits from this approach. In writing to the constituency Party and not the candidate or representative themselves, you are establishing your expected order of accountability – i.e. you are holding the constituency Party responsible for the conduct of their representative, so if they do not hold their representative to proper account they can expect to forget your vote. Another genuinely gratifying aspect of this is the day subsequent to a General Election, you are guaranteed to be in a position to write out at least two ‘told-you-so’ letters. Someone, somewhere, will actually begin to listen.

        As far as Socialist Labour, well, I know…. but my point being to disestablish the establishment – vote establishment, and that’s all you’ll ever see, nothing else. A controlled and conducted protest vote will erode the Westminster power-base of the LibLabCon. It will obviate that clear blue water will open up in the cracks. Then things should get interesting….

  4. patrick Harris
    June 18, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    LOCALISM – government by unelected and unaccountable Partnerships, Agencies, Trusts, Associations etc with the most important agency -the rubber stamping local Councillor puppets, dangling on the strings manipulated by the unelected, unaccountable EU Commission.
    Stick it in the next edition of the OED.

    • June 18, 2011 at 5:03 pm

      Thanks for that, an accurate definition covering the apparent results of Localism. Do not overlook the fact that Localism is an EU project, sometimes disguised as Cameron’s, “Big Society”, the intent of which is to raise revenue for the EU, from “their” regions, without the former national governments having any say, nor means to prevent them being either “docked” or “levied”!

      This Telegraph item from last January contains some clues:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8269828/Britain-faces-1bn-of-EU-fines.html

      As Anne Palmer, who has done a huge amount of research into the Localism Bill and its roots, said to me in an email earlier this week:

      “Each and every Government since 1972 has paid billions and billions of British pounds to the now European Union. Millions have given their lives in two World Wars to keep this Country FREE to govern itself-yet present day weak Politicians have not only betrayed their memory, today’s politicians have also paid dearly in every way to ensure foreigners will govern this country forever more, without the guts to admit the treachery each person has done to the people. For the first time in the history of this Country, through its EU Regions the EU will have direct contact, with its UK-EU Citizens.

      Localism will finally neuter Westminster, the maggots who inhabited its benches will then be found in Brussels.

  5. June 18, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    Smashing analysis. What’s the solution then? Secession?

    http://tfiafc.blogspot.com/2011/06/call-to-arms-democracy-via-secession.html

  6. June 18, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Good post. Parties are the problem – they have become conspiracies against the public interest. I suggest voting for the individual who seems to be the most bloody-minded.

Comments are closed.