In the light of the Direct Democracy initiative:
… it might be useful to watch this episode of Yes Prime Minister:
… particularly the scenes beginning 3.18 and then at 21.49.
It says all one needs to know about the commitment of the state structure to direct democracy but it also says much about this local feminist councillor Agnes portrayed in the episode.
And were some brave PM to introduce the idea of, say, each 500 people electing their own government official, thereby bypassing the corrupt council, this Yes Prime Minister episode itself turning on the idea of that being awful, as there’d be no need any more for party, PM and cabinet, let alone the bloated civil service – that still does not address the greater danger.
And that danger is a behind-the-scenes Common Purpose or whatever they call themselves at the time.
There is never a power vacuum, power simply transfers elsewhere. There is also a religious argument which says that if you remove God from the equation and all His supposed strictures, then you are not in the least left with a utopia in which innocent people gallivant around being happy and free – you are left with no defences any more against the real nasties.
A similar argument exists in the field of border controls and jihadis, plus national defence.
This is a very old post now but it goes into how such groups operate, under the guise of local democracy. It never is democratic – there is always a chairperson and where does that chairperson come from, who is she [he] and who is controlling that person?
That person has been trained in NLP [see post at the end of that link], among others things, such as when coercion works, how to apply it and so on.
Their groupthink technique, married to this new direct democracy, enables them, hitherto only “leading beyond authority” to now lead legitimately, via the votes of these cells of local, non-political, easily swayed people. Sir Humphrey and Agnes were in agreement that people cannot rule themselves but need someone to guide them, an argument we’ve heard a lot of late and we react badly to the notion.
Running a local democracy scheme may seem to us to be overturning that old system of the politburo and it is … but in fact it’s worse – it puts power in the hands of hundreds of chairpersons, who will have come out from the councils anyway, each one a graduate in courses on how to manipulate, effectively seize control and maintain that control.
There was an example years ago of a local councillor/blogger in a Tory area in England who attended just such a meeting of the new Citizen’s Jury. As well as who is controlling the meetings, there is who would have the time to devote to such matters, a sort of steering committee who carry out day-to-day tasks, a horror not unlike this:
There was also a Scottish Arts Council meeting with Julia Middleton where she manoeuvred everyone present into voting for state control of the arts in Scotland. Her purpose for calling the meeting was that the great and good “in the Arts” were invited, i.e. hugely flattered and about to be on a good taxpayer-funded wicket … and those 15 would sign over “control” of the Arts in perpetuity.
So in fact, Sir Humphrey and this Agnes were not entirely wrong. Yes, they seemingly lose control centrally, on paper but it does not pass to ‘we, the people’, it passes into the hands, indirectly, of the very Them behind governments now, without the necessity of anyone knowing what just took place.
Ideologically, just as it is today in councils, education, the judiciary, medicine and so on, these chairpersons carry on carrying out the strategic plan of the regional politburo [see EU regional plans for Britain and past referenda], which reports to the bloc committee [EU], which reports to the UN.
And there is a mock vote every few years in which they pretend that we have a say in who controls us [Agnes’s very words in Yes Prime Minister]. We therefore need to be careful what we wish for.
Solution? There isn’t one, there are only least-worst scenarios for that time, with a limited shelf life.
One such at the moment is the Donald over there but that time will pass and a new arrangement will be necessary. The Donald puts in place States’ Rights, which means the state corrupt gain more power and can stand up to the corrupt in Washington. Give further power to county or even city and you have empowered the locally corrupt at the expense of those higher up the trough chain.
Drain the swamp in Washington, yes, and then start in Des Moines, Chicago etc. Then at county level. And where do the ex-swampers go? Some flagship cases go to jail after expensive, televised trials, more lose their jobs in local government but the majority of those come back via the back door in the new admin, having hitherto flown under the radar, out of the public gaze. We only ever see the like when something goes wrong, e.g. in Rotherham.
How do they get back? Well, they do seem the most experienced to run things, don’t they, which ‘we, the people’ are too busy and/or too bored to do.
What’s the least worst scenario for now for ‘we, the people’? Possibly the Donald, certainly not May, though she knows she’s under intense scrutiny, so prevaricates at this time. She plans to ‘outwear’ everyone until Brexit fervour loses its potency. They’ve certainly wrecked UKIP through their terrible two frontrunners Carswell and Evans, proxy Tories of the worst kind.
And Nigel? He’s over there Trumping and having a gong dangled before his eyes. Game, set and match I’d say.
Why run a Direct Democracy banner? No harm in being Quixotic, is there? Why not tilt at windmills – we’ve seen that it can have limited, pretend success, e.g. Brexit and the Donald and it will continue on into Europe. All good stuff and I for one am fully committed to doing the little at my disposal to help.
But ‘we, the people’ have far more to overcome than the MSM highlighted showcases. If we can cause the swamp to be drained, just where does the sludge actually go? It waits a goodly time, does it not, then seeps back in. One generation from now – will our battles still be commemorated?