Impoverishing the Nation.
Impoverishing the Nation.
The only major country without a constitution which safe-guards the peoples interest against executive excess of power; is the UK. As the much hyped home of democracy and having ‘pride’ in an unwritten constitution, it is increasingly becoming an abysmal embarrassment that neither it (unwritten) nor the democratic process has the power to aid and direct the fortunes of the UK. The powers in the state of the nation have always resisted any attempt to condone the need for a written constitution by the expediency of there being sufficient laws of the lands; custom and practice, and a free judiciary that responded slowly to social change. Yet over the last 3 decades governments have shown an inherent tendency to enact laws that systematically reduces any pretention that an unwritten constitution is robust enough to counter a states desire for greater control of its populace. In the governments production of these constraining powers, it has increasingly been held to task by the imposition of EU laws and for some objectors to fall back on the EU Humans Right act etc or the nascent EU ‘constitution’ (Albeit not as a yet called a constitution to preserve sensibility of rejection, as it is going by the title of 'treaty of Lisbon' of December 2009) is laborious and open still to periodic disregard by the UK executive and by implicit direction; the state legislative.
It does seem curious that the UK, alone of many countries that holds up democracy as a rallying beacon that has itself injected democracy onto other countries and formed elements of a constitution that others have excepted onto their own constitutions, has resisted any attempt to give its UK population a constitution of its own. It has often been said that the reason why the UK does not have a constitution is because there is a number of existing long standing documents that preserve the right of the populace as in The Bill of Rights, passed by Parliament in December 1689, the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 together with many other lesser known acts and they are, with interpretation, flexible to adapt with time avoiding unnecessary rigidity which a constitution might imply. However, it is this flexibility that is a contaminating weakness, for as much of that which governs the states imposition onto civil life, has become strained and reliant instead on the allocation of established case laws and newer laws created by the state that often go unchallenged due to cost of a challenge and without which continually moves against the freedom of speech, association, assembly, justice, liberty and personal life. The historic laws are seen more lately as outmoded by recent governments seeking to secure the state of the nation and populace against ‘terrorism’ and disorder. The imposition of newer laws and regulation in support of the increasing state control over its citizens can be seen in the RIPA Act 2000 (Regulation of Investigatory Powers), Terrorism act, ID cards etc, with many of the attributes seen as regressive or repressive by those of a libertarian view. Some actions of state have undermined elements of the “unwritten constitution” described above, to be challenged later in the European court and on a number of occasions have found the ‘governments stance’ wanting, when measured against the range of EU laws, Acts and Treaties.
In some way this is no surprise for if one looks at the history of other countries that have adopted constitutions, taking say:
France. 1791 – 1958
Germany. 1871-1949
USA. 1787
Canada. 1867
Australia. 1989-1900
Et al.
It could be noticed that these all have some things in common, that is, that they are all republics, have strong constitutions and do not (with the exception of titular heads) have a sovereign hierarchic.
In comparing these to the UK, three thing stand out; one that the UK is still governed by an achronistic reliance on the sovereign being the force of law yet it has no actual power but is used by the state as the authority for the laws it passes and two; in recent time the lack of a written constitutional form and held within the power of the people has meant that the state can and had on a number of occasion seen fit to overrule, delete and excise ‘rights’ to the extent that more power is being centralised into the hands of the state. And finally, it has had for some time a diametrically opposed two party political system that cannot give any long term consistency to policies, governance, and strategic, economic or infrastructure planning. The lack of which has been the slow eroding of the state of the nation, its wealth, social integrity, prestige and trading position. It is this depletion that is the stuff of the fall of nations and it is a state of affairs that has yet very little prominence; even in this election year.
What has helped this depleting situation is the outmoded and disgraced political system of ‘first past the post’. This is a system that for the last 100 years has suited two major parties that saw no reason to adopt any substantive changes that could weaken their overall position of power once in office. Although for them it has been of tremendous use to propagate their self interest ideology with little regard to the mass of the population, other than once every 5 years; the diminishing poll turn out has shown just how repulsive the voting process has become when it is pointless to cast a vote in an area that has an inbuilt overwhelmingly protection of one party over the other – a safe seat. This process is also aided by the strange yet excessive power that is focused on the ‘marginal seats’, these seats that are so valuable to gain that winning them swings a winning balance to one party over another with a unrepresentative poll volume and turnout. It is therefore seen in many other constituencies, pointless to vote, for in numerical terms little account is taken of those votes and with the unpopularity of politian’s themselves, is fostering a drop in electorate turnout. This fall-off of electorate turn out plays into the hands of the main political parties and has allowed them to often drive through their agenda with little opposition or in-depth scrutiny and generates a swing of one dogma to another at election times simply to be a political power. It is through this vacillating state of affairs, that for the last 60 years such a narrow view is taken of the state of the nation and in what direction it should go, which has allowed parliament to ignore alternative views and generate a fragmented social perception of ‘them and us’, a view so pointedly made by the Conservative MP Nicholas Winterton, who said, in relation to first class train travel provided to him courtesy of his position, that those who travel in standard (second) class are “ a totally different type of people - they have a different outlook on life etc” and would not wish to travel with them. This is no more than an declaration of the notion of a class structure, one that parties assume has been neutered or practically homogenised from upper-class, middle class and working class; crude definitions and ones that many people may not subscribe too or want to be associated with, yet the only true structure is of two; working class – those that have to work for a living and those that have the resource not to. The artificially created aspiration middle class is one not wanting to be associated the ‘blue collar’ sweaty working class of industry that built the country. If this division is not clear enough, have a drive through the English countryside during an election time (like now) and note the preponderance of poster, planted in green fields of the landed gentry, extolling one to vote for a conservative candidate and the distinct lack of any labour or liberal placards. One has to ask the question; why should this be the case? Is the answer within the illusion of multiculturism, homogenous no class structure?
It is the tension in the perception of the difference between these two (or three?) classes and the sway they give to the political parties that often generates fervor of support for one over the other. Through this division much destructive energy is expended, largely by the signed up party supporters, to map manifestos and persuade governmental action to modify organisational constraint or latitude and waste financial resources bribing one over the other. This process of party and political dichotomy makes no allowances for the views or whishes of a high percentage of non-voting or disenfranchised electorate, ignored by the ‘first past the post’ system. (Symptomatic of the Bush US hanging chads election)
The current interesting tussle between the parties, as it is the April /May 2010 election time, is made all the more interesting with the prominent success of the Lib-Dems who seem to have; at long last, begun to make an impression on the two party systems. It would seem that the public has woken up to the fact that there is an alternative choice to the facilitating of dogma that has been a drag on the UK over the past 60 years. As much as the key players want to down play the recent populism for the Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg, it does, or should tell them, something about their own performance over the handling of politics. Although many of the younger voters to-be will not remember the highs and lows of their previous administration periods, it is the older voters that make a greater effort to vote and it these that have memories of the variety of vacuous efforts of the two party system.
Examine the manifestos of the two main parties; they again offer little in the way of real change, one with a vague hint of a referendum on something of democratic reform and both on methods of tackling the economy etc. They will both have to deal with the problem of the credit crises, recession, debt, non productiveness of the UK and an over reliance on imports and its (soon to be) consequential inflation. All at a time when interest rate need to be kept low to stimulate consumer demand but perversely will have to be forced higher to appeal to the money market to keep the value of the pound buoyant; even though it has been practically reduced by 20% already! Yet at the same time be seen to stifle ‘beneficial’ inflation for the national debt, inflation that is not being created internally as yet with no great demand for wage increases due to threats of increasing unemployment and all this is likely to be compounded with the forthcoming reducing disposable incomes. Both parties continue to want to be ‘first past the post’ with a majority vote on a decreasing numerical turnout that does not reflect a true democratic mandate. Every vote does not count!
And of course the hard reckoning has not even started yet, for once the rebalancing of the economy starts to takes place some rational unprejudiced policy will be required. It cannot be said, given the history of both, that either of these two parties will be able to act in a new non-prejudicial way. So the country can suffer the pain fast and be more individually independent (big society, self help) the Cameron way to unravel social infrastructure, with paupers tax and less regulations of the conservative upper class desires and its pleading for beneficial “change”; or have pain slower with a resemblance of social integrity, preserved employment, proliferate tax and regulations the Labour working class way with the Blair - Brown’s ‘steady as we go’ that has unfortunately, during their tenure, widen the gap between rich and poor!
It could be argued that with the polarisation of the two parties that has afflicted the UK over the years; neither has really grasped the strategic requirement that is needed for the UK. Both have moved to a centralist ground of politics but have also pursued an element of special pleading that appeals to their own supporters and in doing so have often undermined the better arguments of each other for reason that have little to do with attempting to solve the underlying problems of the UK but have made it substantial worse in its position in the worlds economic standing. Despite any of this one has to consider the harsh reality of the historic background of both these parties and one might reach the conclusion in looking at their current format that within the ‘powers behind the throne’, although the direction of travel may have become muted to avoid extremism of political policy and views, there may be little that they will be able to do without making a concerted attempt to gain a majority popular mandate. Without this popular mandate they will be under pressure from the hidden powers to retreat to their familiar strong opposing states. Failing to gain a balancing mandate will unleash disquieting social discomfort when the true costs of retracting the financial excesses become felt.
With the current popular rise of the Lib Dems, unwittingly promoted by the agreement of GB to hold a number of media televised open debates there may be an opportunity to reshape the makeup of politics and if the turnout for the Lib-Dem is considerable strong, strong enough to make a ground quaking win, a hung parliament or have poplar majority; then the two party system will be broken; whether they want to recognise the fact or not. PR will be inevitable and from this may come the best opportunity for generations to at last formulate an all party long term economic strategy to shape the future of the UK. This is not to say that the Lib Dem have an exclusive answer to avert the UK economic collapse but if change is required then breaking the two party ideological unhealthy duality that has governed the UK for decades may be the best option there is. And as a part of this change, a good strategy is required, in which the banking and finance structures need to change from the lax legislation it has enjoyed that has caused problems, together with creating a long term coherent economic strategic direction that might only come about with an all party consensus.
On a number of issues, the past 3 decades have offered many improvements to the infrastructure and fabric of society but these improvements are so much less than what could have been achieved when compared to where Germany or Japan, came from; or New Zealand, Switzerland, Denmark or other Scandinavian counties etc. without, it has to be said the influence of being a world player or the waste of national resources like coal, manufacturing, oil, and other lucrative revenue streams.
The question has to be asked for how long can the UK keep up the pretence of high foreign disposable expenditure when the revenue base from which it is drawn from and on which it operates, is diminishing? The recover cost of the UK’s national debt excess and that of the cost of the CC, which is to be recovered (it is assumed) by higher tax and lower indigenous spending and the additional consequential impact on the population confidence, is as a path in one losing direction.
The disconnect between the party system and the people, the legislature, the perversion of the voting system and the illusive links of the superior sovereign class tensions can be thought as the cause of the symptoms of the decline in the state of the nation and the continuing lack of cogent policies. The lack of calculated long term policies not wrapped in political dogma by the political duality and duopoly is proving ruinous to the country.
Now the UK is to enter a period of retrenchment at a time when all the strength and trends of global economic growth will be in opposition to its ability to expand. The people of the UK and infrastructure are to be forced to have to take a hit on its wealth and their expectation of a rising standard of living. Its ability to compete can only be done by the undesirability of impoverishing the nation.
This of course, is just the culmination of what has been happening over the past 35 years. Now it’s to get very personal.
© Renot 2010
45102243.
The only major country without a constitution which safe-guards the peoples interest against executive excess of power; is the UK. As the much hyped home of democracy and having ‘pride’ in an unwritten constitution, it is increasingly becoming an abysmal embarrassment that neither it (unwritten) nor the democratic process has the power to aid and direct the fortunes of the UK. The powers in the state of the nation have always resisted any attempt to condone the need for a written constitution by the expediency of there being sufficient laws of the lands; custom and practice, and a free judiciary that responded slowly to social change. Yet over the last 3 decades governments have shown an inherent tendency to enact laws that systematically reduces any pretention that an unwritten constitution is robust enough to counter a states desire for greater control of its populace. In the governments production of these constraining powers, it has increasingly been held to task by the imposition of EU laws and for some objectors to fall back on the EU Humans Right act etc or the nascent EU ‘constitution’ (Albeit not as a yet called a constitution to preserve sensibility of rejection, as it is going by the title of 'treaty of Lisbon' of December 2009) is laborious and open still to periodic disregard by the UK executive and by implicit direction; the state legislative.
It does seem curious that the UK, alone of many countries that holds up democracy as a rallying beacon that has itself injected democracy onto other countries and formed elements of a constitution that others have excepted onto their own constitutions, has resisted any attempt to give its UK population a constitution of its own. It has often been said that the reason why the UK does not have a constitution is because there is a number of existing long standing documents that preserve the right of the populace as in The Bill of Rights, passed by Parliament in December 1689, the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 together with many other lesser known acts and they are, with interpretation, flexible to adapt with time avoiding unnecessary rigidity which a constitution might imply. However, it is this flexibility that is a contaminating weakness, for as much of that which governs the states imposition onto civil life, has become strained and reliant instead on the allocation of established case laws and newer laws created by the state that often go unchallenged due to cost of a challenge and without which continually moves against the freedom of speech, association, assembly, justice, liberty and personal life. The historic laws are seen more lately as outmoded by recent governments seeking to secure the state of the nation and populace against ‘terrorism’ and disorder. The imposition of newer laws and regulation in support of the increasing state control over its citizens can be seen in the RIPA Act 2000 (Regulation of Investigatory Powers), Terrorism act, ID cards etc, with many of the attributes seen as regressive or repressive by those of a libertarian view. Some actions of state have undermined elements of the “unwritten constitution” described above, to be challenged later in the European court and on a number of occasions have found the ‘governments stance’ wanting, when measured against the range of EU laws, Acts and Treaties.
In some way this is no surprise for if one looks at the history of other countries that have adopted constitutions, taking say:
France. 1791 – 1958
Germany. 1871-1949
USA. 1787
Canada. 1867
Australia. 1989-1900
Et al.
It could be noticed that these all have some things in common, that is, that they are all republics, have strong constitutions and do not (with the exception of titular heads) have a sovereign hierarchic.
In comparing these to the UK, three thing stand out; one that the UK is still governed by an achronistic reliance on the sovereign being the force of law yet it has no actual power but is used by the state as the authority for the laws it passes and two; in recent time the lack of a written constitutional form and held within the power of the people has meant that the state can and had on a number of occasion seen fit to overrule, delete and excise ‘rights’ to the extent that more power is being centralised into the hands of the state. And finally, it has had for some time a diametrically opposed two party political system that cannot give any long term consistency to policies, governance, and strategic, economic or infrastructure planning. The lack of which has been the slow eroding of the state of the nation, its wealth, social integrity, prestige and trading position. It is this depletion that is the stuff of the fall of nations and it is a state of affairs that has yet very little prominence; even in this election year.
What has helped this depleting situation is the outmoded and disgraced political system of ‘first past the post’. This is a system that for the last 100 years has suited two major parties that saw no reason to adopt any substantive changes that could weaken their overall position of power once in office. Although for them it has been of tremendous use to propagate their self interest ideology with little regard to the mass of the population, other than once every 5 years; the diminishing poll turn out has shown just how repulsive the voting process has become when it is pointless to cast a vote in an area that has an inbuilt overwhelmingly protection of one party over the other – a safe seat. This process is also aided by the strange yet excessive power that is focused on the ‘marginal seats’, these seats that are so valuable to gain that winning them swings a winning balance to one party over another with a unrepresentative poll volume and turnout. It is therefore seen in many other constituencies, pointless to vote, for in numerical terms little account is taken of those votes and with the unpopularity of politian’s themselves, is fostering a drop in electorate turnout. This fall-off of electorate turn out plays into the hands of the main political parties and has allowed them to often drive through their agenda with little opposition or in-depth scrutiny and generates a swing of one dogma to another at election times simply to be a political power. It is through this vacillating state of affairs, that for the last 60 years such a narrow view is taken of the state of the nation and in what direction it should go, which has allowed parliament to ignore alternative views and generate a fragmented social perception of ‘them and us’, a view so pointedly made by the Conservative MP Nicholas Winterton, who said, in relation to first class train travel provided to him courtesy of his position, that those who travel in standard (second) class are “ a totally different type of people - they have a different outlook on life etc” and would not wish to travel with them. This is no more than an declaration of the notion of a class structure, one that parties assume has been neutered or practically homogenised from upper-class, middle class and working class; crude definitions and ones that many people may not subscribe too or want to be associated with, yet the only true structure is of two; working class – those that have to work for a living and those that have the resource not to. The artificially created aspiration middle class is one not wanting to be associated the ‘blue collar’ sweaty working class of industry that built the country. If this division is not clear enough, have a drive through the English countryside during an election time (like now) and note the preponderance of poster, planted in green fields of the landed gentry, extolling one to vote for a conservative candidate and the distinct lack of any labour or liberal placards. One has to ask the question; why should this be the case? Is the answer within the illusion of multiculturism, homogenous no class structure?
It is the tension in the perception of the difference between these two (or three?) classes and the sway they give to the political parties that often generates fervor of support for one over the other. Through this division much destructive energy is expended, largely by the signed up party supporters, to map manifestos and persuade governmental action to modify organisational constraint or latitude and waste financial resources bribing one over the other. This process of party and political dichotomy makes no allowances for the views or whishes of a high percentage of non-voting or disenfranchised electorate, ignored by the ‘first past the post’ system. (Symptomatic of the Bush US hanging chads election)
The current interesting tussle between the parties, as it is the April /May 2010 election time, is made all the more interesting with the prominent success of the Lib-Dems who seem to have; at long last, begun to make an impression on the two party systems. It would seem that the public has woken up to the fact that there is an alternative choice to the facilitating of dogma that has been a drag on the UK over the past 60 years. As much as the key players want to down play the recent populism for the Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg, it does, or should tell them, something about their own performance over the handling of politics. Although many of the younger voters to-be will not remember the highs and lows of their previous administration periods, it is the older voters that make a greater effort to vote and it these that have memories of the variety of vacuous efforts of the two party system.
Examine the manifestos of the two main parties; they again offer little in the way of real change, one with a vague hint of a referendum on something of democratic reform and both on methods of tackling the economy etc. They will both have to deal with the problem of the credit crises, recession, debt, non productiveness of the UK and an over reliance on imports and its (soon to be) consequential inflation. All at a time when interest rate need to be kept low to stimulate consumer demand but perversely will have to be forced higher to appeal to the money market to keep the value of the pound buoyant; even though it has been practically reduced by 20% already! Yet at the same time be seen to stifle ‘beneficial’ inflation for the national debt, inflation that is not being created internally as yet with no great demand for wage increases due to threats of increasing unemployment and all this is likely to be compounded with the forthcoming reducing disposable incomes. Both parties continue to want to be ‘first past the post’ with a majority vote on a decreasing numerical turnout that does not reflect a true democratic mandate. Every vote does not count!
And of course the hard reckoning has not even started yet, for once the rebalancing of the economy starts to takes place some rational unprejudiced policy will be required. It cannot be said, given the history of both, that either of these two parties will be able to act in a new non-prejudicial way. So the country can suffer the pain fast and be more individually independent (big society, self help) the Cameron way to unravel social infrastructure, with paupers tax and less regulations of the conservative upper class desires and its pleading for beneficial “change”; or have pain slower with a resemblance of social integrity, preserved employment, proliferate tax and regulations the Labour working class way with the Blair - Brown’s ‘steady as we go’ that has unfortunately, during their tenure, widen the gap between rich and poor!
It could be argued that with the polarisation of the two parties that has afflicted the UK over the years; neither has really grasped the strategic requirement that is needed for the UK. Both have moved to a centralist ground of politics but have also pursued an element of special pleading that appeals to their own supporters and in doing so have often undermined the better arguments of each other for reason that have little to do with attempting to solve the underlying problems of the UK but have made it substantial worse in its position in the worlds economic standing. Despite any of this one has to consider the harsh reality of the historic background of both these parties and one might reach the conclusion in looking at their current format that within the ‘powers behind the throne’, although the direction of travel may have become muted to avoid extremism of political policy and views, there may be little that they will be able to do without making a concerted attempt to gain a majority popular mandate. Without this popular mandate they will be under pressure from the hidden powers to retreat to their familiar strong opposing states. Failing to gain a balancing mandate will unleash disquieting social discomfort when the true costs of retracting the financial excesses become felt.
With the current popular rise of the Lib Dems, unwittingly promoted by the agreement of GB to hold a number of media televised open debates there may be an opportunity to reshape the makeup of politics and if the turnout for the Lib-Dem is considerable strong, strong enough to make a ground quaking win, a hung parliament or have poplar majority; then the two party system will be broken; whether they want to recognise the fact or not. PR will be inevitable and from this may come the best opportunity for generations to at last formulate an all party long term economic strategy to shape the future of the UK. This is not to say that the Lib Dem have an exclusive answer to avert the UK economic collapse but if change is required then breaking the two party ideological unhealthy duality that has governed the UK for decades may be the best option there is. And as a part of this change, a good strategy is required, in which the banking and finance structures need to change from the lax legislation it has enjoyed that has caused problems, together with creating a long term coherent economic strategic direction that might only come about with an all party consensus.
On a number of issues, the past 3 decades have offered many improvements to the infrastructure and fabric of society but these improvements are so much less than what could have been achieved when compared to where Germany or Japan, came from; or New Zealand, Switzerland, Denmark or other Scandinavian counties etc. without, it has to be said the influence of being a world player or the waste of national resources like coal, manufacturing, oil, and other lucrative revenue streams.
The question has to be asked for how long can the UK keep up the pretence of high foreign disposable expenditure when the revenue base from which it is drawn from and on which it operates, is diminishing? The recover cost of the UK’s national debt excess and that of the cost of the CC, which is to be recovered (it is assumed) by higher tax and lower indigenous spending and the additional consequential impact on the population confidence, is as a path in one losing direction.
The disconnect between the party system and the people, the legislature, the perversion of the voting system and the illusive links of the superior sovereign class tensions can be thought as the cause of the symptoms of the decline in the state of the nation and the continuing lack of cogent policies. The lack of calculated long term policies not wrapped in political dogma by the political duality and duopoly is proving ruinous to the country.
Now the UK is to enter a period of retrenchment at a time when all the strength and trends of global economic growth will be in opposition to its ability to expand. The people of the UK and infrastructure are to be forced to have to take a hit on its wealth and their expectation of a rising standard of living. Its ability to compete can only be done by the undesirability of impoverishing the nation.
This of course, is just the culmination of what has been happening over the past 35 years. Now it’s to get very personal.
© Renot 2010
45102243.
posted by Renot at 11:41 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home