If there was ever an issue that polarises, alongside religion, it is the dreaded subject of politics. Many avoid this to avoid agitating others. Others try not to talk of it at all, for they find it boring or or they feel like they're helpless to do anything to change it. To confess an interest in it to most of the general public is to label yourself a dullard. Very few have made it interesting in the past; those who I'd put in this elite club include 'Rage Against the Machine', 'Spitting Image' and 'The Daily Show'.
So what has caused people to care so little about how services are provided and controlled in their country, and above all how it is run?
For many the answer seems to be politicians. Once affectionately described by Charlie Brooker as being 'less popular than shingles', for those that do discuss politics, to whatever degree, and are dissatisfied with what's happening they are first in the firing line of abuse. After all, as these people say, they make all the decisions, so it must be their fault.
However I do not agree with this. This will not sit well with most people, who see them as growing rich from exploiting us with no scruples whatsoever. For me though in the environment we have created, this is the only way they could have evolved. As far as I'm concerned it is the
system that is the problem; the mutual agreement needed to get legislation into place has paved the way for it. Not that some have not made it worse but needing a vote to change laws or make new ones does not help. For a better idea of the procedure, just take a look at
this: it's very time consuming and in certain parts niche; when a committee is put together to look at it there are at most 20 MPs looking at it.
For starters needing a certain number of votes in order to put something into action you need a group of people to back it. Like for example...a political party? Yes, your own conscience should sway you but in reality what happens is if someone doesn't 'tow the party line' they lose much of their power (say a place in cabinet) and may in extreme cases be kicked out of their party.
The first time it came clearly apparent to me was when I visited the House of Commons about a year ago and saw MPs discussing train ticket prices. First thing that was apparent was how empty it was; most of parliament weren't there. 'Fair enough' you may think initially, but by the time to vote on it came
everyone was
in there, and I mean everyone. I even caught a glimpse of the Chancellor briefly. Considering most of them weren't there for the discussion they can't have possibly heard arguments for or against. They'll still vote though! No doubt to whatever their party's stance on it is.
All of this is likely to make anyone who truly wanted to make a difference disheartened I'm sure; they can't do anything swimming against the tide in an environment where bucking the trend isn't just advantageous:
it is critical. So what next for this individual? He or she may be pushed to explain what has been happening in parliament to the media. The media who have a particular disdain for politicians and do their utmost to make them appear as vile as possible. Just watch a Paxman interview and you'll see straight away what I mean.
I have never understood why the media aren't held more accountable for the way they meddle in affairs rather than just report on them. The Leveson inquiry was just the tip of the iceberg when it is all put into context. That said the media and the powers that be have
worked together on occasion. But who is pulling who's strings?
Then there is the influence of big business, which is huge and yet is not spoken of readily in the media. It's like they control their profits too...hmmm....
You don't have to look too far for examples of that. It wasn't so long ago that George Osbourne described large corporation's tax dodging as being '
immoral' (big business link there by the way) and yet very little has been done to the contrary beyond some silly posturing. If I didn't know any better I'd say they have something to gain by not doing anything, wouldn't you?
I'm going to blame this on Maggie I'm afraid. Perhaps the unions did need reform but to get rid of them completely does mean that the common man doesn't have the mouthpiece to get his say into the ears of government. What is going to do, become an MP?
There's a reason why common people don't run for government; they can't afford to. Think of the time they'd have to take off work to write manifestos and run a campaign: no employer is going to be that sympathetic when it will cost them money (a theme that reoccurs far too often in this post for my liking!). They could leave work and campaign and then pray that they'll be elected. I doubt they'd be able to afford an expensive advertising scheme either so that puts them on the back foot as most voters are going to find out about candidates through posters and TV and other media. The pay IN the House of Commons
may be good, but getting there is costly. Not that much of the cabinet have any need of being paid
at all (regardless of source they're not far off the truth here).
All in all how on earth is the common man to stand a chance in such a world? Well as far as I can see, he won't!
So there you have it, assorted thoughts on the trouble with politics and politicians. If anyone wants some solutions, check out
this post.
