A Question.

[Peter Connelly]

Question: Do we actually need politicians anyway?

Let’s face it, all they do is create division, misrepresent facts and figures, swallow up money, as do their parties, and supply the media with much irrelevant tittle-tattle. The party system, only intent anyway in sustaining the status quo of the political class, seems completely devoid of any intentions of improving the lot of anyone outwith that class and its associated corporate pals, and plays musical chairs by cabinet re-shuffle that insures that no-one ever really has the time to become really acquainted with their particular field, be it education, health, defence, whatever.

Imagine if a company, rather than employing someone with the relevant skills and experience for a particular job vacancy, decided to hold a poll amongst their employees to see which candidate would get the job. Yet we vote-in politicians, usually strangers, according to their claims, their talk, and their PR-spun public images. And even if they do have particular experience in a certain field, there’s a good chance that they won’t operate within their field of experience anyway, and if so, not for long. The decision-making posts which are now filled by politicians would be better filled by those infinitely more qualified to do so, and their jobs held upon a permanent basis, rather than being overwhelmingly aimed at coming elections which are never more than 5 years away. This breeds a short-term-ism that also means that responsibility can always be passed back to the previous incumbent, who is never so far back in the past that they are forgotten; and questions dealing with the longer-term future are never addressed. Politicians preach and bang on about responsibility without ever themselves taking responsibility on their own shoulders for their own political decisions. They become, in public at least, moral voids, mere mouthpieces of ideology.

Obviously, some form of body would be required to oversee the work of qualified politician-substitutes, but as party politics would no longer be an issue, and the rhetoric and spin of party politics would no longer be necessary, then formation of such a body would be unencumbered by narrow party-line doctrines, and could even be composed of a cross-party section of previous politicians, themselves now unencumbered by line-toeing and kow-towing to party whips. Now the actions that would be best for any number of situations could be implemented without the need for an appeal to petty populism or restrained by party dogma. Now, you may say that parties are voted-in according to the will of the people, but how many manifesto pledges and promises are kept by the main parties, anyway? Even with the best will in the world, some pledges cannot be sensibly kept anyway, due to constantly changing situations; and of course, in such circumstances, the opposition parties try to capitalise on such failures. But politics merely serve to hide the truth, distorts it according to the underlying wish-fulfilment of political ideologies. For example, the Conservative party-ideology generally denies that there is a link between poverty and crime. Thus their crime-prevention plans are up the creek before the canoe even sets off. And they’re not much different from the other parties, who follow the same general suit for reasons of expedient populism. We don’t get a say on who gets the job of the governor of the Bank of England, or the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, but at least they aren’t in a position to swap jobs with each other at the whim of their over-seers. Party politics give the vague illusion of decision-making by the electorate, of the public ‘having their say’. But, in no small part because of the lame and rubbishy profit-at-any-cost, if-it-bleeds-it-leads media coverage, we, the public, have to base our decisions on a crock of nonsense and opinion, which together lurch along posing as The Truth. And politicians and party politics, with PR companies in tow, feed back in turn into the whole obfuscating media morass with their own confused, spun, and ideologised take on what is actually happening: the real causes of crime; the real causes of poverty; the real causes of war.

Politics and politicians do more harm and cause more trouble than good. We have them because we have grown up with the idea that they represent abstract concepts like freedom and democracy; that we have fought wars, and fight wars, that we might have the right to vote for them. All that politicians do, en masse and by the very nature of their trade, is betray, betray and betray again those that put their trust in them. We don’t need them. They need us.

It’s maybe time to start thinking about breaking the mould and, at the very least, to begin to contemplate ridding ourselves of the self serving, truth obscuring and war-making political class system, a system that is seduced so easily by nepotistic networking and the lethal seductions of lobbyists. ‘Democracy’ –oh that someone, somewhere would ever try it—is, as it manifests itself, a cobra which hypnotises by its own dogmatic assertion that it is the only way, which, in itself is not very democratic. We should have a validly-counted ‘I protest in the way the political class functions’ option in the next election. That would be closer to having a real say in how things are run.

[jimcee]

A lot of that is very pertinent and true but it seems thjat an imperfect system which we have is better than any of the other options, which have been tried.
A dictatorship, even benign is subject to the whims of the person in charge, and is usually combined with draconian secret police to stifle any dissent.
Anarchy is just asking for trouble and is tantamount to civil war and is usually succeeded by dictatorship with the winner of the ensuing disorder.
Oligarchy might provide some stability, but how to elect the personell and to make them immune from lobbyism and corruption. could be a problem.
The heirarchy of the armed services provides a framework where ability to govern is dependent on promotion, but even this system is open to favouritism and corruption.
The one saving grace about democracy is that general public opinion can have some say at regular intervals about which crowd of politicians seems to echo their desires and aspirations.
Perhaps any readers of this thread may have better ideas on how we should be governed, because strong government is a necessity if society is not to disintegrate.
What a lot of rambling jottings, but that is the best I can do at a moment's notice.

[khartoumteddy]

funnily enough Jimcee

even rambling you have summed up more or less the way i feel.

Face facts the average politician is only in it for personal gain,
cannot be trusted,usually has very little relevant knowledge of the facts
and must be prepared to come across as an instant expert on any subject at
a minutes notice.

Expert:As in ex ;used to be and Spurt;A drip under pressure.

main opposition.
ex teachers,usually having good jobs,selling the socialist worker,in their spare time
not having realised that communism,in its pure state wont work.
capitalism in its pure state doesnt work either.

however;
we must also take part of the responsibility:
witness the local community election
only 5 people bothered to stand they all got elected.
probably any of us will feel we could have done better.
almost certainly we will feel that when they make their first
collective "wrong"decision,well one we dont agree with
But by then the damage is done all the journalists in the world
can howl their indignation but going back to basics

Its our fault if we cant be arsed with
the business of putting our own views forward through the existing channels.


Teddy

[Peter Connelly]

Here’s an example from today of exactly the kind of thing I mean. The ministers just don’t want to know:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/200 ... -of-labour

[Peter Connelly]

Underestimation.

Gordon Brown: Aye, he’s the man
Without a soul or decent plan:
‘Deflect attention, it’ll be grand:
We’ll send more troops to Afghanistan.
And by the time that they come home,
And are driven home in hearses,
That might detach the public’s mind
From memories of recession,
And how we’ve killed their future dreams
(The electorate are thick, it seems).
So we’ll sacrifice a few more men,
And wave the Union Jack for them,
For Our Duty, when all’s said,
Is not to dwell on the black and red,
But on the Red White Blue instead,
That drapes the coffins of the dead.’

[khartoumteddy]

another good one Peter

Teddy

[shygirl78]

Brilliant Peter!