RAMBLING ON TO WHAT END

I had started to write a piece in connection with issues arising out of the current distribution of goods problem, or, as some would call it, crisis. It began: 

{{ The problems arising from the pandemic are clouding the issues arising from the separation of the United Kingdom from the European Community. The recent visit of the Prime Minister to the United States demonstrating what little influence he actually commands on the world stage is, in my view, the result of that separatist policy.  

Whilst Mr. Johnson advises Mr. Macron to “get a grip”, perhaps he should get a grip on his lack of any success over a trade deal with the United States, or significant deal with anyone else for that matter. His address to the United Nations about world-wide unity in the face of climate change, is yet more evidence of his diplomatic hypocrisy. On the one hand he sees separation and division from the European Union as beneficial for the United Kingdom, yet the world should come together for climate control and, presumably, pandemic control. Slightly confusing messages. An avowed separatist calling for unity is a bit rich. Cooperation and unity of purpose are not born from separation.

Scotland, of course is not entitled to form a similar view vis a vis the United Kingdom, in wanting to leave the British Union to join with the rest of the world and the European Union; but that is another matter.

His separatist deal has caused serious dissention in Northern Ireland and discontent in Scotland. The flow of goods throughout the UK has been disrupted, in part owning to the pandemic but in the main as a result of the effects of his getting Brexit done.  To keep claiming the current problems are mainly to do with the pandemic is hiding from reality. It is a convenient cloak for the disastrous policy of separatism. The claim that the economy will boom because there are so many job opportunities and that wages are on the rise, is again a smoke screen from the actuality. It is the same type of claim that 20,000 police officers will somehow magically appear on our streets. Where are they to come from? It is all very well to advertise the job, but people have to be qualified to do a job as well as having the desire to do the job. Those who can fit the requirements will be asking for better wages than the people who had previously occupied the position. It is only natural. But the available workforce has to be ready willing and able to do the work, and the employers have to be ready willing and able to pay the right wages. The conservative rhetoric that this is happening now, or just around the corner is so much wishful thinking. In the meantime, people are going to suffer, from the withdrawal of benefits, increased numbers of evictions, increasing debt, and the scrabbling round for more than one job to be able to make ends meet.

To hear politicians, on a basic wage of £81,932 a year (whilst the reported median annual pay for full-time employees was £31,461 for tax year ending April 2020) suggesting that people in receipt of benefits should work extra hours to make up the difference in their income, is appalling. They are on benefit because they earn well below the median income, despite being employed. “It will encourage people to find work” is the rational for removing a clearly much needed £20 a week. A full time employee on minimum wage earns just over £16,000 per annum before tax. The threshold for low income, calculated by HMG is 60% of median income or £18, 876 per annum. This is also referred to by HMG as the National Living Wage by the Government. Still, the extra £1040 for someone on minimum wage does not even meet the low income threshold or National Living Wage. To reach the threshold the minimum wage earner would have to work for an additional six and a half hours a week. That figure is even greater for the under 20’s and under 18’s entering the job market, assuming they even qualify for universal credit. Also, I haven’t notice that expenses on council tax, utilities, food and rent are reduced for the under 22’s so why should the minimum wage be reduced? The average rent for a room in the UK is £587 per month which, if deducted from the threshold, leave a national living wage of about £220 per week. So someone on over £1500 a week plus expenses, such as rent for a room, is in no position to be advising people to work extra hours to make up the difference.}}

 

That is as far as I got with my current ramblings. Slightly erratic and full of topic drift. I am not quite sure where I was heading; however I was sent today an opinion piece that appeared in the 23 September 2021 Washington Post by Robert Kagan, to bring me down to earth:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/23/robert-kagan-constitutional-crisis/

Mr Kagan is characterised as an American neoconservative scholar and critic of United States foreign policy and a leading advocate of liberal interventionism. This is a caveat to the article, but I believe it is well worth a read. It elicited nearly 6000 comments from readers. Mr Kagan is a well educated man, having attended Yale, the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and obtained his PhD in American History the from American University in Washington DC. He was a registered Republican up until 2016 when he quit the Party and became an Independent.

He supported Hilary Clinton in the 2016 election. He has made a few wild allegations in his time but appears to be reasonably sound. He is married to Victoria Nuland who is currently Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs under President Joe Biden.

 

 

Whilst looking through the Opinion pages of the Washington Post, the Editorial Board of the paper wrote a view that:

 

 “Angela Merkel’s departure will be felt in a world that needs democratic champions more than ever”

 “After dominating Germany and, indeed, Europe for so long, Ms. Merkel leaves a legacy of sober, patient leadership, in which she both articulated and modelled democratic values. This was especially important at times when the leaders of other Western nations — including Germany’s European neighbours such as Hungary and Poland and, during the presidency of Donald Trump, the United States — did not. The moniker Germany’s first female chancellor earned among American admirers — “Leader of the Free World” — was extravagant but hardly baseless. Whether staving off the near-collapse of Europe’s common currency or coping with the coronavirus pandemic, Ms. Merkel kept her head while many about her were losing theirs. Germany reaped political stability, economic growth and heightened diplomatic influence.”

 

There is more at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/25/angela-merkels-departure-will-be-felt-world-that-needs-democratic-champions-more-than-ever/

This piece also prompted a number of comments from readers and through American readers were complementary and favourable to Ms Merkel there were a number of comments from German and European readers who were far more critical of the German Chancellor and glad to see the back of her. It was interesting to note that some citizens of western democratic countries always seem to have a gripe about their current governments. This is of course a very healthy and necessary part of a democratic society, to be able to gripe about the current administration. What was also apparent from these comments, from readers round the world, was the clear distaste and revulsion of the Presidency of Donald Trump. He has very few admirers outside of the United States, save perhaps figures of his ilk, such as Vladimir Putin, the Myanmar Generals, Aleksandr Lukashenko, Viktor Orban and perhaps others of a kind.

 

In any event, referring back to Mr Kagan, should his prognosis actually happen, the world will have a very difficult time ahead and no doubt, in order to deal with what would become a very serious world crisis, some rather strange and unusual alliances may have to be formed. The disintegration of the United States into Trumpian anarchy “would display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of life that reminds one of the worst excesses of the French Revolution, and I suppose you know what that unfortunate movement led to”.

So my ramblings are just that, mental preoccupations with a variety of stuff that should cause me no anxiety, and yet it does. There is always something attractive in the idea that one can lead one’s life without any interference of any kind. To be able to do and go anywhere we like without recourse to any officialdom, living alongside it, able to drift in and out of civilised society at will. Respecting it without having to be part of it. Having complete freedom of choice, surviving as best one can, taking employment here and there making enough to get by and continue the ramble with zen like individuality. This is the stuff of the man with no name, the quest of Kwai Chang Caine, the life of John W ‘Jack’ Burns, but it usually ends up like Frank Chambers, Walter Neff and Joe Gillis.

 

The world isn’t like that anymore, if it ever was.

 

TIME TO PUT HIM OUT IN THE COLD

We are about to enter week 37 since the 6^th January riot in the Capitol of the United States. Despite the overwhelming video evidence from seemingly countless devices, some of it from the rioters themselves, the revisionist view of what occurred on that day continues to flourish and keeps being fertilised by the leaders and acolytes of the Republican Party.

 

The constant repetition of falsehood in the face of such explicit factual evidence is stupefying, particularly as most of those so far charged with offences relating to the riot have pleaded guilty in the face of that evidence. To call an offender who voluntarily admits their guilt persecuted and a political hostage, is somewhat bewildering; yet, it is swallowed with religious zeal by the faithful.  They can no longer see or reason. Trump and his followers have performed the miracle of turning the able-to-hear truth deaf, the thoughtful dumb and the clear- sighted blind.

 

His perfidious tirades since the 4^th November 2020 have continued unabated, and the increasingly violent behaviour he has incited has avoided prosecution, despite the powerful televised warnings given by the likes of the State of Georgia’s Chief Operating Officer Gabriel Sterling as early as the 1^st December 2020.

It is not just perpetuating “the big lie” it is inciting certain citizens of the United States to deliberately misuse the constitution of the United States, to undermine the very existence of the democracy it is meant to protect. It is incitement to continue insurrection and the overthrow of the Government of the United States. If that is not an indictable offence I fail to see how the rule of law is to be maintained in that country. The sheer number of adherents to the Trump mantra calls into question the continued existence of the Union and the continuing civil unrest (I use the term to indicate the levels of anxiety that must pervade the population) could well explode into outright civil war. How do you stop a would be Führer from taking complete control?

 

General Milley

The revelations of General Mark Milley surely give any concerned citizen pause to reflect on the state of mind of such a man as Donald Trump. The nation was, and is, in peril; and still, an extraordinary number of people and powerful media outlets repeat the dissimulations along with the invectives, pouring out of Trump, against anyone who disagrees or does not support him. How can such clearly psychotic behaviour still be idolised by so many?

 

 

 

How can anyone who believes in democracy and purports to support the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, which pledges itself to racial equality and freedom of speech, thought and religion not be anti-fascist and anti-racist.  Thus to complain about Antifa and BLM as far left organizations is a nonsense, unless they are ignorant of the purpose of these groups. To defend white supremacists and point to violent conduct on the part of Antifa and BLM as a way of excusing and overlooking white supremacy and thuggery is staggering in its inconsistency. Antifa may be left wing, but so what, it is dedicated to stop fascism as well as racism, predominantly in a non-violent manner. Black Lives Matter is a decentralized political and social movement protesting against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people. What is so left wing about that?

 

Either you are a believer in the principles of equality or you are not. If the far right did not exist, then neither would Antifa or BLM. If Antifa and BLM did not exist, then dictatorship would reign and the Constitution of the United States would be just a piece of paper in a museum. Freedoms of any kind would have no place.

 

One need only look at the tragedy of Afghanistan, taken over by a dictatorial group, fanatically bonded to a code of conduct, that limits freedom of thought and action, precludes the education and freedom of women, and adheres to a purported rule of law that is primitive and antiquated in the extreme. If that is not fascism, what is? It that is not a supremacist ideology, what is?

 

Is that the sort of country wanted by the supporters of Donald Trump? They talk of greatness and freedom but seek only the freedom to shout obscenities, demeaning racist and homophobic insults and the facility to carry lethal weapons, allegedly for protection. Seeing the news footage of the Taliban parading in Kabul with their AK47s is a mirror for Q Anon, the Proud Boys and their ilk; that, coupled with the lack of any social responsibility towards anyone else, to indulge in their own crass wants. I say wants and not needs. They have no understanding of need. The selfish self is all they know. That is the extent of their idea of freedom. They see themselves as heroes, without any idea of real courage, outstanding achievement or nobility. They are, in fact, gluttons of ignorance bingeing on the appeal of psychotic narcistic vanity in the shape of Donald Trump.  He will seek to destroy everything around him that does not feed that vanity rather like “The Blob”. Is it not time to put Trump in the cold? It is clearly the only thing that will stop him.

 

 

A parable of our time. In any event, stop messing about, arrest the man and let due process takes its course. The evidence is clearly there for all to see, although I doubt one could find a jury responsible enough to do the right thing. God bless America. Ho hum.

LET THE GIRL COME HOME

I don’t know why I paused on the remote when question time came up. I usually avoid watching as it tends to send me round the bend. I am particularly incensed by the arrogance of some of the political guests, most notably those from the conservative party. I am biased I admit, but there are moments when one just chokes with despair.  The topic raised, at the time I came in on the discussion, was whether or not Shamima Begum should be brought back to the United Kingdom. Most of the participating audience appeared to be of the view that she should be allowed to return and face whatever consequences she would have to face in the courts. Although one is not exactly sure what charges might be brought against her, it would seem most of the audience took a charitable but harsh view, and were quite prepared to give her a chance to explain herself in court and let the rule of law be the judge of the outcome. The rule of law was mentioned by several people. On the other hand we had James Heappey MP, whose short and sweet point of view was NO. She should not be allowed back and her British Citizenship was rightly withdrawn. He, by the way, mentioned Sajid Javid’s comment “If you knew what I knew you’d agree” and went on to hint that in his position as minister he too had knowledge that makes him agree with Mr, Javid. They are of course, unable to share their high security knowledge with the rest of us – so they say. Why not? What can be so secure about the behaviour of a 15 year old clearly silly and impressionable girl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have heard that phrase before, used in connection with sensitive material known only to the powers that be and those close to them. In 1992 sadly, a young woman, Rachel Nickell, was killed on Wimbledon Common. The police investigating the crime came up with a suspect, a Mr. Colin Stagg. Despite the paucity of evidence, the police were convinced that he was the killer as he fit some sort of profile.  An undercover operation was put in place, and during a subsequent trial of Mr Stag, the operation, known as Operation Edzell, was revealed in court and rightly dismissed by the Judge as entrapment of the worst kind, and Mr Stagg was acquitted. This was in 1994 some two years after the commission of the offence.

I can recall a discussion I had with a barrister of note, who, when I expressed the view that the police conduct was outrageous and that there was no evidence at all to warrant the behaviour of the prosecution, the barrister said “If you knew what I knew, you’d think differently.” I was not told what he knew, and I insisted that it changed nothing, or why wasn’t what he knew brought out in court. Indeed for some time after, the police still continued to believe that Mr. Stagg was guilty. The lead detective on the case stated on an ITV Real Crime documentary in 2001:

 "Colin stagg has been through a version of justice, albeit truncated, and he has been found not guilty. But I wonder whether he can actually say hand on heart that he believes people will meet him in the street and believe that."

In 2002, more advanced forensic techniques examined the evidence, the case was re-opened and finally in December of 2008, a Mr. Robert Napper pleaded guilty to the crime. As to the lead detective, he retired and later faced corruption charges.

So whenever I hear someone say, “If you knew what I knew, you’d think differently” I would hope never to make the mistake of relying on such secure sensitive information.  Tony Blair did just that in Iraq and the piles of weapons of mass destruction were nowhere to be found.

Mr Stagg was under a police cloud for over ten years. The pursuit of Mr Stagg cost the public £3 million, followed by legal costs and damages paid dealing with the suits against the Police. Mr Stagg sued for wrongful prosecution and was later awarded £706,000 set by an independent assessor on the 13^th August 2008. The undercover officer who so diligently tried to get Mr Stagg to admit to something he hadn’t done, also sued the police and received an out of court settlement of £125,000. Her solicitor claiming "The willingness of the Metropolitan Police to pay substantial damages must indicate their recognition that she sustained serious psychiatric injury"

Ms Nickell’s son, who was present on the common and must have witnessed his mother being killed, was granted £22,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. This is less than one fifth of the pay out to the undercover officer who apparently suffered psychiatric injury for participating in a honeytrap operation that she must have volunteered for, or was she told, “Do this or you’re fired”. I do wonder.

So, so far as Shamima Begum is concerned, cut the crap and bring the girl back to face whatever she has to face in a court of law assuming there is even a case against her. The question time audience were more than willing to let the people decide what should be done to a British citizen, born and brought up in the United Kingdom, although I have no idea why she would even want to come back to the thoughtless and crass behaviour of the present Government and some of its, shall we say, more dogmatic citizens. Perhaps she knows something I don’t.

THINKING AT RANDOM

Some ten years ago, when I started this blog, I quoted from a speech by William Gladstone, given on the 27^th June 1888 during a debate on the proposed construction of a channel tunnel.

 

…society is always ready for the enjoyment of the luxury of a good panic. There is nothing more enjoyable than a good panic, when that panic is based on a latent conviction that the thing which it contemplates is not in the least degree likely to happen. These speculative panics - these panics in the air - have an attraction for certain classes of minds that is in describable; and these classes of minds, I am bound to say, are very largely to be found among the educated portion of society. The subject of this panic never touched the mind of the nation. These things are not accessible to the mind of the nation. They are accessible to what is called the public opinion of the day - that is to say public opinion manufactured in London by great editors, and clubs, who are at all times formidable, and a great power for the purposes of the moment, but who are a greater power and become an overwhelming power when they are backed by the threefold forces of the military and literary authorities and the social circles of London.

 

The panic Gladstone was referring to, was the public reaction to the idea that the construction of a tunnel opened the possibility that hordes of Frenchmen might come through it to invade the United Kingdom.

 

There were a number of international problems in the year 1888, including the Convention of Constantinople which was written in French and drafted on the 2^nd March 1888. It was signed on the 29^th October 1888 by the United Kingdom, Russian Empire, French Republic, German Empire, Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, Kingdom of the Netherlands and Kingdom of Spain. This was a multilateral trade treaty guaranteeing free right of passage of all ships through the Suez Canal during war and peace. It did not however take effect until some 16 years later on the 8^th April 1904. The depositary of the treaty was with the Ottoman Empire. The powers that be at the time, were four Empires, three Kingdoms and a Republic.

 

In the United States during the year 1888 at the Republican National Convention held in Chicago between June 19 and June 25, there were 19 nominees for candidate for President of the United States, among whom was Frederick Douglass, the very first African American (and former slave) to be nominated for President. He received one vote on the fourth ballot. After eight ballots Benjamin Harrison was elected and went on the become the 23^rd President of the United States.

 

On the 25^th March of that year, the Congress For Women’s Rights opened in Washington DC organised by Susan B. Anthony, which led to the formation of the International Council of Women. The first actual president of the Council was Ishbel Hamilton-Gordon from 1893-1899.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was also in that same year of 1888, that Jack the Ripper terrorised the citizens of London, and in Arles, France, after a quarrel with Gauguin, Vincent Van Gogh cut off a piece of his left ear taking it to a brothel.

 

All in all, 1888 was a year crowded in incident; however, getting back to the matter of manufactured public opinion as expressed by Gladstone. He states that “the subject…never touched the mind of the nation.” He goes on “These things are not accessible to the mind of the nation. They are accessible to what is called the public opinion of the day – that is to say public opinion manufactured in London by great editors, and clubs…”

 

Indeed he expresses a view that many hold today, that public opinion is defined by media moguls, politicians, editors, commentators, pundits and certain privileged citizens who seek to have influence on how an administration should function.  They 'pray in aid' public opinion, a public opinion they have created, thereby overriding the mind of the nation, which has probably never given the subject a thought, in order to ensure a particular course of action. They also claim that what is being opined is in the public interest, again overriding the mind of the nation. Yet, there is a great deal of difference between what is public opinion and what is in the public interest.

 

I refer to the barrage of media reports – particularly in the United States - promoting the opinions of anti-maskers, anti-vaccines, anti-testers etc. in the light of a pandemic that is running at nearly 200000 people a week, despite the current vaccination effort, which actually is in the public interest. That is not an opinion, it is a singular fact.

 

The idea that one person’s perceived hardship in wearing a mask or getting a vaccination, should override their duty of care towards others is bewildering. The creed of self being defined as upholding democratic freedom is odious and carrying mendacity to an entirely new level, particularly when the seeds planted 133 years ago are perhaps beginning to find a foothold, that is to say the idea that an African-American ex-slave could be nominated for President of the United States and that women had equal rights as well. Is that now public opinion in the public interest ?

ONE MORE THING ABOUT PERCENTAGES

It occurs to me that my American readers may not be fully conversant with the British electoral system, and may consequently not understand how such a small percentage of the population can elect a government.

 

The United Kingdom is divided into 650 parliamentary constituencies. Each constituency elects its own member of parliament. There are 533 constituencies in England, 59 in Scotland, 40 in Wales and 18 in Northern Ireland. The population in each constituency averages 72,200 in England, 67200 in Scotland, 68,300 in Northern Ireland and 56,000 in wales.

 

In each constituency, any number of candidates can run for office. As an example, the Cities of London and Westminster constituency at the last election had an electorate of 63,700. The turnout was 67.1%.  The winning conservative candidate received 17,049 votes, The other five candidates combined received 25,674 votes, as follows Liberal Democrats 13,096, Labour 11,624, Green Party 728, Christian Peoples Alliance 125 and Liberals 101.

 

So, in effect, the winning conservative candidate received 39.9% of the votes cast, but it represents only 26.7% of the electorate. But as he received more votes individually that the other candidates he is declared the winner. Not only that, but he is said to have a Majority of 3,953, because that’s how many more votes he received than the next candidate. The fact that other candidates received 10,625 more votes is not even considered in what is called the ‘first past the post’.

 

Within this system, someone could have a Majority of 1 and still be elected. So when you run this kind of arithmetic across 650 constituencies, that is how 20% of the population can elect a governing party. The leader of the elected party is then chosen as the Prime Minister. Each party elects its own leader in different ways.

 

The Conservative Party Leader is chosen from a short list of two, which is determined by a series of votes by Conservative Members of Parliament through nominations by other members and a series of elections whitling the choice down to two. The whitling down process is achieved by eliminating the candidates with the fewest votes after each election. The whole of the Conservative Party membership then elects the leader from the two remaining candidates.

 

As to the Labour Party, these are the current rules:

Summary Nominations
If a vacancy arises: A candidate needs to be nominated by 10% of the total number of MPs in the Parliamentary
Labour Party (PLP) and either:
• 5% of Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) Or
• At least three affiliate organisations (two of which must be trade unions) which represent a
minimum of 5% of the affiliated membership. If an incumbent is challenged:
• A candidate needs to be nominated by 20% of the combined total of MPs prior to the
annual session of Party conference. An incumbent is not required to be nominated and is automatically on the ballot.
Voting
The General Secretary of the Party is the returning officer. The precise voting eligibility criteria are defined by Labour’s National Executive Committee. The freeze date for eligibility to vote shall be not less than 2 weeks after the approved timetable is announced and not less than 3 weeks before the deadline for receipt of ballot papers, with no qualifying period of membership prior to the freeze date Eligible party members, affiliates and registered supporters each have one ballot. Voting is by preferential ballot. Candidates are ranked 1,2,3 etc. The winner must secure over 50% of the valid votes counted. If no winner achieves over 50% on the first count, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and the second preferences from their voters are redistributed. If no candidate receives over 50% of the votes after second preferences are taken into account subsequent counts are conducted, with the lowest polling candidate eliminated and their ballots redistributed in accordance with second (or third, fourth etc) preferences from their electors’ ballots.

 

Liberal Democrat leadership elections officially use the single transferable vote system, but they are effectively conducted under the alternative vote, as there is only one winner. All party members are entitled to vote under a one member, one vote method.^[15] Candidates must be an MP, and must be nominated by at least one other Liberal Democrat MP. Proposed candidates must also have 200 supporters across 20 or more local parties, including the Young Liberals

 

As to general elections, whichever party has 326 or more members elected is the party whose leader is asked to form a government by the sovereign. Thus it is the leader of that party who becomes Prime Minister. At present there are about 485000 members of the Labour Party, 180000 members of the conservative party, 115000 members of the Liberal Democratic party, and 12500 members of the Scottish National Party.

 

On those numbers, the current Prime Minister was chosen by 0.26% of the population of the United Kingdom. One quarter of one percent of the people of this country have chosen its Political Leader. Were the labour party in government it would not be much better at just over two thirds of one percent. It should be noted that Boris Johnson was elected leader and consequently prime minister, without there having been a general election. It was purely a leadership matter with the resignation of Teresa May. A general election followed much later.

 

Not even the anomalies of the electoral college in the United States can create such figures.

 

The electorate of the United Kingdom operate under the illusion, when they go to the polls, that they are electing the leader of the country, yet the Prime Minister’s name only appears on one ballot, the ballot in his own constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. (Boris did in fact win 52% of the vote in his constituency, and although he claims a majority of 7210, his actual majority is 2515.)

 

I find it difficult to understand how this country can call itself a democracy when its electoral system is so disconnected with what actual democracy means.

de·moc·ra·cy  (dĭ-mŏk′rə-sē)

n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

 

The majority has clearly never ruled, and consequently any elected representative not so elected is hardly representative. As a result this is not a political or social unit with a democratic government and the common people of this country are more likely to be considered as a source of infection rather than power.

 

About the only principle the British claim to really value is item five on the above list, and although it is held as the foundation of the rule of law, it is very fragile in its adherence.

 

This country’s clinging to its antiquated and hideously anti-democratic system of electing representative government is an outrage. The hypocrisy of public service as jobs for the boys and girls in the right percentile is a disgrace. Its claim as one of the world’s leading democracies is a sham. It is a counterfeit of what it professes to be.

WHAT PRICE ACQUIESCENCE

We have a problem in the United Kingdom. It is a problem that has spread throughout the realm. It is called acquiescence. It is defined as passive acceptance or submission; it is the act of acquiescing or the state of being acquiescent. It is giving tacit assent. It is agreement or consent by silence or without objection. It is compliance.

 

It is acceptance of a government that was voted in by 29.34% of registered voters. I have done the math:

In the last general election there were 47, 567,800 registered voters. Only 67.3% of registered voters actually voted. The conservative party received 43.6% of that vote giving a total of 13,957,724.4 which amounts to 29.34% of actual registered voters. As a percentage of the entire population in 2019 of approximately 67,602,011 it is a shade over 20%.

 

That means only one fifth, one fifth, of the population of the United Kingdom have given power to a conservative government that claims a mandate and has a majority of members in Parliament. This state of affairs is far from democratic and as a result we have a bunch of amateurs deciding how our lives are to be regulated.

 

In law, acquiescence occurs when a person knowingly stands by without raising any objection to the infringement of their rights, while someone else unknowingly and without malice aforethought acts in a manner inconsistent with their rights. As a result of acquiescence, the person whose rights are infringed may lose the ability to make a legal claim against the infringer, or may be unable to obtain an injunction against continued infringement. The doctrine infers a form of "permission" that results from silence or passiveness over an extended period of time.

 

Now, whether or not the current Johnson Cabinet is acting unknowingly and without malice, the rest of the citizenry appear to have lost the ability to lay claims against them, and are unable to obtain an injunction against continued infringement of our rights. The so called ‘loyal opposition’ can make any number of statements and ask any number of questions at the despatch box, but it has little or no effect. The opposition sit in the chamber making noises and waving papers as a show of democracy in action; yet they have given in to the system they hope one day will bring them to power and so acquiesce in the status quo, believing that they too will be able to persuade that fifth of the population to vote for their candidates at the next general election. 

 

Indeed it would seem that all it takes is 20% of the population to elevate a party to power, and this has continued over an extended period of time.

 

This state of acquiescence goes far beyond general elections. The manner in which elected representatives are called to account keeps giving those who hold government office the ability to have the last word. They are seemingly challenged and are allowed to sidestep responsibility. They are routinely and robustly challenged by a press that claims to act in the interests of objectivity, and yet allows the government spokesperson to evade answers, deflect questions and have a last word to restate their alleged case, followed by a “Thank you” from the questioner. And so the current Health Secretary, Sajid Javid, can claim they are a responsible government without any fear of contradiction. The predictability of interviews conducted by reporters of the BBC makes one cringe and the analysis given by “political editors” is decidedly in support of the status quo, and just as acquiescent as the rest of us. Their so called impartiality is actually ineffective and vacuous. The stagy robust challenge of the likes of John Humphreys, Jeremy Paxman, Robin Day, Emily Maitlis. Emma Barnett, Kirsty Wark, Sarah Montague et al, is a display, an entertainment to showcase how tough they can be. “Aren’t I clever, and haven’t I done my research” More likely given a list of questions compiled by staff researchers. Thus our media has become a platform for the government, and they seem unaware of what they are doing.

 

All that bluster and taking of neutral positions is all part and parcel of the general acquiescence which leads to disproportionate and inappropriate taxation and will allow the inequalities to continue unabated and without any genuinely democratic solutions to the problems we all face. The lack of any real duty of care for the population by a government whose sole ambition is to maintain power is blatantly visible for all to see and hear, and yet, whilst Margaret Thatcher had to face serious demonstrations in the light of “the poll tax”, a rise in National Insurance tax so clearly injurious to the least able to endure it, does not bring those same people out into the streets to state their case. Whilst the middle classes glue themselves to pavements and railings to promote environmental changes to safeguard the planet, they are not doing the same for the immediate needs of a general population, not knowing when there will be an end to the current pandemic or this current government’s viral venality.

 

I’m just saying.