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.
No comments:
Post a Comment