THE CHOICE OF LEADER

There are problems galore across the world. Each country has its own individual difficulties to deal with, yet on the whole the problems just about everywhere are the same. That is to say that, at any one time, a particular problem may require more immediate attention than another; although, the other problems do not go away and may be exacerbated by an upheaval or catastrophe affecting the whole of the nation. This does not mean that the functions of government cease. Indeed, it becomes more urgent for the state to fulfil its remit.

 

This is so, even if a nation is under grave threat. The most pressing needs [of health, safety, housing, employment, education all of which are connected by communication (phone, public and private transport, roads etc.)] all require a specific government department to oversee and facilitate the most efficient method of providing services to the general population, regardless of circumstances.

 

These are services the public expect.  Each country has set up an administrative system through which these requirements are provided. The citizens elect a body of people to be administrators and an overall chairperson or leader to run the country’s essential necessities. The people so elected, or chosen, perform a public service. Some see this public service as a profession and others as a civic duty, but for whatever reason, all public servants are expected to act with unimpeachable integrity.

 

Giving the possible complexities of providing theses essentials, various ways and means of achieving the best outcome and most efficient service have evolved. As a result, some individuals have put forward theories as to how best to accomplish the task. Various groups have developed and assembled around these theories. Political parties have been formed and the approach and methods of administration are as wide ranging a spectrum as one can imagine.

 

All of this has quite naturally evolved out of the economic relationship between individuals, which has itself evolved since humans have interacted with each other in order to survive. The currency of barter, exchange of goods or services, has evolved into promissory notes or tokens which became money.

 

The provision and service of essentials, as well as the administrators to do the work, requires financing. The citizens must then agree to provide a contribution towards the cost of providing these essentials. The cost is therefore dependent on the size of the nation’s population. The size of the contribution, and method of expenditure, is dependent on the chosen administrators and the pre-eminence they give to the various services. These decisions are all interrelated with survival.

 

In order for there to be a vibrant administration there must be a vibrant economy. In order for there to be a vibrant economy, there must be a vibrant administration. The priorities of the various political parties as to how to create and maintain a vibrant economy to provide the required essential services for the population is what becomes of interest to the individuals who elect them to become the administrators. 

 

There are those who prefer a more simplistic approach to governing and would prefer the provision of services to be taken care of by private citizens selling services in the marketplace. There would be little need for the administrators to intervene, and therefore little need for any sizeable contribution towards the cost of administration. It is then just a matter of deciding which services should remain public services. Perhaps the armed services should be national, as private armies can be dangerous and cause problems.  In general we need armed service to protect the integrity of the nation from foreign interference. Best keep them under civilian authority. Policing? Perhaps that too should be a general public service; however, that can be passed on to local authorities to administer, as they each have particular problems best dealt with on a local level. Education? Why not have both public and private? And so on…

 

Others would see a more involved form of governance as the requirements to provide essential services can be costly. There are many citizens who could not afford the cost of services if open solely to the marketplace. Citizens are entitled to some services as a human right, and to allow difficulties in the way of providing human rights would be unacceptable.  In any event the marketplace has to be controlled and regulated in order to safeguard the individual interests of the citizen as consumer.   The state then has to be more involved in certain matters in order to better protect the individual citizen.

 

In the final analysis one asks what is the scale of the necessities required? How much is required from the economy? What is the strength of the economy?  What is the best way or collecting contributions? The questions over priorities then are a matter of ‘more, or less’. Does the state provide more or less? Do the citizens provide more or less? Must the contributions be equal? Who is capable of providing more and who has to be let off with less? This brings up the question of equality. The problems of inequality in all its aspect around the world seem insurmountable.

 

Just a glance at the current state or world economies shows that there is never enough provided by the citizens alone. There is clearly a limit on what they can contribute and still be able to live the life that have chosen, or to even accept the life they have. It is equally clear that the services required, to enable citizens to live as best they can, cost far more that s/he can afford and so the state borrows in order to fulfil its contract to provide the essential necessities.

 

The question remains then how much control does the state have over the economy of the nation. In a democratic society, total control is anathema and no control is anarchy; however there must be some. The added difficulty is that a nation is more than just an economy. It has a set of principles it holds on to. Human beings think. They have ideas. They have social interaction. They do things. They have beliefs apart from needs and necessities. Indeed, some would argue that having a belief is a necessity. I would argue that it is an inevitable consequence of having a brain. What you believe and think is completely dependent on the individual, but most importantly individuals have human rights.  Providing and ensuring the human rights of its citizens is part of the essential necessities required of the State.

 

A democratic State has an enormous responsibility towards its citizens, and to be trusted to run the State in a manner which promotes the health, well-being, security and freedom of all, each and every one, of its individual citizens, is a great undertaking as well as a privilege. It is not to be undertaken lightly, nor should the responsibility of choosing such an individual public servant be taken lightly.

 

During Bill Clinton’s campaign for president in 1992, his campaign strategist, James Carville hung up a sign in Clinton’s Little Rock, Arkansas, campaign headquarters that read:

1.  Change vs. more of the same.

2.  The economy, stupid

3.  Don't forget health care.

 

Nothing in the current climate in the United States, the United Kingdom or Italy (undergoing its own general elections) suggests that those three points have in anyway changed in respect of what is paramount in focusing on choice of leader.

 

In the United Kingdom we have a private election going on, entirely in the hands of local Conservative Party Members. As to the first point, both candidates are more of the same despite their respective entreaties that they are a focus of change. They both emanate from Boris Johnson’s discredited cabinet. They both try to distance themselves from that cabinet whilst still supporting, praising and refusing to disown Boris Johnson. One of them is still in the Cabinet. What is the change? Because they say so? That is a lie, a fabrication to deflect from the truth, a typical Johnson tactic. So no change there.

 

As to number 2 on the list, the United Kingdom is in for a hard ride. What answers these candidates have put forward on the economy, so far as I can see, are just as fanciful as the other. They have no real idea of what to do. Their respective programs are a matter of ‘let’s suck it and see’. We’ll start with lowering some taxes, now or maybe later, hopefully borrow a lot of money, try to pacify the citizens with a few handouts, and maybe some people will be able to spend us out of recession, or make some investments and kickstart a business. That’s what’s supposed to happen when you lower taxes and raise interest rates, isn’t it? That will stop inflation, wouldn’t it? Who the hell knows? So let’s just suck it and see.

 

As to remembering the National Health Service, they seem to have forgotten about that altogether.

 

The certainty displayed by the candidates for Party Leader and Prime Minister is remarkable. That the whole of the United Kingdom has to listen to this repetitive nonsense and have no say in the matter is despicable. To have a leader chosen on the basis of what shoes, tie or jewellery they wear, or for having too much money, or not being as aggressive as the other is not a uniquely British characteristic, I dare say, but that’s what we’ve got. It’s the Prime Minister, stupid!

 

The entire country is a set for the film “Carry on Britain”. We might just as well have a cabinet consisting of:  Kenneth Williams, Sid James, Barbara Windsor, Charles Hawtrey, Hattie Jacques, Bernard Bresslaw, Joan Sims, Kenneth Connor, Jack Douglas, Jim Dale, Peter Butterworth, Patsy Rowlands, Terry Scott, etc..

 

I would be grateful if any of the readers of the blog could let me know what ministry any of the above might be best at, and who would be their choice of leader. Thank you.