APOLOGIES TO MR STARMER - YOU MAY ASK WHY

I have perhaps been expecting too much. My political views and feelings are not in issue. I have not been elected to political office, nor have I sought to obtain political office. I have not tested my points of view with the public at large in order to gain sufficient support to be elected to any political office. Being elected as a public servant has not been something I have contemplated. I do not seek to serve, nor have I sought to rule. I have however the freedom to voice my opinion because some people have sought public office and consequently have promulgated my rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of atheism and freedom from illness. They have helped codify these human rights through legislation and have given of their time and effort to secure the rule of law and the duty of care.

This country of Great Britain has evolved into a parliamentary democracy maintaining a monarch who acts as figurehead and ceremoniously signs legislation into law.  The monarch maintains an apolitical stance and, in theory, embodies the concept of duty to the nation. The monarch keeps the flag flying. Parliament rules. It has power over everything. It creates the rules, maintains order, security and health of the nation. It upholds liberty and consequently the freedom of every individual under its umbrella. It is sovereign and always will be. The whole idea of a deeply misguided Brexit, was to take back control. Brexit was misguided in particular because Parliament had never relinquished control. Parliament is sovereign and has always had the interests of the citizen as its single reason of existence. It is after all an elected body of representatives who gather together to conduct the business of the state which is to provide the citizen with all those things mentioned above. 

Great Britain is but one nation in a world made up of many nations, most of whom have developed parliamentary systems of their own. Just as people interact with each other to trade services and goods to allow each other to survive and live (for the most part) in a civilised manner, so do nations trade services and goods. There is therefore a global economy that has developed and each country tries to work out just how it is to fit into that economy and at the same time work out just how it will conduct its own internal economic affairs so as to provide the best environment for their own citizens to prosper.  

In order to accomplish this and govern this country, a number of people have put themselves forward as a person qualified and committed enough to act as representatives of the people. They have come together to form political parties, willing to take on the responsibilities of state. Each party puts forward an agenda by which it intends to rule the state. In effect it proposes a method of operation to the electorate and a political philosophy as to how best the state should function and under what rules and regulations. There are differing ideas on just how much of the state’s operations should be performed by the state and how much should be performed by private enterprise and industry. But regardless of how much is pubic and how much is private, overall, it is Parliament that has the final decision in all matters. It is sovereign. 

That being the case, in order for government to function it has to permanently employ a group of people who actually put into action the decisions made by Parliament, The Civil Service is just that. Since the Government must effectively employ these individuals, there must be an executive branch chosen form the elected representatives. That executive government chosen to run things does so by consent of the majority of the members of Parliament who have been elected by the citizens as their representatives. It is that majority that allows the executive to govern and it is that majority that decides, in the final analysis, just how much of the executives decisions they will put into legislation and effect.  

That is how the whole thing works. So if the executive proposes certain legislation and the members of parliament think the proposals are inadequate or simply wrong, they make their views felt. That can bring about changes in the executive as well as changes in their collective decisions. There is after all an executive responsibility to parliament as well a to fellow executives. It is called cabinet responsibility. 

We have a democracy after all. Things change all the time and hopefully for the better. So the state has to balance its priorities in terms of what is best for the nation in all areas. Because of global and internal economics it has to decide just how much of a budget (derived from finances provided by the citizens through taxes and investments) it will allow for the efficient and effective operation of all its endeavours. Health, security, environment, employment, housing, education etc.. Under health there are a variety of disabilities and illnesses among the citizens that require additional help and therefore funding to make life bearable, worthwhile and possible. Under security, there are a number of branches for dealing with civil disorder, criminality, the Armes forces etc.. that require substantial funds. Providing housing, employment and education likewise requires some form of government financial assistance, 

So it must raise the finances to effectively do all these things. It does so through taxation and investment and when necessary borrowing. The country is the welfare of its people, it is not a business. If it were a business, its business would be looking after its people. Overspending, given the nature of people’s foibles, desires and needs will inevitably create borrowing. It is the nature of things. Parties, in order to be elected, claim they are more efficient and can accomplish the task of running things better than other parties, without putting any excessive burden on the citizens  through taxation. 

The dichotomy is that in order to accomplish good and efficient government, taxes have to be paid; however, the citizen’s are reluctant to pay the amounts they should pay for government to provide the needed services and, consequently, seem to elect the political party that claims it will tax them the least and still be able to provide the services.  This is a big mistake, ridiculous to believe, and even more ridiculous to promise. Do not complain that things are not working if you are not willing to help make them work. If societies are to thrive, they must support each other. Those with the most, because they are getting the most, should contribute accordingly. They still have the most regardless. 

So when a government sets out its financial agenda it is scrutinised by all members of parliament. Regardless of its majority in Parliament, whatever the executive proposes will be scrutinised. Representatives will have their priorities and if, for whatever reason, the executive is not meeting those priorities, then the representatives will make their case. The representatives are indeed obliged to make their case. That is what parliamentary responsibility and sovereignty is all about. It is not a question of U turns, failure or weakness, it is what supposed to happen. The sovereignty of parliament is being exercised. That is what this democracy is about. The citizen benefits and we should be pleased that our democracy works. Our representatives are performing their function. 

So when Mr Starmer,  Ms Reeves, Ms Kendall or whoever, accepts a change in legislation or policy,  they are accepting that parliament is supreme over all. They may not like it, personally, but they accept it politically, which must be lauded and not derided or mocked. 

We are a nation that looks after its citizens. The numbers of people requiring assistance is unfortunately very high, and the cost of services to cope with their needs is extremely high. Accounting for the cost, which is rising all the time, is not easy when one has to constantly bear in mind the reluctance of a citizenry that  complains about any public money being spent on people they may see as freeloaders or refugees who they see as an unnecessary and outrageous burden. We have no choice but to cope with all of it. 

Derision of a change of view by ministers in some cases, is not really acceptable. That is why I apologise to Mr Starmer et al.. That is  not to say that I am altogether happy with the way in which he and his co-executives in government have dealt with Mr Trump. But the same thing can be applied to all the Nato Heads of government at present.  But that is another aspect of executive government. At least we do not have a supreme court that, it would seem, allows for presidential executive orders, that are clearly unconstitutional, to go into effect. The complete abandonment of checks and balances in the American government is a danger to the entire world. At least the United Kingdom lives up to its reputation as the mother of parliaments and hence real democracy in action. 

As we approach the fourth of July, the current Labour party will have been in office for one year. The United States will be celebrating its 249th anniversary. Between the 1st and 3rd July 1863, United States forces overcame the confederacy in a bloody battle to save the Union at Gettysburg. Mr Lincoln delivered an address in commemoration of the dead on that battlefield 162 years ago on the 19th November 1863. If things continue as they are, the United States will have completely reversed the meaning of his  speech and that country, so rigorously fought for, shall indeed have perished from the earth.