A good week for majorities, at last!

TMP commends to all those interested in democracy and rare moments of populism at work, the recent story of Sark, and the defeat of the bullying tactics of the billionaire Barclay brothers, who arrived uninvited in this tax haven, built a monstrosity of a fortress, bought up businesses and property - and then set about trying to change the laws to favour their interests.

With the collusion of the UK government (which does not want feisty, self-opinionated and self-determining tax havens in their portfolio of empire remnants) they then forced the island community to dump their immensely efficient and successful 1564 constitution, expensively adopt the ECHR (despite the fact that Sark had the good sense to stay outside the EU), and adopt "democracy".

The reclusive Barclays were confident that they had bought the election result they wanted - but instead "got their arses kicked" when the islanders decided enough was enough, and by an overwhelming majority returned a ruling body that is not going to do what the Barclays tell them. And the islanders were well aware that by voting against the interests of the elderly Barclay twins, they would likely suffer reprisals - which arrived in a startlingly petulant manner when all the Barclay's interests were shut, and the local staff laid off, the moment it was clear that the election had not gone their way.

Also add the Manchester congestion charge referendum result, and this has been a very rare week indeed:

Voice of the People 2 - Overbearing Autocracy Nil.

Why Democracy Sucks

The US electoral circus begs an important question for all "Democratic" processes based in medieval origins. After the dust settled and after an alleged $5bn up the wall, months of name calling and yaa-booing, the protagonists were jolly nice about each other. Then they rolled up their carpets and went quietly home.

There's an assumption that those supporting political parties must do so on the basis of blindly supporting the entire manifesto. "Collective responsibility" means that there seems to be very little room for anyone to think for themselves and criticise anything about their party of choice, because the "other side" will pounce on any evidence of dissent and bang on about it like schoolkids.

And there's plenty of evidence that the ability to think for oneself and honestly express a contrarian moral viewpoint (aka a maverick) didn't do a lot for the careers of folks like Mo Mowlem, Robin Cook and Frank Field. Or Dr David Kelly.

If we cannot tolerate unvarnished honesty in public life, then we must be forcing once-honest politicians to deny their natures. So it is little wonder that so many of them turn out to be amoral liars and all-round shits, quite incapable of answering a straight question with a straight answer..

Nevertheless, the art of compromise is generally forced by the reality of office, and much of the impossible manifesto melts away like the snow in spring. Those who criticised the now-absent elements are not generally warmly welcomed and told they were right along. (You can be excused almost anything in this life, except being proved right - and boy, I should know.)

All governments seem to end up as disappointments, having been elected on a variety of false promises - especially as now, where our PM was only "nodded through" by around 400 sycophants. At least the losing party doesn't have to deal with the consequence of ANY of its unelected policies (the reason why the LibDems have lasted this long?) .

Overall, democracy as we know it, sucks. It was devised in the days when it took days to get between the cities of the UK, and has not changed noticeably since.

Are we not now sufficiently technologically advanced to have a list of propositons to vote for in regular refernda/plebiscites so that we can explore the best of all parties' and individuals' ideas, and cancel the hare-brained stuff without wasting further time, energy, money..?

The process of running the country could then be delegated to an effective "chief executive" which should ensure we really do the get the best talent. Presently such folks are too horrified by the awful media process to want to play politics. Whatever else happens, we should never again gift the job to a filibustering/gerrymandering old Caledonian fraud, living off a dishonest voting system.

A reminder of what TMP is about

The summary of TMP aims and objects at the top of each page continues to form our basic tenets. This used to be called "democracy" in the good old days before both the USA and England became subjugated by the type of dodgy electoral systems and procedures favoured by banana republics and dictatorships.

TMP seeks to accommodate and air a majority view. Traditional party lines have become increasingly blurred by the march of progress, and the emergence of the "classless society"; these majority views appear as occasional islands of sanity in the vastness of government, and show reducing regard for party allegiances. Yet too many party politicians still try and dismiss such views as "populism" - as if being popular was beneath their dignity, and a crude tactic to undermine their continued existence as self-regulating guardians of the best interests and morals of a feckless and too easily roused rabble, aka "the electorate".

The media will of course do its best to make mischief, and try and stir up confrontational politics at all times by wheeling out the "theft of clothes" jibes when parties appear to agree on a popular strategy. TMP believes that it should be possible to provide people from all traditional parties with a haven from mindless ideology in which to convene, and agree on common sense matters that have no need to be tainted as "party political".

TMP further believes that it is better for those matters that are not contested that they be looked after by an independent intermediary, since it is the first instinct of any politician to try and "bank" such issues, which then means they feel compelled to tax anything and everything over which there is a general consensus because they reckon they can get away with it, unopposed. Witness the immediate introduction of numerous impositions and stealth taxes around anything that could be hung on the terror or green hooks.

The compromise form of government that we have largely inherited from the 17th century is now wholly mischievous, given the advances in voting technology. A message can get from York to London in under 5 days, in case you hadn't noticed; although it still takes up to 5 years for a message to reach the party in power that it's not wanted.

The sheer unimaginable vastness of government is a relatively modern phenomenon. Like its surveillance systems, government is now everywhere, and the laws that pour forth from Brussels and elsewhere have reached absurd proportions for a nation that once prided itself on common sense and a sense of fair play.

Most traditionally "delegated politicians" take a condescending view of the electorate and believe that the man in the street is not qualified to understand all the issues surrounding modern government, which is hardly surprising with such a vast amount of legislation (remember that 40 tons of EU verbiage) most of which is unnecessary, and poorly attempts to replace common sense with rote regulation. But oh boy, does it create (pensionable) jobs for bureaucrats!

So along with the introduction of majority rule, TMP proposes a complete overhaul and simplification of the constitution in consultation with, and ultimately agreed by, the majority of the people. Any politician suggesting that such matters are too complex to be entrusted to the majority of voters can be humanely recycled as something more useful, such as compost; TMP has no other use for them.

Council elections: some choice!

Various commentators continue to wring their hands about the state of local government, and how most local councils seem to have acquired Taliban-like enclaves of politically correct officials who conveniently hide behind the incessant stream absurd diktats from the EU. Did you really consciously vote for this state of affairs?

Once again the answer is simple: instead of the voting system from the dark ages, why not insist on a scheme that allows you to make simple but obvious choices on the ballot paper itself?

Multiple choice may be the answer to try and curtail the endless opportunities to dissipate your wealth on those for whom the notion of wealth creation is a distant memory. Here are some suggestions, and although TMP does not claim to have done the sums in any detail, you will get the gist..?

10 diversity officers, or 5 miles of road resurfacing
15 health and safety officers, or respite care for the elderly
A cultural exchange with Jamaica, or two park keepers
100 CCTV cameras or 20 police officers on the beat
20 parking wardens or weekly bin collections

Please don't believe the incumbent politicians when they say it cannot be done - we live in the 21st century, not the middle ages, of course this can be done...