IN A DEMOCRACY, THE FIRST DUTY of the elected representatives is to their citizens and their country. All legislation whether social, criminal or economic, should be framed in accordance with the sovereignty of the people in mind. The politicians are where they are because of the elected will of the people; which is why the first past the post system is the safest and truest expression of that will. If a party is given an overall majority to govern then it stands a better chance of completing its manifesto than would otherwise be the case under any system of proportionality.
PR reduces election manifestoes to worthless pieces of paper. Once the (inevitable) coalition takes power a process of bargaining away election promises begins. Welcome to the political bazaar where political survival matters more than the expressed wishes of the people. Under such a system decision making is often feeble in its outcome. Compromise that, by its very nature precludes decisiveness, is the outcome of such arrangements.
No system of electing our representatives is perfect – the last election stands testament to that. But the first past the post system can deliver strong, and principled government with the mandate to fulfil a party’s election promises: whether good or bad these promises carry the authority of true democracy. If, as happened last May, the system produces the anomaly known as the ‘Brokeback’ coalition, then the people will have to judge whether an electoral system that produces such an outcome time after time, is a system they think is worth pursuing, when next May they are given the opportunity to vote on such an arrangement.
LET ME GIVE an example of how a system of PR would work in practice. This current coalition, we learn today, is about to increase the age of entitlement from 60 to 66 for the Winter Fuel Allowance, despite David Cameron promising that the allowance would not be interfered with during last Mays election campaign. Nick Clegg, on the other hand, wanted such an increase; which is now being considered.
No doubt, in the coming weeks and months, the issue of immigration will also suffer from the same kind of compromise. While Cameron requires a limit based on a system of qualification, Nick Clegg is opposed to such restrictions. This will be another compromise; but maybe, just maybe, hopefully one too far.
But is this the way the British people want their politicians to behave? Is this strong government? If as a nation you are prepared to compromise with your very identity as a people, then what is the point of remaining a nation? Well the Liberal Democrats would argue that our nation would be better off as a canton within a European Federal State anyway. Nick Clegg is, after all, a Europhile supreme, he will do whatever is in his power to deliver this nation up to the EU.
What I hope as a British citizen, is that we can hang on to the country that for 2,000 years we have, at great cost in human lives (including my father’s) fought to establish and continue its advancement. This island nation deserves to remain a nation. We are a proud people who will not, just like the French, succumb easily to what amounts to federal enslavement. If you think I have overstepped the mark by this comment, then you lack the necessary qualification as a voter – justifiable cynicism.
IF WE GIVE OUR status as a nation up to that unworkable cocktail known as the United States of Europe, then we have only ourselves to blame. I do not think for one moment that the people of Europe support what their politicians have in mind for them. But we still have a chance to turn away from politicians like Nick Clegg who sit at the feet of the European Commissioners.
I believe in the nation state; so much has been sacrificed in its creation to so easily dismiss it. If we, the British people dismiss our heritage at the whim of a politician’s wet dream, then we deserve to retreat into the mists of time, like the ancient Greeks and Romans before us.
No comments:
Post a Comment