War Without End

If you watch the 24/7 news on TV or read the usual newspapers you’ll have no trouble recognising the environment they take for granted they are operating in and we are supposedly living in. It goes like so:

• The United Kingdom is a democracy,
• That has a parliament led by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and an “opposition” led by “Dave” Cameron,
• And the office of the Prime Minister is the highest in the land,
• And the laws made in parliament are a representation of the will of the public as expressed at the ballot box.

Which makes me wonder why the old sayings, “None of them are any good!”, or, “This lot are as bad as the last lot!”, are as popular today as they have ever been.

Many people I have talked to seem to accept as sound the structure of our society yet they don’t seem very happy with how it currently operates. In political terms they are cynical of it, jaded at the monotonous disappointment that follows every honeymoon period afforded to one government after the next. Brown was prudent and solid enough and the only real choice for the job, the media told us. Things could “only get better” under Blair, if you recall. “Honest” John Major was going to sweep away the harshness of a Thatcherite system that initially excited the average citizen but ended up being despised. Labour before that was too disastrous to contemplate, though the Winter of Discontent might seem small potatoes compared to the global meltdown we could be facing if the media is incorrect in its present prediction of an imminent recovery – as wrong as they were about this crisis happening in the first place, or Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, for example.

“This lot are as bad as the last lot!” Why? Because their diametrically opposed policies are just as hopeless as the other crowd’s? More likely because you can’t tease a cigarette paper between the agendas of either party. Could it be that both parties are so similar that in effect there is only really one party split into two groups? Sounds like a conspiracy theory and we’ve been conditioned to reject anything carrying that label, out of hand. So why was “Dave” Cameron elected as Tory leader? It’s not a secret, they wanted the next Tony Blair. Many Labour backbenchers often wondered why Tony Blair hadn’t selected the Tories as his natural home. And Gordon Brown placed the banks at the heart of his agenda from day one, like any good Tory would do, cutting them loose to build the financial disaster we are currently experiencing. The Tories are selling you their compassion and environmentalism, whilst agreeing to hand unrestrained power to the banks, giving them a free hand whilst claiming to be championing consumer protection. Yes indeed, the differences between the parties that constitute our democracy are there for all to see.

Which brings me to Peter Mandelson. Apparently Gordon Brown, the man in possession of the highest office in the land, only held onto his chair because Mandelson provided him support at a crucial time. When I heard the TV news loops relay these facts I couldn’t help wonder what it means to be “in charge” when a subordinate holds the power to issue a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. Of course the electorate in this democracy wasn’t consulted, either at the time when Blair transferred power to Brown under the terms of a pre-arranged deal or more recently when Brown’s fate was in the balance. The media casually explains the government has the right to delay all such consultation with the people, apparently regardless of the circumstances. Those are the rules, and the rules need no further comment.

“Dave” Cameron, meanwhile, has been whispering at the top of his voice and demanding a general election. And, by golly, if there is an election and provided the Irish haven’t re-voted “Yes” and provided the treaty hasn’t already been verified, Cameron will see to it the British people get a say in whether the sovereignty of this nation is handed over to Europe. It’s not as stirring a performance as Elizabeth rousing the troops at Tilbury or Churchill urging us to fight them on the beaches, but at least he made suitable noises during the right scene. If events overtake his desire for a democratic resolution to the European question, as appears inevitable, he can point to his innocence in the whole affair as he reluctantly accepts the will of a few old men in Brussels. Democracy is not perfect then, or even utilised when inconvenient, but if you believe what you read in the press and hang on the words of the news anchors we, the people, are running this show.

To cap it all, I hear Tony Blair is in the frame for the presidency of Europe. And Mandelson has kept Brown in office and so prevented a general election that might have forced Cameron to actually offer a referendum on Europe. Such happy coincidences.

If you have read this far then some of you, at least, will be furiously shaking your heads and muttering, “Yes, I bloody know all that! It’s obvious!” So why does the TV news and the newspapers continue to try to make you believe the exact opposite? Why do they continue to insist we live in a democracy and that Gordon Brown is our leader and that the will of the people is paramount and that our parliament is the ultimate representation of our will?

Whilst this charade goes on we will never get to ask the big questions. The big questions will always be swamped by the trivia. At the heart of it, the politicians work for us, so it is said. Do you believe that? Really? What if it simply isn’t true? What if the facts upon facts upon facts show otherwise?