Part of that soil are the leaders of the three main parties all humming the same tune if based on slightly different hymn sheets; with Sadim Brown as usual, slightly behind the beat and glottally humming catch- up. Why?
Why in the middle of catastrophes covering just about every gambit of democratic governance should three political leaders want to throw radical constitutional change into the mix? And why should Brown believe he's in anyway qualified to preside over these changes?
Mythology tells us that everything Midas touched turned to gold - for Brown everything he's touched has turned to dross. (Hence the Sadim)
His boom turned to dross. And, despite the ever increasing awards to education and the NHS the results of these expenditures have been lost in the dross of statistics. In effect making dross of the amounts invested.
During his term he has allowed the wealthy to increase their welfare benefits while allowing benefits and pensions to decrease in real terms and as a prime minister he's generated debt, downgraded duty and either colluded or been blind to downright dishonesty. Now what, out of that amalgam, gives him the qualifications to participate in any reforming of democratic politics
in this country?
As for the other two, let them go to the country on a one term ticket of a government of national unity and reform.
Lets get the financial mess with the banks properly assessed and sorted out to the public's benefit not the conglomerates. Along with the values the British people want to put on their place in the world and in the society they want to live in. After all the purpose of governance is surprisingly simple: To serve the people, and to achieve that, a government should be able to show the lives of the people it has served have improved for the majority during their governance.
We can hardly award Labour that plaudit, they're proven to be big on spin but poor on results. But there again, when they gained power in 97 it wasn't a change of political philosophy merely a management takeover. Time has proved that.
No comments:
Post a Comment