Our 'Democratic' Political Parties

Conservative Home is running a series of articles, ten in all, on things the Conservative Party need to focus on, the latest one being number 9 of 10.

I have, on other posts, stated that our political system is 'corrupt' in that the three main parties seem to believe they have a divine right to 'rule' - note the word 'rule' - when surely a politicial party's first 'raison d'etre' is to form a group that resonates with the public because they will campaign on matters the voters wish to be addressed and in so doing provide detailed policies that do just that. Nothing demonstrates this 'central control' ethos of all the major parties than the following extracts:

1. "When David Cameron and George Osborne move between their suite of offices at the eastern end of the parliamentary estate and the Commons chamber they do so with a pomp that would not embarrass a medieval monarch. A crowd of attendants accompanies them, constantly changing positions but never disrupting the order: staffer, Cameron, staffer, Osborne, staffer. The party moves through the corridors at breakneck speed, heads thrown back, staring into the middle distance rather than looking around at their colleagues. This display certainly succeeds in getting them noticed. But to the Tory MPs whom they march past without even a glance, the whole procession symbolises not power but the remoteness and arrogance of those who are running the party." (my emphasis)

2. "But talking to backbench MPs, one is struck by the lack of love for either of them. The reason for this is simple: the infantry feel underappreciated and ignored. As one backbencher told me in exasperation this week, ‘the Cameron machine doesn’t listen to anyone’ — and, worse, it doesn’t even pretend to listen." (my emphasis)

The highighted sections from the two passages quoted serves to emphasise just what is wrong with our political system today. Two points immediately are apparent: (a) that 'power' is concentrated in the hands of those who have not been elected by the people, but by a 'selected few' - aka members of a party. Should not anyone, submitting themselves for a national leadership position, be chosen by the people? And (b) if those in a position of 'power' cannot even listen to those with whom they are supposed to work, why and how would they listen to those who pay their salaries and 'expenses'?

An afterthought also occurs: If 'remoteness and arrogance' are exhibited running a party, one has to wonder what would be exhibited when 'running' our country! One also has to ask: What happened to 'compassionate Conservatism'?

Just a thought, on a dull Wednesday evening...............