Thursday, 13 May 2010

Principles & Power

With the formation of a Con/LibDem coalition government we see at first hand that political love of power comes before principle. Both parties have dropped certain manifesto 'pledges' in order to gain political control of the country. Is democracy per se best served by this coalition and who gains from this abrogation of principle? Certainly not the electorate as there will be policies implemented that they did not vote for. It could be said that the Con/LibDem coalition have assumed power and that not one member of the electorate voted for them. It comes as no surprise that David Cameron, single-mindedly intent on gaining entrance to No10, has changed/amended/watered-down policies on which he campaigned. It has for some time been only too apparent that Cameron was what might be termed a 'Liberal' Conservative to the extent that it could also be asked whether the Conservative Party is his true political 'home'.

Looking at the full text issued of the agreement between the Conservatives and LibDems throws up areas of policy which are governed by Britain's membership of the European Union - a subject most noticeable by its non-appearance in the general election campaign. This agreement states "A significantly accelerated reduction in the structural deficit over the course of a parliament, with the main burden of deficit reduction borne by reduced spending rather than increased taxes". Yet contrary to Cameron's and Clegg's opinion that they are 'the government' it is reported today in the Metro that "The European Union wants to crack down on 'irresponsible' government spending following the £638billion EU stabilisation mechanism. The plan, proposed by the EU's executive commission, calls for unprecedented scrutiny of countries' spending plans – even before they go to their national parliaments. EU commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso said: 'You can't have a monetary union without an economic union and this is the absolute prerequisite for having monetary union.'" Open Europe press summary also quotes Barroso and the Telegraph notes that under Commission proposals the UK may also have to submit budget proposals for agreement prior to presenting them in Parliament. Then of course there is the £25billion bill that the last government saddled Britain with, highlighted by Burning Our Money - Odd, don't recall any of this being discussed during the election campaign - and don't tell me Cameron and Clegg knew nothing about any of this. It is also worth recalling that 'he' who controls the money, controls the country. And Cameron and Clegg still believe they can control Britain's finances?

And just who voted for our budgets having to be 'approved' by the EU? Who voted for the idea that 55% of MPs would be needed to trigger a dissolution of Parliament following a no-confidence vote? Who voted for a referendum on proportional representation and that the system used should be that of Alternative Vote (AV) and only AV? Having seen the 'shannighans' after May 6th, who the hell would want any form of proportional representation which would result in a repeat of said 'shannighans'.

What the UK has with this coalition government is a decision to change aspects of our Constitution without asking the electorates permission, which increases the evidence that there is indeed a 'democratic deficit' - a deficit resulting in what I have termed 'Democratised Dictatorship'. What we also see is continued state control of our lives, but then we have known for some time that there is no real difference between Labour, LibDems and Conservative. Burning Our Money relates on one of his blogs the adage used by his Polish patio layer on changes of government - 'Same trough, different pigs', something which is all too obvious with this Liberal-Conservative government.

No comments: