So, as if 'our' democracy wasn't already responsive, nay perfect, enough, now we are to be encouraged to vote upon the 'appointment' of Police Commissioners. Well- short pause for breath and reality check- it's just fine-tuned democratic process, upon fine-tuned democratic process, upon further fine-tuned democratic process, isn't it? Finally- current crippling recession excepted- we have surely arrived at the very gateway to a virtual Nirvana upon this Earth.
Time to celebrate, we might consider... or just might there be something covertly party-pooperish afoot? On the surface- I'm referring to a surface here that's so 'immeasurably' thin as to almost defy quantum physics, rather less than a tremblingly fragile meniscus of an already fragile meniscus- the image of 'our' country that 'our' lords and masters would like to present to the unthinking wider world is one of a strongly united nation, collectively shouldering up to its financial responsibilities; 'united we stand,' that type of thing.
Honestly? If this is indeed the case- the reality, as opposed to the presentation- then we certainly must have arrived at the aforementioned gates, all pulling together, safe in the knowledge that those whom we have 'elected' to best carry forth our bidding are striving, often late into the nights, to best represent that one, collective nation. Therefore when, perchance, the representer and the representee should chance to converse, one would expect both sides to be referencing to the same technical manual. I honestly can't see how anyone could have serious issues with anything written thus far, indeed this is much the sort of thing that dear ol' Dave and the vertibrately-challenged Nick are, in essence, still insisting.
Which is why I would like to suggest that Andrew Mitchell's recent and teeny-tiny difference of opinion with a member of the constabulary requires significantly greater analysis than Uncle Dave is insisting, or currently trying to insist.
spacecookypk
As the situation, at this juncture, stands there are those who would like to present the now well-documented spat between Andrew and PC as something of an honesty conundrum, a simple who dunnit scenario. But, back on Planet Earth- where Nirvana is sadly, currently regarded as rather more of an anti-inspiration- for anyone who may still have dealings with either their MP or their local constabulary, the issue may well present as a conundrum, but only in so far as in that neither side generally presents as being anything approaching entirely trustworthy. Thus, instead of, 'who could possibly be lying?' the puzzle becomes more, 'who could possibly be telling the truth?'
Without any form of apparent supportive evidence we could, here, be left with no alternative other than to draw the 'obvious' conclusion, of 'unproven.' Frustrating indeed! So, allow me, if you will, licence to speculate beyond this 'apparent' lack of evidence.
Gleaning character-witness type evidence from the wider parliamentary club, I'm prepared to jump in here and argue that it is infinitely more likely that it is the reputedly petulant Andrew who has been somewhat more cavalier with the truth, thus lying. Further, and sighting more instances of such class-based reaction than one could shake a stick at, I would venture to suggest that the vast majority of the politically-tuned-in public have already drawn similar conclusions.
It's not as if the police are anywhere near as close to the top of the honesty tree as one should be permitted to expect, within an open and honest democracy. Cite The Hillsborough Enquiry, cite the issues surrounding the suicide of Fiona and Francecca Pilkington, cite recent and ongoing troubles at Elm Hill in Norwich, cite any number of domestic incidences where 'your' local police force have, and will continue to, misinform(ed) you and the wider public about either what is happening or what the police are currently doing in order to address the situation. Make no mistakes, if 'your' local Commissioner can be quoted as saying that, "Problems are being robustly dealt with," which you know not to be the case (because you live there every day), of if he can be quoted as having said that, "The family were overreacting," before the self same family self immolates, then this is, regardless of how any later enquiry couches it, lying.
Not outstandingly powerful evidence in support of the constabulary is it, but, should you choose to weigh up this contention, against the overwhelming evidence of obscene levels of self-serving and egocentric behaviour amongst 'our' MPs, then the most convincing scenario becomes, well, almost half-convincing... maybe.
The alleged lying of Andrew Mitchell, and let's face it both sides cannot possibly be telling the truth, I'm going to jump in and suggest, is not here even remotely the most pertinent issue. Experience should, long ago, have taught us that lying in the guise of an 'aspiring' MP (or PM) is now almost a given. Site Tony Blair's slight of hand with the WMD truth, Nick Clegg's pretence at spinal integrity, Gordon Brown's whoops-adaisy with the best part of the nation's pensions, virtually anything that JC (Jeremy Hunt) has ever uttered, any number of MPs angry at the questioning of their 'right' to accumulate numerous properties at the tax payer's expense (an issue, incidentally, which still has not fully been addressed), the list really is almost endless. Perhaps a very simple conversion chart of 'scale of potential personal gain' weighed-up against 'size of attempted lie' might serve us well here.
The ultimate, and thus most pertinent, consideration has to be just how very poorly represented we currently are, by those we have 'elected' so to to do. And, as evidenced by Andrew's 'alleged' (but safely to be considered as 'actual') outburst, can we not easily gauge exactly how lowly we, the vast majority of the electorate, feature, in terms of absolute and currently-practised disposability? We are merely, and I quote, "Plebs."
Just how is it even possible that a political party that has traditionally and consistently represented the interests of so few, at the expense of so many, might have gained enough votes to yet again be set in charge?
What with the even-handed nature of 'our' 'free' press, the 'fair' and 'equal' access to the quiet and private ear of 'our' MP, the vested interests of those who own and control the means of news distribution, the duplicitous betrayal of its 'supporters' by New Labour; for heaven's sake what could possibly have gone wrong?
So, why to vote for 'your' Police Commissioner, or not?
On the one hand actually voting for a Commissioner might, in the wrong kind of manipulative hands, be regarded as condoning of any future political party allegiance that might develop, should 'minor' adjustments later be regarded as 'beneficial' or 'desirable'. It might, in the convenient eyes of a non-impartial news media, and at certain levels, be regarded as a tacit acceptance of a collaborative responsibility for future, questionable, decisions that are to made by the 'elected' Commissioner. "You can always vote again, in another (is it?) four years," has long since become a mantra of so many modern day apologists, for the current woeful system- don't lose your right to vote! Amongst the growing numbers of disenfranchised voters, "Don't vote, it only encourages them," would, perhaps, appear to bear greater pertinence.
On the other hand ..................................................................................
.............................. nope... absolutely nothing springs to mind...
Having, perhaps for many years, been subjected to the regularly updated national or local news, via your particular 'choice' of provider, you may have puzzled, as have I, over the suddenly amassed ranks of available police officers, should any government-endorsed event require policing, whilst also wondering as to the same police force's yawning absence, when each evening many of your local streets routinely revert to feral. Should this scenario apply to your local patch you may well be tempted, come the day of the big vote, to endorse the candidate with the least well-budgeted promises. That would be the candidate who might, 'most convincingly promise' to redress this growing imbalance.
But, be warned that public sector spending is increasingly regarded, especially by this government, as a societal cancer, a pernicious tumour that is hindering the 'long-overdue' private impetus that will 'far more efficiently' address these issues. In no way should this be seen as an open invite for the city jollies to quickly feast upon the dying carcass of the public sector. So, when casting your vote, you may be tempted, motivated by desperation, to endorse the most courageous liar.
In conclusion then, should the question not, more openly, be phrased as, "Which candidate would you rather have, lying to you, on 'your' government's behalf?"
Democracy is dead. Long live democracy.
Posts
