Traditional style government is largely elected by personal features rather than on the basis of policy commitments. Many people vote for candidates for baseless watery reasons, e.g. "my family has always voted Tory or Labour"; only some voters vote on the basis of the there-and-then policy commitments.
The democratic system of party power is flawed, not allowing any flexibility as to who the government is made up of nor on policy commitment.
It is naive and nonsense to expect that one style of political action is sufficient to meet the aspirations of a country of 50 million people. There must obviously be styles of thought that cannot be generalised into 2-3 main clumps of political thought. Life is too diverse to allow parties to dominate the political scene.
Government of this past/present day was dependent upon a need to centralise power, but this was in the day of the horse and cart. Now technological facilities could be used to decentralise power and return it to the people.
Has nothing happened in the last four hundred years to seriously date the country's approach to government?
18 years of Conservative government was swept aside by a New Labour power. The Labour Party abandoned its long-held aim of nationalising wealth creating aiming to stabilise business whilst in power. Meanwhile the Conservative power source had become seriously weakened and the chances of it regaining government at least in the short term look remote. The Liberal Democrats view the Conservative position with glee, as they see it as their chance to become the official opposition.
The fact that no party has a real policy with regard to wealth creation may account for the fact that there is so much voter apathy, many people taking the view that they will be the victim of government policy whoever is in power by degree and do not care much who it is.
The fact is that a minority vote must seriously question as to whether we do need change in our style of government.
This work suggests that the public at large should be much more involved in the decision-making process. At one time the standard of education was such that perhaps only a minority were capable of making decisions that affected the country's direction but now the general standard of education and intelligence means that perhaps a broad number of people would be capable of taking part in the decision-making process.
We could still elect a government that chose ministers but not have to rely on who was in power for policy and decision as with only a few hundred people creating law, there are bound to be flaws.
It is suggested that boroughs could appoint vote committees, maybe twenty at a time, and therefore voting would be done by several thousands regardless of political persuasion and be much more likely to reflect an acceptable policy-making situation for the country as a whole.
The major job of the government is the economic and social management of the country, mainly trying to shape wealth and law to suit present day needs. The problem facing government is that wealth has become uncontrollable. Beyond government. Wealth and the manipulators of wealth control and shape the economic welfare of the country. Man invented wealth, but now wealth and wealth considerations direct man's and therefore the government's approach to life management. One thing that is ignored by government of the day, whatever party, is that man is rapidly consuming the earth's realities in the name of economic growth. Basically as wealth grows so reality diminishes in value; wealth takes charge of large scale consumption of the earth's realities and as all existence is finite it is only a matter of time before serious gaps in the make-up of economy will become apparent.
Policy must shift away from using the earth's properties for consumption, to one of long term protection of the earth's realities.
One real problem of wealth is that it is accumulated using arithmetic as an expression of it and as counting apparently goes on for ever, wealth is treated as if it can go on accumulating for ever. That view is seriously flawed. It is one thing to count wealth, quite another thing to assume that it is top/bottomless.
The major problem of government facing the British people is as to whether it can afford political parties. Partyism is in its dying throes as a suitable vehicle for government.
Education has seriously affected the need for polarisation of political thinking. At the beginning of the Labour Party there was great illiteracy, but 100 years on because of
education, the Labour Party realises that economic success of enterprises is necessary to keep up employee aspirations; on the other hand, Tories know today that their policies must atone with aspirations of the mass in order to achieve overall power. Education has overtaken political parties to the point whereby today we have government based upon policy argument, instead of a government of proportion and reason. So often there is short term/short value governmental direction.
Party government has had its day and no longer does it meet with being of accord with the population. People elected as representatives based on personality rather than policy content is no longer a viable way to run affairs.
The idea also to present that Europe now secures hope for the future. The monetary policy of playing on a level field only means more recourse into reality to achieve economic ends. This must be highly desperate and must become something that sooner or later has to become impossible to continually pursue.
A thing to notice is that the longer a party holds government sway the more idealogical its policies become. They see that because the public accepts them for longer, this gives more idealogical power. Is privatisation legal? How can the public buy that which it already owns? Remember governments do not own anything: they simply control a percentage of national value, Suppose the public owned a state controlled industry worth £2 billion which was put up for sale at £2 billion. Who owns the assets? Answer - the public: in which case the industry when sold again to the public becomes worth £4 billion, yet the originally owned amount disappears and the public are left believing that the industry value remains worth just £2 billion.
It is a bit like someone stealing your television set, selling it to your neighbour then having the nerve to inform you that if you wish to see your TV you will have to visit your neighbour and pay for the privilege. Privatisation as a mandate of conservative thinking is a mandate too far; it is almost fraudulent management of public owned assets.
The above is the danger of giving mandate to a "party" for so long. Partyism is non-beneficial to the public in the what and the how, desiring that which the country can afford.
So what is the alternative? What is clear is that current establishment of parties making up government and opposition is seriously dated. What is suggested here is that partyism be overthrown in favour of totally independent members of parliament, overthrowing the party system. It is suggested that two ideologies be in place to justify as the aim of government, namely individualism and socialism, these ideals to be of equal importance as realistically considered. This is the basis of government by realistic thinking or apolitics. How to run a government without parties or wings.
Members of parliament would become presenters of parliament, employed by local communities, such people standing as completely independent. There would be a new voting system with the public voting on policy rather than on personality. The voting starts upon the inauguration of the presenter, not finishes.
What would be required is for government to fall upon the shoulders of the locality. The proposal is to have government directly involving the general population. The proposal is to electrify government. There would be three tiers of government and a central unit. The idea is to make government more responsive to local communities, the style of government to aim at getting the best economic and social framework for the country.
The idea works around a framework of television channels which beam into every household governmental matters and to ask questions of the public as to what they wish their own central presenter to vote for and against. There are two options of national voting techniques:
1. Voter service centres run rather like juries; questions would be beamed into the centres, the voters having access to a central computer which collates all that voters elect for and against.
2. Each household to be equipped with tv and special visual display unit; questions beamed into the house would be voted upon using the vdu; each individual to be given a. p.i.n. number which could only be used once per question.
So it can be seen that personal governmental policy creation can be attained.
The system is totally democratic with every sex, race and creed having power of an individually orientated governmental input.
Computers could be provided locally, regionally and centrally, each feeding each other.
The above would create a situation whereby the population would be directly involved in policy making decisions. No doubt the media would become heavily involved in passing useful material between government and the population at large.
