Thursday, 26 April 2012

Brighton Green councillor asks: is it time to ban voting?

Yesterday's Brighton Argus asked a slightly chilling and provocative but completely practical question: 'Is it time to ban protests?'

It made the point that most participants are merely acting out their favoured hobbies (be they marching, baiting the police, or whatever), that hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent by the police dealing with the marches, they disrupt the local economy and that they don't change anything anyway.

Well I think if we go down this road we should go one further: ban voting.


Most participants are just serial politicians (who have never done a decent days work in their lives) - whatever their chosen party - acting out their favoured hobbies: talking about themselves, and how they've got all the answers, wearing rosettes, delivering pointless leaflets and sitting outside polling stations with clipboards feeling self-important.

They cost a packet too. More than protests. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent by the police and other agencies to make sure they pass off peacefully and properly.

Anyone, like me, who has had to take time off to look after children whose schools are closed on election days will know that they cause massive disruption to the economy.

And finally, they don't change anything anyway. Whoever wins, it's just another set of politicians in charge. The Greens, admittedly, are doing things differently - but you've only got to open a local rag in Brighton to see how quickly they are trashing the city with their mad ideas.

So yes, we should ban protests, but we must ban voting at the same time.

They don't tolerate either in North Korea - and that's why Pyongyang is thriving while Brighton is such a crappy place to live.

Remember kids: Christianity is stupid. Communism is good. Shop as usual, and avoid panic buying.

7 comments:

  1. "Local rag"? Do I hear the sound of a vexatious libel claim from a Mr M Beard being hastily penned?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Not unless he wants to throw away a good chunk of the money his paper is finding it increasingly hard to come by.

      Delete
  2. Well, Ben, I am suggesting your proposal be taken more seriously, and not just locally, but nationally according to my mad plan for changing politics by banning politics altogether.

    Politics, like organised religion, causes more trouble, costs much more, and causes more damage while rarely addressing what really needs to be done than anything else (other than organised religion in which I include the wrong kind of science, but that's another blog).

    My proposal is that we ban political parties locally and nationally so that there is no 'governing party' and each person is elected in a (PR'd) constituency to stand upon their own recognizance, character, integrity (CRB checked & more) and what they say in their personal statements of intent in office to the people in their constituency.

    Ministers would be selected from an elected Upper House in committees formed from lists of individuals wishing to stand for the 'Upper House' who are experts in the field of their portfolio and supported by a certain number of their peers. The community of, say, economists would have the right to raise recorded concerns or paramount objections to their selection... so a particular school of economics could not, as an example, dominate the direction of the Money Ministry. The Upper House would thus be populated by experts in every relevant field (including ecology & social justice) as a bank of able candidates to do a serious job for which they must meet qualification criteria. However the House of the People would be elected from the general populace to avoid creating an out-of-touch Meritocracy.

    In this way people could choose who they want to represent them, not selected according to what part of society they represent or on an they're-all-as-bad-as-each-other basis, but according to their principles as stated. Members of both Houses would, of course, be subject to an extension of the Trades Description Act, so if they do not do as they say or are incompetent or corrupt they can be fined, or removed from office if they re-offend. This also puts the onus on the electorate to think for themselves and to read or listen to what each candidate is actually proposing and onto the different areas of disciplines to be wise and just in their selection processes.

    As for the Ministers (we need a different term) and their departments, they would be run by people who know what the **** they are on about, e.g. Medical people of all levels would be running the NHS and so on.

    These principles would be applied locally as well as nationally with as much power as possible made local.

    Just a mad idea :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. PS: Forgot to say - demonstrations would be positively encouraged and there should be a Forum for them in front of every town hall with facilities for demonstrating (toilet, cafe, library, soap boxes etc) and the same in front of both Houses of Governance. All demos would be subject to all the laws against discrimination, so police could stop anyone expressing hatred towards any other group.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No wonder you don't have time to address concerns raised by your constituents regarding the school run and the morphing of parts of Kemptown into an extension of Brighton College, a bit like Eton Village.

    On the topic in hand, we live in a society that is increasingly polarized and the 'rich and privileged' are running scared and dislike any form of opposition outside of an increasingly dysfunctional democratic alternative. The likes of the Greens and the latest flavour of Labour as our opposition does not fill me with confidence (understatement gone mad here).

    We are in the midst of the worst recession for over a hundred years but the rich get richer courtesy of the excellent job a bunch of public schoolboys are doing on their behalf. For the rest of us the offer of The Big Society, a modern version of 'let them eat cake'.

    To boot that stupid woman Lucas seriously suggested more power to the establishment by giving power to Inland Revenue to look into our bank accounts. This will not effect the rich but will seriously inconvenience middle income earners.

    Essential this summer that every attempt possible is done to spoil the showcase, the Olympics. Suggestion, mass use of the tube, especially the Jubilee line from Green Park to Stratford; buy a ticket and ride all day.

    Bitter under achiever. No, I work for a bank on a 2 year contract that will gross me £220k ending in May.

    Oo look, that nice Mister Cameron on the teli hugging huskys and boasting of the most green government ever. How do they do it.

    Ps. As a German about to go home to Berlin, ive always thought the English are a bit thick :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete