The Debate which Wasn’t
I thought that Cameron did less badly than
Milliband.
My problem with political ‘debate’ in Britain is
that there are no colours nailed to the mast. I blame the electorate more than
the politicians. Sadly, I think that our electorate is dismally stupid. They
have never, for one second, asked themselves questions like these:
Is inequality good or bad – or simply a fact of
life?
Is taxation good/bad/necessary/a necessary evil?
These unasked questions make it impossible for me to
engage with the so-called debate on our political platform.
The NHS features heavily in the ‘debate’. Brits are
prohibited from questioning its provenance. It is our ‘national religion’. It
sucks. The NHS is founded on the principle that no-one should ever feel the
slightest anxiety about falling ill – duh?
Is it right that government should take from those
who have and give to those who have not? Madison said ‘No’. Successive US
governments have denied his principle: I cannot undertake to put my finger on
that article of our Constitution which mandates provision for the purposes of
benevolence (I paraphrase). He was right. Government is not about benevolence,
though much of our ignorant electorate think it is.
Right government is about protecting us from tyranny.
But they tyrannise us.
We are not given the principles by which our parties
would govern us. They are easy to determine. The left has a single pernicious
principle: government can and should ‘do good’ whenever and wherever it can.
And they know? Who are the opposition? Perhaps it is not the job of government
to ‘do good’ whenever and wherever it can. This is not a question we ever hear
articulated.
The sickening consensus does not address any
fundamental questions. We cannot have a meaningful policy debate without going
much deeper than Paxman takes us. He is clever; he can make anyone look stupid.
Paxman never challenges us to think about whether the NHS is a good thing. I
think it is a very bad thing. And I’ll tell you why if you challenge me.
It is a horrid fact that first principles are almost
never discussed. Programmes like Question
Time are conducted on the assumption that you should be obliged to pay for
any misadventure that befalls me. Perhaps we should talk about this assumption.
Has it been established? I don’t think so.
In Britain there are two factions: Labour (and the
Lib/Dems) accept it as a given. Conservatives (badly represented by the Tory
party) are hesitant. Both major political parties are for governments doing
stuff. Everything government does costs us.
We are approaching a general election. The outcome
may be bad or catastrophic. Ever since 1945 we have had catastrophic Labour
administrations, followed by anodyne Tories, which have (sometimes) improved
our economic situation – a bit.
The problem has always been the electorate – you and
me. The left always appeals to the individual’s self interest. The right (the inarticulate
right) fails to appeal to first principles.
I would love to hear a politician who wants my vote
appeal to my political principles. They characteristically appeal to (what they
perceive) be my self-interest. And I am insulted.
No comments:
Post a Comment