Tuesday 10 August 2010

Prepare for Revolution

On balance I am in favour of the monarchy, with a few adjustments and three additional functions it could be a powerhouse for the advancement of this country. Apart from one critical concern. The Prince Consort, the King to be in waiting, is not fit for purpose. Unfortunately his upbringing has left him self-obsessed and self indulgent. Enjoying the highest position of privilege and a wealthy life-style, protected from the harsh realities of everyday life whilst surrounded by a fawning coterie of advisers and assistants, that all comes with responsibilities and limitations. Unfortunately he has failed to live up to this expectation in two major irredeemable ways.

Firstly, to stand before his loyal, enthusiastic and ready to be devoted people; to enter into an oath before them, witnessed all around the World, an oath to love and cherish this woman he had chosen to marry; when it is
already a palpable lie, an undertaking he never had any intention to honour, having already found the mistress he preferred, it was outrageous, exploitative and unforgivable. A shameless exploitation of public goodwill and expectations to enter into what was always going to be, from his already fulfilled desires, a shame marriage. All done to capitalise on public support for a dynasty, to conform to some outmoded convention but without a shred of honesty of intention. You cannot get more corrupt than that. It cannot be shrugged off as a young mans escapades, nothing worse than what his ancestors had done before him. This is now, the position of the monarchy is no longer absolute but as head of our country, it is the most visible and remarked representation of it. As such it must be expected to promote and present high moral standards and integrity. All woefully lacking in the Prince Consort.

Secondly, surrounded by and with access to all the best minds, research, opinions and guidance the Prince Consort could play a vital galvanising role in developing a common perception for a future Britain. Unfortunately he lacks the intellectual capacity to contain his own maudlin, romanticised retrospective view of Britain so promotes that rather than
instead, choosing the best and most realistic of the opinions surrounding him, and use them to promote a new vision of Britain. Disappointing as it always is when a golden opportunity is missed by small minds unable to rise to the higher challenge, at least it is forgivable. Unfortunately our Prince Consort cannot not contain himself but must be proactive and see his simplistic historical biased view on life implemented. He actively sets out to pervert the democratic process and in doing so deny his people their opportunity to decide for themselves the outcome, in this case the Planning process. The monarchy does not and has not had direct power for a long time and for good reasons. Unfortunately our Prince lacks the sensitivity to comprehend this and, by using his privileged access to key players and opinion takers, usurps the democratic process to ensure his vision of a future Britain overturns that that his people might choose. This is a dangerous naive man who already shows he lacks the sensitivity to govern wisely and lacks the common sense to realise there are real limitations to his actions that he has to impose on himself.

The House of Windsor is not going to willingly give up their accustomed wealth, power and influence and I just cannot see a mother deciding against her son. So people, we are left with no other choice. When the Queen dies or retires it is not 'God Save the King' but rise up now and put an end to these years of servitude. Take back that which has always rightly been yours. Long Live the Revolution!


Tuesday 3 August 2010

A Broken Society

We can make exceptions for the occasional neglected old person, we might even make excuses for the odd child that is battered or starved to death. For me the bottom line is reached when a disabled dependant child dies in the following two weeks for lack of want or care after the death of their elderly carer. Surely the one thing we can all agree on is that we are a caring society. As such we are all concerned for and want to look after those vulnerable people amongst us at jeopardy.

There is a burgeoning bureaucracy with many well paid managers defending their ever increasing budgets so their front staff are out there looking after and protecting the weak and vulnerable. There are a plethora of agencies all looking after various specialist sub-groups of people in need and their particular problems. We in turn all give up many civil rights and liberties to enable these other organisations to sweep up those at risk, make arrangements for their well-being or put them in a place of safety. So how come we are falling down at such a fundamental level?

Sure all manner of excuses can be paraded; irascible, uncooperative, fiercely independent, not on my watch list, another department's concern, refuses all offers of help. It really doesn't matter what excuses are being thrown up because that is not the point. The point is very simple. In a decent civilised society a disabled child is not left to die on their own for two weeks without help.

For me it yet a further nail in the coffin of centralised top down government. As you will have gathered from other posts at this site it is over time for us to redefine how our society operates. We need to reclaim back our society and put ours selves central in the arrangement and management of the functions we need to survive and, most importantly, take back responsibility for how others are affected by our actions. Human relationships are too complex and varied to be delegated, least of all to a bureaucracy which by definition has to be detached, objective and remote. We all have to interact directly in the process, as we from time to time, interface with events and then use our own skills to achieve consent and ensure what needs to be done is done. This would included knowing about, caring for and directly supporting as necessary at risk people within our community.

It is not idealistic, just a rebuttal of centralised top down control.