Democracy

  • Thatcher knew democracy is a costly freedom

    The trials of Margaret Thatcher in regard to her own security issues are not well documented in part because of too many failures. It was however the beginning of learning to understand what a domestic security service and also a UK Policing force is supposed to do.

    She knew about a plot against her life before it happened in Brighton, but it proved impossible to deal with. It wasn’t that it was thought to be impossible but disarray in the security service and also in many UK Police forces meant that it proved too difficult to foil.

    Margaret Thatcher speaking after the Brighton event itself and sharing her thoughts on the matter to a political journalist.

    In dealing with these matters, she knew that there needed to be discretion, but also activity that had to be paid for and supported by the State. It’s believed she had the impression that costings or pricing for people’s roles had been questioned. It wasn’t clear if anybody was going to help.

    The lack of a resolution to this tension at the centre of the UK State resulted in her nearly dying as a result of Irish terror. It wasn’t a good impression for her, but her stoical nature enabled her to keep her thoughts private and to carry on regardless of the attack.

    She later stated that she came to believe democracy itself comes at a high price. It’s important for Politicians to be an administrator also and to make sure that everything that is needed is also paid for and provided properly. She knew that growing bitter would be the antithesis of what she was trying to achieve in politics.

  • Our opinions need to be validated

    The trouble with democracy is that it brings it up everywhere. The views of some may be held by some elsewhere, but it isn’t necessarily indicative of where they are. This isn’t the right fit for politics in the UK, where it’s important to note who said it and where they live. It’s because much of what we feel about things is informed by how we’ve experienced it in the first place.

    The random conjecture of many national titles has ill-served us for far too long. The precious few conversations I’ve had at length with people about their real opinions are much more complex than we’re given credit for. It’s believed that some MP’s have helped keep up a knowledge of ourselves in spite of this.

    The lack of depth in reporting is a key feature in the decline of interest in most if not all of Journalism. It’s tough having to start out on your own to gauge not just facts but also an awareness of the things that matter. It doesn’t get into the halls of power as quickly as people think, and it isn’t until much later on that green shoots can be seen in the fields of people’s endeavours.

    The lack of care for the thoughts and sentiments of the population is not total, but it counts as a strange omission from our times. The reflection of trends and currents in popular media is a helpful counter-narrative to a stale silence. Yet it’s not enough to imbue our political culture with a sense of its own life.

  • Local elections end today

    It’s a big day for local politics in some areas. There are elections for 14 county councils, eight unitary councils, one metropolitan borough council, and in the Isle of Scilly.

  • A flyover isn’t what Parliament is for

    The centre of gravity of English politics, Westminster in London, that is, shapes itself as a welcoming and transparent place.

    It looks endearing, almost teddy bear-like, and stands erect if lonely in a sea of other buildings and meanings.

    It’s a friend of the city, but pretty well damn friendless, as well. This isn’t a situation that can last, surely?

    It’s meant in a way that marks out some significant differences between “now, and then” so to speak, which is a dangerous game in a place that marks itself out now as being so much more than what it was – in its heyday.

    It’s the same with many of the buildings and monuments that make up a nation’s “public library”, in that it has something very specific to say, but not a lot hear it.

    If you take for example the recent Gaza protests that beset that part of the city, it becomes clear.

    It’s a ‘thing’ nowadays to see ‘taking your cause’ or representation as being a constant, gradual process that doesn’t involve the usual democratic process, but one of your own making (and that is own).

    It’s not a point for MP’s to make for us – salaried as they are – but rather it’s seen as a cause to get on with by ourselves, or by themselves, as the case may be.

    This isn’t an acceptable or safe way of doing things in a business-like state, especially when those active in protests are unvetted, and therefore present a risk (as they have done) because of their slogans, but also because of their often antisemitic beliefs.

    The Palace of Westminster therefore has a difficult place in our modern history, as it stacks up its rebukes from the people sky-high and struggles to overcome its difficulties and differences with all hues of people. It seems as if it can’t win, whatever it does.

    How does such a venerated institution reach a state like this? What is its answer to its own problem of not only aiding it, but abetting such activity, as well?