I've Passed Some Views/Opinions...

on political matters this past week.


Well a few days ago the Houses of Parliament(The Lords and Commons)were addressed by a special lady. Who has fought and endured many hardships in her own country including house arrest. It will be a long hard road to travel and she may not see how it turns out but she certainly has played her part. Other countries have fought for her freedom and for her country, Burma to change political direction.


Aung San Su Kyi came to the UK and other countries to thank everyone for their help but naturally and this is what all politicians do to ask for continued help and support. I have said it before so I may as well here, I believe that countries that have not had a democracy at all or it's been taken away do eventually "Get it!" Countries that have had it end up with a Government or political system that is more oppressive. Almost the reverse.


She came full of praise for our Parliament and did say how it is looked up to by other countries around the world. And naturally, our PM basked in the compliments and being seen on the World stage does no harm and he said a few platitudes about freedom and Aung San Su Kyi but in the end politics is a game. It will do us no harm to offer help, we get a foot in the door and probably we can start doing business there so we get benefits too.


As I said earlier they supposedly work together but naturally they are all looking out for number one and how they come across back at home to their own population and media.


When unrest happens here at a policy the Government passes or tries to get through and the population marches, they are right and the public is wrong, if it happens in Libya, Burma, Zimbabwe, Egypt etc...it's right. know that in some instances, if we dislike what some leaders of a country do, we bring in sanctions or go to war, we try to introduce our kind of democracy but often say, we are not trying to do that but allow that country to find its own form of democracy to suit their culture.


Other times perhaps weighing up the consequences of whether getting involved will snowball and cause more problems they'll stay out, at present we have the problems in Syria so they are trying to put pressure on the Government there seemingly by trying to use World Opinion and hopefully using at some point sanctions of some kind.


Other times countries use and work with leaders they probably would rather not as has happened in recent years with Libya and Egypt because it's better to have a "Friend" in such a part of the world. And yet in recent years when some things that were worrying was happening in Zimbabwe nothing is done. The truth is we cannot get involved in all the trouble spots of the world. We don't have the military capability, We can't afford to, legally it's probably very dodgy, you have to show a uniform front and in the end, do we have the right to assume that our political system is the right one? If we did all of the above than what would be the difference for a country to decide to invade us because they think we are wrong?


No political system is perfect and at present our system is definitely anything but. No one voted our present Government into power, it's there because a deal was done between two of the three main political parties. I suspect many of the population would have preferred for another election to have been called. The problem now is that in Parliament many policies get through on sheer numbers and there is no chance of compromise or discussion or amendments where you might get the best of both worlds and get  input from all political persuasion, so is this democracy?


Is it not more like a dictatorship? In recent times when the second chamber put some very good ideas forward to changes proposed to the welfare system to  protect the vulnerable normally they probably would have been accepted but the numbers in the Commons meant these amendments could just be ignored and carried through.


And now they are trying to redraw the boundaries* supposedly to reduce how many MP's there are supposedly to save money and make the Commons easier to administer but it is believed that how the boundaries are drawn will favour one party over another. That some constituencies will lose their voice. And now they are hoping to do something similar to the House of Lords which could have a similar effect, which will dilute it's ability to put the breaks on policies proposed and passed.


If they are lucky and a march is organised by a pressure group like a union the Government can demonise such unrest because it is a particular group of people with perhaps an axe to grind.


Maybe the only real demonstration that worked in recent times where the policy was changed and the Government could not use that tactic was when the Poll Tax was introduced. To quote from the article...


"John Major announced in his first parliamentary speech as Prime Minister that the Community Charge was to be replaced by Council Tax, which, unlike the Community Charge, took account of ability to pay. While less harsh on lower-income earners than the Community Charge, the new tax took no account of the income earned by the taxpayer, but did take into account the value of the property on which the householder was taxed, being in effect the old rates system restored. The anti-poll tax movement believed direct action was at least partially responsible for the change in government policy."


It was better than the alternative I guess but it's still a millstone around the necks of many on top of the utility bills, tax, water rates and food bills...It may be better for a family but if you are single with less money coming in you are likely to struggle to pay it.


So in the end many of the safeguards that have existed to perhaps protect the population and democracy that Aung San Su Kyi is praising seems to be under threat.


*I featured the changes in  England but similar plans are being planned for N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales etc...