Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob
Tragic! But that is the way of the world. Adversarial politics is the only game in town. The alternative is totalitarianism.
|
So true bob. Otherwise its a one party state. The public needs an executive and it also needs a scrutiny. Not a selective scrutiny but a comprehensive one on every issue.
In reality what you get is The Labour Party agreeing with 80% of the banal stuff like 'Approval for a new server for Council Tax collection' or 'Gypsy site policy' or 'employment of Blackburn with Darwen to help regeneration'. These dont get reported obviously. Only a spat sells papers, often dressed up by cherry picking a line or word or phrase and it becomes a naieve public perception that everyone is falling out.
However the Labour Parties function in opposition is to question line by line what the exec [Tories] are doing which helps the process of democracy. Anything less is Totalitarianism. I know there are a lot of well meaning idealists who cant see a team work ethic and feel that this cross questioning contributes to negativity and underperformance.
Thats simply not the case and with experience, those that believe this will understand how fragile democracy really is. The idea that you have 500 individuals is also idealistic because what happens is you need a majority so that creates aggregates of opinion which tend to reflect accross a variety of issues.You also need to work through those opinions and work with others confident with them free from outright hostilty so aggregates become political parties. Usually 2, or divided along two differing lines because a majority is 51% is needed. To prevent this natural evolution you need a strict one party totalitarian state.
BTW we lost a lot of money [£35,000] this week due to 'everyone being friends' and there being no-one to question a corrupt decision. Cant say more, I dont want to get sued especially as Jonathan Dillon [Ob] and Dave Higgerson [LET] have been trawling this site.