How can democracy be rest?

How can democracy be rest?

Can we every regain rule by the majority for the majority?

In Britian, the Guardian is the information “bible” for the champagne socialists in the BBC and the modern labour party.

It is odd how opinion polls, economic and political advice; the never-ending stream of articles and “think tank” reports, they publish, all agree with their agenda, and all make claims about both public opinions and the economic success of their policies. Yet even the most casual search in most other media platforms will show the genuine public opinion is vastly different from that which the Guardian claims. Such a search will also show that the important reviews on economic future are opposed to the policies of this government.

None of this would matter but for the fact that most senior members of the British government bureaucracy got their jobs though advertisements in the Guardian. It is the information source for so much of the unelected controlling elite in this country. The present government, the administration that advises it, and the BBC which spreads its propaganda, all use the same source, all seem to ignore all other sources. This is why genuine public opinion is ignored, this is why they use the term populist as a term of derision, why they really are opposed to any and all form of government by the majority. It is unthinkable to this “class” that they should not rule, lead, direct and control, all the time in every aspect of our lives. They really believe in their own publicity, they genuinely believe all they choose to read is true and factual and thus everything they do not read, do not agree with, is untrue and misleading. The big danger to democracy itself it their genuine belief. This is why we have such blinkered approach to achieving arbitrary theoretical targets. Why every bit of over the top “arch-woke” nonsense is treated as if some edict from a deity. Being aware of the plight of others, being conscious of the needs and fears of others is admirable but making laws to support extreme minority demands, against the wishes of the majority is anti-democratic. Which is why we have war on motorists, and war on pensioners, and war on farmers. These are the groups who personify independence and individual actions. The very things these Guardianistas hate with a vengeance. Which is why on the international stage the Guardianistas support the EU and oppose President Trump. They want all things to be orderly, which in their mindset means under control, uniform, regulated, obeying the needs of administration. It is this last facet than can be so damaging to the well-being of the people of any nation. When the aim, the motivation, of government is to make the administration easier then, all innovation, all movement, all progress, gets rejected. Stagnation is actually desirable in this mindset which totally ignores the reality that stagnation is followed by death and decay.

Similar situations exist in other nations, the more oppressing communist and fascist regimes exercise very strict control of media output. Freedom of information is often claimed but how real is it. If the government of any nation releases information it is controlled, it is slanted towards what they wish people to accept. Anyone who has read Brave new world, (By Aldous Huxley) Animal farm, Nineteen eighty-four (both by Geroge Orwell) and other similar works of fiction, will have seen descriptions of the extremes that are possible.

So, can democracy be re-set? If clear enough methods are established, and if media exposure of the methods is obtained and if the forces who wish to retain the existing position; can be overcome, and that will not be easy, yes it can. But manipulation of electoral procedures, the changing of constituency boundaries, the changing to localised political authorities to ensure a majority of urban socialist supporter can dominate, the delay of elections the refusal to accept simple changes to methods of counting votes, the rejection of compulsory voter identity (proving the right to vote not how they vote) These are all at the disposal of the entrenched pseudo-socialist group.

If these can be overcome and a government with a mandate to change, is elected then we can use modern technology to move towards the much wider use of referendums. With voter identifying and electronic voting which automatically counts votes, we could have localised referendums with mandatory acceptance of the results placed on the administrators. May be need a certain % of voter participation and another minimum of vote supporting a motion before it can be carried. These should be necessary safeguards for both local and national referendums. The time scale from a formal legalised proposal to a vote can be cut to say 4 weeks

Obviously, any elected government must be empowered to take short tern emergency action without the initial backing of a referendum. For internal economics it may be that a fixed % of total tax receipts are necessary for the prevention of wasteful changes in political direction. Say X% to health care Y% to defence Z% to education etc

We still come back to the problems of getting accurate and truthful, unbiased information to the voters. So much media reporting is dressed as factual but is based on opinions, they may be evidence supported opinions, but the reporting does not suggest any doubts, does not show possible errors in the assumptions made in reaching the opinions being presented. Who can be relied on to give fact evidence based unbiased information? Any government “watch dog” leaves the twin problems who appoints them? and who watches the watcher? There may be suggestions of some Artificial intelligence oversight but who programs this in first place? Who sets the parameters within which the AI can work?

The Television arm of the media loves the “political debate” the stage-managed display of opposing arguments by the leaders of opposing political parties. But these can degenerate into personality dismemberment rather than policy examination. Policy analysis can be boring to a great many people which is one of the disadvantages of democracy, the feckless and badly informed, those who cannot be bothered to learn, all get a vote which has the equal value to the person who studies and ensure they make an informed choice. Education needs to change but then who trains the educators? already in Britain our education system is dominated by the teaching unions, the curriculum has been politicised, the left-wing views of teacher training institutions is reflected in the way history is taught, the conclusions reached by pupils is not necessarily an accurate politically neutral one. Social science teachings are biased in their views of society. May be a system of fast-track ex-military service personnel into teaching would be a good start. At least the teachers would have life experience outside the university campus.

It all seems a dauting task but what are the alternatives? Government by a bureaucracy for a bureaucracy? Government by personally and looks. Sort of Love island winner made president? A return to fascism ( Communism is same thing with different name) ? We the voters must turn out and vote at every possible opportunity. Eliminating all voter fraud then Getting the % who actually vote increased may be the first steps