Thursday, November 16, 2006

OK Clive.....

I really appreciate Clive's questions, though I may have misunderstood or be unclear about what they mean, but nevertheless will attempt to suggest some answers - mainly off the top of my head so would be really keen to hear responses and countersuggestions

It's the questions that matter - the answers are not really so important.

So here goes....

to what degree would your suggested system improve the problem of "short-terminism" in politics?
I don't think short- termism [is this what you mean] is always a bad thing. Short term solutions to temporary problems is partly what my policy on law would be about. And when the law/policy has served its useful purpose - then ditch it.

how would it discourage "chameleon politicians"?
I'm not really sure what you mean. I rather admire people who are capable of changing their mind on issues regularly as long as they're not doing it just to win favour [of voters, clients etc]. This is probably because I believe life, the universe and everything to be ultimately meaningless so I fear principled people more than those who are not sure. People who think they know what's what are fucking dangerous and almost inevitably wrong!

how might it encourage people of good calibre and character?
By them not having to toe a party line in favour of pragmatic or common sense approach.

how would it deal with the Civil Service and its tendency to be self-serving and profligate with other peoples' money?
Good question

to what degree would it free us from the unbalanced influences of "experts"/"specialists"/"consultants"?
To whatever degree we decide to get involved for ourselves

how would it curb the effects of ideologues who are driven by blind faith, irrational speculation, wild imagination, etc?
By making them insignificant to the extent that they become unimportant and of little influence. For crazy ideas that really catch on, I have no defence but that's not really any different from the present situation - hopefully they would quickly burn out - but in the end it's upto every person to defend their own corner [whatever that might mean]

how might it help us escape the tendency towards rigid following of rigid procedures (that Punch-like attitude ... "that's the way we do it")
By encouraging creative and questioning thinking and giving permission to be politically incorrect - making it a virtue in fact

how would it encourage people to vote if they feel that laws, rules, regulation from elsewhere render their own laws redundant?
Don't allow such things to happen unless we choose to. Entities such as the EU or UN are only effective/dangerous by consent active or tacit. A 'Third Reich' -type entity would have to be stood up to by all or individuals, war would have to ensue [this is why I have decided I cannot be a pacifist] or they would have to be capitulated to - it's a mater of "choice"

Over to you Clive.....

For some light relief click here



Post a Comment

<< Home