Return to: Home | Blogs | Bright's Blog

12 comments from readers

guido
07 February 2008 at 11:11

The Tories have not had offices in Victoria street for a long time. Cameron's offices are in the House not CCHQ.

Do you really think Ashcroft is more significant than Cameron?

As for today's Telegraph being the house paper of the Tories those days are long gone. The editorial line is much more mixed nowadays. It is known as the Daily Labourgraph in CCHQ.

Labour's billionaire backers are not UK resident for tax purposes are they?

Martin Bright
07 February 2008 at 12:35

Thanks for the clarifications Guido. I stand corrected on Victoria Street. Silly error. And of course, now I think about it, Michael Ashcroft has no influence whatsoever and the Telegraph is a Brownite rag.

Just to be strictly correct, Cameron's parliamentary office is not in the House but in Norman Shaw and he, of course, has office space in CCHQ.

And you know my position on Labour's rich backers better than anyone.

So why don't you address the issue? Where is Michael Ashcroft a resident and why does David Cameron say this is outside his control?

And I hear you still threatening your fellow bloggers with legal action? Bit naughty.

Martin Bright
07 February 2008 at 12:43

The Victoria Street/Millbank error has now been corrected. Apologies to readers and thanks to Guido.

guido
07 February 2008 at 14:19

I think Ashcroft should cough up. I said so last year. Call yourself an investigative journalist - you don't seem to even know where he lives.

http://www.order-order.com/2007/12/ashcroft-should-come-clea...

If I could put my enemies in jail I would. They ain't my fellow anything.

Martin Bright
07 February 2008 at 15:12

You said he should cough last December and you were right.

I guess I agree that Ashcroft is no more sinister than any other secretive multi-millionaire. His analysis of what was wrong with the Tory Party was intelligent and well-argued.

My beef is really with Cameron. That comment at this week's press conference really was extraordinary. At least Tony Blair was in control of what Lord Levy was doing.

alanbrownfield
08 February 2008 at 08:56

Which of the above characters is the biggest opportunist: Cameron, Bright or Guido?

Hmm... that's a tricky one.

The Daily Pundit
08 February 2008 at 10:55

"If I could put my enemies in jail I would."

Impossible. You'd need at least 2 Super Titan's and 3 high dependency units. I'd stick to the scarey letters if I were you.

Martin Bright
08 February 2008 at 18:03

Oooh alanbrownfield that really hurts. Being called a character I mean. And there I was thinking I was a fully-rounded human being.

knave
09 February 2008 at 18:29

I don't care about Ashcroft. More interesting is Martin's links to the Right wing Policy exchange unit .

Martin Bright
12 February 2008 at 13:28

... and don't forget my links to the international Zionist conspiracy

The Daily Pundit
13 February 2008 at 01:00

Belize general election results just in. Lord Ashcroft backed the winning side. Not that difficult when you're backing both sides!

http://www.amandala.com.bz/index.php?id=6612

merlin
19 February 2008 at 15:35

Democracy – Not on this planet!

Western democracy is touted as the primary solution to the world’s ills and that every race, colour and creed, in not adopting this paragon of virtue, is denying itself the tool with which to support a liberated and meaningful life.

Today the attempted “democratization of the world” has led to more unrest and violence than at any other time since the end of the last world war. Why, when it seems a laudable desire to empower the people, enabling them to have a say in how they would like to shape their own society?

Democracy has undergone a radical change in the West with the rise of a new style of government run by a new breed of “professional” politician.

This was experienced in Britain in 1997 when the traditional left of centre Labour Party was repackaged by a new leadership seeking power. “New” Labour was conceived by adopting many of the right wing strategies of the Conservative party, effectively distancing itself from its traditional support/elector base of blue collar workers and the trade unions.

Shifting the party’s support away from the trade unions, and increasingly towards the private sector dramatically changed the democratic balance in the UK. The Labour party had effectively transferred its traditional political allegiance from the worker to the employer.

With both main political parties effectively focused upon corporate considerations, and the electorate coming a pretty poor second in the ranking, a true democratic process has been considerably weakened. Indeed the only effective opposition that both main parties now face is the media.

What is particularly interesting is that in spite of this shift in allegiance, New Labour has been successful in maintaining the support of the electorate, for a decade. This has been achieved by not only seeking corporate support but also adopting corporate marketing disciplines to maintain credibility.

From the first day of gaining power, New Labour instituted daily opinion polls to elicit the mood of the people and then produced new policies and intents that reflected the results of these polls.

But as time has passed it has become evident that many declarations of intent, policy moves or political decisions have been ill thought out and inadequately resourced to succeed, because they have come from knee jerk reaction to opinion polls.

The sheer scale and rate of change of political initiatives makes it impossible for effective judgment or accountability to be carried out, lowering the credibility of the parliamentary process to a level that makes the democratic process inoperable.

Another mighty nail in the democratic process is the huge financial resource now necessary to mount a political campaign. It is even seen as a political “plus” to have such vast funds available, without thought to what those funds have actually bought.

These financial requirements also constrain the democratic process by making it impossible for someone with something to say from even getting heard, let alone mounting a credible campaign.

In business this monopoly situation would not be allowed, but at the very heart of the crucial decision making process that directly affects the quality of our lives it is sadly lacking, and we are the poorer for it as a society.

If you add to this the frenzy that the media are capable of generating out of even the most mundane of news items, let alone terrorism and global warming, and is it any wonder democracy cannot function effectively?

People can no longer trust the traditional establishment to provide information that is not spun to boost circulation, protect poor decision making, or even corruption. Time and time again sincere declarations of denial and accusatory headlines are found to have little or no substance.

It was the late Robert Maxwell who said that “Trust is like virginity – once lost it can never be retrieved”. Loss of trust alone is responsible for “voter apathy”.

What we are now witnessing in the growing civil unrest and changing climate, is as a direct result of the movement of the democratic emphasis away from meeting the real needs of people.

Leadership has been replaced by “demand and supply”. Laudable and “democratic” as this sounds, true democracy has been rechanneled into creating a “sweet shop society”, where our every want, (not need), is met by business and government.

Both are utilising the marketing doctrine – “find out what people want and give it to them at a profit”, (or political point to maintain power) – without recourse to any ranking in importance of the products or services being provided, and their impact upon our fundamental quality of life - Processed food and personal debt – to name but only two, and without even thinking!

The unrest and violence in other parts of the world comes from those who can see what the West cannot – that we are touting capitalism in the guise of democracy, and the resultant, and some would say decadent secular society created through the financial doctrines used to “manage” people.

Some 500 years ago in the UK “true” power was wrested away from the monarchy by parliament, and now it is being removed once again.

Originally it made good sense to take the power away from a single individual and place it in the hands of elected representatives of the people, thus broadening the application and influence of that power for the greater benefit of all. However we are now beginning to return to this restricted process again as we bow, not to the whims of a single monarch, but the demands of a single doctrine – profit.

Any application of power by a single source is neither democratic nor healthy, by the very nature of the narrowness of the criteria that need to be satisfied – be that human ego, or financial goals.

Life is not about narrow confines, but balances and checks against a broad spectrum of aspects of the human condition, which also have to take into account our ability to cohabit with the natural world – a far mightier force than all the governments and multinationals put together, or anything else we might evolve.

By the very nature of the human condition there will always be abuses of power, and true democracy provides the means with which to manage that abuse through the demand of proper accountability by those exercising the power.

“The will of the people” may sadly be sniggered at in this current environment but there

is no other way of effectively managing society. We have tried communism and

dictatorship, both of which have failed the test of time.

The advent of Globalisation has heralded in a fundamental change in the way we interact as a species. We can now communicate directly with each other through the internet in a manner never before possible. Perhaps this will have a positive affect upon democracy.

The political and religious boundaries that previously contained our actions and directed what we thought hold less sway, liberating us to a realization that democracy should be more personally empowering than that which we have previously experienced.

We are not just “consumers”, nor are we “profit centre’s”, “units of cost”, “workers”, “punters”, “modules”, “subjects”, “the great unwashed” or any other of the myriad of pigeon holes used to define, target and label us.

Globalisation is offering business untold opportunities for growth, and good luck to them all for seizing those opportunities, that is what they are there to do. However within this environment we are seeing multinationals growing larger and more influential than governments.

This begs a fundamental question for us all – is it now the shareholder who holds the reins in dictating our quality of life? And if it is, we are already aware that it doesn’t work so why pursue it to its painful conclusion?

After all we have seen traditional school text books “edited” to fall in line with corporate policy, and private health fail the very people who need it - because they can’t afford it.

So let’s stay with fundamentals and define what democracy needs to manage.

We come into this life for a period of “three score years and ten” – or longer now. So what are we supposed to do during this time?

I would suggest that the very basics are:

1. An education in our formative years that prepares us to make informed

decisions about the future management of our lives.

2. The ability to find and nurture mind, body and spirit in our own way.

3. A working life that is nurturing as well as financially rewarding.

4. A social infrastructure that protects us, and supports us in times of ill health.

5. The sacrosanct right to reap the fruits of our labours at retirement.

From the time of living in caves right up into this 21st Century we have made stratospheric leaps in what we surround ourselves with, whilst remaining seemingly incapable of interacting with each other without resorting to violence and abuse.

Our corporate endeavours have been primarily responsible for leading our expansion across the globe and introducing us to each other - hopefully they will assume their vanguard duties with our sorties into space. In a similar fashion democracy offers the opportunity for us to interact in a manner that is conducive to the human condition, and could spearhead our evolution to a new level as a species.

Surely the time has come to find people to lead us who recognize who and what we are and how we truly function as a species. To this end the following characteristics are what we should be looking for in suitable candidates in my opinion:

1. A genuine care about people

2. The nurturing application of love of our fellow men and women, rather than the judgmental containment of Political Correctness.

3. The ability to lead and inspire first and foremost, rather than react.

4. The ability to manage all aspects of government for the general wellbeing of the electorate, by ensuring broader criteria for decision making than primarily financial – “Let’s decide what we want and then find the money!”

5. An emphasis in all of the above upon assisting people to realize their potential rather than restricting and containing them.

For our part as electors we need to accept that low taxes breed corruption in government, as it tries to provide all that we demand with reducing resources, whilst desperately holding on to power. An environment of true democracy breeds trust and confidence in which electors will pay more because they can see how their money is being managed.

It is not naïve but incredibly simple – there is no substitute for integrity, and we are all challenged in this respect. Indeed let’s not lose sight of the fact that the worlds financial systems have been brought to their knees in just a few months by a lack of integrity that will affect every living creature on this planet for years to come. And if Maxwell is correct, how will that trust be regained?

The “change” being talked about in America at present may see the beginning of something new and inspiring, or a return to frustration six months after the Presidential swearing in – I personally wait with positive anticipation, but only time will tell.