From Wikipedia the plot starts: The priorities of the Perkins Government include dissolving all newspaper monopolies, removing all American military bases on UK soil, unilateral nuclear disarmament, and true open government. Immediately, the right wing and allies scheme to depose him, with the U.S. the key, but covert, conspirator.
An excellent performance by the late Ray McAnally, the novel written by Chris Mullin in 1981, former Labour MP and one of the few who where not corrupted by the MP expenses scandal. He did not stand for reelection last year.
This is the address Prime Minister Perkins made to the people in defiance. It worked.
To coin a phrase, I'm going to tell you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It may be that once again The Times newspaper may call me a simple minded fool. So be it. If it is simple minded and foolish to think a Prime Minister should tell the truth then to be sure I am a simple minded fool. The truth...
I'm calling an immediate public inquiry into these allegations of treason and corruption. And the people who made the allegations will be called upon to testify in public as to their evidence, their sources and motives.
I'm calling a general election on June 11th because there is a much more important issue at stake here than the future of Harry Perkins, steel worker from Sheffield.
You the people must decide wether you prefer to ruled by an elected government or by people you've never heard of, people you've never voted for, people who remain quiet, behind the scenes, generaton after generation, yeah even unto the middle ages.
Can we see any leaders with the level of integrity of the film's writer and the fictional Prime Minister, any where, in any country today? NO!
Isn't it time to change that? And to start voting for real leaders.
9 comments:
I think this country has had enough 'leaders', we don't need 'leaders', what we need is more education and less brainwashing.
Switzerland manages perfectly well without a figurehead leader, senior politicians just take it in turns to be Prime Minister for a year or two, it's just a job to them.
Switzerland launders an enormous amount of corrupt unearned wealth for leaders that do not even live there.
What you describe is a different style of kleptocracy and patronage.
Not a very convincing argument. But I take your point.
To say people do not need leaders is to say that children do not need parents. An interesting idea that would work. But not today because the likes of Switzerland, the royal family's, oligarchic democracy's etc still exist!
Have you watched and read K-PAX? I spoke to the author who says the same thing as you. His language shows he started to think once upon a time... and then stopped. I have proof... he said it.
I'm with Mark - I would go for less powerful leaders.Totally uncorrupt givernment is imposible if it involves human beings. Small and inoffecnsive government makes it less profitable for it to be corrup and less incentive for it the "great and food" to corrupt it.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."Henry Louis Mencken
Neil
Interesting points.
Why do you prefer less powerful things to more powerful things?
Why is small govt less profitable and susceptible to corruption?
I'm not dismissing your points yet. But you are just expressing a prejudicial opinion rather than using and logic and reason to make the case. I have done so. Mark has ignored it by not reading it carefully. So please have another try, both of you.
In both cases it is the "separation of powers" thing, as used for US constitutional law. If the corrupt leader is in complete control you are in trouble. If their power is more limited and matched by other powers (money, a federal form of government, strong constitutional limits) they are less able to push you around. Another advantage to such leadership is that when they are wrong it is likely to be noticed before it goes to far (it seems unlikely that the catastrophic global warming scare will last as long here as Lysenkoism did in the USSR).
Also when government has complete regulatory power over everything the only way to become rich is to lobby the bureaucrats/suck up to the king/give donations to the ruling party. Merely inventing a better mousetrap won't work if you needc a licence to manufacture them and the owner of the Tradditional Mousetraops Inc is the Presodent's brother in law. Al Gore's progress to billionairedom is a case in point.
I don't think it is merely personal prejudice that leads me to think that less government control and more economic freedom has a clear correlation with economic success, in my youth I was impressed by the Soviet command economy, but at the time, or 30 years earlier, it was more impressive.
Here is a statistical assessment of the level of central control and rates of economic growth. http://www.slideshare.net/indicusanalytics/habits-of-highly-effective-countries-presentation
Ah I see. My post is not clear to you. Let me try again:
There are 2 macro players in any social system: The people. Their leaders.
Both have obligations. The people to vote with integrity. The leaders to do their bidding.
Both players are corrupt today. PM Perkins was telling them this. At great personal risk and for no personal gain. That is what I call a real leader. We need more of them.
To say we need less of that is not reasonable. Are you still saying we need fewer of these kind of people?
I'm saying we need less of government and more decisions taken by the individual. By definition people taking their own decisions and spending their own money are not affected by corruptionn because corruption is dishonestly diverting other people's money and choices to yourself and your friends. I also think such centralised decisionmaking, by rewarding the corrupt (whether leaders or people) tends to increase corruption.
Looking at the recent election leaflets in Scotland (I assume they are not much different in Enfland) I see that those of all parties tend to concentrate on how their party worked to provide a small increase in pensions/money for the local community/subsidy of post offices/centrally subsidised jobs, according to whom the party is aiming at. All taking national money and giving it to the local voting group & hang any national interest, so I have to aggree that that has indeed corrupted the voters.
I agree with that. But its a different question.
My post is saying we need more leaders of integrity. Or even some at all. This is perfectly possible. We just have to elect them. But private property in land makes us elect corruptable leaders. It is what we want. Leaders that can see this clearly would make it a principle to stand against that. None do. So nothing will change until then. Perkins broke that mould. A very special person in fact.
On your proximate point, we need just enough govt. No more, no less. Yes the individual is better at making personal decisions. But they are terrible at making social ones.
Unless you are suggesting a return to hunter gatherer, both are necessary.
And the more the economy grows, the more important government becomes.
Neil stinks of gliberatianism. Afghanistan has a very weak government. No regulation at all. So does Somalia. By your theory, they must be veritable paradises. Funny, how reality has a habit of always kicking the glibertarian in the family jewels.
Post a Comment