Sovereignty and rule by vote-meter

1146light_meter

A man I’d like to describe as a friend of mine and certainly someone I admire and respect, sent me an email:

Odd – you think you’re a Tory but your approach to politics is more like that of a  Whig radical – perhaps your conservatism is about conserving the democratic progress of the last 200 years?

The answer to that is that we’re all complex creatures and if you find a man so dedicated to one goal, to the point of blind obsession, then you would probably start worrying about that person.

This is why political parties are a ridiculous concept because they imply a homogeneity of opinion which clearly doesn’t exist.  Far better is an assembly of men and women of diverse opinion, an assembly officially recognizing no one group but with certain assembly members gravitating naturally in certain directions and for those who feel more comfortable with blind loyalty, they could call themselves a party.

With such a setup, there might be less likelihood of terminally falling out and splits because we’d fall out over certain issues but come together on others.

Such an assembly, in Dan Hannan’s terms, would be small and would take care of essential business.  The overall approach would be Lord T‘s Libertarian Lite, which is basically classic liberalism, yet recognizing its place in the traditional society which need not necessarily exclude G-d, Queen and Country, those entities being part of our heritage.

The sticking point here is the middle one – the monarch.  Britain has for so long felt comfortable with a constitutional monarch as a sort of Chief Executive Officer of some pomp and circumstance, some gravitas.

I’ve never opposed the essential non-equality of people, as long as opportunity exists to rise, by dint of pure hard work and judicious association.  I’m quite opposed to State imposed equality which must always lead to tears before bedtime.

Thus I’m a Tory, being comfortable with G-d, Queen and Country and leaning more strongly towards the former and the latter.

In matters of the much reduced assembly and bureaucracy, in a sovereign nation which trades bilaterally and sometimes multilaterally, which welcomes guests from abroad as guests but rewards guests who make the transition to an assimilation as citizens, business in such an assembly would largely be bureaucratic, our traditions and heritage providing the foundations on which to make decisions.

There would be provided, if people could be bothered, the technology to have a say on matters of state.  So, local electoral officers would sell [not freely provide] as a percentage of income received, a vote-meter which could sit by the phone and share the socket or else could be meshed into the internet function and this would allow feedback on any matter you felt to be of importance.

EU membership would never arise because it does not gel with the tradition and heritage and wouldn’t come up for discussion.  If it did though, classic liberal tradition would demand that it be allowed to be put as a proposal and people would have the right to vote on it, via their vote-meters.

Suffrage

One would need to pass a test on history and politics, set at about Year 9 level and taken at the local electoral office, to qualify to have one of the vote-meters.  Ignorant thickos would not have the vote until they knuckled down and studied for it.  The test would change every six months, with a rotating series of questions.

Police would be local and the commissioner subject to a monthly meeting with local cits.  Policy though would have come down from the Assembly, such policy itself deriving from the vote-meters and ensuring continuity across country and borough lines.

I can’t give you a policy on defence and social services because of course this would depend on the votes of the people.  Now, if the people are voting, then who is legislating?

Assembly members, of course.  That’s why the local area would vote in, on a per capita basis, members for the Assembly.  Given an overall of 640 members, say, then larger constituencies would return more members, by definition.

So, the Queen is the constitutional monarch, the assembly members who gained enough votes within the assembly would be the committee which produced new legislation but anything produced would always be subject to the vote-meters.  If one member was heading towards dominance, that might or might not be a good thing, according to vote-meter owners and the thing would self-actualize.

What this kills off is imperialism.  Such a thing would be difficult under this system and so the frontier would be the white cliffs of Dover and trade would be the determiner of relations with other nations.  Naturally, tradition is tradition and if, say, these islands were threatened by a European nation which were not democratic in this sense, then natural allies such as the United States would be invited in to assist, again subject to the votemeters.

How to deal with the communists, socialists and other malcontents

They can get knotted.  There is a tradition of these malcontents in these islands also but this is not necessarily a perfect political system we now have in place – it is just fairer than some and excludes upsetting the applecart.  Alien systems do not get a look in and are just shouldered out.

Getting to this position

This could only come through a banding together of the centre of politics, the loyalists to this country, people who believe that an Englishman’s home is his castle, that the family is the basic unit of society, along with the individual, etc. etc.

It would take another generation to fully implement this and in the meantime, it would take a fixed term committee to get it in operation.  The vote-meters could be in place within two years and the best time for the change would be during the mayhem of 2010-12.  That’s where we recapture our country from the global socialists, right at the death knell, at the eleventh hour.

A stirring tale and a ripping yarn for our young to tell their eventual grandchildren.

18 comments for “Sovereignty and rule by vote-meter

  1. November 23, 2009 at 12:04

    Sounds sort of ok, I expect there would be things not thought of come up.

    As for your exam. If you are going to have one then maybe people ought to have a chance to study for it, like one that was so cheap anyone could afford it, with assisted places for those who could not. Examples to practice on also.

  2. November 23, 2009 at 14:43

    We started our descent into ‘professional’ politics when we accepted the government’s taxing of our pay cheques at source. This handed them the ability to increase taxes more easily and thereby grow the state.

    While the State continues to grow, or fails to shrink, we will continue to have an almighty battle with almost all the points you raise in your article.

    Unfortunately, politics has also been invaded by globalists, who lay claim to our labour and wealth, via bribable politicians who still pretend to represent us.

    The lumpen proles are, in effect, also the enemy of thinking people – they being the leeches of our productivity. To defeat the State, we need to deleech the country, then delouse Parliament.

  3. November 23, 2009 at 14:57

    Moggs, naturally they’d be allowed to study, not unlike a vehicle licence test. The cost is to put a slight premium on it – they’d have to really want to.

    Fausty – this is true and it gets tricky when we speak of the already globally politicized plebs who are, after all, our people too. We do come down to a very grey area here and there is no lack of bias. We are biased our own way but we align our bias with our heritage and traditions, which they, the globalists, then try to counter by saying there is no such thing as Britishness – look, we’ve pumped in all these immigrants so your Britishness is now diluted.

    This then gets into another area. How quickly we can be drawn down other roads.

  4. November 23, 2009 at 17:46

    I was watching the BBC series about the late 18th century lawyer Garrow yesterday and wondered if we resembled the London Corresponding Sociery.

  5. November 23, 2009 at 18:53

    One would need to pass a test on history and politics, set at about Year 9 level and taken at the local electoral office, to qualify to have one of the vote-meters. Ignorant thickos would not have the vote until they knuckled down and studied for it. The test would change every six months, with a rotating series of questions.

    I would never qualify then, I am useless at those sort of tests 😉

  6. November 23, 2009 at 19:35

    So, your friend was not quite right then: you are an updated and more radical version of an eighteenth-century radical Whig.

    “They can get knotted.”

    They are not going to get knotted.

    “Alien systems do not get a look in and are just shouldered out.”

    I hope that includes democracy.

    “the centre of politics” — the extreme left-wing politics of yesteryear.

  7. November 23, 2009 at 20:14

    Sackers, Cherie and Deogolwulf – the post was flying a kite and seeing how it flew. I’m actually intrigued by the politics of all three of you – Deogolwulf’s being the most inaccessible of the three.

  8. QM
    November 23, 2009 at 20:28

    It might work though the accusations of setting up a meritocracy would be thrown at those using it. Technology is certainly there too, but would peoples interest be maintained and would they be able to follow the debates, There would be dangers of filibustering too until only those who support or want to kill the measure remain.

  9. November 23, 2009 at 20:53

    My comment on this occasion had nothing to do with politics 😉 xx

  10. November 23, 2009 at 21:46

    Oh it’s certainly meritocracy and I say why not? I like the idea of having to qualify to vote because my vote would then mean more. As long as anyone had the chance to do the test.

  11. November 23, 2009 at 23:27

    The idea of qualifying for a vote is a good one. But how we choose to do it is crucial.

    The quiz test you mention here for example:

    You would qualify and so would my Dad, it is in the balance whether or not my Mum or I would qualify. That is because our learning base took a different path.

  12. November 24, 2009 at 06:13

    Judging by Deogolwulf’s miniker, he would probably prefer Anglo-Saxon kingship. “It’s good to be the King”, or even a housecarl, but I don’t fancy being a slave or bondsman.

    The requirement for an educational qualification was, I believe, one of the strategies used to exclude black people from voting in some Southern states of the USA. And now there are those on the interblogs mooting a property qualification. Anyone for a rotten borough?

  13. November 24, 2009 at 06:14

    Sorry, typo, meant moniker, obviously.

  14. November 24, 2009 at 09:38

    The difficulty is in the formulation of the questions and that would be the subject of hot debate. As the initial questions would be the subject of a poll and would be set by “experts” from three universities, most like and as those “experts” are Marxist, most like, then the questions could well be skewed.

    If, however, reps from a cross-section of professions were to set the proposed questions, they could have the raging battle first and would be obliged to consider the public’s suggestions not unlike in flag design competitions but needing to explain why they rejected certain questions.

    It could be further enhanced by only public suggestions agreed by three or more currently registered voters would be considered.

    Anyway, once these are thrashed out, the initial set would be put and registered voters invited to go to their local council offices and take the test.

    After a quota of, say, 20% of voters had passed the test, then the initial votemeters would be available at major outlets and you’d need to produce your certificate or electronic confirmation from the government to buy the set.

    Now the parliamentary committee, association, whatever, puts the set of questions up for editing and the new voters can tweak the list. The old set of questions runs for six months and at the end of that time, the new set is put in place for the period of one year.

    Thereafter, the questions, which are up for review all year round, are altered once a year to reflect the new voting over the past year across the country.

    Thus the test is slowly honed and the people educated at the same time.

  15. November 24, 2009 at 14:15

    James,

    And would the tests be about real world stuff like balancing a chequebook or just how to make sure that commas were in the right place. The questions should reflect real world issues and not just a list of stupid questions like the citizenship one. It should have relevance to what is going on and show an understanding that when you vote for X then Y will be the payment. Not like California where they can vote for low taxes but big state benefits.

    It would be interesting seeing what you think should be in such a test.

  16. November 24, 2009 at 16:30

    This is too big a topic – this will be part three.

Comments are closed.