Thursday, 10 June 2021

The dog and his tail.

The other day I posted a comment on the blog ‘Turbulent Times’ co-authored by Dr Richard North (who drafted THA pamphlet) and his son Pete, about why we needed the radical reforms to our governance as offered by our six demands. One respondent wrote that he could not support THA as it would lead to the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’ to which I replied the ‘Tyranny of the Minority’ is worse and in the long run unstainable.

 For too long, as I’m in the habit of saying, the minority tail has been wagging the majority dog and the time is long overdue for the dog to reclaim his tail and wag it as and when he chooses!

For democracy to be sustainable and true to its origins, coming from the Greek demos “people” and Kratos “power”, it has to see power invested in the people with the views of the majority taking precedent but with due consideration for minorities. Let me be quite clear about that last point in that minorities need to be protected as necessary, as any civilized society would do, but the general views and opinions and demands of the majority are what should set the direction of travel for our country.

Every day there are examples of utterances from public figures which clearly indicate to me that they are completely out of touch with majority thinking and I wonder for how much longer the ‘People’ are going to tolerate this?

To take just three examples over the last couple of days. First, the Bishop of St Davids, Dr Joanna Penberthy, tweeted derogatory comments about the Conservative party saying in one how she was appalled and ashamed of any one who support them. I wonder what the Conservatives in her congregation, if she still has one, think about that?

Second, is the continuing saga of the ‘sacking’ of the cricketer Ollie Robinson for some ‘sexist’ tweets he sent when he was 18 which raises the question as to how many cricket fans, both male and female, share the view that what he said, eight years ago, should lead to his dismissal?

Third, are the stories behind the English football team taking the knee before matches. Some fans have already booed their opinion of this action and I wonder what the public at large feel about this but of course they don’t get to have a say.

Neither of those three examples are incidences where the public is likely to raise a referendum under our fourth demand ‘The People’s Consent’ but they are indicative of how far removed the views of our ‘Establishment’ are from the ‘People’.

Finally let’s consider an example where the public might well want to have their say. This concerns Colin Pitchfork, who raped and murdered two young girls and admitted other sex attacks, who could be released shortly after serving 33 years of his life sentence.

On this I would remind you that the debate in the 1960’s to end capital punishment was not clear cut and many judges, prosecutors and police opposed the abolition as they believed it acted as a strong deterrent. To allay the public’s fear, it was readily understood that a life sentence would mean life.

The public, whenever asked, still favours the reintroduction of the death penalty, for certain crimes, and I’m convinced that there would be certainly be an overwhelming majority supporting the position that life imprisonment should mean life. That the current parole system can ignore public opinion in their deliberations clearly shows the contempt they have for us and worst of all there is no accountability when their decisions go radically wrong as they did over Usman Khan the 28 year old British national, a convicted terrorist, who killed two people after his release from prison.

 In conclusion I believe the time is long overdue to give the general public the mechanisms to be heard which is of course the primary aim of our six demands especially the fourth ‘The People’s Consent’. After all the current official system of raising 'Petitions', is just a sop, which the government can ignore as they have recently done over the petition to 'Leave the 1951 Refugee Conventionand 1967 Protocol & revoke the Immigration Act'.

I strongly believe that it is essential for our democracy that the inherent sovereignty of the people is fully recognised and their views have a formal outlet so that the government is unable to ignore. In this way the dog once again will be able to wag its own tail.   


  1. I was going to ask you about this sort of thing.

    Your intention seems to be to "make things fairer" - am I correct?

    You want to "improve democracy" by giving people their say"?

    So as to make Britain more representative - and hence distribute political power more fairly? With the belief that this will make 'better' --or at least more agreeable-- policy?

    Is that a fair assessment?

  2. Our aim is to improve our governance by having the inherent sovereignty of the people recognised and thus the whole system, according to the origins of the word, more democratic.

    After our six demands are enacted our system of governance would certainly be fairer in that the people would be able to have a constant input into policy decisions if enough of them want to.

    Governments would still be elected to govern but the people now be in the driving seat with politicians their servants and not their masters.

  3. "more democratic"?

    Why? Because it is "fairer"? Or what? You don't say why you want it to be "more democratic". Surely "because it is fairer" is the answer?

    Or not?

  4. In my second paragraph I say it would be fairer.

  5. OK.

    So in what else should things be 'fairer', seeing as you grant "making things fairer" a legitimate goal?

    Income? Education? Housing? If these are not to be "fairer" but only voting is, then why?

    And what do you think will be "fairer" if, as you say, you reduce the influence of minorities?

    How do you intend to do that? What does it actually mean? How can it be "fairer" to reduce influence of minorities - when, you know, they **are** minorities?

  6. The implication of your position is that you must believe that "minorities" currently have an "unfair influence".

    Indeed, that's what you do say: "the tail is wagging the dog."

    The assertion that the "normal" (white, British) majority are "unfairly" represented and deprived of political power because of the "unfair over-representation" and political power of minorities takes some serious standing up.

    On the face of it, it looks an absurd claim. It's a claim that minorities are unfairly privileged versus the majority (in your view, the white native British).

    Without that assertion (of excessive minority power over the majority) then the claim to "fairness" is unwarranted.

    And yet the fact is that minorities in Britain often get a clear and measurable disadvantage versus white native population.

    So what do you mean, "fair"?

  7. I'm afraid, as rather indicated by your anonymous name 'the_last_name_left' I don't think an exchange on this blog or for that matter even in person is going to convince you of the benefits to our democracy of our six demands.

    Sufffice to say, which I have already implied if not said,my contention is that far too much of our governance is directed by vocal minorities and that in the long run is unstainable.

    While I must assume you are largely happy with the way things are I believe very strongly that this makes you are your ilk a big part of the problem and at some point,probably sooner rather then later, there is going to be a 'Blowback' from the majority.

    As I started my post those that fear the views of the majority need to understand the long term problems from the tyranny of minorities.

    All governments have a duty to protect minorities but to so by largely ignoring the views of the majority is unstainable and a recipe for disaster and an unprecedented level of unrest this century.

  8. You claiming a tyranny of minorities over the majority doesn't make it so.

    But let's try a different tack?

    Are *you* one of the (supposedly) over-represented minorities whose voice and influence you seek to reduce?

    Or are you one of the poor beleaguered majority, whom you feel should have more say and greater influence?

    Which group do you fit into, Niall?

  9. I support reform of our governance that recognides the inherent sovereignty of the people and provides them with the mechanisms to have their collective voice heard and the ability to stop government legislation if a majority wishes it.

  10. ".. I wonder for how much longer the ‘People’ are going to tolerate this?" People that I know have a lower and lower opinion of the Westminster government and all associated with it but feel more and more detached from it as it represents them less and less. Many are just fully occupied with life, raising families and adapting to a turbulent and increasingly difficult work environment. They will do nothing until economic collapse comes, which as I've said before, seems more and more inevitable with every £1bn that the profligate in chief casts into the hands of cronies.

    I would love to see us prepare for something different to take over from the Westminster bubble, but I see no hint of preparation anywhere, just lots of 'hand wringing' (like mine!)

  11. AS you know I totally agree with you that the public at large and too busy surviving to seek reform of our governance but in time they will become active and one by one a head of steam will build.

    The key point however is that radical political change takes time and all six demands will probably only come about after I'm dead and buried :-(