Politics

It is difficult to think of anything that is not political with a large or small 'p'.

There are a multitude of factions all seeking to influence or direct society in the direction they want through the values they espouse;

Government
Religions - the original political parties
Political parties -
Pressure groups - Charities or single issue organisations sometimes sponsored by all the other groups to promote their views. e.g. to get a drug fast tracked or made available on the NHS
Lobyists -
Corporations - regulations & standards

Britain is a managed democracy. The system usually manages to give a one of the two main political parties power over the British people for 5 years. Indications are that the government is elected by a small minority of voters <5% who have become bored with the faces they see on TV every night.

Because the system disipates opposition to smaller minority groups it allows the two main establishment parties to maintain power. As it takes a significantly more votes to elect an MP from a party other than the two main. It is only when a binary choice exists that some measure of protest can be observed. As

There has not been a governmant that has had the support of the majority of British people since the 1950's. The system employed in the UK was intended for a two party system. As the number of parties grows the number of votes needed by the two main parties falls. The result is that the current govermnet was elected by 37% of voters. That is to say that 63% of British voters did not want the current government or support its policies. Yet, the prime minister declares that they have a mandate!

The British system of government also fails on a number of other levels. It preferes to appoint ministers from the ranks of elected members. MPs are elected for effectively announcing the party's manifesto. Rhetorical expertise in a combative enviroment rather than any explicit compitence at government is key. The majority of members of pariament have little or no experience of management or managing large organisations. Ministers come from a very small shallow pool. You have to ask yourself how many FTSE 100 companies are managed by the PR department.

British Governments are not bound to implement or comply with their manifesto. It might be an issue if they choose to ignore a promise and there is sufficient media opposition for it to make headlines. Given that the majority of people are opposed to governments and their policies some form of system should be introduced to address this:

Ministers should only receive minimum wage plus expenses until specific policies and targets are achieved. They can then receive the remainder of their salary if quarterly targets are achieved.
MP expenses should be minimised. The Queen Elisabeth conference centre should be converted into a hostel for those MPs who can naot travel home. Removing the need for expenses. Other than travel to or from constituencies.
MP tax & pension arrangements should reflect those of all civil servants. Pension should be paid on a standard 1/40th basis. If they loose an election it should be taken as a sacking for missconduct and rights amended accordingly.

The civil service while generally coming from good schools and Universities also lack the relevant experience in managing an organisation. Particularly where change is needed. The system is also hobbled by the carrier path forced uppon them. They have to change jobs every two years, they have to deliver something in the first six months so avoid anything significant. They then spend 12 months living off the success of the first 6 months and avoiding anything that will possibly damage their reputation. They spend the 4th quater looking for a new job.

Throughout civil servants are subject to the whims and missdirections of the political class who are constantly on the lookout for electoral success. These changes in direction force abandanment of plans, primarily due to limited resources, which encourages an environment whereby people are not focused on successful completion of a plan. There is little point in undertaking an activity with enthusiasm or energy when an initative could be abandoned or delayed because of a Daily Mail editorial.

Separation of state and church

I make a distinction between church and religion. Expressed simply, Jesus was not a Christian, The Gautama Buddha was not a Buddhist. I know there is no historical evidence for the former this is just an example to highlight the difference. More importantly they were not Orthodox, Catholic, protestant, Tibetan or Zen. The adornmentt It’s like taking Maslow’s list of needs as a hierarchy and thinking self actualisation is the most important. I recognise that the intellectual capital invested in religious communities have been a force for social change. In a situation where the primary mechanism for conflict resolution is violence it is rational to use other sources of authority. Claiming legitimacy through a higher authority is therefore a good strategy. A primary humans attribute is questioning. Who, what, why, where, when and how? Origin stories can be seen as the root of scientific investigation. However, religions are social inventions, conceptualised by individuals seeking power and to assert their will. Religions are not ‘divinely inspired’. If they were the followers would not continually modify their practices in order to maintain their ‘relevance’. Idolatry, allowing villagers to rape your daughter, rather than sodomise your male guests, or refusing to stone (kill) someone for waring wool and cotton mix would be difficult to justify today. There are some golden rules that people arrive at without any intervention. Religions only serve a purpose to those who are comforted by them or gain power from them. People have a right to lead their lives in whichever way they choose provided it does not cause harm to another. I don’t want to get bogged down in the legal niceties and spend an endless amount of time defining harm. You can’t legislate against offence. There are lots of things I find offensive but I would defend peoples right to offend. The separation of church and state is essential to protect peoples rights to self determination. Advocacy groups (also known as think tanks, pressure groups, lobby groups, campaign groups, interest groups or special interest groups) use various forms of advocacy to influence public opinion and/or policy. They play a significant part in development of political and social systems. They play a key part in day to day politics. Commercial interests sponsor and encourage different advocacy groups (charities) to promote their products. Religions and more importantly churches are primarily advocacy groups and should not receive state funding. They can be considered political parties and it is undemocratic to give a particular group or ideology access to power that is not subject to oversight or democratic authority. People who make their living from lies and intimidation are most commonly consigned to prison or elected to government. I am not saying that people who express a belief should be consigned to an institution. However, if people seek to profit from lies and intimidation they should be subject to the law.

A very British Coup

My interest in the EU at this stage in my life had nothing to do with economics. I was interested in the social aspets. Freedom to travel and reside, the recipricol health arrangements and most importantly a brake on some of the partisan elements in the UK:

Human rights act
Blocking GMO
Blocking nicatinoid pesticides
All the social policies

I voted remain in the EU referendum primarily because the only thing that I could see would result was damaging social change. More importantly having accepted that 'austerity' hadn't worked there was an opportunity to start driving change. Leaving the EU the UK would now squander that opportunity spending the next twenty years disengaging from the EU. The UK would trump all argument by claiming it was good for business.

Is a govennment of and for the 37% to be trusted to rewriting fourty years of legislation.
Any product and service to be sold into the EU will have to be complient with EU legislation. The UK will not have any influence on these in the future.
UK now has to build the expertise in negotiating treaties.
It can take more than 10 years to negotiate a treaty.
The UK will be punching below its weight - the best it could achieve is to duplicate the tariffs it currently has.
EU customers will insist that any trading issues will be resolved in EU court.

It exasperates and amuses me that claims are made that the UK has not suffered as a result of the vote to leave the EU:

UK devalued by 15% - People are buying at a discount.
Retailers are withdrawing imported products.
Manufacturers who import are increasing prices or reducing the size of products.
The bank of England reduced interest rates & and increased quantative easing.
People realising that it was pointless to save combined with cheap money decided to buy the thins they wanted rather than delay.