Don’t vote in the Southend West “by-election”
If a magic act was presented to them as their current affairs (or government agenda-progressing events and news of those events), British people would think that it was quite possible for a man wearing a bow tie and a fez (or a turban) to make a woman in a skimpy sequinned leotard levitate on the end of a broomstick.
In fact, reader, in doing this work, one cannot help but feel that one is dealing with a population who thinks that a woman really could be made to disappear from a cabinet, decorated as if from the mystical orient, by uttering the words, “zim allla bim”. And on the contrary, most people don’t want to know that there was a hole in the table, under the top hat, through which a white rabbit was pulled from a concealed compartment. If and when they can wrap their heads around that, they then can’t apply the principle in the face of the bigger lie so that they still utterly believe that a woman could be sawed in half, and miraculously be able to wiggle her toes even after her feet had been swung around on the apparatus to be next to her head.
Because of this malfunction of the brain that people in Britain possess, let us talk about the upcoming “by-election” to replace the murdered Tory MP, David Amess, in his parliamentary constituency seat as if voting in any parliamentary election wasn’t utterly futile and acting out as a result of a gross delusion (along with other personal failure it represents†). Let us pretend that voting is not a device by which UK Government creates an appearance of being representative, and talk about the upcoming, date as yet unannounced, Southend West “by-election”.
The reader will of course notice the quotation marks wrapped around the operative word, because the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats have announced that they will not be fielding candidates in what then becomes a straight forward selection, nay coronation, of any candidate that Conservative Central Office wants to inflict on the constituency.
There will still be a vote, of course, and it will be an opportunity for UK Government to have its agent provocateurs, in the form of “far right” political parties use a charade of going through the usual motions as a platform on which they can accrue loathing unto themselves‡. This loathing, of course, is to be transferred onto quite innocent people with reasonable politics that the government agents also advocate in order to bring them into disrepute. However, the primary reason for letting this rotten option stand in this contest is to motivate voters in reaction in support of the Tory candidate. It’s quite cynical, and it’s how we should know that the likes of Jayda Fransen and Britain First are indeed products of UK Government plotting.
In any case, the author contends that, especially from a perspective of certainty in a demonstration where a still gleefully smiling woman has been dissected into four parts in a cabinet that accommodates blades to do the severing and then slides out in compartments to emphasise the separation of body parts, there should be outrage about what UK Government plans to do at Southend West. On the fundamental face value level, selecting a MP in this way is a violation of the principle of representative government.
It is not good enough that the 2016 termination of the Jo Cox character provides a precedent – as is being bandied around for justification – for what is planned to take place. Indeed, there should not have been a selection at Batley and Spen either, and the author has already recorded his thoughts about this in these pages:
If the reader wants to understand the real value of “representative democracy”, and the British Government’s contempt for your attempt to pool sovereignty via the ballot box, then there was no finer example than that by-election. Even if one doesn’t think that the Jo Cox incident was a false flag, the state of things in the UK, as evidenced by the fallout from that incident, have reached a new level of appalling. Apparently, whenever an MP is removed from post because of an incident that is deemed by the Establishment to have been politically motivated, then the vacated seat is to be handed to a successor from the same party.
To expand on this, let us acknowledge the thin end of the wedge in allowing a candidate (or, in fact a political party ticket, because Parliament is not truly a seat of representative government) a free pass because of an incident where an MP is lost in what is deemed an unusual political manner. Imagine, for a moment, if David Amess’ son, or indeed his nephew (the author doesn’t know if Amess had either, but it makes the classic point about nepotism), was selected as the Tory candidate, and then was “elected” as the MP for the constituency. What is the difference between this and the appointment of a prince into a king? There is none. Indeed, when we replace “son” or “nephew” with “party apparatchik”, or “perk-receiving chum”, or “pay-off accepting favour-doer”, then it is completely clear as to why there should not be straight forward coronations into office. And as we know, in history, politically motivated death in office has not always meant that a son or nephew should inherit. There is no impetus in representative government, should there be a “political death”, by which a Labour candidate should automatically succeed a Labour MP, nor a Tory candidate a Tory one.
At the other end of the wedge, travelling towards its thicker part, should it become normal for an MP disposed of in what the powers-that-be deem a political way, would it then be reasonable to have the auto-succession of a fellow traveller at any death? After all, it’s a bit sad when someone dies, and it would be cruel to the people – friends and family – who were hurt if the seat was then taken by a political adversary. And then, if an MP ever had to retire, perhaps he should be able to be followed by a politician of the same stripe because of how his long service, or record of participation, deserved to be represented bodily by a surrogate? Wherever it could end, none of it is in keeping with an ideal of representation to be governed. It is the stuff of dictatorship. It is the stuff of Machiavellian statecraft, so that there is emphasis of a crime, which makes in contrast the reaction of the tyrant take on the appearance of saintliness.
As such, as far as the author sees it, people who perceive the world as straight as a die (so that they metaphorically believe in dislocated heads rejoined to shoulders once the cupboard compartments have been set back to normal), and think that they have a stake in the Commons whereby its membership have a duty to them, should by rights be determined not to vote in a situation such as is now being presented. Not voting would send a message that UK Government ratchet towards auto-placement in their precious parliament is not tolerated. Furthermore, the determination should not be assuaged by threats of the candidate-for-discrediting being elected by mistake by leaving the field open – in fact, this outcome would serve as a bigger stick so that selections were not repeated. (And in fact, UK Government would move like greased lightning to remove one its clowns that ever accidentally got elected as an MP).
Now, of course, at FBEL, where there is no astonished belief in the analogous likes of David Copperfield on a flying carpet, the audience is told that there should not be voting in a parliamentary election until Parliament is done away by it; i.e. not voting is part and parcel of making essential changes in Britain. However, this is a message that evidently cannot be processed by a mind invested in the apparent truth of UK Government magic tricks. On the other hand, the prima facie horrible injustice and corruption of a “by-election” selection offers something that can be dealt with at that level, and it offers a good opportunity to appeal to people to abstain for a change, with a view to having them form a habit, and then understand why they are doing it, and be able to defend their action as part of the experience.
The problem is, this site is little and does not have the reach of such alternative media that can boast a harbour-side TV studio, or the capability to produce an (advertising) newspaper (apparently distributed without pay) – so here’s a thought. It might do the power of good for some of you who are reading this, if you think it makes sense that voters in Southend should not participate in a charade as UK Government expects them, to get in touch with the alternative media that does have weight to reach as many as the people in question, and ask them to participate in a campaign to have people boycott the by-election, and see what they do and say about it.
† See Don’t Vote (link), and Delegitimising Parliament: Why “We The People” Must Stop Voting (link), and Attorney General Funbags Says: Brawndo’s Got What Plants Crave; Voting Changes Politics For Good (link).
‡ See this, for instance:
A FAR-RIGHT activist has declared she will be running in the Southend West by-election following the tragic killing of Sir David Amess.
Jayda Fransen, formerly involved with the English Defence League and Britain First, declared her intention to run to her followers on Russian social media site, VK.com.
