• Home
  • 183. The Administration of all the Talents

The Administration of all the Talents

  • Category(s): Politics Essays
  • Created on : 12 April 2015
  • File size: 554.35 KB
  • Version: 1.0
  • Downloaded: 52
  • Author: Richard Michael Lamb

Preface

This National Unity administration which I envisage is dictated by our current appalling state of weakness, and it will bear fruit in generations of politics to come, where every voter and Member of Parliament will have a real say in our English and Welsh affairs. That is the true meaning of our democracy: to debate and then come together.

1) Beginning:

This concept goes back to the 18th Century idea politics was meant to ensure no office seeker or active Member of Parliament should be left out in the cold. The thinking was this outward looking arrangement would ensure no disaffected clique or party would seek to overthrow the governing administration as they held offices and were part of it. Thus the arch distributor of patronage: the Duke of Newcastle kept “the beasts feeding on sufficient pasture” until consensus politics ended with George III is accession in 1760. That monarch wrecked the status quo by appointing Lord Bute, his hated favourite, to be head of his government in 1760. The Rockingham Whigs opposed the King’s party for decades. The pattern was set to the French Revolution in 1789 and Wilkes: and Tom Paine: “The Rights of Man”. England’s rulers would not tolerate this French experiment with liberté, egalité and fraternité, Wilkes and Tom Paine: the radicals of England were shunned. Repression of the Chartists post-1815 and civil demonstrations meant there was no understanding of the end of the French Ancien regime. Voting reform was slow in coming - the old 18th Century knack of inclusive government had been lost. Education with Methodism saved the day rather than our Cabinet and the English parliamentary cohorts and alliances within Westminster.

2) a) The English experience of United Governments in the National Interest in Wartime:

In both World Wars (1914-18) and (1939-45) we constructed governments of National Unity. The tremendous war effort required of us in World War I on the Western Front caused Asquith (Liberal) to step down in 1916 and Lloyd George (Liberal) to replace him as Prime Minister of a united Conservative/Liberal administration. At that time the Liberals were the largest parliamentary party with an overall majority who had won the last peace-time general election. The propulsion to a National Unity administration to win the war (1916-18) was derived from the knowledge Asquith could not do it himself by the Liberals alone. Only the ambitious Lloyd George as PM was acceptable to the Conservatives who had won and prosecuted the last war - the South African affair (1899-1901) under Lord Salisbury. Similarly Chamberlain (Neville) was forced out by Churchill in 1940 when we faced being overrun by the German Wehrmacht. We had been beaten in Norway (Narvik). Churchill was the magnetic leader who led us through the debris of the blitz (1940-41) and the collapse of the allies in 1940 in France (May) to the ruins of Berlin in May 1945. Here again the impetus to National unity caused the best man to emerge to lead the administration of all colours with his supporters. Even Attlee (Labour) leader would not tolerate any peace feeler to Berlin in June 1940, he being against Halifax’s weakness, the Tory. Attlee backed Churchill’s defiant line. The policy to win both wars was self evident to these governments.

These Wartime coalitions collapsed into divisive Liberal contra Conservative politics in 1918 and the Labour landslide of 1945 with Attlee’s reforming parliament. There was acceptance of his seismic welfare state and coalmines and Railways Nationalisations by Churchill, Eden and Macmillan in the 1950’s on the Conservative side. Thus then the consensus did appear. The Steel Industry was nationalised by Attlee in his 1945 government denationalised in the 1950’s - then in the 1960’s: renationalised and finally privatised by Thatcher post-1979. Not politics of consensus by any chalk. The Lib-Lab pact of 1976-79 under James Callaghan (Labour) and David Steel (Liberal) and the coalition of 2010-15 (Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) are not examples of National Unity administrations. The main opposition party was excluded in each case. They were comings together as a matter of circumstantial convenience to preserve power for one party or both parties, but not to cause radical transformation by force of three party support: Conservative/Liberal/Labour. Ramsay MacDonald’s National Government of the inter war years was a sham as his parliamentary Labour Party were excluded with the Liberals, which great party were later to be condemned to flyweight status.

2) b) Leaders:

The leadership I have in mind must be powerful in the extreme in our peacetime to meet the needs of this nascent and hidden fundamental social and political instability gripping England & Wales, and to carry through the measures I consider to be a matter of absolute necessity to not only avert our terrible complacency and stagnation, but more importantly to make us once more a World power. England will do much to advance the wellbeing of our World as she always has done, but not without the Temon Estate reforms and leaders to match them in our Nation.

3) My analysis and the reforms I propose:

I submit the malaise is not economic but deeply unsettling due to the flaws in our moral stance and the prevarication in our political leadership. Our people are suffering grievously due to this darkness hanging over them. The debate in England does not expose this filibustering. I am an outsider looking inwards and thus have the advantage of detachment and perspective. I have no right in particular above others to speak out, but my study of politics and modern history since 1968 at School, University, Bar School, in the legal profession, and finally in my essay writing for publication from 1st June 2013 to the present, gives me a platform. I have been an English citizen all my life since 1952, the year of my birth. I do speak directly to my country and her people and mankind. I unhesitatingly declare that the present state of affairs calls for a ministry of all the talents as the 18th Century politicians saw it - what we call now a government of National Unity - not a mere coalition as since 2010 to 2015. I say all three major English political parties and the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists should be brought into the fold. The terribly low levels of our Armed Services personnel, the subjugation of our people and our Westminster Parliament to Brussels and her European Parliament, and the restrictions on the independence and autonomy of our High Court Judiciary caused by the ECHR and the European Courts leaves a legacy of indecision and evasiveness in Whitehall which is shameful.

4) Our Heritage:

This is England of the Armada, the Parliamentarians, the Hanoverian Succession, the Whig Supremacy, Trafalgar and Waterloo, the French and British against Imperial Germany and later fascism and against Stalinism. What about our Empire from 1700 to 1970 and the enforcement in the 19th Century of the abolition of the slave trade and slavery? Europe has been well served by Britain in the last century and before I do not deny. Most of our achievements I have itemised were attained despite the Continental powers, indeed in some cases we were opposed by such rulers. Britain traditionally leads Europe and that is best done when we are not tied down by the Continent. We are an Island Nation and we may operate out of that Island. Ignore history at your cost you English politicians. We must have legislative freedom and sovereignty and a foreign and defence policy with military deployments and alliance particularly to the USA. Our Judges must be free to develop our stream of justice unhindered by European law, her tribunals and directives. England is nothing without self-determination. Let’s give it back to ourselves and not be intimidated by those who say secession and repeal of the ECHR cannot be done. How dare anyone say Britannia is enslaved! This position I outline is not rabble rousing and mere hot air - it is the utter truth like it or not.

5) The Opportunity:

England is crying out loud for secession and Repeal of the ECHR and yes first of these policies, the unilateral end of our Nuclear weapons and arms and the restoration of our three armed services to full strength with those funds so saved. I argue for a peacetime army (Regulars, Reservists and Territorials) of no less than 400,000 men and women: front line and support. We have a population of 60 million at least. Europe is not what it was 100 years ago - the fraternity has been replaced by calculating and controlled policies designed to serve the goal of profit above all other proper aims. There are no self sacrificing qualities left in the EU. The Anglo-French alliance has been eclipsed within that EU. I argue the restoration of the death sentence for murder is my spearhead policy to be incorporated in the scheme I set out, and it defines all my policies in this peacetime revolution.

What matters is real goodness and high ideals in the moral sense as opposed to tinkering with the Health Service, Social Security or the Tax structure. England deserves the best but she is being denied it - make no mistake. This is the time of decision for the politicians and the people. We will have to grasp the chance now or lose it indefinitely. My measures may only be delivered by a cross party National Unity administration in Whitehall. The days of stop-go politics (1960’s and 1970’s) must not be seen again. All the major parties should bind themselves not to resile from this raft of reforming measures for the foreseeable future. Without such National Unity based on the electoral mandate to be expressed by the electorate in the make-up of parliament for this combination of policies there is no point in pursuing this articulate manifesto. All depends on the finding of this new consensus and securing it for at least the medium term. This fresh consensus, so axiomatic to our Country’s future, will be vibrant unlike the present lifeless state of inertia.

6) Conclusion:

I accept my objectives are unacceptable to most, if not all, politicians. Why? Because this plan of mine is perceived to be destructive of our much cherished status quo by our political and establishment elites. I argue this is misguided loyalty. Each element in these elites has an abhorrence of offending and upsetting any other section by disrupting the so called beloved present state of affairs. We are in love with ourselves, you may say, which is unhealthy. Essentially our freedom to change our present regime has vanished - we are locked in. We cannot deliver on any change.

Radicalism is seriously frowned upon when it comes to R.M. Lamb’s policies: I, myself, on one occasion in mid-August 2013, was subjected to the indignity of the real threat of immediate admission to the mental health ward, and this during my early essay writing period 1st June - 13th August 2013. Why such concern for R.M. Lamb? I may only debate, but I say I have more than a prayer to have progressed this far. I firmly believe my arguments will prevail in our lifetimes, but not for my own sake rather for my Country’s good. This is our election on 7th May 2015. Make it special beyond expectation: Turn the tables on apathy and build unity in the heart of England - the Royal Oak. Let England break free from the chains of despondency and step confidently into her ancient homeland. We will then be proud to be English once more. I raise my glass to all English and Welsh men and women of whatever lineage or origin. We need them all. I have raised the Standard and lit the torch - the rest is for God Himself - He will not fail us: His people of old.