I think most would agree that these are dangerous and uncertain times. For those born after the Cuban Missile crisis of 1962 this is the most unstable time they have experienced.
The terrorist threat across the entire world is alarming. Far from defeating terrorists every move we make appears to create more. The United States, once the most stable of democracies, now has a President capable of anything.
North Korea remain steadfastly bonkers flexing their nuclear muscle in repeated attempts to trigger Armageddon.
During all this uncertainty the United Kingdom chose to exit the European Union and go it alone.
If ever there was a time for politicians of all shades and varieties to dump the spin doctors and speak frank and honestly this is it.
Messrs Blair and Bush, in their total ignorance of Middle East politics, opened a Pandora's Box of terrorism with no plan whatsoever for what was to follow.
Along with our own armed forces an estimated 150,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives in a war based on lies and incompetence. How do you suppose their families feel about that?
While ex Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott describes this as a catastrophic misjudgement that he regrets every day Mr Blair acknowledges no such thing. Prime Minister Blair simply rewrote history (in his own head) claiming his reason for going to war was to rid the world of a tyrant. Mission accomplished-not.
There is a growing sense of injustice sweeping throughout Europe and North America that the Establishment has treated its people with utter contempt repeatedly promoting its own agenda rather than theirs.
Politicians have learned to live with this by endorsing each other until they believe their own lies. (It cannot be a falsehood if all your colleagues agree with you.)
Add to that their vocabulary of obfuscation where 'transparency' is an antonym for honesty and you see just how warped their understanding of integrity has become.
In the past we had politicians of great vision like Aneurin Bevan whose contribution to society was unquestionable. They have become all but extinct.
Only today on this website we see claims that councillors voted one way in private and another in public to give the (false) impression of public support while towing the party line. Is it any wonder public trust has been lost?
Do you really think the good people of the United States voted for Donald Trump because he was the wisest best-informed candidate? Of course not. They voted for him because he was not part of the Establishment.
It's a risky move but what option does a disillusioned electorate have?
The time has come for politicians at every level to start representing the people they purport to represent. It's time integrity and truth replaced obfuscation and deceit.
The alternative is revolution and widespread anti-establishment activity.
Hopefully, we have men and women of integrity able and willing to act on our behalf.
Residents of Wilmlsow and Alderley have already shown the way.
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of wilmslow.co.uk.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Appointment to public office has never been a mutual agreement for disingenuous conduct . There are truthful alternatives that earn respect and support. [ sic. Not Trump Alternatives ]… Fortunately , The only ‘baying’ in C/E today, is from those voicing concern and despair from ‘Green Belt’ violation at those responsible.
Various Wilmslow CE councillors have been only too pleased to stand for voters' concerns, example the Local Plan over the recent years.
When these talkers come to vote in the Full Council they then start to weave a web of deceit. For example, Council meeting on 25/26th Feb 2016 - to discuss & vote on Local Plan. Two Wilmslow Conservatives put forward an amendment to take out one of the proposed Green Belt sites. Unfortunately the amendment was not carried. However, when it came to the full council voting for or against the Local Plan, these same two councillors voted in favour of the plan. Residents of Wilmslow managed to persuade enough councillors to vote for a named vote - therefore we could clearly see and hear just how each councillor voted, no hiding behind a forest of raised hands.
The two diametrically opposite positions the two councillors adopted just do not add up; their voters will be asked at the next round to "trust us".
It must be remembered they voted for and with the party not for their voters.
This is a clear example of the benefits of electing independent persons, not for party voting fodder.
Residents of Wilmslow's councillors will always be Independent, not part of any party machine, not out to curry favour with the party hierarchy to access a "job" with an arms-length faux council company but to represent the views and concerns of their particular electorate.