David Cameron tries to explain democracy to 8 year olds… and fails!

– Pre-script: Change the name David Cameron for Barack Obama it generally reads the same.

Mrs Smith: Good morning children, and I would like you to welcome our Prime Minister David Cameron who is here this morning to tell us all about democracy.

David: Thank you Mrs Smith. Good morning children! So the Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘Democracy’ as “a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly”. Now I know that might be quite complex for you youngsters but I’ll go in to it a little more, but what I want to say first of all is that the country you live in, England, or more widely the United Kingdom, is a democracy. Now do we have any questions so far? Yes you, boy.

Boy: so does everyone have to vote so everyone is having a choice?

David: No; not voting is only showing that we can exercise our democratic right to vote and no to vote if we so choose! And so…

Boy: how many people did vote?

David: well, err, 28% that’s 28 people out of every 100 children

Boy: that’s not very many!

Girl: Sir, my mummy says that the low voter turnout implies that the options on offer do not represent the choices with which people would make if they were to make decisions directly. Is the definition of democracy wrong then because it doesn’t sound like here?

David: Well, no, err b-but…

Other boy: Why are there only two main parties in this country?

David: Well, that’s because running election campaigns are expensive if you want to be taken to be a serious contender and we are reliant on donations of which only two parties are seen as worthy for these…

Other girl: But yay daddy says that’s the definition of a plutocracy where power is derived from wealth and any system which would look to diminish the rich people’s wealth is doomed to fail.

David: W-What, a plutocracy? You…

Boy: Why do so many leaders come from only the best schools, like Eton?

David: It is often people following in their parents footsteps. It is difficult entering politics as a complete outsider…

Girl: But teacher says this is the definition of an oligarchy; a country controlled by a select group, in this case the privately educated- that’s far from democracy.

David: Err… You can enter government from outside the establishment, it’s just that…

Other girl: If people outside government didn’t like you and wanted you to quit would you do it?

Cameron: Of course not, it is my duty to serve…

Boy: This sounds like a dictatorship then!

David Cameron leading a #ttip revolution to once and for all kill democracy  by @Rowland72James

David Cameron leading a #ttip revolution to once and for all kill democracy
by @Rowland72James

Cameron: No, no! We have the house commons, and the House of Lords!

Other boy: Well we have already established the House of Commons is an oligarchy. The House of Lords is either hereditary (a form of oligarchy, which is currently chauvinistic*) or by appointment primarily from those with government interests, so a concentrated oligarchy appointed by a plutocracy, governed by a dictator!

Cameron: Oh just shut up will you!

Boy: Ah! Stopping our free speech, well that’s very democratic! Oi, come back, I have yet to show you how un-democratic corporate lobbying is!

*Only 2 of the 98 hereditary lords in the house of lords are female.

David Cameron sets out his philosophy showing himself a disciple of Fredrich von Hayek in RETURN TO SERFDOM  By @Rowland72James

David Cameron sets out his philosophy showing himself a disciple of Fredrich von Hayek in RETURN TO SERFDOM
By @Rowland72James

A new game show for the BBC: ‘it’s all Pointless’. A contemplation on Nihilism

Host Whoever: And welcome to the new show ‘It’s all pointless’ with your host, oh who cares!
The aim of the game, and for your chance to win our grand prize of £100,000 is to be the most pessimistic about the world as possible.
(Audience claps apathetically)
Host: So we have contestant one can you tell me why ‘it’s all pointless’?

Contestant 1: Well seeing as the universe is 4 billion years old, the 80 years we walk the earth is but an eyes blink of the universe; no matter what we do nothing truly changes as the universe will still be here long after you and I both die, so what the point!

Host: that’s pretty bleak contestant one- I’d say well done if I wasn’t struggling with the tedium of existence so much. So now contestant number two, tell my why ‘it’s all pointless’?

Contestant 2: scientists have calculated that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe and we live on just one of them; on this universal scale we are less than a grain of sand on a beach, everyone you have ever known barely makes up one grain of sand on the beach that is the history of the universe. We are all utterly tiny and insignificant.

Host: chilling stuff there contestant 2! I can literally feel the absurdity of our insignificant existence weighing down on me as I trail off cos I can’t be bothered anymore! Contestant 3?

Contestant 3: time only exists because we perceive it, because we perceive light, if we were not perceiving that light then time ceases to exist and when time ceases to exist then everything ceases to exist as time is the ultimate reference point for anything in existence. This means that when you die you stop perceiving time therefore the universe ultimately dies with you. If the universe dies when you die then any action we take is ultimately utterly pointless!

Host: and there you have it ladies and gentleman all three of out contestants have given their answers and I can confirm that the judges have chosen contestant 3 as our winner and the winner of our grand prize of £100,000!
(Muted, unmotivated applause from the crowd)

Contestant 3: I won?! I can’t believe it- I never win anything! This is amazing, this is the best thing to have ever happened to me!!
(Loud siren goes off)

Host: oooh I’m sorry you have just lost your grand prize by not responding in a suitably nihilistic fashion, suggesting that you do see a point to things.

Contestant 3: what? But I couldn’t help it!

Host: I know despite it all our human minds can’t truly rationalise the absurdity of existence with an infinite universe, but instead finds happiness in the here and now, and the day to day. Utterly mundane I know. But on the bright side, if there is such a thing, the prize money has inevitably rolled over to next week. Do tune in again to see how utterly unable we as humans are of accepting the utter futility of life and instead ascribing meaning to our lives and actions. And don’t forget our competition for you guys at home. If anyone can come up with an alternative to ignoring the futility of existence and enjoying the here and now while you can as an answer to the existential concept of absurdity then you stand to win something once we can be bothered to find a prize. So far we have received no answers, but we do live in hope for some unfathomable reason! goodbye folks! See you next time if I can manage to find the modicum of motivation needed to turn up!