Can the manifesto published quite recently by The People’s Party be classified as a decent manifesto? Or should it rather be called a foolish sequence of grand declarations? Take your pick.
Take some of the first lines: “We stand for equal rights for everyone. We want the world to be a better place.” Really? I mean, seriously? Yes. Because that obviously quite heavily distinguishes this party from the gross of other contenders for the country’s power. Of course, everything is clearer now. The only thing we need to do is make the world a better place. Such a shame no one has ever thought of this before! And this party is going to make it all possible. I already feel the People’s Party is doing a fair job at convincing me to vote for them.
But lo! It gets even better. First, the goals to be achieved in the period of reign are mentioned. Nothing much wrong with them, save a few points based on opinion, such as the racism part (which I find myself agreeing on) and the reducing of bureaucracy to save money. That’s what they’re going to be saving money on?
I mean, not that it’s a bad idea, per se, it’s just that this system of government seems to be working pretty well, and to change it so drastically is going to be a big risk to take. Also, just for a second, hold this up to earlier claims, would you? Weren’t we just talking about making The World a better place? Nice job with the continuity, so far.
I mean, not that it’s a bad idea, per se, it’s just that this system of government seems to be working pretty well, and to change it so drastically is going to be a big risk to take. Also, just for a second, hold this up to earlier claims, would you? Weren’t we just talking about making The World a better place? Nice job with the continuity, so far.
Then, onto the climax of the story. What follows is to be the prestige to the magician’s trick, the grand solution of things. And honestly we’re lucky no ancient Babylonian kings are involved, because if this conclusion, this grand (or not-so-grand) unveiling of the methods to secure such a perfect world were to be weighed in the balance, it would definitely have been found wanting.
There are so many holes in the bucket, it’s a wonder water still remains inside. One of the most important faults in this plan is the large amounts of money seeming to magically appear out of nowhere. Because even with the cuts on bureaucracy, there is no way to just accomplish this.
“More government money has to be available to invest in improving our education. Improving education methods, the training of teachers, etc.” Granted. This in itself would be fine, I even agree with this point they’re making. The problem comes along with the subsequent statements: “Improving the public transport by building more railways instead of highways and reduce prices of public transport.”, “Reduce the amount of regulations and the number of civil servants in order to save money on the government structure” and then “Stimulating multicultural activities and found more public schools.”
“More government money has to be available to invest in improving our education. Improving education methods, the training of teachers, etc.” Granted. This in itself would be fine, I even agree with this point they’re making. The problem comes along with the subsequent statements: “Improving the public transport by building more railways instead of highways and reduce prices of public transport.”, “Reduce the amount of regulations and the number of civil servants in order to save money on the government structure” and then “Stimulating multicultural activities and found more public schools.”
Aside from the apparent lack of grammatical cohesion, which although regrettable is not something I will be addressing here, the pure impossibility in the combination of these statements just strikes me.
Honestly. Building railways costs money, even aside from the fact that people are already antsy about conserving nature. Not building anymore highways does nothing to erase the number of highways that already exist and let me remind you – removing those would cost money as well. Then the reduced fees for public transport – without compensation, those are going to cost the government even more money.
Honestly. Building railways costs money, even aside from the fact that people are already antsy about conserving nature. Not building anymore highways does nothing to erase the number of highways that already exist and let me remind you – removing those would cost money as well. Then the reduced fees for public transport – without compensation, those are going to cost the government even more money.
Then, the reduction of civil servants to save money. A fine point, be it I personally don’t really agree. The statement that accompanies it, though, leaves me worried. How is reducing the amount of regulations in any way going to save money on the government structure? It seems to me more like a lawless, kind of anarchical situation will be the result. This in itself does not seem like it will promote a better world, if you ask me.
And lastly, the stimulation of multicultural activities and the founding of more public schools. Because obviously it’s a good idea to found even more schools when it has already become clear that for the situation that is in place now, it is a necessity to invest more in education. Because founding new schools doesn’t in any way mean needing to hire more teachers, buy more furniture and necessities, etc. Not even wasting time on explaining the fact that the stimulation of multicultural activities in itself does little to fight racism. Can people really actually be this dense?
I suppose the results of the elections will give the answer.
