We all know that Britain has an "unwritten" constitution. All that means is that our constitution is not written down in one single document, but is actually made up from a number of other documents - Magna Carta, Habeus Corpus, Bill Of Rights, Act of Union etc.
Some people are critical of this claiming that a single written constitutional document would make the constitution clearer to the people and not so dependent on constitutional experts to decipher. Such a view is clearly rubbish as many other nations have written constitutions but still require constitutional experts to make sense of the legal technicalities - often defying logic in the process.
The British constitution is what I would call an organic constitution - i.e. it developed slowly, steadily over centuries and is therefore part of the very fabric of the nation. How can I explain this clearly?
The problem with written constitutions is that somebody has to write them.
Perhaps the best analogy I can come up with is this - an unwritten constitution is like an autobiography while a written constitution is like a biography. An unwritten constitution is created by the people while a written constitution is written "for" the people - and this is why I believe that our constitution is the best we could have or hope for as it derives from the nation and people rather than from a selected or self-appointed group.
We also need to consider why we have a constitution - written or unwritten. The principle point of a national constitution is to impose limitations on the power and authority of government.
This is a crucial point to consider when you hear people talking glibly about "constitutional reform" - because nobody in power changes a constitution to give themselves less power or impose further restraints on how that power is exercised. The first thing Hitler did on becoming Chancellor was introduce "constitutional reform" with an Enabling Act.
Now consider this. Since Magna Carta was signed in 1215 there were just eight constitutional reform acts in 500 years - and most of these coincided with major changes such as the Act of Union in 1707.
We have had as many constitutional reform acts since Labour came to power just 13 years ago as there were in those 500 years since Magna Carta. Labour even managed to introduce as many constitutional changes in their 13 years as were managed in the previous 70 years - and the 20th century was the busiest period in our history for meddling with the constitution!
People who meddle with a constitution as frequently as this do so because they have little understanding of it and absolutely no respect for what it represents. Worse still, they invariably do so because the existing constitution prevents them from doing what they want to do - i.e. it places constraints on their power which is the whole point of the constitution in the first place.
In simple terms it comes down to this. A leader wants to introduce something, but his legal advisers tell him that he can not do this because the constitution forbids it - so the leader changes the constitution. That is power grabbing.
Anyone who changes the constitution when there is no major reason to do so is only making that change because the constitution as it exists limits their power. At best, those people are authoritarian in nature - at worst, they are dictatorial.
Neither is very British.
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Repeating myself (1)
I know that I keep repeating myself on this blog, but I'm not going to make any apologies for doing so. The reason is simple - first of all, the same issues keep coming up in the news and secondly, most of the people I talk to still don't get the points I'm trying to make.
So here I go again.
Making the Upper House an elected chamber will not make Britain more "democratic". If all democracy was about was having lots of elections then the Soviet Union would have been one of the most democratic nations this world has ever seen. It wasn't. What makes a democracy is an electoral system which gives the people a real choice in their representative assembly (we have no choice now - just three parties with the same policies) backed by a constitution that prevents politicians - elected or not - from abusing the power they have.
Nu Labour have already done much to remove the constitutional barrier through a series of changes that amount to nothing less than constitutional vandalism. If they are allowed to remove the only barrier that remains in the House of Lords - and a pretty weak one it is at that after the changes they have already made - then there will be nothing left to prevent that abuse of power by some future government.
An elected second chamber - if it happens to reflect the makeup of the first chamber - increases the likelihood of that happening even more. Even if Labour's intentions are good (debatable) then there is nothing to suppose that all future governments intentions will be.
There have been almost as many versions of democracy tried as there are nations over the centuries - none worked better than the British system. It's why we have avoided the extremism and conflicts that have taken in place in so many of those other "democratic" nations - particularly in Europe. We should never forget that Hitler came to power quite legitimately - and that he could never have done so in Britain. Why on earth would we want to change our proven and successful system for a European model which has repeatedly failed?
Don't say you weren't warned. No - I don't mean that I warned you - the warnings are there in history. Ignore them at your peril, but don't ever say that you didn't know.
So here I go again.
Making the Upper House an elected chamber will not make Britain more "democratic". If all democracy was about was having lots of elections then the Soviet Union would have been one of the most democratic nations this world has ever seen. It wasn't. What makes a democracy is an electoral system which gives the people a real choice in their representative assembly (we have no choice now - just three parties with the same policies) backed by a constitution that prevents politicians - elected or not - from abusing the power they have.
Nu Labour have already done much to remove the constitutional barrier through a series of changes that amount to nothing less than constitutional vandalism. If they are allowed to remove the only barrier that remains in the House of Lords - and a pretty weak one it is at that after the changes they have already made - then there will be nothing left to prevent that abuse of power by some future government.
An elected second chamber - if it happens to reflect the makeup of the first chamber - increases the likelihood of that happening even more. Even if Labour's intentions are good (debatable) then there is nothing to suppose that all future governments intentions will be.
There have been almost as many versions of democracy tried as there are nations over the centuries - none worked better than the British system. It's why we have avoided the extremism and conflicts that have taken in place in so many of those other "democratic" nations - particularly in Europe. We should never forget that Hitler came to power quite legitimately - and that he could never have done so in Britain. Why on earth would we want to change our proven and successful system for a European model which has repeatedly failed?
Don't say you weren't warned. No - I don't mean that I warned you - the warnings are there in history. Ignore them at your peril, but don't ever say that you didn't know.
Friday, June 12, 2009
My despair for our democracy
As I look around the web at various news media sites, comment pieces and blogs I can't help thinking that the concept of democracy is being completely misrepresented again and again. One of the biggest misconceptions, in my view, is this belief that we need an elected second chamber which seems to be gaining ground. This really worries me.
Democracy is extremely hard to define in a nutshell. It is very hard to say in a single simple phrase exactly what it is. It is far easier to say what it is not and what it most definitely is not is more and more people having more and more opportunity to vote for more and more things. An elected second chamber will make us less democratic - not more. Please bear with me while I explain why.
First of all, let me just list the four things that I believe are necessary before there is even a possibility that true democracy can exist.
The first thing, of course, is the existence of a demos - a people who share a common cause. In the case of a General Election, that common cause is, of course, the interests of the United Kingdom.
The second thing is the existence of real political choice. There has to be a real alternative between option A or option B - if there isn't then democracy can not exist. It is not enough to have universal suffrage if all the people can vote for is the same. The lack of real difference between all the main parties is the single biggest influence on voter turnout and the existence of "the democratic deficit".
The third thing is popular sovereignty - the notion that the government we get is there by the true will of the electorate and govern with the true consent of the people. Again, for this to exist there has to be real choice between political options. In all honesty, it is hard to say whether true popular sovereignty is ever actually achievable - there have rarely been times when a government has enjoyed more than 50% of the vote - but there is no doubt that it has become increasingly less true in recent decades as governments govern with an increasingly low percentage of the total electorate.
The final thing is an effective check and balance on the elected government - which is where the second chamber comes in. It is, of course, impossible for there to be an effective check and balance on an elected government if that second chamber is elected too. People keep trying to tell me that they manage it in other countries - such as the USA - but this simply isn't true.
I'll use the USA as an example because I'm reasonably au fait with the principles of their governmental system - but I'm pretty much certain that just about every other country where they have bicameral parliaments with two elected chambers uses similar methods.
It's true that in the US, members of each house are much more free on how they vote than they are in this country, but even so they generally tend to vote with their party. Consequently, when you have a US President whose party dominates both houses that President is pretty much all powerful. If his party loses control of just one of those houses the President becomes almost entirely impotent and ineffectual - a lame duck President.
There is no effective check and balance in the US system of elected representatives. Where they do have a check and balance against abuse of government power is through the Supreme Court - a panel of just seven unelected people who possess extraordinary power. These people sit on the Supreme Court for life or until they step down. This is why it is extremely important for a party to have their President in power when a position becomes vacant as the President appoints the members of the Supreme Court and this gives them the opportunity to put in place someone of their choosing - a liberal or conservative.
A similar thing exists in Britain with the Law Lords, but their power is considerably more limited than the US Supreme Court. I'm not too sure how much more power the Supreme Court of the UK will have when it takes over from the Law Lords later this year, but I'm betting this is the precursor to an elected second chamber - so they will be pretty much all powerful.
What this means is that we will be reducing the check and balance on our government from some 700 persons to just 11 political appointees. I can not see how this will make Britain more democratic - on the contrary, it will make it considerably less so.
The trouble is, I don't think many people understand this concept. They think that just because they voted for a second chamber this somehow is a more representative government. It isn't because the second chamber does not govern! The government is the executive of the House of Commons - the second chamber is the check and balance against the abuse of power by that executive.
If the second chamber is elected that check and balance will not exist any more - particularly in a place like the UK where party whips ensure compliance with party policy. It is a simplistic idea to think that just having more elected representatives will make us more democratic. It won't. Indeed, by changing the House of Lords we open ourselves up to the possibility of a truly extreme government gaining power as they have all over Europe in times past.
Please do not let this happen.
Democracy is extremely hard to define in a nutshell. It is very hard to say in a single simple phrase exactly what it is. It is far easier to say what it is not and what it most definitely is not is more and more people having more and more opportunity to vote for more and more things. An elected second chamber will make us less democratic - not more. Please bear with me while I explain why.
First of all, let me just list the four things that I believe are necessary before there is even a possibility that true democracy can exist.
The first thing, of course, is the existence of a demos - a people who share a common cause. In the case of a General Election, that common cause is, of course, the interests of the United Kingdom.
The second thing is the existence of real political choice. There has to be a real alternative between option A or option B - if there isn't then democracy can not exist. It is not enough to have universal suffrage if all the people can vote for is the same. The lack of real difference between all the main parties is the single biggest influence on voter turnout and the existence of "the democratic deficit".
The third thing is popular sovereignty - the notion that the government we get is there by the true will of the electorate and govern with the true consent of the people. Again, for this to exist there has to be real choice between political options. In all honesty, it is hard to say whether true popular sovereignty is ever actually achievable - there have rarely been times when a government has enjoyed more than 50% of the vote - but there is no doubt that it has become increasingly less true in recent decades as governments govern with an increasingly low percentage of the total electorate.
The final thing is an effective check and balance on the elected government - which is where the second chamber comes in. It is, of course, impossible for there to be an effective check and balance on an elected government if that second chamber is elected too. People keep trying to tell me that they manage it in other countries - such as the USA - but this simply isn't true.
I'll use the USA as an example because I'm reasonably au fait with the principles of their governmental system - but I'm pretty much certain that just about every other country where they have bicameral parliaments with two elected chambers uses similar methods.
It's true that in the US, members of each house are much more free on how they vote than they are in this country, but even so they generally tend to vote with their party. Consequently, when you have a US President whose party dominates both houses that President is pretty much all powerful. If his party loses control of just one of those houses the President becomes almost entirely impotent and ineffectual - a lame duck President.
There is no effective check and balance in the US system of elected representatives. Where they do have a check and balance against abuse of government power is through the Supreme Court - a panel of just seven unelected people who possess extraordinary power. These people sit on the Supreme Court for life or until they step down. This is why it is extremely important for a party to have their President in power when a position becomes vacant as the President appoints the members of the Supreme Court and this gives them the opportunity to put in place someone of their choosing - a liberal or conservative.
A similar thing exists in Britain with the Law Lords, but their power is considerably more limited than the US Supreme Court. I'm not too sure how much more power the Supreme Court of the UK will have when it takes over from the Law Lords later this year, but I'm betting this is the precursor to an elected second chamber - so they will be pretty much all powerful.
What this means is that we will be reducing the check and balance on our government from some 700 persons to just 11 political appointees. I can not see how this will make Britain more democratic - on the contrary, it will make it considerably less so.
The trouble is, I don't think many people understand this concept. They think that just because they voted for a second chamber this somehow is a more representative government. It isn't because the second chamber does not govern! The government is the executive of the House of Commons - the second chamber is the check and balance against the abuse of power by that executive.
If the second chamber is elected that check and balance will not exist any more - particularly in a place like the UK where party whips ensure compliance with party policy. It is a simplistic idea to think that just having more elected representatives will make us more democratic. It won't. Indeed, by changing the House of Lords we open ourselves up to the possibility of a truly extreme government gaining power as they have all over Europe in times past.
Please do not let this happen.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Oh, brother!
Over on The Telegraph, Stephan Shakespeare announces the saviour of democracy - a voters union.
Voters must be a central part of the renewal process and the National Union of Voters will be a democratic movement that makes it easier for people to represent themselves.
I don't actually think many people want to represent themselves - they are generally too busy getting on with the day to day things like earning a living - they want their elected MP to represent them. That is, after all, what they are there for.
The union starts with the belief that there are four big weaknesses in our democracy.
Indeed there are.
First, the problem of too many MPs thinking they have a safe seat for life.
Err, no - that's not on my list. That's a problem with constituency boundaries, but nothing to do with democracy per se.
Second, the political class has hidden important information about its income, expenses and connections for too long. We need complete transparency.
Nope, not on my list either. Transparency is important, but our democratic system more or less has that. Politicians on the take is nothing new.
Third, political parties rely on a few big donors for their money. They would be a lot more responsive to voters if they had to raise their funds from them.
Well - sort of. Some of the "big donors" are actually private individual voters who happen to be wealthy and anything above £5000 has to be declared. I'm all for limiting donations from individuals to £500 and making it illegal to accept donations from business or corporations (including unions and NGOs), but more important for me is to end the professional lobbying that goes on from these groups.
Fourth, the mainstream parties agree on too many big issues, denying debate as they cling to each other like spent boxers.
At last we agree on something! The biggest problem in our democracy that I can see is the lack of choice and the replacement of real argument and debate with mud-slinging and name-calling. The three main parties each believe in our membership of the EU which means they each have more or less the same political agenda give or take some minor detail differences.
In recent years two significant parties have emerged that differ from that viewpoint - BNP and UKIP - and have tapped in, in differing ways, to the groundswell of disillusionment and disinterest in our political system with varying degrees of success.
They both agree on withdrawal from the EU and share a belief in some form of British nationalism, but other than that there are few similarities between the two parties. It would make a huge difference to our democracy - in my opinion - if those two parties were somehow able to make a meaningful breakthrough that actually led to real debate about the issues that concern British people.
Unfortunately, both BNP and UKIP have reverted to modern political styles and opted for exchanging insults rather than meaningful debate. Were they to pursue the latter rather than the former I think we could see a real grass roots democracy movement grow in this country.
Imagine what would happen if UKIP and BNP arranged to have a series of political debates in various towns and locations up and down Britain where ordinary people - rather than the media - were able to hear them debate, proper debate, and ask questions. Don't bother with the other parties - chances are they wouldn't take part anyway - just UKIP and BNP for now.
The important thing would be to keep the meetings civil and restrict discussion to genuine political issues - not name calling or spurious arguments about party constitutions or the misbehaviour of various current or former members.
The debates could be filmed and posted on You Tube as well as the parties websites allowing more and more people to see and hear for themselves some real political dialogue.
UKIP and the BNP represent the only true opposition to government - whichever party is governing at the time. If they were to unite - not politically, but strategically - they could seriously invigorate our politics and our democracy much more than some half-baked, ill-conceived "union" of voters.
Voters must be a central part of the renewal process and the National Union of Voters will be a democratic movement that makes it easier for people to represent themselves.
I don't actually think many people want to represent themselves - they are generally too busy getting on with the day to day things like earning a living - they want their elected MP to represent them. That is, after all, what they are there for.
The union starts with the belief that there are four big weaknesses in our democracy.
Indeed there are.
First, the problem of too many MPs thinking they have a safe seat for life.
Err, no - that's not on my list. That's a problem with constituency boundaries, but nothing to do with democracy per se.
Second, the political class has hidden important information about its income, expenses and connections for too long. We need complete transparency.
Nope, not on my list either. Transparency is important, but our democratic system more or less has that. Politicians on the take is nothing new.
Third, political parties rely on a few big donors for their money. They would be a lot more responsive to voters if they had to raise their funds from them.
Well - sort of. Some of the "big donors" are actually private individual voters who happen to be wealthy and anything above £5000 has to be declared. I'm all for limiting donations from individuals to £500 and making it illegal to accept donations from business or corporations (including unions and NGOs), but more important for me is to end the professional lobbying that goes on from these groups.
Fourth, the mainstream parties agree on too many big issues, denying debate as they cling to each other like spent boxers.
At last we agree on something! The biggest problem in our democracy that I can see is the lack of choice and the replacement of real argument and debate with mud-slinging and name-calling. The three main parties each believe in our membership of the EU which means they each have more or less the same political agenda give or take some minor detail differences.
In recent years two significant parties have emerged that differ from that viewpoint - BNP and UKIP - and have tapped in, in differing ways, to the groundswell of disillusionment and disinterest in our political system with varying degrees of success.
They both agree on withdrawal from the EU and share a belief in some form of British nationalism, but other than that there are few similarities between the two parties. It would make a huge difference to our democracy - in my opinion - if those two parties were somehow able to make a meaningful breakthrough that actually led to real debate about the issues that concern British people.
Unfortunately, both BNP and UKIP have reverted to modern political styles and opted for exchanging insults rather than meaningful debate. Were they to pursue the latter rather than the former I think we could see a real grass roots democracy movement grow in this country.
Imagine what would happen if UKIP and BNP arranged to have a series of political debates in various towns and locations up and down Britain where ordinary people - rather than the media - were able to hear them debate, proper debate, and ask questions. Don't bother with the other parties - chances are they wouldn't take part anyway - just UKIP and BNP for now.
The important thing would be to keep the meetings civil and restrict discussion to genuine political issues - not name calling or spurious arguments about party constitutions or the misbehaviour of various current or former members.
The debates could be filmed and posted on You Tube as well as the parties websites allowing more and more people to see and hear for themselves some real political dialogue.
UKIP and the BNP represent the only true opposition to government - whichever party is governing at the time. If they were to unite - not politically, but strategically - they could seriously invigorate our politics and our democracy much more than some half-baked, ill-conceived "union" of voters.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Democracy? What democracy?
Another excellent comment piece from Janet Daley in The Telegraph that nails several points that reflect my own opinions on democracy, the constitution and reform.
Suddenly it's all about reforming the constitution. How did that happen? A minute ago, we were talking about the misdemeanours (or perhaps in some cases, the felonies) of individual MPs and now we find ourselves plunged into a full-scale reinvention of the British parliamentary system.
How indeed. I've been wondering myself why it is that discovering that a few MPs have been taking the opportunity to line their own pockets (or their spouses) is reason for reforming our parliamentary system. I've also been wondering why so many people have been willing to fall for it.
I listened to the awful Andrew Marr interviewing Gordon Brown this morning and all Marr seemed interested in talking about was his own personal agenda for parliamentary reform - in particular the House of Lords as an elected second chamber. In case you didn't notice, it's the elected representatives who've been giving the British taxpayers a right royal seeing to over a barrel for the last decade or so. How the hell does it help to have twice as many on the fiddle?
Daley goes on to question the meaning of democracy and Cameron's big ideas for improving it.
A living, vibrant democratic process is about argument, or it is about nothing: if there is no argument, the voters have no choice and therefore no power. If all the parties offer them pretty similar, socially modish versions of the conventional wisdom, they will first become apathetic, then dismissive, then disgusted.
Exactly what I've been saying for ages. We do not have a democracy because there is no real choice. All the main parties have the same fundamental principles and policies that differ only in detail and implementation. Daley also recognises that the possibility of any sort of debate is stifled by the surrounding culture.
If the political culture – which means not just the parties but the BBC and the school curriculum – suppresses real, principled argument on substantive issues (the social consequences of multiculturalism, or welfare dependency; the effect of egalitarianism on education) then no number of new mechanisms for re-engaging people with politics will have much effect. How exciting would it be to vote in a primary for your local parliamentary candidate if all the contenders were conforming to the same line about the most contentious and urgent issues of the day?
There's a real danger in my opinion - and I do mean danger - that this row over a few MPs fiddling their expenses is somehow going to snowball into a demand for constitutional reform when there is fundamentally nothing wrong with our constitution. It's been effective for centuries in delivering democracy and limiting the power of the state - the only problem with it now is that our parliament is stuffed full of left wing socialist modernisers hell bent on turning Britain into a model of the EUSSR.
The problem is not the constitution or our parliament - its our political parties, their leadership and their contempt for Britain, our parliament and our constitution.
Remember, under our constitution it was illegal for Edward Heath to take us into the European Union. To do this he pushed through the European Communities Act of 1972 and overrule our constitution - much like Hitler used an Enabling Act to overrule the Weimar Constitution and seize total power. In 2006, the Blair government pushed through the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill - a further enabling act to grant extensive powers to government.
Taking such measures even in times when our nation faced a dire and existential threat is unheard of - for our governments to have done so twice in the last 40 years tells you of the contempt they have for the constitution and what they really mean by "democracy".
The only steps we need to take to reform our constitution are to repeal these two Acts. Once that done we will have properly limited and accountable government again - all we would need to do after that is restore the Lords so that we have a proper check and balance to temper the excesses of the elected representatives.
Suddenly it's all about reforming the constitution. How did that happen? A minute ago, we were talking about the misdemeanours (or perhaps in some cases, the felonies) of individual MPs and now we find ourselves plunged into a full-scale reinvention of the British parliamentary system.
How indeed. I've been wondering myself why it is that discovering that a few MPs have been taking the opportunity to line their own pockets (or their spouses) is reason for reforming our parliamentary system. I've also been wondering why so many people have been willing to fall for it.
I listened to the awful Andrew Marr interviewing Gordon Brown this morning and all Marr seemed interested in talking about was his own personal agenda for parliamentary reform - in particular the House of Lords as an elected second chamber. In case you didn't notice, it's the elected representatives who've been giving the British taxpayers a right royal seeing to over a barrel for the last decade or so. How the hell does it help to have twice as many on the fiddle?
Daley goes on to question the meaning of democracy and Cameron's big ideas for improving it.
A living, vibrant democratic process is about argument, or it is about nothing: if there is no argument, the voters have no choice and therefore no power. If all the parties offer them pretty similar, socially modish versions of the conventional wisdom, they will first become apathetic, then dismissive, then disgusted.
Exactly what I've been saying for ages. We do not have a democracy because there is no real choice. All the main parties have the same fundamental principles and policies that differ only in detail and implementation. Daley also recognises that the possibility of any sort of debate is stifled by the surrounding culture.
If the political culture – which means not just the parties but the BBC and the school curriculum – suppresses real, principled argument on substantive issues (the social consequences of multiculturalism, or welfare dependency; the effect of egalitarianism on education) then no number of new mechanisms for re-engaging people with politics will have much effect. How exciting would it be to vote in a primary for your local parliamentary candidate if all the contenders were conforming to the same line about the most contentious and urgent issues of the day?
There's a real danger in my opinion - and I do mean danger - that this row over a few MPs fiddling their expenses is somehow going to snowball into a demand for constitutional reform when there is fundamentally nothing wrong with our constitution. It's been effective for centuries in delivering democracy and limiting the power of the state - the only problem with it now is that our parliament is stuffed full of left wing socialist modernisers hell bent on turning Britain into a model of the EUSSR.
The problem is not the constitution or our parliament - its our political parties, their leadership and their contempt for Britain, our parliament and our constitution.
Remember, under our constitution it was illegal for Edward Heath to take us into the European Union. To do this he pushed through the European Communities Act of 1972 and overrule our constitution - much like Hitler used an Enabling Act to overrule the Weimar Constitution and seize total power. In 2006, the Blair government pushed through the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill - a further enabling act to grant extensive powers to government.
Taking such measures even in times when our nation faced a dire and existential threat is unheard of - for our governments to have done so twice in the last 40 years tells you of the contempt they have for the constitution and what they really mean by "democracy".
The only steps we need to take to reform our constitution are to repeal these two Acts. Once that done we will have properly limited and accountable government again - all we would need to do after that is restore the Lords so that we have a proper check and balance to temper the excesses of the elected representatives.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Beware the "modernisers"
I see a couple of Labour "modernisers" have taken the opportunity of the expenses scandal to launch their own agenda for change. Not the change we need - a fresh crop of politicians untainted by the discredited party machines - but the electoral and parliamentary change that THEY want.
Alan Johnson launches a daring attempt to lead Labour’s renewal today, urging Gordon Brown to offer voters a referendum on electoral reform.
Charming. And what will be on offer? A choice between what they want or what they really want? Some choice! The only referendum we really want is whether to be part of the EU or not - how about we start with that one before we discuss anything else?
“The current public mood of anger and disquiet . . . demands a response,” the Health Secretary writes in The Times today. In an article setting out his modernising credentials, he adds: “We need to overhaul the engine, not just clean the upholstery."
Actually, what we want is to sack the useless grease monkeys who've buggered up the machine and left their filthy pawprints all over the upholstery. Seriously, why would we trust this bunch to tinker with the engine of British democracy when they've sent the last 30 years smashing into it with sledge hammer?
Voters should be given a choice between the “elegant” option of Alternative Vote Plus and the present first-past-the-post system in a referendum held alongside the next general election, he says. “This is a genuinely radical alternative that only Labour in government can facilitate.”
Elegant, my arse! Alternative Vote Plus is about as elegant as an elephant on ice skates. It's a complex, bureaucratic nightmare likely to leave us with even more of a one party state than we are now or governed by coalitions incapable of making the decisions necessary for government to function correctly.
There is nothing much wrong with our current system - it has worked successfully for donkeys years without any fuss. The problem lies with the corrupt, self-serving politicians who now infest our parliament and the overly powerful political parties who dominate the media and the agenda.
What we need to do is hold fast against these "modernisers" whose real intention is not to improve democracy, but to limit it further than they already have done. For the last fifty years they have been conducting a slow motion coup d'etat in Britain, but have been unable to apply the final coup de grace. They see this as their opportunity to do that and we need to be wary of them.
Alan Johnson launches a daring attempt to lead Labour’s renewal today, urging Gordon Brown to offer voters a referendum on electoral reform.
Charming. And what will be on offer? A choice between what they want or what they really want? Some choice! The only referendum we really want is whether to be part of the EU or not - how about we start with that one before we discuss anything else?
“The current public mood of anger and disquiet . . . demands a response,” the Health Secretary writes in The Times today. In an article setting out his modernising credentials, he adds: “We need to overhaul the engine, not just clean the upholstery."
Actually, what we want is to sack the useless grease monkeys who've buggered up the machine and left their filthy pawprints all over the upholstery. Seriously, why would we trust this bunch to tinker with the engine of British democracy when they've sent the last 30 years smashing into it with sledge hammer?
Voters should be given a choice between the “elegant” option of Alternative Vote Plus and the present first-past-the-post system in a referendum held alongside the next general election, he says. “This is a genuinely radical alternative that only Labour in government can facilitate.”
Elegant, my arse! Alternative Vote Plus is about as elegant as an elephant on ice skates. It's a complex, bureaucratic nightmare likely to leave us with even more of a one party state than we are now or governed by coalitions incapable of making the decisions necessary for government to function correctly.
There is nothing much wrong with our current system - it has worked successfully for donkeys years without any fuss. The problem lies with the corrupt, self-serving politicians who now infest our parliament and the overly powerful political parties who dominate the media and the agenda.
What we need to do is hold fast against these "modernisers" whose real intention is not to improve democracy, but to limit it further than they already have done. For the last fifty years they have been conducting a slow motion coup d'etat in Britain, but have been unable to apply the final coup de grace. They see this as their opportunity to do that and we need to be wary of them.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Reform in haste, repent at leisure
From Steven Glover in The Mail.
But whatever reforms there are, let them be few in number, and well- considered. The system that New Labour inherited and has so abused was the product of gradual evolution over decades and centuries. One can be certain that a new constitution brewed up by politicians and academics in a few weeks would be a defective one.
Very well put. I know "reform" is a popular theme at the moment - and let me be quite clear that a reform of how MPs are recompensed is essential - but a radical shake-up of parliament itself is not what is needed.
What is needed, as Glover suggests, is for the government and politicians to respect the institution they work in and not to seek ways circumvent its workings as this Labour administration has done.
Let's be straight about this - Blair was completely dismissive of parliament preferring to run a Presidential style of government with a highly politicised civil service. The failings of the last few years are not a failure of parliament, but a failure of THAT Blairite system which deliberately bypassed parliament.
If any reform is needed, what is needed is for those conventions and processes which this Labour administration has frequently run roughshod over to be hardened and codified (if necessary) so that neither they, nor any future government can do that again.
I recommend the Glover article as required reading - he says what I pretty much think, but does it much better - but I know that many people are so angry about the MPs expenses row that they've convinced themselves that radical reform is essential. I'd caution against that. I'm a conservative - I don't believe in radical reform unless it is to abolish a new system and restore the original working system.
What I am certain of, as a conservative, is that any major reforms undertaken in haste will be a disaster - both for parliament and for this nation.
But whatever reforms there are, let them be few in number, and well- considered. The system that New Labour inherited and has so abused was the product of gradual evolution over decades and centuries. One can be certain that a new constitution brewed up by politicians and academics in a few weeks would be a defective one.
Very well put. I know "reform" is a popular theme at the moment - and let me be quite clear that a reform of how MPs are recompensed is essential - but a radical shake-up of parliament itself is not what is needed.
What is needed, as Glover suggests, is for the government and politicians to respect the institution they work in and not to seek ways circumvent its workings as this Labour administration has done.
Let's be straight about this - Blair was completely dismissive of parliament preferring to run a Presidential style of government with a highly politicised civil service. The failings of the last few years are not a failure of parliament, but a failure of THAT Blairite system which deliberately bypassed parliament.
If any reform is needed, what is needed is for those conventions and processes which this Labour administration has frequently run roughshod over to be hardened and codified (if necessary) so that neither they, nor any future government can do that again.
I recommend the Glover article as required reading - he says what I pretty much think, but does it much better - but I know that many people are so angry about the MPs expenses row that they've convinced themselves that radical reform is essential. I'd caution against that. I'm a conservative - I don't believe in radical reform unless it is to abolish a new system and restore the original working system.
What I am certain of, as a conservative, is that any major reforms undertaken in haste will be a disaster - both for parliament and for this nation.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The end justifies the means
I've read quite a few comment pieces, op-eds and even bloggers who insist that the MPs expense scandal and the row over the Speaker is demonstrable evidence that our parliamentary system is in crisis and needs, at least, fundamental reform.
It's a view I disagree with. My argument is that it is not the system that is at fault, but the people using it. It doesn't matter what system you put in its place, unless something is done about the sort of people we now have sitting in Parliament, nothing will improve - although things could get considerably worse.
The fundamental problem with the people who now make up Parliament - and the Commons in particular - is that they are mostly members of parties who support our membership of the European Union.
Membership of that "club" requires that you subscribe to a particular political doctrine - progressivism. As the EU is essentially a progressive (socialist) construct, this is hardly surprising. As more and more of what we control is handed over to the EU, so there is less and less that our politicians can have significant differences on.
Consequently, all three main parties are now progressive parties and, of course, that means that the vast majority of MPs are supporters of progressivism. There are still a few - generally older - MPs who remain true to the original principles of their parties, but there are fewer and fewer of them each term.
This is why voters are increasingly turned off politics and increasingly do not bother to vote - it makes no difference. It can't as long as all three main parties support EU membership - they have to be the same. The differences can only be presentational and minimal - they have to follow the course dictated by the EU on so many issues now that there simply isn't enough wiggle room for strategic differences.
Now, as I hope I've pointed out, the House of Commons is now dominated on both sides by progressive parties and progressive politicians. The point with the progressivism is that it is not simply about making general societal progress - conservatism does that far more efficiently - it is about making progress towards specific goals.
Progressivism is just another form of socialism and it's ultimate destination is to create a Utopian world along socialist principles. However, that goal is never ever expressed or conceded to. Instead they use a series of smaller "goals" usually phrased in terms that no one could possibly disagree with - ending poverty, equality, racial harmony etc.
Because these are perfectly noble causes it is hardly surprising that progressives feel that they are justified in pushing us towards them. All well and good in principle, but the cause overlooks the basic flaw in its argument - people are not perfect.
And because people are not perfect, progressives find that the only way to move people towards those goals is by coercion and enforcement. With that in mind, the last thing you want getting in your way, if you're a progressive, is the bloody people having their say - which is why democracy tends to get sidelined along the way.
That doesn't matter to progressives. Democracy is the means by which they attain power, but it is also the means by which they can be dispossessed of power. That's the last thing they want!
That was the principle behind the 1972 European Communities Act - the shameful piece of legislation which enabled the progressives to hand power to the EU and thus circumvent the British parliament and, therefore, the democratic will of the British people.
Democracy is the antithesis of progressivism. All it does is hold back their cause. So it is hardly surprising that, with our parliament stuffed full of progressives, there is little evidence of democracy in our nation.
That is not the fault of the parliamentary system. Indeed, if it weren't for that system I suspect we would be even further along that progressive path and more tightly integrated with the EU than we currently are. The fault lies entirely with the fact that our membership of the EU and our party system does not allow for anything other than progressivism. We live, effectively, in a one party state and you can not have democracy in a one party state.
That doesn't matter to progressives. To them, all that matters is the goal - how they get there isn't important and if it means bypassing democracy - so be it. The end justifies the means.
So, when you talk about reforming parliament - the House of Commons, the House of Lords or whatever - just remember who dominates that institution and how they may prosper from that "reform". As I suggested the other day, the Labour "reforms" of the House of Lords were not intended to improve democracy or accountability, but to entrench their power.
The progressives created the mess in the first place, but they must not be trusted to sort it out. Once we've left the EU, repealed the 1972 European Communities Act (and, therefore, all the laws that flow from the EU) and once we've kicked progressivism into touch in this country then we might want to talk about it. However, by then we are likely to have found that much if not all of our previously dearly held democracy has been restored and there is nothing we need to change anyway.
It's a view I disagree with. My argument is that it is not the system that is at fault, but the people using it. It doesn't matter what system you put in its place, unless something is done about the sort of people we now have sitting in Parliament, nothing will improve - although things could get considerably worse.
The fundamental problem with the people who now make up Parliament - and the Commons in particular - is that they are mostly members of parties who support our membership of the European Union.
Membership of that "club" requires that you subscribe to a particular political doctrine - progressivism. As the EU is essentially a progressive (socialist) construct, this is hardly surprising. As more and more of what we control is handed over to the EU, so there is less and less that our politicians can have significant differences on.
Consequently, all three main parties are now progressive parties and, of course, that means that the vast majority of MPs are supporters of progressivism. There are still a few - generally older - MPs who remain true to the original principles of their parties, but there are fewer and fewer of them each term.
This is why voters are increasingly turned off politics and increasingly do not bother to vote - it makes no difference. It can't as long as all three main parties support EU membership - they have to be the same. The differences can only be presentational and minimal - they have to follow the course dictated by the EU on so many issues now that there simply isn't enough wiggle room for strategic differences.
Now, as I hope I've pointed out, the House of Commons is now dominated on both sides by progressive parties and progressive politicians. The point with the progressivism is that it is not simply about making general societal progress - conservatism does that far more efficiently - it is about making progress towards specific goals.
Progressivism is just another form of socialism and it's ultimate destination is to create a Utopian world along socialist principles. However, that goal is never ever expressed or conceded to. Instead they use a series of smaller "goals" usually phrased in terms that no one could possibly disagree with - ending poverty, equality, racial harmony etc.
Because these are perfectly noble causes it is hardly surprising that progressives feel that they are justified in pushing us towards them. All well and good in principle, but the cause overlooks the basic flaw in its argument - people are not perfect.
And because people are not perfect, progressives find that the only way to move people towards those goals is by coercion and enforcement. With that in mind, the last thing you want getting in your way, if you're a progressive, is the bloody people having their say - which is why democracy tends to get sidelined along the way.
That doesn't matter to progressives. Democracy is the means by which they attain power, but it is also the means by which they can be dispossessed of power. That's the last thing they want!
That was the principle behind the 1972 European Communities Act - the shameful piece of legislation which enabled the progressives to hand power to the EU and thus circumvent the British parliament and, therefore, the democratic will of the British people.
Democracy is the antithesis of progressivism. All it does is hold back their cause. So it is hardly surprising that, with our parliament stuffed full of progressives, there is little evidence of democracy in our nation.
That is not the fault of the parliamentary system. Indeed, if it weren't for that system I suspect we would be even further along that progressive path and more tightly integrated with the EU than we currently are. The fault lies entirely with the fact that our membership of the EU and our party system does not allow for anything other than progressivism. We live, effectively, in a one party state and you can not have democracy in a one party state.
That doesn't matter to progressives. To them, all that matters is the goal - how they get there isn't important and if it means bypassing democracy - so be it. The end justifies the means.
So, when you talk about reforming parliament - the House of Commons, the House of Lords or whatever - just remember who dominates that institution and how they may prosper from that "reform". As I suggested the other day, the Labour "reforms" of the House of Lords were not intended to improve democracy or accountability, but to entrench their power.
The progressives created the mess in the first place, but they must not be trusted to sort it out. Once we've left the EU, repealed the 1972 European Communities Act (and, therefore, all the laws that flow from the EU) and once we've kicked progressivism into touch in this country then we might want to talk about it. However, by then we are likely to have found that much if not all of our previously dearly held democracy has been restored and there is nothing we need to change anyway.
Frank Field must not become Speaker
There seems to be a groundswell of opinion that Frank Field would make the ideal choice to replace Michael Martin.
Mr Field is a man of monumental principle and integrity. He has a vocation of public service almost second to none in the House. Having served for 30 years he understands the institution perfectly.
I don't disagree with that and I accept that Field would probably make a very good Speaker, but it is because of another reason that I am completely opposed to his taking the post.
His impartiality can be judged by the fights he has had throughout the decades with his own party.
That's why I don't want him as Speaker. He would be effectively muzzled and Labour can wave goodbye to one of the few dissenting voices in its ranks - something that would make Gordon Brown very happy. Frank Field is one of the few people who will openly discuss issues such as multiculturalism and immigration and whose opinion reflects that of a majority of Britons.
Indeed, as all three main parties know damn well that they are unable to do anything about immigration as long as we remain in the EU it would suit them all very well to have the one man who frequently reminds them of this fact effectively silenced.
That's why, although I agree Field would make an ideal Speaker in many ways, I believe his appointment would be a huge blow for the voice of the average person being heard in Parliament.
Mr Field is a man of monumental principle and integrity. He has a vocation of public service almost second to none in the House. Having served for 30 years he understands the institution perfectly.
I don't disagree with that and I accept that Field would probably make a very good Speaker, but it is because of another reason that I am completely opposed to his taking the post.
His impartiality can be judged by the fights he has had throughout the decades with his own party.
That's why I don't want him as Speaker. He would be effectively muzzled and Labour can wave goodbye to one of the few dissenting voices in its ranks - something that would make Gordon Brown very happy. Frank Field is one of the few people who will openly discuss issues such as multiculturalism and immigration and whose opinion reflects that of a majority of Britons.
Indeed, as all three main parties know damn well that they are unable to do anything about immigration as long as we remain in the EU it would suit them all very well to have the one man who frequently reminds them of this fact effectively silenced.
That's why, although I agree Field would make an ideal Speaker in many ways, I believe his appointment would be a huge blow for the voice of the average person being heard in Parliament.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Liberal inspiration
I'm fast running out of appropriate adjectives to describe Mary Riddell's scribblings in The Telegraph - ludicrous, ridiculous, preposterous, inane - all of them apply, but none really sums up this piece of garbage satisfactorily.
To be fair, I agree with some of her comments - such as this.
Besides, Parliament, marginalised by Tony Blair, has also had its reputation diminished by forces other than sleaze. The sparsely filled Commons benches resemble a rural station waiting room, circa 1950: Bills, which tend to be pernicious or unnecessary (or both), are so poorly drafted or under-scrutinised (or both) that the legislative process must constantly be salvaged by an upper chamber where reforms have been abandoned.
Well, let's leave the "reforms" for a moment and concentrate on the main point - that the failure of our political system has occurred almost entirely in the elected chamber. Blair did not marginalise Parliament - he marginalised the Commons and, when the Lords refused to play ball, bypassed them by using the Parliament Act indiscriminately.
The Commons benches are empty because there is little for MPs to debate as most of the "pernicious" and/or "unnecessary" Bills originate not from our Parliament but from a foreign organisation which drafts law in secret and is completely unaccountable, but one which Riddell is a keen supporter of - the EU Commission.
Overall, though, Riddell appears to be conceding that the half-reformed Lords is the only bit of Parliament which is more or less working as it ought to - which makes her next statement so ridiculous.
We need an elected House of Lords and a Parliament whose bywords are efficiency, modernity and accountability.
Sooo, her solution to the problem is to take the one bit of Parliament that is working, throw it away then replace it with a model of the one bit which, by her own concession, is failing?
I wonder where she got her inspiration from? The education reforms of the sixties, perhaps?
To be fair, I agree with some of her comments - such as this.
Besides, Parliament, marginalised by Tony Blair, has also had its reputation diminished by forces other than sleaze. The sparsely filled Commons benches resemble a rural station waiting room, circa 1950: Bills, which tend to be pernicious or unnecessary (or both), are so poorly drafted or under-scrutinised (or both) that the legislative process must constantly be salvaged by an upper chamber where reforms have been abandoned.
Well, let's leave the "reforms" for a moment and concentrate on the main point - that the failure of our political system has occurred almost entirely in the elected chamber. Blair did not marginalise Parliament - he marginalised the Commons and, when the Lords refused to play ball, bypassed them by using the Parliament Act indiscriminately.
The Commons benches are empty because there is little for MPs to debate as most of the "pernicious" and/or "unnecessary" Bills originate not from our Parliament but from a foreign organisation which drafts law in secret and is completely unaccountable, but one which Riddell is a keen supporter of - the EU Commission.
Overall, though, Riddell appears to be conceding that the half-reformed Lords is the only bit of Parliament which is more or less working as it ought to - which makes her next statement so ridiculous.
We need an elected House of Lords and a Parliament whose bywords are efficiency, modernity and accountability.
Sooo, her solution to the problem is to take the one bit of Parliament that is working, throw it away then replace it with a model of the one bit which, by her own concession, is failing?
I wonder where she got her inspiration from? The education reforms of the sixties, perhaps?
Monday, May 18, 2009
The democracy lie
Over on The Times comment section, William Rees-Mogg believes he has a solution to the MPs expenses row - an elected House of Lords (no, I can't work out how that fixes the MPs expense abuses either).
I now believe that the parliamentary crisis can generate the energy to create a fully elected House of Lords. In some ways that would be less efficient and less well informed than the present House, and it will certainly be more expensive. Yet an unelected House lacks representative authority.
But the House of Lords is not supposed to be a "representative authority". That entirely misrepresents the role and purpose of our second chamber which is not to reflect party politics but to act as a vital check and balance to the House of Commons to prevent abuses of power and the concentration of power.
An elected Lords will not be able to do that. If we have an elected Lords it will inevitably end up dominated one way or the other by either the party of government or the party of opposition resulting in a government with no effective check and balance or one unable to operate effectively - a lame duck government.
Anyone who doubts this needs only to look to the USA to see what that means. In George W. Bush's first term the Republicans dominated both houses leading to an overly powerful president. In his second term the Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives and Bush was dead in the water for the next two years.
And that is in the USA where representatives are free to vote according to their conscience whereas an elected Lords would be as prone to the whip system as the Commons where any dissent is ruthlessly crushed and any ambition is impossible unless you conform to the official party line. It's a recipe for disaster.
Over the last 12 years Labour has sought to undermine the Lords with "reforms" which were in fact barely disguised class warfare and amounted to nothing less than constitutional vandalism. The whole point was not to make the Lords work better, but to make it more compliant. When the Lords refused to play ball Labour resorted to the Parliament Act almost indiscriminately and then bullied the Lords with threats of more "reform".
I maintain that an elected Lords will not make Britain more democratic. It really makes me sick that so many people think that more voting will mean more democracy. It won't - it will just mean more power concentrated in party hands and lead to the final erosion of the only effective check and balance on our government.
That check and balance is vital to ensure that we have a properly accountable government and to ensure that no government passes laws which are contrary to the principles, traditions and history of our long held and hard won democracy.
There is a clear warning from history of how this can be used to subvert democracy. The (written) Weimar constitution was described as "on paper, the most liberal and democratic document of its kind the twentieth century had ever seen ... full of ingenious and admirable devices which seemed to guarantee the working of an almost flawless democracy." - but this did not stop Adolf Hitler rising to power and then using that constitution to entrench his power.
That could never have happened here because of the Lords - but if the Lords were elected? When an unscrupulous party attains power it is essential to have an effective check and balance to prevent that party abusing that power. Some might say that it couldn't happen here - I would argue that this Labour administration demonstrates that it already has.
Labour's motivation was not about making democracy work better - nothing could be further from the truth - it was about making the socialist advances of progressive liberalism over the last decade irreversible. Because so few people actually understand that true democracy isn't just about having a vote it doesn't surprise me that the moves are quite popular amongst the electorate, but it worries me that even staunch conservatives like Rees-Mogg are falling for the lie.
I now believe that the parliamentary crisis can generate the energy to create a fully elected House of Lords. In some ways that would be less efficient and less well informed than the present House, and it will certainly be more expensive. Yet an unelected House lacks representative authority.
But the House of Lords is not supposed to be a "representative authority". That entirely misrepresents the role and purpose of our second chamber which is not to reflect party politics but to act as a vital check and balance to the House of Commons to prevent abuses of power and the concentration of power.
An elected Lords will not be able to do that. If we have an elected Lords it will inevitably end up dominated one way or the other by either the party of government or the party of opposition resulting in a government with no effective check and balance or one unable to operate effectively - a lame duck government.
Anyone who doubts this needs only to look to the USA to see what that means. In George W. Bush's first term the Republicans dominated both houses leading to an overly powerful president. In his second term the Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives and Bush was dead in the water for the next two years.
And that is in the USA where representatives are free to vote according to their conscience whereas an elected Lords would be as prone to the whip system as the Commons where any dissent is ruthlessly crushed and any ambition is impossible unless you conform to the official party line. It's a recipe for disaster.
Over the last 12 years Labour has sought to undermine the Lords with "reforms" which were in fact barely disguised class warfare and amounted to nothing less than constitutional vandalism. The whole point was not to make the Lords work better, but to make it more compliant. When the Lords refused to play ball Labour resorted to the Parliament Act almost indiscriminately and then bullied the Lords with threats of more "reform".
I maintain that an elected Lords will not make Britain more democratic. It really makes me sick that so many people think that more voting will mean more democracy. It won't - it will just mean more power concentrated in party hands and lead to the final erosion of the only effective check and balance on our government.
That check and balance is vital to ensure that we have a properly accountable government and to ensure that no government passes laws which are contrary to the principles, traditions and history of our long held and hard won democracy.
There is a clear warning from history of how this can be used to subvert democracy. The (written) Weimar constitution was described as "on paper, the most liberal and democratic document of its kind the twentieth century had ever seen ... full of ingenious and admirable devices which seemed to guarantee the working of an almost flawless democracy." - but this did not stop Adolf Hitler rising to power and then using that constitution to entrench his power.
That could never have happened here because of the Lords - but if the Lords were elected? When an unscrupulous party attains power it is essential to have an effective check and balance to prevent that party abusing that power. Some might say that it couldn't happen here - I would argue that this Labour administration demonstrates that it already has.
Labour's motivation was not about making democracy work better - nothing could be further from the truth - it was about making the socialist advances of progressive liberalism over the last decade irreversible. Because so few people actually understand that true democracy isn't just about having a vote it doesn't surprise me that the moves are quite popular amongst the electorate, but it worries me that even staunch conservatives like Rees-Mogg are falling for the lie.
Monday, April 27, 2009
The muddled mind of government
There are a lot of things you could criticise the government for over their plans for a "giant database" to track all our emails, phone calls and Internet activity on both a civil liberties and practical basis.
It's intrusive, Orwellian and, given the track record of government on technology projects, it is likely to be hugely expensive and won't actually work.
But the biggest problem for me lies in one essential oversight.
What is the point of a database to intercept communications when intercept evidence is not permissible in British courts?
It's intrusive, Orwellian and, given the track record of government on technology projects, it is likely to be hugely expensive and won't actually work.
But the biggest problem for me lies in one essential oversight.
What is the point of a database to intercept communications when intercept evidence is not permissible in British courts?
Saturday, April 11, 2009
A victory for rigtht wing bloggers, but .....
Congratulations to Guido Fawkes for exposing the disgusting Labour smear campaign against the Tories. It's not a world I inhabit, but a glimpse at the Wikipedia page of one of the main protagonists - Derek Draper who runs the now utterly discredited Labour List - reveals the sordid, incestuous little pond that is left wing politics.
It's an interesting insight into the way the left wing has come to dominate the media - particularly broadcast media - and have virtually closed off that arena to the right, but that's not anything new to most of us. What it does reveal is just how limited the right is when it comes to the media and how important the blogosphere has become to the right.
It also reveals the truth about the left which likes to portray itself as being morally superior to the right. It isn't - it is and always has been quite happy to use every dirty, filthy trick it can to win power and maintain it. So it's not really a surprise to me that barely four months after it was launched, the lefts most prominent blog has resorted to this sort of underhand behaviour.
What does surprise me is this comment from Nadine Dorries as carried by the Telegraph.
Nadine Dorries, MP for Mid Bedfordshire, said: “I know what is in the email about me and it is 100 per cent untrue and slanderous. I want an apology from Gordon Brown because one of his civil servants, paid for by taxpayers’ money, has been trying to destroy me.
What I want to know is why the taxpayer is paying for someone employed by the Labour Party to promote the Labour Party? This is one of my biggest concerns about British politics - that unelected people are working for the government in blatantly partisan ways and are paid for by the taxpayer.
Personally, I don't believe this should be permitted. Outside of the civil service - the proper, impartial civil service - there should be nobody working for government who is not elected. Of course the Labour Party can have people working for them - paid for by the Labour Party and based at the Labour Party headquarters - but not for government unless they are elected (or members of the House of Lords).
This makes a nonsense of the whole "democracy" thing when people who have not been elected can have such a major role in government. It's not right and it needs to stop.
It's an interesting insight into the way the left wing has come to dominate the media - particularly broadcast media - and have virtually closed off that arena to the right, but that's not anything new to most of us. What it does reveal is just how limited the right is when it comes to the media and how important the blogosphere has become to the right.
It also reveals the truth about the left which likes to portray itself as being morally superior to the right. It isn't - it is and always has been quite happy to use every dirty, filthy trick it can to win power and maintain it. So it's not really a surprise to me that barely four months after it was launched, the lefts most prominent blog has resorted to this sort of underhand behaviour.
What does surprise me is this comment from Nadine Dorries as carried by the Telegraph.
Nadine Dorries, MP for Mid Bedfordshire, said: “I know what is in the email about me and it is 100 per cent untrue and slanderous. I want an apology from Gordon Brown because one of his civil servants, paid for by taxpayers’ money, has been trying to destroy me.
What I want to know is why the taxpayer is paying for someone employed by the Labour Party to promote the Labour Party? This is one of my biggest concerns about British politics - that unelected people are working for the government in blatantly partisan ways and are paid for by the taxpayer.
Personally, I don't believe this should be permitted. Outside of the civil service - the proper, impartial civil service - there should be nobody working for government who is not elected. Of course the Labour Party can have people working for them - paid for by the Labour Party and based at the Labour Party headquarters - but not for government unless they are elected (or members of the House of Lords).
This makes a nonsense of the whole "democracy" thing when people who have not been elected can have such a major role in government. It's not right and it needs to stop.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Sovereignty, democracy and education
Janet Daley seems to like David Cameron's ideas for education "reform", but remains a little sceptical to say the least.
What they will discover is what every previous bunch of politicians has discovered when they have tried to make the schools accountable to exasperated public opinion: trying to cure what is genuinely wrong with state education is like wrestling with an octopus. That infamous Education Establishment has a grip on the training of teachers, the appointment of heads, the admissions policies of schools, and the devising (and revising) of the curriculum. It is an ideological closed shop which, in spite of the rage and frustration of parents, employers, and political leaders, remains almost undaunted.
Very true - which is why we need to start restoring some proper democracy to our country.
Democracy is a much understood term these days. We seem to think it just means being able to have a free vote in General and local elections, but it is so much more than that. At the heart of democracy is something called "popular sovereignty". In political terms this means that the legitimacy of the state is dependent on the belief that this is the true will and with the consent of the people.
These days we like to call it "accountability" and the question then, in a democratic nation, is whether a particular arm of the state is "accountable" to the public. Increasingly, it is not. We cast our votes in elections thinking we are making a difference, but whoever we select for central or local government is largely irrelevant because they have very little influence on what each arm of the state does or how it does it.
At local level, whether you have a Conservative, Lib Dem or Labour Council is irrelevant - the heads of departments will still be the same and they will still be predominantly left wing. They are not answerable to the people in any way, shape or form and until this changes then we will continue to struggle to reform our state - whether that be education or health or anything else.
The reason for this is that more and more of the state has become centralised - and as that has grown then various governmental departments have passed sovereignty to more and more unelected and unaccountable agencies. This is the corporatism I have mentioned before - where true power increasingly lies not with the electorate but with various unelected boards and bodies over which we, the people, have no control.
All this has led to the slow erosion of our democracy. When we talk about loss of sovereignty we usually think about how our government has passed control over large areas of our lives to the EU, but they have also passed large areas of sovereignty to other non-governmental, unelected and unaccountable organisations too.
All this is inevitable with centralised, big government socialism. The usual response of both Labour and Tory governments to this problem has been to pass control to a local level - but they have done this in the worst possible way by passing it to unelected and unaccountable quangos - the Local Education Authorities, Health Trusts, Regional Development Authorities and so on - none of which we vote for and none of which are ever held to account by the people they supposedly represent.
The only way to restore democracy is to restore popular sovereignty and the only way to do this, in my opinion, is to reduce government. As a simple rule of thumb, the more "departments" a government has the less democratic it will be. The more control is given to "local" but unelected bodies the less sovereignty we have.
Cameron's ideas for "reform" are flawed for two reasons. First of all, they are based on what they consider they can possibly get the various education bodies - including the teaching unions - to accept and secondly because they do nothing to address the fundamental problem of education (and the state in general). Institutionalised leftism.
What we need now more than ever is a government that is prepared to stand up for true democracy. That's not about giving the vote to more and ever younger people - it is about ensuring that what the government does is the true will and with the true consent of the people.
That requires something of a revolution in our public services - and I see no sign or indication from Cameron that that is something he is genuinely considering. Just the opposite in fact.
What they will discover is what every previous bunch of politicians has discovered when they have tried to make the schools accountable to exasperated public opinion: trying to cure what is genuinely wrong with state education is like wrestling with an octopus. That infamous Education Establishment has a grip on the training of teachers, the appointment of heads, the admissions policies of schools, and the devising (and revising) of the curriculum. It is an ideological closed shop which, in spite of the rage and frustration of parents, employers, and political leaders, remains almost undaunted.
Very true - which is why we need to start restoring some proper democracy to our country.
Democracy is a much understood term these days. We seem to think it just means being able to have a free vote in General and local elections, but it is so much more than that. At the heart of democracy is something called "popular sovereignty". In political terms this means that the legitimacy of the state is dependent on the belief that this is the true will and with the consent of the people.
These days we like to call it "accountability" and the question then, in a democratic nation, is whether a particular arm of the state is "accountable" to the public. Increasingly, it is not. We cast our votes in elections thinking we are making a difference, but whoever we select for central or local government is largely irrelevant because they have very little influence on what each arm of the state does or how it does it.
At local level, whether you have a Conservative, Lib Dem or Labour Council is irrelevant - the heads of departments will still be the same and they will still be predominantly left wing. They are not answerable to the people in any way, shape or form and until this changes then we will continue to struggle to reform our state - whether that be education or health or anything else.
The reason for this is that more and more of the state has become centralised - and as that has grown then various governmental departments have passed sovereignty to more and more unelected and unaccountable agencies. This is the corporatism I have mentioned before - where true power increasingly lies not with the electorate but with various unelected boards and bodies over which we, the people, have no control.
All this has led to the slow erosion of our democracy. When we talk about loss of sovereignty we usually think about how our government has passed control over large areas of our lives to the EU, but they have also passed large areas of sovereignty to other non-governmental, unelected and unaccountable organisations too.
All this is inevitable with centralised, big government socialism. The usual response of both Labour and Tory governments to this problem has been to pass control to a local level - but they have done this in the worst possible way by passing it to unelected and unaccountable quangos - the Local Education Authorities, Health Trusts, Regional Development Authorities and so on - none of which we vote for and none of which are ever held to account by the people they supposedly represent.
The only way to restore democracy is to restore popular sovereignty and the only way to do this, in my opinion, is to reduce government. As a simple rule of thumb, the more "departments" a government has the less democratic it will be. The more control is given to "local" but unelected bodies the less sovereignty we have.
Cameron's ideas for "reform" are flawed for two reasons. First of all, they are based on what they consider they can possibly get the various education bodies - including the teaching unions - to accept and secondly because they do nothing to address the fundamental problem of education (and the state in general). Institutionalised leftism.
What we need now more than ever is a government that is prepared to stand up for true democracy. That's not about giving the vote to more and ever younger people - it is about ensuring that what the government does is the true will and with the true consent of the people.
That requires something of a revolution in our public services - and I see no sign or indication from Cameron that that is something he is genuinely considering. Just the opposite in fact.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
If it ain't broke ....
Mary Riddell offers her two penneth worth on the Lords corruption scandal in today's Telegraph. It is, of course, leftist nonsense - but I can see those on the left with more persuasive tongues than the ridiculous Riddell using this as an excuse to push forward their own agenda. Which has a certain chutzpah seeing how all those Lords who are involved in this are Labour peers.
I've written a lot about the Lords in the past and my opinion hasn't changed. An elected upper house will not be immune from corruption anymore than the current house is or, indeed, the Commons is. Indeed, as Britain continues to spiral into authoritarianism it is inevitable that corruption will become more prevalent as that is the norm in authoritarian systems.
Why do you think individuals and companies give large donations to political parties? For the "feel good" factor? They do so to buy influence and amend legislation to suit them - remember the exemption from tobacco advertising for Formula 1? I can't decide it Riddell is just naive or plain stupid - probably both.
An elected upper house will inevitably be weighted in favour of one political party or another. Forget all the promises of "safeguards" and "checks and balances" - it would happen as it does in the USA. The result of this is what we see in the US - that they end up with a governing administration which is either too powerful (as with Bush's first term) or a lame duck (as with his second term) depending on which way the upper house leans.
The Lords had worked as it was supposed to do for decades and was the product of a constitution honed over centuries by political minds far more capable than those of today. It provided a vital check and balance against the abuse of power by a government and was the reason why Britain had never fallen the way of other "democratic" nations into authoritarianism.
The "problem" with the House of Lords was never really a problem except for those who could not see past their own envy and spite and were incapable of looking past their bigoted prejudices at the historical context of the Lords. As soon as they felt they could do so, they began to take the axe to the Lords and our constitution - the result is a considerably weakened Upper House, an overly powerful government and the descent into authoritarianism.
When we eventually come through these times and re-emerge as a proper and fit democratic nation once again as we once were - whether it be as a united Britain or an independent England (more likely) - then our historians will look back at this period of history with utter contempt for this generation of politicians. They will look at the turmoil of the 21st century and wonder how on earth we allowed such people to gain control.
I've written a lot about the Lords in the past and my opinion hasn't changed. An elected upper house will not be immune from corruption anymore than the current house is or, indeed, the Commons is. Indeed, as Britain continues to spiral into authoritarianism it is inevitable that corruption will become more prevalent as that is the norm in authoritarian systems.
Why do you think individuals and companies give large donations to political parties? For the "feel good" factor? They do so to buy influence and amend legislation to suit them - remember the exemption from tobacco advertising for Formula 1? I can't decide it Riddell is just naive or plain stupid - probably both.
An elected upper house will inevitably be weighted in favour of one political party or another. Forget all the promises of "safeguards" and "checks and balances" - it would happen as it does in the USA. The result of this is what we see in the US - that they end up with a governing administration which is either too powerful (as with Bush's first term) or a lame duck (as with his second term) depending on which way the upper house leans.
The Lords had worked as it was supposed to do for decades and was the product of a constitution honed over centuries by political minds far more capable than those of today. It provided a vital check and balance against the abuse of power by a government and was the reason why Britain had never fallen the way of other "democratic" nations into authoritarianism.
The "problem" with the House of Lords was never really a problem except for those who could not see past their own envy and spite and were incapable of looking past their bigoted prejudices at the historical context of the Lords. As soon as they felt they could do so, they began to take the axe to the Lords and our constitution - the result is a considerably weakened Upper House, an overly powerful government and the descent into authoritarianism.
When we eventually come through these times and re-emerge as a proper and fit democratic nation once again as we once were - whether it be as a united Britain or an independent England (more likely) - then our historians will look back at this period of history with utter contempt for this generation of politicians. They will look at the turmoil of the 21st century and wonder how on earth we allowed such people to gain control.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Well that really worked!
When Labour promised to reform the House Of Lords, this isn't what most people would have imagined.
The four peers, including two former ministers, face a Parliamentary inquiry into allegations that they pledged to amend laws in return for payments from lobbyists. They were secretly recorded in an undercover newspaper sting apparently pledging to seek changes to proposed laws as paid consultants for a foreign businessman.
But it is what I expected. Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if the Labour Party used the misbehaviour of their own appointed peers to push for more changes to the Upper Chamber? Yes, I really do believe they have that much cheek.
The four peers, including two former ministers, face a Parliamentary inquiry into allegations that they pledged to amend laws in return for payments from lobbyists. They were secretly recorded in an undercover newspaper sting apparently pledging to seek changes to proposed laws as paid consultants for a foreign businessman.
But it is what I expected. Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if the Labour Party used the misbehaviour of their own appointed peers to push for more changes to the Upper Chamber? Yes, I really do believe they have that much cheek.
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Niemöller syndrome
JuliaM on Ambush Predator points out the latest similarities between Britain and Zimbabwe.
This should be the eye opener for anyone who still believes that we live in a democracy - we don't anymore.
First of all, a true democracy requires that there be a choice of political ideology - not just a choice of party. The traditional choice in 20th century Britain was between conservatism and socialism, but that ended in the sixties. Now all three main parties offer the same ideology of progressive liberalism. They differ, slightly, in approach but all three subscribe to the same ideology.
Although there are a few alternative parties which are not progressive liberal - the socialism of the BNP, the conservatism of UKIP or the libertarianism of the UK Libertarian Party - and you could, therefore, insist Britain remains a true democracy the reality is that it is nominal as those parties are sidelined by a media which is largely progressive liberal too - and in the case of the BBC, state owned. Also, membership of at least one of those parties will see you subjected to discrimination, prejudice and persecution which should be, and probably is, illegal.
It is because of this lack of choice in our political ideologies that we are now in a situation where certain individual rights and freedoms which we traditionally associate with democracy are being eroded - freedom of speech and property rights in particular - in favour of the rights of certain groups.
It has long been the case that your right to voice your opinion about certain groups is now trumped by the rights of that group (or individuals within that group) to not be offended by your opinion - though they retain the right to be as offensive about individuals as they want to be (even to the point of actual violence against an individual).
That is., essentially, what socialism is all about - the rights of the collective above the rights of the individual - but that is also completely contrary to the way democracy developed here in Britain. The rights of the individual were established first (through implements such as Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights) and from that flourished the roots of our parliamentary democracy.
Progressive liberalism is not true liberalism - just a fancy name for socialism. Now we are seeing the collapse of democracy as the authoritarianism of socialism takes over - as it inevitably does and exactly as Hayek warned it would do in the "Road To Serfdom".
Hundreds of years of struggle by the people to create a truly free and democratic society have been obliterated in a single generation of progressive liberalism. Your home is no longer your own - all sorts of people can force entry for all sorts of reasons by state decree. Even power companies can force an entry into your home, while you are not there, and install a meter without your permission.
The trouble is is that too many people still have their head in the sand about this. They refuse to accept that what seem like small, insignificant steps will, when put together, have huge implications. It's the Pastor Niemoller syndrome - whereby, because something doesn't apparently affect you directly, you do not considerate it a threat. Only when it finally does affect you directly does the reality sink in.
Is it too late to stop it? No - it's never too late - but it will require a political revolution the like of which we have not seen since the Civil War and the longer we leave it the harder the change and the more dire the consequences will be for all of us.
This should be the eye opener for anyone who still believes that we live in a democracy - we don't anymore.
First of all, a true democracy requires that there be a choice of political ideology - not just a choice of party. The traditional choice in 20th century Britain was between conservatism and socialism, but that ended in the sixties. Now all three main parties offer the same ideology of progressive liberalism. They differ, slightly, in approach but all three subscribe to the same ideology.
Although there are a few alternative parties which are not progressive liberal - the socialism of the BNP, the conservatism of UKIP or the libertarianism of the UK Libertarian Party - and you could, therefore, insist Britain remains a true democracy the reality is that it is nominal as those parties are sidelined by a media which is largely progressive liberal too - and in the case of the BBC, state owned. Also, membership of at least one of those parties will see you subjected to discrimination, prejudice and persecution which should be, and probably is, illegal.
It is because of this lack of choice in our political ideologies that we are now in a situation where certain individual rights and freedoms which we traditionally associate with democracy are being eroded - freedom of speech and property rights in particular - in favour of the rights of certain groups.
It has long been the case that your right to voice your opinion about certain groups is now trumped by the rights of that group (or individuals within that group) to not be offended by your opinion - though they retain the right to be as offensive about individuals as they want to be (even to the point of actual violence against an individual).
That is., essentially, what socialism is all about - the rights of the collective above the rights of the individual - but that is also completely contrary to the way democracy developed here in Britain. The rights of the individual were established first (through implements such as Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights) and from that flourished the roots of our parliamentary democracy.
Progressive liberalism is not true liberalism - just a fancy name for socialism. Now we are seeing the collapse of democracy as the authoritarianism of socialism takes over - as it inevitably does and exactly as Hayek warned it would do in the "Road To Serfdom".
Hundreds of years of struggle by the people to create a truly free and democratic society have been obliterated in a single generation of progressive liberalism. Your home is no longer your own - all sorts of people can force entry for all sorts of reasons by state decree. Even power companies can force an entry into your home, while you are not there, and install a meter without your permission.
The trouble is is that too many people still have their head in the sand about this. They refuse to accept that what seem like small, insignificant steps will, when put together, have huge implications. It's the Pastor Niemoller syndrome - whereby, because something doesn't apparently affect you directly, you do not considerate it a threat. Only when it finally does affect you directly does the reality sink in.
Is it too late to stop it? No - it's never too late - but it will require a political revolution the like of which we have not seen since the Civil War and the longer we leave it the harder the change and the more dire the consequences will be for all of us.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Good Lords!
The government have been forced to abandon plans to introduce 42 day detention without charge thanks to the House Of Lords. Whatever your opinion of the 42 day detention plan, this demonstrates that our Upper House is capable of doing what it is supposed to do - providing a vital check and balance to the Commons. It is also worth mentioning that this is something which elected or appointed upper chambers frequently fail to do.
I've always been opposed to the reform of the House of Lords - although constitutional vandalism would be a more appropriate term for what Labour have been doing. My opposition is due, in part, to the fact that I see the potential flaws in an elected system - principally the potential for either a too powerful governing party or a "lame duck" executive depending on how the electoral barometer swings at the time.
I also see the problems with an appointed upper house which would be open to being stuffed with cronies - something which already happens to an extent - and with that the potential for the rise of a tyrant.
The Lords was far from perfect, but then so is democracy. However, the point that everyone seems to forget and the other reason why I was opposed to the idea of "reform" of the House of Lords is that, basically, it worked. Anachronistic it may be, but as Mark Stein used to say - if something has been around long enough to become anachronistic it must be doing something right (or words to that effect).
There are many areas of our government that do need reform - not least the bloated public sector, failing processes of various departments (lost data? Home Office "not fit for purpose"?), but the least of them was the Upper House or even our constitution. The motivation for the constitutional vandalism perpetrated by the Labour party was not to improve our democracy but simply class hatred.
Hatred, for whatever reason, is a motivation that should not be part of government. That alone should be enough to disqualify the Labour party from ever holding power again. The damage they have wrought on our constitution is merely the clincher.
I've always been opposed to the reform of the House of Lords - although constitutional vandalism would be a more appropriate term for what Labour have been doing. My opposition is due, in part, to the fact that I see the potential flaws in an elected system - principally the potential for either a too powerful governing party or a "lame duck" executive depending on how the electoral barometer swings at the time.
I also see the problems with an appointed upper house which would be open to being stuffed with cronies - something which already happens to an extent - and with that the potential for the rise of a tyrant.
The Lords was far from perfect, but then so is democracy. However, the point that everyone seems to forget and the other reason why I was opposed to the idea of "reform" of the House of Lords is that, basically, it worked. Anachronistic it may be, but as Mark Stein used to say - if something has been around long enough to become anachronistic it must be doing something right (or words to that effect).
There are many areas of our government that do need reform - not least the bloated public sector, failing processes of various departments (lost data? Home Office "not fit for purpose"?), but the least of them was the Upper House or even our constitution. The motivation for the constitutional vandalism perpetrated by the Labour party was not to improve our democracy but simply class hatred.
Hatred, for whatever reason, is a motivation that should not be part of government. That alone should be enough to disqualify the Labour party from ever holding power again. The damage they have wrought on our constitution is merely the clincher.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
An elected Upper House is an invitation to extreme politics
Depending on your viewpoint, this government has been guilty of causing a lot of damage to the country, but one thing that tends to get overlooked, in my opinion, is the constitutional vandalism which Labour have perpetrated on our institutions of government. No where has this been more apparent than in the Upper House of Parliament, the House of Lords.
There is no doubt that the idea of a fully elected Upper House is a popular idea. Elections mean democracy, right? Elected politicians means more democracy, right? An elected Upper House means a more democratic government, right?
Wrong.
The point of the Upper House is not to govern the country - that is what the Commons is for. The Upper House is the check and balance of that government. It's principal purpose is to hold the House of Commons to account to ensure that there is no abuse of power. This government's tendency to resort to use of the Parliament Act to override the will of Parliament is a clear sign of what can happen when the government no longer takes that check and balance seriously.
The Parliament Act has only ever been used seven times since it was first passed in 1911 - and only once by a Conservative government - and one of those was to amend the Act in 1949. Yet this government used it three times in its first seven years. This demonstrates the contempt that this Labour administration has for the instrument by which their power is limited and held to account.
That alone is a sign of supreme arrogance on behalf of this government, but worse still is their determination to destroy that check and balance for all time - because that is the aim and intention of the constitutional changes to the House of Lords.
It is framed as a progressive change that will remove an undemocratic anachronism, but that is not really what lies at the heart of Labour's determination to destroy the House of Lords. In the end it comes down to that old, tired and equally anachronistic Labour envy - the class system.
I know that I'm in a minority who think that an elected Upper House would be a bad thing - but that, in my opinion, is because few people actually think about the consequences. You only have to look at the USA for an example of the problems an elected Upper House brings.
In the USA, when both the Senate and the House of Representatives have a similar party political balance - e.g. Republican dominated - then this results in a highly partisan Congress and a President with almost limitless power. When the Senate is dominated by the opposition party this results in a President with virtually no power (the approval of both houses is required to pass legislation), although the President retains the power of veto.
We have already seen that this current government is only too eager to override the will of Parliament with it's use of the Parliament Act. Can you imagine the arrogance of an administration whose party dominated both Houses?
I know some people will argue that our politics is far too moderate for that to happen, but I am pretty certain that when those parliamentarians passed the Parliament Act in 1911 they could never have imagined that one day it would be used to force through a law to ban hunting with dogs!
The second reason why an elected Upper House is a bad idea is popularism. Politicians who are subject to election tend to do things based more on what will get them re-elected rather than what is right for the nation. As such they are influenced by two things. Firstly, but less importantly, they are influenced by what the electorate think. Much more importantly, they are influenced by what their party thinks.
Elected politicians who vote against their party tend to find themselves marginalised and, sometimes, deselected. So an Upper House which is dependent on party approval will be, obviously, far more partisan.
When an Upper House representative is ensconced in that position for life then they tend to vote more with their conscience than with the party. This is essential for a proper check and balance on the Lower House. It is vital that the Upper House remains largely non-partisan - an elected Upper House, no matter what you try to do to prevent that, will always end up as partisan.
An Upper House which is stuffed full of party stooges dependent on an election every few years also breaks the chain of consistency which we currently have. At the moment, the House of Lords rarely changes. Although this may appear, at first, absurd, it provides a very important link between the future, the present and the past.
We all know that as administrations change from Labour to Conservative and back again we tend to see huge swings in governmental approach - but thanks to an unelected Upper House, these huge swings have been tempered by the cool, calm and reflective nature of a non-elected chamber scrutinising legislation. They provide an important link with our traditions and heritage that ensures that no government is able to veer towards extremism.
Removing that linkage between past, present and future is dangerous in my opinion. Since the dawn of our democracy we have never had an extremist government. This is partly due to the nature of our politics which has been, for the most part, moderate - but it has only remained that way because of the Upper House. Quite simply, an extremist government could never hope to win power because they would always come up against the House of Lords which would moderate any extremism. That is the check and balance not just on our government, but on the whole political system.
Take that away and you open the door to extremist government. An elected Upper House will give a government unprecedented power and, as Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
There is no doubt that the idea of a fully elected Upper House is a popular idea. Elections mean democracy, right? Elected politicians means more democracy, right? An elected Upper House means a more democratic government, right?
Wrong.
The point of the Upper House is not to govern the country - that is what the Commons is for. The Upper House is the check and balance of that government. It's principal purpose is to hold the House of Commons to account to ensure that there is no abuse of power. This government's tendency to resort to use of the Parliament Act to override the will of Parliament is a clear sign of what can happen when the government no longer takes that check and balance seriously.
The Parliament Act has only ever been used seven times since it was first passed in 1911 - and only once by a Conservative government - and one of those was to amend the Act in 1949. Yet this government used it three times in its first seven years. This demonstrates the contempt that this Labour administration has for the instrument by which their power is limited and held to account.
That alone is a sign of supreme arrogance on behalf of this government, but worse still is their determination to destroy that check and balance for all time - because that is the aim and intention of the constitutional changes to the House of Lords.
It is framed as a progressive change that will remove an undemocratic anachronism, but that is not really what lies at the heart of Labour's determination to destroy the House of Lords. In the end it comes down to that old, tired and equally anachronistic Labour envy - the class system.
I know that I'm in a minority who think that an elected Upper House would be a bad thing - but that, in my opinion, is because few people actually think about the consequences. You only have to look at the USA for an example of the problems an elected Upper House brings.
In the USA, when both the Senate and the House of Representatives have a similar party political balance - e.g. Republican dominated - then this results in a highly partisan Congress and a President with almost limitless power. When the Senate is dominated by the opposition party this results in a President with virtually no power (the approval of both houses is required to pass legislation), although the President retains the power of veto.
We have already seen that this current government is only too eager to override the will of Parliament with it's use of the Parliament Act. Can you imagine the arrogance of an administration whose party dominated both Houses?
I know some people will argue that our politics is far too moderate for that to happen, but I am pretty certain that when those parliamentarians passed the Parliament Act in 1911 they could never have imagined that one day it would be used to force through a law to ban hunting with dogs!
The second reason why an elected Upper House is a bad idea is popularism. Politicians who are subject to election tend to do things based more on what will get them re-elected rather than what is right for the nation. As such they are influenced by two things. Firstly, but less importantly, they are influenced by what the electorate think. Much more importantly, they are influenced by what their party thinks.
Elected politicians who vote against their party tend to find themselves marginalised and, sometimes, deselected. So an Upper House which is dependent on party approval will be, obviously, far more partisan.
When an Upper House representative is ensconced in that position for life then they tend to vote more with their conscience than with the party. This is essential for a proper check and balance on the Lower House. It is vital that the Upper House remains largely non-partisan - an elected Upper House, no matter what you try to do to prevent that, will always end up as partisan.
An Upper House which is stuffed full of party stooges dependent on an election every few years also breaks the chain of consistency which we currently have. At the moment, the House of Lords rarely changes. Although this may appear, at first, absurd, it provides a very important link between the future, the present and the past.
We all know that as administrations change from Labour to Conservative and back again we tend to see huge swings in governmental approach - but thanks to an unelected Upper House, these huge swings have been tempered by the cool, calm and reflective nature of a non-elected chamber scrutinising legislation. They provide an important link with our traditions and heritage that ensures that no government is able to veer towards extremism.
Removing that linkage between past, present and future is dangerous in my opinion. Since the dawn of our democracy we have never had an extremist government. This is partly due to the nature of our politics which has been, for the most part, moderate - but it has only remained that way because of the Upper House. Quite simply, an extremist government could never hope to win power because they would always come up against the House of Lords which would moderate any extremism. That is the check and balance not just on our government, but on the whole political system.
Take that away and you open the door to extremist government. An elected Upper House will give a government unprecedented power and, as Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Monday, June 30, 2008
Socialism and freedom are incompatible
I was reading something the other day - I can't remember where or by whom - in which the writer was suggesting that democracy and freedom are not compatible. You can have democracy or you can have freedom, but not the two together was the basic thrust of their argument.
Their main evidence for this was the increasing infringement on our civil liberties by our "democratic" government and that this appears to be happening in all developed democracies. Whoever wrote that piece was totally and completely wrong.
Britain has had democracy for centuries and only in the last 50 years have we seen a decline in our traditional rights and liberties. The USA likewise. What the author missed is that our decreasing civil liberties comes at a time when our main political parties offer nothing but socialism in slightly differing flavours. We do not have a true democracy anymore - in a true democracy there is choice - we have a choice of left wing, very left wing and rampantly left wing (I'll let you work out which is which).
Of course, it's not called socialism anymore as that is a discredited term. These days they use the euphemism "progressive liberalism" or the far more deceptive term "liberalism". Personally I find the term "liberalism" offensive when applied to socialists as I consider myself a liberal in the true sense of the word (if I want to ride a motorbike without a crash helmet, what the hell has it got to do with you?) and it annoys the hell out of me that people who want to regulate and legislate every last little thing call themselves "liberal". Call them what they are - socialists, marxists, commies - anything but liberals.
Britain has been like that for the better part of fifty years. In that time here have been some brief flirtations with right wing conservatism, but they were very mild and very brief. In the main, all we have been offered for 50 years is varying degrees of socialism and socialism, as Hayek warned us in his book "The Road To Serfdom", has only one outcome - authoritarianism.
Democracy and freedom are not incompatible. Socialism and freedom are.
Their main evidence for this was the increasing infringement on our civil liberties by our "democratic" government and that this appears to be happening in all developed democracies. Whoever wrote that piece was totally and completely wrong.
Britain has had democracy for centuries and only in the last 50 years have we seen a decline in our traditional rights and liberties. The USA likewise. What the author missed is that our decreasing civil liberties comes at a time when our main political parties offer nothing but socialism in slightly differing flavours. We do not have a true democracy anymore - in a true democracy there is choice - we have a choice of left wing, very left wing and rampantly left wing (I'll let you work out which is which).
Of course, it's not called socialism anymore as that is a discredited term. These days they use the euphemism "progressive liberalism" or the far more deceptive term "liberalism". Personally I find the term "liberalism" offensive when applied to socialists as I consider myself a liberal in the true sense of the word (if I want to ride a motorbike without a crash helmet, what the hell has it got to do with you?) and it annoys the hell out of me that people who want to regulate and legislate every last little thing call themselves "liberal". Call them what they are - socialists, marxists, commies - anything but liberals.
Britain has been like that for the better part of fifty years. In that time here have been some brief flirtations with right wing conservatism, but they were very mild and very brief. In the main, all we have been offered for 50 years is varying degrees of socialism and socialism, as Hayek warned us in his book "The Road To Serfdom", has only one outcome - authoritarianism.
Democracy and freedom are not incompatible. Socialism and freedom are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)