Xenmus: WHITHER DEMOCRACY?

Xenmus: WHITHER DEMOCRACY?: (Or is it too late?) We do hear a tremendous amount about “our democracy” these days. For instance, we keep being told that Brexit is...

Brexit versus Democracy

Why are they allowed to tell us all these lies and to spread such misinformation?  It’s not just politicians (on both sides), it’s the media too – but I have to say, it’s mostly Brexiteers who peddle these lies.  When are they going to tell us the truth? When are they going to give us the real facts?

We keep being told that “the majority” voted to for Brexit.

No they didn’t!  Only 37.44 of the electorate voted “Leave”.

We keep being told that “The people have spoken” and that Brexit won by 52% to 48%.

This is just plain wrong!  The facts are that Leave won by only 37% to 35% – and that 28% of the electorate didn’t vote at all.

We also know full well that the Referendum was only intended to be “advisory” – but the government, most of the Labour party, the BBC, most of the media and everybody on the Brexit side seem to have conveniently forgotten that.  If the referendum had been intended to be binding, then surely there should have been a clear minimum number of votes required to make it so.  For something as important as this, let’s say at least 50% of the electorate one way or the other to make it binding, not just a simple majority.

Nobody knows exactly why 28% of the electorate didn’t vote. Maybe they were undecided and had no firm view either way, maybe they thought that it was a foregone conclusion and that there was no chance that “Leave” would win.  However, what we do know, with a fair degree of certainty, is that of the voters who have died in the 2 years, 5 months since the Referendum, more will have voted Leave than Remain.  We also know that, of the younger people who have become eligible to vote since the Referendum, more will be likely to vote Remain than Leave.  The polls also tell us clearly that more people have changed their views from Leave to Remain than vice-versa. This is hardly surprising considering the chaotic shambles we’ve been watching ever since.

It is clearly wrong and totally undemocratic to pursue such a drastic, potentially dangerous and life-changing course of action solely on the basis that, nearly 2½ years ago, just 37% of the voting public thought that it might be a good idea!  What about the other 63% of the electorate?  Are they not allowed to have any further say at all, especially now that they have an idea of the potential consequences?

Countless politicians, both Conservative and Labour, actively campaigned for Remain but have (or say they have) changed their views since the Referendum – this is sheer hypocrisy!  Of course, they all now say that they are “honouring the will of the people” – but, in fact, all they are doing is pandering to what they think is the opinion of a majority of the electorate, in the hope that they will not lose votes at the next election.

It is not the duty of MPs just to follow public opinion, nor merely to do what they think the majority of their constituents want.  It is their duty to act in accordance with what they believe to be in the best interests of all their constituents and of the country as a whole. Most of all, it is their duty to be HONEST!

The EU Referendum was a misguided and foolish idea in the first place.  It was politically motivated and it should never have happened at all.  Campaigning on the Leave side was riddled with lies and false promises as well as being illegally over-funded.  However, it did happen.  Since then the country has become more divided than ever.  The government (and most of the opposition) have proved to be totally incapable of making any sense of it.  The whole Brexit process has resulted in complete chaos.  Almost everybody now believes that the UK will be worse off after Brexit and, worst of all, the dangers to the integrity of the UK and the peace of Northern Ireland are staring us in the face!

A General Election at this point would create mayhem!  It would just end up being a single issue election.  Almost everybody would be voting according to their views on Brexit instead of voting for the candidate they believed to be the wisest and most honest, or who had the best policies and would best represent them.

The only possible answer, now, is a second Referendum – call it a “People’s Vote” if you like – but it absolutely must not be a vote on “deal or no deal”.  Bearing in mind the complete shambles we have all witnessed over the last 2½ years, it must, clearly, be another vote on Leave or Remain – Brexit or No Brexit – and it should require a clear majority of at least 50% of the electorate to establish a firm and lasting decision one way or the other.  Until such a firm and lasting decision is achieved, the entire Brexit process must be put on hold, for the sake of everybody.

SO - LET'S BAN FOREIGN FOOTBALLERS!

One of the biggest, most ridiculous and most manipulative thrusts of the whole Brexit campaign has been the idea that we should “take control of our borders” and “limit immigration”.  “We don’t want more and more foreigners coming here and taking more of our jobs.”  “British jobs for British people!” etc.. Of course, we don’t hear any suggestions that we should control emigration.  Nobody is suggesting that there is anything wrong with British people moving abroad and taking other people’s jobs in other people’s countries. Are we really so completely selfish?

Much the same applies to property.  We have a big housing shortage and houses are too expensive – so let’s stop all these Russian oligarchs from coming here and buying up properties. Of course, we don’t hear any suggestions that we should prevent well-off British people from buying villas in Spain.

We’ve heard quite a bit of campaigning recently from the performing arts world that we need to ensure “free-movement” of artists and musicians around Europe and the rest of the world. Sadly, the main point being made is that the quality of our arts will suffer if we can’t bring in the world’s best actors & musicians. That may be true – but what about the consequent lack of opportunities in the UK for British actors & musicians? And the other side of the coin – should we really be doing anything that might inhibit or reduce the opportunities for British actors and musicians to work abroad?

The whole idea is barmy!  All these bigoted and fatuous arguments about immigration are simply being used to stir up racist and nationalist sentiment and to pander to and manipulate populist public opinion. Comparisons with Hitler and the Nazis are not so far off the mark!

Do we really want to ban foreign footballers from playing in the UK in order to create more jobs for British footballers?  Do we really want to ban all foreign musicians and actors from working in the UK in order to create more jobs for British musicians and actors?  Doesn’t anybody realise that many of our leading British footballers, actors, musicians (and countless people working in a host of other fields of activity) probably earn as much, if not more money working abroad than they do in the UK?

When I left college, if anyone had offered me a job in Europe, or Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA, even Russia – I would have jumped at it.  Why shouldn’t I be able to work abroad?  So why should we prevent foreigners from working here?

Most people understand that being a “Racist” is just plain wrong.  Why do they think that being a “Nationalist” is any better? When are people going to start to think?

WHITHER DEMOCRACY?

(Or is it too late?)

We do hear a tremendous amount about “our democracy” these days. For instance, we keep being told that Brexit is “implementing the democratic will of the people”, or that refusing a second Scottish Referendum on independence is “undemocratic” – but this country has never been governed by referenda – and nor should it ever be!

What we are supposed to have in the UK is a “Representative Democracy”.  That means that we elect MPs to represent their constituencies, just as we elect local councillors to represent their wards.  These people are supposed to represent everybody in their constituency, not just those that happened to vote for them.

One would hope that our MPs also realise that they have a duty beyond that – they should try to do what is best for the country, even if that might conflict with what is best for their constituency – and they should also try to do what is best for the world and for humanity as a whole, even if that might not be in the best interests of the country!  To put it more simply, we should really elect the people that we think or believe have the most wisdom, integrity and decency, regardless of any petty (or party) political interests or persuasions. However, the public is constantly being persuaded and propagandised, by all and sundry but particularly by political parties and the media, to vote according to a host of other, mainly spurious criteria.

Quite a while ago (1878 to be exact), W. S. Gilbert poked a bit of fun at the political establishment, in Sir Joseph Porter’s song in HMS Pinafore:-

“I grew so rich that I was sent

   By a pocket borough into parliament.

I always voted at my party’s call,

             And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.”

Now, we don’t have “pocket” or “rotten” boroughs any more – or do we?  There are certainly still some constituencies where a monkey might get elected if they happened to belong to the right party. However, it’s the last two lines that are more to the point.  “Party politics” is the biggest problem with our so-called democracy.

It is a fact, in this country, in all elections (apart from those for the European Parliament) that we actually vote for the person, not for the party.  A lot of people don’t seem to realise this – probably because almost all the media and almost every political party keeps on saying (e.g.) “Vote Conservative” or “Vote Labour” without even mentioning the actual candidate.

Of course, as a result, the great majority of people probably do vote along party lines and this has been the case for many years.  Just think about it. You do not need to belong to any political party to stand for election – and, if Fred Bloggs is elected as a Conservative but, after the election, he has a major bust-up with the Tories and is either kicked out or leaves the party voluntarily (yes, it does happen – Douglas Carswell is a good example!), he does not necessarily lose his seat, nor is there any statutory requirement for him to stand down, or for there to be a new by-election.  The seat belongs to him, not to the party – and that is how it should be.

I doubt very much if any politician actually agrees with absolutely everything that any political party stands for, or even everything in its election manifesto but, of course, in order to be selected by any party as “their” candidate, they have to convince the party that they do.  Inevitably, this leads to a certain amount of hypocrisy (or even dishonesty) and, once selected and elected, it then follows that the most hypocritical (or dishonest) politicians are the ones who are most likely to win favour and advancement within the party system.  Is it really surprising that “party” politics breeds corruption?

How many times, in interviews (especially on programmes like the BBC’s Question Time) do we hear senior politicians refusing to say what they actually think and merely spouting the party line on any number of important issues?  If we can’t find out what politicians actually believe, how can we possibly make any reasonable judgement about how to vote?  Is it any wonder that more and more people are becoming thoroughly disillusioned and frustrated by the way that politics is conducted in this country?

It is also quite illogical to suggest or to assume that any party winning an overall majority at an election actually has some kind of “mandate” to implement its manifesto.  Apart from the fact that things change over time, it may well be that a majority of the electorate simply do not agree with a particular aspect of a manifesto. To reiterate: it is the duty of all elected politicians to try to do what is best for the world, their country and their constituency, in that order, regardless of party politics. All we really want is for them to be honest about it.

The idea that a referendum constitutes a “mandate” to act accordingly is even more farcical.  Yes, conducted sensibly, a referendum might well indicate what the public want – but that does not mean that the public are right!  Surely, it is part of the job of politicians to lead public opinion, not merely to follow it.  One has only to look at the sheer hypocrisy (or dishonesty) of all those politicians who campaigned to remain in the EU and then changed their minds after the referendum (mainly for party political reasons) to see how stupid, undemocratic and corrupt the system has become.

Corrupt?  Yes, absolutely!  Just look at the recent scandal about election expenses. Why do parties (or people) spend so much money during elections?  It is because they think (they know) that it will buy them votes.  It does work.  If it didn’t, they wouldn’t do it.  As a result, it is the richest – those who have and are prepared to spend the most money – who are most likely to be elected. Is this “democratic”?  Is it surprising that we see so much corruption?  Surely, it should (must) be a fundamental tenet of our electoral system that every candidate be treated equally and fairly, and be able to compete on a “level playing field”.

In order to restore some vestige of true democracy in our country, first of all, we need a fair degree of electoral reform.  This is not a new idea.  For example, many people have been arguing for proportional representation for years – but this is definitely not the answer.  Proportion of what?  The problem with most forms of PR is that they actually strengthen the party system.  What we really need is politicians who actually say and do what they honestly believe to be right and in the best interests of us all.

Is that possible?  Will it ever happen?  I doubt it – but here are a few ideas that might just give some food for thought . . .

Our first-past-the-post, one-man-one-vote electoral “system” is actually pretty fair and straightforward.  There are certainly strong arguments in favour of a preferential voting method but that might become unnecessarily complicated.  It seems to me that it is not really our voting system that needs reform; it is the whole manner in which we conduct our elections.

What if . . . candidates in elections were not allowed to declare allegiance to any political party?  Each candidate simply prepares their own “manifesto” (let’s say 2 sides of A4 or about 1500 words) and this is published in all local press, on public websites and printed (at taxpayers’ expense), with a copy distributed to every household in the constituency.  That is all.

What if . . . it were to cost candidates nothing to stand for election.  Yes, we do need some measures to prevent stupid or pointless candidates from standing.  Perhaps we should increase the number of nominations required, increase the deposit and increase the percentage of the poll required to save the deposit. No great changes there – but, apart from this deposit . . .

What if . . . it were made illegal for any candidate (or party, or agent, or supporter) to spend any money at all in connection with an election.  No adverts, no posters, no notice boards, nothing!  Nor should it be allowed for any other person to canvas or to speak on behalf of any candidate.  Only the candidates themselves should be allowed to canvas door-to-door or to speak at public meetings or hustings.

What if . . . (during the period of “purdah”) the media, including the BBC, were required to give each candidate equal amounts of coverage and equal opportunities to speak to the public?  For example, if BBC Question Time were to be broadcast from York, the only people on the panel should be the actual candidates for the York constituency.  How else will the public even get to know who the candidates are, never mind assess their suitability?  Well . . .

What if . . . it were incumbent upon each returning officer to organise a certain number of public “hustings” meetings around the constituency, at which every candidate would have an equal amount of time to present themselves and to answer questions.

And then, what if . . . as a result of all these changes, we were to end up with a parliament that consisted of significant numbers of independent members, quite a lot of small parties, no party with an overall majority and little chance of forming any meaningful coalition? Would that lead to weak or ineffective government?

It’s interesting that even members of the government have a tendency to say that it is a good thing to have a “strong opposition”.  No it isn’t.  What is important is for there simply to be strong opposition.  The idea of coalition government isn’t so bad – lots of countries have them – and, in effect, this gives an element of opposition from within the government.  However, it doesn’t have to be like that.

Just as we, the voters, don’t elect parties, we elect people as MPs; similarly, we the electorate do not elect the government.  There is absolutely no reason why parliament shouldn’t simply elect its own “government”, including prime minister, other ministers, cabinet and other officers, along with select committees and other working parties. If we were to move with the times and adopt an effective, electronic voting system in the House of Commons, this could be done in a matter of hours, certainly in less than a day, on the first day of each new parliamentary year. Parliament could even elect its own “opposition” too!  (Electronic voting might also make the House of Commons much more efficient!)

What if . . . we didn’t have General Elections at all (except, maybe, in an emergency or a constitutional crisis)?  Why not have elections spread throughout the year?  Let’s say, if we had 600 MPs, we could elect each one for a fixed term of 3 years.  That would mean 200 “by”-elections each year, which amounts to about 4 each week – ideally in different parts of the country.  This would enable and encourage more consistency, fewer extreme changes of policy and a longer-term, less polarised and divisive approach to government and to politics in general.

What if . . . we were to completely outlaw the practice of “whipping” in parliament – and make it illegal to either threaten or to offer any incentive (=bribe) to any member of parliament to vote in any particular way?

We could go on forever with the “What ifs” – but what else could we do to clean up politics, to get rid of corruption and dishonesty and to allow the “people”, all of us, the chance to be heard, to feel that we can make a difference and that our views are properly respected in a truly “democratic” way?

Let’s start with the House of Lords.  There is a general and growing consensus now that our “second chamber” does need reform.  Many people would argue for a directly elected second chamber and they do have a pretty good case.  Do we really want even more elections? Well, it could be quite simple if we elected our “peers” at the same time and as part of the same process as when electing members of the House of Commons.  One elected peer for each constituency.  This would certainly get rid of the hereditary peers and the bishops and it would also get rid of all those undemocratically “appointed” peers. (Most of whom are “party” politicians!)

This would also be a good place to start getting rid of the inherently corrupt and undemocratic “party system”.  Let each candidate for a peerage stand as a complete independent, without any declared party allegiance. Ideally, they should be elected according to their expertise in a particular field and/or the contribution they have made to society.

It is always a good idea to work from the bottom upwards as well as from the top downwards.  If we are going to try to get rid of (or at least decontaminate) the party system, then the other good place to start would be in local elections – parish, town, borough, city and, in due course, county and regional elections.  Yes, quite a few of the “what ifs” listed above might very well sound like mere wishful thinking but there is already one part of the British Isles that actually uses many of these conditions and rules in their electoral system – the Channel Islands – and I don’t think that channel islanders complain much about any democratic deficit!  OK, the Channel Islands are pretty small but most parishes and many towns in the UK are even smaller.  Party politics and the power of money to buy votes are an abomination in local politics and the sooner we get rid of them the better.

The other major “democratic” issue affecting us all at the moment is devolution.  Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have each been granted their own assemblies, with tax-raising powers and a fair degree of autonomy. As a result, mainly because of the Brexit issue, there is a danger of all these three regions striving for independence from Westminster and the consequent break-up of the UK.  What about England?

In England, we don’t have our own regional parliament at all.  Projects like the “Northern Powerhouse” may be a half-hearted attempt to address this “democratic deficit” but will they work?  If we must have regional assemblies and more devolution in the UK (not at all a bad idea) then why not divide England into 4 or 5 equal-sized regions and give each their own regional assemblies on the same lines as those in Scotland and Wales?  “Federal” systems like this already exist in the USA, Germany and various other countries – why not in the UK?

I speak as a staunch Yorkshireman (born in Lancashire but conceived in the north of Scotland, with Greek, French, Scottish and mainly Viking ancestry).  I am quite happy to describe myself as British (or even as European) but the one thing I will never admit to being is English.  (Not because I dislike England or the English – but simply because I am definitely not English.)

However, that’s just me.  I hope we all abhor discrimination of any kind, but the world (including the UK) is, sadly, becoming increasingly nationalistic and intolerant of all those people who might be described as “foreigners”!  It is well worth noting that, under the Equality Act of 2010, according to the government’s own website, it is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of . . ."race, including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin”.

How is it possible that we have a government, political parties and many campaigners and activists who are not only breaking the law itself but actually encouraging and inciting others to do so as well?  Discrimination on the grounds of nationality is every bit as stupid, pointless and inherently immoral as racial discrimination!

Nationalism is one of the great scourges of modern society and it seems to be on the increase all over the world, notably and worryingly in the USA, the UK and in many parts of Europe.  The other “ism” (not entirely unconnected with nationalism) that is creating serious problems in our society is “populism”.  There may be many and various reasons for both of these insidious trends but there is really only one answer - and that is Education!

We have to teach our children to think!  As long as we have an education system that is obsessed with testing and examinations - requiring all our children to jump through the same hoops and focusing almost entirely on the regurgitation of facts and the demonstration of techniques – we are never going to teach people to think, to question, to engage in rational debate, to try to understand, to be considerate, to work together, to help each other instead of just competing with each other, to make the most of their natural and innate talents and, most of all, to respect and listen to those who might think otherwise.  That is the biggest threat of all to our democracy!

Xenophon Kelsey

(29/03/2017)

TELEVISION DEBATES - WHY?!

Why on earth do we need televised debates between leaders of political parties?

Think about it!  Less than 0.02% of the population are actually able to vote for any of the people involved in the debate!  We all know what they are going to say because we've heard it before, ad nauseam.  All they ever do is blame each other for the state of the country and spout the old, familiar party propaganda – always trimmed to the most simplistic sound-bites possible, all carefully engineered to try to attract the populist vote.  Were told that the TV debates are intended to “engage” the public in the political process – but this kind of posturing charade is precisely what turns voters off and what brings politics and politicians into disrepute.

Elections should be fair!  Every candidate should have the same chance to get his/her viewpoint across.  Every candidate should have the same amount of exposure and publicity.  If we really want to have fair and genuinely democratic elections, then why can’t the BBC record a public debate in every constituency – involving all the candidates in that constituency?  With today’s technology, these recorded debates could be made available on a designated election channel in such a way that voters could view their own local debate as often as they like and at any time during the weeks prior to the election.  That way, we could all assess the qualities, views and policies of those candidates for whom we are actually able to vote.

Disenchantment and disengagement with politics, politicians and the political process are major problems in today’s society – and the media (including the BBC) are as much to blame for this as the politicians themselves.  It’s time for a new kind of politics!

HOW “ORWELLIAN” CAN WE GET?

In no way would I dream of belittling or denigrating all the recent WW1 commemorations.  It is absolutely right that we should remember (we must never forget!) all the tragedy and sacrifice of that terrible war – and many of the commemorations were very thoughtful and moving – BUT . . .

Remembering is not enough!  Yes, it is good to see all those presidents, prime ministers and royalty from various nations laying wreaths and making speeches. Perhaps it might have been a bit more meaningful if these paragons of wisdom, all these great and godly leaders of our supposedly civilised world, had actually set aside just an hour or so of their precious time to sit down round a table to try to think of ways of preventing all the wars that are going on now and those that are likely to flare up in the future.

In today’s paper, after all the articles and pictures of candle-lit services and ceremonies at cemeteries, there appeared another article, telling us how the UK’s government is “reviewing” the sale of £8bn worth of tanks and weaponry to the Israeli government “in light of the conflict in Gaza”!

Am I really being too cynical?  Wars can be very useful.  They create a lot of employment and they bring in a lot of money.  The weapons trade is one of the world’s most lucrative industries. What would our economy look like without the income from the arms trade?  What would our unemployment figures look like if all our soldiers, sailors and airmen were out of a job? Wars are a useful political tool too – they keep the proletariat scared and submissive and deflect attention from issues that really matter, like climate change, food, water and energy supply, pollution, uncontrolled population growth and the effects of rampant consumerism.

The United Nations was a good idea at the time but, having been pretty well emasculated by Bush & Blair, it now has no teeth, no power and little authority.  It is high time it was either revived in a new and more effective form or replaced by something rather better.  Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to devise some kind of global police force to prevent wars from happening and to control the spread and use of weapons.  Do our world leaders want this?  Apparently not!

The European Union was never, originally, conceived as an economic or political union.  It was intended, primarily, to prevent war and preserve peace in Europe after WW2.  In that respect, for nigh on 70 years, it has been extremely successful.  That is what we should also remember at this time.

It is only by working together that we can hope to achieve and preserve peace, both in Europe and throughout the world.  The rise of “Separatism” and “Nationalism” across Europe and elsewhere is one of the most worrying trends of our time. Not just in the middle east and in Ukraine but also in Spain, France, Belgium – even in the UK and in Scotland – we see increasing support for Nationalist and Separatist parties.

Perhaps it is time for everyone to read (or re-read) George Orwell’s “1984”.  Is that really the sort of society we want?  We’re getting closer all the time!

HAS ANYBODY SEEN THIS BEFORE?

I think it’s rather good – and the last two verses certainly have a message for today’s world!

The Devil Rejoices

(A Satanic Soliloquy)

When God ordained the sacrifice

Of His own Son on Calvary

To save mankind, it seemed the price

Might very well be paid to me.

But I survived. For man was base

And was, it seemed, so far depraved

That often he rejected Grace

And was not eager to be saved.

I worked on this, with willing aid

From Emperors and barbarians too,

I thought the onslaughts which we made

Would soon kill off that Christian crew.

We failed. I tried a subtler plan

And, saving monstrous doubts, I lied

That either Christ was just a man

Or else, being God, He had not died.

I split the Church, time and again

And, Hell’s below! It did me good

As block or noose or stake and flame

Helped Christians shed each others’ blood.

Yes even this did not provoke

The failure of my Enemy

And so I planned my master stroke –

Devilish good, even for me!

Each Christian talent, thought, idea,

God meant to make a harmony

I have distorted year by year

Into a fiend’s cacophony.

Forgetting they’re an orchestra,

Each played for self and, very soon

Some said that they alone should play

And all the rest were out of tune.

So, arguing round formality,

Preoccupied defining “We”,

They cannot see they all agree

On quite enough to ruin me!

(I discovered this poem recently, hand-written on a scrap of paper inserted in a old book.  I would love to know who wrote it – anybody know?)