IS WHAT LITTLE BIT OF DEMOCRACY WE ONCE HAD BEING ERODED BIT BY BIT?

The next head of state

We've talked before about the lack of democracy in the UK.

Despite being lectured at school about the Great British democracy, better and more democratic than foreigners could ever imagine, only a fool could imagine that what exists at Westminster is anything other than a travesty of democracy.

We start off with a non-elected, non appointed head of state, who apparently cannot be removed even if she is certified mad. We were told at school that she had no real powers, but of course we discovered recently that that is far from true. Not only does she have powers but she, and her son, use them. On a regular basis.

She has a Privy Council. A body of the "great and the good" of hundreds and hundreds of members, for which the quorum is 3. It's a body which in principle only ever dictates matters as mundane as English public holidays, but which in fact has the power to pass (and does on occasion, pass) legislation that no one wants scrutinised, without it ever being scrutinised.

Then there's a House of Peers, populated by a mixture of proper aristocrats, pretendy aristocrats that have bought their way into power, and churchmen from one of the dozens of religions that operate in the country. Because the UK state religion is Church of England.

Then we have a lower house that is actually elected. However, because it is elected by a first past the post system, it is generally unrepresentative of the populace.

The present UK Tory government was elected by around 38% of those who voted, and 28 % of the possible voting population. 62% of those who bothered to vote didn't want the government we now have. That is a reasonably substantial majority against the government.

So, in what way is this democracy?

But, even that isn't sufficient for David Cameron, who appears to me to be a man who wants to have everything his own way. Or, at least, the way of his friends. His rich and powerful, and frequently titled friends.

He has systematically set about reducing the power of anyone who might oppose him.

He is introducing draconian Trades Union legislation that will make it much more difficult for unions to take any legitimate action against employers. 

In the light of the Lords delaying his assault on working tax credits, he intends to curb that chamber's power to act on what is called "secondary" legislation. 

He has introduced powers to the House of Commons to exclude Scottish MPs from voting on legislation that the Speaker decides mainly concerns England or England and Wales. (Strangely he has not offered the same for "Welsh only" legislation, which will continue to be voted on by English MPs. Nor has he insisted that only Scottish MPs can serve on the Scottish Grand Committee.)

According to some people's reading of it, this is a way of ensuring that, while Labour may win a UK election in the future, it will not be able to effectively govern England (the bulk of its job) unless it gets a majority IN ENGLAND (under the FPTP system). The law may effectively lock Labour out of power in their so-called "United" kingdom. A Labour UK majority, with a Tory English majority would effectively be unable to pass legislation for England.

The redrawing of ward boundaries throughout the union will also have an effect upon democracy. Firstly the Tories want to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600, which, of course, is no bad idea on its own. But the new boundaries will be drawn up using a voting registration system not used anywhere else in the world. This article explains it, and suggests that it may benefit the Tories by 15-20 seats. Once again the likely gains are in England, making it even more difficult for Labour to form an effective government.

Additionally Cameron's chancellor has reduced what is known as Short money. Named after the man who first proposed it, Short money is the finance that is made available to opposition parties to fund their staffing, researchers, lawyers, etc. The government itself has the Civil Service to do this work for it. This reduction will mean that all opposition parties will be less well funded to provide an opposition to the UK government.

Taken one by one none of these moves might give rise to concern, but taken together they seem to me to be eroding what little democratic voice the population has.

In the meantime we should remember that Cameron has removed the royals from FoI legislation. He wants to remove both Scotland and the rest of the UK from European Human Rights legislation, possibly from the Council of Europe and the EU. And inquiries into anything that goes wrong are often either drawn out for so long that people forget about them, or simply terminated. 

We are now on the third attempt to inquire into child abuse in the upper classes. Previous ones having failed becasue of the government's incredibly inept appointing of friends of the establishment to the chair.

The opposition and press in Scotland are fond of accusing Scotland of being a one party state. Presumably this is based on the fact that, using a voting system preferred by the Tories, and not by the SNP,  the National Party won the majority of Scottish seats in the UK parliament back in May last year on only 50% of the vote.

These are of course farcical and low level arguments from people who clearly have never visited a one party state, where you can be imprisoned, executed, some places boiled in oil, for opposing the leader. And neglecting the facts and figures of Scottish democracy: the number of opposition members in the councils, parliament and EU parliament; the fact that the BBC and press clearly support unionist parties, and that in the up coming election, at least 7 parties are proposing candidates. 

Still, it resonates with people who don't really know what is happening, and to whom it sounds like Todor Zhivkof's Bulgaria in the 80s, or Kim Jong Un's current regime in North Korea.

Isn't it, in light of all these changes, a more realistic description of the way that Cameron is taking the UK than of Scotland?

I don't think we are moving in the right direction. Do you?

It appears the media can no longer quote Billy Connolly as a supporter of the NO Campaign, Project Fear. He has said that it is not the place of a comedian to tell people how to vote. He said he spoke against devolution because it added another tier of government, but he has been in Scotland for a few weeks on holiday prior to some filming engagements and he says it has changed for the better. So NO, you should take him off your list.
**********

Channel Four News has revealed that costs for tribunals for benefit sanctions have risen dramatically. In 2012/13 the cost was £66 million up from £22 million in 209/10.  The number of appeals had risen by 66%. Liam Byrne apparently said that it's the fault of Atos which is spinning out of control. Well, there you go, Liam. You left no money and a Benefit system spinning out of control. Isn't Labour clever!
**********

According to the Guardian's Money Blog, to achieve their current pension on the open market MPs would need to save about £60,000 a year for every year they are in parliament. They actually only contribute £9,100, so they are getting a benefit worth £51,000 a year, or 75% of pay. Contrast this to IPSA's view of the value of the pension: it says it costs the taxpayer 20.4% of MPs' pay or £14,000 a year.

After the pay rise an MP with 15 years of service will get an extra £2,850 a year in retirement. On the open market this would need a pension fund of £100,000 to provide. Across 600 MPs this translates to about £60m of value.

So don't believe everything they tell you.... like you would!

**********

Danny...our man in America... sent me the following cartoons. The first was one of a series used years ago to explain to kids how the federal government of the country worked. The second is what happens now, as Danny says, since the radical right wing of the Republican Party decided that they preferred gridlock in Washington, because they hate the idea of government itself!

**********

If anyone is in the least interested, apparently hundreds of babies were successfully delivered all over Scotland today. In no case was the state broadcaster obliged to have a team of experts on hand to give a blow by blow account and there were no loonie's standing outside wearing butchers' aprons. But for all that mothers and babies are doing well... and fathers are playing their traditional role getting drunk. Munguin's Republic wishes them all well for their future, hopefully in an independent country.

**********

ETHICAL FOREIGN POLICY?

David Cameron has said that the West has been wrong to support dictators in the Middle East. In a speech to the Kuwaiti national assembly Cameron said that Britain would back democracy campaigners now seeking greater rights across the Middle East.

He said that in the past Britain’s foreign policy has been dictated by it economic interests and that has stopped them pushing for and promoting Western democratic values.

He felt it was wrong that Britain supported Mr Mubarak and that, under Labour, had fostered relations with Col Gaddafi in Libya. He pointed out that two Labour Prime Ministers had met Gaddafi to promote British interests in their large and lucrative oil economy, paving the way for 150 British businesses to work there. Well, the Tories would never have done anything like that, would they?

He said that British interests were best served by upholding British values; freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to use internet and in the rule of law. Hmmm right, we shall see when the riots begin in England, just how we practise what we preach.

Now this all sounds to me like we are going to have an ethical foreign policy again, just like we did for the first couple of weeks of Labour’s government in 1997. It soon fell by the wayside as the need for arms sales to keep the economy afloat reared its ugly head, and then the need to follow George W Bush to hell and back in the most unethical of wars became central to Tony Blair’s plans to be a leading world figure, if only in the shadow of the great Dubya (as the junior partner of the special relationship).

You see, I can’t much remember there being any Conservative objection to our relationship with Egypt (witness the picture at the top of the page). America was Egypt’s friend; Britain could hardly be otherwise. And America decided to allow Gaddafi back into the international community after he denounced terrorism. Pour encourager les autres, as it were. Iraq wouldn’t get rid of its (non existent) WMDs, so it got war. Libya denounced terror, so it got trade. What was Britain going to do? What indeed would the Tories have done?

So speaking in a country with only limited democracy, he was good enough to tell them that he respected their right to take their own decisions.

At a press conference later, Mr Cameron was asked if his pro-reform message applied to Saudi Arabia, but he declined to answer. Hmmmm, yes, well we certainly wouldn’t want to upset Saudi Arabia, a country where you can be flogged on the street for failing to take part in prayers, and where most of the government is made up of the king’s relatives. The trouble is that they have vast oil reserves and that they spend billions every year on British arms. And, after all, Mr Cameron’s tour entourage does include several defence industry executives.

So limited ethical foreign policy then Dave?

Some magical double acts! (1) Margaret Thatcher doing business with Hosni Mubarak: (2) Mad Gaddafi and Mad Brown making business happen: (3) Moving in for the kiss... Tony and Muammar, sweet: (4) Davie boy, all alone and very moral. Creitable, but a difficult position to keep up, specially when Saudi Arabia is not going to bend for the UK.

WHAT HAVE WE DONE TO OUR WEE BIT DEMOCRACY?

The BBC Trust has rejected the SNP/Plaid Cymru appeal against their exclusion from the leaders' debate. And it looks like, at this late stage the two parties will not go to court over it.

I suspect that there may not be enough money for the fight, or at least that, with two debates down and one to go, the leadership of the two parties just don't feel that the game's worth the candle.

It's too late. The money could be better spent than keeping English barristers in port and stilton.

Forfar Loon has an excellent article here on the subject of the debates. It’s well worth the read.

Anyone, as he points out, who suggests that these debates were not significant should look at the 10 point rise in the polls of one of the parties, the rise that party from “also ran” to the status of challenger in their smug so-called two horse race.... and then repeat their assertion. The debates have indeed been ground breaking. They have completely shaken the whole political system in the UK in more ways than one.

Of course, the insult to people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be underestimated. All the debates were held in England, and participants had to live within a 30 mile radius of the debate location, ergo no one who is resident in Scotland was allowed to participate in this exercise in democracy. It was, therefore, an exercise in democracy in England. Can we then assume that the election is an English one? The Scots, Irish and Welsh matter so little that they have been excluded in more ways than that their Nationalist Parties’ leaders have been excluded from the debate platforms. They, themselves have been excluded from participation in the actual debates.

But the whole essence of it is wrong anyway. We do not elect Prime Ministers here. And, in any case, as the Loon points out, the assumption has been made that Cameron, Clegg and Brown will be re-elected. Oh, we know that are in safe seats, but surely our democracy can’t be taken for granted like that...or at least it shouldn’t.

It has been said that the pressure for these debates has been strong from the Press for decades and wiser prime ministers have resisted, seeing more problems that advantages in them... not just for themselves, but for the already dubious version of democracy that we have in the UK (with FPTP and whipping, an unelected chamber and hereditary head of state).

Wiser prime ministers said no. Then along came King Midas in reverse.