Ministerial 'rebellion' - really?

Andrew Grice, in the Independent, writes about Conservative ministers having joined the revolt against the Government's controversial proposals to relax the planning rules to allow more building in the countryside. Notably, as in all such articles, not one 'rebel' is named - although in fairness, on the question of HS2, both Gillan and Lidington have been reported to have stated that they would vote against that policy. However, on that last point, I have yet to see or hear either Gillan and Lidington actually say that.

What we have here with this story is yet more 'social engineering' in that we are led to believe a row is brewing within government on policy matters, one issued to have us believe that a policy may possibly be under review. As with all such stories it will be interesting to see whether principle and honour outweigh the perks of ministerial position, power and 'wonga' (in the monetary sense).

If only we had a participatory/referism form of democracy it would not matter one iota what a government minister intimated as their 'view', or 'spin', would count for nought - likewise it would 'kill' their use of the media and 'friendly' journalists, thus saving us from wasting our eyesight reading non-stories.

There are many reasons for a change to our system of democracy - and probably the most important and beneficial would be the negation of politicians and their thought processes, together with non-journalists who it would seem have no thought processes!

Democracy is not the periodic right to make a cross on a ballot paper

So spoke Daniel Hannan in a debate on 17th May 2011, a debate entitled "Germany no longer needs Europe, the dream is over". Yet that is precisely what our present form of democrcy in this country permits us - no more, no less - and one with which Hannan, with his cohort Carswell, would wish us to continue with their ideas set out in 'The Plan'. Even Ukip, a party that believes and has in its name the word 'Independence' is party to the continuance of the premise the people should be governed, albeit allowing referendums

Regular readers will know that of late I have been 'banging-on' about what I call a participatory form of democracy and this is a subject I first raised on 18th May 2010, following the formation of the Coalition. Unfortunately at the time it attracted no comments. From that post a few extracts:

"Initially, let us consider the form of democracy under which we now live - what may be called 'representative' or indirect, democracy. It works like this: every four or five years political parties present to their electorate a complicated list of proposals, called a manifesto. This document contains some items we like and also some we don't like - and those proposals are worded in such a loose 'form' as to be virtually worthless - yet we are forced to choose one party over others........

The present British Parliament is an odd body in that it claims 'legislative surpremacy' when it suits it, yet is supposed to be subservient to the people. In fact the only time Parliament accepts subordination to the people is when it comes to the people for the people to exercise their periodic right to choose a new parliament. In the intervening periods it practices what I have in the past termed 'democratised dictatorship', in that Parliament decides what laws will be passed, often bearing no relation to those proposed in the governing party's manifesto including some laws that were not even mentioned........


'Representative' democracy, it can be argued, is bad both for the elected representatives and their electorate. Elected representatives only too often conceal from the electorate what they are doing with their power and become corrupted by that power - witness the last New Labour government 'gerrymandering' by allowing in unlimited immigration on the assumption that most immigrants will vote for them; and the new Liberal Conservative government attempting to change the rules by which Parliament can be dissolved, neither of which two 'ploys' were contained in their respective manifestos. Witness also the corruption of those Members of Parliament who 'twisted' and 'bent' the rules governing their expenses and in so doing made capital gains in the property markets by means of what is generally accepted as 'misuse of taxpayer's money'. For the electorate, it means they become 'divorced' from democracy with no means of questioning and correcting their elected representatives behaviour and decisions. Because Parliament only subordinates itself to the will of the electorate every four or five years, in between times the electorate grows increasing cynical and disinterested in politics.

So what is the alternative to 'representative', or indirect, democracy? The answer, quite simply, is to take the 'in' out and consider 'direct' democracy. Direct democracy uses referendum and 'initiatives' to supply direct democracy. A true referendum or initiative is one which is put to the voters whether the government of the day wants it or not and it is through this means that the people control the government and negates the situation, as at present, whereby the government controls the people. The big difference between indirect and direct democracy is that the voters do not merely vote every few years to elect a Prime Minister and government and then leave it to them to decide their future, until they have the next opportunity. Under direct democracy there is still a Prime Minister and government, however at any given moment voters who have collected the requisite support can insist that a law proposed by the government, or elected representatives, be submitted to the electorate for judgement in a referendum. By utilising the 'initiative' aspect of direct democracy it is even possible for the electorate to submit proposals for a new law, one that may not appeal to the government or even appear in their manifesto. By both referendum and initiative the electorate stay in command of politics between elections and not just on a once-every-x-years basis. Direct democracy also encourages participation in politics by the electorate and thereby negates the apathy all to prevalent today.

To those sceptics that say direct democracy would never work and that people don't want it, one has to ask how the sceptics know that. It has never been put to the electorate; it is debatable whether the electorate even know another method of democracy exists...." 

Let us consider three basic facts on which democracy is based.

1. Political authority is derived from the people - government only exists with the consent of the people.

2. 'Rights' are not granted to the people by government - 'Rights' already belong to the people from the moment of their birth.

3. The people have the sole and exclusive right and power to govern themselves in any area not delegated to their government. (Note the words 'not delegated to their government')

Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned that if governments ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own power then that power would continuously grow - regardless of elections or separation of power.

Decade after decade, we the people have been voting one lot of politicians out in the hope that a new lot will be different and yet decade after decade government's powers continue to grow and the people's liberties continue to diminish. It doesn't matter who has been Prime Minister or what political party has been in government the growth of powers assumed by government has continued.

Here's a thought, perhaps we, the people, should write a manifesto for the country and then see which of the political parties were prepared to honour and enact it in full. Those parties that did not feel able to meet the required criteria then need not put up a candidate, thus saving themselves one shed load of money - and us the problem of listening to a load of meaningless crap! Consider this - when was the last time any Member of Parliament, or Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, actually asked you, as one of their constituents, what you wished to see in their manifesto? No? I thought not - they are too busy telling us what their party will decide we will be allowed to do.

And therein, dear reader, lies all the arguments why a change is required to our system of democracy; why the Albion Alliance is undertaking the initiative that it is; why membership of the European Union is not in this country's best interests; and why we presently live under a form of 'periodically renewed' dictatorship - albeit one supposedly democratised.

Words and deeds

Today has been a rather quiet 'news day, the reasons for which I know not - whether this is due to a dose of ''acropolitis' or that what news there is 'has been all Greek' to us, I know not. Consequently what news and opinions that have been pertinent has, once again, come from the blogosphere.

Initially, let us consider two posts: one by John Redwood and the other by The Boiling Frog. First John Redwood, who queries whether the 'group of 81' might in fact be more than 81. In his post Redwood cites the case of Dr. Phillip Lee who voted against the recent debate calling for a referendum on EU membership, posing the question whether there may have been more like Lee who filed through the 'No' lobby. With all respect to John Redwood, his question could be taken as yet another reason to excuse supposedly eurosceptics not voting according to how their constituents wished - it also has that aroma of smoke 'n mirrors', one whereby Redwood is fudging the basic question, namely either MPs believe in membership of the EU or not.

The Boiling Frog mentions that, despite Conservative Party rhetoric, they have, over the years:

"1. Entered the EEC on a lie (read the 1971 internal document FCO 30/1048)
  2. Campaigned in the 1975 referendum for a yes vote, including Thatcher
  3. Passed the Single European Act
  4. Shadowed the Deutschmark in preparation to enter the ERM.
  5. Entered the ERM which directly lead to the early '90s recession
  6. Passed the Maastricht Treaty
  7.Have become, in Roger Helmer's words the most pro-EU government ever, since elected in 2010."

As TBF so rightly states the Conservative Party - and most definitely their MPs - have fudged the issue of EU membership and it is about time that their MPs came down off their respective fences. In this respect the quotation by Andrew Carnegie is most apt where future voting intentions are concerned when matters EU arise for debate and subsequent voting.

Calling England links to the recent Civitas report by Ian Milne in which he believes that the UK's 'extraction'  from the EU can be accomplished within the timetable he sets out. This would indeed be ideal - if only it could be carried out as Milne suggests. Unfortunately, I tend to agree with the view espoused by Richard North, EU Referendum, in his post: "A declaration of independence". That is, I hasten to add, not in anyway intended as criticism of CE, but merely to raise doubts about what Ian Milne believes possible. It is also worth mentioning that while the electorate continues to follow their tribal tendencies, continually voting for the Lib/Lab/Con, it will not allow the opportunity to even test whether Milne or Richard North is correct - a point worthy of serious consideration.

The above demonstrates, in my humble opinion, what is missing from the blogosphere - and this is not in any way intended as a criticism of my fellow bloggers. However, we all sit back offering criticism of all that we know is wrong, complaining - to the extent that we must by now be hoarse of both voice and word - about politics in general and the lack of accountability therein, coupled with that which they are party to, namely a system of democratised dictatorship; and the deficits in sovereignty as a result of our country's membership of the EU. Not one of us, to my knowledge, with the exception or Richard North and his idea of "Referism" and, if I may so bold, myself with my series on "Constitution" in which I argued for a 'participtory' form of democracy based on the Swiss system, has attempted to offer an alternative to the nadir in which this country finds itself.

I wonder, therefore, how many in the blogosphere would be interested in a little exercise, namely formulating an agreed 'new' form of democracy resulting in a document that could be put to the existing political parties and challenging them to incorporate it into their manifestos. Failing which, perhaps it may just promote the formation of a new political party, one with which the general electorate may become enthused, once the basic 'ideals' are explained to them. It is worth mentioning that, in respect of publicity, there are those in the blogosphere who have access to the newspapers by which means they could publicise such an 'alternative' form of democracy.  In any event, if the 'exercise' stirred the torpor that presently exists amongst the electorate and made them question all that is presently wrong with this country's existing democratic debacle, it would have, at least, accomplished its purpose - namely a situation whereby the electorate begin to take an interest in that which is done in their name.

Just thinking..........

Comments, 'takers' - and criticisms..........?

When will we love Ukip?

Peter Oborne, in that which will probably be the 'op-ed' piece for tomorrow's Daily Telegraph has what, for him, is a reasonable bit of prose and one which makes a fair number of good points - although he who is probably my favourite blogger will probably disagree! As a member of Ukip, the comments I am about to make - ones well known to those in the upper echelons - will no doubt bring forth criticism.

Oborne is no doubt correct when he maintains that Ukip is the Conservative Party in exile (or what used to be the Conservative Party before the 'Cameron rebranding' changed it beyond all recognition). One only has to read Ukip's manifesto to realise that the policies on which Ukip campaigns is that on which the original Conservative Party campaigned. Ukip suffers, without doubt, from the label of being a 'one-trick-pony', namely exiting membership of the European Union, one which unfortunately for them is firmly fixed in the mindset of the electorate

That this is due to a lack of good presentation of their policies, an abysmal website and bad administration is, I believe, matters that are undeniably true. That Farage is an extremely good speaker, one who uses language with which the man in the street can resonate is, again, undeniable and as an example of that it is only necessary to see the reaction he received from the audience of Question Time last week where that audience made their views plain. However it would seem from appearances that Farage has committed the error, one practised by all party leaders, of having surrounded himself with sycophants; otherwise I maintain the party would be polling far better than it has of late - and that is not to decry the recent improvement the party has made, albeit one that can be laid at the door of the heightened present coverage of the EU in the media.

The other criticism I have - and it is purely a personal one - is that Ukip appear to wish for the continuance of the existing system of representative democratised dictatorship, albeit with more use of referenda, rather than a participatory system of democracy. The latter would 'sit' well within their stated view that the people should have more choice in 'government' on both a national and local level. That a participatory form of democracy is one that would gain a following, once it is understood, is, again I believe, unarguable and Ukip have the 'voice' and 'means' of promoting it. Consider: if, as Ukip maintain on the question of sovereignty, the people's voice must be heard; once they have regained their sovereignty, should they not have a voice in the continuation of their country's independence and what laws are proposed?

Just saying Nigel, just saying..............