Add a comment March 13th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Nick Clegg proposes such a plan. Now the flippant answer to this is simple “remove the Lib Dems, then”. But this doesn’t answer the question. And besides, there never will be 150 Lib Dem MPs to remove.
On a serious note, Clegg’s justification doesn’t work. He wants to remove 150 MPs from the Commons - taking it to around 500 - to save money. Well, primarily to save political parties from having to raise money from big donors. Let’s have a little pop quiz:
So why do political parties raise money?
a) To pay MPs
b) To run the rest of the party
c) So they can swan off on holiday
So Clegg’s idea that fewer MPs equal less need for party fund-raising just doesn’t make sense… especially since he also wants more state money to go to political parties. Which would eat up the £30m savings he said would be generated by cutting the number of MPs. There is, of course, another way of saving money - cutting MPs salaries or expense allowances.
The idea of cutting the number of MPs also raises other questions - such as the potential impact on democracy. Is fewer MPs a goof thing? Not in and of itself. If anything, actually, more of a bad thing as MPs become more and more distant from their constituents. Any reduction in the numebr of MPs would have to be matched in devolution of powers to local councils, or as part of a proper devolution system - equal English, Scottish, and Welsh parliaments.
The plan to reduce the number of MPs sounds good in a press release or a speech, but in reality it isn’t much cop. The downsides of the loss of representatives simply isn’t worth the tiny amount of money that is [supposedly] to be saved.
1 Comment March 7th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
As the news informs us that MPs have decided not to allow us a democratic vote on the Lisbon Treaty…
The European Union and related issues is a topic that causes great schisms across most parties, one that is usually widest across the Conservative party, but recently it is the Lib Dems who have been most split by it, primarily over what we should have a referendum on, the “Libson Treaty” or EU membership itself.
Referendums and Democracy
Referendums are a form of direct democracy, whereby we the people answer a yes-or-no question on a subject of importance. In some countries, such as Switzerland, referendums are standard events. In others, such as here in the UK, they really aren’t. After all, we have had only one referendum ever. Which just happened to be on entry to what is now the EU.
Referendums are important events, no matter how often they are carried out, and just become even more important the rarer they are. After all, the last referendum decided that we would be members of the Common Market, which has become the EU without we the people getting another vote. Even though the last vote was held a decade before I was even born.
Read the rest here.
Add a comment February 15th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
My We The People column, now up at the Wardman Wire:
Jack Straw is hinting that the government wants to draw up a written Constitution for the UK, with a process that could take up to 20 years. But why does Straw want to do this? Because
most people might struggle go put their finger on what [their] rights are or in which texts they are located. The next stage in the UK’s constitutional development is to look at whether we need better to articulate those rights which are scattered across a whole host of different places and indeed the responsibilities that go with being British… [And to] bring us in line with most progressive democracies around the world.
But why on earth does this mean that we should have a written Constitution?!
What Is A Constitution?
A constitution is basically the rules by which the democratic system of the nation state is run. Th is can either by an “unwritten”, though in reality this more means “uncodified”, constitution which relies on accepted conventions in order to run or a formalised, written Constitution.
Britain has an uncodified constitution, not an unwritten one. Pretty much every bit of it exists written down, in documents such as the Magna Carta, the 1689 Bill of Rights, and the Parliament Acts. The British constitution also exists in every single piece of legislation ever passed by Parliament, since there is no division between primary and secondary legislation. It also exists in common law, treaties with foreign powers, and analaysis and commentary made by experts [such as Bagehot]. But it also exists in conventions, which guide the way in which the system works - one convention being the role of Prime Minister.
America is the prime example of the written Constitution. It has a piece of paper which lists the rights and responsibilities of Americans, and is very hard indeed to modify. These kind of Constitutions are typically created after war or revolution, in order to satisfy the populace that their rights are defended.
Go here to read the rest.
Add a comment February 8th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
The Wardman Wire has seen some very good articles over the past week on the subject of MPs and the money they claim, both as salary and expenses. It’s not my intention to weigh in on that debate, but use the opportunity to examine the role of MPs in our democracy.
Why do we have MPs? What is their point?
Britain - and all of the democratic world - uses the
representative form of democracy. We elect representatives, in our case Members of Parliament (MPs), to represent us on the national level. They are supposed to be our “voices” and to work out the best things to do and laws to pass for us.
However, they are not delegates, like
Edmund Burke pointed out. They are not elected to repeat the findings of polls and the like verbatim. They are elected to use their brains. We expect them to look deeper into the issues and examine them closely and make decisions from the basis of that. We have them to do that because we the people don’t have the time or inclination to do so. And certainly not for every little thing. They are charged with the responsibility of acting in the interests of the people and given the power to do this - between elections, when the power is returned to the people for a short period while they decide on the next set of representatives.
But why not just vote of things ourselves?
Democracy isn’t, of course, necessarily reliant in principle of the use of representatives.
Direct democracy, sometimes referred to as “pure democracy” is the idea that we the people should vote directly on everything. This simply does not exist in the real world on a national level [Switzerland is the closest, but still a long way off], however, due to the simple practical difficulties impossibilities of making it work.
It is possible to work when there are tiny electorates, such as
Rousseau’s idea of a town meeting under a tree to discuss policies, but when an electorate increases beyond a number able to meet together easily, this becomes impractical. Until technology advances enough to make e-voting a real possibility, direct democracy is nothing more than a pipe-dream.
Read the rest at the Wardman Wire.
Add a comment January 25th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Another instalment of my We The People column over at Wardman Wire. I’m delaying what had been intended to be the first posts for this column yet again because this story caught my eye, and I felt in the mood to write about it. So here it is:
The Story
The Proportional Representation voting system has been rejected by ministers because it wouldn’t boost turnout:
“A review of PR voting in Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and European elections said voters were confused.
The report said PR had resulted in more parties being represented in the devolved administrations but also had a tendency to produce coalition governments.
If PR was introduced in Westminster elections, constituencies could be represented by more than one MP, said the review.
But there is no guarantee PR would increase turnout in a general election or make Parliament more diverse, the report says.
It also warns that it could cause complications between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.” (BBC)
What Is PR?
Very basically, PR is a voting system by which seats in the legislature is supposed to be very closely matched to votes. In a pure PR system, a party who gets 35% of the votes also gets 35% of the seats. Of this, this isn’t always possible in real life, where there are often minimum vote percentage requirements for a seat - examples of this is the 4% minimum in Sweden and the 1.5% limit in Israel - hence votes don’t always equal seats.
The idea behind PR is to equally distribute seats according to votes, to make the legislature a ‘true reflection’ of the voter’s intentions. But what it also does is almost certainly mean that there isn’t a majority.
A Bad Thing For The UK
PR would be a bad thing for the UK. It simply would not work within our political system. To replace the plurality [first-past-the-post] system we use with proportional representation would be a disaster. We need to have a party with a majority in parliament for our government to work. We have a parliamentary system, and thus the government is inextricably linked to parliament. It is from parliament that it gains it’s legitimacy and power.
The ‘Westminster model’ political system requires effective government. If there is no majority held by one party in parliament, the government cannot govern. The very oppositional nature of our political system that goes with it ensures that. Coalitions do not work - Britain has never had a coalition government outside of wartime, even when the opportunity has arisen…
Read the rest here.
1 Comment January 23rd, 2008 by ThunderDragon
British democracy is open to fraud:
It is “childishly simple” to register bogus voters in UK elections, a human rights body’s investigation suggests.
The Council of Europe’s report said the British voting system was “open to fraud”, particularly with postal votes. (BBC)
I don’t think that this is a new discovery. So why don’t the government do anything about it? Maybe they’re thinking that so long as they know all the loopholes, they could then put them to good use at the next election?
Add a comment January 22nd, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Nick Clegg has broken his party’s 2005 manifesto commitment to supporting a referendum on the EU Constitution Treaty. He is, however, following on from Ming Campbell, who also opposed letting the people of Britain vote on the one piece of legislation which will dictate how this country works for the foreseeable future. Clegg said:
We would support the government by not voting for a referendum.
The principle at stake here is: are we going to carry on doing what the Conservatives are doing? Playing games with the treaty itself, which let’s remember is in effect a series of amendments to a sort of edifice of treaties already in place? Do you do that? I do not believe that is right, which is why we will not be voting for a referendum on the treaty.
But he is wrong - in every way. It is not “playing games with the treaty itself” or specifically ‘party politics’ to suggest that the very people who are supposed to give parliament it’s power should be allowed to vote on it, considering that all the main parties were elected with promises of a referendum on this issue in their manifestos. Since two of those parties have broken their pledges, they really don’t have that democratic right any more to decide this issue at the very least.
The “Lisbon Treaty” as it is now called is not “a series of amendments to a sort of edifice of treaties already in place” but far more than a codification of existing treaties - and even that would be subject to a referendum, just like any codification of the British constitution would have to be - since it provides the very foundations of the removal of sovereign power [even if, as some claim, that has already begun] in the creation of an EU President and Foreign Minister.
Quite simply, Clegg’s refusal to push for a referendum on this puts the lie to the very name of his party - the Liberal Democrats. Maybe that’s why there are rumours of him wanting to change to to the “Liberal Party” instead?
The idea of a referendum is not about getting the treaty voted down, but about democratic legitimacy. If a popular vote has been held, no-one who opposed the treaty can possibly argue against it being ratified and becoming law. If we the people vote for the treaty then those of us who oppose it would accept it. But if it is passed through a Parliament which promised to hold a referendum on this when it was voted in refuses to meet it’s promises, then the opposite will happen.
Such large changes as proposed by the “Lisbon Treaty” require a referendum - or at least it should in the eyes of any true believer democrat.
UPDATE: At least all Lib Dems aren’t as anti-democratic as their leaders [via DK].
UPDATE 2: Norfolk Blogger yet again shows why his blog is one of the few Lib Dem blogs I bother to read.
3 Comments January 21st, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Even MPs are being denied the ability to vote on the EU Constitution - sorry, Lisbon Treaty - now.
Labour MPs were today denied the chance to vote on an amendment criticising the government for not holding a referendum on the EU’s Lisbon treaty.
Only hours before the start of a debate on the bill ratifying the treaty, the Speaker, Michael Martin, decided not to allow a vote on the rebel amendment signed by 18 Labour MPs…
This evening’s vote will be on whether the bill should have a second reading. The Conservatives are planning to vote against and the Liberal Democrats intend to abstain. (The Guardian)
So we, the people, aren’t to be allowed to vote on this “treaty” and now even the ability of MPs - who are supposed to be deciding this issue for us - aren’t being allowed to either.
Yes, we’re living in a European Democracy… Not.
1 Comment January 21st, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Is this really the speech that all politicians would like to make?
People of Britain, in a democracy like our own, you share with us, your elected representatives, the sacred duty of governance. I should like to thank you for your contribution. I should like to, but I won’t. You’re not only failing to do your bit; you’ve become the biggest outstanding obstacle to the advancement of your own well-being.
I appreciate that you can’t be bothered to vote, join a political party or teach your kids to be socially responsible. You’re far too busy with all that binge-drinking and spree shopping. ..
Voters, enough is enough. You’re ignorant, stupid, selfish and hypocritical. Quite clearly, you’re unfit for purpose. Resign, I say, resign. (Read the whole thing at First Post)
I’m sure that more than a few MPs will be reading that and agreeing with it - but just as many are likely to be disagreeing with it. Whilst some of the claims make so sort of sense, others are misleading or just plain wrong:
You hound us for accepting dodgy donations, but you refuse to fund our parties out of your taxes. You begrudge us our little perks, though we can’t claim unfair dismissal when you capriciously turf us out.
It’s perfectly possible to fund political parties without either taxpayer’s money or taking dodgy donations! If they really think it isn’t, they need to try looking in other places - like, maybe, ordinary members rather than rich individuals. And they knew about the possibility of getting voted out just like that when they signed up for the job. I have no sympathy for them.
The core point of this satirical column is that the people aren’t pulling their weight in the democratic system. But the whole point of the democratic system is that the people decide - even if they decide not to vote. If people aren’t voting, that is something that our elected representatives have to think about - how to get people to the ballot box.
The electorate may not be perfect, but certainly neither are our elected representatives or our political system. But to call any of them specifically not “fit for purpose” is to go too far.
Hat-tip: Kerron Cross
Image: The Coloring Spot
Add a comment January 4th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
It’s a week earlier, and on a different topic, than I had intended, but here is my first We The People column for the Wardman Wire, on the recent problems in Kenya and Pakistan:
What could be called crises of democracy has occurred in Kenya and Pakistan, both accompanied by bursts of violence - one caused by the assassination of an opposition political leader, and another by alleged and suspected electoral fraud. Neither of these countries have a highly developed or deeply-embedded democracy, and are still riven by tribal differences. Fifty Kenyans have died in a torched church - a place normally regarded as a safe-house - because they were members of the same tribe as the President.
But are there really crises of democracy in these two countries?
Read the rest…
