It really started for me with the 2010 election. Before then I had definitely felt that the House of Lords was an anomaly but some of my worry had been assuaged by the creation of life peers and the removal of the great bulk of the hereditary peerage after the 1999 Act. Since then it has been the subject of much debate and when a bill was finally put before parliament in 2012, it was defeated by rebel tories defying the whip who voted with Labour who wanted even more scrutiny. I think what I take from that is that there is a general acceptance that the House of Lords cannot continue as it is but no one can agree what it should look like.
May I humbly suggest that the first step would be to ditch the name. We have done that with the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary which became the Supreme Court in 2009.
But what about the tradition I hear you cry: the yards and yards of moth-eaten ermine: the ridiculous clothing worn on ceremonial occasions: surely you don't want to get rid of all that? Well to be truthful I don't much care either way. I do feel there is more than a touch of pantomime about the whole load of tosh which is the State Opening of Parliament and the Queen's Speech. A ninety year old hereditary monarch with no power sits on her throne and reads us a list of what her government intends to do in the next session of Parliament. Everybody dresses up. Black Rod prances about in his silly breeches, and the Gove dresses up like Mr Bumble. It's all very pretty and also very pointless. Isn't it about time we had something a tad more grown-up?
How's this for an idea. Why not give the house of Lords back to the hereditary peers and make it a purely ceremonial chamber? Take away any power they have and sell tickets for the State Opening of Parliament. Meanwhile set up a second legislative chamber somewhere else and give some serious thought as to how to populate it. You could call it the Senate.
So how would you choose the senators? The obvious answer would be 'you elect them'. I mean we live in a democracy and that's how it's done in a democracy, except... it hasn't been so far. Does that make us not a democracy? Will electing the Senate make us more of a democracy? Answers on a postcard please.
The problem is we equate the concepts of election and democracy as if they cannot exist individually. The truth is that they are not interdependent. You can have elections which are not democratic, they happen all over the world. But they are not real elections are they? Well maybe not free and fair, but most likely legal according to the law in the country where they are being held. Then there is the question of corruption and fear which can influence any election and is by no means democratic. Professor Michael Duggan lays out quite clearly why he thinks the referendum result was influenced by the lies told by those leading the Leave campaign. Here is a link: https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/videos/1304633102897424/?pnref=story He is a professor of constitutional law. I am not so I will leave you to decide whether you want to accept what he says.
So we have seen that elections do not necessarily lead to true democracy. How about democracy itself? Can that exist without elections to bring it about?
Well I would argue yes. If we take the original Athenian model there was no need for elections. All adult citizens were able to vote on legislation. There was a vote but only on the matter in hand, not on who could vote on it. This of course was a direct democracy and with forty-six million or so adults eligible to vote in the UK this is not an option open to if we want to get anything done at all. What we have at the present is perhaps the most unfair system which could be devised while still claiming to be democratic. Another contender for that title is the arcane and byzantine system used in the USA to elect their President, arguably the most powerful individual in the world, if you ignore the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds, and I don't intend to go down that 'zionist conspiracy' route, Life is definitely too short for that.
In the UK we have, as I pointed out yesterday, a system of first past the post in constituencies of widely differing sizes. That it seems to have worked in the past is absolutely no reason for us continuing with it. We actually don't know how well it worked as we have nothing at all with which to compare it. At the very least we need a system of genuine proportional representation and I am well aware of all the arguments which have been made to oppose this. What I am considering here is a total rethink of the way we or they or somebody govern this country, especially now we have 'got it back'.
MPs in this country are in a very strange position. They are chosen often by a tiny share of the vote, the record being 24.5% for the SDLP candidate in South Belfast in 2015, yet they nominally represent every person in their constituency. Given the conflicting interests in many constituencies this must be difficult even for the most assiduous MP. It moreover relies on the MP 'doing the right thing.' Well ha bloody ha. I'm not suggesting that MPs are all self seeking B'stards but some undoubtedly are. Others are hard working and conscientious. It is however difficult to imagine that Jacob Rees-Mogg has much affinity for the single-parent-unemployed in his constituency: he is too busy filibustering in a witty way by discussing the Empress of Blandings. I'm sure he would argue with me on that point, no doubt in Latin. However merely by his voting record you can see that he cares not a fig for the plight of the dispossessed and poor. I don't doubt that he somehow thinks it's their own fault. Similarly and in the interests of balance, although this is not the BBC and I don't need to, I can't see Dennis Skinner putting himself out if a local nob in his constituency has a complaint about the hoi polloi trespassing on his land and spoiling his shooting.
Parliamentary elections are flawed, almost so flawed I would argue, that they are no longer fit for purpose, and I loath that phrase and use it through gritted teeth, but it does describe the situation so well. People, especially clever people often deride clichés but they became clichés because they are so good at encapsulating a thought or idea. Next time I shall have a look at alternatives.
At this point I should just remind you that I have no special skill or knowledge in this area and these are just the musings of concerned amateur. If you want a more informed set of proposals and more background, may I recommend the website of the the Electoral Reform Society here www.electoral-reform.org.uk . The ideas I have posited are my own and not theirs or anybody else's.
Love Tim xx
But what about the tradition I hear you cry: the yards and yards of moth-eaten ermine: the ridiculous clothing worn on ceremonial occasions: surely you don't want to get rid of all that? Well to be truthful I don't much care either way. I do feel there is more than a touch of pantomime about the whole load of tosh which is the State Opening of Parliament and the Queen's Speech. A ninety year old hereditary monarch with no power sits on her throne and reads us a list of what her government intends to do in the next session of Parliament. Everybody dresses up. Black Rod prances about in his silly breeches, and the Gove dresses up like Mr Bumble. It's all very pretty and also very pointless. Isn't it about time we had something a tad more grown-up?
How's this for an idea. Why not give the house of Lords back to the hereditary peers and make it a purely ceremonial chamber? Take away any power they have and sell tickets for the State Opening of Parliament. Meanwhile set up a second legislative chamber somewhere else and give some serious thought as to how to populate it. You could call it the Senate.
So how would you choose the senators? The obvious answer would be 'you elect them'. I mean we live in a democracy and that's how it's done in a democracy, except... it hasn't been so far. Does that make us not a democracy? Will electing the Senate make us more of a democracy? Answers on a postcard please.
The problem is we equate the concepts of election and democracy as if they cannot exist individually. The truth is that they are not interdependent. You can have elections which are not democratic, they happen all over the world. But they are not real elections are they? Well maybe not free and fair, but most likely legal according to the law in the country where they are being held. Then there is the question of corruption and fear which can influence any election and is by no means democratic. Professor Michael Duggan lays out quite clearly why he thinks the referendum result was influenced by the lies told by those leading the Leave campaign. Here is a link: https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/videos/1304633102897424/?pnref=story He is a professor of constitutional law. I am not so I will leave you to decide whether you want to accept what he says.
So we have seen that elections do not necessarily lead to true democracy. How about democracy itself? Can that exist without elections to bring it about?
Well I would argue yes. If we take the original Athenian model there was no need for elections. All adult citizens were able to vote on legislation. There was a vote but only on the matter in hand, not on who could vote on it. This of course was a direct democracy and with forty-six million or so adults eligible to vote in the UK this is not an option open to if we want to get anything done at all. What we have at the present is perhaps the most unfair system which could be devised while still claiming to be democratic. Another contender for that title is the arcane and byzantine system used in the USA to elect their President, arguably the most powerful individual in the world, if you ignore the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds, and I don't intend to go down that 'zionist conspiracy' route, Life is definitely too short for that.
In the UK we have, as I pointed out yesterday, a system of first past the post in constituencies of widely differing sizes. That it seems to have worked in the past is absolutely no reason for us continuing with it. We actually don't know how well it worked as we have nothing at all with which to compare it. At the very least we need a system of genuine proportional representation and I am well aware of all the arguments which have been made to oppose this. What I am considering here is a total rethink of the way we or they or somebody govern this country, especially now we have 'got it back'.
MPs in this country are in a very strange position. They are chosen often by a tiny share of the vote, the record being 24.5% for the SDLP candidate in South Belfast in 2015, yet they nominally represent every person in their constituency. Given the conflicting interests in many constituencies this must be difficult even for the most assiduous MP. It moreover relies on the MP 'doing the right thing.' Well ha bloody ha. I'm not suggesting that MPs are all self seeking B'stards but some undoubtedly are. Others are hard working and conscientious. It is however difficult to imagine that Jacob Rees-Mogg has much affinity for the single-parent-unemployed in his constituency: he is too busy filibustering in a witty way by discussing the Empress of Blandings. I'm sure he would argue with me on that point, no doubt in Latin. However merely by his voting record you can see that he cares not a fig for the plight of the dispossessed and poor. I don't doubt that he somehow thinks it's their own fault. Similarly and in the interests of balance, although this is not the BBC and I don't need to, I can't see Dennis Skinner putting himself out if a local nob in his constituency has a complaint about the hoi polloi trespassing on his land and spoiling his shooting.
Parliamentary elections are flawed, almost so flawed I would argue, that they are no longer fit for purpose, and I loath that phrase and use it through gritted teeth, but it does describe the situation so well. People, especially clever people often deride clichés but they became clichés because they are so good at encapsulating a thought or idea. Next time I shall have a look at alternatives.
At this point I should just remind you that I have no special skill or knowledge in this area and these are just the musings of concerned amateur. If you want a more informed set of proposals and more background, may I recommend the website of the the Electoral Reform Society here www.electoral-reform.org.uk . The ideas I have posited are my own and not theirs or anybody else's.
Love Tim xx
No comments:
Post a Comment