Subscribe to RSS @
The big news story over the last couple of weeks or so has, of course, revolved around not so honourable members of parliament caught with their hands in the public till and the general and predictable melt-down of the Brown government. Many thousands of words have been written on this subject by professionals and amateurs alike so nobody really needs my contribution. But I am going to give it anyway and it was prompted by visiting the BBC news website this morning only to find that for a change politics was not the main story. Swine flu has made a comeback as the lead.
I found the whole media frenzy over MP’s expenses to be both indicative of what is rotten in UK politics but at the same time found the public outrage to be somewhat hypocritical. Fiddling expense claims and trying to reduce income tax liability have long been considered an English sport from the hiring of advisers and accountants by the wealthy to the loading of overtime by the rank and file. Who can honestly say that at no time in their working life have they claimed a dubious expense, put in an overtime claim for work they did not do or even stolen a pencil from the stationery cupboard? A matter of degree perhaps but it is the same form of corruption. The difference, of course, is being found out so we can all sit sanctimoniously back and point an accusing finger while conveniently forgetting our own small victories against our employer or the tax man.
What was of real interest while these revelations were being published, was the frenzied reaction of various politicians. For a while there, many of them exposed our democracy for the sham it really is. Suddenly we were being very publicly told what is fundamentally wrong with our system of politics – an inherently corrupt system that so favours the government of the day that any election victor will automatically choose to maintain the status quo. In particular there were sudden placatory calls for alternative voting systems; for an ending of the ‘whip’; for back-benchers to have more say in law and policy making and for fixed term parliaments.
All of these proposals, calls for which have recently come from all shades of the political spectrum, would greatly enhance true democracy in the UK. A voting system that allows a government to be formed without a majority of nationwide votes is by it’s nature suspect. The whipping system that keeps MP’s in line with party policy has nothing whatsoever to do with representation of their electorate or with the convictions that drove them into politics in the first place. Fixed term parliaments would remove the advantage a sitting Prime Minister has to call an election based on current public opinion. And giving the majority of those who call themselves the nations representatives the actual tools they need to represent us could be the one, single act that could change our form of governance for ever and for the better. I suspect that the majority of our population do not fully understand the difference between ‘government’ and ‘parliament’ which is the way any incumbent government like it – but over the last couple of weeks, if they were listening properly, they should have found out.
There is, I believe, very little likelihood of real change. The route from being an earnest and honourable candidate, through to a back-bencher drone making up the voting numbers, on to a junior minister, a cabinet member and finally Prime Minister is littered with compromise and an acceptance that without those very undemocratic processes at play life for a government would not be so easy.
And yesterday signalled quite clearly that we were back to business as usual. Gordon Brown announced a placebo enquiry into our voting and electoral system while another Labour party spokesman made it clear that any referendum on the subject would not be binding. But it was left up to David Cameron to hammer the nail into the coffin of the short-lived hopes for proper reform when he responded to Brown’s statement with the infantile and fallacious comment that the Prime Minister was trying to rig the system to ensure a Labour party victory at the next General Election. In that one statement, Cameron reduced what is an imperative for true reform to the usual playground behaviour of wanting to be the first on the swings. He is either stupid or – more likely – can already smell the scent of power floating on the winds. So why rock the boat?
The quote from Cameron that I heard was something along the lines of “proportional representation is a bad idea because it produces weak, divided governments” – I don’t know about you, but a weak, divided government sounds pretty good to me after the last few years of a dominant government who could pass more or less any legislation they cared to until the House of Lords of all people decided to stand up for the common man and put a stop to the more egregious examples.
Still, it’s kind of reassuring in a morbid way that Cameron isn’t the twee naïve idealist I almost mistook him for when his bike got nicked, realises that proper representation for the British people would mean his party wouldn’t get the complete landslide they can realistically expect from the next election using first-past-the-post and is engaging in that fine tradition of five-year short-term thinking that has buoyed British politics since time immemorial.
(Brown, on the other hand, gave us something like “PR is a bad idea because it removes the link from the MP to the constituent”, which is a reasonable complaint in those three constituencies in the country where the MP actually pays the slightest bit of attention to the people who elected them – but still conveniently ignores the fact that there are plenty of systems which are a damn sight better than straight plurality voting and still elect a single candidate. Give us preference voting, it’d be nice to be ruled by people considered an OK choice by more than 30% of the population once in a while. And it’d be nice to not be laughed at so much by the French, for that matter.)
Sorry Andy, having missed you and all that, I think there is a massive difference between them and us. For the record I have ‘leaned on’ my expenses in the past. I had a job where the rule was “eat on your own for X pounds, or have a business meal with customers for unlimited pounds”. You can already see that close to lunch I would ring up a friendly customer and say” what you doing for lunch?” the reply “nothing” ok then I’ll pick you up and take you down the pub and unlimited pounds later we left the pub.
THE DIFFERENCE ?
I DIDN’T WRITE THE RULES, UNLIKE THE HONOURABLE MEMBERS, they decided just how deep and wide the trough was, and boy was it deep and wide, they stuck their snouts in and gorged their fat arses on us – angry ? – you bet you – vote Tory? – no chance, I don’t care if I vote extreme left or right, but I’m not going to vote Lib, Lab or Con.
Anyways, nice you’re back !!!!
Oh yeah, and Jake, if the French laugh out just threaten to hit them, their hands will go up and they’ll run away (don’t do fighting the frogs !!!)
Jake and Malc:
I caught a brief snippet of debate on News 24 last night – sadly turned it on too late to hear it all. A couple of guys (don’t have a clue who they were) appeared to be arguing that voting reform, especially PR, would allow extremist parties (such as the BNP) to get a foothold in parliament and therefore was a bad thing.
Someone made the admirable comment: “Since when did democracy become conditional?”.
I find the BNP distasteful but I find it more distasteful that the will of the electorate should be so disgracefully ignored when it doesn’t fit into an incumbent governments notion of what is and is not acceptable. To ignore the people who vote for the BNP – or indeed UKIP or Green is alone enough to shatter any myth that we live in a democracy.
I always vote, I believe that it should be mandatory, too many people have died to give me the right. But I do understand why people don’t vote, they don’t think it can make a difference, so the first past the post system should change and if it allows a few extremists in it is a good thing.
Take the BNP as an example, while ever they are ignored by the Political Elite and the Media, they grow, I’m sure once we see them in power, their incompetence and real attitudes will shine through and they will be removed at the next election. But like smoking, or drinking or anything else the current government / BBC tell me not to do, it just increases it’s appeal.
I definitely don’t believe voting should be mandatory. I always vote myself, but then I also always consider all the parties available and check out the policies of the ones who aren’t patently well outside my range of beliefs, and vote for the guys who best [at least pretend to] mirror my opinions.
If the guy down the street isn’t going to do that and wants to just walk in and vote for Labour or Conservatives or whoever just because his parents always voted for Labour or his wife is a Conservative supporter or because the guy who came around to talk to him about the Lib Dems smelled a bit funny so obviously they’re not a good party for parliament, or even just pick someone at random so he can at least say he voted… well, I’d prefer those people stay away from the polls, if it’s all the same to you.
(I’ve always thought we might get better actual representation if the ballot was accompanied by a short multiple-choice question about the policies of each candidate, drawn up by the opposition and agreed by the candidate, so that people only get to vote if they actually know what they’re voting for – and it might even change a few people’s opinions of the parties they’ve been supporting – but of course, that would never happen.)
Jake,
Completely agree with any idea to stop the zombie voters, but how about this, make it mandatory, but include a ‘non of the above’ box, then reduce the MP’s salary and expenses allowance by the percentage that voted ‘non of the above’ ?
That way people who are angry with the lack of choice, can make their feelings know, once an area returned a high ‘non of the above’ then the smaller parties would be encouraged to stand in these areas – and no, I don’t think their listening.