The Power Inquiry Launches a New Campaign

Helena Kennedy was on the Today programme yesterday talking about this topic in conjunction with Cash for Honours scandal. Listen to it here.

For those of you who wish to listen to the other, rather more self-serving & corrupt side of the political coin, that is, to listen to Blunkett make a complete cock of himself talking about Ruth Turner's integrity, you can find that here

BB

Davide.

Thanks very much for posting info relating to electoral reform. In your analysis of what is popularly thought of as "disenfranchisement", you say it is not actually "disenfranchisement" (which surely, we cannot completely discount, albeit a minor occurrence) but rather because the system is in need of reform.

But if that is the case, then why in the past when the same system was in operation, wasn't the same degree of political activeness seen?

I propose this apparent 'disenfranchisement yet reported surge in activism', is consequential with the modern day era and the most significant thing that has emerged from this era is the multifaceted information explosion thanks to the internet. So why has this mass info-availability caused a rise in activism? Two reasons. The first being what you have mentioned. That people are able to see for themselves that the system is a sack of spuds, in conjunction with a growing number of sceptics/critics and authors who can highlight that the political process doesn't actually work for the people. But the second is that some of these authors/analysts are able to demonstrate that our political system was NEVER supposed to put as its foundation, a system for the people (as its fundamental objective), rather was supposed to allow for the plutocratic serving affairs of state which was accepted by the public because it was came with garnishing with the empty slogan that it was for the people and in the name of the people.

OK, to make this work, this appearance must be facilitated by something tangible, like the law process, Habeas corpus, the right of appeal, the right not to be tortured and so on. But clearly in these recent times, the politicians have gone further away from the façade and are not acting in the interests of the people, both nationally and internationally. The departure is I think, undisputable, and this is causing much angst among the people, who have already been buttered up. The dispute may arise as to whether the vile motions of the politician/establishment dragons are deliberate nor not.

I currently hold that because there is more people able to analyse history, economics and 'religion in mans name', that these studious and thinking people are concluding that it is deliberate, that it is fake. The ridiculous party system is the ultimate manifestation of this, and is a disaster with respect to democratic principles.

I am all in favour of system reform, but to think for one second that it will actually empower people the way it should is a dangerous fantasy. What may happen (only after a period of civil unrest) is that some token of reform will be offered. The token will be a gold plated copper coin.

The electoral reform I propose would see a mechanism whereby the personal bias of a politician can be prevented at any stage from being used to formulate policy should the electorate deem necessary, and that the weight of votes at an election are used to determine the voting rights an MP has during a parliamentary session. They must also be strictly be prevented and forbidden from using their position for personal enrichment or for the obvious benefit of their friends/associates. This is real democracy.

Actually many of these things are mentioned in the US constitution - In the articles of Independence and Bill of Rights, but they were either never or poorly enforced. Again, they were dangled in front of us like the proverbial carrot.

Thanks for raising the electoral reform issue - something very dear to my heart.

Lets hope the tip to 'watch that site' will come up roses, an not what a predict - a bunch of crappy thorney weeds.

Tonys Akiller

I didn't mean to completely discount the fact that some people are disenfranchised from politics. Obviously some people are and some people never had an interest to start with. The point I was trying to make was that a large number of people have no confidence in our voting system or our politicians but nevertheless engage in political activities. I should mention at this point that these are the findings of the Power Inquiry rather than just my opinions. Your question is a good one:

I broadly agree with your analysis but I would phrase it differently. For me the part of the problem is that we are dealing with a 21st Century world with mass media, instant communication, fast travel, education for all and easy and quick access to information. Our political system however hasn't really caught up, it's still pretty much 19th Century, an age of very limited communication, travel, access to information and far less education. Even in those days however, there was a lot of political activism; I'm thinking of things like the suffragettes, the Jarrow march etc. Without that activism we wouldn't have many of the changes we have now. The 20th Century saw many changes in our society so that now a more informed population are less deferential to politicians and are no longer satisfied with merely marking a a piece of paper with a cross every five years. The rapid changes of the 20th Century (in part caused by wars) empowered people a bit more (women working, de mobbed soldiers wanting better conditions).

Our political system evolved slowly from Magna Carta onwards and I agree that it started out to protect the vested interests of the elite. Politicians don't like giving away power, it has to be taken, not necessarily violently but by showing them that their power comes from us. Despite their reluctance to give more power away, over the years a democracy of sorts has evolved. The unfortunate situation now is that the pendulum seems to be swinging back the other way; hard fought-for rights are disappearing (I sometimes wonder if this trend started at the end of the Cold War when we were suddenly faced with a uni-polar world and there was less need to keep up a show for the other side of the Iron curtain, but that's just speculation).

I think the system can be changed for the better without too much of a radical overhaul. A sudden revolutionary sweeping away of what there is, as well as being unlikely, could lead to something far worse than what we have now (it's often what happens in revolutions). I would prefer to see a steady stream of reforms starting with the electoral system. Perhaps some sort of mixture that takes the best bits of representative democracy, proportional representation and, for some issues, direct democracy so that everyone's views are taken into account including those of persistent minorities (and no, I haven't figured out how it would work yet). Another thing I'd like to see is a written constitution and bill of rights which anyone can access and refer to and which can't be pissed on or hijacked by those in power.

No political system is perfect (wasn't it Churchill who said "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."?) there's always room for improvement. Also, no human activity can be completely free of bias, hence the need for checks and balances.

I don't know for sure if The Power Inquiry will be able to achieve what it's setting out to do but at least it has recognised the problem, come up with some ideas and started a debate. That's more than political parties have done. It's not so much a matter of watching the Power Inquiry as helping to get the message across that reform is long overdue. The more people that get involved with it, the more impact it can have. If enough people do get involved it will become an unstoppable force. That's it's message and it's how democracy can be made to work better.

Davide.
Thank you for your well put reply.

I fear that the pendulum has swung so drastically far, that a seismic shock is needed (unfortunately) to restore it. And I believe that a major overhaul cannot possibly give us anything worse that what we have now; Caveat: as long as we base it upon principles of justice and liberty and in the interests of the common man.

I feel politicians, under the umbrella of the current system, are an obstacle to this

The age of dirty politics of war and greed has long ceased, and the 'fear' agenda along with false flag terrorism is the last remaining straws these SOB's fire from their bow to grapple onto the longboat that so dearly wants to depart to Valhalla.

But yes, It is good the Power enquiry is getting the ball rolling. There are probably better balls that could be rolled - ask Al Bundy, but still, one ball is better than no balls! - Ask Hitler.

Let’s wait and see.

TA

I hate to dampen your enthusiasm, but I remember Helena Kennedy from the early 90's. Charter 88, of which she was one of the founding lumniaries, was banging on about reform of the House of Lords. I wrote to express support for the ideas and asked a few questions. I never received a reply, perhaps because I'm not important, or rich, or well connected enough.

Later on, New Labour won the 1997 election and it turned out (if my memory serves me correctly) that Ms. Kennedy was one of the early architects of New Labour and inflenced Blair a lot. Blair subsequently reformed the Lords - and cocked it up. Pretty much as everything else he's touched has been cocked up. Kennedy got her 'K' and now has been elevated to the very organisation she was critical of in those heady, far off days.

So, for that alone, I get very suspicious when I hear her demands for electoral reform. But there's more. New Labour supporters are very, very good at entryism - that is getting themselves onto the committees of worthy bodies and quangos. And they always make sure that their time is paid for, so I suspect, without making enquiries, that her ladyship is being remunerated by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. In fact, she's bound to be - after all, she is a highly successful barrister.

So, just to finish off the conspiracy theory: if you really want electoral reform to go no-where and maintain the status quo, make sure sure that your own place men are running the show to make sure it doesn't actually happen.

I'm really sorry about all that, but I've come over all cynical and will have to go for a quiet lie down.