Here’s a way to give power to the people

[Millennium3]

Hope this helps towards the adoption of DD.

The clamour is growing for referendum-style direct democracy.

By Philip Johnston

How should your MP vote in Parliament – the way you want them to, or as he or she sees fit? The conventional answer to that question has long been the latter. We do not send MPs to Westminster as delegates, but as representatives. We trust them to make decisions on our behalf based on an understanding of what their constituents would like, while using their judgment about what is in the national interest. It is a concept best articulated by Edmund Burke, who told the voters of Bristol in 1774: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving, you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

Over the years, the British have grown suspicious of the alternative – direct democracy through the widespread use of plebiscites or referendums. Even though referendums are not wholly alien to the British system, they came to be regarded as the devices of demagogues and dictators. In 1975, the Conservatives – led by Margaret Thatcher – opposed holding a referendum on our continued membership of the Common Market and a disdain for direct democracy is still held by many senior Tories who don’t want the Burkean dispensation watered down.

None the less, representative democracy appears to be under threat. In a lecture last night to honour the Oxford psephologist Sir David Butler, the YouGov pollster Peter Kellner voiced his concern about the electorate’s dwindling faith in the old ways. He drew on a survey of more than 5,000 people, conducted in late January, which showed that just 15 per cent of voters think Parliament has done a good job in recent years in “representing the interests and wishes of people like you”. Only 24 per cent think Parliament has done a good job “debating issues of public concern in a sensible and considered way”. And 58 per cent agree that “it doesn’t make much difference to my daily life who wins elections as there’s very little real difference between the main political parties”. Given these figures, it is a surprise to discover that 63 per cent still consider Britain’s democracy to be one of the finest in the world.

So why the cynicism? Kellner suggests the standing of MPs has never been lower, diminished in part by the expenses scandal; by the partisan abuse routinely traded by politicians in the Commons and in the media; and by what he sees as “mendacious journalism” inflating the expectations of voters. Only towards the end of his lecture did Kellner alight on what is probably the principal cause of voter distrust – a belief that MPs are no longer able to make decisions, because of the growth of supra-national bodies that have drained sovereignty from Westminster.

More

[angelman]

Isn't the problem that MPs have to largely/usually take the whip rather than have a free vote?

[Millennium3]

Isn't the problem that MPs have to largely/usually take the whip rather than have a free vote?

That is a problem, but I think the biggest problem is that the global corporations have become far too powerful for single individual MPs to stand against them.

We now know that Murdoch had/has a a network of Whitehall public servants keeping the NoW informed on virtually all developments within government and we expect some revelations on MPs too. What we are likely never to know is what he has on a mass of politicians through hacking their phones, close investigations by PIs or those he has bribed. There are few saints these days - most people probably have some secrets that they would not want made public - so there is probably plenty of opportunity to control an MP - if you have plenty of cash.

If Murdoch, with massive funds available, is able to control these people - why not other giant global corporations?

Placing control in the hands of the people is probably the only way to combat this threat.

[Millennium3]

Interesting piece from EU Referendum on the matter:


A defence against referendums
Posted by Richard Tuesday, March 06, 2012

It is inevitable, I suppose, that when the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism wanted someone to give the Reuters Institute/BBC David Butler lecture, focusing on the decay of democracy, they would go to someone in the political bubble.

That person was Peter Kellner, husband of EU "foreign minister" Baroness Catherine Ashton, and this is their choice of speaker to tell us about democracy? But then, the Reuters Institute boasts for its advisory board Lord Patten, former EU commissioner, as its chair, and such notables as Alan Rusbridger, Editor in Chief of The Guardian and Mark Thompson, Director-General, BBC.

Howsoever, it came to pass that yesterday, the egregious Mr Kellner delivered his lecture, the full text of which is on the Reuters Institute site, entitled "The Second Superpower".

The title came from New York Times writer, Patrick Tyler who in February 2003, one month before the Iraq war, wrote that the huge anti-war demonstrations around the world this weekend were reminders that there may still be two superpowers on the planet: "the United States and world public opinion".

To an extent, the title is a red-herring, because Kellner goes on to say that world public opinion failed to stop the Iraqi war and that, while the eventual impact of people power will be immense, "right now it is still groping for institutional forms that can give it teeth".

Bizarrely though, Kellner does not seek to empower the people – which is the objective of a functioning democracy. Instead, he came to warn that representative democracy was in trouble, not just in Greece and Italy, or Russia, but "here in the United Kingdom". He thus argues that "our very system of democracy is more fragile than we like to think".

In fact, we do not have democracy, as such, but a system which now relies only partially on "representative democracy", which isn't democracy at all but the next best thing in the times when it took days for a stagecoach to get to Edinburgh, there was no telephone and the internet had yet to be invented by Al Gore.

Then, says Kellner, representative democracy enjoyed a technical monopoly but now, under the assault of modern technology, mendacious journalism and angry voters, we are "drifting towards a political system" which "will undermine representative democracy". And this is, horror of horrors, direct democracy.

Very early in his lecture Kellner thus nails his flag to the mast. He is not there to defend democracy at all, but the status quo - representative democracy, which isn't democracy at all.

To perform this task, we are told that the core issue is legitimacy – whether people accept the principles of representative democracy. He then calls in aid his own polling organisation to inform us that nearly two-thirds of voters (62 percent) believe politicians lie "all the time" and less than a quarter (24 percent) think parliament does a good job debating issues of concern to them.

The biggest handicap though is that voters see MPs as servants of the party leadership, backed by a poll which also showed what people thought MPs should be giving most weight to their views.

More

[angelman]

That is a problem, but I think the biggest problem is that the global corporations have become far too powerful for single individual MPs to stand against them.

What are your thoughts about how things work in the various parliaments? I am thinking Westminster, Brussels and Washington. Washington seems to be the most "transparent" in as much as political lobbying is an accepted way of doing things. Westminster it is still, to me, frowned upon that big business lobby politicians. I am not too au fait with what happens in Brussels, but my cynicism would make me think that they take the "hidden" route and are more active than at Westminster, but that might be totally wrong.

I did have a thought about direct democracy. What is a constituency - 65,000 people-ish (less of voting age)? Would it be possible to set up a system on a constituency level, where people could be asked directly (over the internet) for their opinions on a matter? Much like having an (anonymous) poll on a forum where the members are constituents. [Sorry if that analogy is too simplistic]. That way the MP can more accurately gauge more accurately the opinions of those he represents. I can see two problems:

1) the whip vs free vote

2) the number who would sign up. General elections have a 60-65% turnout. Local elections about half of that.

One has to question, going to the title of the thread, whether the people actually want to have power given to them if they can't be bothered to turn out and vote. I have only missed one GE vote when I was living and working abroad. I suspect that in those 3 years (1991-1993) that I also missed a local election, so I am guilty to a certain extent, as I reckon I could have organised a postal vote if in fact I was eligible. People seem not to place too much importance on local elections, but for day to day issues, these are to me more important (or at least, as important) than general elections. If two thirds of the electorate can't be bother to get off their backsides and go down to the polling station once every few years, then maybe it is better to leave the decision making up to the elected representatives and not expect them to take on board the thoughts of those that they represent. If both turnouts for both GE and local were at 75-80% then I think that that would be different.

While you and I would like to have more say and more direct democracy, we are in a minority. I wonder if this antipathy also allows corporations to lobby more effectively?

One other thing that I would say is that I am not sure how good all MPs are at keeping in touch with their constituents. When I was in London, Greg Hands was my local MP. He emailed a newsletter every week on what he had been doing etc etc, which was very useful. I have moved away but still have interests in the area, so appreciate the bulletins. My current MP has nothing like this, which is a shame - no feedback about what he does at all. Given that he does have a www but there is nothing really on it that concern the constituency, just national issues, which might come back to the whip/free issue. [As an aside, I would keep an eye on Hands, as I feel he has a good future ahead of him].

[Millennium3]

[QUOTE]

What are your thoughts about how things work in the various parliaments? I am thinking Westminster, Brussels and Washington. Washington seems to be the most "transparent" in as much as political lobbying is an accepted way of doing things. Westminster it is still, to me, frowned upon that big business lobby politicians. I am not too au fait with what happens in Brussels, but my cynicism would make me think that they take the "hidden" route and are more active than at Westminster, but that might be totally wrong.

Certainly the global corporations often choose the EU route to get changes in legislation. We know that corruption is the expected way of government in some of the EU states such as Greece and Italy, so why would these values not follow representatives from these nations to Brussels?

I have been convinced that the global corporations [along with the Jewish lobby] have, in effect, taken control of the political agenda here, in Brussels and in Washington – so I have lost interest in the actual processes. If the gap between rich and poor is not going to continue to increase and take us back to the times of Dickens – some form of direct democracy is the only choice if an actual revolution is to be avoided.

I did have a thought about direct democracy. What is a constituency - 65,000 people-ish (less of voting age)? Would it be possible to set up a system on a constituency level, where people could be asked directly (over the internet) for their opinions on a matter? Much like having an (anonymous) poll on a forum where the members are constituents. [Sorry if that analogy is too simplistic]. That way the MP can more accurately gauge more accurately the opinions of those he represents. I can see two problems:

1) the whip vs free vote

I don’t have any particular form of direct democracy in mind, however, I can see that constituents directing their MP in specific areas does provide a simple solution to the problem, as does in part referenda, when the Lords and Commons are in dispute – rather than Parliament being sovereign this would become the people.

I do believe that if the argument can be won, the introduction of DD would need to be gradual, most likely as a result of a series of petitions – although some basic form would need to be introduced by the government of the day.

I don’t think it would be possible, or wise, to transpose the Swiss model – whatever became the form would become so by evolution [as I suspect is the case in Switzerland].

2) the number who would sign up. General elections have a 60-65% turnout. Local elections about half of that.

One has to question, going to the title of the thread, whether the people actually want to have power given to them if they can't be bothered to turn out and vote. I have only missed one GE vote when I was living and working abroad. I suspect that in those 3 years (1991-1993) that I also missed a local election, so I am guilty to a certain extent, as I reckon I could have organised a postal vote if in fact I was eligible. People seem not to place too much importance on local elections, but for day to day issues, these are to me more important (or at least, as important) than general elections. If two thirds of the electorate can't be bother to get off their backsides and go down to the polling station once every few years, then maybe it is better to leave the decision making up to the elected representatives and not expect them to take on board the thoughts of those that they represent. If both turnouts for both GE and local were at 75-80% then I think that that would be different.

While you and I would like to have more say and more direct democracy, we are in a minority. I wonder if this antipathy also allows corporations to lobby more effectively?

Post WW2 and until 2001 the GE turnout averaged around 75%, in 2001 this dropped to 59% and only increased to 65% after a number of voting changes including postal voting for all.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

I think the initial fall was attributed to the left in the Labour Party, who, having realized that Blair’s ‘New Labour’ had little connection to ‘Old Labour’ chose not to vote. So I don’t think apathy can be the blamed – if there is no party representing your views – there is little incentive to vote.

Coupled to this, the young, today, have little interest in politics and I suspect that this relates to the fact that Blair & Brown were more inclined, than their predecessors, to fly in the face of public opinion. If you conclude that governments will do what they want to do, irrespective of their promises or the wishes of the voters, interest and involvement in politics can easily be viewed as time wasted! Cameron has certainly continued with the Blair/Brown approach!

This is also aggravated by the growing dominance of the EU that has significantly reduced the responsibilities of the UK Parliament. Governments frequently cannot do as the people want because they are prevented by EU laws.

[angelman]

[QUOTE=Millennium3;1343016]

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

Very interesting website. I hadn't realised that in the 50s we were 80%+. One of the other interesting tables is the Euro turnout. UK at about 33%, Belgium at 90%. Interesting also to see that the overall turnout has dropped from 61% to 43%.

It's a shame that there are no figures for local elections, although I did find this: http://www.wychavon.gov.uk/cms/counc...t-history.aspx Shows the appalling state of affairs for one particular area which is fairly typical for the country (if not a little higher than the norm).

I take on board and agree that the young are disillusioned by politics, and feel detached from the political process. You are probably right in the Brown/Blair effect, as well as the lines between Tory and Labour becoming blurred - but maybe there is more to it than that. A lack of education maybe? I think that the curriculum should have both economics and politics as compulsory. To that end, I am not sure that I agree with you about the EU's influence as I am not sure that that registers on a lot of people's radar.

I still think that people have more chance to empower themselves by getting involved at the local level.