Political change is never instant.

Just because we have 'Instant' coffee doesn't mean that political reform will be instant.

Brexit is case in point as anyone who thought that, after 45 years of trade integration, we could achieve a satisfactory exit in an instant was either ignorant of how international trade works or simply not thinking deeply enough about the situation.   

So as you know we increasingly live in an age of instant communications and results. We have super fast broadband, fast food, 24 hour news, E-mail, Instant Access to information with Google, instant travel (apart from those occasional dreaded airport delays), i-pads, i-phones and much more besides.

This leads many to believe that everything in their life should be instant, even our politics, and so it is that some involved in seeking political reform want to see instant results. However if history teaches us anything it is that one generation is seldom sufficient time to achieve major deep rooted political change to our governance and so it is most likely to be with the enactment of our six demands.

The good news is that much of the initial hard work has been done in that we exist and have been kept alive and ticking by a loyal band of supporters.

The other day we gained a new supporter who is generously paying a monthly S/O into our account and is keen to become an ambassador. I was particularily struck by one of his comments, when we spoke on the telephone, which is that he saw in the THA a solution so often missing from the 'pitch fork and sickle brigade'.

Anyone else interested in joining us please get in touch off the contact link on the website.   

The incompetence at the heart of Westminster.

The recent shenanigans in Westminster, over May's deal and the vote of no confidence, proves to me just how incompetent our MPs are and how dysfunctional Westminster currently is.

I believe there are now increasing numbers who see our politicians as they really are and resent the fact they always put party politics over the needs of the country. Another problem is their reliance on information form insiders which just compounds their ignorance.

What they desperately need is the oxygen of  new views from outside their bubble and of course the views of the majority of the electorate as and when appropriate. Brexit has proved how out of touch our political class are with regards the views of the public.

Another failing of our politicians is that they are scared to face down minority pressure groups for fear of being branded 'uncaring' and I cannot remember the last time a politician said that in life it is often important to be hard to be kind. What is clear is that the 'People' are taken advantage of and their views generally ignored.

The above explains the whole reason for our Agenda which at its heart aims to give the 'People' the real power to affect change if the majority demand it and of course for this to happen we must first be recognised as sovereign instead of Parliament where it currently resides.

In conclusion, while the views of minorities must be considered and where appropriate be advanced and protected by governments the overall will of the majority must be seriously taken into account and in terms of supporting or rejecting the actual government's legislation then the will of the majority should prevail.

The wise words of Plato.

These two quotes from Plato shows he knew the main stumbling block to political reform is ...US!

“One of the penalties for not taking part in politics is you end up being governed by your inferiors”

“If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools”

The challenge is how to get the people to wake up and engage with our six demands?

However at least we exist which is a start.

The importance of Localism.

Our second demand ' Real Local Democracy' wants to see 'Localism' being taken seriously and a complete reversal of the current situation where more and more power is centralised.

The blogger Raedwald has a fine post here on this subject:-

http://raedwald.blogspot.com/2019/01/reform-and-renewal-localism.html

In it he refers to the government's 'Power to the People Report' of 2006, chaired by Baroness Helena Kennedy, heralded no less by the likes of David Cameron as a very important piece of work to restore and update our democracy.

This report had 12 key recommendations I summaries below:-

1. Donations to political parties to be capped at £10,000.
2. A voters voucher allowing individuals to allocate £3 of state funding to a particular party.
3. Voters given the chance to put forward laws.
4. Voting age reduced to 16.
5. 70% elected House of Lords.
6. Monthly logs to monitor ministerial contacts with companies, lobbyists & Advocacy groups.
7. Restriction on the power of the party whips.
8. Replacement of FPTP for a more 'responsive' system for all national and local elections.
9. Abolition of closed party list system.
10. Election deposits of £500 replaced by a certain number of signatures.
11. The realignment of constituency boundaries to be accelerated.
12. Decentralising of power to local government.

What ever happened to this report - nothing is the answer for as the saying goes 'Turkeys would never vote for Christmas'.

The answers to improve our democracy are contain in our six demands and unless and until the people demand these changes, from their elected officials, nothing is going to change.

National Populism

I have just finished a very readable book on National Populism by  R. Eatwell & M Goodwin which they believe is not just a passing fad but here to stay. They explain how the rising of NP was typified by the election of Trump in America and the result of the British referendum in 2016. They also cover many of the other populist groupings in Europe.

In the first page of the Introduction they get straight to the point with this -  “ NP prioritizes the culture and interests of the nation, and promises to give voice to a people who feel that they have been neglected, even held in contempt, by distant and often corrupt elites.”

The book is divided into six chapters titled Myths, Promises, Distrust, Destruction, Deprivation and De-alignment with the following notable extracts:-

• NP is not new with The People’s Party Omaha Platform of 1892 proclaiming ‘ We seek to restore the government of the Republic to the hands of the plain people.’
• The authors argue that NP has three core values – First, to make the popular will heard and acted on. Second, the call to defend the interests of the plain, ordinary people. Third, the desire to replace corrupt and distant elites.  
• Lots of people feel frustrated about how their democracies are working, but most remain firmly committed to the democratic system.
• The number of people who feel that politicians put the national interests ahead of that of their parties has slumped.
• In 1960 in the USA 76% of people trusted their government most of the time yet by the time of Obama’s election the figure was 22%.
• The feelings of ‘voicelessness’ help explain why lots of people are now instinctively receptive to the model of ‘Direct Democracy’ with 56% to 38% of the British believing the people should be able to vote on national issue. In America it was 67% to 31%, Germany 74% to 23% and the French 74% to 25%.
• One way to get increased input from citizens is through referendums, especially local and regional, and devolving further powers from the centre.
• Patriotism share three factors – a shared history and values, the feeling of a national community and the right to self-determination.
• Four  Ds fuel populism – Distrust of elites, concerns over the Destruction of a nation, Deprivation caused by an unequal economic settlement and the increase of De-alignment from traditional parties.
• The Brexit fiasco sets the scene for a serious examination of our system of governance which has thus far not yet materialised.

The final paragraph ends with this “ By word of final  conclusion we will stress just one point. NP, in whatever form, will have a powerful effect on the politics of many Western countries for many years to come”.

THA has always realised, as with the Chartist movement before us, that its six demands will only become a reality when they are supported by the people at large who then provided constant and increasing pressure on our political class demanding they take notice or lose their support come re-election.   

Demand Six - A Constitutional Convention

Our last demand is that a constitutional convention should be set up to produce a codified constitution which would be put to us, the people, for our approval.

The aim of having a written constitution, for the first time in our history, would be to update our existing system and of course incorporate all the details of the first five demands in it.

A constitution should be directed primarily at governments and states agencies. Strictly speaking, it should be limited to defining the extent of their powers and the manner in which they shall be exercised. It can read alongside a Bill of Rights, and individual rights can be enshrined in a constitution, although separate documents might be preferable. 

Nevertheless if we are to have our own constitution, it must be produced by the people. Those who frame a constitution have to be the sovereign entity. The very fact that the people lay down the rules under which governments must operate is de facto recognition of their sovereignty.

We would also need a constitutional court as protector with the power to strike down any law or action of government that was unconstitutional but the ultimate protector should be the sovereign people who should be able to strike out any law or impost, such as a treaty, they deem unconstitutional.

We believe this demand should be addressed to a reformed Parliament, one in which the executive has been excluded and then put to the people in a referendum for approval.

As to the content, shape or form we offer no opinions save that we expect substantial amendments to the existing constitution.

In summary we call for a properly constituted convention, one that is capable of deliberating relevant issues in an inclusive manner, and which will put the fruits of its work to the people for approval.  

Demand Five – No taxation or spending without consent.

This demand is summed up in the one word ‘Referism’ as the government has to ‘refer’ to the people for their funding.

A government without money can do nothing but it is our money they collect and spend so we believe that we  should therefore be consulted  over their proposed annual budget a decision currently left to parliament but to date has never voted down the chancellor’s budget.

Concern was expressed when formulating this demand that the people would simply vote themselves more money every year but experience from  a number of local authority referendums, around the turn of the century, to seek approval form the electorate for the level of rates, offering a choice between a rise, status quo or reduction, had the people realistically opting, in most cases, for the status quo.

The people seemed more than capable of judging whether they wanted to vote for an increase to their rates to cover an  increase in services and given that choice told their councils to consolidate their spending rather than increase it.

This concept of local referendums was taken up by the Conservative party in 2010 who passed a law that would make Councils have to hold a referendum if they wished to raise rates above 2%. Interestingly councils kept their increases to below 2% to avoid having to consult the people who would most likely have contested their spending plans.

So while the experiment to hold referendums, to get the people’s approval on budgets, has been tried at the local level it has not been tried at the national level.

Some worry that rejection of the national budget would disrupt government programmes but should the budget not be approved the government would automatically carry on with the same amount of money approved the year before thus giving them time to amend and resubmit their budget for approval.

The holding of referendums need not be an expensive exercise and we have always envisaged that the introduction of electronic voting would speed up the process and reduce the costs significantly.

It’s our money and we should approve the government’s plans to spend it – it really is that simple.