Thursday, 1 October 2020

Party politics destroys good governance.

 Politics, especially party politics, gets in the way of good governance and policies that would benefit the nation as a whole.

The media are unfortunately obsessed with  the whole game played out through party politics while the people only care about the necessary policies required to improve their lives. 

Only at election time do the people get to have their say but with no mechansim for the people to hold the government to account after polling day they are ignored until the campaign at the next election.

I've just finished the book 'The wake up call' by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge which is quite good at charting and explaining the decline in the West's governance, especially in the USA and UK, but when it comes to solutions they have a wish list of around 13 points. These they suggest would improve our governance but it relies entirely on the current lot in Westminster administering the changes and quite frankly that isn't going to happen for as the good old saying goes 'turkeys don't vote for Christmas'.

Over the last few years I have read over two dozen books in and around the subject of democracy but not one of them really gets to the root of the problem which is that the people do not have the power to hold their government to account between elections.

The first requirement to make this happen is for the people to have their inherent sovereignty recognised and confirmed in a new codified constitution ( Demands one and six). 

Next government needs to be brought closer to the people ( Demand two) and central government needs to be reduced in numbers and role with a new seperation of power ( Demand three)

Finally the people need the mechanisms to say no to government legislation and control their annual budget. ( Demands four and five)

There is nothing better out there at the moment than our six demands for improving our governance however as Edmund Burke said ' All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.'  

THA is ready and waiting!    


  1. You might feel that Micklethwait and Wooldridge are wrong when they say that their 13 points "would improve our governance but it relies entirely on the current lot in Westminster administering the changes and quite frankly that isn't going to happen." However, it has happened in the past when the government felt under threat of civil war.

    I know I sound like a stuck record, but just flying the THA balloon, without an implementation plan and strategy, is just that - balloon flying.

    The "people" wont look toward THA until a severe crisis happens, but then, a strong charismatic, but ambitious leader will step in to capitalise on the power vacuum. It's happened before, and it will happen again.

    I know you work hard to keep the idea alive, and good for you, but without such a strategy, it will remain just that, an idea.

  2. I don't disagree with you but the plan is very simple the people just have to wake up to the fact without reform of our governance nothing will change - the hard part is waking the people up.

    However as you say a severe crisis does help activate people and that must surely be coming in the months ahead.

    1. Sadly, that crisis does seem inevitable and possibly as soon as you say. Whether that will lead to reform or something far worse, only time will tell.

    2. Yes indeed only time will tell.

  3. Comments on Pete North's article about who Ursula Von Der Leyen is illustrates a problem with democracy. Voters are expected to know who she is, and all the other EU politicians too. Unlike law, medicine, science, and many other subjects, in politics we must be our own experts. But in politics more than these other subjects we cannot trust our sources of information, and also we lead lives. When we vote we should demand the presence of the equivalent of a solicitor.

    1. I love the idea, but it is incumbent upon us to be informed. How we were supposed to know about Ursula von der Leyen beats me. Did we vote her in? Were we part of the process? OK, she was a long serving member of Angela Merkel's cabinet, but why should we know that? This is the opposite of Democracy when unaccountable people decide amongst themselves which unaccountable person shall lead the unaccountable law makers of the EU's supra-national government.

      I feel that we learn, over time, which sources of information are trustworthy, and which are not. Pete North has been quite consistent in his posts, over the years, and clearly has expertise in his own field.

    2. I am a bit confused. "It is incumbent upon us to be informed" and "why should we know that?" Which is it? I read the Norths and not much else political. I have come to the conclusion that on Covid-19 one knows less after reading about it than before. As Melanie Phillips asks, why are people in their thousands turning out to hear David Icke? It is not much of an ad for democracy.