Thursday 30 December 2021

Why a hemisphere chamber is a good idea.

 Last week I mentioned how to improve our democracy a hemisphere parliamentary chamber, along with a Separation of Power, would be an important ingredient.

Today in the papers, through the release of government papers, I read that the Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown wanted to redesign the Commons chamber into a hemisphere as symbol of his party's joint reform agenda with New Labour. He was keen to expand cooperation between the two parties - dubbed 'The Project' - following Blair's 1997 election win.

He wrote to the PM explaining his belief that reshaping the chamber, as a hemisphere, would recognise the new culture of 'consultation, pluralism and debate' which he hoped to inaugurate.

Not surprisingly it met with little enthusiasm in No 10. Jonathan Powell wrote to Blair; ' I can't believe he has proposed a hemispherical Commons. Are you sure you want to go ahead with this project?' 

We of course now know the answer to that question.

In and around the whole question of our third demand 'A Separation of Power' it is really important to grasp the constitutional role of an MP, which is to make and scrutinize laws, and realise the role they currently perform, of glorified constituency social worker, is not what they are paid to do.

Much if not all current MP's constituencey work load should be carried out by enhanced local politicians  (our second demand - Real Local Government) leaving MPs to concentrate on national issues and holding the executive to account.

Having a hemisphere shaped chamber would be a clear sign that our democracy was open to real reform.    

Monday 20 December 2021

We need a democratically elected Prime Minister.

 As the problems continue to mount for Boris Johnson, I cannot but help think about our third demand ‘A Separation of Power’ which would see our cabinet or executive sitting outside parliament and a Prime Minster who was elected by a popular vote.

Currently party leaders are in the main selected by their parties but if and when they become Prime Minister, they get voted into office on the back of a number of considerations not directly related to their own individual ability including: -

1.    The party the majority want to win the election.

2.    The party the majority don’t want to run the country.

3.    The personality and ability of individual MPs in each constituency.

4.     Finally, the comparison and abilities of the respective party leaders.

In the last election all these considerations came into play in that the majority didn’t want Corbyn or his Labour party and preferred Boris and the Conservatives.

We cannot discount the ‘Boris’ effect but it is certainly also true Corbyn’s Labour lost the election.

I have no problems with parties choosing their leaders but I object strongly to them becoming Prime Ministers without an election as Major did from Thatcher, Brown from Blair, May form Cameron and initially Boris from May.

However, having said that I also strongly favour potential Prime Ministers standing for that position at General Elections in their own right.

A further ingredient to ensure all MPs do their primary job of holding the executive to account is to reconfigured our parliamentary chamber in the form of a hemicycle which exists in virtually all other government chambers around the world. This structure encourages cooperation rather than confrontation.

Finally, as an when our governance incorporates a ‘Separation of Power’ with an executive outside parliament and an elected Prime Minister I believe our democracy will be far better served.



1.  Please note that this petition, on the government’s £3 trillion Net Zero policy, is still up and running until April next year which I hope you will support and promote. The aim here is not to debate the Net Zero policy itself but the lack of a democratic mandate for it.

I will pick up posting again in the New Yesr.

Sunday 28 November 2021

Why do governments blunder?

 Since reading ‘Blunders of our Governments’ by Anthony King and Ivor Crewe, published in 2014, I find I often refer to it especially when reviewing or commenting on the very poor state of our governance.

The purpose of this post is to outline and summarise the chapters of the book which I hope you will read as it supports the need for THA in so many ways.

The book is divided into four parts as follows :-

Part I
Sets the tone and acts as an introduction

Part II
Lists over a dozen examples of government blunders from the Thatcher years up to the last Coalition government.

 Part III
Lists five ‘Human’ reasons for government blunders.

1.Cultural disconnect – Typified by Tony Blair’s idea, in 2000, of marching louts to cashpoints to pay £100 fines for anti-social behaviour. It failed because he was made aware that most louts don’t have bank accounts. In short far too many MPs have no idea how the other half live.

2. Group Think  - Has some relationship with the above but is different and is often summarized as the’ Westminster Bubble Syndrome’ in which MP’s often resort to circling the wagons to fend off criticisms. GT is made far worse as MPs seldom if ever, allow grit into their oyster and only hear form people they want to hear from. GT makes blunders far more probable.

3.Prejudice and pragmatism – In politics this often falls under the heading of ‘ideology’ which could be either right or wrong and applicable to an individual or the whole of government. For example, for 30 years after WW2 nationalisation was accepted without question.

4. Operational disconnect – This is summarized by the old maxim that anyone planning a military operation should be the same person to lead it, which ensures that they are personally involved in the outcome of their deliberations. 

5. Panic, symbols and spin  - Summarized in the saying “ something must be done” which led to such disasters as the Dangerous Dog Act and the fiasco that was the Millennium Dome.
All of these five areas could be less prone to blunders if the voice of people could be better heard as advocated by THA.

Part IV
Lists seven ‘System Failures’ as to why blunders happen.

1.Centre cannot hold – Points out how PMs are the furthest ministers removed from any need to address problems of implementation and they do not have as much power as some might believe and also the situation with ministers being isolated in their departments. Central control is therefore largely a myth.

2. Musical chairs – discusses the problems with ministers coming and going through reshuffles, and not forgetting misdemeanours! Quite simply, our system of government does not allow for the build-up of expertise.
A separation of power, as advocated by our third demand, would allow for a cabinet to be made up of real experts as it does not rely on ministers only coming from the ranks of the government’s MPs.

3. Ministers as activists – Far too much is expected of ministers who all seek to achieve a lasting legacy in office and thus in their hurry for fame end up blundering.

4. Lack of accountability – No minsters are ever punished for blunders on their watch and even if they are sacked they often end up promoted into the Lords. Minsters are not implementing policies with their own money and there is a non-existent relationship between long term success and failure and personal triumph or disgrace. Lastly success is seldom recognised. 

5. Peripheral parliament -  Summed up by the author’s comment that ‘parliament occasionally barks, frequently nips but seldom bites’. I must also add my own comment that the current Speaker of the House is a disgrace and brings the whole House into disrepute.
THA of course believes the people need a greater say in their governance and in the performance of their MPs.

6. Asymmetries of expertise – Put simply there is a lack of real expertise and knowledge in governments.

7. Deficit of deliberation – Governments hoard power and never have serious debates to discuss both sides of an argument. Further, the need to keep the governing party ‘popular’ means unpopular decisions are seldom dealt with, as contentious issues are avoided for fear of losing the argument.  As mentioned above grit is never allowed to enter the government oyster.
THA would allow the ‘grit’ of the people to have a greater say in their governance.  

Brings the book up to publishing date by covering the blunders of the Coalition Government. 

In summary, the book shows how blunders are not a sequence of unrelated episodes but follow a pattern. It would seem if blunders are to be reduced it is the British governing system and the ways in which officials function within that system that needs to change. Individuals should be held to account for incompetence but the most important factor is the radical reform of our system of governance.

The Harrogate Agenda, with its six demands, offers us the radical political change that is long overdue and for me the wisdom or folly of the ‘people’ is imminently favourable to the short supply of wisdom but abundance of folly from our governments. 

Saturday 20 November 2021

Save our Boilers.

 The reason we started the official petition, seeking a referendum on Net Zero, on the government website was because of the lack of the democratic mandate in the government's decision to press ahead with their £3 trillion Net Zero policy by 2050.

In popular terms we should be calling this campaign 'Save Our Boilers' or SOB for short!

THA's fourth demand 'The People's Consent' is aimed at allowing the 'people' to tell, yes tell, the government what they want between elections. As such all real democrats should sign and promote this petition.

Within two weeks we passed the first deadline of 10,000 votes which will give us an official government response - we are still waiting after 16 days. The next target is 100,000 votes by April 22nd next year and after a very good start we are going to have to go some to get there, but these are still early days.

As I've so often said if the 'people' want change then they are going to have to make it happen and if they sit on their hands bemoaning their fate then nothing will change.

Please sign and promote this petition raised in THA's name.

Monday 8 November 2021

“Hold a referendum on whether to keep the 2050 net zero target”

“Hold a referendum on whether to keep the 2050 net zero target”

At the last election all three parties committed to Net Zero by 2050 with the Lib Dems setting out to get there more quickly but no party gave any details, except for the odd line in their manifestos. Whoever you voted for Net Zero was a given.

In October’s budget Rishi Sunak increased total spending and taxes, neither being good for economic recovery, but made no mention of the potential £3 trillion bill for meeting the Net Zero target by 2050. Also, in the Telegraph recently, a poll showed that 42% of adults supported a vote on Net Zero.

For me Net Zero and the whole Climate Change debate is at the heart of our democracy as reflected in The Harrogate Agenda’s fourth demand ‘The People’s Consent’. This demand sets out the principles by which the people, via referendums, can hold the government to account between elections.

This is why on the 27th October I have launched this petition to ‘Hold a referendum on whether to keep the 2050 Net zero target.

The petition states:-

“I believe the Net Zero lacks legitimacy and without a referendum the current Climate change policy lacks the explicit consent of the people, as argued by The Harrogate Agenda. This exposes a massive democratic deficit in our system of government.”

The petition will be up for six months, until April next year. At 10,000 signatures we are guaranteed a response from the government and with 100,000 it would be considered for a debate in parliament. At the moment this is the only tool available to us, and while not ideal, we must not waste this opportunity. As at 8th November the petition had 17,244 votes and the previous petition on Net Zero, in 2020, only got just over 7,000 votes in the six months. This subject appears to have hit a nerve with the public!

So, whether you support Net Zero or not all real democrats should support this petition and sign it and pass it on to your friends and contacts.

This is democracy in action so please use the opportunity provided by this petition.


Wednesday 27 October 2021

Hold a referendum on whether to keep the 2050 net zero target

This official petition to the government, which will remain up until April next year, gives THA a real chance to make its mark.

Please sign it and to ensure this petition makes an impact on the government it is essential that you pass it on by e-mailing all your contacts and asking them to do the same.

At 10,000 votes we get a response vfrom the government and at 100,000 we might get a debate and vote in parliament.

Without our six demands in place these government petitions are all we have so we must use this one to the full and hope it makes it's mark. 

Be in no doubt if all the people in this country, who are sceptical about the current Climate Change agenda, were to support this petiton the government would have to take notice.

So please sign it, talk it up and pass it on.