A point I feel worth making over and over again, given the general decline of our country and competence of our governance, is that we have clearly entered the 'Age of Decadence' as described by Sir John 'Pasha' Glubb in his essay 'The Fate of Empires'.
The reality I fear, as we never learn from history, is that nations once in decline are unable to arrest the fall until they hit rock bottom when they can start the slow process of rebuilding.
One of the prominent recurring features during the 'A of D' is the complete incompetence of those in power which is why I've been promoting our six demands with its central aim of making our politicians our servants instead of our masters.
For those who think the 'People' cannot be trusted with extra powers over their politicians and only they should make decisions I would point out three things.
First, if a jury made up of men and women is considered good enough to pass judgement on the guilt or innocence of a person on trial then they possess the necessary common sense and ability to pass judgement on the competence of their politicians, which we can currently only do at elections, and it is a big mistake to judge people on those selected for vox pops.
Second, it is clear that elected politicians so often pass into law poorly drafted and debated legislation influenced by small pressure groups which do not reflect the wishes of the public at large.
Third, while minority views should be supported and protected it is the views of the majority that should prevail in any country calling itself a democracy.
So finally it is now my strong conviction that the more sortition we introduce into our system of governance the better governed we will be.
THA's reason for being is to create a 'People's Democracy' and check out our new website.
https://theharrogateagenda....
Juries are not affected by their decisions, so can be impartial. Our problem is that the only way of judging politicians is to have better replacement candidates, whom we do not have. For two years now there has been no coherent opposition in parliament.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree wrt the role of a Jury and would add that it is a relatively simple decision, i.e. guilty beyond reasonable doubt (in a criminal case at least) or innocent (different in Scotland I believe). Also, the average criminal trial in the UK lasts for less than 16 hours from the jury being sworn in to the verdict.
DeleteThat is not comparable to reaching a decision on something that has multiple alternative options, outcomes and diverse stakeholders all advocating for a different outcome.
With mainly party lists and no system of recall we have got the only MPs available but I'd also point out that many people don't vote in elections because our politicians and their parties are so useless.
ReplyDeleteNiall, what do you mean by 'Party Lists?' That is a term usually associated with PR. Also, I thought there was now a mechanism to recall an MP, although limited in scope.
DeleteFinally, perhaps one of the reasons people don't vote is the electoral system we use means very high numbers of votes count for nothing, something like 30% in the 2019 general election might as well not have voted.
On that point, a question for you. What is your strategy for getting the demands of THA into force?
Just a comment on your question.
DeleteI was a member of the Conservative party for a very short time. We were choosing who should stand as our local MP against the incumbent Labour MP. The "Party List" from central office had only one candidate - we had no say on the matter apart from yes or no.
In the Euro elections, we were choosing Euro MPs from a central office "Party List" whilst trying to put a local candidate forward - no chance. We were there just to agree and to act as election foot soldiers. I left the party at this point as I realised that almost everything was run from central office to a central office plan.
Imagine we had the power to call a referendum over any law or treaty we liked? I'd start with the UN convention on refugees. The next would be acts requiring heating boilers and combustible fuel vehicles to be banned. Next?
ReplyDeleteExactly and our forth demand 'The People's Consent' would do that.
DeleteWholeheartedly agree.
DeleteI was reading this morning about the Putney Debates, in 1647 (by Serena Wylde in conservativewoman).
ReplyDelete"The general council of the army, encamped in London, met every Thursday in St Mary’s Church, Putney. The council included two officers and two soldiers selected from every regiment, who would serve along with the High Command to debate army policy and ensure consultation with rank and file. These meetings then expanded to become the Putney Debates. Over the autumn a simple charter, a draft constitution, was put together called ‘An Agreement of the People’, which guaranteed a sovereign parliament and a set of basic civilian rights that parliament could not alter. .. But no negotiated settlement was possible with the King,.." We know what happened next.
Are we headed for such a time again? Civil War is a terrible thing but so is overbearing oppression. Reading that the PM was booed, once again, this time at The Royal Cornwall Show, no less, I do wonder.
I don't think so as we regretted the Civil War we had and restored the monarch. We don't as a country do Civil Wars, unlike France, but I do see civil protest in large order if the incompetence of our governance continues.
DeleteI hope we see sense and keep it peaceful, as Gene Sharp advocates, and a nationwide non payment of our rates would be my first suggestion.
I don't feel it was a simple as you suggest. There were many other factors. However, with the Asian financial markets in turmoil today, are we at the beginning of the economic collapse that will precipitate "civil protest in large order"?
DeleteMy point about the Putney debates was that they were important from a constitutional standpoint and also maybe that such changes can only be made in times of great turmoil. From putneydebates.com:
"From the 28th October to 9th November 1647, soldiers and officers of Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army, including civilian representation, held discussions on the constitution and future of England. Should they continue to negotiate a settlement with the defeated King Charles I? Should there even be a King or Lords? Should suffrage (a civil right to vote, known as the franchise) be limited to property-holders? Would democratic changes lead to anarchy? This historic event saw ordinary soldiers take on their generals to argue for greater democracy and provided a platform for 'common people' to make their voices heard. These debates, forced by the Levellers, paved the way for many of the civil liberties we value today. "
The King has been replaced by Parliament. We peer in the window and look from monarch to Parliament and Parliament to monarch. Impossible to tell the difference.
ReplyDeleteNice point - yes we the people, the farm animals, need to tell the pigs enough is enough with their imcompetent on controlling immigration, their Net Zero madness and everything else they think about and touch.
DeleteI'll just be Benjamin. It's too tempting to allocate Napoleon and Squealer characters. As for Mr. Jones ....
DeleteWe swapped the divine right of Kings and now parliament believes it has those powers. Parliament, or rather the Conservative party is foisting an immoral liar upon us and we cannot remove him. People in power will always abuse it and shining a big light on them and holding an axe above their necks is the only way to keep them straight. I've mentioned Public Choice Theory many times and only that gives a credible reason why politicians will always be the same. Swap one set for another and they'll be just as bad. Swap a king for parliament and parliament becomes the king.
ReplyDelete"Power corrupts and absolute power ...."
DeleteI want to ask this of you good people. We are post Brexit. Things rumble on and our MP's still talk about it. How many times do they mention democracy and the British people's desire to control their country? All I ever hear them discuss or talk about has nothing to do with why people voted to leave.
ReplyDeleteHow many times? Zero. Your point is well made. It's now up to us to sort this lot out, but how, I don't know.
DeleteI listened to Mark Steyn on GB News talking about Sturgeon and her renewed attempt fir Scottish independence. He said that her arguments were economic ones and those arguments failed last time. Now think about Westminster and all their arguments over Brexit are economic. They just don't get it.
Delete