Nick Clegg has just announced a programme of political reform ‘greater than anything since the Reform Bill of 1832,’
Many commentators have already questioned his claim. 1832 widened the suffrage only to 18% of adult males in England and Wales. Working class males did not get the vote until nearer the end of the century, and women were only given the same voting rights as men in 1928, living memory to those aged 82 and over.
Was the 1832 Reform Bill such a huge reform of poltics? How do the proposed Clegg reforms stand in relation to other extensions of franchise to ordinary British citizens?
Nick Clegg offers us, the citizens of Britain, the right to object to laws we don’t like.
Well, do you believe this? I'm afraid I don’t.
Here are some decisions on which I should like to vote. They all require straightforward yes/no answers. They all involve questions of money.
Should British taxpayers fund the replacement for Trident, which may cost about £100 billion?
Should cannabis be legalized? Subsidiary question: should it be sold over the counter like cigarettes and taxed similarly?
Should all drugs – even heroin - be legalized? Subsidiary question: should it be sold over the counter like cigarettes and taxed similarly?
Should British soldiers be withdrawn from Afghanistan?
Should wars only be undertaken if the decision to go to war is confirmed by referendum?
In my capacity as an ordinary British citizen, I do not claim the right to decide complicated problems in the NHS, or Education, nor do I have the solution for controlling bankers. (Nor do the politicians, but that’s another issue.)
The five questions noted above could all be put to the citizen body. They are all important. They all involve cost. They all impinge on our lives. If Britain was a democracy, as opposed to being governed by representative oligarchy, we would all have a right to take part in these decisions.
Politicians who say it would be wrong to put these questions to the citizen body, should also acknowledge that they do not believe we should be a democracy.
Then of course the next question rears its head:
Should Britain continue to be governed by representative oligarchy, or should it take the first steps towards becoming a democracy?
--
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Democracy and Derek Simpson
I confess to special interest. I was booked on a British Airways flight during the week after Christmas, was, naturally, furious when the BA cabin crews were poised to strike, and, personally, was very relieved when the judge declared the strike illegal.
We recall Unite’s leader Derek Simpson, when he was a Liverpool Councillor, and attempting, in Thatcher-dominated Britain, to turn Liverpool into a Marxist mini-state with himself as Commissar. His was a dictatorial, not a democratic, approach to politics. He would have – quite rightly – said he was struggling against the equally dictatorial politics of Mrs Thatcher. I dislike any dictatorial approach, whether of the so-called ‘Right’ or the so-called ‘Left’, and tend to support compromisers, muddlers in the middle ground. But however dictatorially the Marxist Left behaved then, I passionately defended their right to represent their supporters. Throughout Mrs Thatcher’s virtual dictatorship, it was obvious we lacked a Socialist party (led by Tony Benn?) as an extra regular opposition party to represent the many people who felt the limping Labour party inadequate.
But democracy? Hmph? And, above all, democracy in the proposed BA strike? Double hmph. Derek Simpson defended the planned strike of BA cabin crew with reference to ‘democracy.’ But democracy means power to the people; it does not mean power to members of a particular union. Who were ‘the people’ affected by the planned strike. Surely ‘the people’ includes everyone involved – not only cabin crew members of Unite, but pilots, engineers, ground crew .. and passengers. Apparently a million passengers had booked flights which would have been cancelled. Surely if ‘democracy’ is invoked, then they too should have been entitled to vote.
Once Derek Simpson used the word ‘democracy’ to justify depriving a million people of planned holidays, visits to possibly sick relatives, adventures of one sort or another possibly connected to their own jobs and careers, then he exposed his members to scrutiny. First, it was noted that BA cabin crew expect to have an average annual income of £34,000, while Virgin cabin crew expect an average annual income of £24,000. (As I heard these figures, they were not precise, and I do not guarantee they are exact. But most accounts offered a difference of about £10,000.)
Furthermore, once it became clear that the BA cabin crew members were striking to increase an annual income of about £34,000, we could argue that many of the passengers whose flights were to be prevented were teachers, taking advantage of the Christmas holiday to get away from a stressful job. And the average income for a teacher without extra responsibilities is roughly £30,000, considerably less than the income of cabin crew. Cabin crew members may say they have responsibility if an accident occurs. But given modern technology such an accident is very rare. Teachers are responsible for the care of young people every day of their working life. Teachers may face a strong sixteen-year old pulling a knife, a child having an epileptic fit, an accident on a climbing or boating trip, etc. Teachers, social workers, nurses – suppose them passengers on a flight banned by Mr Simpson.
Of course Mr Simpson is entitled to wage his power struggles like anyone else. But let him be careful of seducing our support by the use of a term which means something different to us and to him.
Democracy is a beautiful word. Do not let us tolerate its misuse.
We recall Unite’s leader Derek Simpson, when he was a Liverpool Councillor, and attempting, in Thatcher-dominated Britain, to turn Liverpool into a Marxist mini-state with himself as Commissar. His was a dictatorial, not a democratic, approach to politics. He would have – quite rightly – said he was struggling against the equally dictatorial politics of Mrs Thatcher. I dislike any dictatorial approach, whether of the so-called ‘Right’ or the so-called ‘Left’, and tend to support compromisers, muddlers in the middle ground. But however dictatorially the Marxist Left behaved then, I passionately defended their right to represent their supporters. Throughout Mrs Thatcher’s virtual dictatorship, it was obvious we lacked a Socialist party (led by Tony Benn?) as an extra regular opposition party to represent the many people who felt the limping Labour party inadequate.
But democracy? Hmph? And, above all, democracy in the proposed BA strike? Double hmph. Derek Simpson defended the planned strike of BA cabin crew with reference to ‘democracy.’ But democracy means power to the people; it does not mean power to members of a particular union. Who were ‘the people’ affected by the planned strike. Surely ‘the people’ includes everyone involved – not only cabin crew members of Unite, but pilots, engineers, ground crew .. and passengers. Apparently a million passengers had booked flights which would have been cancelled. Surely if ‘democracy’ is invoked, then they too should have been entitled to vote.
Once Derek Simpson used the word ‘democracy’ to justify depriving a million people of planned holidays, visits to possibly sick relatives, adventures of one sort or another possibly connected to their own jobs and careers, then he exposed his members to scrutiny. First, it was noted that BA cabin crew expect to have an average annual income of £34,000, while Virgin cabin crew expect an average annual income of £24,000. (As I heard these figures, they were not precise, and I do not guarantee they are exact. But most accounts offered a difference of about £10,000.)
Furthermore, once it became clear that the BA cabin crew members were striking to increase an annual income of about £34,000, we could argue that many of the passengers whose flights were to be prevented were teachers, taking advantage of the Christmas holiday to get away from a stressful job. And the average income for a teacher without extra responsibilities is roughly £30,000, considerably less than the income of cabin crew. Cabin crew members may say they have responsibility if an accident occurs. But given modern technology such an accident is very rare. Teachers are responsible for the care of young people every day of their working life. Teachers may face a strong sixteen-year old pulling a knife, a child having an epileptic fit, an accident on a climbing or boating trip, etc. Teachers, social workers, nurses – suppose them passengers on a flight banned by Mr Simpson.
Of course Mr Simpson is entitled to wage his power struggles like anyone else. But let him be careful of seducing our support by the use of a term which means something different to us and to him.
Democracy is a beautiful word. Do not let us tolerate its misuse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
