John Simkin Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 Interesting article by George Monbiot in today’s Guardian about modern democracies. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1159775,00.html The formula for making things happen is simple and has never changed. If you wish to alter a policy or depose a prime minister between elections, you must take to the streets. Without the poll tax riots, Mrs Thatcher might have contested the 1992 election. If GM crops hadn't been ripped up, they would be in commercial cultivation in Britain today. In the 1990s, protesters forced the government to cut its road-building budget by 80%. Most of the cities where roads were occupied by Reclaim the Streets have introduced major traffic-calming or traffic-reduction schemes. Gordon Brown stopped increasing fuel tax in response to the truckers' blockades. Direct action, in other words, works. Not always, of course: our submarines still carry nuclear missiles, our airports are still expanding, the 1994 criminal justice bill became law. But it works more consistently than anything else we do. It does not work in isolation - it must be accompanied by polite campaigns of lobbying and letter-writing - but it works because it ensures that the issue stays in the public eye, and therefore exposes the government to continued questioning. At length, if the campaign is well-organised and popular, the issue becomes a liability, and politicians seek to protect themselves by dumping either the policy, or the author of the policy. In this case it's too late to dump the policy. If the Labour party wants us to forget what it has done in Iraq, it must dump Blair. You object that we tried this last year, and failed. If the biggest demonstration in British history couldn't change the way the country was run, what could? And of course it's true that we failed to stop the war with Iraq. (It may also be true that we helped to stop the wars with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and all the other nations the idiotocracy in Washington had lined up for invasion.) But we failed partly because we appeared almost to give up after the march on February 15.... And it's not just because direct action works that we should try it. If Blair goes, it should be our victory, not that of the little grey men. The people must be seen to have done it. Why? Because this is about more than punishing the prime minister for what was almost certainly a war crime. It is about making sure it never happens again. British politics is still bound by the spell of Gladstone and Churchill. Every prime minister attempts to emulate them. To be a statesman, you need a world stage on which to strut, and if you don't have one, you must borrow it from someone who does. This is why the "special relationship" persists. The establishment might break Blair, but it will not break the spell. Only the people can do that. If we depose the prime minister through direct action, he will doubtless be succeeded by someone almost as bad, but the political context in which that someone operates will have changed. He will be forced to govern with one eye on the people, and to demonstrate that his policies differ from those of his predecessor. And the issue he would be obliged to address first is Britain's relationship with the rest of the world. Whoever succeeded Blair in these circumstances would tone down our foreign policy until it resembled that of the other northern European states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted March 17, 2004 Author Share Posted March 17, 2004 Democracies are undermined by the fact that some people can use their power and wealth to influence the result of elections. Of course, the people who pay out this money expect something in return. The United States has suffered from this problem for some time. George Bush is only the latest president to reward his financial backers. In Britain there has been a dramatic change in the way the Labour Party has been funded. At one time the party was largely funded by the trade unions. It now relies on donations from wealthy individuals. Of course, it is very unusual for wealthy individuals to provide money to political parties committed to redistribution of wealth. It is therefore no surprise that this aspect of the party’s programme has been dropped. Early this week the parliamentary ombudsman forced Tony Blair to disclose details of private meetings he has had with commercial lobbyists. This has resulted in the revelation that Blair had a private meeting with Paul Drayson on 6th December, 2001. Soon afterwards two things happened: (1) Drayson donated £100,000 to the Labour Party; (2) Drayson’s company, PowerJect, won a £32 million contract to produce a smallpox vaccine. The most surprising aspect of this contract was that it was not put out to open tender. Another company to get lots of government contracts is Jarvis. The company is involved in building and maintaining railways, schools, hospitals and roads and is totally dependent on government contracts. Despite having a chairman, Steven Norris, who is a former Conservative Party minister, Jarvis is a generous donor to the Labour Party. If this happened in local government the person responsible would be imprisoned for corruption. However, prime ministers can do it without any fear of it having any problems with the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javier mendez Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 [t now relies on donations from wealthy individuals. Of course, it is very unusual for wealthy individuals to provide money to political parties committed to redistribution of wealth.] So, we have one point for a democratic regeneration: No private donations to parties should be allowed. Parties must be financed only by members. Why don't we just try to get some musts for a better democracy out of this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlrikeSchuhFricke Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Javier, no private donations to parties sounds like a nice idea but I'm afraid not a very realistic one. But a "must" must be that these donations have to be made public immediately and if this does not happen parties have to pay huge fines (happened in Germany). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted March 27, 2004 Author Share Posted March 27, 2004 A recent survey shows that we are going to have a low turn out in Britain’s next general election. There has been some speculation why this situation exists. Some members of the left have argued that like America we now have two dominant right-wing parties. Therefore, for those on the left, it is not worth voting. This does not explain why they don’t vote for the Liberal Democrats who have the most left-wing policies since the Labour Party of the 1980s. Some commentators have argued that it is all a consequence of Thatcherism. The argument is that since Thatcher we have all become incredibly selfish in Britain. That if it doesn’t directly benefit me, why bother to vote. As far as I am concerned the main reason is our political system. An academic recently carried out a detailed study of the last election results. He discovered that there was a link between the overall majority and voter turnout. For example, if the majority was 4,000, over 60% voted. However, when the majority was over 18,000, the turn out dropped to less than 50%. Most constituencies in Britain are safe seats. Therefore, the voter who does not support this party, is tempted not to bother to vote. It is political realism rather than political apathy that is resulting in low turnouts in elections. It would seem that the situation will not change until we end the first past the post system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted April 19, 2004 Author Share Posted April 19, 2004 It is being reported in today’s newspapers that Tony Blair will announce that a UK will have a referendum on the EU constitution. This is the greatest u-turn of his premiership and it is being portrayed as a victory for democracy. However, the situation is a bit more complex than that. Apparently, the only reason that Blair has made this decision is that he is carrying out the orders of Rupert Murdoch. It is claimed that Murdoch was threatening to remove support for the Labour Party at the next election unless Blair committed himself to a referendum. Blair will of course lose the referendum but it is rumoured that it will only be held after the next election. The question is will this satisfy Murdoch. I doubt it. I fully suspect he will be giving his full support to the Conservative Party at the next General Election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP Raud Dugal Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 The question is will this satisfy Murdoch. I doubt it. I fully suspect he will be giving his full support to the Conservative Party at the next General Election. I read recently the 'last Diaries' of Alan Clark and saw the role Murdoch played on the UK's political life seeing by a conservative MP. Then, I can understand what you're saying. But, why Murdoch can change his mind? Even if he did huge mistakes, Blair will surely win the general election (french Newspapers are sayind so all the time...) Jean Philippe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris McKie Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 (edited) It is being reported in today’s newspapers that Tony Blair will announce that a UK will have a referendum on the EU constitution. This is the greatest u-turn of his premiership and it is being portrayed as a victory for democracy. However, the situation is a bit more complex than that. Apparently, the only reason that Blair has made this decision is that he is carrying out the orders of Rupert Murdoch. It is claimed that Murdoch was threatening to remove support for the Labour Party at the next election unless Blair committed himself to a referendum. Blair will of course lose the referendum but it is rumoured that it will only be held after the next election. The question is will this satisfy Murdoch. I doubt it. I fully suspect he will be giving his full support to the Conservative Party at the next General Election. I think the situation is a little more complicated than you suggest, John. I'm sure Murdoch is a factor, but outflanking the Tories in the run up to the European Parliamentary elections is also very much on Blair's mind. If Blair gets his wish to hold the referendum in the autumn of 2005 (after his expected victory in next spring's general election), then I wouldn't be too sure that he would lose. Blair can project himself as a champion of democracy by giving the public a chance to have their say in a referendum. Agreeing to hold a referendum may also provide Blair with a greater degree of influence during the upcoming negotiations over the constitution. It also places Chirac in a difficult position. Do the French members of the forum think that Chirac will grant a referendum on this issue? Or, is he too worried about the possibility of a close call like that on Maastricht in 1992? Edited April 20, 2004 by cd mckie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted April 21, 2004 Author Share Posted April 21, 2004 I think the situation is a little more complicated than you suggest, John. I'm sure Murdoch is a factor, but outflanking the Tories in the run up to the European Parliamentary elections is also very much on Blair's mind. If Blair gets his wish to hold the referendum in the autumn of 2005 (after his expected victory in next spring's general election), then I wouldn't be too sure that he would lose. Blair can project himself as a champion of democracy by giving the public a chance to have their say in a referendum. Agreeing to hold a referendum may also provide Blair with a greater degree of influence during the upcoming negotiations over the constitution. It also places Chirac in a difficult position. Do the French members of the forum think that Chirac will grant a referendum on this issue? Or, is he too worried about the possibility of a close call like that on Maastricht in 1992? I do not think it is any more complicated that Blair acting in a way that will increase his chances of being elected at the next election. Polling shows that the EU issue will lose him many votes in the General Election. This is just a cynical attempt to try and put this issue beyond the next election (there is no way he will hold this referendum before the next election). As Charles Kennedy pointed out in the House of Commons yesterday, this is another illustration of just how undemocratic the UK is. We are the only democracy in the world where one of the contestants fires the starting pistol (decides the date of the next election). JP Raud Dugal: No, do not expect the Conservatives to win the next election. However, I do think there is a chance that Blair will lose his overall majority. This will force him to form a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition. If this happens, Blair will probably be forced to resign as prime minister. The real problem for the government is EU enlargement. The tabloid press has made this an issue of migrant workers entering the country. Many fear, with some justification, that EU enlargement will be used to push up unemployment and to undermine attempts by workers to increase their wage-rates. Teachers who are largely protected by the inflow of foreign workers (although the fear of the increasing use of teaching assistants will give you an idea of how these workers feel) will not be too concerned about these issues. However, it is a major concern for low-skilled and low-waged workers. You ask if referendums will be held in other European countries. So far referendums are planned in Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Poland and the Czech Republic. Austria and Belgium will also probably hold referendums on this issue. So far the two main players in this, France and Germany, are resisting the calls for a referendum. The Swedish prime minister, Goran Persson, is also opposed to the idea. I suspect all three know they will lose a referendum if it was held on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris McKie Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 JP Raud Dugal: No, do not expect the Conservatives to win the next election. However, I do think there is a chance that Blair will lose his overall majority. This will force him to form a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition. If this happens, Blair will probably be forced to resign as prime minister. Wishful thinking on your part, I fear! I would predict a Blair victory at the next election with a reduced overall majority in double digits (say, 60-90 seats). It's all guesswork at this stage, but I can't see Howard making huge inroads into Labour's massive majority in the Commons. I'm not convinced that the EU will lose Blair votes at the next general election. The British public, at best, are apathetic about this issue. The turnout for the EP elections in June and the referendum on the Constitution next year will confirm this. At least the British public will have an opportunity to express their opinion at a referendum. I just hope the issue is debated properly in the press and the corridors of power, but somehow I doubt it. It is for this reason that I am rather sceptical about the use of referendums. At the time of the Maastricht referendum in 1992 in France, Mitterand provided all voters with a copy of the whole treaty. Perhaps, Blair might consider doing likewise when the EU Constitution is finalised in June. At least, if that happens, then the voters cannot complain about not having the necessary information at their fingertips. You ask if referendums will be held in other European countries. So far referendums are planned in Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Poland and the Czech Republic. Austria and Belgium will also probably hold referendums on this issue. So far the two main players in this, France and Germany, are resisting the calls for a referendum. The Swedish prime minister, Goran Persson, is also opposed to the idea. I suspect all three know they will lose a referendum if it was held on this issue. My understanding of the situation is that Schroeder, fearing defeat, will definitely not hold a referendum on the issue. Chirac, on the other hand, is waiting until the final draft of the treaty has been agreed. He may just be under increased pressure from the French press and electorate over the coming weeks to grant a referendum. Given what occurred in Sweden last September (euro referendum and the assassination of Anna Lindt), it is hardly surprising that Goran Persson has refused to grant a referendum on the proposed constitution. Not living in France, I was just wondering if JP Raud Dugal or any other members of the forum had a better idea of the extent of the pressure building up on Chirac to hold a referendum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalibor Svoboda Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 (edited) cd mckie Posted on Apr 21 2004, 12:58 PM Given what occurred in Sweden last September (euro referendum and the assassination of Anna Lindt), it is hardly surprising that Goran Persson has refused to grant a referendum on the proposed constitution. The referendum on the future European Unions constitution in Sweden wouldn’t at all be a referendum on this issue but on the underlying issue “should Sweden be a part of European union in the future?”. If the wish of Swedish people is not to be a part of European union this should be clearly stated prior the "new" referendums and not be a hidden issue as it was one of the hidden issues when recently voting for or against euro. Swedish people already voted once on the question to belong or not belong a part of European Union and this issue was settled then in favour of becoming a member. It’s frustrating that opponents of European Union should use all the subsequent referendums and the proposals for referendum to try again and again to settle anew the question already settled. Did the Swedish people have a chance of referendum when a new constitution of Sweden was decided? Of course they didn’t. These kinds of questions are dealt best inside the ordinary and extraordinary parliamentary sessions. And no one at that time did feel that this approach was undemocratic. Edited April 22, 2004 by Dalibor Svoboda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris McKie Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 The referendum on the future European Unions constitution in Sweden wouldn’t at all be a referendum on this issue but on the underlying issue “should Sweden be a part of European union in the future?”. If the wish of Swedish people is not to be a part of European union this should be clearly stated prior the "new" referendums and not be a hidden issue as it was one of the hidden issues when recently voting for or against euro. That's one of the main problems with referenda in my opinion, Dalibor. The electorate may not vote on the issue under consideration. They may be swayed by their opinion of the government and let that cloud their judgement. To be fair, some countries (Ireland is an obvious example) must hold a referendum on the proposed Constitution under their own constitutional arrangements. It is inevitable that both sides will try dominate the campaign agenda. Blair will probably try to argue that it is a vote on whether Britain should remain in the EU in an attempt to scare voters into voting 'yes'. The Conservatives will exaggerate the impact of the Constitution on the UK and will probably argue that the new arrangements will mean that Britain loses control over issues such as taxation and immigration, when in fact that is patently not the case. If there is going to be a referendum, I hope the electorate in Britain (and elsewhere) actually knows what they are voting on. Relying on politicians to tell them what the impact of the constitution will be is a dangerous game. Given that, a strong case can be made for arguing that referenda are not effective democratic tools. In addition, the turnout in the UK next autumn will no doubt be disappointingly low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted April 22, 2004 Author Share Posted April 22, 2004 The referendum on the future European Unions constitution in Sweden wouldn’t at all be a referendum on this issue but on the underlying issue “should Sweden be a part of European union in the future?”. If the wish of Swedish people is not to be a part of European union this should be clearly stated prior the "new" referendums and not be a hidden issue as it was one of the hidden issues when recently voting for or against euro. That is of course what Tony Blair is hoping to do. However, I assume that the question posed in the referendum will be drafted by an independent organization (in the UK we already have one in place). The organization has already stated that if asked to do this, it will produce a simple question that can be understood by all. You can rest assured that this question will not be about whether we stay in the EU. (There is overwhelming majority in the UK in favour of membership). However, there is a growing concern about certain aspects of the EU. For the good of democracy these things should be discussed and voted on. It is not enough to leave these issues to General Elections because all the major parties are deeply divided on the subject. I believe the use of referendums will help to reduce the influence of those parties that are united on the issue of the EU (those on the far right). If the referendum does not take place before the next General Election, I fear the far-right will make significant gains in the elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris McKie Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 However, I assume that the question posed in the referendum will be drafted by an independent organization (in the UK we already have one in place). The organization has already stated that if asked to do this, it will produce a simple question that can be understood by all. But will the EU's Constitution be understood by all? I sincerely hope so, or what's the point of having referendum on such a difficult issue? What can be done to educate the population of Europe about the relevant issues? I believe the use of referendums will help to reduce the influence of those parties that are united on the issue of the EU (those on the far right). If the referendum does not take place before the next General Election, I fear the far-right will make significant gains in the elections. I'm all for reducing the impact of the far right, but are you seriously concerned that the BNP will make significant gains in the next general election? That really would be a worrying development for democracy in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted June 3, 2004 Author Share Posted June 3, 2004 Interesting article in today’s Guardian by David Clark (former Labour government adviser) about the state of democracy in Britain and the rest of the world. Clark points out that only 59% of the electorate voted at the last British General Election. Only the United States has a poorer voting record (49.3% at the last presidential election). The fact that both use a first-past the post system is obviously the main reason for this. However, as Clark points out, in the past the British electorate voted in much higher numbers. Clark suggests that there is another reason for this situation. He quotes surveys to show that the British public distrust its politicians more than any other European country. This trust has declined even further over the last year. The latest Eurobarometer survey shows the British government’s trust rating has slumed to –44% (it was –27% at the last election). Apparently, only the people living in the former East Germany trust their government less. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1230138,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now