VOTING FOR A COALITION

Once again people are talking about “those who voted for a coalition” completing over-looking the fact that nobody did – they all voted for the candidate of their choice or (far too often and very sadly) decided that they wouldn’t vote at all.  It is tempting to assume that these are people who are abrogating their responsibilities as good citizens but we should spare a thought for those who, after long and hard deliberation, decide that they are not prepared to endorse any of the available  candidates.

Anyway, just for the record, I reproduce below a blog I put up shortly after the election in 2010. It may be of interest so here it is.

I want to try to find the answer two questions. Who actually determined the outcome of the last general election which was to result in a coalition? Who actually determined the candidates who became MP’s?

Before looking at some answers, the following may be of interest.

650 seats were contested meaning that to hold a majority a party needed 326 seats. No party contested all of the seats: by a remarkable coincidence the three main parties all fielded 631 candidates.

10,703,754 people voted for the Conservatives giving them 306 seats (47.1%) and 36.1% of the votes.

8,609,527 people voted for Labour giving them 258 seats (39.7%) and 29% of the votes.

6,836,824 people voted for the LibDems giving them 57 seats (8.8%) and 23% of the votes.

If we convert the ratio of votes cast to seats Conservatives should have had 234 seats, Labour 189 and the LibDems 150 with the remaining 77 going to the other parties (who actually gained 22). These ‘others’ included the Nationalist Parties of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales plus one member for the Green Party. This would have resulted in a coalition but it would have included the Labour party rather than the Conservatives (assuming that the LibDems would have felt happier being in coalition with Labour rather than Conservative).

Out of an electorate of 45,597,461 the votes counted were 29,687.604 (65%). There were a further 303,867 votes but these were on ‘spoiled papers’.

Now to look at who determined this outcome. To start with I decided to look at any seat won by one of the three main parties where the majority was less than 2,000. That is, of course, an arbitrary figure and I later realised it was the wrong one to choose but I decided you might like to share my thought processes.

65 seats fell into that category – 10% of the total. Here are the figures.

• Seats won by Conservatives with Labour in second place: 20 with 17.567 votes.
• Seats won by Labour with Conservatives in second place: 18 with 18,680 votes.
• Seats won by Labour with LibDems in second place: 9 with 6,630 votes.
• Seats won by Conservatives with LibDems in second place: 7 with 4,848 votes
• Seats won by LibDems with Labour in second place: 5 with 7,141 votes.
• Seats won by LibDems with Conservatives in second place: 4 with 3,061 votes.

As you can see, these continue to support the view that some voters have far more power than others. Conservatives beat Labour 20 times with a total majority of 17,567. Had ‘voter power’ been equal, the 18,680 majority in favour of Labour would have produced 21 seats and not 18.

The only plausible difference would have been for Conservatives to have gained 20 more seats thus avoiding the need to enter into a coalition and so all we need to consider is the most marginal 20 seats. These include the 4 seats taken by the LibDems where the majorities were 3,061. The other 16 seats would have had to come from Labour so we can discount 2 of the results. The majority in the other 16 seats was 15,073.

So there we have it, 18,134 voters determined that we should have a coalition (not that they would have thought about it in those terms, of course. Nobody – but nobody – voted with the intention of creating a coalition). Interestingly, it would not have mattered for what other candidate this group voted (or none). Take those votes away from those 4 LibDems and 16 Labour candidates and there would have been a Conservative government, albeit with the tiniest imaginable majority.

In percentage terms 0.62% of those who voted actually made a difference. If you prefer, this is 0.04% of all those entitled to vote.

Now for question number two. In the best case scenario, a candidate is chosen by a democratic vote. My best research seems to indicate that party membership in any constituency rarely exceeds 200. Since that may be a bit low, we will work on 500. 500 people in each of the 20 marginal seats where the result of the last election was determined involved in selecting their candidate means that only 10,000 selected those 20 MP’s and I suspect the figure to be far lower than that and I could choose many examples of events that fuel that suspicion.

The selection of Gloria de Piero as Labour PPC for Ashfield (following the announcement that Geoff Hoon was standing down) was mired in controversy. This is not a problem confined to the Labour Party. As the Daily Mail reported in February 2010, the relationship between the Conservative Association in Surrey East and David Cameron became somewhat strained over the matter of selecting a candidate.

So there we have it. In this much prized democracy the vast majority of us have no say in which party will take power and even less when it comes to the people who grace the green benches in the House of Commons.

 

Time for a federal UK?

This is bravado – it has to be since in a few days time there will be a referendum ion Scotland that may change everything. Or not, of course. Except that it will – it really can’t help itself. Anyway, here is a proposal for you to think about.

First – if Scotland votes “No”.

Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, on 01.01.2015 the House of Commons becomes the English Parliament and in it sits the existing English MP’s. Excluding the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office they take over the entire structure of government in Westminster and Whitehall. So far no costs have been incurred.

It is up to the Scots, the Welsh and those in Northern Ireland to decide what they do with their elected MP’s.

We then create a Federal Assembly to whom the MoD and the FO report. I suggest this should contain 74 members: 64 elected by the English Assembly from their elected members, 5 for the Scots, 3 for Wales and 2 for NP. That is on a basis of one member per million of the national populations (rounded UP for the smaller nations and DOWN for England). Again how the other nations appoint/elect their members would be up to them. This assembly meets as required in the HoL chamber and takes over the entire structure of Mod and the FO. Still no great cost.

Some matters should be dealt with on a federal basis but are presently not in either of those two departments. Those functions could be transferred – the border control from Home Office to the MoD, say, complete with the Border Agency. Still no great cost.

There may be a few other institutions that would have to work with the federal assembly but the only one I can think of is the Bank of England.

Meanwhile all the four national assemblies from that date have equal powers including the power to raise whatever taxes they like. Call it devo-max for all. Each would contribute as needed to the federal coffers (and I can see some interesting arguments between the four as to the level of each contribution) but how they raise that is up to the national assemblies.

I am, of course, assuming that the Welsh and those in Northern Ireland would welcome this move.

Second if Scotland votes “Yes”.

Much as above. Scotland would be invited to become a member of the Federation known as the UK from day one and would probably accept. If, however, they refused then it really is the end of the road with them. All that belongs to the UK is brought south and a proper border with all the usual controls is created and the Federation has only three members – and that federation would tell Scotland what was on the table – there would be no negotiations. There would be no purpose in them. Meanwhile, the possibility of Scotland joining the UK as a new member should remain on the table.

What’s not to like? It’s simple, it offers what most people seem to be saying they now want and it would not cost a great deal nor would it add any further to the required civil service/bureaucracy.

Am afterthought: I would be even happier if the federation elected to leave the EU.

The Smallest Competent Authority revisited

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil: in its worst state, an intolerable one. (Thomas Paine)

This is what I wrote in March 2011.

Having entered the seventh decade of my life I often find myself becoming very cross with those who are running our country. Indeed, the whole process which once seemed so reasonable now seems awful – mendacious, self-serving and (most importantly) grossly inefficient. Over the years I have come to believe the following statements:-

It is beyond the wit of man properly to govern the sort of complex, multi-layered society in which we, in the UK, now live (or we aren’t as clever as we think we are!).

The form of representative democracy that we have in this country no longer works in the best interests of the people as it fails to meet the needs of many members of the electorate and has handed too much power to central government – as opposed to parliament – and to innumerable unaccountable bodies.

If, as seems likely, the problem is one of scale then the solution is to reduce the size of problems until they are small enough to be understood. Small problems, analysed as close to the source of difficulty as possible, with decisions being taken at as local a level as possible are far more likely to result in sensible decisions being made. Put it another way: all decisions should be taken by the smallest competent authority accepting that that could be anything from a town or parish council to the a multi-national authority such as the U.N.

* * *

After that blog appeared, I received a very interesting email from Marek Kubik which included the following.

“From reading your more recent blog posts I see you’re a fan of local governance. Breaking down the problem into smaller chunks and making it easier to solve. I can see the logic behind this, but I also didn’t see consideration for the potential pitfalls; namely:”

He then lists three points which I would like to take one at a time. The first is this:

“Centralisation is arguably better for efficiency (as one amalgamated office for say, the treasury is more efficient and cost effective to run than a separate one in every constituency).”

My first reaction is that this is not always true. Clearly where the requirements are identical in all respects (such as all the branches of a chain of opticians) and there are no local variations, savings can be made by centralising design and purchasing. However, that is generally not true when it comes to governance. Areas are different: they have different needs, different local suppliers and there is likely to be a difference when considering what the people of the area need and want. This is true even within the NHS. Every hospital has (or I assume has) a stand-by generating plant. Should they all buy the same model or even from the same supplier? I would argue that the answer is ‘no’. For a start, not all hospitals would need the same size of generator – so there can be no ‘best’ manufacturer to cover the entire range. Secondly is the question of the proximity of a service facility: If you are the western end of Cornwall you do not want to rely on a service engineer coming from, say, Bristol.

Here is the second. “Letting my engineering background shine through, a local based government system could be considered sub-optimal from a systemic point of view. The sum of local optimums may be worse than a single global optimum. By this I mean if every local community only looks out for and funds itself, the poorer communities will struggle most. Under a centralised system the taxes from the funding can be coordinated that the wealthiest constituencies can be redistributed to the poorest. I guess I’m talking about the concept of ‘the greater good’ here, and that is something that I guess depends very much on your political philosophy as to its relevance.”

Here I absolutely agree in that Marek hits on a problem that would arise unless it were to be properly addressed. My preferred solution (at the moment and very much work in progress) is that all income related taxes and property taxes should be collected on a local basis – both personal and business – whilst VAT, Customs and Excise and other taxes should be centrally collected. In this day and age of computers that should not present any administrative problems (but would, of course, if the IT is unreliable). One of the functions of central government would be to administer a levelling grant to local areas based on a formula taking into consideration a range of factors (each area’s average income, population, etc). Incidentally, at this stage I am deliberately not defining what I mean by ‘a local area’ as that is a complex subject requiring more consideration.

Marek’s third point was: “Re-emphasis on localism could potentially detract from national unity. This sounds like a very authoritarian statement from someone like me (I’m slightly left of centre and slightly libertarian on the political compass), but what I mean here is a danger of different laws and legislation being ratified in different parts of the UK. So, to take an extreme example, one liberal area supports and legalises full rights for gay marriage, and a very conservative one overturns and outlaws it.”

Yes, but that is the whole point. To put it bluntly, what is localism? Looked at on a global scale, were there a global authority which pronounced on, say, gay rights I would hazard a guess that there would be more against such rights than for. Whether or not that is true, I would be most upset – I am also a libertarian but swing wildly between left and right as I go from subject to subject – if gay legislation ion this country were to be reversed as a result.

All of which assumes, of course, that if the local authority is a major tax raising authority it will be taken more seriously by the electorate – but that again is another subject.

* * *

Reading through that piece again today, I remain convinced that central decision making far from what we have come to call ‘the coal face’ is at best inefficient and at times utterly wrong. This is true, I believe, in all walks of life, not just the government. There are two problems with it. The first is that the information from said coal face to the decision maker will have passed through a number of hands and some of those hands (if not all) will have an agenda. They may not even realise that they have one but everyone has one even when they honestly do not realise that they do. Indeed, then it is even more dangerous. Anyway, it means that the person who has to take the decision takes it on false data.

Then there are the distortions in the command as they travel back down through the various layers of managers and administrators, each layer will want to see how these instructions fit with their working practices and will seek to amend or even reverse certain parts of the instruction before passing it on.

And we wonder why each and every decisions seems to result in extra cost, a number of (often expensive) unexpected consequences and not very much actually changing in the intended direction. It is, I feel, reasonable to say that these costs are greater than the so-called savings that may or may not be achieved by centralisation.

One final thought which I do not intend to pursue here. Some of us have been discussing a reverse flow of tax. In other words local collection and the amount that filters trough to what would (in essence) be a federal central government would depend on the relative wealth of each locality. This is work in progress,

A coin has two sides

Every coin has two sides and I am beginning to wonder whether or not that is the most important political statement that can be made. On the face of it, that is a ridiculous idea but I will try to demonstrate that it could be the key to the political problems that we face here, in the UK, today.

Personal freedoms are important to many of us – the freedom freely to express an opinion with fear being pretty well at the top of the list. But that freedom creates problems unless it is exercised with great care. I don’t think the idea of one person’s freedom being almost always at the expense of others occurred to me until I stayed with a cousin of mine in the delightful village of Bottmingen just outside Basel. (In passing, I haven’t been there for over thirty-five years and I expect it is now just another suburb of the city so, if you know that to be true, please don’t tell me – I want to remember how it was then).

My Canadian cousin and her Swiss husband had very different ideas when it came to personal freedom. One of the laws (whether local or national I am not sure) stated that at weekends it was forbidden to have a record player or radio on in the garden. As Max pointed out this meant that everyone could be in their gardens at the week ends knowing they would have peace and quiet. Joan, on the other hand, considered this to be as near as maybe an infringement of her personal liberty. That coin had two sides and both side could claim the moral high ground if they wanted to. It is, actually, a political coin.

So who was right, Max or Joan? As a libertarian who, by definition, considers most regulations to be a response to a human failing of one sort or another I find myself siding with Joan. I feel we should be able to rely on the good manners of those with whom we live and that cultural pressures should be sufficient to ensure people respect their neighbours. Yes, I know that is hoping for more than can be expected but regulations reduce the sense of community responsibility within the population generally and I do not believe that to be a good thing.

This all started, I suppose, because I and others became antagonists on Twitter in the matter of the so-called bedroom tax. I explained all this on a previous post (Capping Housing Benefits). For the record, as a result I have now discovered one person who has been adversely effected by that cap and I shall be meeting her soon to hear her side of the story. Why we got ourselves into a muddle was that we did not think of it as being a coin with two sides – which is exactly what it is.

On the one side you have all the people who, often through no fault of their own, are living in housing the cost of which is being borne by the state and on the other side you have all the people who are giving up a part of their earnings in order to meet those costs. In a properly grown-up democracy, we would look at both sides of that coin and seek a modus operandi that removes the present conflicts that are causing so much fear and hostility.

That is a big ask.

Any move to alleviate some of these costs is seen as a personal attack by those to whom the state says, “you are taking more than your fair share of the available resources”. I am pretty certain that if I were to be in that position I would feel the same.

Meanwhile any move to suggest that it is reasonable to increase taxation to meet what could so easily become a bottomless pit (as has the NHS) is seen as an attack on people who would describe themselves as decent, hard-working and responsible members of society who put in far more than they take out.

Both view are, of course, wrong. Both views are, of course, extremely human – as are the people provided for by the state and the people fortunate enough to be able to not only support themselves but to be able to make a contribution to the well-being of others. But we humans are by no means perfect: some are selfish, some are greedy, some are lazy. You will find them on both sides of the coin. Also on both sides of the coin are people who are unselfish, generous and hard working.

So it is that some of those who have been told to find smaller accommodation have (if it is available) said, “Fair enough” and they got on and done it. Some feel the same but can find nowhere suitable without moving away from those who support them or make life worth living: friends and family. There needs to be provision for these since moving them could well increase the overall cost to the state despite a reduction in housing benefit. However, there are also those who seem to seize the opportunity to become victims.

Likewise among those who pay taxes you will find those who say, “There but for the grace of God go I” and are happy to pay higher taxes but there are also those who feel very differently.

Do I have an answer to that big ask? Not really but I have the hint of a suggestion.

During my lifetime I have seen that the people who suffer most when the nation’s “cake” becomes smaller are the poorest and most dependent.

When the national coffers dry up, there is no possibility of increasing welfare benefits and existing benefits tend to be eroded by inflation. Furthermore, reduction in activity in the private field and the need to economise in the public field both add to unemployment – and the unemployed pay very little in tax and need a good deal in benefits. Thus the existing poor become poorer and they are joined by more of their fellow citizens.

When the country is really open for business and doing well, however, welfare benefits can be increased in line with (and possibly above) inflation and more and more people will find gainful employment or self-employment. The existing poor may not be better off but are no worse off and their number drop as more and more people find work.

Thus I want to see a regime that does all it can to increase the size of the national wealth to provide the resources required to support those in need. This can be achieved only be reducing the regulations that strangle the growth of businesses and that will mean that some employees would have to lose some of the protections they presently enjoy. It will also mean accepting that the wealth generates will become wealthier and that the gap between the poorest 5% and the richest 5% will widen.

I do not have a problem with either. This country has been built in large part by people putting themselves on the line and starting their own businesses which means no guarantee of income and no guarantee of the business remaining viable. Compare their situation with those in employment (and especially those in the public sector) and I find myself thinking that it is time these people shared some of the pain. As to the gap between the rich and the poor: I do not mind how rich the rich get but I do want to live in a country where none are suffering from poverty. If the price of lifting everyone above a certain level is a an increase in the wealth gulf, so be it.

However, I want to add another burden on whomever is running the country: yes, get the wealth generating machine running properly but always ensure that you have the compassion to use that wealth for good.

I do not expect my left-wing friends to agree with this.

Referendums and democracy – again.

Ian Holman (@yarmouthian) and I had a Twitter exchange the other day which I want to use to introduce this blog which will be about referendums and could well take us nowhere. It started with a comment from him that caught my eye.

IH: Seriously hope UKIP’s disgraceful poster campaign backfires. Blatantly pandering to the ignorant and uneducated.

RW: @yarmouthian Are you surprised?

IH: @Rodney_Willett Sadly not.

RW: @yarmouthian If we could have a quick referendum, it would remove the point of UKIP and that would be good. Yes?

IH: @Rodney_Willett My preference is not to have one but I agree it would kill off UKIP

RW: @yarmouthian What’s wrong with having one?

IH: @Rodney_Willett Gives the largely uneducated public a vote on a single issue which they don’t fully understand

RW: @yarmouthian It’s the same public that votes for our MP’s. Some thoughts here (this was a link to my blog) and I would welcome your views on that

IH: @Rodney_Willett Interesting piece and a referendum would resolve the issue either way, I agree. My fear of a referendum is that many will vote no for the wrong reasons, i.e. not on economic grounds but because they ‘don’t like foreigners’.

RW: @yarmouthian Yes, that is a problem but how much do we value democracy?

IH: @Rodney_Willett Interesting debate. If there was referendum on death penalty, for example, vote may be in favour. Democratic but a result of lack of understanding of rule of law etc. Again a reason for not liking votes on single issues.

RW: @yarmouthian Yes, I have blogged about that problem too. It was tight but the right result in the end. But if not the people then who?

IH: @Rodney_Willett Point taken & tricky to argue against. Prefer to avoid referendums & allow govt., elected on manifesto, to make decisions.

The problem is, I feel, that we are both right. Yes, the people should be able to take major decisions about the way they are governed. Yes, the people cannot be expected to be sufficiently well informed to be trusted with taking major decisions about the way they are governed. It really is impossible to object to either sentence so where does that leave us?

When Ian says that he prefers to allow a government elected on a manifesto to make decisions, he is making the assumption that all matters of importance can be included in a manifesto. That was pretty much the case as the nineteenth century morphed into the twentieth. Then government was involved in far fewer areas of life than it is today and the divisions between the parties were fairly clear cut – for or against free trade, for or against the concept of workers’ unions and so on.

The Whigs, the Tories and the newcomers on the scene, the nascent Labour party all knew why they existed, what they were fighting for and for whom. By today’s standards, some of the things that were being fought for were unacceptable (the Tories), radical but on an intellectual rather than an emotional level (Whigs or Liberals if you prefer) and totally justified if fuelled by righteous anger which could be destructive (Labour).

So, if you voted for a politician you knew what he (no she’s then) stood for and the tribe he represented. You get a good feel of that if you read Ken Follett’s brilliant novel, “Fall of Giants” which deals with the period leading up the Great War and the tensions between the classes at that time.

Nowadays it is far more complicated as government has become more and more involved in the micro-management of the country (a move I deplore but that is another matter). One party wants to reduce the top rate of income tax, another to raise the income tax threshold. One party wants to restructure the NHS and another to provide it with more resources (although failing to explain exactly from where they are to come). Frankly, manifestos have become more a list of aspirations than of carefully costed and thoroughly researched proposals for action.

Meanwhile, since all of the manifestos will contain things that everyone likes, things that everyone dislikes and more things that most people do not care about it becomes impossible to decide which party would be best for the country (or even for each individual voter). That’s a sweeping statement but is probably realistic. To make matters worse, very few people believe that the politicians have any real intention of taking note of what they said in their manifestos and very few people realise that changing circumstances can render certain manifesto promises unachievable. One things of Clegg and tuition fees and Macmillan saying, feelingly, “Events, dear boy, events”.

Then there are matters – the EU is a perfect example – where the divisions in opinion do not follow party lines. So these matters never appear in a manifesto and the people have no opportunity to express an opinion.

In the end, elections are fought on other grounds: the likeability of the leaders, how they come over on the telly, the record of the last government (or, to be more accurate, the perception regarding the record of the last government) and, even though outdated and probably foolish, old tribal loyalties.

When canvassing I would often be told, “Well, my father/mother always voted Conservative/Liberal/Labour so . . .” Such people rarely said LibDems, their parents being too old to have taken that merger to heart.

Even more depressing was, “Oh, I shan’t be voting, they’re all as bad as one another,” or words to that effect.

So, just how should we look to decide on the two most important issues facing us today – the make-up of the UK and its relationship with the EU?

Next time I will try to tackle that question. Meanwhile if you have any ideas, I would be delighted to hear from you (whether by comment here, email to mail@rodneywillett.co.uk or on Twitter).

Together or apart?

More on Scottish independence.

Before I start, many thanks to all of you who left a comment or sent me an email following my last blog – all of which seemed well argued and reasonable even when coming to different conclusions. I have, I hope, taken on board what you are saying. This whole business is highly complicated and so I ask you to bear with me while I try to deconstruct it. This will, I fear, be over long and rather rambling. I have tried to avoid those pitfalls but there are so many strands to consider that I feel I have plunged into both.

In the beginning was a small group of people struggling to keep alive. They discovered that working together gave them a better chance of survival and so they formed a tribe. The problem was, of course, that the tribe was soon being run by the most powerful (but we’ll come back to in what way powerful) people and the others, generally speaking, had to do as they were told. However, it was a small group so the leader could hear what everyone had to say before taking a decision so one of the problems that we face today (the yawning gulf between the ruled and the rulers) did not exist. Even so, Alpha took the decisions and Omega had no choice but to go with it (despite feeling bitter that his ideas were – at least in his opinion – far superior) or get out and go it alone which he knew was not going to work.

Then circumstances dictated that the tribe was at risk and so were the neighbouring tribes. Although they didn’t care much for each other they did see that coming together and facing the problems with the increased resources this gave them was the only way forward at the time. So a federation of tribes was formed and the leaders of the various tribes formed a council to run the federation – until they hit a real crisis and could not agree on the right thing to do. At this point the Alpha of that council took control and, for a while, ruled supreme.

Then, of course, he overdid things and was assassinated by a group of other leaders who replaced him by the council until . . . Well, you get the idea.

The problem with grouping together is that it may have been the only option at one time but that life has moved on and whatever threat it was that brought everyone together no longer existed and so some of the tribal leaders began to object to being ruled by the federation and decided to withdraw from it. Until of course, another threat came along and then . . . Well, you get the idea.

What really started to put the cat among the pigeons was an idea that was first thought of in ancient Greece – an idea that we call democracy. Of course, it wasn’t anything like the democracy we enjoy – for a start it applied only to citizens of a small part of Greece with Athens at its centre and excluded the bulk of the population who were not citizens (many, indeed, being slaves). Nevertheless it was the start of something that we, generally speaking, consider to be a good thing (even when it fails to deliver what we want it to).

Then came bureaucracy. This was probably started by the Romans and it creates a system that makes it terribly difficult to change course quickly unless, as in those days, change is engendered by assassination and the fear of bloodshed. Actually, that still happens although we seem to have been able to avoid it here in the UK since the restoration.

The point I want to make is that the UK became the UK because at a certain point in the past it was to the advantage of enough people for it to be possible for groups (or nations if you prefer) to come together for a valid reason at that time (although this often included coercion because not all were in agreement with the links that were forged). You could say the same thing about the old ECC (I take the point made by Ronald). Then things change and the people running things change until the disadvantages associated with grouping together begin to outweigh the advantages – for at least a significant minority of the people: a big enough minority to make their voices heard.

In my view, that position has been reached in the EU and, I suspect, in the relationship between Westminster and the outlying parts of the UK. It feels so to me, at a mere two hundred and sixty-four miles from the seat of government: what it must feel like further away north of the border I can only imagine even though Scotland has a remarkable degree of self-determination (far more than the people of Devon) and could, I have no doubt, have more if it so desired. But . . .

Why is Scotland a part of the UK? The relationship between England and Scotland has been a difficult one. Although individual people from both sides of the border have forged great friendships, at a governmental level there have always been stresses. Finally (whether the Scots like it or not) they joined England in order to remain viable having lost most of their wealth in an unhappy investment. Now there is a real possibility that they would prefer to go it alone and I have no problems with that so long as the decisions are taken with the full facts available and the whole thing is done honestly and openly.

There are a number of reasons why that is probably a pious hope. Listening to Alan Bissett on the sound track of the video put up by Steve alerted me to one thing that is being bandied about and is neither honest or open: the accusation that Scotland is being governed by as elite.

All governments create an elite. It happens. There is an elite in every trades union, in every political party (including the SNP) and in every other grouping known to man. It happens because some people make better leaders than others and so form a new elite. To pretend otherwise is wrong.

I really do think that the people of Scotland deserve better than they are getting. They deserve to know where independence would take them in this democratic and bureaucratic world and they deserve an unemotional consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of togetherness and separation rather than the emotional appeals that seem to be the main thrust of those wishing for independence.

Next time I want to try and see how the proposed referendum stands up as a democratic exercise.

What was that you said? Oh, EU.

In the course of a discussion on Times on Line I became involved with an argument with a chap that was leaning towards becoming acrimonious. In the end I felt that this was both silly and sad and so I responded thus:

Truth be known, I suspect that we are in general agreement here but, as often happens, the places we disagree dominate the discussion. The problem is that there are a number of issues to consider.

1. We were enabled to vote on our joining the ECC – a common market with no pretensions to being aimed at political union. People will tell you that was obvious at the time. It wasn’t to many of us. I organised the “yes” campaign in  the constituency in which I then lived and it was not on the radar of most people at that time. Since then we have had no opportunity to vote on the “drift” towards a federal state. This is because for obvious reasons neither Labour nor Tory manifestos have ever made this an issue. Hence there is a serious democratic deficit here in the UK.

2. There is a further democratic deficit in the EU to consider. It may well have been the best thing for the Greeks (you will have seen that thought postulated here on ToL) but the fact remains that their prime minister was appointed not by the Greeks but by the ECB et al on the basis that funds would be with-held unless the Greeks did as they were told. Here the issues is: do you believe that it is right for people from one nation to control people in another EVEN WHEN THAT CONTROL IS BENEVOLENT.

3. Then there is the financial deficit within the EU. Put simply, the annual accounts gave never been of sufficient standard to convince any auditor to sign them off. If the EU were a company here in the UK, they would be facing very serious questions from HMRC – and rightly so.

4. One of the reasons I agreed to organise the “Yes” campaign back in the day was that I am old enough to remember the war and (of greater importance to me then as a small boy) the problems caused by rationing afterwards. The idea of binding Europe together to reduce the risk of conflict was very attractive. Now, however, some of the EU decisions – and especially the one that brought about the euro – have caused more tensions and at some point these tensions could easily end up in violence. That would be very sad.

5. This one to be ignored in that it is mentioning what is almost a non-issue: the economic arguments far and against the EU. I really cannot see that it matters. There is a good argument for staying in and an equally good argument for leaving.

So, there is much that is wrong and the ideal situation would be to get these things right and remain a member.  If they cannot be put right – i.e. if the status quo is to remain – then I would prefer to see us out of the club and, as far as I can see, this is the only place in which we disagree.

The end

What I would add is that for all the nonsense printed in the press the Conservative Party seems to me to be pretty united on this issue now: we need to renegotiate the way in which the EU impacts on the UK and we need to ask the people then to agree to stay in under the revised terms or to leave.

Historically I have wanted a three question referendum – one that includes some minimum demands. However, I am now persuaded (blame my MP Dr Sarah Wollaston for this) that such a course would be fraught with too many difficulties to be doable and I now think she is right.

What I really cannot understand is the attitude of the LibDems. If they really believe that the people of the UK want to remain in Europe then they should welcome a referendum and not be afraid of it, If they do not believe that the people of the UK want that then, as a party that embraces democracy, they should still welcome it and be happy to go with the decision made by the people.

I do understand Labour – they have a history of placing zero trust in the people. I just wish more people would wake up to that fact: those who do not trust you are not worthy of your trust in them.

 

Are the members of the Traditional Britain Group fascists?

Funny thing – life. I had no intention of writing a blog today but find my blood boiling. It seems that Jacob Rees-Mogg MP was unwise enough (some might be tempted to say “stupid enough”) to be the guest speaker at the annual dinner of a vile group that calls itself the Traditional Britain Group. Before I go any further, let me say that I do not believe for one half second that Mr Rees-Mogg holds any of the beliefs that this group holds nor that he fully understood what they were about when he accepted the invitation.

Anyway, it also just so happens that the book I am reading at the moment is called Winter of the World by Ken Follett. This deals with the period running up to the second world war including, of course, the destruction of the German Social Democratic Party by the Nazis in the 1930’s. Deals with it brilliantly, horribly, graphically and accurately. If you have time, do try to read it. It is part two of a trilogy. The first, Fall of Giants takes us through the Great War and should, I feel, be compulsory reading for every prospective parliamentary candidate – that way we might, just might, avoid some of the mistakes we made in the past.

Back to the Traditional Britain Group. Look at their “About Us” page on their website.  This is headed – innocently enough – Traditional Conservatives Radical Thinking. Hmmm.

Here are their aims (they call them “standpoints”). My thoughts in italics. You may care to add yours in the comment box below.

(1) We believe in Britain and the British people, their heritage and customs. Of course you do – these exist. By the same token I believe in buttercups amd butter. Neither assertion means a thing.

(2) We believe in a sovereign self-governing Britain and withdrawal from the EU. A viewpoint shared by many from all shades of the political spectrum. Full marks for this one.

(3) We reject all forms of foreign interference in our government. This is an irrational belief. We cannot avoid foreign interference if we accept foreign investment or deal (whether as buyers or sellers) in an international market. For this to mean anything they should carefully define “foreign interference”.

(4) We ask for an understanding and consciousness by all our people of their nation’s greatness, achievements, and glory. Good – but also their relative size in global terms (quite small), their failures and the fact that many shameful acts have been carried out in the name of Great Britain. That is not to be unpatriotic – it is true of every nation that has ever been and will remain true of every nation to come.

(5) We believe that the heterosexual family is the primary social unit. Subtext: we hate gays. Well, sorry, but I don’t. Some very good friends are gays and, while we on the subject, many societies have been very succesful with other types of primary social units.

(6) We believe in authority. See comment under (1) – but I have a nasty feeling that this means “our authority” rather than “your authority”..

(7) We believe in the spiritual values of life and of the respect that is owing to man. Not sure what they mean by “spiritual values” but if a someone wants to be respected he or, of course, she must earn it.

(8) We believe in the obligation of labour and the rolling back of the welfare state. If what they are saying is that all have an obligation to their fellow men and that welfare should be limited to those who really need it, I would agree. Karl Marx put it rather better. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.  Of course, it may mean something else entirely.

(9) We believe in virtue and the sacred nature of Christianity and our Established Church. Sorry, Roman Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Muslims, Buddhists – and so on and so forth. You are not part of this group’s belief system. Return to your roots (unless, of course, they happen to be in the UK).

(10)We believe that our country is best served by our indigenous customs & traditions, its time-honoured hereditary principle and our monarchy. Yes, Morris dancing, bear-baiting, witch burning and rotten boroughs. Actually, I do think our constitutional monarchy is fine but when I read this sort of thing from this sort of group even I tend to start wanting to embrace a president.

(11) We are in favour of localism and local communities. So am I.

(12) We support the small businessman and entrepeneur. Good, so they should.

(13) We support British industry & manufacturing. Excellent – we can take it, therefore, that everything they buy, eat, wear and drive around in come from the UK.  Should someone tell them that we have to import nearly all our oil, gas and electricity?

(14) We are opposed to internationalism and globalisation. At the risk of repeating myself: Should someone tell them that we have to import nearly all our oil, gas and electricity?

(15) We are opposed to communism, to socialism, to liberalism and to anarchism. This is rather fun. Anarchists oppose socialism. Communists oppose liberalism. This group opposes them all (but see 17 below).

(16) We are opposed to mass immigration and multiculturalism. Why are these connected? It can only be because they oppose the immigration of people who look or think differently. This overlooks the fact that all, even those in this group and the followers of Ed Milliband, share something like 99.8% of our genes.

(17) We are opposed to the Class War. Unless, of course, you are a communist, a socialist, a liberal or an anarchist in which case you are a part of the opposition which, to my ears, sounds a bit like a war.

(18) We are opposed to Political Correctness and support the repeal of all cultural-Marxist legislation, including race relations legislation. I go with abolishing political correctness, have no idea which acts on the statute book could be described as “cultural-Marxist” and I am dead against any racism whatsoever.

(19) We are against the purely materialist conception of life. Really? But everything so far suggests that the reverse is the case.

(20) We support the Great British Countryside and its conservation for future generations. I have lived in the “great British countryside” most of my life. In my experience people on the ground generally want to make as much money as they can out of the bit they own – and God help anyone else who spoils the view.

(21) We are against all the great heresies of our age, because we have yet to be convinced that there is any part of the world where the liberty to propagate such heresies has been the cause of anything good. Again we need a definition. What do they mean by heresy? Until I know I really cannot comment.

 

The Riots – two years on

There is an excellent column in today’s Times written by Daniel Finklestein. The subject is basically “the cause of the riots 2 years ago”. The conclusion – and this is why I found the column to be excellent – is that we still just don’t know and we really do need to know. 

It is good to read about uncertainty. It is a state of mind that leaves one open to new ideas, that encourages people to make experiments (knowing that some will fail) and stops people becoming jobsworths or unable/unwilling to admit to any sort of failure.

Highlighted, and rightly so, is the inability of the police to accept any blame for their part in the appalling relations between them and the black populations in places such as Tottenham. What is so very dangerous is that we see trust between the public and the police at an all time low and that is bad for everyone.

This whole business of refusing to face up to making a mistake is somewhat on my mind at the moment (especially as an event which is of no great importance recently reminded me of one of the worst mistakes that I made during a lifetime of getting things wrong). It is at the back of the problem I have been having trying to get some sense out of either the elected representatives to or the officers of the South Hams District Council over the matter of a mistake that someone has made which has resulted in the problems I outlines in earlier recent blogs. I had assumed that having had this mistake brought to the notice of “the powers that be” the reaction would have been, “Oh, right, well what can we do to put matters right”. Not a bit of it. Rather like the police in the various matters we all think about at the moment (Hillsborough, Mark Duggan, Plebgate and so on) one hits a blank wall and the conversations go round and round pointlessly (in the hope, no doubt, that I will just give up).

If I give up about the matter of the signs on the car park ticket machines giving false information nobody will be injured or will die. If we, collectively, give up on the things that caused the riots two years ago then it is probable that some will be injured and possible that more will die. Certainly we shall be creating a society in which I, for one, would not wish to live.

This is not just about the police. There are many factors to take into consideration and the one that I think is most important is to find things for the young, of both sexes and all backgrounds, to do which enables them to hold their heads high and take some pride in themselves and their communities. Better to pay more for the care of our infrastructure and of our elderly and vulnerable than to pay to keep people out of work.

Citizen Media

My good friend Milkenko Williams recently attended a colloquium at Manchester University (as an observer, I believe) and has written a number of blogs on the position of the citizens media in the scheme of things. The fact that all have the ability, through mobile phones, Twitter and so on to send news around the world raises certain questions. 

I do not wish to add too much to what he says and would strongly suggest you start at the beginning – the first of the series is titled, “Citizen Media: very academic thoughts mediated by a very non-academic” – and work your way through what he has to say. 

It is of special interest to me because I wear two hats being both a hack (some might be kind and describe me as a journalist but one who has always worked freelance and has never drawn a salary) and a political blogger. I try very hard when wearing my hack hat to avoid allowing my opinions to creep into what I am reporting and try just as hard when blogging to base my opinions on the facts as I understand them. Whether I succeed or not is for others to judge. Clearly most who contribute to Citizen Media tend not to feel those constraints. Anyway, enough from me – go and read what Mil says on this subject it is well worth the effort. Here is the link to the first of the series.