Thursday 30 June 2016

Why is schism a dirty word?

Both Labour and Conservative parties have claimed to be "broad churches", providing the political homes for voters with widely differing viewpoints, under a vague banner of common values. This has been sustained extraordinarily well considering the diversity of views contained and occasional outbursts of factionalism, not least concerning the country's membership of the EEC/EU. Holding the party together has tested leaders of both parties, notably Harold Wilson, Michael Foot, John Major and David Cameron. Now Labour is undergoing the supreme and perhaps final test.

For decades a small rump of dedicated socialists survived in both country and parliament, putting forward its critique and alternative point of view. Jeremy Corbyn has been a consistent player in this, eventually reaping his reward(?) by being voted party leader at the end of a long period of imagination-failure and lack of vision on the part of the majority, mainstream group in the House of Commons. This leadership inspired and was instigated by a hunger on the part of a public craving values-driven politics. It has led to the situation where the leadership has a sort of Praetorian Guard of both MPs and voters, for whom he can do no ill. His term of office has, though, failed to engage the wider public nor, crucially, the majority of Labour MPs, meaning that he cannot hope to win Labour power.

Within the Conservative Party too exists a faction, set on removing UK from the EU. In effect its followers should be in UKIP but, as with the left-wing within Labour, they want to convert the majority rather than form a separate party with no prospect of power. Thus both left and right factions prefer to live within the broad churches which have a chance of power. Watching the shenanigans party leaders are forced to engage in to bring all their troops behind them for votes is akin to watching the agonies of successive archbishops trying to unify the Anglican church when there are issues on which it quite simply cannot agree. But to church leaders, schism is unthinkable. Why? Because it looks like failure? Because size matters?

In parliament, numbers do matter. Majorities get their way. As the referendum has shown, sometimes even minorities get their way, when the Prime Minister is threatened with losing votes. This has led to parliamentary democracy: being sacrificed to a faction, on the altar of party unity; the denial of the function of MPs; and the country being damaged irreparably. Would it not have been better for us all had the Tory Inners and Outers been separate parties? Would it not now be better were Labour to divide into socialists and centrists? Lets get away from the 2-party system and open UK up to honest representation and coalition politics, with a voting system fair to all viewpoints.

Tuesday 28 June 2016

As usual, minorities will suffer as our democracy is compromised

Brexit will have many consequences, few of them good for the people of this country or of Europe. Whichever consequence one looks at, it will be the result of a referendum sought only by UKIP but offered gratuitously by David Cameron seeking an answer to a simple question yet with no explanation as to what policies would lie behind the change option, least of all how the interests of people affected would be taken into account. We are said to live in a representative democracy, in which parliament is sovereign, with elected members there to speak for their electorate. These should have decided on the issue on our behalf. We now see the result of by-passing our system of governance.

The great failing of UK's first-past-the-post election system is that there are always millions of citizens whose views have no outlet. MPs are supposed to be the member for all constituents and often are - except when it comes to applying their party policy as priority. So in any non-marginal, the safely incumbent party can ignore the viewpoints or concerns of those who do not vote for them, leaving millions disenfranchised. If the ruling party decides to hit the interests of disabled people, what recourse will the latter have if their MP belongs to that party?  After Brexit, how will universities, farmers, construction businesses, hospitals, find or reassure staff, when the government exists to implement tighter immigration controls? Who will speak up for creative talent or manufacturers whose international markets will be shut down?

Now, the last opportunity for those who live in politically hostile constituencies to have a meaningful vote - elections to the European Parliament, in which everyone's vote has counted under the list system - will be closed forever. It is surely time in these circumstances to review the electoral system for post-Brexit Britain, to enfranchise everyone and deliver a more inclusive democracy. Meanwhile, for Labour supporters living in non-Labour rural and coastal communities, Labour Coast and Country offers one cross-boundary network in which to have a voice.

Friday 17 June 2016

Democracy is too valuable to be by-passed

The critique of democracy is well-worn so need not be restated, except to say that alternatives are worse. There are times when only the firm hand of a dictator seems attractive; and others when popular uprising seems called for, but these are conclusions usually seen from a particular viewpoint. We all want the world or the country to be run as we think it should be.
However, bad though a government may be, in a democracy there will be process and mechanism whereby it may eventually be changed. It is when these are removed and democracy no longer applies, except in name, that true disenfranchisement occurs and the people are left powerless. Zimbabwe, North Korea and Turkey come to mind.
So we here in UK need to stay alert and use our representatives to protect our system. Why now? Because we are seeing signs of intolerance, in the attacks on those with different views; we are engaged in a denial of representative government, in this unnecessary and damaging referendum; and we are seeing abuse of power on the part of the current ruling party, as it dismantles and potentially prevents the rebuilding of the State.
These actions eat away at the fabric of representative democracy, weakening it further from its already flawed manifestation and risking a drift towards inequities which, whether deliberate or accidental, may lead to a future infinitely worse for the people of this country than even our current parlous state.

Monday 6 June 2016

Do not blame Corbyn for Cameron's Folly

I am furious with Cameron. Why would I not be? He leads a party and a government both of which are at odds with my beliefs and values. My antipathy is permanent. No, my fury today goes beyond the norm. His arbitrary decision to put  the country through the forthcoming referendum will define his legacy. Not only has this led to a nasty, gratuitous distraction for Parliament and people but it could yet lead to lasting real damage to the country he is supposed to lead. Where is the leadership in gambling all our futures with such uncertainty over the outcome? This has been done for purely partisan motives. It will be small compensation that he will be the greatest loser.

There was never any need for this. Had he been a true leader he would not have derogated to an uninterested and under-informed public the responsibility for determining policy on immigration (which is what drove the referendum decision). Parliament is the place for such matters. This is what we pay MPs and PMs to do. Were he truly the Remain advocate he claims to be, he could not have taken the risk he has with all our futures. Whatever the outcome of June 23 (please let it be IN), this reckless gamble must go down in history as Cameron's Folly. Now that Out looks possible, the voices of the Remain Right are starting to point the finger of blame at Labour's performance in the campaign to distract public opinion from the truth. Let us be crystal clear: any failure was in calling the referendum in the first place and only one man carries the responsibility for that.

Wednesday 1 June 2016

Transport is no luxury, especially in the countryside

In modern societies transport is a necessity. We no longer live and work only in neighbourhoods. Access to jobs, healthcare, education, welfare, shops or even just family demands travel. One might even say that transport is an entitlement; but one which for many has become increasingly scarce. So more public transport seems like a good idea. A vote winner. But in reality, whatever form of transport one requires,even if it runs to capacity or pays its way, can it justify its investment?
Those who live in cities or suburbs may think so. Infrastructure and services serve them and may even be taken for granted. Further investment may be seen as desirable to improve on frequency or comfort. But what of those 10 million or so separated from such services because they live some distance from routes and hubs? They (we) pay as high a Council Tax for a fraction of the benefits. No bus; no trains; no access to the essentials of independent living. We are either deprived of something to which we are entitled or have we elected to do without? Perhaps the attractions of rural or coastal life merit such a choice for some but what of others deprived by circumstances of essentials? What of those of limited means? What of those smitten by ill health? What of those incomers seeking more affordable housing? These still need access to all aspects of modern society. Yet for these the very services on which they should be able to rely may be separated from them by distances unbridged by any form of public transport. The first few miles of any journey towards the means to lead independent lives is untouched by investments, services or policy. Cars, private or taxi, are the only means of starting essential travel. The modern world is car-centred, allowing those with the means to move around at will, often in sole occupancy of a vehicle with capacity for several. Most households own one or more cars but how efficiently are most used?
Were transport truly a universal entitlement, networks of small capacity vehicles would circulate among rural communities, picking up and dropping off, enabling all people affordably to access shops, services or other transport services. We must assume, though, from the fact that this is neither the case nor a plan for any political party, that public transport must currently be viewed at best as only an occasional opportunity rather than an entitlement.
It must be time to re-examine just what the role should be for public transport and to whom it may be deemed relevant not only in cities but in rural locations. How can new technologies be brought to bear, for example to facilitate car sharing, locating assets to match needs or summoning vehicles, even driverless ones, to bring all who need to travel to do so. If there were the will, there could be a way.