Political Economy

It isn’t just David Cameron schmoozing this idea. Now POWER2010 http://www.power2010.org.uk have jumped on the bandwagon whilst engaging in a very worthwhile exercise in deliberative democracy. That deliberative democracy is not the solution to our current woes, that it is not without its problems, one being the narrow basis on which policies are selected – a scientifically chosen sample of 130 individuals (my emphasis) – is clear from my rant below. However do not let this dissuade you from going to their site and voting on what you think are the most important issues for democracy today.

One question I would like to know the answer to is who was allowed to vote on this issue. If it was just the  “scientifically’ chosen English amongst the 130 then that is one matter. However if it was everyone then the vote is invalidated straight away – The English have never been allowed to vote on devolution in Wales, Scotland or N. Ireland!

How Power 2010 could have failed to select an English Parliament as one of their issues I do not know. Over 50% of voters in England regularly support the idea in opinion polls. They do so because an English Parliament gives the people of England  a government of the English, by the English, for the English, just as the Scots, Welsh and N. Irish have for themselves.

Having a glorified Commons Committee, subject to the other nations simply because it is a committee of the House, does not provide a government of the English, by the English for the English. And what will happen after the Commons? Will the bill go through to the Lords to be adjudicated on by the Scots, Welsh, and N. Irish?

Does this proposal require that Cabinet Ministers for devolved matters (Health, Education, Transport, Justice and so on) only come from English constituencies? And will these and only these Cabinet Ministers make decisions in Cabinet about English matters, sitting on the English, yet again, sub-committee?

A clearer example of confused thinking and poorly thought out logic is difficult to find.

Currently three, 75%,  out of the four nations, having 16% of the population, have their own government. In round terms 20% of the people have 80% of the democracy! This is a clear and absolute nonsense and no clearer example of Pareto’s Principle need be given http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto%27s_principle.

When Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in the Westminster government, that most racist of governments!) claims that the English cannot have a Parliament because they constitute 84% of the population he is not showing his ignorance of Pareto. Misquoting Pareto is a ‘cunning plan’ based on a clear assumption that the electorate are a bunch of ignorant idiots who will not recognise his statement as a misquote, but rather treat it as a clever analysis of the issue, which it is not.

Do not vote for this committee approach. It is disrespectful to the English, it makes the English less equal than the other nations, it is extremely unfair to the English and worst of all it will not work!  Better by far to have a Parliament for the English, an elected House of Lords and a House of Commons with, in total, no more elected representatives than currently are elected or debate matters. No extra cost and much greater democracy!

I suppose Power2010 will come up with the usual excuses for putting forward this idea, along the lines of “It wasn’t us gov.”, or “I was only following the rules” or “The committee we appointed made these decisions” -  (whine, whine, whinge, whinge). Shame on you! This is a disgrace!

David Cameron’s motive for putting the idea forward is clearer. He has already said that he does not want to be “Prime Minster of England”, conveniently forgetting, or perhaps never understanding, that the devolved governments are led by a First Minster and not a Prime Minster – not much respect for the English there, then. The real reason he made the remark is of course about Power. It is correct that most of the work of government occurs in the matters that are devolved; Justice, Health, Education and so on. This means that most of the key levers for getting re-elected or gaining the confidence of the electorate are in devolved matters. Given that 84% of the votes are in the 84% of the devolved English matters you can see how Cameron, Clegg and Brown (and Straw) want to keep these matters within reach of their sticky fingers, close to their greedy hearts and out of Control of the English for ever.

It might be of course that Cameron just wishes to distance himself from Bonar-Law an earlier Conservative Prime Minister, a Scot, born in 1858 in New Brunswick (the Canadian Confederation did not occur until 1867) but raised in Scotland, who referred to himself as the Prime Mister of England [The Making of the English National Identity by K. Kumar, ISBN 0521777364]. Bonar-Law became leader of the Conservative Party  after Aurthur Balfour (also a Scot) and became Prime Minister in 1922 but sadly had to resign in 1923 due to throat cancer. His was the shortest Prime Ministership of the twentieth century and he is known as the Unknown Prime Minister. A name Cameron will not want!

What if the Law and the Constitution enshrine something that we know is morally wrong? What then?

In the Government of the People, by the People and for the People this question is  important, it is difficult and, in its propensity to bring about civil strife, it is dangerous. Abraham Lincoln asked this question and struggled with it for many years. His simple answer, that  no individual or community had the right to do what was wrong led to his selection as the Republican candidate for President. And as they say, “All the rest is history”.

For the rest of us the issues are never so great, but the result, when we fail to adopt Lincoln’s answer, can be just as significant in our lives as well as in the lives of others.

Two examples of a moral failure in this respect have recently been before us in the news. The first is the matter of MP’s expenses and the second was a the case of a man sent to a private clinic, by the National Health Service, for an everyday knee operation who died because the clinic had no blood supplies on hand.

In both cases the defence is the same, “I/We followed the rules. I/We are blameless”. Well, not if you are Mr Lincoln, you’re not, say the rest of us!

It must surely be obvious to the parties in cases such as these that if harm results then the excuse of following the rules is not admissible. The degree of accountability  depends on the degree of the error and the level of knowledge and responsibility at which the parties operate.

In the case of the MPs there had already been concern raised within the House.  The failure to recognise that, helping yourself liberally from the public purse is morally wrong, whatever the rules may be, is worrying. It points to our premiere legislative body consisting of people who, in the main, appear to be unable to make moral decisions. And if they cannot do this then they are not fit to rule us.

The case of the clinic is perhaps worse in that a man died, perhaps because of the clinic’s failure to put difficult moral questions to itself. The answer, to the reporter’s question that surely it should be obvious that if an operation is being carried out then blood may be required as a matter of extreme urgency, of “We followed all the rules”  is clearly a failure of moral sense. We expect the professionals who treat us to do so in a safe manner having regard to all the unfavourable events likely to occur and to the importance of the outcome. Surely death as an outcome is important in any moral society?

The willingness of what appears to be many important people, organisations and their leaders to act at all time, without respect to other peoples safety or their property, in other words to act without morality, is a cancer in the side of our present society. A cancer moreover inserted by those who far too frequently have been heard to make harsh judgments on other people, often poorer and less well educated than themselves.

The answer is to change the law, if indeed the law needs changing. We all need to know that the law requires of us to carry out, when the health and safety of others or their property is in question, at the level of competence it is reasonable to expect from us, an analysis of the  importance of outcomes and of their likelihood of occurrence irrespective of any rules or contractual agreements in force. If for some reason we do not like the answers or cannot implement them  then we should be expected to take the moral decision and not go ahead with what was intended.

In the meantime, whilst we wait for the civil authorities to make their minds up about wrong doing, we should surely expect those who have failed this moral test to do the moral thing. Apologise and make recompense!