Political Economy

Seven score and eight years ago a man spoke to dedicate the cemetery on a battlefield which had seen over 46,000 casualties including nearly 8,000 killed.

He pointed out that the living could not dedicate that place since the dead had already consecrated the ground with their blood. The living, rather, had to dedicate themselves to the unfinished work for which the dead had died.

That work was to ensure “. . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The man was Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America and the battlefield was that of Gettysburg, the key battle in a civil war that saw a total of over 210,000 killed in action so that his nation “. . . shall have a new birth of freedom”.

Lincoln was not the first person to enunciate such a  belief. In 1830 the Senator Daniel Webster in a speech described the federal government of the USA as “made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people,”

So freedom is protected by the correct form of government and Lincoln tells us how to distinguish such a government from others. Do we, the People of England, have such protection for our Freedom? The answer is not difficult to deduce.

Government of the People

Government “Of the People” is government “Made by the People”. It is government hewn from the people and it has in all times and in all places been a government that People have had to fight for.  In January 2007 a poll for Newsnight showed that 61% of the People of England wanted a devolved Parliament for England. In April 2010 an ICM poll showed that 68% of the People of England wanted a devolved Parliament for England.

Do we, the country where parliaments were invented. have a Parliament for England? No! Have the political elite in England said we will get such a Parliament? No! Do we have “Government of the People of England”? No!

Government by the People

“Government by the People” is the people governing themselves via the election of a representative that will do what the people want. Do we have such representatives? No! Why not? There are many reasons. The first and most important reason is that Edmund Burke, MP for Bristol, said in 1774 in a speech to the electors that he could vote in the House as he chose and not as they wanted, a vote mark-you that had been given him by those electors. Burke was hardly an objective observer in this and as a piece of self-serving claptrap this one has been religiously parroted by MPs ever since. Burke did not believe in democracy and is claimed as a founder of modern Conservatism.

Secondly few MPs actually have the integrity to vote according to their own opinions. Instead they hand their vote over to their party in return for a continuing flow of cash, perquisites and honours! Thirdly most MPs are not voted into office by a majority of those who vote. To get 40% of the vote is considered good and this of course usually represents less than 30% of the electorate.

Do we, in England, have MPs who represent their voters? No! Have the political elite in England said we will get such MPs? No! De we have “Government by the People of England”? No!

Government for the People

And so we come to the final act. I have already shown that in England we do not have “Government of the People”. I have shown that in England we do not have “Government by the People”. Do we have “Government of the People, by the People” in England? No!

So, do we have “Government for the People of England”?

In 1975 when the referendum on remaining in the Common Market was held I listened carefully, as did many, to the views expressed. We were told we needed to remain in the Market because of  trade despite the fact that we had a trade deficit with them of £2bn. Well now the Market is a Union and we have a trade deficit with the rest of the Union of £36bn. This deficit is equivalent to exporting some 1,000,000 jobs to Europe.

In the 13 years of Labour government from 1997 some 1.67 million jobs were created in the UK but 1.6 million of those jobs went to people with no prior connection to the UK. It appears therefore that the UK government has provided 2.6 million jobs to the world. The jobs that remain are increasingly part-time, minimum wage and unskilled. Recent data has shown the trend has continued and will continue, particularly since the coalition government has set no restrictions on the so-called Mode 4 immigration. This is where a company from another country is allowed to set up in the UK and bring in all its labour from its own country. These workers will be paid minimum wages plus a tax free living allowance. The Tory party will of course be the grateful recipients of political donations from these “UK” companies. UK workers will receive only the dole that has been much reduced by the Tories.

Will MPs work to protect and grow the number of meaningful jobs open to us? No! Will the political elite in Westminster allow us in England to get the jobs we need to lead satisfying and creative lives? No! Is this “Government for the People”? No!

A broken Democracy

In England we do not have “Government of the People”. We do not have “Government by the People”.  We do not have “Government for the People”. We live in a broken democracy where our freedom is compromised and not, as the Prime Minister would have us believe, a broken society where our property is compromised. Indeed the Prime Minister is currently driving this broken democracy deeper and further than anyone before.

Is it possible to fix the problem, to regain our freedom by instituting “Government of the People, by the People, for the People”? The answer is yes, but only if the a range of policies like the following are adopted. It cannot be fixed by adopting one or two of these policies, such as creating an elected upper chamber or adopting a parliament for England. It cannot be fixed by adopting policies but implementing them in such a way that they will not work. For example Cameron’s promise to make it possible for voters to recall their MP is going to be implemented by creating a committee of MPs to decide if one of them should be “thrown to the wolves”! Such a committee will only be used to punish an MP who has annoyed the party leaders!

So here is the list:

Government of the People

• A devolved Parliament for England with a government and First Minister.
• A smaller House of Commons and elected Upper Chamber to take on the role of a federal Parliament responsible for reserved matters.

Government by the People

• Power for the voters to recall a sitting MP for re-election
• Devolving additional responsibilities to the County level and its elected Mayor.
• Increased use of the referendum so that voters can decide what is done.
• Reform of the voting system to ensure that 50% is required for election

Government for the People

• A referendum on leaving the EU
• An end to mass immigration
• An immigration system that ensures that jobs are not taken from the People of England and that immigration is run effectively.
• Protection for companies from takeover and closure by foreign companies

A Party that Will

There is one political party that does have all of these policies, and more. It is the only party that has as one of its objectives the institution of “Government of the People, by the People, for the People.” That party is the English Democrats.

The Price of Freedom

Now here is the rub. It is your freedom and your government that I have been talking about. The good news is that you can do something about it. The price is your time and your interest. If you are concerned that your freedom is compromised then join the English Democrats, donate to their funds and get active in any way you can. There are a wide range of opportunities such as forming a county or constituency branch, or joining one if it already exists, leafleting, letter writing, standing in elections, writing articles or blogs, helping to run facebook, twitter and web sites. The list is almost endless.

Its Your Freedom. You Do Something About It.

GHTime Code(s):              nc nc nc nc nc 

For democracy to be seen to done in an election the candidate chosen must get more than 50% of the vote. If this does not happen you get the situation that we in the UK are familiar with. Candidates and governments are elected with less, sometimes much less than half of the votes cast. To get around this the French use the “run-off” system in their Presidential elections. In this, if the leading candidate does not have more than 50% of the vote, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and the voters are called back to vote again. This continues until one candidate gets more than half the votes. Such a system ensures that a minority President, or government, cannot be elected. It is democratic and it is fair. But, with its multiple rounds of voting, it is arduous and time consuming.

The Alternative Vote system is nothing more nor less than a run-off voting system where you have to make you choices in how you would vote in subsequent voting rounds at the time you cast your first vote. It gives all the advantages of run-off voting such as fairness and democratic governments whilst avoiding the time and arduousness of the original version. (For more on the technicalities see the Note at the end of this blog.)

The already low standards of the “NO” to the Alternative Vote (AV) Referendum continue to drop.

Listening to BBC radio 4 on Saturday (19/3/2011) it transpires that a reason to vote “No” is that the AV will give someone who votes for the British Nationalist Party (BNP) a second vote. Notice that the speaker did not say that a reason to vote “No” was that it gave a Labour (or a Conservative, or a Liberal Democrat) voter a second vote! I do not like the BNP, but then I do not like the Conservatives, Labour or the Liberal Democrats either. However I do not make my dislike a reason to deprive a fellow citizen of their democratic voting rights.

The implication is clear. If you vote BNP, a legally registered political party, then you are not worth giving an alternate choice to. How fascist can you get?

I have said it before. The “No” campaign have used lies, deceit, anti-democratic and now fascist arguments to support their views.

A vote for the “No” campaign is a vote for a continuation of the status quo in our already creaking democracy. The speaker for the “Yes” campaign pointed out that the high point in the two-party system in England was in the 1951 election and that this was also the high point for the “first past the post” voting system. Now in a pluralistic political era we, the voter, desperately need a voting system that reflects the political realities and allows us the flexibility to vote in a way that reflects these multiple choices whilst giving us only candidates, and government, who have a majority of the votes.

Those who believe that the way to democracy is to cut voting costs should remember that this is what dictators believe. The fact that the “No” campaign believes this is no accident.

In reality what is not to like about the Alternative Vote system, the efficient, fair and democratic replacement for the run-off voting system?

Note for Readers.

Some voting systems require the voters to vote again if no candidate has more than 50% of the vote. At subsequent voting the bottom candidate of the previous round is eliminated.

The Alternative Vote System is an example of “Instant Run-off Voting. You have the choice to rank candidates – 1, 2, 3 and so on. When the votes are counted the candidate with most votes, provided this is more than 50% of the votes cast,  is elected. If no candidate has more than 50% then the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and their votes are given to their second choice. ALL the votes are now counted again and if no one has more than half the votes the new ‘last’ candidate is eliminated. This continues until a candidate has a majority. See Wikipedia

GHTime Code(s): nc nc nc 

On the 5th May we in England will have our first opportunity, ever, to vote on the voting system that is used to elect MPs.

Let me say that again. “we in England will have our first opportunity, ever, to vote on the voting system that is used to elect MPs.”

Notice that I am not including the Scots or Welsh in this since they have already had a choice to vote in matters like this. It is only the English that will have this opportunity for the first time. The English who, remember, invented the parliamentary system and representative democracy are, at last, being allowed to vote on something that is of reasonable constitutional importance.

Perish the thought that we might actually vote ‘Yes’. Were we to do so we might get ideas above our station, ideas that we can actually change things, dangerous ideas that there are perhaps other things that we should change!

It is interesting therefore to review the ‘No’ vote campaign’s leaflet to see how they intend to steer us away from this dangerous action.

First off they claim that AV is not fair because some people will have their vote counted five or six times. Well I have some news  for the ‘No’ campaign. My vote hasn’t counted for 20 years. There are some people whose vote has never counted over 50 or 60 years – assuming that they still bother to vote. The fact is that the current system is undemocratic and broken. The ‘No’ campaign state that  the ‘First Past the Post’ system has served us well for hundreds of years whereas in reality the system has been failing increasingly since the introduction of universal suffrage in the last century.

The ‘No’ campaign have an equally dodgy approach to finance and budgets. They claim that machines will have to be used and that these will be very costly. Well so they might, in the first year. The next time and the time after that and after that, they will cost nothing because the machines will already have been purchased! And of course the greater speed of machines could mean that there will be savings in manpower, not just at the count, but also in the broadcasting organisations. It might be that the cost of a general election would actually go down.

But not only do the ‘No’ campaign begrudge the cost of machines to bring our vote counting practices into the 21st century, they also begrudge the cost of democracy, and hence democracy itself. Apparently the cost of holding referendums, and hence referendums themselves, is something we should not be countenancing.

I will not go into the advertising campaign claiming that the referendum is causing the deaths of babies and soldiers. Such deceit is a hallmark of the abysmal level to which public standards have fallen and which we the people must battle to raise.

All-in-all the ‘no’ campaign is hostile to democracy, solidly behind the hold that the two major parties have over parliamentary seats, indulges in deceitful financial analysis and is an example of the appallingly low standards which pass for good practice in public life today.

Vote ‘No’ if you must, but do not complain over what it will cost you in the future.

GHTime Code(s): nc 

By now all local authorities will have chosen between the two modes of governance allowed them. Either the democratically elected mayor or the “North Korean” style strong council leader.

There is little difference between the two in terms of costs or powers. There are however major differences when it comes down to local democracy.

The strong leader will be voted in by the council. In fact of course they will be elected by the majority party. Well not really. The majority party will caucus to choose their candidate and in most cases this will be on the advice of the party leadership, perhaps three or four people. Should the “North Korean”leader  start doing things against party policy because in his or her view they are in the best interests of the electorate then he will be promptly sacked by the majority party and a new leader elected.

Contrast this with the elected Mayor. He or she will require possibly 20,000 votes to be elected and will have to publish a programme they will follow. They cannot be sacked by the council, only by the voters.

Which do you thing your local authority councilors have chosen?

Does this make a difference?

According to the Financial Times it does. Doncaster had a very poor, and tragic, history  of bad governance until an English Democrats Party Mayor was elected in 2010. To begin with he had to put up with all sorts of childish and destructive behaviour from the local councilors until he called time on them by bringing in the commisioners who have assigned rules of conduct and mentors to the councilors.

Now all is changing. As the FT recorded that Doncaster was creating jobs faster than the national average they reported Daniel Fell, the policy director of the Doncaster chamber of commerce, as saying “An elected mayor helps too, allowing for greater focus on strategic business issues”.

Elected Mayors are not beholden to their party or anyone else except the electorate. They are free to do what is best for the people in their authority.

Wouldn’t you rather have one?

GHTime Code(s): nc nc nc 

The Conservative, Labour and Liberal-Democrats do not want to give the people of England their own Parliament. The reasons they give are varied. Some, such as Straw and Prescott are quite happy to insult the English cultural identity and care not that this is a deeply racist action, under the Race Relations Act, and also offensive, confident that their position will give them protection.

Some of them mutter on about England being 80% of the population of the UK and therefore do not need a separate parliament. This argument is either based on an ignorance of Pareto’s principle or an attempt to manipulate people by misquoting it (see my blog at http://www.politicaleconomy.me.uk/2010/01/only-english-mps-voting-on-english-matters/).

None of them mention democracy. liberty, equity, dignity, rights, fairness, self-determination, birth-right, entitlement. All words one would expect a serious and committed parliamentarian to use with respect to this issue. But notice how in this election campaign they have promised “fairness for all” in order to get your vote! How dishonest can they be?

You will, therefore, probably not be surprised that the real reason why they do not want a parliament for England is quite different from the one they give, and infinitely grubbier. Yes, it concerns money, lots of your money and my money, in fact £2,000,000 of our money. Money that they do not deserve, money that they are happy to scam off you and I, just as they did with their expenses

They are trying to kid us that they have cleaned up the financial systems in Parliament, that they are squeaky clean, that it will never happen again. What is “it”? Quite simply “it” is the same greed that made them unable to tell when a rule is immoral, dishonest, or unethical. Remember that MPs caught out ‘flipping’ their houses to make untaxed capital gains off the taxpayer, or claiming repairs to their boyfriend’s house? All said “We were only following the rules” (see my blog at http://www.politicaleconomy.me.uk/2009/10/how-the-rich-and-powerful-scam-the-rules-for-their-own-benefit/ .

Well here is another big, fat, round £2,000,000 rule they are quite happy to follow even though in doing so they are taking money they have not earned, money that comes from me and you, money that they should not be getting. Not that is if they were men and women of integrity.

Many of the plum jobs as Secretary of State or Minister in the Westminster cabinet are for devolved matters. That is those that matters such as Education, Health, Justice and Transport to name a few. These matters have been devolved to national parliaments or assemblies either in part or whole. Westminster Secretaries of State basically administer only England in these matters. They should get paid the same as their equivalent in the Scottish Parliament. In the case of a secretary of state this is £44,000 less, of a minister £24,000 less if they were in an English Parliament (they would also get £7,000 less for their salary). There are around 70 of these plum jobs to be handed out after the 6th May adding up to excess pay of around £2,000,000.

Now you get “it”, the real reason why they do not want an English Parliament. Men of Honour? I do not think they know the meaning of the phrase.

GHTime Code(s): 59b7c nc 

I currently find myself, somewhat late in life, a prospective parliamentary candidate in the Stevenage, Hertfordshire constituency for  the election on the 6th May 2010 for the English Democrats Party (EDP). The EDP are an English party that occupies broadly the same political position in England as the Scottish Nationalist Party in Scotland or Plaid Cymru in Wales.

Being part of a small, fairly new party, the EDP are eight years old, means that you have to do pretty much everything yourself. As a result my wife I found ourselves a week ago on Sunday, with the EDP candidate for Broxbourne, at a car boot sale to raise funds for our campaign. We were onsite and fully decked-out with four England car window flags fluttering in the wind, election posters on the car and our table covered in a large England flag.

The car boot sale proceeded as car boot sales proceed with one exception. We were amazed at the number of  people who came up to us and told us how brave we were to do what we were doing! I was shocked. The individuals all spoke in low voices and were clearly afraid to speak up. How could this be? We were in England flying the flag of England. What could be more normal? And yet to these people, we were doing something dangerous, something that required fearlessness and courage, something that made a forbidden statement, that broke the law, that was somehow illegal, in England!

“There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is ENGLAND.” said Winston Churchill, himself, by birth, half English and half American. Being English you see is not a matter of genes or skin colour. It is a matter of the heart. Say those words again but this time imagine a stream of people coming up to you and whispering how brave you are into your ear. If you are not beginning to be afraid then you have not understood what is happening.

Five days later I was on my own manning a stall in the Town Centre of Stevenage. Once again the table was dressed with bunting and posters. No one came up to say how brave I was. Instead three foreigners, two Irishmen and a Spaniard came and all indepe

ndently said much the same thing. “Its about time this is happening, good for you”. “The English allow themselves to be pushed aside too often. Well done for what you are doing”. “This is a good day for England. You English suffer from a totally make-believe guilt. Why, I do not know. What you are doing is good”. Notice that they were foreigners. They had no problem being upfront about telling the truth as they saw it. And most importantly no one could blame them for it. They had no reason to be afraid to raise their voices.

Whilst at the University of Chicago in the late 60s studying for an MBA at the business school  I took time out to attend two course in political science given by Professor Hans Morgenthau. Morgenthau was a remarkable teacher. A German Jew who left Europe before the second world war he was a charismatic man whose lectures attracted huge numbers. Given in the largest lecture hall of the time, at the university, you had to get there early if you wanted even a space to stand let alone sit. Applying Morgenthau’s analysis to England to-day the result is clear. We have real problems in our democracy, a major group not only feel but are disenfranchised, violence is existential. It will take just a match to light the powder keg.

Sounds overly dramatic? Think again. A major group do feel frightened and disenfranchised. It is not only I who have noticed it but three different people from elsewhere have as well. The effect is not imagined. What is more, it is happening as a direct consequence of government policy. This is not a mistake. It is real and it is being done on purpose as a piece of viciousness that is difficult to believe. The analysis is valid and credible. I say credible because for a thousand years the only way the English have been able to protect their freedom from the ruling classes has been by violence. And this is not something that happened a long time ago. Only in the last century the women suffragettes, at the start, and the poll tax protestors at the end, had to fight for their freedoms. So it will happen, again.

The people responsible for allowing this state of affairs to happen are, without any doubt, those who have held seats as Members of Parliament (MP)  for English constituencies. Not Scottish or Welsh or Northern Irish MPs, but English MPs. It was their job to make sure this didn’t happen. Why did they not do their job to protect democracy? We now know the reason. Those very few who did stand up for their principles were beaten down and overlooked for important positions. More profitable instead for MPs to ripp-off the taxpayer with their expense claims without, apparently, the integrity to know that it was wrong. Many have claimed that they were merely following the rules, forgetting perhaps that by blindly doing so they were showing themselves open to being corrupted by anyone who chose to create a bribery machine that had ‘rules’. They also showed they were not up to the job. They failed, without apparently even knowing they were being tested. They were totally unsuited to the task, lacking the morale fibre, the power of independent thought and backbone needed by someone in their position.

So I say Shame! Shame on you Mother of Parliaments! Shame!. Bow your head in Shame! I live for the day when you will bow your  knee to the People of England! And by the Grace of God, and the votes of the people of England I will see that day!

As the English Democrats say “Isn’t it Time to Put England First”. Yes it is and a vote for the EDP will do that. So vote English Democrat and if you do not have an EDP candidate standing in your constituency vote for a party that is a member of the “Alliance for Democracy” – there are over 260 Alliance candidates, enough to be the largest party in parliament. If enough of us are voted in to Parliament we may even be able to head off the gathering storm! But that is the view of an optimist. Hans Morgenthau was a realist, his life taught him that!

If you want to know more, and especially if you would like to make a donation go to www.hertsengdem.org. In the mean time as you vote say, to yourself or outloud, the EDP mantra: “Not Left, Not Right, Not Black, Not White, Just English!”

GHTime Code(s): b352e 08b20 96f55 48749 33df7