Britain's politics is in trouble. And it's not hard to see where the problem lies.
Our politicians abuse expenses. They pay fines when they break their own laws – but stay in their jobs.
We need to take back control -- of our government, of our politics, and of our democracy. That's why we've started POWER2010, a new movement that will reinvigorate our politics from the bottom up.
Do you believe power should rest with the voters and not with politicians? Click here to sign our declaration for change.
It's too late for us to bring change to our current set of MPs, but the general elections are coming up. We can make sure that the next Parliament is a reforming one -- and we want you to play a leading role in making sure that happens.
First and foremost, democracy is about the involvement of the people -- people like you and me. We need to act to take power from the hands of the politicians and put it back in ours where it belongs.
Our movement is young – but growing. This is our chance: I hope you take it by signing our declaration for change:
http://www.power2010.org.uk/Declaration
Together we can fix our politics.
Thank you and best wishes,
Helena Kennedy
POWER 2010 Chair
A call from Helena Kennedy to oD's UK readers
This article is published by Helena Kennedy, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.
Comments
Helena,
Are all there any limits to what you will call for? For instance, I don't feel that a UK Parliament and Government can ever be reformed in order to represent me to my satisfaction. I want an English parliament and English government, but I fear that you won't consider this. I do, of course, want other reforms (electoral reform; fewer politicians; more free votes/less whips' power; an end to cronies in the HoL; employers to give extended lunch hours on election days to encourage voting, as they do in Canada; stronger local government; either a parliament that fiercely upholds its sovereignty, or we drive a coach and horses through parliamentary sovereignty and privilege altogether; etc.) But all this will be fannying around with a system of government whose very configuration is wrong, it's like rearranging the chairs on the British Titanic while the passengers are jumping into Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish lifeboats (and the English too, if they had a lifeboat).
There is an interesting discussion on just this subject in the Guardian lead by V Bogdanor. Points made include the way the 2-3 main parties have fixed the system in their favour for so long ie
the whip system - should be outlawed
FPTP voting - should go to STV and PR
the media - far too concentrated
despite the fix, the number of voters collectively voting for the main parties is steadily declining and looks likely to continue to do so. The alternative parties are coming up fast and that is good for democracy.
The political gangs in the British parliament will never allow any real change to the game because it is by these rules that they dominate. Remember the way Blair promised to introduce PR and then dropped it.
In the new national parliaments of Scotland and Wales , PR is the rule and it works and is popular. The British wiill never allow PR in their parliament. England needs her own parliament away from Westminster and a new political start unsullied by the stale British class.
I have no doubt , if we can shake off the seedy old crooks of Westminster , the English will opt enthusiastically for PR and a far more genuine democracy
I think the central aspect to the curruption of British politics is certainly money, but I don't think MPs' expenses is the cause of the damage. I don't think there's a single MP that sought election to get a discount on a second home. The problem is financing of political parties and the revolving door between government posts and private companies.
I don't know what the solution is but, Helena, this should be the focus of your debate.
Lord Ashcroft. A personal fortune of close to £1 billion. An investment of several million pounds into the Conservative party will surely seal their electoral victory next year and ensure Ashcroft friendly tax legislation. His generous bankrolling of the Tories will surely save him millions more in the long run. For what rich investor would back a party promising tax reform?
I signed the declaration but I share Toque's concerns: my 'big idea' - not especially original - was that there should be a referendum of the English people on the creation of an English parliament. I'm worried that a political and constitutional reform process targeting 'national-UK' politics may not address the English Question and will therefore fail to deal with the largest democratic deficit of them all in the present system.
It all boils down to who one thinks the 'we the people' are that are grabbing back power: the British people or the English people?
Absolute rubbish .
The problem with the current government is that its Fabian socialism has not been Fabian (i.e. concealed , delayed or camouflaged) enough .
Those whom it now rules have seen through its transparently anti-democratic ideology , except for those directly employed in its perpetuation .
Several generations of obscurity will be its , and Helena Kennedy's , just reward .
The Cornish are ready for change: http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom/philip-hosking/2009/09/18/cornwall-forward Mebyon Kernow being the only party in the Duchy to stand firm on radical democratic renewal. The Cornish Democrat
Comments on this debate topic have many sides. It has ethnic and democracy theory dimensions. 'Britologywatch' makes the first clear, whereas the second is spotted here and there. In practice, on both the Britain we know is relative if explained comparatively. Democracy is a damn thing and can be exploited and yet we need it - aren't there senses of approximations?
Say this is abstract! Whatever the choice of reform rightly needed - not only in Britain, those working for it have much by scanning in order to reduce what makes democracy problematic under any political party.
Greek city states - the source of our model, had enough of its problems. Have we really learned from history? We might have overcome many of the hinders, but always after second thoughts. Democracy and the entrenched interests of birth rights and wealth; its depreciation? because of interests of the poor; notion of competence in politics - what damns it: uneasy coexistence of it with political equality and social and economic inequality, challenges of freedom of speech, equality before the law, and its dependence on communal senses of identity. Are these worthy guidelines in the ongoing debate, even if touched upon in different senses now and then. Can we locate the people in above?
Election fever is truly high now in Britain. Because of the need to avoid putting a new win into an old bottle it seems enticing to join from a distance to argue for fundamental concerns to reform democracy in practice so that 'change' as a needed objective is not just a manipulative word.
First and foremost, democracy is about the involvement of the people -- people like you and me. We need to act to take power from the hands of the politicians and put it back in ours where it belongs.
This is yet another belch of platitudes.
78% of people in England do not want regions - we have them.
66+% of people in England want an English Parliament - we don't have one.
England and her ancient counties are forcibly being replaced with reviled regions.
This is a concerted attack on England and English culture and traditions.
Even that is not enough, on every measure the people of England are disadvantaged: education, healthcare, social care, democracy etc. You name it, the English always get the worst deal in a virtual apartheid system.
To hell with the UK, long live England!
Toque is right. The English have no control over the government that rules them. Legislation such as foundation hospitals, top-up tuition fees, changes in the planning laws, even the proposed 3rd runway at Heathrow, were all rejected by a majority of English MPs but carried with the Govt's lobby fodder from Scotland and Wales. When even a Labour veteran such as Lord Foulkes calls for England to have its own parliament, we know that this reform is long overdue. Sadly, this is on a par with the Govt's disgraceful stewardship of our our democracy. Its 'previous' includes a shoddy fraud-prone system of postal voting, careless disposal of of the ancient office of Lord Chancellor, changing the rules for Bernie Eccleston...it is clear that the Govt cares nothing for democracy, the constitution or justice.
The case of England is argued with nationalistic passion: is it all about absence of an English parliament? Is the feeling simply that Westminster usurps the latter, with result that unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the English feel they are robbed on representation? Is the absence of English parliament the sole source of discontent? To correct history could also benefit from a tender approach. Some current debates adopt acrimonious-like tones. For an on-looker who cherishes the 'unitary' language "Great Britain", there is a sense of nervousness whether this is the beginning of the end! It would be sad. Reshaping a democracy that people see as embedded might mean raising real sober questions, but that need not resort to dismemberment or loosening-up the unitary state. Economic downturn and good governance could be driven too with truly sober lessons: "divided we fall but united we stand". Excuse me if I am wrong! Help people make sense with "unity in diversity".
No it is about the existance of England and the even more controversial issue of the existance of the English. A Parliament denied us, is by inference denial of our existance as a people and a country.
Elements of the current government are on record first denying the existance of the English and then, when forced to accept their existance, proclaiming they are all violent thugs in need of good non-English government to keep them civilised.
Today when members of the government and media say "Britain" or "the country" they are often mentioning subjects that apply only to England or at best England and Wales. They avoid saying England, they do not think to say England, they go so far as to say on occaison "In the nation except Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales". They do anything to avoid saying England.
Now, if this was being done to say in Ghana and their media and politicans were not mentioning the Ashanti, doing everything to avoid mentioning them, having government ministers denying even their existance. What would you call that?
Does Helena Kennedy read this or are we just talking to ourselves?
I find myself agreeing, insofar as agreeing means anything, with Toque and Efana (and perhaps everyone!). Overall, there is so much in favour of 'unity in diversity' (and there'll always be 'unity in diversity', even in the individual). And I'm a convinced EU-supporter. Perhaps a strong overarching unity, the sort of relatively benevolent despotism we have in the UK, is the greatest protection from dreadful chaos, unless we want to do a Dostoevsky and have a real, interesting mess. Imperfect as they may be, I have so much respect and admiration for the Scandinavian countries, for the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg - my ideal would be their sort of imperfection, as perfection is to be avoided. It's good to be in a united island of Great Britain (apologies to Northern Island - no slight is intended, just a geographical statement) and to know that over in France there's a Little Britain, Brittany. I have strong views on what the French state has allowed to be done to its own once (and still quite) wonderful cultural and particularly linguistic diversity, but there are worse things. Gentle progress: fixed-term governments, fairer voting system (I haven't much idea what that would be, has the one we have been so catastrophic? - it all needs discussing seriously), the working-out of a Constitution, a feeling of trust in those who represent us, even a start on any of that would help me leave life with a smile, and a feeling things wouldn't be too bad for my children, though they'll look after that themselves. And I do hope we carry on making mistakes, as that's the only way we learn, and then the next generation will...
I wish I could sign up for something that would magically put right what has gone wrong, but surely the aspirations are rather vague and open to interpretation. When 80% of our legislation is made by the European Union and simply imposed, we should surely be asking what our own political class are for? They are elected but they do not make the laws any more. But they pretend to us that they are in charge and are making laws. Does a commitment to 'grassroots', 'bottom-up' etc mean that we should re-introduce capital punishment if the majority want it? Does it mean referenda all the time to decide laws (which means we have to leave the EU because the EU has already made clear to Switzerland that it has to give up its tradition of these votes if it ever wants to join, which it doesn't, of course).
It is pointless talking about fixing our governmental system, because we have been subjugated by the foreign power of eu, all these overpaid puppets do is ratify regulations dumped on to us by the unelected commisars of the eu.
My reply to Ms Kennedy is here:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/steve_hawkins/divine_right_of_political_parties#comment-515451
As it was a bit long for a comment.
Personally I'm not particularly concerned about the need for an English parliament - the fewer authorities I have to keep track of the better I think, and the island of Britain itself is a sensible geographic unit - as indeed is the island of Ireland, but that is getting off the immediate point. (Perhaps it might be better to house Parliament somewhere more central though.) That said Ian Campbell highlights some of the issues that have led me to morph from an environmental campaigner to a more political one.
(Lawrence Effana though, can't be a home wine maker: those old bottles - the ones you have proven can be trusted not to explode, poison you or the wine - are the best. Just be sure to sterilize them before refilling!)
Where is Ms Kennedy anyway?
S
Post new comment