Power2010

And then there were three: the Power 2010 pledge

OK in depth

So ‘English Votes on English Laws’ (EVoEL) duly made it into the list of the top-five proposals for political reform that were to form the basis of the ‘Power 2010 Pledge’, which all candidates at the election were going to be asked to support. Thanks to everyone who supported it. Except that this Pledge now appears to have been unexpectedly transformed into a commitment to back only a majority (at least three) of the reforms. As EVoEL finished fourth in the poll, this has understandably led some to conclude that Power 2010 has tried to ‘fix’ the result in such a way as to sideline EVoEL, just as – some allege – its political allies tried to fix the vote itself to try to bump EVoEL out of the top five. Rather unfortunate, in this context, that Power 2010 has now adopted the phrase ‘let’s fix it, not fiddle it’ as its tag line, with the ambiguity of the word ‘fix’ that will surely provoke mockery.

I’m reminded of my previous comparison of the Power 2010 process to a TV talent show, in which thousands of celebrity wannabes are eventually whittled down to a list of finalists by a ‘public vote’, but in which the real decision makers try all sorts of ruses to make sure their favourite candidates win through. So, we thought we were down to a final list of five; but, hey, let’s allow people to commit to only three, and that way the real contenders (the top three in the public vote) will prevail. OK, that’s maybe not how the reasoning went in reality – I wasn’t a fly on the walls of the smoke-filled room (or should that be ‘smoke-free’?). But the impression of ‘no smoke without fire’ has inescapably been created, and it’s a PR disaster for Power 2010 if nothing else.

But sidestepping the issue of whether it is legitimate to concentrate on getting voters and politicians to agree to only three out of the top five, what I want to ask here is whether it is coherent. Surely, this lessens the overall impact and reforming momentum of the Pledge, which would have come from its being a joined-up programme – ‘the people’s manifesto’, if you like – which prospective MPs should have been asked to endorse, just as they assume that voters are giving them a mandate to implement their whole manifesto by marking a single cross against their name.

Shock: Unlock Democracy supports an elected second chamber

An OurKingdom conversation. [History: Gareth Young > David Rickard > this post ]

I am surprised that my email to our supporters to vote for an elected second chamber in the Power2010 poll has caused such a stir. I can see the headline now - ‘Shock: Unlock Democracy supports an elected second chamber’. Seriously, the fact that one of our priorities is an elected second chamber should be no surprise given that the first thing Unlock Democracy's predecessors Charter88 and the New Politics Network did together in 2004 in the wake of the failed free votes in the House of Commons was to launch ‘Elect the Lords’ to campaign.

Britons! Vote for England!

An OurKingdom conversation. [History: Gareth Young > this post > Peter Facey ]

Readers may be sadly familiar with the TV ad for Country Life butter, in which former punk rocker John Lydon – aka Johnny Rotten – struts around a rolling, green, English hill farm extolling the benefits of the product, concluding with the words: “it’s not about Great Britain, it’s about great butter!”

The advert uses the classic advertising technique of appearing to deny or ironise what is in fact the key selling point: Country Life’s ‘Britishness’. Maybe the advertising agency felt they needed to make a joke of it because the recent re-branding of Country Life from an ‘English butter’ to its present incarnation as a ‘British butter’, complete with Union Jack symbol on the packet replacing the former Cross of St. George, didn’t in fact go down well with customers. The ad is an appeal to those former loyal customers to return to the brand, whose Britishness is both sent up and celebrated by the symbol of 70’s working-class English ‘anarchy’ aping the aristocratic demeanour of a British imperialist: ‘we don’t have to make a fuss about the superiority of products “made in England”, do we now; we’re British, after all’.

Well, I don’t buy it. Indeed I do all I can to avoid buying English produce on whose packaging the supermarkets seem to go to such trouble to stick great big Union Flag signs and stickers: apples from Kent (‘British’); pork from East Anglia (‘British’); cheese from the West Country (‘British’) while somehow, the Welsh cheddar or the Scottish salmon seem to escape the British branding, and are clearly identified – flags and all – as Welsh and Scottish.

All of this might seem petty – it’s not about Great Britain, it’s about great food, isn’t it? – but I keep up my embargo because I object to the re-branding of England itself as Britain, sanctioned by and aped from the British establishment, of which food labelling is an apparently trivial but nonetheless ubiquitous manifestation. Our peculiar Euro-American establishment would have us English plebs need to rise above petty preoccupations with ‘national’ interest and symbolism. But below this is a fear that Englishness will become a generous, multi-racial expression of genuine national identity that pulls the rug under their global pretensions, from Afghanistan and Trident (no two-party politics on either of these) to the UN and the City.

Scottish votes on English laws

An OurKingdom conversation. [History: this post > David Rickard > Peter Facey ]

We’re now into the last week of the Power2010 online vote and there appears to be just one competition.

In fifth place with just under 4,000 votes is "A fully elected second chamber" and close behind is “English Votes on English Laws” (EvoEL) trailing by just 50. EvoEL had been in the top five for the entire duration of the online consultation until yesterday when a personal appeal from Peter Facey was sent out to all Unlock Democracy supporters calling on them to support just one reform, a fully elected second chamber. This followed on from last week’s email shot by the Campaign for the English Regions which urged their supporters to vote for any reform but EvoEL.

It is a short-sighted tactic by Peter Facey because our constitution needs to be addressed in the round, and the territorial – national – questions are vitally important not only to the future of our Union state, but also for the formulation and implementation of the other constitutional reforms on the Power2010 agenda. Taking Peter’s new favourite reform as an example, if we move to a fully elected upper house then the West Lothian Question is replicated in the second chamber which will increase England’s democratic deficit (see The Upper West Lothian Question) and make our democracy more unfair.

Short-sighted on not, those who are opposed to an English dimension to our system of government have mobilised. The question now is, do we care enough to rally to the cause of EvoEL?

3 days left to tell us how politics should change...

There's just a short time left to contribute to POWER2010, the grassroots campaign to renew and strengthen our democracy from the bottom up.  

The campaign is committed to giving everyone across the country a say in what reforms are needed to fix our politics and wants your input.  

What changes would you like to see? Submit your idea here - you have until midnight on November 30th.

Wednesday 14th October

When you're in a hole, stop digging

For anyone arguing that our rotten Westminster system needs reform, the expenses scandal is the gift that keeps on giving. Before the summer the three main parties were competing with each other to show how determined they were to clean up and reform our broken politics. Now, when the order comes from Sir Thomas Legg to pay back the mis-claimed expenses to the tax payer, we hear reports that they're ganging together across party divides in a co-ordinated attempt to refuse.

Talk about not "getting it"!

If MPs thought they could return to business as usual after their 82-day break with the expenses crisis safely behind them then they've made a dangerous mistake. Public outrage at the abuse of taxpayers' money and the shameful system of self-regulation that permitted it isn't going to go away so easily.

MPs should face up to this reality, do the decent thing and pay the money back. Their behaviour brings our humiliated democracy into even greater disrepute. The public just won't stand for it any longer. People in the UK have been switching off from formal politics for a long time and self-serving behaviour like this only makes things worse.

What is needed is real democracy, transparency and choice, so that voters set the rules and not the politicians. Power2010 has had nearly 2000 ideas already submitted by ordinary people who want to see root and branch change and we'll be challenging every candidate to commit to reform in the run up to the next general election. If MPs' recent behaviour has taught us one thing, it's that they just can't be trusted to deliver the change we need on their own.

Friday 2nd October

Ending the divine right of political parties

The following is a response to Helena Kennedy's Power2010 appeal

Dear Helena Kennedy,

I have read through your invitation and 'call to arms' for the people to take back 'power'. I fear that, as with the original 'Power' report, and as noted in the earlier interview with you, this new initiative will share the fate of that report, unless it is considerably beefed up, in order to take proper advantage of the widespread disapproval of the current political system, that has grown up with the events of the last few years.

The traditional parties are a small and declining group of self-interested individuals who have shown, time and again, that they cannot be trusted, and yet they are still permitted to maintain their position by operating as a cartel which prevents entry of other, more worthy and informed, individuals into the democratic process. Indeed, more worthy individuals are actively emasculated by the ‘whipping' process even if they do gain entry and pass through the antidemocratic selection processes.

As all - currently electable - parties are only interested in gaining and holding on to power, they are incapable of making crucially important decisions over such issues as climate change. They are also all wedded to a business/growth ideology, that is rapidly eroding the planet's ability to support humanity. The need for change is very dire: yet those who might help are excluded from taking part.

Their ‘ding dong' swap-over of near identical leaders is exploited and catalysed by the media, who treat the whole thing as little more than a game, where only three sides are permitted into the league, and where any dissent from the popularist views of the controlling groups, is pounced upon as weakness and made the subject of pejorative banner headlines. Thus the media keep the parties where they are, and prevent them from changing even if they wanted to.

It is quite disturbing that, despite the evident breakdown of democracy, clearly writ in the ‘banking' crisis, in the political response to it, and in the ‘expenses fiasco', the dominant media organisations that claim to know better, such as the BBC, are nevertheless gearing up and ‘grooming' the public for yet another change over to yet another identically incapable and self interested regime! (In the same vein, they make programmes about the failings of the ‘banking system' through greed, whilst simultaneously encouraging such gambling in endless property development programmes and in ‘news' such as the ‘UpShares Downshares' section of the Radio4 PM programme.)

I feel strongly that the party system is unfit for purpose and must be replaced with a truly democratic system. The ‘Power' report itself, did, I think, try to address some of these issues - suggestions of reforming the electoral methods and the whipping system, I recall, were made. But the report was otherwise very much operating ‘within the box' of the existing system and trying to make silk purses out of the sows' ears of the existing politicians and their parties. Indeed, now we have seen that the sows' noses were so deep in their troughs that their ears were covered and deafened in any case!

Thursday 24th September

A call from Helena Kennedy to oD's UK readers

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

Les Miserables and Power 2010

The man in the moon observing the current political scene in our country could be forgiven for concluding that our supposed leaders are competing with each other to see which of them can make us the most miserable. Egged on by the media in pre-election mode they are describing our present economic position in exaggerated and horrific terms and delight in telling us how they propose to put the situation right by ‘savage cuts', housewifely prudence and, of course, new and larger taxes.

Before long people, particularly those suffering the real misery of unemployment, whether directly or through members of their families, will notice two things. None of those leaders, including particularly those in official opposition, are anxious to accept that anything they did (or did not do) as cogs in our parliamentary system contributed to our problems. Also that their remedies presume that they should carry on as usual - and they are simply competing over who should ‘take the lead' in doing what they claim needs to be done. And that the question of whether their unchanged system might in any way be part of the problem, or might itself need to be ‘savagely' changed, is not asked. And that therefore all the leaders on offer wish to continue doing things to us - not with us.

When such pennies do drop questions will be asked and asked with increasing vigour. Questions that could include the following: Does our parliamentary system work? Can our members of parliament truly represent us if their future depends in any degree on how their party whips report to party leaders on their commitment to the party cause? Do we get the best ministers if they have to be members of either house? Why can we not have primaries before a general election? Should we have fixed term parliaments? Why not proportional representation? Why not more civic involvement in the lead up to fundamental decisions, culminating in some cases in national referendums?

Wednesday 16th September

My Power 2010 idea - short and simple

The Rowntrees backed Power 2010 coalition for the renewal of politics launched yesterday (see Guy's post). Helena Kennedy had an article in the Independent with the headline "This is our chance to seize power - it may be the last one we get". They are calling on everyone to send in their ideas for reforms that will make a difference. Over 100 came in on the first day. You can post your ideas and proposals HERE on the new Power 2010 website and back it up with a video too. I'll be writing more about this important development. But here is the proposal I just sent in:

No More Lords - no more peers to be appointed to the Lords. None. Busta! Because people want to see an end to corruption and backhanders and the crony appointments to the Lords is the main source of corruption in British politics. Unless we stop them now there will be a tranche of Blairite riff raff all saying they have to serve out the rest of their lives there or get compensation. It is a simple demand with big implications and would provide a clear expression of public contempt for the status quo.

 

Tuesday 15th September

Interview with Helena Kennedy QC about the launch of POWER2010

Blogger Mark Reckons has interviewed Helena Kennedy, Chair of POWER2010, the new campaign for democratic reform which launches today. POWER2010 is a bottom-up campaign which asks members of the public to submit and vote on their ideas for fixing our broken politics - the most popular will become the Power2010 pledge to be used to persuade and audit candidates and parties at the next election.

I'm working full-time on the campaign and hope to be blogging regularly on its progress and the different ideas it generates here. In this interview Helena Kennedy explains to Mark how the campaign will work and how we hope it will succeed:

POWER2010 sounds like an interesting campaign for political obsessives like me but why do you think this will succeed in a way that previous ones perhaps haven't? For example as far as I can tell, despite all the hard work of you and your colleagues, almost none of the original Power Inquiry key recommendations have been implemented three and a half years on.

There have been, as you say, many campaigns over the past few decades which have tried - in various ways - to get democratic and constitutional reform realised. I have been involved with many of them. You are right - despite the welcome the Power Inquiry report received - little has changed. I think you have identified the problem very accurately. In the end we have been reliant on politicians - those with power to implement reforms - reforms which in most cases will see them losing Power. And - they just can't take that!

So despite fine words, things don't change. But I do believe that change can happen. Look at how the Scottish Parliament came about - we needed an Act of Parliament and for MPs to vote for change. But they were persuaded in favour of the Parliament in the end because of the campaign in Scotland which involved civil society and real people and over years persisted and changed the culture in which that conversation was taking place. We need to do the same now.

Syndicate content