We came across this quote recently - sadly we have forgotten its author and its origin, but it expresses very well the situation in which we find ourselves in this country today ...
In modern democracies unelected bodies now take many of the detailed policy decisions that affect people’s lives, untangle key conflicts of interest for society, resolve disputes over the allocation of resources and even make ethical judgements in some of the most sensitive areas. By contrast, our elected politicians often seem ill-equipped to deal with the complexities of public policy, lightweight in the knowledge they bring to bear, masters not of substance but of spin and presentation and skilled above all in avoiding being blamed for public mishaps.
As the scandal of the outrageous behaviour of our MPs progresses, new revelations shock us every day. The majority of us have been brought up to believe in the old-fashioned virtues of fairness, of self-regulating honesty, of straight-forward speaking and consideration for others. We take a pride in doing our jobs well, we apply common-sense to everything we do, and we try at least to see the other bloke's point of view in every argument.
We expect others to take the same attitudes towards us, and are incensed if they don't. We bring up our children to respect authority where that authority is worthy of respect, to be obedient to authority when that authority warrants obedience, and to question authority when that authority seems to act inappropriately. We believe that is their right, and we believe, perhaps naively, that our fathers and our grandfathers fought two world wars to maintain that right.
It's only natural, therefore, that we become angry when we see those we have elected - or, more often, have not elected, since all governments represent the minority - flout those principles. We are furious as each day newspaper headlines tell us of some fresh outrage, of this MP who "flips" his homes to extract the maximum financial benefit, of that MP who uses public money for frivolous private enjoyment, of others who are plainly enjoying at our expense the kind of lifestyle most of us can only dream of.
And we become even more enraged when they ignore our justified complaints, and that is exactly what they are doing, and what they fully intend to keep on doing.
True enough, some have fallen on their swords - mainly those who were fed up with it anyway, or who have plenty of other irons in the fire to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed, or who were an embarrassment to their party leaders. Others have apologised, though what the point of this is escapes me. Modern politics seems to be obsessed with apologies, as though they solve anything. It's easy enough to say "sorry". Politicians do it, and assume that everything will just go away and that we'll sink back into acquiescent slumber and let them carry on as before. "Sorry we let you down", "sorry we cheated you and stole from you", "sorry we failed to represent you which is the job we were appointed to" just don't cut it, do they? Most of us aren't interested in "sorry" - what we want is to see these bastards on a rostrum in a public place with a sharpened stick up their bums.
But along with the daily newspaper revelations there is another ongoing undercurrent, one of containment. The establishment are closing ranks, they are negotiating, they are plotting, they have cosy little meetings in small rooms at Westminster, they are engaging in damage limitation. They announce changes in the expenses system, then allow themselves to get embroiled in lengthy discussion and consultation about those changes in the hope that in time we'll all cool down and find something else to worry about so they can just go back quietly to their old ways. The leaders threaten their followers with dire consequences, throw one or two expendables to the wolves, and sit back smugly, thinking that we'll admire their forthright action. They appear on television and make soothing statements to the press in the hope that we'll be lulled by their reasonable statesmanship and slip back into our usual lethargy. They tantalise us by wiggling the idea of electoral reform in front of our eyes, but we all know they'll never allow it to happen, because of course only the first-past-the-post system guarantees the major parties a majority some of the time. Personally we can't see what's so awful about the idea of a hung parliament; at least it would see off some of the absurd legislation we've had over the last ten years or so.
The sad thing is, they're probably right.
And what of their conduct when engaged in their proper business? You know, those brief periods between ripping us off and feathering their own nests, when they actually do some parliamentary business? The job we pay them to do? Watch the rather pathetic television coverage of parliament, and see how much business is conducted with about a dozen members in the chamber. Or on those rare occasions when quite a few of them bother to turn up, how they behave like a mob of unruly children, baying and jeering and catcalling. Go to virtually any meeting of real people, the school annual parents' meeting, a company AGM or a meeting in the village hall to protest about the new bypass, and you'll see far more adult behaviour. Mother of Parliaments, my arse.
We prate long and hard about "Western democracy" and how wonderful it is compared to any other system, but the hard fact is that we don't have a democracy in this country, and what paltry semblance of it we do have, isn't working. No government since WW2 has had the support of more than 35% or 40% of the electorate (we don't know what happened before that, and frankly can't be bothered to find out. What's the point?) which means that at all times we are ruled by a government most of us voted against. Where's the democracy in that?
And most recently the arrogance of our politicians has made them feel free to discard even the paltry semblance of democracy, and they have started putting into positions of colossal power their friends who haven't been elected by anybody. The presence of people like Alan Sugar, Peter Mandelbum and Glenys Kinnock in the circles of government is a cool, calculated affront to the voting public - "we don't think you're capable of electing the right people, so we're just going to nominate who we like, and sod you!"
Nor does the "sod you" mentality stop there, and nor is it restricted to this country. We are all aware of the determination in Brussels that the new European Constitution will be adopted whether the people of Ireland vote for it or not. In this country, of course, we won't even get a vote. And at home this dictatorial "we know best" attitude rules supreme. Most of us want immigration restricted. It isn't. Most of us want weekly refuse collections. We won't get them. Most of us don't want gigantic wind-farms in our backyards or on our beaches, but we'll get them. Most of us don't want our children's heads filled with gay rights and Brain Gym ("yawning leads to increased oxidation for efficient relaxed functioning" - oxidation is rust, for God's sake!) or tested to exhaustion every five minutes, we just want them sat in straight rows, made to behave themselves and taught to read and write properly. Most of us recognise that the idea of man-made global warming is dead in the water, but there's money and power to be had from it so the corrupt and dishonest IPCC still has the full endorsement of our government. Few of us want road-charging, believing that we've already paid for the roads, but the idea still hasn't disappeared from the political agenda. Most of us hate the idea of ID cards, but they're still on track.
No, we say again, democracy isn't working. We would be better governed by almost any other system just at the moment. The Swiss system of referenda on major issues may be cumbersome, but at least people can feel that their views on the government of their own country actually count. Our own system isn't exactly neat and efficient, is it? And no one gives a toss what we think.
If the Queen abolished parliament and started organising things herself, she could hardly do it worse. If the House of Commons disappeared into a deep black hole (we wish, oh we wish!) and only the House of Lords were left, we'd probably be a lot better off. Most of them may have inherited their seats from their dads, have far too much money and an Eton education, but I bet they can spot a damn silly idea when they see it which is more than most MPs can. The army would do it better, Jeremy Clarkson would do it better. The Archbishop of Canterbury would do it better (well no, not him, he's a nutter. That nice Pakistani who used to be Bishop of Rochester would be all right, though). For God's sake, we could do it better ourselves!
And, as a welcome bonus, any of these options would be a damn sight cheaper.
It made a great impression on us when we read some years ago that there has never been a major constitutional change in this country that was not preceded by either a major war or civil violence. It's very sad to think that the only way this mess is ever going to change is if we go out on the streets and start bashing some coppers' heads in. After all, most of them are just as pissed off as we are, so why should they suffer?
But it's all right, we won't do that, will we? We won't do it because we're grown ups.
And greedy, unreasonable, childish behaviour is strictly the prerogative of our masters at Westminster.
Bastards.
The GOS says: I suppose most of us can think of an electoral system that would be better than the one we've got. Here's my proposal ...
Divide the country into County Councils, District Councils and Parish Councils much as it is at present.
Each street in every town, or each village in the countryside, elects one resident to represent them on the Parish Council. Pay each Parish Councillor a small salary.
Each Parish Council elects one of its number to represent it on the District Council. This District Councillor selects one of his colleagues to carry out his Parish Council duties and look after his constituents in addition to their own, thus earning additional salary. Pay each District Councillor a slightly larger salary.
Each District Council elects one (possibly two) of its number to represent it on the County Council. This County Councillor selects one of his colleagues to carry out his District Council duties in addition to their own, thus earning additional salary. Pay each County Councillor a still larger salary.
Each County Council elects two or three or four of its number to represent it in Parliament. These MPs select some of their County Council colleagues to carry out their County Council duties in addition to their own, for which they would be paid fairly. Pay each MP a reasonable salary for the job, plus a mileage allowance, with free accommodation in a hostel when they have to be in London.
Parliament as a whole elects one of their own number to be Prime Minister, although no doubt the party system will come into play in canvassing for this election and, for that matter, elections at District and County levels as well.
Repeat this process automatically every five years.
The advantages?
• Every single MP is a genuine resident of the area he or she represents, and every single one of them has been elected, in the first place, by neighbours who know him or her personally. And each one presumably has a house in their constituency and doesn't need a second one.
• The stranglehold of the party system is broken, at least in part. Parties will still exist, in the form of Councillors or MPs with similar views who group together to canvass for the election of their favoured candidates. This can be a useful and practical thing; these elections have to be organised somehow.
• The power of the whips is also severely diminished, as MPs must at all times keep an eye on the wishes of the people who elected them. If your neighbours in your street don't like what you're doing with their mandate, you'll be out on your ear, so never mind what the party whips want you to do.
• No need for complicated proportional representation or preference voting systems. Every citizen is represented by a specific, named Councillor at every tier of the system. Now that is democracy!
One further idea. The mechanism already exists in law for a group of citizens who can get enough signatures together to force a referendum on any subject - but only at local level, and councils are not bound to obey the results. Why not extend this principle to county and national levels, and give it some teeth while we're at it?
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2009 The GOS