We are not a true democracy until we have information and real choice
Heather Brooke won a High Court battle for the publication of MPs’ expense claims. She runs the blog www.yrtk.org
Democracy is made up of an informed electorate.
It sounds simple but let me deconstruct this. We need information to be informed and we need the ability to exercise our vote in a meaningful way to be a valid electorate. In the current set up we get neither and thus we cannot honestly call the UK a democracy.
Our public servants hoard information with a stubbornness last seen when Charlton Heston addressed the National Rifle Association saying the day he’d give up his gun was the day it was prised from his cold, dead hands. It was about that difficult prising from MPs their expense receipts.
Part of the reason I battled for the release of MPs’ expense claims was that I believed the public had every right to be informed about how their elected officials were spending public money in the course of their public duties. I wasn’t seeking state secrets, just expenses which can only be claimed “wholly, necessarily and exclusively in discharging their duties as Members”. However, MPs and their civil servants thought such transparency was beyond the pale and they spent even more public money fighting for four years to stop me.
I remember sitting in an Information Tribunal hearing back in February 2008 listening to Andrew Walker the head of the Fees Office trying to explain to my lawyer how he thought constituents could in any way be making an informed voting decision about their MP when they lacked the most basic information about their MPs accountability.
“MPs should be allowed to carry on their duties free from interference,” he told us. There you have it – you pesky constituents – in the world of Parliament you are an annoying interference getting in the way of the important business of being an MP. He honestly seemed to think that voting once every five years for someone pre-selected and without even the most basic information was enough.
It’s not. Not by a long shot. We need public bodies to understand they work for us and the information they collect in our name and at our expense belongs to us not them. Only then can we make any kind of informed decision.
Now that we’ve seen what lay behind MPs’ cries of ‘privacy’ and ‘security’ we are in a much better position when it comes time to casting our votes. That so many MPs have chosen to stand down reveals that what they’ve done will not stand up to public scrutiny.
But will we get the new kind of MPs we want to see: A new generation of technically savvy candidates committed to the people and not a political party? That’s unclear because unless the system of choosing political candidates is changed it’s just the same old favouritism and patronage that parachutes people from the strategy unit to a safe seat.
Currently candidates are selected not because they’ve built up a reputation as leaders in particular constituencies or proven themselves as sound leaders of merit, but because they’ve sucked up to the right politically powerful people. These people then give them the nod and the MP is put forward to be voted on by a tiny, totally unrepresentative party elite. As it was the party that put the MP in position, it is to the party to whom the MP is ultimately loyal. If we want MPs to work for us then it must be us who selects them. We need a role in the selection of candidates. That’s why I’m supporting the campaign to hold open primaries for all MPs.
I have one final suggestion for reform. Publish all party whips. These are the party’s instructions to all their MPs telling them how to vote. A one-line whip offers a suggestion on how to vote but a three-line whip is an outright threat and if the MP rebels his career will effectively be over.
Reform in a nutshell: freedom of information, open primaries and publishing the party whip. If we get that right then we might actually get MPs working for us and not political party bosses.
1Kevin Mowbray
wrote on 20 October 2009 at 17:36
They are safe seats beacause people are too apathetic to inquire or vote for other choices, the media only reports the larger parties because of tight budgets and time schedules. If the ‘people’ did not blindly vote for the big parties then the MPs would need to take us into concideration.
My suggestion, ban parties and the whips.
2Brian Mitchell
wrote on 29 October 2009 at 13:36
I can’t see how we can talk of democracy in a socio-econimic society where some 85 percent of that society’s wealth is owned by only some 6 percent of that society. Can you? I think it was Aneurin Bevan (founder of the NHS) who said that power in Britain is not in Parliament; real power in Britain is located two miles to the East of Parliament, in the financial and commercial City of London. What do you think?
3Edward Devoy
wrote on 19 November 2009 at 16:42
Edward and Tony Devoy
It’s Democracy Jim but not as we know it.
Changing politics for the better for we the people:
How about having true Democracy at the next election, and have our politicians act on behalf of we the people.
Our elected representatives MP’s and Local Authorities actually working for the benefit and at the behest of we the people. As Democracy intended, For the people by the people.
Through a web presence individual citizens could put forward ideas to improve life for all citizens at local and national level.
For instance, on a local level, if someone was to suggest that Council tax should be halved to bring it to a reasonable level, we the people would vote and if the vote was unanimous, As representatives of we the people Our elected MP’s would canvass the local authority to act on the will of the people and would name and shame any elected councillor or civil servant acting against the will of we the people. The people working in opposition to we the people would by consensus of the people be removed from their positions.
After all he who pays the piper should call the tune.
Unlike at present where the Council dictate often in an oppressive manner to we the people.
We will put the power where it should be, in the hands of we the people.
We would now have an actual civil service instead of the uncivil dictators we now have.
On a National level, if someone was to put forward abolition of the TV licence fee. If the vote was unanimous. Our elected MP’s would canvas Parliament to carry out the wishes of we the people, if Parliament was to refuse, our elected MP’s would then start a nationwide campaign if enough votes were cast and Parliament made the decision not to act, Our MP’s would then call for civil disobedience on the basis that the Government of the day was acting against the will of we the people.
In a true Democracy Government is by the people for the people.
At all times people would be able to vote for or against changes of these sorts and would be able to put forward their own ideas, we the people would have what we have never had in this Country, Democracy.
This would I am sure cause many problems in the political arena in the short term, but nothing that could not be sorted.
It would empower we the people.
Those who now feel disaffected and those who suffer from political apathy would now have a voice, they would not feel their vote was a wasted vote.
It would breathe new life into the political strata of life and politics would no longer be the preserve of the elite for their own benefit to the detriment of we the people.
It is time to take away the power of politics from the politicians and give it to the people to whom it belongs.
Re Council Tax: Our personal thought is that the council tax should be much lower than half.
Re The Licence Fee, we believe it should be abolished but are not averse to providing money from general taxation, while working towards self sufficiency.