What a 21st century democracy might look like

In the last few articles on this blog I talked about some of the political problems we are facing in Britain today and how these could be addressed through a citizens convention on the constitution, which would ultimately produce the first ever written constitution of Britain. The peoples constitution. There will of course be much opposition from the political elites and others to accepting this new constitution, most of whom are very comfortable with the way things are at the moment, thank you very much. They will not just hand over their privileged positions and power because the people have come up with a better idea. I don’t know how we get around this problem, but strongly believe someone will know how we can force the hands of the political elites to carry out the will of the people.

So assuming we have found a way and the peoples constitution has been enshrined in UK law, what might this new democratic society look like? Parliament could be moved to a more central location, in an existing building that is renovated for the purpose. Westminster palace could be sold off to be developed into much needed affordable social housing. Both the House of Lords and local councils might be abolished and it’s role passed to new constituency councils that would be set up in each of the 650 existing constituencies in UK. Members of constituency councils could be made up of democratically elected local constituents. The councils would hold the balance of power on behalf of their constituents. Annual spending budgets would be prepared by council departments and voted on by the constituents. Full details of public spending would be made publicly available online and in hard copy by the constituency councils, who will also provide regular updates on local spending at their monthly meetings. Any constituent may attend and vote at any meeting of the council, to raise an issue, or hold the council to account.

MP’s could be held accountable to their constituents through the local constituency council, who will be enabled to discipline their MP as they see fit, including sacking of the MP if deemed appropriate. In circumstances where the council deems there are grounds for dismissal of their MP, all local constituents will have a vote on this. MP’s will be required to attend council meetings at least bi monthly, where they will present a report on their work in parliament. Full details of MP’s expenses will be made publicly available on the constituency councils website. MP’s will be given a salary equal to the national average wage, with the opportunity to earn an annual bonus based on performance. Constituency councils will make a recommendation on the value of the bonus and constituents will vote on whether or not to award that bonus. By attending council meetings, MP’s will be able to obtain feedback on how their constituents would wish them to vote on a particular issue. As any constituent could attend any council meeting, this would help to close the divide between MP’s and their constituents.

Control and ownership of public assets would lay with the people of Britain. In the event of parliament proposing to sell off a publicly owned asset, it would have to first produce a report outlining the reasons for this proposal, including a full cost benefit analysis of the sale. This report would then be passed to all constituency councils, who would analyse it and make a recommendation based on it’s constituents best interests. Constituents would then vote on whether or not to sell the proposed asset. This would prevent the disastrous outcomes for the taxpayer we have been seeing over the past thirty years or more, where successive governments have sold off our publicly owned companies and other assets without consulting us and at vast losses to the public purse. Too many once great British companies that were making profits and annual contributions to society through taxes have been sold for less than their true market value. This is at least a contributory factor to our falling productivity output levels.

In a new democratic society Britain would no longer pander to the ever increasing demands of multi national corporations. We the people would dictate the terms and conditions of all corporations being allowed to trade in Britain. Most fundamental I suggest, would be an agreement to pay all taxes that and when they become due. Company directors would be made personally liable for the actions of their corporation. Anyone company or individual not paying their taxes would be dealt with using the full extent of the law. The same treatment would apply trading in a way that might cause damage to our environment. Any corporation wishing to trade in Britain will be made welcome and we will support them, but along with those benefits comes the expectation that they will respect our laws and our society. The ultimate sanction for a corporation breaking our laws would be the removal of their licence to trade in Britain. Participation in full country by country reporting and a public register of corporate ownership would also be conditions of trading in a new democratic society.

Each constituency council would have responsibility for properly enforcing the national minimum wage within it’s borders. The national minimum wage would be increased to a living wage. Any employer found to be paying someone less than the national minimum wage will in the first instance be issued with a formal forming. Constituency councils will have a range of sanctions available to them, with the ultimate sanction being the removal of the employers licence to trade. The national minimum wage would apply equally to anyone entitled to work in UK, help to tackle the growing problem of people living in poverty, give workers a sense of self worth, pride and value in the work they do, increase household incomes, increase tax revenues which could be spent on public spending and eventually eliminate the need for top up benefits such as tax credits and housing benefits for low income workers. There is an estimated £85billion per year of public money being spent on subsidising big corporations that pay low wages.

Power and control would be moved away from a centralised government and into the hands of constituency councils, with British citizens holding the ultimate balance of power and control. The role of parliament might be to draft, debate and vote on new legislation as it sees fit. Bills passed by parliament would then be handed over to constituency councils for review, amendments and voting on the bill. Councils may decide to pass the bill to it’s constituents for a vote and no bill may become law without approval of at least two thirds of the constituency councils. Bills relating to matters of national interest and votes on a proposal from government to take us to war would have to go to a national referendum. This would be a truly democratic Britain, run by the people, on behalf of the people.  

A call for a new British constitution

Once upon a time we had a great British value of looking after each other. There was a real sense of comradeship and some fundamental values like we look after our own. I am involved in a political campaign at the minuite about fair taxes and the attacks, insults and vileness that I have witnessed from those who oppose our campaign has been horrendous. The insults that have been spread about Jeremy Corbyn and those who support him in the current labour leadership campaign are just toxic. What happened to the great British right to freedom of speech? What happened to mutual respect? What happened to each to his/her own opinion? But perhaps most important of all, where did this need to attack, insult and discredit anyone and anything that believes or aspires to something different that what “I” believe? To a great degree, we appear to have lost those great British values we once held and it is to the detriment of us all.

This toxicity has even become a normal part of our political system. Long gone are the days of having a debate, each putting their point of view across, while respecting that of the others and then coming to a consensus. In the recent election campaign we never got to hear what each party fundamentally stand for, or how they will fix the problems our society face. The majority of the campaigns from the main political parties was about playing the blame game, pointing the finger at someone else, nobody accepting responsibility for anything and discrediting the policies of their opposers. Our government is about to launch phase two of it’s idealistic and completely unnecessary austerity program, despite warnings from within their own party, the IMF and leading economists. A program that will unleash massive suffering on the poor, disabled and most vulnerable on our society. They claim to have a mandate of the people, but only 24% of the electorate voted for them and I doubt many of them even know the effects the governments policies will have.

Our government wonders why young Muslim men and women are leaving Britain to fight for ISIS is Syria, blaming the Muslim communities and our security forces. They do not think to look at how divided our society is and the effects of the toxic messages it spreads, or the sometimes illegal wars it has participated in around the world. Through attempts to attack our fundamental human rights, on disabled people and the vulnerable through cuts to welfare, sustained attempts to privatise our NHS, participation in wars, selling off our public assets and privatising everything we once owned, Great Britain has lost it’s greatness. We have sold off the values we once stood for, like free healthcare, taking care of the sick and elderly, public ownership of our railways and producing British products. Successive governments have sacrificed those Great British institutions and values at the altar of neo-liberalism and a free market economy. They have gone to war, not to protect our values, but to impose them on others who hold different values. Collectively, they have created a society that is not open to new ideas and beliefs, in fact we now systematically attack anyone and anything that opposes, or thinks differently to what we as individuals believe. Having sold off almost everything we own, our government is now turning us against each other through their political game playing and lies.

Our political system is broken. It is no longer fit for purpose and has all but cost us our standing as a democratic state. We need change and our current political system is unable to deliver the vast changes we need, if we want to become Great Britain again. That means we will have to scrap our current system and go back to the drawing board with a blank sheet of paper and redesign for kind of British society I believe we all want. A society that will reinstate those once Great British values of freedom of speech, mutual respect for others, the concept of real communities that share, welcome and learn from those with individual believes other than our own and we look after people, including those who are not able to look after or pay their own way for whatever reason. The kind of society where the people hold the power and make the decisions rather than big multi national corporations. Where all businesses pay their fair share in contributing to society, rather than artificially shifting their profits to an offshore tax haven. A society that upholds and protects it’s citizens fundamental human rights, rather than trying to abolish them. One that will provide jobs for everyone, in whatever sector they want to work in. Adequate housing of a decent standard could also be a basic standard of our new society. As too could a good standard of education for anyone, whatever their age. We could make our politicians truly accountable to us, with the ability to sack any politician found to be breaking the rules. In fact we could have whatever we want, that would enable us to create the kind of society we want to live in.

The way we can have it is through a new British constitution. I suggest it should become the first ever written first British constitution, enshrined in law and unbreakable. A constitution sets the rules by which the state operates and how it relates to the people. In a new constitution we could remake and rebuild the make up of the state. We could build new ones and abolish those that no longer serve our democratic purpose. We could improve or redesign the state, from the monarchy, state administration, including quangos and the bank of England, police, military, justice system, education system, health, to our political system. Britain is one of the few countries in the world that does not have a written constitution, so we could design and produce the first ever written British rule book, which would outline how we want our society to be. It would be a step towards creating a fairer and more democratic society for all.

Parliament has already demonstrated it’s inability and unwillingness to provide the change we need, through it’s refusal to reform our voting system for example. It therefore falls to us the British people to enact a new written British constitution. So I add my voice to people such as John Mc Donnell MP and organisations like Unlock Democracy who have called for a convention on the constitution. This should be a people’s convention, organised by the people, for the people. We could have keynote speakers to talk about what a constitution is, what is might look like and what it could achieve. There might then be break up groups, with each given a topic to discuss and make keynotes on. I would support the idea of one convention for the whole of Britain, where all people would be invited to come and join in the discussion. This would become a huge movement of British people, coming together to debate and discuss how we want to be government and the roles each part of the state will have in a more democratic British society.

The end result would be the first ever written British constitution. Written by the people, for the people.

Legislation of fiscal surpluses is both unnecessary and unwise.

Our chancellor’s new plan to legislate fiscal surpluses is an attempt to return Britain to Victorian values. He has even revived the Victorian Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt (a body that last met in 1860). His justification or rational is that the crisis was due to Labour’s irresponsible borrowing when it was in office. The opposition cannot be trusted unless it admits its guilt and promises to follow Mr Osborne’s guidelines. Social democracy would be neutered, forever. But the fundamental message here that labour has never been able to portray is that Mr Osborne’s accusation is a lie. The reason we have £1.5trillion of debt is not because labour were irresponsible with the nations credit card in order to reduce child poverty, enhance public services, or give young people leaving school with few/no qualifications a better chance in life.

Instead, the vast majority of our national debt, £1.3trillion in fact has come from bailing out the banks, following the 2008 global financial crisis that the banks caused trough their irresponsible lending and activities in the shadow banking market. Worse still, having lumbered the banks debt onto the British taxpayer, the chancellor has failed to impose proper regulations on the banks and allowed them to continue with business as usual. It is because of the banks debts, which they caused, that Osborne introduced the bedroom tax, cuts to welfare benefits, cuts to legal aid, cuts to local authority funding, the freezing of all public sector workers pay, but MP’s are due to receive a £7,000 pay rise despite 88% of respondents to a public consultation carried out by IPSA said no to the pay rise for MP’s. IPSA have said unless they receive compelling evidence against the rise by 30^th June, it will go ahead. What more compelling evidence could there be than 88% of respondents in a public consultation saying no? While our MP’s enjoy a 9.2% pay rise, our government are planning a further £30billion in cuts to public sector spending over the next 2 years, including a £12billion cut to the welfare budget. This is not democratic.

The reason our chancellor wants to legislate for all future governments to achieve an overall fiscal surplus, effectively meaning no government can borrow in “normal times” equally applies to the planned law not to raise the main rates of income tax, national insurance and value added tax until 2020. The answer is that these laws are a political ploy. It is political game playing with the labour party. If the government is to achieve an overall fiscal surplus and taxes are not to be raised, then spending must first be cut, and then kept at a level, relative to gross domestic product, achieved only twice in the past 70 years. If Labour supports the Conservative laws, it embraces a relatively small state forever, but if it opposes them, it is condemned as a tax and spend profligate. This is a deliberate political trap. How clever it turns out to be depends on whether enough voters believe the ideas make sense and I believe that here the chancellor has underestimated the intelligence of the electorate.

Mr Osborne and the conservative party argue that the crisis has proven the need for a surplus in normal times. In other words, that we would be better prepared and the effects of another financial crisis would be lost profound if we were not already in debt when the financial crisis happens. However it would have made little difference to the effects of the financial crisis in 2008 if labour had run a balanced budget before it. In both Ireland & Spain for example, they had been running a balanced budget before the financial crisis, yet the financial crisis devastated both these economies. Osborne also argues that the strong recovery of the UK economy proves fiscal policy is not needed. So abandoning fiscal flexibility would be no loss. But the truth is that the UK recovery has been very weak. The return to pre-crisis levels of real GDP per head has taken two years longer even than in the Great Depression. This is so even though the chancellor abandoned many of his planned cuts after 2011-12.

A third argument from Osborne is that a fiscal surplus is a hallmark of prudence. Yet the focus on public debt alone is mistaken. Crucially, it ignores the asset side of the balance sheet altogether. Moreover, all things being equal, the bigger the fiscal surplus, the lower interest rates would be. If that encouraged a run-up of private debt, the economy could end up even more unstable. Alas, the Office for Budget Responsibility already forecasts a big jump in household debt. A more sensible argument would be that, even if fiscal irresponsibility neither caused the crisis nor created difficulty in managing it, as proven by low real and nominal interest rates, public debt must now fall relative to GDP. That would restore the “fiscal space” used by the rise in net public debt from 37% of GDP in 2007 to 80% today.

As Mr Osborne well knows, there are alternative measures that can be taken to reduce our national debt in the long term. It does not all have to be done right away. In fact the ratio of our public debt to GDP is well below it’s average over the past three centuries. Naturally, such considerations including the case for fiscal stimulus apply only if a country has fiscal space. But markets and the IMF agree that the UK has such space. It is clear that the obsession with public debt is unhealthy. Public borrowing is not always an evil. Nor is private borrowing always a good. It is quite appropriate to borrow to invest. Not least, the time to reduce public debt comes when economies boom and interest rates are far from the floor and despite what the chancellor claims, our economy is certainly not booming.

Explaining that a surplus is not, nor should it be the main goal can easily dismiss this trap being set by the government. More important is the nature, strength and durability of an economic recovery. Also important is how fiscal consolidation is achieved and at whose expense. It should never be at the expense of the poorest and those least able to defend themselves in a democratic society.

Who do they think they are?

In 2010, just after the coalition government had been sworn in both George Osborne and David Cameron told us of the austerity measures that were to come. “There is no alternative” they cried, which of course we now know was not true. As if to offer us some kind of comfort they declared “we’re all in it together” also not true. The first thing George Osborne did was hike the rate of VAT up, from 17.5% to 20% and then gave a tax break to high income earners by reducing the top rate of tax, which is payable only by those earning more than £150,000 per year from 45% to 40%. He also imposed a pay freeze for five years on all public sector workers, which will now in all likelihood last until 2020.

Fast forward 3 years and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) who are responsible for MP’s pay, benefits and expenses announce a cut in MP’s benefits, but a pay rise of £7,000 or 10% to compensate for their loss. While there was widespread support for the reform of MP’s over generous pensions and tightening of the rules on what can and cannot be claimed for in expenses, there was equally strong objection to the proposed pay rise for MP’s. The announcement from IPSA came despite their own public  consultation indicating that 88% of respondents were opposed to the pay rise. Even David Cameron called for IPSA to reconsider. Despite a further two reviews, IPSA have announced that unless they receive compelling evidence against the pay rise it will go ahead as from 30^th June and be backdated to April.

I wonder just how out of touch with reality does an independent body have to be to grant a pay award to MP’s at a time with the whole of the nation are suffering our governments’ austerity measures. IPSA claims that MP’s salary is below the average of others working in the public sector. However in 2014 the average salary in Britain was £26,500 per year. Even in the top decile of earners, the average annual salary is £60,500. MP’s currently earn £67,070, which is substantially more than the vast majority of people in Britain. What more compelling evidence could IPSA want than the fact that 88% of people have declared their objections? While some have stated their support for the pay rise, other MP’s have publically condemned it including John Mann and Nicky Morgan.

As if rubbing salt in the wound, IPSA also say that after the pay award, MP’s salaries will be linked to average earnings increases. Using predictions from the Office for Budget Responsibility, MP’s salaries would rise from £67,070 to almost £86,000 by 2019. The Independent Pay Review Body (IPRB) recommended a measly 1% pay rise for all NHS staff last year, but it was rejected by MP’s, so why can’t this recommendation from IPSA be rejected in the same way? The answer is simple. It’s because the vast majority of MP’s welcome the proposal, despite the public objections of a few. David Cameron would see his annual salary rise from £142,000 to £154,000 and as his pension is tied to his final salary, of course he wants the rise also, regardless of what he says in public. The fact is MP’s could block this pay rise in a heartbeat, but they don’t want to. Instead they blame the “independent” body IPSA and make a few noises of objection in public. But the truth is the vast majority want this pay rise to go ahead.

I am well aware there are a number of MP’s who work very hard to represent their constituents and if there is a pay rise on offer, they deserve it. However, over the past few years we have heard of a number of MP’s getting up to all sorts. In 2009 we found out that some of them had been stealing from us, while many others were bending the rules for their own financial gain. We have had numerous scandals where MP’s were caught offering access to senior ministers in return for large donations to their political party, cash for access, cash for questions and MP’s offering to lobby in parliament on behalf of private international corporations. Although nothing has yet been proven, allegations are rife about a Westminster paedophile ring, including current politicians. There have also been allegations of governments having acted to cover up and protect MP’s. Most recently we have had an MP eventually admit he had lied about leaking an untruthful article regarding SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon and one MP in an attempt to defend the accused declared that the House of Commons would empty very quickly if all MP’s who lie were sacked.

We have endured cuts to social care that have meant some elderly people are unable to leave their home, have a daily wash and get dressed. Welfare support for the most vulnerable and disabled in our society has been slashed. People are being forced to represent themselves in court against highly paid and well qualified legal experts because of cuts to the legal aid budget. People are being forced to take on low paid work, just to have some money coming in. More than 1million others are depending on food banks just to feed their families. Another 3.5million people are starving themselves so their children can eat and right here in Britain, the nation with the sixth richest economy in the world, we have 4.1million children living in poverty.

Meanwhile, our MP’s are to receive a 10% pay increase. What kind of democracy is that?

I do not begrudge anyone who works hard and does a good job a decent salary. So I suggest that MP’s pay be set by their constituents and linked to performance. As it is in the vast majority of jobs in the private sector, we could have a set of pay scales drawn up, ranging from the lowest which would be base pay to the highest representing an MP whom their constituents felt had outperformed their expectations of them. This would provide a strong incentive for MP’s to work hard for their constituents and act in the interests of those they were elected to serve. Equally, it would build a stronger relationship between constituents and MP’s, who would have to spend more time meeting and getting to know the concerns of their constituents. Inevitably, MP’s who do not serve well or meet the needs of their constituents would see this poor performance reflected in their salary. This system is exactly how the vast majority of workers salaries are decided and it is how we should be deciding our MP’s salary. Handing control of MP’s salary to those they work for would be fairer and more democratic.

This is how it would be done in a true democracy.