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.

Our fundamental human rights are under attack

“The watchdog that would have scrutinised the end of the human rights act just got quietly scrapped” reads the article in the independent. Following a meeting of the wholly undemocratic system of party whips, it has been announced that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee which, was originally set up in 2010 and chaired by George Allan MP has been scrapped. The committee is a key area of democratic reform and in the period of the last parliament, played an important role in holding the government to account. It’s formation marked an important milestone in David Cameron’s commitment to reforming democracy in Britain.

With just a small majority in the House of Commons the tory government are facing some challenging times ahead over the period of the next parliament. Firstly there will be discussions and negotiations on the constitution, including devolution of powers to Scotland and Manchester. Surely that will lead to discussions on Wales and Northern Ireland. Secondly, following negotiations on Britain’s role in the European Union, we will have an in/out referendum on membership of the EU by the end of 2017. 

The government also have plans to redraw constituency boundaries in a way it has been suggested that would benefit the conservative party. It is also committed to a form of English votes for English laws. But most importantly, we have the commitment of the conservative party in their election manifesto to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. Given these fundamental changes, it is telling of the real commitment to democratic reform that the committee who would hold government to account and represent the will of the British people has been abolished.

In the period of the last parliament the committee was widely recognised has having carries out some excellent work and enjoyed unanimous support from conservative, labour, liberal democract & SDLP colleagues. It produced all party reports on English devolution, the need for a constitutional convention, parliamentary boundaries, the future for Scotland, improving the legislative process in parliament, a written constitution, voter disengagement, the gagging bill, electoral registration and many others.

Those responsibilities previously held by the committee will be divided up among other select committees with already full agendas. The cynic in me suggests our government does not want to be held to account and wonders what nasty surprises they are already planning for us over the period of this parliament. Disenchantment with politics and democracy, as well as the publics questioning of the legitimacy of government is at an all time high. 

Surely we need a select committee who will hold government to account and represent the views of the people they serve now more than ever. I will confess to not having much faith in the ability or willingness of MP’s to enabling real democratic change to our political system, as many have much to lose from meaningful democratic change. However I will concede that on the face of things, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee appear to have made some inroad in what will in all likelihood be a long struggle for real democracy.

The Human Rights Act is in effect the British domestication of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), allowing British courts to make rulings based on the original Convention. The ECHR is an agreement that all countries in Europe will respect human rights and was drawn up in 1950 in the aftermath of the Second World War. It was spearheaded by Britain who was a founding signatory and ratified the convention in 1951.

The fundamental human rights that are protected by the act are:

✔ The right to life – protects your life by law. The state is required to investigate suspicious deaths and deaths in custody

✔ The prohibition of torture and inhumane treatment – you should never be tortured or treated in an inhumane way or degrading way, no matter what the situation

✔ Protection against slavery and forced labour – you should never be treated like a slave or subjected to forced labour

✔ The right to liberty and freedom – you have the right to be free and the state can only imprison you with very good reason e.g. if you are convicted of a crime

✔ The right to a fair trial and no punishment without law – you are innocent until proven guilty. If accused of a crime, you have the right to hear the evidence against you in a court of law

✔ Respect for privacy and family life and to marry – protects against any unnecessary surveillance or intrusion into your life. You also have the right to marry and raise a family

 ✔ Freedom of thought, religion and belief – you can believe what you like and practice your beliefs

 ✔ Free speech and peaceful protest – you have the right to speak freely and join with others to express your views

✔ No discrimination – everyone’s rights are equal. You should not be treated unfairly because of your gender, race, sexuality, religion, age or disability

✔ Protection of property – protects against state interference against your property

✔ Right to an education – means that no child can be denied an education

✔ Right to free elections – elections must be free and fair

Very little is known about the conservative parties British Bill of Rights that would replace the Human Rights Act. In a document it published on the matter they outline that protecting fundamental human rights is the hallmark of a democratic society and is central to the values of the conservative party. They then go on to say that the present position under the ECHR and the HRA is not acceptable.

However Martin Howe QC produced a draft of the British bill and in it he proposes that the rights of any individual would depend on whether they were a British citizen (full fundamental rights), an EU national (fewer rights) or a foreigner (even fewer rights). Such an approach would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles of human rights, being that every human being has the same basic rights.

There is also mounting opposition to the repeal of the Act among tory backbenchers. Former tory justice minister Ken Clarke and former attorney general Dominic Grieve have also publicly opposed the move, warning that it could undermine the rule of law and risks setting a dangerous precedent.

Democracy in Britain is under siege

General election 2015

Only 24% of the electorate or 11.3 million people voted Conservative, yet we have a majority Conservative government. UKIP got 3.8 million votes, while the Green party got 1.1 million votes, but both ended up with only one MP each. Compare that with SNP who received 1.5 million votes and have 56 MPs. The Liberal Democrats received 2.4 million votes, yet returned eight MPs.

Then we have the roughly 35% of the electorate who did not cast a vote. Are they really apathetic about what way they are governed, or is it they feel disillusioned with British politics and that none of the parties represent what they stand for or believe in? I suggest it is the latter and they in fact did cast a vote on 7th May not to endorse the policies of any of the political parties. Surely all of these facts tell us that our first past the post voting system is unfit for a 21st century democracy.

House of Commons

There are 650 MP's in the House of Commons. Roughly 380 of those are from what is known as "safe seats" meaning that a the same party will get elected regardless of who the candidate is. Therefore the number of candidates that meaningfully go through a general election every five years is 270 and the number of people who actually decide those results is less than half a million. 

House of Lords

There are 790 members of the House of Lords and not a single one of them is democratically elected. There are 92 heriditary Lords who are appointed by birth. A further 26 Lords are appointed because of their role in the established Church of England. The remainder are normally appointed by the Prime Minister, often from major party donors. Since  2000 there has been a tokenistic House of Lords Appointments Committee, which seems to merely demonstrate that no-one really knows what is going on when it comes to appointments to the House of Lords.

The Crown/State

When we speak of the Crown in relation to British politics we often think of the Queen. However in actuality the Queen has very little if any involvement in British politics. The state is the permanent body of British politics that is the supreme power and overruling body. Its various institutions together have the power to rule over us, whether there is a government or not. While governments are elected every five years, the state remains intact and it is the British state that rules supreme, not parliament. If we want to achieve real democracy, we have to address the issue of the state and its power to rule over us.

Voting in the House of Commons

Once elected our MPs are expected to represent us in parliament and when voting, do so as they believe their constituents would expect them to. However in reality it is not only in elections that our voting system is broken. MPs are free to vote as they choose once elected and have no obligation to consider their constituents at all when voting. In actuality if they even bother to turn up for a vote at all, the majority of MPs vote not on behalf of their constituents, but how their party leader expects them to vote. At present, both government and opposition chief whips who receive additional salaries from the taxpayer, are creatures of the political party rather than an aide to democracy. They have too much power and too much say over what happens to MPs, from the appointment of people to select committees through to MPs' accommodation and they use these powers to either reward or punish MPs according to their loyalty to the respective party. The power of the whip, though unrecognised as a parliamentary post, still rules supreme and inhibits rather than enhances democracy in the House of Commons.

Lobbying

There are many professional lobbyists operating within parliament. Their job is to pressure government ministers into enacting legislation that is in favour of the private companies they represent, regardless of what is best for the people or the country as a whole and are a complete corruption of the political process.  They are often helped by MPs who take payments in exchange for influence. The most recent examples are former foreign secretaries Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw were caught by channel 4 Dispatches investigators, offering to use their political influence in return for payments of up to £5,000 per day. 

Just before the 2010 general election David Cameron said that lobbying was "the next big scandal waiting to happen. It’s an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long, an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money." yet when he became Prime Minister Cameron did nothing to stop it. In fact since then Cameron has hired corporate lobbyist Lynton Crosby, as a full-time £500,000/year personal adviser. Shortly after Crosby’s arrival at No 10, the government shelved its planned policy of introducing plain packaging on cigarettes. Lynton Crosby also represents the tobacco giant Phillip Morris in a £6m contract.

Political party funding

The majority of Tory party funding comes from wealthy individuals and big business. This is funding that comes with the price. Donors expect government legislation to be enacted in their favour, or a lucrative government contract. The Labour Party are little better, as they too receive donations from many rich businessmen. Since 2010 the Labour Party has received an estimated £600,000 worth of free services from Price Waterhouse Coopers, the accountancy firm. PWC admits that it ‘cultivates relationships with parties to further the interests of the firm and its clients.’ and were severely reprimanded by the Parliamentary Accounts Committee earlier this year for their role in industrial scale tax avoidance. The Tories have received over £10m in donations from private health companies while pursuing a policy of privatising the NHS, returning the favour by awarding £1.5bn of contracts to companies that have donated to their party. 

Westminster scandals

There have been a number of scandals in the past six years since the MPs expenses in 2009. These have included cash for questions, cash for access (twice), cash for honours, cash for influence (twice), Jowellgate, Peter Watt, Michael Brown, Bernie Ecclestone, Werrittygate, Hunt, Rifkind and Straw. Then we have the MPs gaining directorships at private corporations and the revolving door, allowing corporate representatives to obtain roles at Westminster as special advisors. Also the alleged 14 cases where the Metropolitan police terminated investigations that were implicating MPs and establishment figures and the 46 instances where similar cover-ups took place, including allegations of politicians being involved in what is now commonly known as the Westminster paedophile ring and the murder of two young boys.

Conclusion

As the examples above show, Britain has surrendered its position as a democratic society, in favour of a corporate and financial domination of the state and political process. The freedom of the trade and financial industries to operate uninterrupted and unregulated in creating vast amounts of wealth for the few, while the many struggle to make ends meet and the poorest are unable to provide for themselves and their family, has taken precedence over a fair and democratic society in Britain. Our entire political system is in urgent need of reform. In order to achieve both legitimacy and strength in credibility any political reform must be by the people and for the people. 

Assemblies for Democracy have already held assemblies in London, Glasgow & Manchester, with a further three being planned in Ireland, Wales & Yorkshire, have already laid some of the groundwork. An Agreement of the People has also made some great achievements including having produced a draft Agreement for editing & discussion. In my opinion these two groups should combine their resources and work together to finalise an agreement of the people document, before moving on to write, debate and produce a written British constitution that will formalise the will of the British people.