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 new democratic society, fit for the 21st century

Westminster palace is crumbling into the Thames and suffering from years of neglect. The lowest estimate for the repair bill is £5.7billion, but we all know how accurate the government have been in estimating costs before, the millennium dome and Olympics being good examples. Some say parliament should move to a more central location while the repairs are being carried out, while others say the move should be more permanent. It has been suggested that the building should be sold and that carries a certain amount of credibility, given our governments appetite for selling off our public assets and the building could be opened as a national museum after the repairs have been carried out. But whatever the outcome, it is not only the home of our politics that is broken. Our entire political system is fundamentally broken and unfit for a 21^st century democracy. Lack of trust and confidence in not only our politicians, but also our entire political system have never been higher.

We have now reached a stage where one third of those eligible to vote do not because they simply do not believe it will make any difference. Politicians refuse to tell the electorate anymore than a few sound bites about what their policies are during a general election campaign. Multi national corporations and accountants are writing our tax laws, rather than civil servants. Our tax collector are handing out cushy deals to multi national corporations and cannot be held to account, because they aren’t even accountable to parliament. Our government deny they have an agenda to privatise our NHS, yet another £1billion deal to provide back office services in GP surgeries was handed to a corporation this week. For all but a minority, the dream of owning our own home is now far out of reach due to rising house prices and stagnant wages. In the nation with the sixth richest economy in the world, we have 13.7million people living in poverty and our governments’ plans are to cut in work benefits, which will drive even more families into poverty. An estimated 250,000 people marched the streets of London last weekend, protesting the governments’ austerity program and in response our chancellor announced scant details about his plans to cut a further £12billion from the welfare bill.

The truth is our government are not listening to the people and have no intention of abandoning their ideologically driven agenda. Marching in protest has it’s place, but things have gone too far now and the government are not listening anyway. If we want to make a fairer more democratic society, we need something much more radical. Successive governments’ have proven they are neither willing nor able to deliver the kind of society we all want. What we need is to write the rulebook in a new constitution and one way to achieve that is through a peoples convention on the constitution. In order to stimulate interest we could hold a national event and call it something like crowdsourcing towards a citizens convention on the constitution. Open the event to people from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. A mass get together where there would be keynote speakers in the morning speaking on topics such as what is a constitution? What is the British constitution? Our membership of the EU & democracy, are they compatible? We could have a question and answer session after each keynote speaker. Then in the afternoon we could break up into facilitated workshops, with topics such as What should be in a constitution? What are the different models of democracy? Why do we want a constitution?

The event would be about empowering people with information and knowledge in order to enable them to come together and produce the first ever written British constitution. By the end of the event, people would feel empowered and we would call for a second event, a citizens convention on the new constitution. At the convention, we could have workshops where people would be divided up, with those in each workshop working on writing a specific section of the new constitution. Facilitators would be on hand to help and guide the groups, but it would be the people doing the actual writing. At the end, the different sections would be combined to create the first ever written constitution. It would be real people power in action. Citizens taking control and coming together to design a new British democracy for the 21^st century. A fairer, more equal and more democratic society in which we would all want to live. Where we, rather than multi national corporations make decisions that effect our everyday lives. A society where our politicians are truly accountable to us and no longer bow to the wishes of corporations and their lobbyists. The type of society that will ensure we have adequate housing for everyone, that does not allow any one of us to ever fall into poverty. We will decide the rate of tax payable by corporations, as well as the terms and conditions under which they are allowed to trade in Britain. Everyone, regardless of their position in society will be equal in the eyes of the law and face the same consequences of breaking the law.

Assemblies for democracy are already leading that movement and have started making steps towards an international event in 2016. So I call on everyone to check the Assemblies for democracy website and if there is not already an assembly in your local area, contact them and they will help you to start one. Many other attempts at achieving what we want have been made in different ways and have not been successful. I believe it is only through a radical movement of people coming together in order to create what we want, that our dreams will ever be realised. So let us join together and create a better, fairer and more democratic Great Britain.

A good day for the labour party, a great day for the future of British democracy

Since the labour party disastrous defeat in the recent general election and Ed Milliband stood down as party leader, I hadn’t paid much attention to the leadership contest. From the little I did hear, it seemed to me to be difference faces saying the same old things. Just the same old tory lite policies we have all heard before. “Aspiration” became the buzz word of the campaign and a number of the candidates attacked the policies of Ed Milliband, saying he was too far left and the party needed to take a more central ground. I, like many others felt uninspired by any of the candidates and quickly lost interest, while wondering to myself what the purpose of the labour party is, if it can’t challenge tory policies and offer the electorate a real choice. Disheartened and disappointed that a golden egg opportunity had been wasted I stopped listening, just as the party stopped listening to it’s members a long time ago. I was certain that the labour party was doomed, finished as a front line player in British politics. Until the Greens, or a new left wing party was formed and gained the required momentum, we would be stuck with successive conservative majority governments.

Then in the final quarter, north Islington MP Jeremy Corbyn declared his intention to enter the competition. I live just outside the border of his constituency, so although he is not my MP (unfortunately) I have met Corbyn a number of times. Two friends and myself had set up a new project for people in early recovery from drug and alcohol addiction and we organised a party to celebrate the clubs first birthday. As chairperson of the committee I invited both local MP’s, the two mayors and the local press. Jeremy Corbyn was the only one who turned up, despite having a busy schedule that evening and spent some time with the club members, talking to them, socialising with them and it was a great evening. He left the club at 9.20pm and told us he was heading back to the houses of parliament to finish off some work.

The second time I met Jeremy was when a friend of mine, who was a constituent of his, was receiving an award from our local mayor. Again, he mixed and spoke to lots of people, didn’t matter who they were. We had a conversation about an issue I was having with the local PCT. The reason I am telling these personal stories is in an attempt to demonstrate the type of man Jeremy Corbyn is. He is an exemplary MP who works hard for his constituents, whatever their issues or concerns might be. Many of our MP’s could learn a lot by following his example. Jeremy is not a 9-5 five days per week MP, nor is he anyone’s puppet, having repelled against different labour party leaders five hundred times when voting. British politics would not be in the state it is now if all MP’s were as dedicated, committed and worked in the interests of their constituents, as Jeremy Corbyn does. The people of north Islington are very lucky to have him as their MP and I am not in the least bit resentful my house is not 500 yards further north.

Today, if only by the skin of his teeth, Jeremy has made it onto the ballot for the labour party leadership contest. This is indeed a good day for the labour party, but also a great one for the future of British democracy. There has been a huge campaign on twitter supporting him and his facebook page now has 21,000 fans. Suddenly there is a new buzz and excitement about the leadership contest. You see Jeremy Corbyn is a man of the people. He is the only candidate who appreciates the damage and suffering being caused to real people by the tories austerity program and he stands firmly in the anti austerity camp. In fact, he has actually joined many of the anti austerity demonstrations in London. He is also the only candidate who is anti trident, believing it is insanity to spend £30billion+ replacing our very own weapons of mass destruction. Jeremy was one of the few labour MP’s who voted against the Iraq war and possibly the only one to join the anti Iraq war demonstrations.

With Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the labour party we would have a strong voice to speak for the benefit claimants who are being unfairly sanctioned, the 4.1million children living in poverty, the working class poor, those unable to get a fair trial because of the tories cuts to the legal aid budget, all of our public sector workers who have had to endure a five year pay freeze, and the 1.084million people who were forced to depend on food banks last year, to name a few. We would have someone to challenge the tory policies of austerity, trident renewal, fracking our countryside, attacking our fundamental human rights, tax breaks for the rich, bankers bonuses, the estimated £122billion in unpaid taxes last year, allowing the banks to continue with their irresponsible activities that caused the global financial crisis in 2008 and perhaps most importantly the privatisation of our NHS. He would be a voice for all taxpayers who stand to lose £14billion from George Osborne’s plans to sell off our 81% shareholding in RBS bank, plus the 7 years of interest we have paid on borrowing the money to bail out RBS in the first place. If elected, Jeremy would be a voice for the millions of British people who currently do not have a voice.

The possibility of a move towards real democracy in Britain is alive again with Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the labour party. Now that he is on the ballot for the leadership contest, a real debate can begin about the future of the labour party, but also how we are to be governed. It will be a tough campaign, but Jeremy has a lot of grass roots support and many people will be encouraged by the possibility of a clear alternative to the policies of the tories. There are four candidates in the contest, but Jeremy is the only one standing firmly on the side of everyone who is fed up with our wholly undemocratic political system. But even if he does not win the contest, the four months campaign will present an opportunity to challenge the lies and myths spread by the tories and our national press. I am not traditionally a supporter of the labour party, but I encourage everyone to grab this opportunity with both hands and join in the debate about the future of the labour party. There has never been a greater opportunity to be a part of bringing real change to British politics and there has never been a better chance for a move towards real democracy.

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.