The Will of the People

Remember “taking back control” and “America First”? Meaningless yet seductive slogans which opponents failed to counter. Now, “the will of the people” has taken over, sucking in not only the very people whose will is to be obeyed but almost every opponent of Brexit, so much so that the official Opposition imposed a 3-line whip to support the government, in favour of what most of its own voters rejected.

Of course, in a democracy it would seem that the will of the people should be paramount. But should it, when those same people and their ancestors have won the right to delegate their decisions to elected representatives? Then there is the breath-taking idiocy of presuming that “Yes” or “No” to a simple question can represent the will of the people over the most complex political issue they will ever face.

Now, this 2016 Yes/No “will of the people” is to be exercised regardless of the outcome of two years or more of multi-faceted negotiations. If the Prime Minister in 2019 or 2020 says she has a satisfactory parachute for our flight into the unknown, adopting it will be called “the will of the people”. If she says that she does not and we must leave Europe via ejector-seat, this too will be “the will of the people”. Two utterly different solutions, both ascribed to the Leave vote. Whatever one person, the PM, says, will be treated as “the will of the people”.

Not only is this palpable nonsense but it is alarming in two further respects. First, there appears to be no significant opposition to it, leaving us as if in a one-party State. Second, it removes all vestiges of democratic legitimacy from the greatest change to our governance in decades. This stands to add UK to the growing list of countries being run as unopposed virtual dictatorships: Turkey; Zimbabwe; Russia etc. What are we doing to our children’s future; and all for a slogan? Who will dare to go against the so-called "will of the people"?

Tom Serpell

"You say you want a revolution" Well......

It is a huge irony that whilst the Left endlessly looks inwards as its factions bicker over who has the right to lead, those it aspires to lead flock to the parties of the Right. How can the Left’s natural constituency vote Right? Clearly, we must challenge old assumptions. Values and habit alone do not sustain loyalty.

The revolution which many on the Left felt to be needed – the peaceful uprising of the left-behind - has happened but not in the way any imagined. No socialist intifada; no new economic model but the rousing voices of nationalist demagogues. Same revolutionaries; different slogans. Sanders and Corbyn tried but Trump and Farage succeeded.

Political mainstreamers need to reassess how and why this has happened and is happening elsewhere. They no longer represent many of those they believed they did. The workforces of the old industries and their communities, cast out by Thatcherism, have been neglected ever since. Labour is no longer the political voice for millions in large workplaces or even their homes. With fewer workers unionised or organised, Labour’s relevance to voters is in question. The demagogues have heard, seen and had the nous to respond, not only by showing this but by applying their common touch to politics. It works.

So this is a watershed in democracy in the West, in UK, USA, France and more. Old assumptions have been blown away by a failure to listen or to keep abreast of people’s real needs. Speeches in Parliament and machinations in the capital no longer work for voters. New media can foster new allegiances.  So can new parties. Labour has an existential problem but this presents Labour Coast and Country with an opportunity, to offer unrepresented voters a platform for sharing common interests. Labour Coast and Country also offers the Labour Party the means to turn attention to millions of its followers it has ignored for too long. Recognising and structuring policy around communities shared needs could be a new model for Labour; now, where are OUR demagogues to take the voters along with it?

Why is schism a dirty word?

Both Labour and Conservative parties have claimed to be "broad churches", providing the political homes for voters with widely differing viewpoints, under a vague banner of common values. This has been sustained extraordinarily well considering the diversity of views contained and occasional outbursts of factionalism, not least concerning the country's membership of the EEC/EU. Holding the party together has tested leaders of both parties, notably Harold Wilson, Michael Foot, John Major and David Cameron. Now Labour is undergoing the supreme and perhaps final test.

For decades a small rump of dedicated socialists survived in both country and parliament, putting forward its critique and alternative point of view. Jeremy Corbyn has been a consistent player in this, eventually reaping his reward(?) by being voted party leader at the end of a long period of imagination-failure and lack of vision on the part of the majority, mainstream group in the House of Commons. This leadership inspired and was instigated by a hunger on the part of a public craving values-driven politics. It has led to the situation where the leadership has a sort of Praetorian Guard of both MPs and voters, for whom he can do no ill. His term of office has, though, failed to engage the wider public nor, crucially, the majority of Labour MPs, meaning that he cannot hope to win Labour power.

Within the Conservative Party too exists a faction, set on removing UK from the EU. In effect its followers should be in UKIP but, as with the left-wing within Labour, they want to convert the majority rather than form a separate party with no prospect of power. Thus both left and right factions prefer to live within the broad churches which have a chance of power. Watching the shenanigans party leaders are forced to engage in to bring all their troops behind them for votes is akin to watching the agonies of successive archbishops trying to unify the Anglican church when there are issues on which it quite simply cannot agree. But to church leaders, schism is unthinkable. Why? Because it looks like failure? Because size matters?

In parliament, numbers do matter. Majorities get their way. As the referendum has shown, sometimes even minorities get their way, when the Prime Minister is threatened with losing votes. This has led to parliamentary democracy: being sacrificed to a faction, on the altar of party unity; the denial of the function of MPs; and the country being damaged irreparably. Would it not have been better for us all had the Tory Inners and Outers been separate parties? Would it not now be better were Labour to divide into socialists and centrists? Lets get away from the 2-party system and open UK up to honest representation and coalition politics, with a voting system fair to all viewpoints.

As usual, minorities will suffer as our democracy is compromised

Brexit will have many consequences, few of them good for the people of this country or of Europe. Whichever consequence one looks at, it will be the result of a referendum sought only by UKIP but offered gratuitously by David Cameron seeking an answer to a simple question yet with no explanation as to what policies would lie behind the change option, least of all how the interests of people affected would be taken into account. We are said to live in a representative democracy, in which parliament is sovereign, with elected members there to speak for their electorate. These should have decided on the issue on our behalf. We now see the result of by-passing our system of governance.

The great failing of UK's first-past-the-post election system is that there are always millions of citizens whose views have no outlet. MPs are supposed to be the member for all constituents and often are - except when it comes to applying their party policy as priority. So in any non-marginal, the safely incumbent party can ignore the viewpoints or concerns of those who do not vote for them, leaving millions disenfranchised. If the ruling party decides to hit the interests of disabled people, what recourse will the latter have if their MP belongs to that party?  After Brexit, how will universities, farmers, construction businesses, hospitals, find or reassure staff, when the government exists to implement tighter immigration controls? Who will speak up for creative talent or manufacturers whose international markets will be shut down?

Now, the last opportunity for those who live in politically hostile constituencies to have a meaningful vote - elections to the European Parliament, in which everyone's vote has counted under the list system - will be closed forever. It is surely time in these circumstances to review the electoral system for post-Brexit Britain, to enfranchise everyone and deliver a more inclusive democracy. Meanwhile, for Labour supporters living in non-Labour rural and coastal communities, Labour Coast and Country offers one cross-boundary network in which to have a voice.

Democracy is too valuable to be by-passed

The critique of democracy is well-worn so need not be restated, except to say that alternatives are worse. There are times when only the firm hand of a dictator seems attractive; and others when popular uprising seems called for, but these are conclusions usually seen from a particular viewpoint. We all want the world or the country to be run as we think it should be.
However, bad though a government may be, in a democracy there will be process and mechanism whereby it may eventually be changed. It is when these are removed and democracy no longer applies, except in name, that true disenfranchisement occurs and the people are left powerless. Zimbabwe, North Korea and Turkey come to mind.
So we here in UK need to stay alert and use our representatives to protect our system. Why now? Because we are seeing signs of intolerance, in the attacks on those with different views; we are engaged in a denial of representative government, in this unnecessary and damaging referendum; and we are seeing abuse of power on the part of the current ruling party, as it dismantles and potentially prevents the rebuilding of the State.
These actions eat away at the fabric of representative democracy, weakening it further from its already flawed manifestation and risking a drift towards inequities which, whether deliberate or accidental, may lead to a future infinitely worse for the people of this country than even our current parlous state.

Are petitions democratic?

Saturday saw a reversal of recent trends as online petition builder 38degrees unleashed newly recruited local groups not into cyberspace but High Streets. This suggests awakening to the self-limiting nature of digital platforms, as Internet-savvy sought to sign up real live shoppers to their petition to save the NHS. Worthy? Perhaps. Effective? Possibly. Meaningful? Probably not.

38degrees, Avaaz, Change.org and others have recently provided another release valve for those of us who rail at the TV, despair of the papers and are disenchanted with those supposed to represent us. They have been more useful than this, too, in helping those who look to determine which of the issues proffered may make best petition fodder, by virtue of attracting the most support (at least from those taking the trouble to engage with their processes).
But when a signature chaser seeks to win over a doubter with a dubious claim that this type of petitioning is nonpolitical, what is the point; why sign? Where do the thousands of signatures seeking to protect the NHS get us unless they influence politicians with the power to change or defend?

I confess to rather liking these alternative ways of connecting non-geographically. It is interesting to note now, though, this migration to offline organising. This is surely a sign of political intent? It suggests an appetite for a new way of gathering like-minded opinion, both on the part of the promoters and of their members. But again, what is to be done with the evidence or their demands? Lots of agreement going nowhere?

Surely the best lessons to be drawn from this exploration of the capabilities of the Internet are that (a) (some) people like them and (b) political parties ought to wake up and make greater use of them. Only elected, accountable representatives, can really be said to have our permission to make decisions, either for or against change, on our behalf. When we do not like their decisions we must be able to replace them. Petitions, single issue activism and shouting at the TV all have their place but only as tools to help us to have our representatives listen and respond, instead of serving their own narrow experience. They cannot replace elected parties. Maybe they aim to become them but right now this is far away.

So what IS democracy?

You must have heard people say: "Oh, I could never vote for [Ed/Cameron/Farage etc]". Well, of course they cannot unless they live in the nominee's constituency. In a representative democracy we do not vote for a Party; for a Leader; for a set of ideas. We can only vote for a candidate in our own constituency. True, we may be motivated by any of the above to support that representative but our vote is for the person. S/he may prove a Party loyalist or a rebel; inspirational or disappointing. And the person we support may not even be elected, leaving our interests in the hands of someone with whose values we may be wildly at odds. This is our system.

The word "democracy" brings together "the people" and "power". This remote lottery of a representative system may seem rather estranged from the expectations we are encouraged to have about our empowerment. The legitimacy as an elected representative of someone for whom perhaps only 20,000 people have voted may seem questionable. It is no wonder that many people follow the dubious lead of demagogues who eschew the Party system; or engage in politics through single-issue campaigns and petitions, not least when the latter may attract tens or even hundreds of thousands of signatories. These may feel a sense of belonging, engagement and empowerment greater than that of belonging even to one of the large Parties, whose policies one may agree withy only in part. So these alternatives suit "the people"; but have little apparent power. The latter still lies in the hands of the Parties which win elections, for the foreseeable future.

For this reason, despite all of the criticisms one can justly make of the system we have, it still seems that the only way of making democracy work is to engage in its mechanisms, including finding the person who merits your vote. I shall be voting for my local Labour candidate, Solomon Curtis, in Wealden on May 7th. Join me.