The British General Election 2010

.
As I See It……………

by L. Berney

BRITAIN IS AN AUTOCRACY -- NOT A DEMOCRACY

The British General Election will take place in May 2010. It will NOT be an election for voters to choose the candidates who will best represent in Parliament the interests of the people living in the constituency. It will, to only a limited extent, be concerned with the ideologies of the various political parties. The election will simply and only be to decide which one of three men, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, is going to be the next Prime Minister.

As I see it, the political classes have finally succeeded in shifting the form of government in Britain from the Parliamentary Democracy that it is supposed to be, to an Autocracy: a form of government in which one person, a Ruler, possesses unlimited power. The only bit of democracy left is for voters to choose which of the three contenders is to be their next Autocratic Ruler / Prime Minister.

And how will that choice be made? It will be made on which of the three contenders has the best TV personality!

“WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE THE PRIME MINISTER?”

Before voting, voters should consider the motivation of the men who want to be the Prime Ministers.

On the face of it, the job of being Prime Minister has many serious disadvantages.

• It is potentially dangerous. There is a constant risk of an attempted assassination.

• Considering the responsibility, he is paid less than comparable jobs in industry and commerce.

• Everything he does or says is minutely scrutinized. Every opportunity is taken by the media, the opposition, even by some members of his own party to criticize him.

• It is impossible, at best very difficult, for him or his family to enjoy a private life.

• The work schedule and pressure must be tremendous.

If Brown, Cameron and Clegg were asked, “WHY do you want to undertake such a job? WHY are you fighting tooth and nail to get it?”, their answer would probably be something like this:

“I firmly believe that my policies are absolutely right for our country -- for all classes of society, for the young, the students, for families, for the elderly. My policies will ensure financial stability and economic growth, for this generation and for generations to come”.

“I vow to strive for the good of all, and I will devote the whole of my abilities for the welfare of our people. I believe I am the right person to lead the Country”.

If they were to speak the truth, the real reason why they want the job would go something like this:

“Many years ago, I had to decide what career I would follow; I liked the Power and Status that professional politicians have. Their work-load seemed to be not too onerous; they have long holidays, the pay is quite good and there is a generous expense allowance”.

“I reckoned I was good at making speeches and convincing people. I decided to become a Career Politician, a Member of Parliament. I wasn’t too concerned about which party I would join.”

“My ambition, having become a MP, was to be Prime Minister. Think of it! I would be The Most Powerful Person in the Whole Country! I knew that, in addition to the six-figure salary, there would be considerable additional income from writing newspaper articles and the like. And, of course, while in office, a luxury all-expenses-paid life-style, for me and my family. At the end there would be substantial incomes from memoirs and lectures, and an appointment to the board of one or more of the major private sector companies I had been able to ‘help’ while I was in office -- with the appropriate financial reward. And, no doubt, a Knighthood for services rendered”.

“That is what I want -- I will fight very hard for it”!

As I see it, the motivation of the three men currently fighting for the Prime Minister’s job is solely SELF-INTEREST, LUST FOR POWER, STATUS AND PERSONAL ENRICHMENT. It is NOT what they claim it to be: the welfare of the people. Is this the ultimate in hypocrisy?

The question about these would-be Prime Ministers that every citizen must, or should, ask is this:

Since a mentally well-balanced normal person would not want the job, and as these men are so clearly desperate to get the job, they must, to some degree, be unbalanced, not normal. Moreover, since their basic motives are egotistical and self-seeking, their motives are not, as they claim to be: ‘for the good of all’.

Question: Is any one of these men a fit and proper person to govern Britain?

Answer: Almost certainly NO!

DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT

Democracy was best defined by Abraham Lincoln, one of the founders of Democratic Government as, “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

A True Democratic Government creates laws in a Parliament consisting of people’s Representatives (Members of Parliament, “MPs”). Proposed laws, including tax laws, are debated by the Representatives who cast their votes, for or against, based purely on their considered opinion of the wishes of their constituents and of what is best for the nation as a whole. All MPs votes are “free votes”. The country’s laws are applied impartially by administrators (civil servants). The activity of the administrators is monitored by committees formed from the representatives.

In a True Democratic Government there is no need for an individual Ruler, a “Prime Minister”, no need for the Ruler’s personally appointed politically motivated “Ministers”, no need for a closed door “Cabinet”.

There would be no Political Parties. Political Parties aim to achieve a benefit for their members at the expense of the rest of the population. By definition Political Parties are anti-Democratic.

In a True Democratic Government system the voters choose their Representatives purely on the basis of his/her potential ability to represent their interests in Parliament. A Representative’s ONLY allegiance is to the constituents and to the well-being of the country as a whole – it is specifically NOT to any political party or other vested interest.

COULD THE COUNTRY BE GOVERNED WITHOUT A PRIME MINISTER?

In a time of emergency and danger, there is a case for the country needing a charismatic Leader – a Winston Churchill in World War II. But in this 21st Century, as I see it, the people of Britain do not need a one man all powerful Ruler, a Prime Minister.

For its government, Britain needs a Parliamentary Democracy. In a Parliamentary Democracy there is no Ruler -- government of the people is by the people and for the people through Parliament.

COULD THE COUNTRY BE GOVERNED WITHOUT POLITICAL PARTIES?

In the present system of government there is a ‘Ruling Party’ and one or more ‘Opposition Parties’. The party Rulers and their lieutenants take every possible opportunity to score points off of and to belittle the other party’s Rulers and lieutenants. We have ‘Punch and Judy’ debates (Cameron v Brown v Clegg). The only objective of the Ruler and the party in power is to stay in power – the only objective of the parties in opposition and their Rulers is to oust the current ruling party and to take power themselves. The Democratic concept of the ‘welfare of the people’ and ‘the good of all’ is not even on the menu!

Given the way under the present Party Political system the House of Commons conducts itself – the absurd spectacle of the point-scoring and school-boy slanging matches between the opposing parties – the animal howls and cat-calls more appropriate to a zoo than a Parliament -- the Party Leaders’ very obvious obsession for Personal Power -- important issues being debated with only a few MPs attending – the scandal of the ‘loans’ and ‘donations’ made to political parties in the hope of a financial benefit in the future – the scandal of ‘cash for honours’ – and the many other shortcomings – this can’t be the best way to run the country! It is amazing how the nation’s tax-paying citizens continue to put up with the current Autocratic Political Party form of Government, and to accept the behavior of Politicians whose incomes and expenses they pay.

In any case, with the system as it is now, the peoples’ Representatives, the MPs, have little or no say in government; Parliament is virtually impotent. Decisions about new legislation, the economy, taxation, foreign policy, education, health and in fact all the decisions to do with the government of the country are made personally by the Ruler, the Prime Minister.

WOULD A TRUE DEMOCRACY GOVERNMENT WORK?

Could a True Democratic British Government operating without a Ruler / Prime Minister and without Political Parties succeed? I believe it could; not only could it succeed but in the Britain of the 21st Century a True Democratic Government would succeed far better than the pseudo-Democracy system in use today.

For an outline of how a True Democratic non-partisan Government would work, please see: Democratic Government.

L.Berney
April 2010

(The opinions expressed are, of course, purely those of L. Berney)

Members of Parliament - Claims for Expenses and Allowances

.

Members of the British Parliament, when asked to explain the amounts they have claimed, invariably say: “All my claims comply with the rules – I have done nothing wrong”.

image: scotland.gov.uk

As I See It....... by L Berney

I was interested to know what, exactly, are the rules about expenses and allowances behind which these MPs shelter.

The rules and the amounts claimable are set out in a "Green Book" and in the "Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament".

The rules are crystal clear -- they include the following passages:

• You shall at all times ensure that your use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters, and that you observe any limits placed by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities and services.

• Your claims for expenses and allowances must be “wholly, exclusively and necessarily” incurred in the execution of your duties as an MP.
  

• You must ensure that arrangements for your claims are above reproach and that there can be no grounds for a suggestion of misuse of public money.

• You should bear in mind the need to obtain value for money from accommodation, goods or services funded from the allowances.

• You must avoid any arrangement which may give rise to an accusation that you are, or someone close to you is, obtaining an immediate benefit or subsidy from public funds or that public money is being diverted for the benefit of a political organisation.

• The costs of leasing accommodation from yourself is not allowable.

• The requirement of ensuring value for money is central in claiming for accommodation, goods or services. You should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious.

• Funds must not be used to meet the costs of a mortgage or for leasing

• The following questions are designed to assist Members in coming to a decision about whether or not costs incurred are appropriate to be met from the allowances:

1. Is this expense genuinely incurred by me in my role as a Member of Parliament as opposed to my personal capacity?
2. Is this purchase supporting me in carrying out my parliamentary duties? Note -- Anything which is done for personal benefit or for electioneering or for the direct support of a political party will not be part of a Member’s parliamentary duties.
3. Does the claim match the purpose of the allowance in question?
4. Could the claim in any way damage the reputation of Parliament or its Members?
5. How comfortable do I feel with the knowledge that my claim will be available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act?

In my opinion, nothing could be clearer than that!

According to the allegations published by the Daily Telegraph, many MPs claimed and spent or pocketed Expenses and Allowances which were not “wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the execution of his/her duties as an MP”, that were not “above reproach”, did “misuse public money”, were not “value for money”, which were “extravagant or luxurious”, were not “in support of parliamentary duties”, were “for personal benefit”. And that, as such claims were knowingly in breach of the rules, the MP concerned could “damage the reputation of Parliament or its Members”.

See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/

Therefore, where the allegations are true, clearly the MPs concerned have NOT “claimed within the rules, done nothing wrong” as they all say – clearly they HAVE breached the rules.

In a commercial company, if an employee had been found to have personally benefited from or pocketed any of the firm’s money, that employee would certainly be expected to return the money he had “stolen” and would probably be dismissed, if not charged with criminal theft.

As I see it, that is exactly how MPs who have fraudulently spent or pocketed tax-payers’ money should be treated.
.

DEMOCRACY

The foreign policy of the USA is to install Democracy in every country throughout the World.

What constitutes a Democracy?

"Government of the people, for the people."

---Abraham Lincoln

Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

---Sir Winston

How many people live in a Democracy?

How many do not?

by L. Berney

THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W.Bush and his Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Condoleezza Rice, frequently reiterate that, “…in the National Interests of the United States of America…”, all the countries in the World which are not Democratic should be converted to Democracy. Regime change -- converting non-Democratic governments to Democratic governments -- is one of the stated principle objectives of the American government’s foreign policy.

The reasons they give are, primarily, to “prevent the destabilization of international order” which, they presume, will inevitably threaten the security of the USA; Democratic states are likely to be more stable than non-Democratic ones. Another reason is “the fight against terrorism” -- to protect US interests at home and overseas from acts of terrorism. It is thought that terrorists are supported by non-Democratic countries and that Democratic governments would help the USA to fight terrorism.

A third reason (not usually emphasized) for the USA’s need to install Democracy in non-Democratic countries (at least, in certain ones) is concerned with the supply of oil and gas. For the survival of the Americans’ way of life, the uninterrupted availability of oil and gas is not a luxury, it is a basic necessity – just as vital as the other necessities: water, food, clothing, and shelter. The USA’s own oil and gas fields cannot supply all the country’s needs and it is essential, therefore, for the USA to import oil and gas from overseas. It is thought that the security and continuity of this foreign supply is more certain if the supplying country is Democratic than if it is not.

(It is interesting to note that neither the United Nations, nor the European Union, nor any sovereign country other than the USA has a policy of imposing Democracy on any other country – the USA is alone in this.)

So, the USA wants to install Democracy throughout the World. But what is a Democracy? I was interested to find out what constitutes a Democratic Government.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND TO 21^st CENTURY DEMOCRACY

From the beginnings of human civilization, some 10,000 years ago, mankind has formed communities, then states, then nations. For a civilization to exist, there has to be some form of government. From the beginning, the form of government has been “Autocracy”, a one-person all-powerful Ruler, a King or Queen, a Pharaoh, Caesar, Mogul, Kaiser, Tsar etc. In Islamic lands the religious leaders, the Ayatollahs and Imams, were the autocratic Rulers. The Ruler laid down the rules (laws) that the people over whom he ruled must obey. The Ruler gathered around him a group of barons (or Ministers as they are now called) to enforce his rules. The barons appointed their own enforcers.

All Rulers have the same personal objective: the attainment of personal POWER and WEALTH. Power to enforce other people to obey his laws and to punish them if they don’t -- Wealth to enjoy a high standard of living for himself and his family, and to accumulate personal enrichment. The objective of the barons (Ministers) and enforcers is, likewise, attaining their own personal Power and Wealth.

Throughout history, the people being governed have wanted to have some say in the rules they have to obey, and especially in the taxes they have to pay, and on how that money is spent. To appease this pressure, Rulers have allowed the existence of advisers, councils, parliaments etc., but the Rulers always maintained their ultimate and overall power.

From the beginnings of civilization, this ‘one person ruler’ form of government (Autocracy) was universal. It was virtually the only known form of government until the latter part of the 19^th Century when a new form of government, named “Democracy”, started to take root. (The word ‘”Democracy” is derived from the Greek, demos, ‘the people’ and ‘kratia, ‘power, rule’.)

In 1775, 13 of the British Colonies in North America rebelled and declared themselves independent of the rule of the British King (then King George III) and formed the ‘United States of America’. A Congress (a National Government) was formed consisting of 65 Representatives of the people of those ex-colonies. This was the World’s first Government by Representative Democracy. Representative Democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the people who rule through freely elected representatives. All rules/laws were to be enacted by these representatives by majority vote “for the general good”. All men were to be equal under the law. There was a written Constitution to protect minorities and there was to be a system of “checks and balances”

Over the next decades, the concept of government by Representative Democracy slowly replaced government by one person Autocracy (Monarchy) throughout Europe. First was France – the French Revolution in the 1789 replaced King Louis XVI. In Britain, during the 19^th and early 20^th Centuries, the Monarchy gradually and finally handed over its powers to a democratically elected parliament. In all of the new European Democracies, it was the parliaments that made the laws and decided on the taxes; the Monarchs either became Constitutional Monarchs or the Monarchy was abolished.

In the 10,000-year history of civilization, government by Democracy, commencing only just over 200 years ago, is still very new. In the last two Centuries we have seen autocratic Monarchy and Colonialism replaced by several other forms of government: Communism, National Socialism, Fascism, Apartheid, Authoritarian Regime, and of course Democracy. Some failed – Communism, Authoritarian Regimes and Democracy still exist. As to the future of Democracy, some think, “the jury is still out”!

DEMOCRACY AS IT IS PRACTICED TODAY

The USA wants every country to be Democratic. But what, exactly, is Democracy? How do you measure it? To answer that question, in January 2007 the Economist newspaper conducted a survey of the level of Democracy in 167 countries, the inhabitants of which comprise 95% of the total population of the World. They said about measuring Democracy:

There is no consensus on how to measure democracy, definitions of democracy are contested and there is an ongoing lively debate on the subject. The issue is not only of academic interest. For example, although democracy- promotion is high on the list of American foreign-policy priorities, there is no consensus within the American government on what constitutes a democracy. As one observer recently put it, “the world’s only superpower is rhetorically and militarily promoting a political system that remains undefined.

They graded each country in five basic areas of Democracy:

Electoral Process – Free, fair, and competitive elections.

Civil Liberties – Protection of basic human rights; freedom of speech, religion and assembly; the right to judicial process; decisions by majority rule.

Functioning of Government – the quality of government; the implementation of decisions.

Political Culture – acceptance by losing parties of the judgment of the majority; peaceful transfer of power.

Participation – citizens’ active and freely chosen participation in public life.

Out of a maximum score of 100 points, the results of the 167-country survey were

Fully Democratic, over 80 points 28 countries with 13.0% of World population

Partially Democratic, 60 to 80 points 54 countries with 38.3% of World population

Not Democratic, less than 60 points 85 countries with 48.7% of World population

The Economist scored the USA at 82 points out of 100; the UK 81 points. The highest score was Sweden with 99 points out of 100.

Clearly, with half the peoples and half the countries of the World not Democratic, to convert all countries to full or even partial Democracy, there is a lot of regime change to be done!

DEMOCRACY HAS MANY DIFFERENT FORMS

From an examination of how Democracy is applied in the 28 countries that the Economist rates as “Fully Democratic”, it is apparent that the form of Democracy is use today varies greatly from one country to another. For example:

• Head of State – in some Democratic countries the Head of State has executive powers, in others none.
• Legislative body – in some there is an Upper and a Lower chamber, in others one only.
• Political Parties – In some there are only two parties, in others many parties.
• Voting –Some are “first past the post”, some have proportional representation.
• Written Constitution – some have a written constitution, others do not.
• Prime Minister -- some are appointed by the President, others are the leader of the party in power.
• Civil Service – Some heads of departments are appointed by the political party in power, others have permanent heads.

Which form of Democracy is it, one wonders, that the USA would impose on non-Democratic countries?

IS DEMOCRACY RIGHT FOR EVERY COUNTRY?

For the government of a country to be Democratic, certain pre-conditions must exist. All, or the great majority, of the citizens of the country must have a sense of loyalty, of belonging to, that country. They must be willing to be subject to “rule by majority” -- to comply with by laws so passed.

There are many countries in the World today whose boundaries were set by colonial powers in the 18^th and 19^th Centuries. The boundary lines between one colony and another were set arbitrarily for the convenience of those powers. They paid little or no heed to the ethnicity, religions or languages of the people living within those boundaries. As an unfortunate result, some countries are populated by two or more different peoples who are antagonistic to each other. Parliamentary representatives of such countries form groups of their own ethic origin and no Democratic consensus is possible.

In these countries, probably Autocracy, not Democracy, is the only form of government that can ensure reasonable security and normality for its citizens. It seems to me, therefore, that Democratic government is not practical in all countries.

PRESIDENTS and PRIME MINISTERS

(In the following, for ‘he’, ‘him’, and ‘his’, read ‘he/she, ‘him/her’, and ‘his/hers’.)

by L. Berney

British Prime Minister, Gordon brown with US President, George Bush

On the face of it, the job of being a President or Prime Minister has many serious disadvantages.

• It is potentially dangerous. There is a constant risk of an attempted assassination.
• Considering the responsibility, he is paid less than comparable jobs in industry and commerce.
• Everything he does or says is minutely scrutinized. Every opportunity is taken by the media, the opposition, even by some members of his own party to criticize him.
• It is impossible, at best very difficult, for him or his family to enjoy a private life.
• The work schedule and pressure must be tremendous.

Why, then, do Presidents and Prime Ministers undertake such a job? Why do they fight tooth and nail to get it?

If one were asked, “Why do you want to be the President / Prime Minister?” his answer would probably be something like this:

“I have been a life-long member of the XXX party and I firmly believe that our policies are absolutely right for our country -- for all classes of society, for the young, the students, for families, for the elderly. Our policies will ensure financial stability and economic growth, for this generation and for generations to come”.

“I vow to strive for the good of all, and I will devote the whole of my abilities for the welfare of our people I believe I am the right person to lead the Party and the Country”.

If he were to speak the truth, the real reason why he wants the job would go something like this:

“Many years ago, I had to decide what career I would follow; I liked the Power and Status that professional politicians have. People look up to them; they make the laws which people have to obey, whether they like them or not. Their work-load seemed not too onerous; they have long holidays; as an MP they have an office and a staff paid by whatever political party they belong to. The pay is quite good and there is a generous expense account”.

“I reckoned I was good at making speeches and convincing people. I decided to become a Career Politician, a Member of Parliament. I wasn’t too concerned about which party I would join.”

“My ambition, having become a MP, was to be the President / Prime Minister. Think of it! To be the Most Powerful Person in the whole country! I knew that, in addition to the substantial salary, there would be considerable additional incomes from newspaper articles and after-dinner speeches. And, of course, while in office, a luxury all-expenses-paid life-style, for me and my family. At the end there will be substantial incomes from memoirs and lectures, and an appointment to the board of one or more of the major private sector companies I had been able to ‘help’ while I was in office -- with a REAL financial reward. And, no doubt, a Title for services rendered”.

That is something worth fighting for, fighting very hard for.

It is very clear that the motivation of the person fighting for the President’s / Prime Minister’s job is solely SELF-INTEREST – it is NOT what it is supposed to be: the welfare of the people. Is this the ultimate in hypocrisy?

In the light of this, the question about a would-be or an incumbent President / Prime Minister that every citizen must, or should, ask himself is this:

A mentally well-balanced normal person would not want the job. As this man is so clearly desperate to get, or to hold on to the job, he must be to some degree unbalanced, not normal. Moreover, his basic motive is egotistical, self-seeking; it is not what it should be: ‘for the good of all’

Question: Is he a fit and proper person to govern?

Answer: Almost certainly NO!

It is exactly this problem – the ‘one-person Ruler’ problem – that resulted in the American Revolution of 1775. The British American colonies broke away from having their lives governed by King George III and set up their own form of government; a Democratic Government. It was to be a Government of the people by the people and for the people. Most essentially, there would be no ‘one-person Ruler’. Over the next decades, Democracy spread throughout Europe.

The first few meetings of the people’s Representatives in the new United States Congress were indeed Democratic -- matters were decided by ‘free majority vote’. But it was not long before Political Parties and their Leaders emerged. The form of government changed from the original ‘…Government by the People’ to ‘…Government by the Political Party in power’. The leader of the party in power became ‘the President’, a `’one-person Ruler’. The system of government returned to (almost) the same system as it was before.

In the new Democratic Governments of Europe, party leaders, as ‘Prime Minister’ or ‘Premier’ took over as ‘one-person Rulers’ with overall power, just as they had in America. And that is still how it is today.

IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE?

The style of government practiced in Western called Democracy, in spite of the name, is not a Democracy (rule by the people); what we have is an Autocracy (rule by one person). The ‘one-person Ruler’ system of government we have today is, for the reasons set out above, seriously flawed.

There is an alternative: Return to the original concept of what a Representative Democracy was meant to be – a Parliament without Political Parties and without Leaders or Rulers or Prime Ministers or Presidents – a Parliament that enacts legislation by its members exercising a ‘free majority vote’- a True Democracy.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Is a Government without a one-person Leader or Ruler possible? I believe it is.

(See This Can't Be The Best Way To Run The Country! series: “Democracy and Party Politics”)

THIS CAN’T BE THE BEST WAY TO RUN THE COUNTRY!

Prime Minister’s Questions
Absolutely outrageous behavior!

Party Political Leaders
Objective: personal Power and Wealth

Conduct of MPs in the House of Commons…
more like a zoo than a parliament…

An outline for a
True Democratic Government

Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865),
16th President of the United States

THIS CAN’T BE THE BEST WAY TO RUN THE COUNTRY!

by L. Berney June 2008

(Note – Throughout this paper read ‘he’, ‘him’ and ‘his’ as ‘he/she’, ‘him/her’ and ‘his/hers’).

How the Prime Minister the other ministers and the MPs conduct themselves in the House of Commons is outrageous. To know that these are the people who make the laws and decide on the taxes for the population of the United Kingdom is horrific.

The UK is supposed to be governed by a Representative Democracy. Democracy was defined by Abraham Lincoln as ‘Government of the people, by the People, for the People’. The UK is not, in fact, governed by a Democracy. The form of government is Autocracy -- rule by a one-person ruler, the head of the Political Party in power, the Prime Minister.

Every four or five years, the electorate of the UK votes for which of several candidates is to represent them in parliament. But those candidates are beholden to one or other political party. Thus the population is not voting for the candidate – it is voting for the political party he belongs to. These representatives, once elected as Members of Parliament (MPs), become virtually redundant. The only function of an MP of the party in power is to ‘rubber stamp’ the laws his Party Ruler has decided to enact. An MP of a party in opposition votes as the Ruler of his own Party dictates. To ensure that MPs do not step out of line, each party employs ‘Party Whips’ – MPs who do not ‘toe the party line’ i.e. vote as they are told, run the risk of being ‘de-selected’ at the next election.

And what of the political parties and their leaders? A Political Party is a group of people who share the same ideas about the way the country should be governed -- a way that is to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the rest of the population. The aim of a Political Party is to win an election and to take control of the Parliament, the Legislation and the Government. Political Parties are run by Career Politicians. The objective of a Career Politician is the achievement of personal POWER and WEALTH. His objective has very little or nothing to do with those of the rank and file members of his party; even less with the welfare of the population of the country as a whole. It has everything to do with the Power and Wealth of the Career Politician himself.

We see the fight for personal Power shamelessly exposed at elections. Elections descend into individual politicians fighting each other; it is about ‘being in power’, ‘winning’ and ‘losing’, about ‘victory’ and ‘defeat’. Politicians` public speeches and statements are entirely hypocritical -- promises are made with impunity, many of which are forgotten as soon as the individual achieves power. The political ‘campaign’ is designed entirely and solely to get the concerned candidate and his Party elected and into a position of power.

In the parliament itself, there is a ‘Ruling Party’ and one or more ‘Opposition Parties’. In all parliaments, the party rulers and their lieutenants take every possible opportunity to score points off of and to belittle the other party’s rulers and lieutenants. We have ‘Punch and Judy’ debates (Cameron v Brown). The only objective of the Ruler and the party in power is to stay in power – the only objective of the parties in opposition and their Rulers is to oust the current ruling party and to take power themselves. The Democratic concept of the ‘welfare of the people’ and ‘the good of all’ is not even on the menu!

What is clearly apparent is this. The purpose of a Political Party is to pervert the concept of Democracy. Instead, the purpose is for the Party to take power and to rule the country. For this reason, and by definition, all Political Parties are anti-democratic.

The only democratic aspect of the present form of government is that, every few years, the electorate is asked to vote for which of the three main political parties to put into power. Typically, on a 60% turn-out, the winning party will receive perhaps 50% of all the votes cast. That means that the whole population will be ruled and taxed by the leader of a group which, in fact, received the votes of only 30% of the population!

Given the way the House of Commons conducts the nation’s business – the absurd spectacle of the point-scoring and school-boy slanging matches between the opposing parties – the animal howls and cat-calls more appropriate to a zoo than a parliament -- the Party Leaders’ very obvious obsession for personal Power -- important issues being debated with only a few MPs attending – the scandal of ‘loans’, ‘donations’ and ‘cash for honours’ – and the many other shortcomings – this can’t be the best way to run the country!

It is amazing how the nation’s tax-paying citizens continue to put up with the current Autocratic Political Party form of Government, and with the behavior of Politicians who earn their incomes from it.

It has been said that the UK’s form of government is NOT “Government of the people, by the people, for the people. It is, “Government of the people, by a Political Party, for the benefit of the Party’s Leaders!

Since the current Autocratic Party Political form of government is clearly undemocratic and incompetent, why does the British public allow it to continue? I have asked a number of UK residents:

• “Are you satisfied with the way the country is governed?” Most reply, “No.”
• “Do you think the system should be changed?”Most reply, “Yes, but I don’t know how.”
• “Do we still need Political Parties?”Most reply, “There have always been Political Parties so I suppose we do.

Perhaps, one day, tax-paying citizens will rebel against the current system and demand that the way they are governed is reformed to become non-partisan and truly democratic.

Following is a proposal for a True Democracy government.

A ‘TRUE DEMOCRACY’ GOVERNMENT

The form of government in United Kingdom is Democracy.

A Democratic government has three branches:

• Legislative: The Houses of Parliament, comprising the House of Commons and the House of Lords, which are responsible for enacting new laws (and amending old laws).
• Executive: Responsible for applying and enforcing the laws of the land. The Executive branch comprises 16 Government Departments (Ministries) and under them many central and local Government bodies. There is a Select Committee of about 12 MPs to scrutinize the working of each of the Departments.
• Judicial: Through ‘courts of law’ Judges and Magistrates are responsible to try persons accused of infringing the law and to settle disputes between citizens. The Judiciary is independent of both the Legislative and Executive branches.

Thus, every branch of a democratic government Is in place right now i.e. already exists. Legislation is the responsibility of the Houses of Parliament – new laws are debated and enacted or rejected by majority vote of the democratically elected MPs. The Executive branch applies the existing laws, frames new laws, and manages the day-to-day business of the country. Its work is monitored by several Select Committee of MPs. Justice is administered by the independent Judiciary.

I submit that, in this 21st Century, there is no longer any need for Political Parties. There is no longer any need for a Ruler or Leader, for a Prime Minister or for any other Ministers, or for Party Politics. There is no place for autocracy of any kind. The country’s laws and taxation should no longer be decided, as it now is, by a group of own-agenda self-seeking Party Politicians.

An outline of how a True Representative Democracy government might function is set out in the Appendix.

APPENDIX

TRUE DEMOCRACY GOVERNMENT – AN OUTLINE

The following is a proposal for how a True Representative Democracy non-partisan United Kingdom Government would be conducted. The objective and over-riding principle of a True Democracy Government must be “Government of the people by the people for the people”.

This proposal sets out the major changes that would be made to the existing UK Political Party form of government. The main changes:

• All Political Parties will be abolished There will be no Party in Power, no Prime Minister, and no Cabinet Ministers.
• New laws will be put before Parliament by the appropriate Select Committees.
• Members of Parliament (MPs) will enact or reject laws by ‘free’ majority vote.
• The Executive Branch, i.e. the appropriate Government Department, supervised by its Select Committee (not by a Minister), will ensure that the laws are applied and enforced.
• A written Constitution, including Citizens’ Rights, will be drawn up and enshrined in law.

Detailed requirements for a True Representative Democracy would include:

CANDIDATES

As at present -- any registered voter may put himself forward as a Candidate for a Constituency.

To receive recognition, a Candidate must obtain the endorsement of 20 voters of the constituency. Candidates will have no political or party loyalties other than to represent the wishes of the citizens of their constituencies to the best of their ability.

CANDIDATES’ ELECTION EXPENSES

The electioneering expenses of all recognized Candidates will be funded by the State up to a maximum of £5,000. Electioneering expenses e.g. for printed matter, hire of meeting halls, etc. will be paid by the Town Hall (not paid to the Candidates themselves). It will be illegal for a sum greater than £5,000 to be spent on any one Candidate’s behalf.

ELECTIONS

An MP’s term of membership of the House of Commons will be approximately two years. An Election will be held in each constituency every approximately two years. Retiring MPs will be able to stand for re-election.

Constituency election days will be spread approximately evenly over a two-year cycle. There will be no country-wide election day.

VOTING

The electorate will vote for the candidate who they consider will best represent the interests of the constituency. Candidates will not be members of or affiliated to any Political Party since all Political Parties will have been dissolved.

Voting will be obligatory (fines for those failing to vote). Votes will be cast by Postal Vote, or by Internet, or by personal attendance at a Polling Station.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT

The House of Commons will, as now, have approximately 650 Members (MPs) each of whom will have been elected by his constituency.

MPs will be obliged to attend the House without absence for all the hours the House is in session. Permission for essential absence may be granted by the Speaker.

The House of Lords will have approximately 500 Members representing the Professional and Special Interest bodies of the nation, and will be appointed by those bodies themselves. E.g. Architects, Construction Industry, Nurses, Police, the Aged, Child welfare, Trade Unions, major Religions, the CBI, etc.

SELECT COMMITTEES

The executive government of the country will, as now, be managed by the various Departments of Government (there are currently some 16 Departments). As now, for each Department there will be a Select Committee to monitor the workings of that Department. The Select Committees will consist of about 12 MPs selected for their expertise in the remit of their respective Department.

The duties of the Select Committees will be enhanced to include, together, with their Government Departments, the formulation of new laws (and amendments to existing laws) on matters within the responsibility of their Department. The Chairman of each Select Committee will propose and introduce such new (or amended) laws to the House of Commons.

To coordinate the business of the House of Commons, the Chairmen of the Select Committees will form a Coordinating Committee, which will appoint its own “Chairman of the Chairmen’s Committee”.

LEGISLATION

Each proposed new law will be proposed by the chairman of the appropriate Select Committee, debated in parliament by the assembled MPs and then voted upon by a ‘Majority Free Vote’. (In a True Democracy Government, ALL votes will be ‘Free Votes’.) Laws approved by majority vote will be sent, as now, to the House of Lords for detailed scrutiny.

Parliamentary time will be set aside for “Select Committees’ Questions (now Prime Minister’s Questions), giving the opportunity for individual MPs to ask questions of the Chairman of any of the Select Committees on the workings of that Committee’s department.

Additionally, Private Member’s Bills (laws proposed by an individual MP) will be possible.

The House of Lords will, as now, debate each proposed new law and, if deemed necessary, refer it back to the House of Commons for amendment. The House of Commons will, as now, have the power to override the House of Lord’s rejection.

INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION

The Chairman of the Chairman’s Committee will represent the nation in place of a Prime Minister. The Chairmen of the Select Committees will act in place of Ministers e.g. the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee will replace the Foreign Secretary.

CONSTITUENCY OFFICES

To assist the MPs in their duties, each constituency will have a Constituency Office located within the constituency, with a small permanent ‘civil service’ staff. The cost of the office and the staff will be paid for by the state.

ACCOMMODATION and EXPENSES

MPs and members of the House of Lords will receive appropriate salaries but no expense allowances other than the refund of traveling expenses from their constituency to the Houses of Parliament for the period when Parliament is in session.

The State will own and operate an hotel-style facility near the Houses of Parliament for the use of Members (free of charge while the Houses are in session). Expense claims for a “London home” will not be eligible for payment.

PRIVATE FUNDING

In keeping with the principles of a True Democracy,

• Elections - Payment in cash or kind to, or any form of coercion of, a candidate by any individual or group, will be a criminal offence, both for the party making the payment or attempting coercion, and for the Candidate accepting same.
• Members of Parliament - Members of both the Houses of Commons and Lords will vote on bills put before them purely on their unbiased assessment of the ‘good of all’. Payment in cash or kind to, or any form of coercion of a Member by any individual or group, will be a criminal offence, both for the party making the payment or attempting coercion, and for the Member accepting same.

LOBBYING

Individuals or associations will be permitted to ‘lobby’ MPs – that is to present the case or a petition for a new or amended law – but strictly subject to the prohibition described in the previous paragraph.

COUNTY COUNCILS and LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The ‘True Democracy’ principles as outlined above – i.e. no political party affiliations, no funding and ‘free votes’ etc -- will apply to County Councils and Local Government.

THE MONARCHY

All remaining legislative and executive powers and duties of the Monarchy will be dissolved. E.g. the ‘royal assent’, ‘reserve powers’ ‘opening of parliament’ etc.

The Monarchy will continue as now to perform ceremonial and charity-sponsoring functions, both at home and overseas.

ARMED FORCES

The armed forces will swear allegiance to “The Constitution and Government of the UK”.