UK: Big 'bung parliament' voter initiative to push parties for real change

[Paul Rigby]

Where the Brown Envelope Party leads, the cognoscenti follow. Give or take the odd typo.

http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagi...7526&blz=1

UK: Big 'hung parliament' voter initiative to push parties for real change

2010-04-14 | As the latest Populus and ComRes opinion polls indicate a narrowing election lead for the Tories, campaigners for political reform are launching a bold "Hang 'Em - until they change" initiative.

The ground-up e-politics venture, officially launched tomorrow, "can play a genuine role in shaping the outcome on 6 May and beyond", say its initiators - both individuals and organisations.

The Hang 'Em website ( http://hang-em.com ) went live this morning - 14 April 2010 - with more details and key supporters due to be revealed later tonight and tomorrow.

"The idea is simple," say the organisations behind the campaign - which include openDemocracy, the thinktank Ekklesia, Charter 2010 and Progressive Parliament. "Hang ‘Em is a way to join together across the country to vote for candidates who will hang parliament. We have got to renew democracy in Britain. They won‘t, so hang ‘em until they do." MORE http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11826

Please also see some background information.

All elections are a joke: let’s treat them with the contempt they deserve
http://www.wombles.org.uk/article2010035943.php

[Paul Rigby]

There is, inevitably, a cynical move afoot by establishment forces to channel the seething and highly principled discontent embodied in the BEP. (Or so it says on the back of the most recent cheque from Belize...)

Sinister bearded propagandists, men and women with long histories of collusion with dark establishment forces, are intent upon disguising their moves to secure Britain's position in Europe against the threat posed by the neo-con Cameroonians. How so?

By agitating for a hung parliament, ensuring the Lib Dems, lead by the infamous bore Nick Clogg, negate the wilder schemes of British neo-connery. Here is the kind of thing I mean:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...mplausible

The choice this election is three brands of implausible

All parties herald a new politics. None will deliver it alone. The makeup of the next parliament matters more than ever.

Timothy Garton Ash
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 14 April 2010 21.00 BST

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the most implausible of them all? It's a close run thing. None of the parties are levelling with us about the flesh-eating politics of austerity that we'll face for the next few years. To get a sense of what really awaits us, don't watch tomorrow's TV debates. Just visit Ireland.

Meanwhile, my interim prize for most implausible campaign pitch goes to the Conservatives for page 62 of their manifesto. This shows a shadowy figure holding up a banner proclaiming "People Power". Well, I've witnessed a few historic moments of "people power" and if the political reform proposals that follow in the Conservative manifesto add up to people power, then I'm a Filipino.

In fact, there is an intriguing kind of triple bluff here. They call themselves Conservatives (step 1), yet (step 2) they speak a language of radical change which would have Edmund Burke turning in his grave and Tom Paine rejoicing. We need "radical political reform" says the manifesto, in bold type. "We need to change the whole way this country is run." There should be "a sweeping redistribution of power". "We will weaken the old political elites, give people power …" Off with their heads! Or rather, since David Cameron and his colleagues could hardly be more representative of this country's old political elites: off with our heads!

Yet when you read the detailed proposals that follow, you realise that (triple bluff, step 3) they don't mean it after all. They are Conservatives pretending to be Jacobins but in fact being Conservatives. Burke dressed as Paine. Yes, there would be a right for voters to recall their MP, restrictions on party funding and lobbying, some element of English votes for English laws, and the welcome possibility of a popular petition to parliament – but otherwise the ancien regime structure of an overmighty executive ruling in the name of the crown-in-parliament would remain in place. Indeed, this old order would be reasserted against "Europe" in a sovereignty bill.

Their proposed "fair vote" reforms would – quite rightly – correct the bias against the Conservatives in the current constituency map, but otherwise change little. They would stick with the first-past-the post voting system. Their commitments on strengthening the independence of the House of Commons fall short of what a cross-party committee chaired by Tony Wright has already proposed. Their language on reform of the House of Lords is purest woolsack – "we will work to build a consensus for a mainly elected second chamber" – and in the last days of the old parliament they actually voted to save the remaining hereditary peers. As Tony Blair demonstrated, once you are inside No 10, the temptation to run the old machine in the old way is irresistible. Just wait till Cameron appoints his first clutch of placelings to an unreformed Lords.

I applaud the Conservatives' desire to bring more power down to the local level, but here, too, the proposals are less radical than they seem. Elected mayors in England's 12 largest cities would be great, but a token right to instigate local referendums is no substitute for serious, independent revenue-raising powers.

Labour runs the Tories close for implausibility, but in a different way. Labour's proposals for political reform are both bolder and more specific. They include a double referendum, on introducing the alternative vote for elections to the Commons and on an elected second chamber, legislation for fixed-term parliaments and, most interestingly, an all-party commission "to chart a course to a written constitution". Good stuff. But where have they been for the last 13 years? In power. So why have they not done it? As long ago as 1992, the Labour party manifesto promised to end misuse of the royal prerogative, turn the Lords into an elected second chamber and introduce a fixed parliamentary term. It was in 1998 that the Jenkins commission, formed at the request of the first Blair government, recommended an "alternative vote plus" voting system. If a drunken uncle spends 13 years telling you he's going to give up the drink – "no, really, this time I mean it" – you may end up having some difficulty believing him. "No, really, this time I mean it," says uncle Gordon, grinning like Jack Nicholson playing the Joker.

To be fair, those 13 years have given us unprecedented devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, independence for the Bank of England, the Freedom of Information Act and the Human Rights Act (which the Conservatives want to repeal). But when push comes to shove – as over Iraq, or authoritarian laws curbing civil liberties – the overmighty executive has continued to bulldoze its way through a supine parliament. Labour has dismantled significant elements of the old constitutional order, but not built a new one in its place.

As for the Liberal Democrats, they remain implausible in their own sweet way. Their manifesto envisages major changes, including proportional representation and a written constitution, which, if implemented, would fundamentally reform our political system. But who believes they have the power to implement them?

So, make your choice. Which brand of implausibility do you prefer? On the bright side, a not entirely logical consequence of media-stoked popular indignation about MPs' expenses has been to make all the parties pay more attention to this whole area of "cleaner" or "new" politics. It will be interesting to see what time it gets in tomorrow's TV debates; had there been TV debates at the last election, it would probably have got none. But it won't be an election decider. Economic policies, the "time for a change" argument, TV performances, even the leaders' wives will have more impact. Moreover, on political reform, most British voters have a mental disconnect between their perceptions of the illness and the cure. Tell them "our politics are rotten", and they'll heartily agree. Start talking about constitutional reform and their eyes glaze over, as if the Mormons had just come to call.


Where does this leave those of us who care about political reform? The hope that has been hovering in the wings of British politics for three decades is, of course, a popular front of the liberal centre-left. As anyone who has read Paddy Ashdown's diaries knows, this was the future once. It may be again. However, only if Labour were to win more seats than the Tories on 6 May, but fall short of an overall majority, would an immediate rebirth of that Lib-Lab alignment be on the cards. Even then, how many voters would regard it as legitimate? On current polling, it does not look likely anyway. And you can't second guess a complex equation with your single vote.

Nonetheless, I agree with the veteran constitutional reformer Anthony Barnett that anyone who cares about these things should look for those reform-minded candidates, whether Lib Dems, representatives of smaller parties, independents, or Tory and Labour dissidents, who increase the likelihood of a strong parliament that will push for the systemic change we need. This journey has taken longer than it need have: with a Conservative government it would take even longer; but we'll get there in the end. After all, so far we have spent a mere 30 years crossing the desert

[David Guyatt]

his journey has taken longer than it need have: with a Conservative government it would take even longer; but we'll get there in the end. After all, so far we have spent a mere 30 years crossing the desert.

Based on the analogy of "crossing the desert" we're all going to die of thirst before things change.

I found the statement "but we'll get there in the end" to be complete bollocks.

[Paul Rigby]

I found the statement "but we'll get there in the end" to be complete bollocks.

Yes, but perfectly Chatham House bollocks.