Perverting the course of democracy

[truman]

An interesting point. It comes down to who the politicians represent, the people who put them there, or the party.

 

I reckon in most cases it's the party that puts the MP's in..how much input do the locals have in who steps up for election? All the candidates are selected by the parties..so whoever gets voted in is there due to the party selecting them in the first place.. if you get my drift...

[DrNorm]

Whereas it's true that most people don't have much time for politics and there can't be many people that have ever read a manifesto, when we do elect somebody to represent us, we should expect that they do so to the best of their ability. In cases where an MP is not persuaded by their own party's arguments, we should expect, and they should be allowed to vote without fear of the consequences from officially sanctioned bullies, ie the whips.

 

In starting the post I was thinking about outside vested interests that have a hold over parties who in turn enforce their will over MPs through the whips. AnnaB raised the issue of lobbying. No matter how pragmatic we are about parties enforcing internal discipline (a price you may say MPs pay for the support provided by the party) shouldn't we be much more suspicious of the outside forces at play who get their way through powers that are not granted to them through the ballot box?

 

I don't have a specific case in mind, but I have had my eyes opened by The House Of Cards. Whereas I'm fully aware this is USA based fiction, it does have a ring of truth and raises concerns about the value of our vote whichever party we choose.

 

I'm persuaded that there are forces who brazenly pervert the course of democracy.

[Anna B]

You say, quite rightly, that most people don't have much time for politics, and therein lies the problem.

We took our eye off the ball and look at the mess we've ended up with. Politicians can now get away with almost anything because they know that most people aren't that interested.

 

It wasn't always like this. I grew up in a household that had a political interest going back to the turn of the century. My grandmother was a suffragette and my grandfather was active in the Unions.

But in those days all people were much more politically aware, and honestly thought they could make a difference - which was still possible - for instance ordinary working class people still had a chance of being selected to stand for the Labour party.

 

Now, however, we've got soft and complacent. Consequently we've got the politicians we deserve. However this looks like being a very peculiar election, and there's no doubt it's raised interest levels. People are hopefully beginning to realise that we have to hold them accountable, and try to change a bankrupt system.

[truman]

I don't have a specific case in mind, but I have had my eyes opened by The House Of Cards. Whereas I'm fully aware this is USA based fiction,.

 

Actually it's based on a UK book and TV series,the book was written by Michael Dobbs..Frank Underwood's character in these is called Francis Urquhart...

[Frederick1]

Good post Anna and I agree with what you say.

Of course, in those days, parties were quite honest and looked after the people they were supposed to look after. Don't get that now!

Even under communism in the USSR., if your chosen representative did not do what you had told him/her to do, you had the power to recall them!

Which reminds me - didn't one of the main two parties promise the same thing for our MPs before the 2010 election?

[DrNorm]

People are hopefully beginning to realise that we have to hold them accountable, and try to change a bankrupt system.

 

There was a time when students would be more politically active. Despite the fact that they're in a much worse position than their parents, they seem to have no appetite for politics. Or maybe this is the lull before a revolutionary storm that wipes away the bankrupt system?

 

---------- Post added 01-04-2015 at 17:53 ----------

 

Actually it's based on a UK book and TV series ...

I couldn't possibly comment ...

 

... OK yes, you're absolutely right. I don't remember much of the TV series (25 years ago!) but I do remember that it was also a chilling portrayal of the dark forces at work subverting the notion that "the people" decide policy through their representatives.

 

Perverting the course of democracy is not new, but I think it's a great description for a wide range of activities that should be considered a serious criminal offence.

[LeMaquis]

Does this mean that once elected as an MP, in the majority of cases, you suddenly have to turn into a sheep?

 

Many do turn into sheep. In fact many are sheep before they get elected. But they get elected as representatives of a party and that's where they owe their main loyalty. I'm not defending it but what is the alternative? 650 independents who couldn't form a government?

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2015 at 09:16 ----------

 

What do people expect? We have gone away from electing local MP's and now vote for parties almost exclusively.

 

When did we elect local MPs? In the days of rotten boroughs? Look at Churchill. He was MP at different times in Essex, Oldham, Manchester and Dundee despite coming from Oxfordshire.

[DrNorm]

what is the alternative? 650 independents who couldn't form a government?

 

The decision making process can be improved using technology. Why do we have to hang on to a system that's rooted in the 19th century? Why does a government have to decide the issues that get debated? Why can't it be the issues that our representatives decide collectively that are more important? Indeed why can't democracy be overhauled to be more direct rather than representative? http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?ID=4706&title=Time-for-21st-century-democracy Our outdated systems are vulnerable to powerful bullies who pervert the course of democracy.

 

There are many groups who are developing systems that will hopefully displace our current inadequate systems such as http://democracyos.org/ I've been working on a system myself which will hopefully engage more people in politics who are currently disengaged. It's not as ambitious as some projects but will hopefully raise hope and expectations for better democracy.

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2015 at 20:15 ----------

 

I wouldn't say not following the party whip is a treasonable offence

 

It's the whips I'm accusing and the forces they answer to; the bullies, not the bullied.

[mjw47]

You say, quite rightly, that most people don't have much time for politics, and therein lies the problem.

We took our eye off the ball and look at the mess we've ended up with. Politicians can now get away with almost anything because they know that most people aren't that interested.

 

 

In my view the major problem with interesting people in politics is the voting system, which prevents most people being able to have any real impact on the choice of representative in their constituency.

 

Lived in my home for 33 years now and I can tell you exactly which party will be elected in this area.

 

There is no real point in my voting, that applies even if I wanted to vote for them, they will be elected without my help, if I wanted to vote for another party it would also be a waste of time.

 

How can you expect people to show an interest when it's pointless under the present system?

 

And that in my view is a perversion of democracy.

[DrNorm]

How can you expect people to show an interest when it's pointless under the present system?

 

And that in my view is a perversion of democracy.

 

We can definitely do better than "first past the post". I'm no fan of UKIP but you can't call it democracy when they need over 23 per cent of the overall vote to win a single seat.

 

" ... even at the (probably overestimated) support level of 23 per cent, UKIP will still not win any Westminster seats at all. UKIP will only start to gain some MPs when their national support goes above 23 per cent." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10040207/Ukip-needs-24-per-cent-support-to-have-just-one-MP-after-2015-general-election.html

 

So PR would mean more coalitions? Good. I don't want a single party hijacking parliament. If there's no consensus there's no case for change. If a majority of independent MPs can agree to change then it's probably fair for all.