“…leaving Labour, and Britain’s voters, deprived of any meaningful Opposition.”
Here is the root of my problem with this article. I just don’t see “opposition”. I know I am over simplifying, but not by much. At the core of each of the three main parties I see people representing the same economic and social interests and professing the same view on just about everything. The personnel are essentially interchangeable, and which party they belong to is simply an accident of their private histories. Their conflicts are about who gets to drive around in the ministerial limo and which dinner parties they might, if they are lucky, get invited to.
From this point of view, it doesn’t really matter if one of the wheels falls off the chariot.
How can one possibly be ‘overly cynical’ about this?
It has been like this since at least 1945! Have you forgotten the litany of cretins who have ruled over us?Was Eden for example any better than Johnson, or Heath any better than May?
Clement Attlee is conspicuous because of his decency but few others can emulate him, sadly.
I actually agree with you. Surely, the problems is not simply the cretins but the party system.
A similar system has produced a series of cretins as US president. Think of Bush (the younger version). We don’t seem to be able to get away from this system because you need a lot of money to fight a political campaign. Only political parties can find the money. Whatever wonderful ideas you have as a candidate are completely stifled in the he-haws of parliamentary debate.
I wonder if some form of ‘Direct Democracy’ isn’t the answer.
For the first time ever we have the technology, don’t millions ‘vote’ on various vacuous TV shows?
Off course that would mean ‘trusting’ the dreaded Demos, and that wouldn’t go down well in Quislington would it? Yet we already ‘trust’ them on Jury Service.
When elections are rigged and stolen, as happens now regularly in the US, “claims” of fraud are facts of fraud. The only answer is to safeguard elections by cleaning up the voter roles (no more dead and fake people), demanding ID, in-person one day voting and ballot counting, and prosecution of malefactors committing voting crimes.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but due to a warped electoral college system a Democrat presidential candidate typically needs for more votes to get into office than a Republican.
I think that is an issue that needs to be addressed before picking hairs in the fine details that characterize election challenges.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but due to a warped electoral college system a Democrat presidential candidate typically needs for more votes to get into office than a Republican.
I think that is an issue that needs to be addressed before picking hairs in the fine details that characterize election challenges.
When elections are rigged and stolen, as happens now regularly in the US, “claims” of fraud are facts of fraud. The only answer is to safeguard elections by cleaning up the voter roles (no more dead and fake people), demanding ID, in-person one day voting and ballot counting, and prosecution of malefactors committing voting crimes.
I have been thinking the same thing Charles. I would rather have the oppurtunity to vote on individual issues how I see fit. My MP may vote on my behalf if I don’t bother. Of course the tech is there.
I also think we should tripple MP salaries. Why not attract the best talent? The caveat would be that taking bribes or even entering into discourse with a business or organisation becomes a criminal offense.
Let’s be even braver, how about saying that the cabinet can only be comprised of the very best and most senior civil servants, rather than politicians who have risen to the top based on the sharpness of their blades and sweetness of their tongue, and who won’t care what happens after their term is done.
And while we’re at it, I’m loving the noises about overhauling the House of Lords. As with all aspects of government, we should constantly see what works well in other parts of the world rather than be mired in pomp and tradition. I like the concept of the Austrailian upper house (senate) for example. Shorter terms, with the best of the lower house put forward and voted into the upper house.
By all means raise MP’s salaries three fold but also reduce their numbers by the same amount.
The Australian Senate sounds fine, but frankly nearly anything would be better then the ridiculous HoL we are currently saddled with?
For example why on earth is the actor Julian Fellowes in there? And there are countless other ludicrous examples.
It’s odd to think that PMs receive a paltry salary compared professionals and management. And they’re expect to leave like saints and be crucified for taking a break.
Furthermore, to all intents and purposes, you can’t sue the press for deformation, or even suggest they’re wrong.
Only a fool would want to go into politics…
By all means raise MP’s salaries three fold but also reduce their numbers by the same amount.
The Australian Senate sounds fine, but frankly nearly anything would be better then the ridiculous HoL we are currently saddled with?
For example why on earth is the actor Julian Fellowes in there? And there are countless other ludicrous examples.
It’s odd to think that PMs receive a paltry salary compared professionals and management. And they’re expect to leave like saints and be crucified for taking a break.
Furthermore, to all intents and purposes, you can’t sue the press for deformation, or even suggest they’re wrong.
Only a fool would want to go into politics…
I would be happy with a Swiss style democracy. In US many states have referendums to decide controversial issues.
“The dreaded Demos” (think of Brexit referendum – a few points swing and Remain would have won) might disappoint you, Charles.
The life movement in US (that loudly proclaimed that people were against abortion) got hammered in every single state-wide referendum.
Don’t worry I am now beyond being disappointed.
However knowing a little bit about it, I to am a great fan of the Swiss system. It is precisely what one would expect from a people who had fought hard for their freedom since the days of ‘William Tell” & Co.
The rot set in when Britain ceased to be run and controlled by those who owned it…. As Tocqueville said ” Do not confuse democracy with the will of the masses”….
The rot set in when Britain ceased to be run and controlled by those who owned it…. As Tocqueville said ” Do not confuse democracy with the will of the masses”….
Don’t worry I am now beyond being disappointed.
However knowing a little bit about it, I to am a great fan of the Swiss system. It is precisely what one would expect from a people who had fought hard for their freedom since the days of ‘William Tell” & Co.
Just look at Switzerland.. there they neither know nor care as to who is pm?! They have low taxes, special individually negotiated low taxes for the super rich so as to attract their funds, are not in the EU, have no terrorism threat, no immigration problem and a more than sound economy and super strong currency… Why can we not manage this?
I recall Ken Clarke a few years ago citing Burke to a bored and un-interested Commons. Essentially, Clarke was pointing out that a parliamentary democracy is not a plebiscite democracy but febrile populism fails to appreciate the distinction:
——————Burke quote:
“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his un-biased opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
– Edmund Burke, 1774
That quote from Burke would not sit well with Brexiters, or anyone in the SNP, or indeed anyone who believes in referendums.
(I’m with Thatcher on referendums: “Perhaps the late Lord Attlee was right,” she observed, “when he said that the referendum was a device of dictators and demagogues.”
Nowadays, and this was very evident in relation to Brexit, there is widespread misunderstanding of the difference between a representative democracy and a plebiscite democracy. Brexiters who were furious at what they saw as stalling by the Commons were sincerely furious. Some of them (e.g., Farage, Brendan O’Neill at Spiked) appeared genuinely to believe that an elected representative is bound to implement the result of a popular poll without delay or reflection.
In reality, the UK, like many Western democracies, is a representative democracy. That means (as we all (used to) know) that individual voters entrust elected representatives to act in our best interests and to make decisions on our behalf. *The important point is that they do not do our direct bidding.* They never have done. We expect (or at least hope) that the decisions they take will be aligned with their manifesto or their general economic / social values and opinions. If the decisions they take contradict their manifestos / pre-election promises, then our primary remedy is to vote the baftards out at the next election.
The critical point here is that elected representatives are not mere puppets / ciphers who blindly and uncritically do our bidding. Once elected, the very nature of a representative democracy is that they can pretty much do what they like (within reason and within the bounds of the law) until we next get a chance to boot them out at the next election.
By contrast, in a direct democracy, people call the shots directly. This is what Brexiteers tend to prefer; which is fair enough.
However, some Brexiters seemed to assume that the UK already had that variant of democracy.
Both types of democracy are valid; both have pros and cons.
Nowadays, so used are we to Bake Off, Internet polls etc, that this fundamental distinction has been blurred, if not lost.
As John Harris noted:
“But there is also something deeper at play. For all that it remains the best model of government and politics human beings have yet come up with, in the 21st century, representative democracy is a very tough sell. When people spend half their lives online and can experience at least the sensation of agency and instant gratification, the idea that we elect MPs to exercise their own judgment and then eventually submit their record for approval or rejection can easily seem woefully old-fashioned. I have lost count of the number of people I have met over the last few years who have angrily told me that the function of the Commons was to simply “do our bidding”.
In a recent YouGov poll, 63% of respondents agreed that MPs must “act according to the wishes of their constituents, even when this goes against their own judgment”, a figure that reached 78% among leave voters and – at which point Edmund Burke spins in his grave – 81% of Tory supporters. It is no accident that, like so many populist forces, Nigel Farage’s Brexit party claims to be in favour of direct democracy.”
I blame the Internet. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised to see a new TV show – “Nigel’s Great British Vote-Off” wherein all the great national issues of the day – politics, defence, economics – would be decided by viewers online or via their mobiles: “option 1 to cancel the dole in Liverpool; option 2 to bomb Palestine; option 3 to sell N Ireland – nice to screw you, to screw you, nice!”
Levity aside, my own view is that plebiscites, whether for Brexit or for Scottish independence or anything else, are always a lazy idea.
And 12 people focussing on a single trial over a period of weeks is different from some muppet “swiping left to abolish Trident” while pleasuring himself, which is all “direct democracy” would amount to – onanist rule.
Referendums are too intrinsically febrile, and too susceptible to troll-farm / mob-capture. A system of representative democracy moves more slowly and any change emanating therefrom will be less socially divisive and longer lasting. That is, if you don’t like something, you need to get out there, form a party, sell your ideas to the electorate and get into government on your manifesto. That takes real commitment and tends to weed out the bullfhitters. By contrast, voting in a referendum is no more onerous than voting in bake-off.
What an excellent polemic if I may say so?
I agree with you wholeheartedly but in the last 30 years something has gone terribly wrong with our ‘representative democracy’ and I am not confident that it can be repaired. As Goethe said “nothing lasts forever”.
I am also struck by the fact that two centuries ago Switzerland was one of the poorest regions in Europe, riddled with goitre in certain areas due to inadvertent (probably) inter-breeding, and other such delights, too numerous to list here.
However despite their frankly medieval ‘system’ of direct democracy, based on referendums, it allowed them to somehow adapt and reinvent themselves during the tumultuous years of both the Industrial Revolution, and the political Revolutions of 1830, 1848 etc.
So perhaps we might even learn something from them? Either way Edmund Burke would weep if he could see us today, and who could blame him?
Parliament, and Cameron were too cowardly to make the decision, they handed it over to the electorate and expected they’d get their views endorsed, so in the case of Brexit it is right that Brexiteers complained.
Agree with Charles, a very well-argued post which points out some of the subtleties of democracy that evade many of its most ardent supporters.
As Churchill also said “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
What an excellent polemic if I may say so?
I agree with you wholeheartedly but in the last 30 years something has gone terribly wrong with our ‘representative democracy’ and I am not confident that it can be repaired. As Goethe said “nothing lasts forever”.
I am also struck by the fact that two centuries ago Switzerland was one of the poorest regions in Europe, riddled with goitre in certain areas due to inadvertent (probably) inter-breeding, and other such delights, too numerous to list here.
However despite their frankly medieval ‘system’ of direct democracy, based on referendums, it allowed them to somehow adapt and reinvent themselves during the tumultuous years of both the Industrial Revolution, and the political Revolutions of 1830, 1848 etc.
So perhaps we might even learn something from them? Either way Edmund Burke would weep if he could see us today, and who could blame him?
Parliament, and Cameron were too cowardly to make the decision, they handed it over to the electorate and expected they’d get their views endorsed, so in the case of Brexit it is right that Brexiteers complained.
Agree with Charles, a very well-argued post which points out some of the subtleties of democracy that evade many of its most ardent supporters.
As Churchill also said “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
I have been thinking the same thing Charles. I would rather have the oppurtunity to vote on individual issues how I see fit. My MP may vote on my behalf if I don’t bother. Of course the tech is there.
I also think we should tripple MP salaries. Why not attract the best talent? The caveat would be that taking bribes or even entering into discourse with a business or organisation becomes a criminal offense.
Let’s be even braver, how about saying that the cabinet can only be comprised of the very best and most senior civil servants, rather than politicians who have risen to the top based on the sharpness of their blades and sweetness of their tongue, and who won’t care what happens after their term is done.
And while we’re at it, I’m loving the noises about overhauling the House of Lords. As with all aspects of government, we should constantly see what works well in other parts of the world rather than be mired in pomp and tradition. I like the concept of the Austrailian upper house (senate) for example. Shorter terms, with the best of the lower house put forward and voted into the upper house.
I would be happy with a Swiss style democracy. In US many states have referendums to decide controversial issues.
“The dreaded Demos” (think of Brexit referendum – a few points swing and Remain would have won) might disappoint you, Charles.
The life movement in US (that loudly proclaimed that people were against abortion) got hammered in every single state-wide referendum.
Just look at Switzerland.. there they neither know nor care as to who is pm?! They have low taxes, special individually negotiated low taxes for the super rich so as to attract their funds, are not in the EU, have no terrorism threat, no immigration problem and a more than sound economy and super strong currency… Why can we not manage this?
I recall Ken Clarke a few years ago citing Burke to a bored and un-interested Commons. Essentially, Clarke was pointing out that a parliamentary democracy is not a plebiscite democracy but febrile populism fails to appreciate the distinction:
——————Burke quote:
“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his un-biased opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
– Edmund Burke, 1774
That quote from Burke would not sit well with Brexiters, or anyone in the SNP, or indeed anyone who believes in referendums.
(I’m with Thatcher on referendums: “Perhaps the late Lord Attlee was right,” she observed, “when he said that the referendum was a device of dictators and demagogues.”
Nowadays, and this was very evident in relation to Brexit, there is widespread misunderstanding of the difference between a representative democracy and a plebiscite democracy. Brexiters who were furious at what they saw as stalling by the Commons were sincerely furious. Some of them (e.g., Farage, Brendan O’Neill at Spiked) appeared genuinely to believe that an elected representative is bound to implement the result of a popular poll without delay or reflection.
In reality, the UK, like many Western democracies, is a representative democracy. That means (as we all (used to) know) that individual voters entrust elected representatives to act in our best interests and to make decisions on our behalf. *The important point is that they do not do our direct bidding.* They never have done. We expect (or at least hope) that the decisions they take will be aligned with their manifesto or their general economic / social values and opinions. If the decisions they take contradict their manifestos / pre-election promises, then our primary remedy is to vote the baftards out at the next election.
The critical point here is that elected representatives are not mere puppets / ciphers who blindly and uncritically do our bidding. Once elected, the very nature of a representative democracy is that they can pretty much do what they like (within reason and within the bounds of the law) until we next get a chance to boot them out at the next election.
By contrast, in a direct democracy, people call the shots directly. This is what Brexiteers tend to prefer; which is fair enough.
However, some Brexiters seemed to assume that the UK already had that variant of democracy.
Both types of democracy are valid; both have pros and cons.
Nowadays, so used are we to Bake Off, Internet polls etc, that this fundamental distinction has been blurred, if not lost.
As John Harris noted:
“But there is also something deeper at play. For all that it remains the best model of government and politics human beings have yet come up with, in the 21st century, representative democracy is a very tough sell. When people spend half their lives online and can experience at least the sensation of agency and instant gratification, the idea that we elect MPs to exercise their own judgment and then eventually submit their record for approval or rejection can easily seem woefully old-fashioned. I have lost count of the number of people I have met over the last few years who have angrily told me that the function of the Commons was to simply “do our bidding”.
In a recent YouGov poll, 63% of respondents agreed that MPs must “act according to the wishes of their constituents, even when this goes against their own judgment”, a figure that reached 78% among leave voters and – at which point Edmund Burke spins in his grave – 81% of Tory supporters. It is no accident that, like so many populist forces, Nigel Farage’s Brexit party claims to be in favour of direct democracy.”
I blame the Internet. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised to see a new TV show – “Nigel’s Great British Vote-Off” wherein all the great national issues of the day – politics, defence, economics – would be decided by viewers online or via their mobiles: “option 1 to cancel the dole in Liverpool; option 2 to bomb Palestine; option 3 to sell N Ireland – nice to screw you, to screw you, nice!”
Levity aside, my own view is that plebiscites, whether for Brexit or for Scottish independence or anything else, are always a lazy idea.
And 12 people focussing on a single trial over a period of weeks is different from some muppet “swiping left to abolish Trident” while pleasuring himself, which is all “direct democracy” would amount to – onanist rule.
Referendums are too intrinsically febrile, and too susceptible to troll-farm / mob-capture. A system of representative democracy moves more slowly and any change emanating therefrom will be less socially divisive and longer lasting. That is, if you don’t like something, you need to get out there, form a party, sell your ideas to the electorate and get into government on your manifesto. That takes real commitment and tends to weed out the bullfhitters. By contrast, voting in a referendum is no more onerous than voting in bake-off.
I wonder if some form of ‘Direct Democracy’ isn’t the answer.
For the first time ever we have the technology, don’t millions ‘vote’ on various vacuous TV shows?
Off course that would mean ‘trusting’ the dreaded Demos, and that wouldn’t go down well in Quislington would it? Yet we already ‘trust’ them on Jury Service.
I actually agree with you. Surely, the problems is not simply the cretins but the party system.
A similar system has produced a series of cretins as US president. Think of Bush (the younger version). We don’t seem to be able to get away from this system because you need a lot of money to fight a political campaign. Only political parties can find the money. Whatever wonderful ideas you have as a candidate are completely stifled in the he-haws of parliamentary debate.
In my youth, Labour and the Tories disagreed over some pretty fundamental issues.
Tell what they disagree on now, Max? I don’t mean what mood music they play during the election campaign, but what they do when in office.
I am compelled to agree, we have 2 Partys soft liberal (note the lower case l!) struggling to occupy a crowded Left of centre spot. In an attempt to distance themselves from the Left or Right ‘extremists’ in their respective Partys. it has become a battle of soundbites and bitching, with neither Party displaying a scintilla of of understanding of the root cause. In a ‘Dynamic’ political system there should arguably be an acknowledgement of Structure>Process>Outcome. They are locked in an interminable battle about structure, they differ on Process and are distinctly uncertain about Outcomes, other than those which are political pot stirring when the whole country is in crisis.
I am compelled to agree, we have 2 Partys soft liberal (note the lower case l!) struggling to occupy a crowded Left of centre spot. In an attempt to distance themselves from the Left or Right ‘extremists’ in their respective Partys. it has become a battle of soundbites and bitching, with neither Party displaying a scintilla of of understanding of the root cause. In a ‘Dynamic’ political system there should arguably be an acknowledgement of Structure>Process>Outcome. They are locked in an interminable battle about structure, they differ on Process and are distinctly uncertain about Outcomes, other than those which are political pot stirring when the whole country is in crisis.
How can one possibly be ‘overly cynical’ about this?
It has been like this since at least 1945! Have you forgotten the litany of cretins who have ruled over us?Was Eden for example any better than Johnson, or Heath any better than May?
Clement Attlee is conspicuous because of his decency but few others can emulate him, sadly.
In my youth, Labour and the Tories disagreed over some pretty fundamental issues.
Tell what they disagree on now, Max? I don’t mean what mood music they play during the election campaign, but what they do when in office.
I agree that the Tories have burnt out and devoured themselves in a gruesome prolonged death rattle. But I still affirm that the problem is so much deeper and darker than the Tories. The sheer weight and power of the permanent unelected Technocracy/Quangocracy/Blob has eviscerared all parliamentary democracy. Power – real power (supreme laws/interest rates/regulations of public services inc the monolithic failed NHS – lies not in the hands of the 50 odd elected Executive. The technocrats have held those levers as part of the Blairite & EU revolution for 20 years and they have overseen titanic strategic disasters at every turn; QE, no energy, covid, net zero madness. So we have now reached the stage where Treasury Orthodoxy or NHS money demands cannot even be resisted by the here today gone tomorrow politicians (RIP Truss). The shockingly poor educational standards and disconnection of modern politicians from real life (how many have run a business??) means this shift toward Oligarchy is irreversible. A Labour party will be even more malleable as they are the Party of the entitled disastrous public sector. They like the SNP or Biden will pack the Commins with nutty students who despise Tory scum and their own History. They will focus only on identitarianism identity politics and the advancement of the toxic cultural socialism agenda that has – in parallel with this unacknowledged collapse of parliamentary democracy – atrophied and poisoned our cultural life.
I agree that the Tories have burnt out and devoured themselves in a gruesome prolonged death rattle. But I still affirm that the problem is so much deeper and darker than the Tories. The sheer weight and power of the permanent unelected Technocracy/Quangocracy/Blob has eviscerared all parliamentary democracy. Power – real power (supreme laws/interest rates/regulations of public services inc the monolithic failed NHS – lies not in the hands of the 50 odd elected Executive. The technocrats have held those levers as part of the Blairite & EU revolution for 20 years and they have overseen titanic strategic disasters at every turn; QE, no energy, covid, net zero madness. So we have now reached the stage where Treasury Orthodoxy or NHS money demands cannot even be resisted by the here today gone tomorrow politicians (RIP Truss). The shockingly poor educational standards and disconnection of modern politicians from real life (how many have run a business??) means this shift toward Oligarchy is irreversible. A Labour party will be even more malleable as they are the Party of the entitled disastrous public sector. They like the SNP or Biden will pack the Commins with nutty students who despise Tory scum and their own History. They will focus only on identitarianism identity politics and the advancement of the toxic cultural socialism agenda that has – in parallel with this unacknowledged collapse of parliamentary democracy – atrophied and poisoned our cultural life.
polidori redux
1 year ago
“…leaving Labour, and Britain’s voters, deprived of any meaningful Opposition.”
Here is the root of my problem with this article. I just don’t see “opposition”. I know I am over simplifying, but not by much. At the core of each of the three main parties I see people representing the same economic and social interests and professing the same view on just about everything. The personnel are essentially interchangeable, and which party they belong to is simply an accident of their private histories. Their conflicts are about who gets to drive around in the ministerial limo and which dinner parties they might, if they are lucky, get invited to.
From this point of view, it doesn’t really matter if one of the wheels falls off the chariot.
R Wright
1 year ago
This article seemingly fails to point out that the Tories rotted out decades ago. After 12 years in power they have conserved nothing, presiding over same sex marriage, divorce liberalisation, the Equality Act, a population explosion in the millions, draconian medical policies and most of the party fighting against the will of the people over leaving the EU. Any chunks of flesh that fall off at this point can only be a good thing. Tories delenda est.
“Just saying NO to things is not an answer.”
Yes it is. Reactionism is the raison d’etre of being a conservative. There is no other reason for a conservative to be in power.
“Just saying NO to things is not an answer.”
Yes it is. Reactionism is the raison d’etre of being a conservative. There is no other reason for a conservative to be in power.
The people voted to leave the EU in an official referendum prepared by the Conservative party and UK Government, and subsequently the Tories spent 3 years trying to collapse it all. It took the threat of electoral oblivion at the hands of Farage’s Brexit Party in 2019 to have Theresa May cast out and some measly form of the process concluded.
The people voted to leave the EU in an official referendum prepared by the Conservative party and UK Government, and subsequently the Tories spent 3 years trying to collapse it all. It took the threat of electoral oblivion at the hands of Farage’s Brexit Party in 2019 to have Theresa May cast out and some measly form of the process concluded.
I don’t understand, do you mean ‘the people’ didn’t vote to leave the EU? Or that these conservatives where reluctant to leave the EU?
R Wright
1 year ago
This article seemingly fails to point out that the Tories rotted out decades ago. After 12 years in power they have conserved nothing, presiding over same sex marriage, divorce liberalisation, the Equality Act, a population explosion in the millions, draconian medical policies and most of the party fighting against the will of the people over leaving the EU. Any chunks of flesh that fall off at this point can only be a good thing. Tories delenda est.
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
This exodus is not just limited to politics. It’s happening across the public sector board too. As our institutions become increasingly sclerotic and corrupt, their best people will look for greener pastures in which to put their skills to good use.
I’m not talking about that kind of corruption. ‘No longer fit for purpose’ may be a better term. Almost every institution has become extractive in that, despite outward appearances and noble mission statements, their main aim is to maintain the salaries of a bloated managerial class. Think of universities where administrators are paid six-figure salaries while the majority of faculty are on zero-hour work contracts and the students pay 9,000 pounds a year for tuition.
Most of our universities are worthless, and should be turned back into the Polys they originally were before that complete idiot John Major ‘upgraded’ them.
Most of our universities are worthless, and should be turned back into the Polys they originally were before that complete idiot John Major ‘upgraded’ them.
Do MPs even have a say? Here in Canada, they vote according to party line (or are expelled), a party line dictated from the prime minister’s office… who performs on behalf of his enablers? Elections are staged to provide an appearance of democracy. Did you know our prime minister trained as a drama teacher? That is all the training you need to stage this muppet show.
I’m not talking about that kind of corruption. ‘No longer fit for purpose’ may be a better term. Almost every institution has become extractive in that, despite outward appearances and noble mission statements, their main aim is to maintain the salaries of a bloated managerial class. Think of universities where administrators are paid six-figure salaries while the majority of faculty are on zero-hour work contracts and the students pay 9,000 pounds a year for tuition.
Do MPs even have a say? Here in Canada, they vote according to party line (or are expelled), a party line dictated from the prime minister’s office… who performs on behalf of his enablers? Elections are staged to provide an appearance of democracy. Did you know our prime minister trained as a drama teacher? That is all the training you need to stage this muppet show.
sclerotic may be but corrupt? where is the evidence that MPs are “selling” their votes for money?!
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
This exodus is not just limited to politics. It’s happening across the public sector board too. As our institutions become increasingly sclerotic and corrupt, their best people will look for greener pastures in which to put their skills to good use.
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
The Tories collapsed from within long ago. Cameron was simply a Blairite entryist (interestingly, an apostate Thatcherite from the time when the Iron Lady seemed unassailable; a turn-coat, if you like)
Which of these catastrophic policies are NOT supported by any one of the GreenLibLabCons
QE, Low interest rates, deficit, covid lockdown and Net Zero?
All 5 combined to cause the disaster we are seeing now, and it is no consolation that most of the rest of the World’s leaders did the same.
Which of these catastrophic policies are NOT supported by any one of the GreenLibLabCons
QE, Low interest rates, deficit, covid lockdown and Net Zero?
All 5 combined to cause the disaster we are seeing now, and it is no consolation that most of the rest of the World’s leaders did the same.
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
The Tories collapsed from within long ago. Cameron was simply a Blairite entryist (interestingly, an apostate Thatcherite from the time when the Iron Lady seemed unassailable; a turn-coat, if you like)
Fran Martinez
1 year ago
If Hancock was the ‘talent’ then I think there were much bigger problems
LOL – you upset that the demos saw him in the Jungle and decided he wasn’t the monster the MSM & the Islington set painted him?
Fran Martinez
1 year ago
If Hancock was the ‘talent’ then I think there were much bigger problems
James Kirk
1 year ago
Every day Sunak and Hunt get worse. They’re looking like the victors of an invasion. I imagine the Saxons felt much the same after William the Conqueror came ashore as we do now.
For the two main parties, about 25 million vote. Traditionally half each with the balance going to the swing voter; a quarter wasted on the LibDem vote, though that helped Cameron out in 2010.
Some, like the deluded Tugendhat, think the Tories can recover. Others fantasise that Boris can return.
The writing’s on the wall for Sunak. Does Joe Public have the nerve, is he/she angry enough, to dispense with all of them? Labour included?
James Kirk
1 year ago
Every day Sunak and Hunt get worse. They’re looking like the victors of an invasion. I imagine the Saxons felt much the same after William the Conqueror came ashore as we do now.
For the two main parties, about 25 million vote. Traditionally half each with the balance going to the swing voter; a quarter wasted on the LibDem vote, though that helped Cameron out in 2010.
Some, like the deluded Tugendhat, think the Tories can recover. Others fantasise that Boris can return.
The writing’s on the wall for Sunak. Does Joe Public have the nerve, is he/she angry enough, to dispense with all of them? Labour included?
Peter Scott
1 year ago
This writer talks of a loss of talent.
Where? What talent has been in view these many years gone by?
Peter Scott
1 year ago
This writer talks of a loss of talent.
Where? What talent has been in view these many years gone by?
Peter H
1 year ago
Our current political structure is not only not working but is also keen to maintain the status quo. Five Star direct democracy might be new to many of you. Essentially, they are an idea rather than a political party. They have a vision of how change can be effected. With the growing concern regarding uncontrolled migration we need to urgently find a way of empowering interested individuals who feel they have a vision for Britain’s future.
Peter H
1 year ago
Our current political structure is not only not working but is also keen to maintain the status quo. Five Star direct democracy might be new to many of you. Essentially, they are an idea rather than a political party. They have a vision of how change can be effected. With the growing concern regarding uncontrolled migration we need to urgently find a way of empowering interested individuals who feel they have a vision for Britain’s future.
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
I do hope Mr Oxley is not suggesting that the loss of Nick Hancock would constitute an exodus of talent?
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
I do hope Mr Oxley is not suggesting that the loss of Nick Hancock would constitute an exodus of talent?
Jeremy Smith
1 year ago
People (including here) constantly complain about “career politicians”…well they should be happy now.
And if the local party organization is unhappy with the “out of touch” MP (with an MBA from UC Berkley) they can always select the village drunk/idiot to represent them.
I only hope that Mark Francois remains MP (full credit to the voters of R&W for electing him – again and again).
Jeremy Smith
1 year ago
People (including here) constantly complain about “career politicians”…well they should be happy now.
And if the local party organization is unhappy with the “out of touch” MP (with an MBA from UC Berkley) they can always select the village drunk/idiot to represent them.
I only hope that Mark Francois remains MP (full credit to the voters of R&W for electing him – again and again).
Max Price
1 year ago
This seems like premature wish fulfilment.
Max Price
1 year ago
This seems like premature wish fulfilment.
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
The Tories kicked out most of the sensible or principled ones a few years ago anyway.
Starting perhaps with the blessed Enoch, sometime ago now.
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
The Tories kicked out most of the sensible or principled ones a few years ago anyway.
Mr Bellisarius
1 year ago
Well as the article indirectly notes, younger people are far more likely to leave a party that is in office than a party that is in opposition.
I would have thought the reason was obvious: MPs of a party that are in office have a better idea of what they can achieve and how far they could realistically go. The opposition, on the other hand, can dream on towards the glorious day…
“…leaving Labour, and Britain’s voters, deprived of any meaningful Opposition.”
Here is the root of my problem with this article. I just don’t see “opposition”. I know I am over simplifying, but not by much. At the core of each of the three main parties I see people representing the same economic and social interests and professing the same view on just about everything. The personnel are essentially interchangeable, and which party they belong to is simply an accident of their private histories. Their conflicts are about who gets to drive around in the ministerial limo and which dinner parties they might, if they are lucky, get invited to.
From this point of view, it doesn’t really matter if one of the wheels falls off the chariot.
I understand your sentiment but this seems overly cynical.
How can one possibly be ‘overly cynical’ about this?
It has been like this since at least 1945! Have you forgotten the litany of cretins who have ruled over us?Was Eden for example any better than Johnson, or Heath any better than May?
Clement Attlee is conspicuous because of his decency but few others can emulate him, sadly.
I actually agree with you. Surely, the problems is not simply the cretins but the party system.
A similar system has produced a series of cretins as US president. Think of Bush (the younger version). We don’t seem to be able to get away from this system because you need a lot of money to fight a political campaign. Only political parties can find the money. Whatever wonderful ideas you have as a candidate are completely stifled in the he-haws of parliamentary debate.
I wonder if some form of ‘Direct Democracy’ isn’t the answer.
For the first time ever we have the technology, don’t millions ‘vote’ on various vacuous TV shows?
Off course that would mean ‘trusting’ the dreaded Demos, and that wouldn’t go down well in Quislington would it? Yet we already ‘trust’ them on Jury Service.
Wonderful idea but imagine the neverending claims of electoral fraud!
When elections are rigged and stolen, as happens now regularly in the US, “claims” of fraud are facts of fraud. The only answer is to safeguard elections by cleaning up the voter roles (no more dead and fake people), demanding ID, in-person one day voting and ballot counting, and prosecution of malefactors committing voting crimes.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but due to a warped electoral college system a Democrat presidential candidate typically needs for more votes to get into office than a Republican.
I think that is an issue that needs to be addressed before picking hairs in the fine details that characterize election challenges.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but due to a warped electoral college system a Democrat presidential candidate typically needs for more votes to get into office than a Republican.
I think that is an issue that needs to be addressed before picking hairs in the fine details that characterize election challenges.
When elections are rigged and stolen, as happens now regularly in the US, “claims” of fraud are facts of fraud. The only answer is to safeguard elections by cleaning up the voter roles (no more dead and fake people), demanding ID, in-person one day voting and ballot counting, and prosecution of malefactors committing voting crimes.
I have been thinking the same thing Charles. I would rather have the oppurtunity to vote on individual issues how I see fit. My MP may vote on my behalf if I don’t bother. Of course the tech is there.
I also think we should tripple MP salaries. Why not attract the best talent? The caveat would be that taking bribes or even entering into discourse with a business or organisation becomes a criminal offense.
Let’s be even braver, how about saying that the cabinet can only be comprised of the very best and most senior civil servants, rather than politicians who have risen to the top based on the sharpness of their blades and sweetness of their tongue, and who won’t care what happens after their term is done.
And while we’re at it, I’m loving the noises about overhauling the House of Lords. As with all aspects of government, we should constantly see what works well in other parts of the world rather than be mired in pomp and tradition. I like the concept of the Austrailian upper house (senate) for example. Shorter terms, with the best of the lower house put forward and voted into the upper house.
By all means raise MP’s salaries three fold but also reduce their numbers by the same amount.
The Australian Senate sounds fine, but frankly nearly anything would be better then the ridiculous HoL we are currently saddled with?
For example why on earth is the actor Julian Fellowes in there? And there are countless other ludicrous examples.
I’d simply scrap the Lords. In my view a second chamber adds nothing to democracy apart from adding more salaries to the public purse
I agree. Politics will inevitably devolve to smaller communities and it looks like the House of Lords will be our only opposition.
It’s odd to think that PMs receive a paltry salary compared professionals and management. And they’re expect to leave like saints and be crucified for taking a break.
Furthermore, to all intents and purposes, you can’t sue the press for deformation, or even suggest they’re wrong.
Only a fool would want to go into politics…
By all means raise MP’s salaries three fold but also reduce their numbers by the same amount.
The Australian Senate sounds fine, but frankly nearly anything would be better then the ridiculous HoL we are currently saddled with?
For example why on earth is the actor Julian Fellowes in there? And there are countless other ludicrous examples.
I’d simply scrap the Lords. In my view a second chamber adds nothing to democracy apart from adding more salaries to the public purse
I agree. Politics will inevitably devolve to smaller communities and it looks like the House of Lords will be our only opposition.
It’s odd to think that PMs receive a paltry salary compared professionals and management. And they’re expect to leave like saints and be crucified for taking a break.
Furthermore, to all intents and purposes, you can’t sue the press for deformation, or even suggest they’re wrong.
Only a fool would want to go into politics…
I would be happy with a Swiss style democracy. In US many states have referendums to decide controversial issues.
“The dreaded Demos” (think of Brexit referendum – a few points swing and Remain would have won) might disappoint you, Charles.
The life movement in US (that loudly proclaimed that people were against abortion) got hammered in every single state-wide referendum.
Don’t worry I am now beyond being disappointed.
However knowing a little bit about it, I to am a great fan of the Swiss system. It is precisely what one would expect from a people who had fought hard for their freedom since the days of ‘William Tell” & Co.
The rot set in when Britain ceased to be run and controlled by those who owned it…. As Tocqueville said ” Do not confuse democracy with the will of the masses”….
The rot set in when Britain ceased to be run and controlled by those who owned it…. As Tocqueville said ” Do not confuse democracy with the will of the masses”….
Don’t worry I am now beyond being disappointed.
However knowing a little bit about it, I to am a great fan of the Swiss system. It is precisely what one would expect from a people who had fought hard for their freedom since the days of ‘William Tell” & Co.
Charles.
Yes.
2022 democracy and not 1922 democracy.
In 1922 we actually had democracy. Not in 2022.
In 1922 we actually had democracy. Not in 2022.
Just look at Switzerland.. there they neither know nor care as to who is pm?! They have low taxes, special individually negotiated low taxes for the super rich so as to attract their funds, are not in the EU, have no terrorism threat, no immigration problem and a more than sound economy and super strong currency… Why can we not manage this?
Also the most heavily armed society certainly in Europe if not the planet.
Nearly everyone has a high velocity rifle, or worse, ‘under the bed’!
Also the most heavily armed society certainly in Europe if not the planet.
Nearly everyone has a high velocity rifle, or worse, ‘under the bed’!
I recall Ken Clarke a few years ago citing Burke to a bored and un-interested Commons. Essentially, Clarke was pointing out that a parliamentary democracy is not a plebiscite democracy but febrile populism fails to appreciate the distinction:
——————Burke quote:
“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his un-biased opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
– Edmund Burke, 1774
That quote from Burke would not sit well with Brexiters, or anyone in the SNP, or indeed anyone who believes in referendums.
(I’m with Thatcher on referendums: “Perhaps the late Lord Attlee was right,” she observed, “when he said that the referendum was a device of dictators and demagogues.”
Nowadays, and this was very evident in relation to Brexit, there is widespread misunderstanding of the difference between a representative democracy and a plebiscite democracy. Brexiters who were furious at what they saw as stalling by the Commons were sincerely furious. Some of them (e.g., Farage, Brendan O’Neill at Spiked) appeared genuinely to believe that an elected representative is bound to implement the result of a popular poll without delay or reflection.
In reality, the UK, like many Western democracies, is a representative democracy. That means (as we all (used to) know) that individual voters entrust elected representatives to act in our best interests and to make decisions on our behalf. *The important point is that they do not do our direct bidding.* They never have done. We expect (or at least hope) that the decisions they take will be aligned with their manifesto or their general economic / social values and opinions. If the decisions they take contradict their manifestos / pre-election promises, then our primary remedy is to vote the baftards out at the next election.
The critical point here is that elected representatives are not mere puppets / ciphers who blindly and uncritically do our bidding. Once elected, the very nature of a representative democracy is that they can pretty much do what they like (within reason and within the bounds of the law) until we next get a chance to boot them out at the next election.
By contrast, in a direct democracy, people call the shots directly. This is what Brexiteers tend to prefer; which is fair enough.
However, some Brexiters seemed to assume that the UK already had that variant of democracy.
Both types of democracy are valid; both have pros and cons.
Nowadays, so used are we to Bake Off, Internet polls etc, that this fundamental distinction has been blurred, if not lost.
As John Harris noted:
“But there is also something deeper at play. For all that it remains the best model of government and politics human beings have yet come up with, in the 21st century, representative democracy is a very tough sell. When people spend half their lives online and can experience at least the sensation of agency and instant gratification, the idea that we elect MPs to exercise their own judgment and then eventually submit their record for approval or rejection can easily seem woefully old-fashioned. I have lost count of the number of people I have met over the last few years who have angrily told me that the function of the Commons was to simply “do our bidding”.
In a recent YouGov poll, 63% of respondents agreed that MPs must “act according to the wishes of their constituents, even when this goes against their own judgment”, a figure that reached 78% among leave voters and – at which point Edmund Burke spins in his grave – 81% of Tory supporters. It is no accident that, like so many populist forces, Nigel Farage’s Brexit party claims to be in favour of direct democracy.”
I blame the Internet. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised to see a new TV show – “Nigel’s Great British Vote-Off” wherein all the great national issues of the day – politics, defence, economics – would be decided by viewers online or via their mobiles: “option 1 to cancel the dole in Liverpool; option 2 to bomb Palestine; option 3 to sell N Ireland – nice to screw you, to screw you, nice!”
Levity aside, my own view is that plebiscites, whether for Brexit or for Scottish independence or anything else, are always a lazy idea.
And 12 people focussing on a single trial over a period of weeks is different from some muppet “swiping left to abolish Trident” while pleasuring himself, which is all “direct democracy” would amount to – onanist rule.
Referendums are too intrinsically febrile, and too susceptible to troll-farm / mob-capture. A system of representative democracy moves more slowly and any change emanating therefrom will be less socially divisive and longer lasting. That is, if you don’t like something, you need to get out there, form a party, sell your ideas to the electorate and get into government on your manifesto. That takes real commitment and tends to weed out the bullfhitters. By contrast, voting in a referendum is no more onerous than voting in bake-off.
What an excellent polemic if I may say so?
I agree with you wholeheartedly but in the last 30 years something has gone terribly wrong with our ‘representative democracy’ and I am not confident that it can be repaired. As Goethe said “nothing lasts forever”.
I am also struck by the fact that two centuries ago Switzerland was one of the poorest regions in Europe, riddled with goitre in certain areas due to inadvertent (probably) inter-breeding, and other such delights, too numerous to list here.
However despite their frankly medieval ‘system’ of direct democracy, based on referendums, it allowed them to somehow adapt and reinvent themselves during the tumultuous years of both the Industrial Revolution, and the political Revolutions of 1830, 1848 etc.
So perhaps we might even learn something from them? Either way Edmund Burke would weep if he could see us today, and who could blame him?
Parliament, and Cameron were too cowardly to make the decision, they handed it over to the electorate and expected they’d get their views endorsed, so in the case of Brexit it is right that Brexiteers complained.
Agree with Charles, a very well-argued post which points out some of the subtleties of democracy that evade many of its most ardent supporters.
As Churchill also said “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
What an excellent polemic if I may say so?
I agree with you wholeheartedly but in the last 30 years something has gone terribly wrong with our ‘representative democracy’ and I am not confident that it can be repaired. As Goethe said “nothing lasts forever”.
I am also struck by the fact that two centuries ago Switzerland was one of the poorest regions in Europe, riddled with goitre in certain areas due to inadvertent (probably) inter-breeding, and other such delights, too numerous to list here.
However despite their frankly medieval ‘system’ of direct democracy, based on referendums, it allowed them to somehow adapt and reinvent themselves during the tumultuous years of both the Industrial Revolution, and the political Revolutions of 1830, 1848 etc.
So perhaps we might even learn something from them? Either way Edmund Burke would weep if he could see us today, and who could blame him?
Parliament, and Cameron were too cowardly to make the decision, they handed it over to the electorate and expected they’d get their views endorsed, so in the case of Brexit it is right that Brexiteers complained.
Agree with Charles, a very well-argued post which points out some of the subtleties of democracy that evade many of its most ardent supporters.
As Churchill also said “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
Wonderful idea but imagine the neverending claims of electoral fraud!
I have been thinking the same thing Charles. I would rather have the oppurtunity to vote on individual issues how I see fit. My MP may vote on my behalf if I don’t bother. Of course the tech is there.
I also think we should tripple MP salaries. Why not attract the best talent? The caveat would be that taking bribes or even entering into discourse with a business or organisation becomes a criminal offense.
Let’s be even braver, how about saying that the cabinet can only be comprised of the very best and most senior civil servants, rather than politicians who have risen to the top based on the sharpness of their blades and sweetness of their tongue, and who won’t care what happens after their term is done.
And while we’re at it, I’m loving the noises about overhauling the House of Lords. As with all aspects of government, we should constantly see what works well in other parts of the world rather than be mired in pomp and tradition. I like the concept of the Austrailian upper house (senate) for example. Shorter terms, with the best of the lower house put forward and voted into the upper house.
I would be happy with a Swiss style democracy. In US many states have referendums to decide controversial issues.
“The dreaded Demos” (think of Brexit referendum – a few points swing and Remain would have won) might disappoint you, Charles.
The life movement in US (that loudly proclaimed that people were against abortion) got hammered in every single state-wide referendum.
Charles.
Yes.
2022 democracy and not 1922 democracy.
Just look at Switzerland.. there they neither know nor care as to who is pm?! They have low taxes, special individually negotiated low taxes for the super rich so as to attract their funds, are not in the EU, have no terrorism threat, no immigration problem and a more than sound economy and super strong currency… Why can we not manage this?
I recall Ken Clarke a few years ago citing Burke to a bored and un-interested Commons. Essentially, Clarke was pointing out that a parliamentary democracy is not a plebiscite democracy but febrile populism fails to appreciate the distinction:
——————Burke quote:
“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his un-biased opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
– Edmund Burke, 1774
That quote from Burke would not sit well with Brexiters, or anyone in the SNP, or indeed anyone who believes in referendums.
(I’m with Thatcher on referendums: “Perhaps the late Lord Attlee was right,” she observed, “when he said that the referendum was a device of dictators and demagogues.”
Nowadays, and this was very evident in relation to Brexit, there is widespread misunderstanding of the difference between a representative democracy and a plebiscite democracy. Brexiters who were furious at what they saw as stalling by the Commons were sincerely furious. Some of them (e.g., Farage, Brendan O’Neill at Spiked) appeared genuinely to believe that an elected representative is bound to implement the result of a popular poll without delay or reflection.
In reality, the UK, like many Western democracies, is a representative democracy. That means (as we all (used to) know) that individual voters entrust elected representatives to act in our best interests and to make decisions on our behalf. *The important point is that they do not do our direct bidding.* They never have done. We expect (or at least hope) that the decisions they take will be aligned with their manifesto or their general economic / social values and opinions. If the decisions they take contradict their manifestos / pre-election promises, then our primary remedy is to vote the baftards out at the next election.
The critical point here is that elected representatives are not mere puppets / ciphers who blindly and uncritically do our bidding. Once elected, the very nature of a representative democracy is that they can pretty much do what they like (within reason and within the bounds of the law) until we next get a chance to boot them out at the next election.
By contrast, in a direct democracy, people call the shots directly. This is what Brexiteers tend to prefer; which is fair enough.
However, some Brexiters seemed to assume that the UK already had that variant of democracy.
Both types of democracy are valid; both have pros and cons.
Nowadays, so used are we to Bake Off, Internet polls etc, that this fundamental distinction has been blurred, if not lost.
As John Harris noted:
“But there is also something deeper at play. For all that it remains the best model of government and politics human beings have yet come up with, in the 21st century, representative democracy is a very tough sell. When people spend half their lives online and can experience at least the sensation of agency and instant gratification, the idea that we elect MPs to exercise their own judgment and then eventually submit their record for approval or rejection can easily seem woefully old-fashioned. I have lost count of the number of people I have met over the last few years who have angrily told me that the function of the Commons was to simply “do our bidding”.
In a recent YouGov poll, 63% of respondents agreed that MPs must “act according to the wishes of their constituents, even when this goes against their own judgment”, a figure that reached 78% among leave voters and – at which point Edmund Burke spins in his grave – 81% of Tory supporters. It is no accident that, like so many populist forces, Nigel Farage’s Brexit party claims to be in favour of direct democracy.”
I blame the Internet. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised to see a new TV show – “Nigel’s Great British Vote-Off” wherein all the great national issues of the day – politics, defence, economics – would be decided by viewers online or via their mobiles: “option 1 to cancel the dole in Liverpool; option 2 to bomb Palestine; option 3 to sell N Ireland – nice to screw you, to screw you, nice!”
Levity aside, my own view is that plebiscites, whether for Brexit or for Scottish independence or anything else, are always a lazy idea.
And 12 people focussing on a single trial over a period of weeks is different from some muppet “swiping left to abolish Trident” while pleasuring himself, which is all “direct democracy” would amount to – onanist rule.
Referendums are too intrinsically febrile, and too susceptible to troll-farm / mob-capture. A system of representative democracy moves more slowly and any change emanating therefrom will be less socially divisive and longer lasting. That is, if you don’t like something, you need to get out there, form a party, sell your ideas to the electorate and get into government on your manifesto. That takes real commitment and tends to weed out the bullfhitters. By contrast, voting in a referendum is no more onerous than voting in bake-off.
I wonder if some form of ‘Direct Democracy’ isn’t the answer.
For the first time ever we have the technology, don’t millions ‘vote’ on various vacuous TV shows?
Off course that would mean ‘trusting’ the dreaded Demos, and that wouldn’t go down well in Quislington would it? Yet we already ‘trust’ them on Jury Service.
I actually agree with you. Surely, the problems is not simply the cretins but the party system.
A similar system has produced a series of cretins as US president. Think of Bush (the younger version). We don’t seem to be able to get away from this system because you need a lot of money to fight a political campaign. Only political parties can find the money. Whatever wonderful ideas you have as a candidate are completely stifled in the he-haws of parliamentary debate.
In my youth, Labour and the Tories disagreed over some pretty fundamental issues.
Tell what they disagree on now, Max? I don’t mean what mood music they play during the election campaign, but what they do when in office.
I am compelled to agree, we have 2 Partys soft liberal (note the lower case l!) struggling to occupy a crowded Left of centre spot. In an attempt to distance themselves from the Left or Right ‘extremists’ in their respective Partys. it has become a battle of soundbites and bitching, with neither Party displaying a scintilla of of understanding of the root cause. In a ‘Dynamic’ political system there should arguably be an acknowledgement of Structure>Process>Outcome. They are locked in an interminable battle about structure, they differ on Process and are distinctly uncertain about Outcomes, other than those which are political pot stirring when the whole country is in crisis.
I am compelled to agree, we have 2 Partys soft liberal (note the lower case l!) struggling to occupy a crowded Left of centre spot. In an attempt to distance themselves from the Left or Right ‘extremists’ in their respective Partys. it has become a battle of soundbites and bitching, with neither Party displaying a scintilla of of understanding of the root cause. In a ‘Dynamic’ political system there should arguably be an acknowledgement of Structure>Process>Outcome. They are locked in an interminable battle about structure, they differ on Process and are distinctly uncertain about Outcomes, other than those which are political pot stirring when the whole country is in crisis.
How can one possibly be ‘overly cynical’ about this?
It has been like this since at least 1945! Have you forgotten the litany of cretins who have ruled over us?Was Eden for example any better than Johnson, or Heath any better than May?
Clement Attlee is conspicuous because of his decency but few others can emulate him, sadly.
In my youth, Labour and the Tories disagreed over some pretty fundamental issues.
Tell what they disagree on now, Max? I don’t mean what mood music they play during the election campaign, but what they do when in office.
I agree that the Tories have burnt out and devoured themselves in a gruesome prolonged death rattle. But I still affirm that the problem is so much deeper and darker than the Tories. The sheer weight and power of the permanent unelected Technocracy/Quangocracy/Blob has eviscerared all parliamentary democracy. Power – real power (supreme laws/interest rates/regulations of public services inc the monolithic failed NHS – lies not in the hands of the 50 odd elected Executive. The technocrats have held those levers as part of the Blairite & EU revolution for 20 years and they have overseen titanic strategic disasters at every turn; QE, no energy, covid, net zero madness. So we have now reached the stage where Treasury Orthodoxy or NHS money demands cannot even be resisted by the here today gone tomorrow politicians (RIP Truss). The shockingly poor educational standards and disconnection of modern politicians from real life (how many have run a business??) means this shift toward Oligarchy is irreversible. A Labour party will be even more malleable as they are the Party of the entitled disastrous public sector. They like the SNP or Biden will pack the Commins with nutty students who despise Tory scum and their own History. They will focus only on identitarianism identity politics and the advancement of the toxic cultural socialism agenda that has – in parallel with this unacknowledged collapse of parliamentary democracy – atrophied and poisoned our cultural life.
I understand your sentiment but this seems overly cynical.
I agree that the Tories have burnt out and devoured themselves in a gruesome prolonged death rattle. But I still affirm that the problem is so much deeper and darker than the Tories. The sheer weight and power of the permanent unelected Technocracy/Quangocracy/Blob has eviscerared all parliamentary democracy. Power – real power (supreme laws/interest rates/regulations of public services inc the monolithic failed NHS – lies not in the hands of the 50 odd elected Executive. The technocrats have held those levers as part of the Blairite & EU revolution for 20 years and they have overseen titanic strategic disasters at every turn; QE, no energy, covid, net zero madness. So we have now reached the stage where Treasury Orthodoxy or NHS money demands cannot even be resisted by the here today gone tomorrow politicians (RIP Truss). The shockingly poor educational standards and disconnection of modern politicians from real life (how many have run a business??) means this shift toward Oligarchy is irreversible. A Labour party will be even more malleable as they are the Party of the entitled disastrous public sector. They like the SNP or Biden will pack the Commins with nutty students who despise Tory scum and their own History. They will focus only on identitarianism identity politics and the advancement of the toxic cultural socialism agenda that has – in parallel with this unacknowledged collapse of parliamentary democracy – atrophied and poisoned our cultural life.
“…leaving Labour, and Britain’s voters, deprived of any meaningful Opposition.”
Here is the root of my problem with this article. I just don’t see “opposition”. I know I am over simplifying, but not by much. At the core of each of the three main parties I see people representing the same economic and social interests and professing the same view on just about everything. The personnel are essentially interchangeable, and which party they belong to is simply an accident of their private histories. Their conflicts are about who gets to drive around in the ministerial limo and which dinner parties they might, if they are lucky, get invited to.
From this point of view, it doesn’t really matter if one of the wheels falls off the chariot.
This article seemingly fails to point out that the Tories rotted out decades ago. After 12 years in power they have conserved nothing, presiding over same sex marriage, divorce liberalisation, the Equality Act, a population explosion in the millions, draconian medical policies and most of the party fighting against the will of the people over leaving the EU. Any chunks of flesh that fall off at this point can only be a good thing. Tories delenda est.
Well said.
Just saying NO to things is not an answer.
And it is not a vote winner.
“Just saying NO to things is not an answer.”
Yes it is. Reactionism is the raison d’etre of being a conservative. There is no other reason for a conservative to be in power.
“Just saying NO to things is not an answer.”
Yes it is. Reactionism is the raison d’etre of being a conservative. There is no other reason for a conservative to be in power.
I don’t understand, do you mean ‘the people’ didn’t vote to leave the EU? Or that these conservatives where reluctant to leave the EU?
The people voted to leave the EU in an official referendum prepared by the Conservative party and UK Government, and subsequently the Tories spent 3 years trying to collapse it all. It took the threat of electoral oblivion at the hands of Farage’s Brexit Party in 2019 to have Theresa May cast out and some measly form of the process concluded.
The people voted to leave the EU in an official referendum prepared by the Conservative party and UK Government, and subsequently the Tories spent 3 years trying to collapse it all. It took the threat of electoral oblivion at the hands of Farage’s Brexit Party in 2019 to have Theresa May cast out and some measly form of the process concluded.
Well said.
Just saying NO to things is not an answer.
And it is not a vote winner.
I don’t understand, do you mean ‘the people’ didn’t vote to leave the EU? Or that these conservatives where reluctant to leave the EU?
This article seemingly fails to point out that the Tories rotted out decades ago. After 12 years in power they have conserved nothing, presiding over same sex marriage, divorce liberalisation, the Equality Act, a population explosion in the millions, draconian medical policies and most of the party fighting against the will of the people over leaving the EU. Any chunks of flesh that fall off at this point can only be a good thing. Tories delenda est.
This exodus is not just limited to politics. It’s happening across the public sector board too. As our institutions become increasingly sclerotic and corrupt, their best people will look for greener pastures in which to put their skills to good use.
sclerotic may be but corrupt? where is the evidence that MPs are “selling” their votes for money?!
Don’t you recall both Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind getting into “a bit of bovver” over this very issue?
Isn’t there a “Friends of China” organisation with CCP financing certain Brits? John Major etc.
China financed one Labour backbencher to the tune of £500k – what did they expect for that money I wonder?
China financed one Labour backbencher to the tune of £500k – what did they expect for that money I wonder?
I’m not talking about that kind of corruption. ‘No longer fit for purpose’ may be a better term. Almost every institution has become extractive in that, despite outward appearances and noble mission statements, their main aim is to maintain the salaries of a bloated managerial class. Think of universities where administrators are paid six-figure salaries while the majority of faculty are on zero-hour work contracts and the students pay 9,000 pounds a year for tuition.
Most of our universities are worthless, and should be turned back into the Polys they originally were before that complete idiot John Major ‘upgraded’ them.
Most of our universities are worthless, and should be turned back into the Polys they originally were before that complete idiot John Major ‘upgraded’ them.
Do MPs even have a say? Here in Canada, they vote according to party line (or are expelled), a party line dictated from the prime minister’s office… who performs on behalf of his enablers? Elections are staged to provide an appearance of democracy. Did you know our prime minister trained as a drama teacher? That is all the training you need to stage this muppet show.
Don’t you recall both Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind getting into “a bit of bovver” over this very issue?
Isn’t there a “Friends of China” organisation with CCP financing certain Brits? John Major etc.
I’m not talking about that kind of corruption. ‘No longer fit for purpose’ may be a better term. Almost every institution has become extractive in that, despite outward appearances and noble mission statements, their main aim is to maintain the salaries of a bloated managerial class. Think of universities where administrators are paid six-figure salaries while the majority of faculty are on zero-hour work contracts and the students pay 9,000 pounds a year for tuition.
Do MPs even have a say? Here in Canada, they vote according to party line (or are expelled), a party line dictated from the prime minister’s office… who performs on behalf of his enablers? Elections are staged to provide an appearance of democracy. Did you know our prime minister trained as a drama teacher? That is all the training you need to stage this muppet show.
sclerotic may be but corrupt? where is the evidence that MPs are “selling” their votes for money?!
This exodus is not just limited to politics. It’s happening across the public sector board too. As our institutions become increasingly sclerotic and corrupt, their best people will look for greener pastures in which to put their skills to good use.
The Tories collapsed from within long ago. Cameron was simply a Blairite entryist (interestingly, an apostate Thatcherite from the time when the Iron Lady seemed unassailable; a turn-coat, if you like)
Which of these catastrophic policies are NOT supported by any one of the GreenLibLabCons
QE, Low interest rates, deficit, covid lockdown and Net Zero?
All 5 combined to cause the disaster we are seeing now, and it is no consolation that most of the rest of the World’s leaders did the same.
The causes or reasons for the Fall of Roman Empire are still the subject of some animated debate.
The causes of our own fall are all too plain to see.Thank you.
The causes or reasons for the Fall of Roman Empire are still the subject of some animated debate.
The causes of our own fall are all too plain to see.Thank you.
Which of these catastrophic policies are NOT supported by any one of the GreenLibLabCons
QE, Low interest rates, deficit, covid lockdown and Net Zero?
All 5 combined to cause the disaster we are seeing now, and it is no consolation that most of the rest of the World’s leaders did the same.
The Tories collapsed from within long ago. Cameron was simply a Blairite entryist (interestingly, an apostate Thatcherite from the time when the Iron Lady seemed unassailable; a turn-coat, if you like)
If Hancock was the ‘talent’ then I think there were much bigger problems
LOL – you upset that the demos saw him in the Jungle and decided he wasn’t the monster the MSM & the Islington set painted him?
LOL – you upset that the demos saw him in the Jungle and decided he wasn’t the monster the MSM & the Islington set painted him?
If Hancock was the ‘talent’ then I think there were much bigger problems
Every day Sunak and Hunt get worse. They’re looking like the victors of an invasion. I imagine the Saxons felt much the same after William the Conqueror came ashore as we do now.
For the two main parties, about 25 million vote. Traditionally half each with the balance going to the swing voter; a quarter wasted on the LibDem vote, though that helped Cameron out in 2010.
Some, like the deluded Tugendhat, think the Tories can recover. Others fantasise that Boris can return.
The writing’s on the wall for Sunak. Does Joe Public have the nerve, is he/she angry enough, to dispense with all of them? Labour included?
Every day Sunak and Hunt get worse. They’re looking like the victors of an invasion. I imagine the Saxons felt much the same after William the Conqueror came ashore as we do now.
For the two main parties, about 25 million vote. Traditionally half each with the balance going to the swing voter; a quarter wasted on the LibDem vote, though that helped Cameron out in 2010.
Some, like the deluded Tugendhat, think the Tories can recover. Others fantasise that Boris can return.
The writing’s on the wall for Sunak. Does Joe Public have the nerve, is he/she angry enough, to dispense with all of them? Labour included?
This writer talks of a loss of talent.
Where? What talent has been in view these many years gone by?
This writer talks of a loss of talent.
Where? What talent has been in view these many years gone by?
Our current political structure is not only not working but is also keen to maintain the status quo. Five Star direct democracy might be new to many of you. Essentially, they are an idea rather than a political party. They have a vision of how change can be effected. With the growing concern regarding uncontrolled migration we need to urgently find a way of empowering interested individuals who feel they have a vision for Britain’s future.
Our current political structure is not only not working but is also keen to maintain the status quo. Five Star direct democracy might be new to many of you. Essentially, they are an idea rather than a political party. They have a vision of how change can be effected. With the growing concern regarding uncontrolled migration we need to urgently find a way of empowering interested individuals who feel they have a vision for Britain’s future.
I do hope Mr Oxley is not suggesting that the loss of Nick Hancock would constitute an exodus of talent?
I do hope Mr Oxley is not suggesting that the loss of Nick Hancock would constitute an exodus of talent?
People (including here) constantly complain about “career politicians”…well they should be happy now.
And if the local party organization is unhappy with the “out of touch” MP (with an MBA from UC Berkley) they can always select the village drunk/idiot to represent them.
I only hope that Mark Francois remains MP (full credit to the voters of R&W for electing him – again and again).
People (including here) constantly complain about “career politicians”…well they should be happy now.
And if the local party organization is unhappy with the “out of touch” MP (with an MBA from UC Berkley) they can always select the village drunk/idiot to represent them.
I only hope that Mark Francois remains MP (full credit to the voters of R&W for electing him – again and again).
This seems like premature wish fulfilment.
This seems like premature wish fulfilment.
The Tories kicked out most of the sensible or principled ones a few years ago anyway.
Starting perhaps with the blessed Enoch, sometime ago now.
Starting perhaps with the blessed Enoch, sometime ago now.
The Tories kicked out most of the sensible or principled ones a few years ago anyway.
Well as the article indirectly notes, younger people are far more likely to leave a party that is in office than a party that is in opposition.
I would have thought the reason was obvious: MPs of a party that are in office have a better idea of what they can achieve and how far they could realistically go. The opposition, on the other hand, can dream on towards the glorious day…