Additional Blog 2   Democracy in Danger

I use the word democracy as it seems to have some resonance with people. I am not convinced that the word really describes what I want to write about. I am interested in a situation in which all individuals are able to develop their own lives in the way in which they wish them to develop and, at the same time, to join with others to provide a society in which this is possible for all people. I do not conceive of a situation in which the individual is separate from society. It is in this sense that I use the word.

Democracy was seen to be in danger prior to the election of 2019. The starkest illustration of this was the case of the Communication Workers Union. Here we had a situation in which the management was seeking to completely alter the terms of employment of a major group of workers. There was no particular need to do this, except that management saw it as a means of increasing their profitability and of their control over their workers. Postal workers are amongst the most highly organised workers in the country and value the structure under which they are employed. They had also strongly opposed the privatisation which led to the Royal Mail being taken out of the public sector. As with all workers, the fall back position to which they have to adopt in order to defend their position is to take strike action. The anti-trade union laws place a series of obstacles in the path of such action. The CWU overcame these obstacles. As required they had a ballot of members to which 76% of their members responded, well over the required threshold. Of those members who replied to the ballot, 97% voted in favour of strike action. The CWU had receive an overwhelming endorsement of their call for action. However, the Post Office Management went to the Courts and got an injunction against the action. The basis of this was that the CWU members had voted at work, rather than in the privacy of their own homes. This takes us right back to the Combination Acts of 1799 – 1800 ¹.

In the immediate period after the election 2019, suggestions were rife that another group of workers, members of the RMT, would be next in line. In this case what was being suggested was that in the event of a strike, the RMT would have the duty of providing a basic service. Such a situation would negate the action that was to be taken by the Rail workers. Now, it is a fact that the success of any enterprise is due to those people working in the enterprise, that workers create wealth. However, that is not the position taken by Government. The implication of such a decision is that the workers in an industry are ultimately responsible for the running of the industry and not the owners or management of the industry. It absolves all responsibility from the owners and management, leaving them free to treat their workers in any way they wish.

The 2019 Election was an opportunity for people to determine what type of society they wished to live in. The choice was clear. They could either support a progressive programme that put the many before the few. A programme that ended austerity; restored the Health Service and Education and other social concerns to a basis of meeting individual and societal needs; that brought a new approach to international affairs; that recognised the rights of other nations and looked to peaceful negotiation rather than acts of war to resolve problems; and accepted the need to take action over climate change. Instead, there was an acceptance of the Government line that the major issue, almost the only issue, was to get Brexit done. Intrinsic to this was also an acceptance of a continuation of the disastrous policies that successive Governments had followed since the Thatcher years.

In this Blog, I am concerned about the consequences of these decision in relation to what I have described, and defined as democracy. I have examined both the Conservative Manifesto and the Queens Speech, which sets out the Government’s immediate actions and I now wish to discuss the implications of these policies. The Queens Speech states “My Government will take steps to protect the integrity of democracy and the electoral system in the United Kingdom”. I will examine this statement in the light of the statements made in the Conservative Manifesto.

“We will tackle unauthorised traveller camps. We will give the police new powers to arrest and seize the property and vehicles of trespassers who set up unauthorised encampments, in order to protect our communities. We will make intentional trespass a criminal offence, and we will also give councils greater powers within the planning system”

Consider this statement. It is a fundamentally racist statement consisting of an attack on the rights of a group of people, Romany, Gypsies and Travellers, who choose a different way of living to other people. They have long traditions and rights that go well back in history. They are not outsiders but part of our wider community. However, over the years those rights have been eroded. But it is not only these communities whose rights have been eroded in this way. We are all affected by the changes that have and are taking place. This is not to deny that these communities are the most seriously affected. As there are so few places that they can now go, they are forced to use land that has been taken from them. This means that under the proposed provision they could find that they have all their belongings taken from them. The proposed action will take away from them, but give no alternative. Proposals put forward some years ago to provide them with sites so that they can live in their customary way have been ignored.

Before moving on from this question, I wish to explore the matter a little further. As I say above, it is an issue that affects all of us. During the year, we were leafleting on the pavement outside of our local railway station. We were told that we were not allowed to leaflet on this pavement because it was owned by the Railway Company. The Railway station has recently been upgraded and the layout changed. What was previously a public thoroughfare, a pavement, was now considered private property. A traditional right of way that had existed for years was summarily taken away, with no discussion and without notification. It was only when we sought to give out a positive leaflet, supporting an integrated society, that we were told that we had no right to be there. On a recent trip to Birmingham, close to where we stayed, was a new development, which included amongst other things a library and information building. In front of this building was a concourse area. Although it was not our intention, we were on holiday, we considered this would be an ideal place to sell papers or distribute leaflets. However, the whole of the area was ‘Private Space’ and notices throughout the area informed people that although they could use the space they had no right to be there. It was private. This is a growing trend for land to be declared as private with people being allowed to use it on sufferance. One of the major acts of the community was the mass trespass of Kinder Scout ² in 1932 which established the right to ramble. Michael Roberts in his Blog³ reviewing the book ‘The New Enclosure’ by Brett Christopher, notes among other things that in May 1979, more land was owned by the State in Britain than ever before. Then it was 20 % of Britain’s total area, now it is 10.5 %. He also notes that in 1979 42% of the UK’s population lived in Council housing, the figure is now less than 8%. The majority of people are slowly being driven from the land, or at least, their freedom of movement upon the land is being restricted; back to the Enclosure Acts ⁴

The next item I wish to consider is the policies that the Conservative Manifesto put forward regarding changes to our system of voting and the length of Parliament.

“We will get rid of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act – it has led to paralysis at a time the country needed decisive action.

We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy.

We will continue to support the First Past the Post system of voting, as it allows voters to kick out politicians who don’t deliver, both locally and nationally.

We will protect the integrity of our democracy, by introducing identification to vote at polling stations, stopping postal vote harvesting and measures to prevent any foreign interference in elections”

There are three aspects of this that I wish to consider. First, the question of the Fixed Parliament. This was something that the Conservative/Liberal Democrat Government under Cameron brought in. It was a device to safeguard that coalition. It is highly significant that it was broken twice within two years, by the Party that introduced it. Now they want to get rid of it. However, what they want is for the Prime Minister to be able to decide when he goes for an election. The suggestion is that Parliament will have no say in this decision. This, in itself, is a dangerous move away from Parliamentary democracy. I am far from convinced that the changes that are needed to create the society which I belief is necessary (as briefly outlined above) can be achieved through Parliament, but I also believe that we have to defend those structures which can possibly work in that direction. We live in a parliamentary democracy, not an elected dictatorship whether in the form of a Cabinet or Prime Minister. But more of this later.

The second aspect is the question of boundary changes. Whether we live in a rural or an urban environment, there are different situations, needs and opinions existing within our areas. Consider my own situation. It consists of a number of historic towns brought together to form a Unitary Authority. At the centre is a large area that would be defined as working class. It is a fairly run down area with the level of poverty and other characteristics associated with such an area. The needs of this area are common across the whole of the area. Surrounding this core are newer estates which are relatively more affluent. They have their own needs and opinions but these are of necessity different from those of the inner core. Surrounding these areas is a far more rural expanse bringing a further different range of needs and opinions. Under the present electoral boundaries, this whole area is divided up into three constituencies. The boundaries are determined by numbers and the need to create a national system of constituencies according to the principles determined by Government. Because of the nature of our present system and of the links between needs and poverty which affects the ability of people to be involved, and because of the fact that within each constituency all three groups are included, those in the most deprived areas are not able to gain the attention they need and their problems, the greatest of all the groupings, are not met. This is a clear failing on the part of our electoral system. Boundaries are determined on the basis of expediency and are not related to the populations which they should, but do not, serve. By fixating on a number and determining to reduce the number of constituencies, as I believe the intention to be, the problems I have outlined will be exacerbated. Extinction Rebellion with its citizens panels is beginning to think more clearly about the problem of how we get people to participate in the decisions that affect them and their communities.

I must confess that I have not given much detailed thought to the question of ‘first past the post’ or ‘proportional representation’. What thought I had given was that the former provides a government rather than have a number of parties vying for power but unable to agree on a government. The last year has shown that this is not necessarily true. There are figures to show that had there been a proportional representation system in operation then a left of centre Government, if not a Labour Government, could have been formed. Whether such a system would provide the answer to what I feel is needed, I again state my reservations.

The final point made within this policy is on the question of identification at polling stations. This I believe to be extremely dangerous. The first point to make is that it is unnecessary. There is a suspicion that the suggestion arises from racist grounds. But looking beyond that, there are two suggestions for the identification, a passport or a driving licence. These are two things that a large number of people do not have. The introduction of ‘identification’ would lead to bias in the electorate. People on low income, young people, poorer older people would be less likely to have the necessary identification. At every election polling cards are sent out to those eligible to vote. At the polling station, when you go along to vote, you have to give your name and address and they note that you have voted on the electoral roll. At present you are not required to produce your polling card, it being considered that this is not necessary. Society functions on a basis of trust and belief in our fellow beings. Such a proposal as identification raises serious doubts about the trustworthiness of each and everyone of us. If this mutual trust breaks down then society is in serious trouble. If we are not trusted by those trusted to rule to over us how can they expect us to trust them?

“To support free speech, we will repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2014, which seeks to coerce the press. We will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry”

I am afraid I am not fully conversant with the Leveson Inquiry but this statement rang warning bells. I looked up the Inquiry to seek enlightenment. I felt it worth while to remind my readers of some of the points made by the Report.

“I know how vital the press is – all of it – as the guardian of the interests of the public, as a critical witness to events, as the standard bearer for those who have no one else to speak up for them. Nothing in the evidence that I have heard or read has changed that. …..With these rights, however, come responsibilities to the public interest: to respect the truth, to obey the law and to uphold the rights and liberties of individuals. In short, to honour the very principles proclaimed and articulated by the industry itself” ⁵

However, what I am aware of is the role that the Press and the Media played during the Election 2019. This election campaign was the worst campaign that I have ever been involved in. The amount of disinformation and the personal attacks, particularly the massive amount of personal vilification directed at Jeremy Corbyn, was beyond anything that I have known in elections going back to 1945. As some examples of the response that was made to these attacks, I would refer readers, among other examples, to media lens at www.medialens.org; to Jeremy Cook’s Blogs and the book ‘Bad News for Labour’. The press and media in this country is largely in the hands of big corporations who have no interest in the changes that are necessary to create the type of democracy that I defined at the start of this blog.

“After Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts; the functioning of the Royal Prerogative; the role of the House of Lords; and access to justice for ordinary people. The ability of our security services to defend us against terrorism and organised crime is critical. We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government. We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays. In our first year we will set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission that will examine these issues in depth, and come up with proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates”

We return now to the comments I made earlier with regard to the constitution. Our political system is based on a balance between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. We are a parliamentary democracy. The House of Commons is the elected voice of the people and therefore is supreme. The role of the House of Lords is as a scrutinising body and the role of the Queen is basically to sign off decision of the Commons. The function of the Judiciary is to ensure that the decisions of the House of Commons that have been formulated as legal instruments are in fact carried out in accordance with these legal statements. This leaves the relationship between the Executive and the Legislature. Over the past decades there has been a subtle shift in this relationship, particularly in relation to the role of the Prime Minister. Without any decision having been mooted or considered, there has been a shift in practice towards a more presidential approach, with the Prime Minister assuming much greater power. As an example of my view, I draw attention to the first Government that I was old enough to experience. Clement Attlee was in many ways not a strong personality, however, his Cabinet consisted of a number of very able and strong characters. Attlee’s great ability was to keep his Cabinet united and allow them to carry out their responsibilities. Compare that with the Election 2019 which was all about Johnson and to a lesser extent Corbyn. The problem that Johnson had is that faced with a Parliament that he could not control, and a Judiciary which was prepared to carry out its function and declare some of his actions unlawful, he was unable to do what he wanted to do. His solution is to seek to change the structure, not to increase the involvement of the people, directly or indirectly through Parliament, but to increase his powers. His aim is to strengthen the Executive at the expense of both the legislature and the judiciary. This is clear in the fact that he is not prepared to allow Parliament to be involved with the decisions regarding provisions for Brexit.

Equally dangerous are his view on updating the Human Rights Act. This act is usually seen in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights, but it should be seen in terms of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. This document was drawn up as a result of the events that led to the Second World War and the horrors of Nazi Germany. It sets out a basis for the treatment of people throughout the world. In addition they have also produced a similar document setting out the rights of the child. We already have the most draconian anti – trade unions laws and the aim of Government seems to be to make these laws even more restrictive. The threat to human rights is extremely serious and needs to be resisted in every way possible.

There is certainly a need to “to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates” but I do not believe that we can trust this Government to create the type of democratic society that I defined in my opening paragraph

Scribart 07.01.2020

1These acts were directed against trade unions (combinations of workmen) when the government feared unrest and even revolution. Combinations were in fact already illegal under both common law and statute; the Acts were intended to simplify and speed up prosecution by summary trial (Note on the web: Combination Acts | Encyclopedia.com)

2The mass trespass of Kinder Scout, also called the Kinder Scout Trespass.,was an act of wilful trespass by ramblers and members of the Young Communist League - Wikipedia

3Michael Robert’s Blog at thenextrecession.wordpress.com

4The Enclosure Act 1773 is an Act of Parliament passed during the reign of George 111. The Act is still in force. It created a law that enabled enclosure of land, at the same time removing the right of common access. - Wikipedia

5Leveson Inquiry Executive Summary paragraphs 5 and 6 at assets.publishing.service.gov.uk