Home page The all important party image In this country it could once be assumed that the degree of our freedom created a liberated people made up of individual and distinct characters in their own right. It is therefore disturbing to notice the degree to which many feel that the destiny of people is moulded by our leaders, so-called, and who in turn struggle to uphold the image of the political party of which they also happen to lead. This is disturbing for political parties are labyrinths which exercise a degree of power well beyond the limits which most would assume healthy for the survival of the British as a free people. Much has been written in this medium on the declining membership of parties and this creates a complex reaction where public relations exercises are used to substitute for real commitment and any substantive support amongst the electorate. The situation is so bad that we are currently governed by a political party with an absolute Parliamentary majority based upon gaining votes from just 20% of the electorate and who have less than 0.5% of the electorate as members. With parliamentary votes being a foregone conclusion any parliamentary debate as a basis for influencing the votes of members of parliament is a sham. Political parties uphold and yet hide many evils This deficient level of general popular support provides an increasing incentive for the manipulation of power corrupted by the undue influence of unelected party members over the affairs of state. This is exercised through members of parliament being blackmailed by the party whips or by the party leader who as Prime Minister has a direct control on the distribution of government posts to those whom he considers to be loyal to him and the party. It is troubling to hear the repeated assertion by Labour MPs that they are worried about the image of their party and an early departure of the current Prime Minister may be needed to save the party. They have this concern because their employment depends upon the status of the party rather than upon their loyalty to constituents. It should not be forgotten that the worst political fiascos in history were perpetrated by political parties which became powerful and yet a minority, a brutal clique able to force the majority to do what they desired through the imposition of legislation and regulations. Such people as the communists under Stalin, the Nazis under Hitler and the various hues of Fascists, ruled, in the end as minority parties over a fearful public and used law to get their way as opposed to supporting the rule of law. Most decisions taken, leading up to the collapse of these perverted regimes, were geared towards the continuation of power for the "party" as opposed to anything to do with serving the interests of the people. Ruling parties created their own elites characterised by status, power and wealth and for such elites the political party and, of course, its leader were of central importance. Those who were owners of large or medium sized corporations who declared their support for such political machines or who helped fund the activities of individual members or the party itself were rewarded with personal favours, lavish "government" contracts and even personal political influence. Invariably the provision of government contracts also involved syphoning off some of the government funds received in payment as future contributions to the political party. In this way once a party gained control of government their affairs became easier to manage and their corporate support would rise in direct proportion to the degree to which such corruption became normal practice. Political parties are not natural allies of free people Broadly speaking the general trend of those wedded to party is not to concern themselves with people and the concerns of people but rather with the techniques whereby the party can gain and sustain power. The danger signs to look out for are when politicians, in the interests of their party, sustain such loyalty as to do damage to the interests of the electorate, identifiable groups of people, families or individuals. Recent events help illustrate the lack of interest of some British politicians, wedded to party, in issues of significance to people. Aperatiks replacing representatives Austin Mitchell, a Labour MP, recently wrote an article in The Independent declaring that the treatment by the government of a family in his constituency made him ashamed. In basic terms the Bokhari family were forced to return to Pakistan following a dawn raid on their house by immigration officials. It would seem that Labour Party in the form of Liam Byrne (immigration minister) was more interested in using soft targets to show policy muscle than in allowing their representative in parliament, also of the Labour Party, to represent them in an effective manner. Reading Austin's account, it would seem that the Labour aperatik Byrne, someone who joined the Labour Party in his youth, and/or his department, mislead their own parliamentary colleague and harmed a family in his constiuency. The lessons to draw are that representation means nothing when the Party needs to perform in a way it sees fit. What it saw fit was to deliver on legislation forced through parliament by a party which enjoys an absolute minority of electorate support. Thus the government, run by a minority clique is being allowed to run roughshod over the majority as well as individual families and their feelings. It is important that people in Britain focus on the essential importance of feelings and families as being far more important to the future of this country than the right of the Labour Party to enforce uniquely callous decisions on any defenceless family. Party image more important than humanity The Times reported that Michael Brown, a major donor to the Liberal Democrats, who has been imprisoned for perjury, had complained that he was being moved into a high security wing and had been taken off a job rota. He wrote to Menzies Campbell, Charles Kennedy and a Lord Rennard pleading for assistance since he believed he was being treated unfairly. In other countries, and especially some of the more recent EU arrivals, the risks faced by prisoners who happen to be supporters of parties other than the government are considerable. There is, yes, even in the United Kingdom, a need for politicians to understand where their responsibilities lie especially in the case of someone who made one of the biggest donations to the Liberal Democratic party and never asked anything in return, until now that is. Rather than at least visit this man personally to explain any limitations on their ability to assist, a typical party machine freeze-out was brought into effect. On the basis of a crass excuse that MPs do not take up individual cases on behalf of constituents other than their own, it is reported that Lord Rennard stated that neither Menzies Campbell or Charles Kennedy could act on his behalf and that this was a matter for Mr. Brown's legal representatives. No matter what Michael Brown is accused of, or has been found guilty of, he does not deserve this off-hand shabby treatment by the Liberal Democratic Party who have benefited from this man's kindness. Clearly this is not a constituency matter but one of more general import to the Liberal Democratic Party so the excuse sent to Michael was not an excuse at all, more an ungrateful grunt. The paper used to write this shameful letter might even have been paid from his donation to that Party. What was lacking in this case was the all important human touch, the understanding of the necessity and having the ability to communicate any decisions face to face on a personal basis. The totallitarian drift away from representation of the people Lastly, Jack Straw has drawn up plans for yet another attempt by the Labour Party to "reform the Lords". Jack Straw has tried to prevent all proposals from being thrown out is, according to the BBC, suggesting a combination of options against which MPs state their preferences. So this will end up with a decision of sorts but not one which has involved the electorate. Depending upon the proportion to be elected, it has been suggested that a form of proportional representation be used with a regional list system. This will expect voters to place their crosses against parties and not individuals and leaving it to the unelected party officials to decide who gains the seats. Such a system, popular with the mindsets of the ex-communist but still totallitarian politicians in Eastern Europe, is one which creates an "elected" assembly with no particular responsibilities to any electorate but only to their party. This is hardly an attempt to democratise the upper house but rather to place any power it exercises more directly in the hands of the same unelected aperatiks and the Prime Minister who effectively control the currently emasculated Parliament. A corrupt Parliament is the problem If reform is needed, the priority lies not with the Lords but in dealing with an unfair electoral system which permits a minority party enforce its increasingly excessive legislation through an ineffective parliament, on the hapless majority. It is political parties, who shy away from any pretence at effective representation, including those in opposition, who want to keep things this way so as not to share any real political power with the people. Their real intent is expressed in practice by examples such as those described above and this failure to serve the people of the country corrupts our democracy. This relentless and pervasive drift towards concentration of the power of governance in the hands of unelected political party bosses, who in turn require than politicians become less responsive to the people of the country, and more responsive to the party/government interests and image, is something to be deplored and resisted. 7th February, 2007