| 
Not of the people... |
One of the fallacies of our so-called democracy is the notion of the importance of the supremacy of Parliament as being the appropriate place where decisions are taken on behalf of the people. Ministers and Members of Parliament frequently intone with a grave voice the importance of matters of state being decided following Parliamentary debate and a vote. Anyone who follows Real News will know that this notion is as ridiculous as it is fraudulent.
Party cynicism
Members of Parliament vote in line with their political parties following the directives arising from the work of unelected party functionaries, the Prime Minister and Parliamentary whips. Members of Parliament are hounded by the collective of which they are members to maintain "party discipline". In all these machinations there is virtually no regard for the views of the people of this country. On the other hand there is no particular reason Members of Parliament need to pay attention to their constituency viewpoints because the government party, for example, enjoys an unfettered absolute Parliamentary majority while only having the electoral support of less than 19% of the electorate in the country. This is why the theatre of Parliamentary debate and the notion of decisions being taken on the basis of weighing up the arguments presented in any such debates are entirely misleading. This is a disgrace because the reality is that Parliament does not belong to the people of Britain, who are, in practical terms, regarded with dirision. In general, parliamentary decisions are not at all collegiate, shared by all present, but are in fact taken solely by the government party.
The loyal opposition
The force of opposition comes not from the Conservative or the Liberal Democratic party MPs but from Labour backbenchers. In other words, the opposition role is controlled, not by the government but by the antics of any group of Labour backbenchers whose numbers exceed the government majority. Thus our "loyal opposition" only has any decisive impact according to the wishes of a small number of Labout backbenchers who decide to use their vote to get their own way for good or for ill.
Representation as a smokescreen
Members of Parliament faced with such statements flinch and fein hurt, feel affronted since they all claim that they work so hard, as if they were the only people who work in this country. They will say that they take their constituency matters very seriously but writing a letter here and putting in a word there on behalf of constituents. But here again is the absurdity of the political party system where representatives with a national function are busying themselves with a range of issues which should be handled by local representatives. These individual exercises assisting constituents should not be confused with the reason Members of Parliament are elected which is to represent their constituents in Parliament. This semantic double-talk of "representation" sees the function of MPs in this role defaulting to the public relations and often cosmetic activities surrounding "MP surgeries". For MPs this "work" has become a necessary evil serving to create a convenient smokescreen around their Parliamentary work which, if removed, would expose the Parliamentary representation of constituents as the void that it really is; serving party and not the people.
Communities & local government
It is notable that the recent probes by the government into constitution and local community involvement in local decisions is a tactic to increase "local participation" directed towards "empowerment" whilst denying the electorate any increase in participation in national decisions. In other words beyond the occasional privilege of the masses being able to exercise their right to vote which seems to be regarded as an obligation on the people to return any of the main two political party representatives, we end up with a minority factional government with the power to impose its peculiar dogma, completely unrepresentative of the views of the electorate, on the majority.
The enduring mess
The recent spate of electoral upsets for the current minority factional government is to be expected since the malaise felt by the people of the country has become dangerously despondent about all political parties. Gordon Brown is paying a heavy price for supporting his predecessor Tony Blair who set a shameful tone and demonstrated just how weak our Parliamentary system is with his cavalier attitude to the Cabinet and indeed Parliament. His tenure was one of studied stage craft and the audience have expressed their admiration for his "charisma" but his actions only higlighted the degree to which the people of Britain have lost any expressive representation in Parliament. Blair's period as Prime Minister saw a rise in an amazing arrogance of a leadership moving in directions and taking decisions never agreed to by the people of Britain. Gordon Brown and Jack Straw have attempted to steady the ship with an initiative on constitution which is quite spectacular in the way in which it continues the Westminster political party collectivist mindset by failing to address the central issue of how to increase the direct participation of the people of Britain in the national decisions which affect them. Indeed, the most notable characteristic of this initiative is that is has failed completely to engage the people of the country. Unbelievably, for a party so adept at media management in its own interest, the government does not seem to have the commitment to trying to popularise the debate on this vital issue. What are they afraid of? And yet, it is a shameful reflection on the state of British political parties, that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats have responded with any useful suggestions on this fundamental issue of constitution. Their deafening silence is shameful collusion that they too do not want this issue to become an excuse for a more participatory initiative for the people of Britain. Their contributions are not substantial and quite often consist of nothing or an exercise in jeering at Gordon Brown; all so deplorably tiresome and repetitive. Most Prime Minsterial Questions in Parliament contain too many probes emanating from an intellect of the wooden brains of Punch and Judy and too many issues raised on the government side are obvious "plants" by the odd backbencher only too eager to have an opportunity to open their mouth in Parliament so as to enable the Prime Minister to respond with a pre-prepared statement "in response" invariably emphasising the "achievements" of the government.
Collective mindsets do not understand freedom
The reality seems to be that although the pundits see the Conservatives gaining, the people continue to wonder what is on offer since no single party has addressed the most serious constitutional issue facing the people of these Isles. This is how can the people of this country continue to defend their individual freedom against the encroachment of arbitraty governance arising from decisions and legislation being introduced by a minority factional government. CybaCity has reported that this core issue of representation is surfacing in many public forums and blogs, although often not referred to specifically and at the same time the profile of all political parties is continuing to decline. They also consider the devolutionary debates, and in particular that related to Scotland where a more proactive and participatory approach to constitutional change has been promoted by the Scottish National Party are notable for the lack of serious propositions on the part of the main UK parties. These parties all default to an ill-defined single polar position of "Unionism". If it is Unionism then at least they need to argue the case instead of resorting to tired assertions, decking themselves out in the Union Jack and repeating the word "Britishness".
Freedom as the promise of the coming dark age
The two years leading up to the next general election present opportunities for the movement against the failings of the current political party system to gain considerable momentum. The only way to prevent this is for a political party to attempt to break the deadlock by proposing substantive changes which can give the Parliament of the United Kingdom back to the people. Unfortunately the types of individuals who join these little collectives known as political parties do not have the independence, nor therefore conviction, to stand on their own two feet and fight for what the people of Britain need. It is therefore likely that the decadence of the British political parties will continue to the point at which it becomes glaringly evident that their charade of representation has to be stopped and be replaced by a system of representation which, in order to establish a Parliament of the will of the people, does not involve political parties.
30th May, 2008.
Updated: 31st May, 2008.
