PARLIAMENT IS SEPARATE FROM GOVERNMENT and has little to do with democracy - discuss

Government is a Closed User Group

19 August 2017 – I’ve touched on this subject before today but it seems to me to be time for a review.

Parliament is separate from government. Made up of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, its role is to:

• look at what the government is doing
• debate issues and pass new laws 
•               ●  set taxes  (source: www.gov.uk )

The Prime Minister is head of the UK government and is ultimately responsible for all policy and decisions. The Prime Minister oversees the operation of the Civil Service and government agencies; appoints members of the government; is the principal government figure in the House of Commons. Hence, we have PMQs on Wednesday when Parliament can ask public questions and expect honest answers.

The Civil Service does the practical and administrative work of government. It is co-ordinated and managed by the Prime Minister, in the role of Minister for the Civil Service.

A candidate for election to Parliament must first be nominated by both the local party branch and party headquarters - rather like a popularity contest among vested interests; then, on polling day, must obtain the largest number of votes in the constituency. It doesn’t matter if the total number of votes for other candidates, plus the numbers who didn’t vote, exceeds the number who actually voted for the candidate. We call this ‘first past the post’ voting, or winner takes all.

 Thus, the elected person is first and foremost a representative of The Party, not a representative of the constituents. Now there’s a thought. Surely, this means that a true constituency representative ought to be ‘independent’ (of all parties).

Once elected, the representative can jostle for a position within the party, including that of Leader of the Party. Nominations are decided and voted upon by fellow inmates, i.e. those who have also been elected to Parliament. The process is offered to the party faithful outside parliament only as a last resort.

I apologise if I seem to be teaching Grandma how to suck eggs but I know from experience that many people who vote don’t really understand how the machine works. Please bear with me.

I think all of us understand that The Party with the greatest number of representatives in Parliament gets to form a government and, provided the gap between the winning party and the first losing party is large enough, the first losing party (main Opposition) becomes irrelevant without further wheeling and dealing agreements with other losers. I’m not overlooking that the winning party is also able to wheel and deal.

The Leader of the winning Party becomes the Prime Minister, and thus becomes, inevitably, less and less concerned about and more and more remote from his or her constituency voters. Their job is done (until they are needed again at the next election). Looked at this way we could argue that ALL those in that constituency have become effectively disenfranchised, regardless of how they did or didn’t vote.

The Leader, now the Prime Minister, must select a government, beginning with a Cabinet. The Cabinet (always of the same party) is made up of the senior members of government. Every week during Parliament, members of the Cabinet (Secretaries of State from all departments and some other ministers) meet to discuss the most important issues for the government. ( www.gov.uk ).

So, today we have one Prime Minister, 22 Cabinet Ministers, and 95 other Ministers, all acknowledged party faithful. (My local political party representative is also a Minister of Defence. I asked him why I could never identify him in the House of Commons when I view proceedings on BBC Parliament TV? He told me that he is a member of government. He answers questions – when asked; he doesn’t ask any! Isn’t that revealing?). Ministers may be chosen from the House of Lords as well as from the House of Commons.

This means that +/- 118 constituencies are effectively disenfranchised after they have voted by virtue of the fact that their supposed representative cannot represent them. His or her loyalty is to the Party and now the Government. To be disloyal will cost him/her the job – not the parliamentary seat, but the job, for which extra payment is received – somewhere in the region of an extra £33,000 p.a. - on top of standard MP remuneration (£70,000+ and expenses). Therefore, Ministers are indebted to the Prime Minister and not to their constituents for five years. It just adds emphasis to the saying that ‘a dog cannot serve two masters’ (without intending any disrespect to dogs).

In UK today the governing party is a minority government and holds just 316 seats out of a possible 650, and 118 of those 316 are held by a minister. But it doesn’t end there.

There are 25 ministerial departments; 21 non-ministerial departments, and 300+ agencies and other public bodies mostly run by Civil Servants answerable somewhere down the line to a minister, but nobody votes for Civil Servants.

Oh! I almost forgot. The Parties have Whips, the bully boys who, with threats, maintain order and compliance among would-be rebels in the parliamentary party.

We also have devolved government across the Kingdom; county councils, borough councils, town councils and parish councils, too. All based upon the party system, all determined to maintain the status quo, and none truly concerned about the citizen or the subject who ultimately pays their wages. I tell you, representative democracy (so-called) is no democracy at all and those who hold the reins of authority know it only too well. They just won’t tell you. This doesn't mean that those who strive to be a good constituency MP are bad people. They are not bad people but it is entirely possible that they are unaware of what is happening around them. They simply don't know what they don't know, like the rest of us.

* * * *

Are there alternatives? Of course there are. Always there are.

I’m thinking in terms of trying to separate parliament from government by making it a requirement that an MP who has accepted the role of minister or Secretary of State must surrender his parliamentary seat – and the salary that goes with it - and the constituency then holds a bye-election to replace him/her, preferably without the involvement of any political party. I suggest that it is a laudable objective to find the best person for the job without the handicap of Party labels. This should have the effect of increasing the number of independent constituency representatives, but it will take time. However, I haven’t a clue how to make that happen!

Unless, of course, the electorate of 118 constituencies could be persuaded, one constituency at a time, to insist on the recall of their party representative, and unseat him/her on grounds of dereliction of duty towards the constituency. There should be only several thousand vested interests to overcome in each constituency!

Alternative (2): Just recognise when you are being deceived, deluded and shafted and don’t worry about it.

Alternative (3): Never vote in parliamentary elections. Make the nomination appear less and less relevant as a proportion of the constituency.

* * * *

New subject: "If you criticise Islam, you are labelled an Islamaphobe. If you dare to criticise the state of Israel, some will label you an anti-Semite. If you oppose equal marriage, you are labelled a homophobe. If you oppose unlimited immigration from EU countries, you are called a racist. If you are Germaine Greer and believe post-operative transgender people “can’t be a woman”, not only are you labelled transgenderphobic, and you can only speak on a university campus with massive security around you for fear that you are going to be attacked. How long can these labels - these methods to shut down debate, continue? We live in a world where hysteria takes the place of rational debate." – Andrew Allison

* * * * *

What do you mean, exactly?

11 August 2017 - I mused as I read a headline in a national newspaper today. It read:

 

'Racist' Asian sex gangs:

MPs demand tougher sentences for

grooming young white girls

The authors of the article were the newspaper’s CRIME correspondent and its deputy POLITICAL editor. An interesting combination, I thought.  Neither would be responsible for the headline, of course. Headlines are a whole different speciality.

My first thought was to consider the difference between ‘justice’ and ‘vengeance’ and I sought definitions on the website: www.differencebetween.com – inevitably American.

Vengeance vs Justice

“Vengeance and justice are two concepts with a clear difference between them, even though most people tend to confuse these two when wronged. It is quite normal to feel betrayed, angry and hurt, and even vengeful after being wronged by another. Depending on the gravity of the situation, the need to seek revenge or justice can also vary. However, trying to resolve the situation through justice is always a better method rather than the use of vengeance. Through this article, let us examine the differences between these two emotions that people feel.”

Vengeance

It explained further: “The key characteristic in vengeance is that the individual takes the law into his hands, rather than operating within a system. It is not the actual laws that govern his thoughts and actions, but his anger and bottled up emotions. This is the danger of vengeance. The sole purpose of the individual is not to gain a just response or solution to the situation, but to quench his thirst for revenge. Vengeance can be viewed not only as a negative emotion but also a very destructive one because it blurs the sense of right and wrong of an individual. Justice, however, is very different to vengeance.

Justice can be defined as just behaviour or treatment. Justice is the accepted manner of finding solutions to a problem, by working within a system. For instance, imagine a situation where a criminal is caught by civilians in a small town. If the people hit the criminal and take the law into their hands for the crimes that he has committed against them, then that is vengeance. However, if the people hand him over to the police station so that he can be dealt with in a just manner, then that promotes justice.

In the case of justice, the issue is viewed in an objective manner so that it is fair for both parties. Unlike in the case of vengeance where the individual is driven by his emotions of anger, pain, and hurt, in the case of justice, it is different. The one who committed the crime is given a punishment (by whom? – MD) based on his crime. This creates a just and fair way of settling matters. Unlike vengeance, justice is positive and promotes the well-being of the society.”

* * * *

Having read this far, have you yet begun to pick holes in these definitions? I did. I began to think about my English lessons when I was a schoolboy. My teacher told me that an adjective is ‘a doing word’ or, more formally, any member of a class of words that modify nouns and pronouns, primarily by describing a particular quality of the word they are modifying. As I said: a doing word.

An adverb, on the other hand, any member of a class of words that function as modifiers of verbs or clauses, and in some languages, such as Latin and English, as modifiers of adjectives.

Stay with me. I’ve almost finished. The word ‘racial’ is an adjective. The word ‘racially’ is an adverb. The word ‘Asian’ is both an adjective and a noun. www.dictionary.com confirmed there is no definition for ‘sex gangs’.

An MP is a Member of Parliament who represents, first and foremost, a political party, despite any protestations that, to the contrary, he/she really, truly, honestly, please believe me, represents those who elected him to his post. Apparently these representatives ‘demand’ – from whom?¹ – tougher sentences for (anyone found guilty of) ‘grooming’ (an adjective) young (another adjective) white (yet another adjective) girls (noun). Asians versus young white girls. Wow. That’s a humdinger!

In short, the headline is a mish-mash of words designed to attract attention and, presumably, sell the paper. Everything in the headline is modified to achieve a particular effect. It pretends to be concerned with crime but the emphasis is political – hence the combination of reporters who wrote the article.

* * * *

I put it to you that crime, especially adjectivally endorsed crime, is still just crime. No adjectives required. 

From time immemorial all communities across the world – even primitive communities - have maintained order by appointing representatives of that community to hear evidence of crime; and after hearing the evidence, to determine whether the accused is guilty or not guilty as charged; and to determine the just sentence of the community upon the guilty. That includes the community having the power to conclude that a person is guilty or not guilty as charged and at the same time having the power to decide the lightness or severity of the punishment. The head honcho in the community took (should still take) responsibility only for determining that the sentence was applied.

And that describes COMMON LAW and Trial by Jury in action.
 

I contend that rules and statutes which take away and detract from this essential system of self government are driven politically, or else are in pursuit of money and/or power. I’ve discussed elsewhere that the love of money is the root of all evil. It is well said also, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (Attributed to John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). Later he added: “Great men are almost always bad men."

I conclude that our courts as presently structured are unlawful; that our Parliament as presently structured is unlawful; and that our money-serving news media aids and abets the unlawful processes.

Need I say more? I rest my case. quod erat demonstrandum.

(1)Criminal cases come to court after a decision has been made by, usually the Crown Prosecution Service, to prosecute someone for an alleged crime. In the vast majority of cases (over 95 per cent), magistrates hear the evidence and, as a panel, make a decision on guilt or innocence. For more serious cases a district judge (Magistrates’ Court) or a circuit judge in the Crown Court will hear the evidence, and in the case of the latter, this will involve a jury trial. Very serious criminal cases, such as murder and rape, may be heard by a High Court judge.

The State is the problem

Or is it?

It is astonishing to me to discover how many folks ‘feel’ that there is something in the air that isn’t quite right and they’re unable to put their finger on it; that previously supposed certainties in life are no longer certainties. Maybe it is me. Maybe, as I gain in years, I can see more clearly now the rains have gone, so to speak.

Or, maybe, we’ve all become a bit sated or jaded; we aren’t any longer excited or persuaded about the way we live; we’ve had an excess of good things and our appetites have changed, perhaps, and we can see that what seemed to be the ‘norm’ cannot go on indefinitely.

I’ve got to a point where most of the time I no longer want voyeur-vision in my living room. I mute the sound whenever adverts come on and often I mute it for the weather forecast, too. The news is persistently depressing yet is attracts me like a moth to a light and I have the sad feeling that, too often, I’m not being told the truth or anywhere near the whole truth. There is always an opinion, a slant, added to so many basic news stories. And how they can switch from reporting a disaster or a tragedy somewhere in the world to announcing the cricket or football results almost without taking breath, beats me.

I truly don’t want to become one of those people who voice ego-centric opinions about everything and his Dad; those who tell us ‘you know what that’s all about, don’t you?’ and then proceed to inform us, regardless of our initial answer. Barrack room lawyers, I think they’re called. But I do reflect on these things and, sometimes, I draw conclusions – and, occasionally, I ask you to consider them with me.

Thus far I’ve concluded that we’re not living in the way that God or nature intended, and the reason for the unease that I meet continually, is that more and more of us are coming to the same conclusion. And if not God or nature’s intention . . . whose intention? Let’s call it THE STATE.

Speaking to a friend the other day I mentioned that the love of money is the root of all evil. My friend considered this for a while before beginning to reply with: ‘If money is the root of all evil . . . .’

And there I stopped her. Not money. The LOVE of money.

(1 Timothy, chapter 6, verse 10 – the Bible). There is a difference.

So, when our politicians, economists and bankers, our newspapers and TV/radio news

stations harp on about money (not enough to go around) and the economy (becoming worse and it’s always because someone else is at fault) and they cite percentages of everything (falls into the same category as statistics, and we know that lies and damned lies precede statistics, don’t we?) None of this is to do with Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness – and please don’t tell me that these aspirations are for Americans only! They aren’t.

So, what am I to make of all this? I look at it this way: if I walk down my road and see a discarded drink container or potato crisp packet or empty cigarette packet, I have a number of choices. I can ignore it and walk on without further thought; or I can walk on in the belief that someone, paid or unpaid, will pick it up sooner or later – after all, I didn’t drop it; Or I can pick it up and carry it to the nearest rubbish bin, or take it home. Apart from the last solution, the other suggestions beg other answers. If not me, WHO? If not now, WHEN? Why not me, now?

I did say it was MY road, didn’t I? Yet the same questions and answers apply if I’m walking in YOUR road. There is no need for me to be selfish about these things. I’ve no doubt that you seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness just as much as I do.

 

Now that I’ve worked out that many supposed ‘truths’ in life aren’t true at all, what can I, you, we do about it? The answer is so obvious. We need to change it, whenever we’ve determine what ‘it’ is; I need to change me; you need to change you. And we must take action to restore truth. Just musing won’t fix anything. 

Don’t overlook the fact that those who are powerless to change their surroundings and circumstances are, by anyone’s definition, either prisoners or slaves or quislings. Only free men can make their own beneficial changes. I call them Sovereign Beings, which is what I believe they are. They/we have the power to make changes and permission isn’t required. Determination, desire, action and understanding are required, but not permission. For those who feel that it is a step too far to be described as a Sovereign Being – I can’t think why they would do so but, clearly, some folks do think that way – there is some good news that media, politicians, the education system, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all, withhold from you.

The good news is that King John of England, tyrant thought he was, gave us some astonishing rights and permissions all those years ago (in 1215 to be exact) in a treaty he made with his subjects at that time to avoid civil war and to remain as king. The treaty, we call Magna Carta, pre-dates parliament and it states that it is intended to continue ‘in perpetuity’. 

King John applied his royal seal and later his signature to the treaty. Our job is to keep a tight hold on it. Parliament can’t cancel it because it has nothing to do with Parliament. It is a treaty between the sovereign and his people. It gives his people the right to let him and his heirs know when essentials to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are being withheld, especially when they’re withheld by people with no right or authority to do so. It gives us the right to say ‘thus far, and no further’ and take action to restore the intended checks and balances.

I ask you: WHO would want to prevent that? Someone who has a great love of money (already noted as the root of all evil) and a greater love of power, that’s who. Someone who believes that repressive legislation – preferably legislation that will cost you money if you transgress - is the way to control people. Someone who cares little about trying to change the heart and mind of people; someone who believes that legislation, rules, and regulations are the cures for all our ills. I’m telling you, that person isn’t your friend and he or she cannot be your benefactor.

In your heart of hearts you KNOW IT.

* * * * *