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
* * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment