I agree with much of this article, but one key aspect mustn’t be overlooked.

Why are Trade Unions important and why should their link with Labour be maintained?

I ask this as people often forget, and it isn’t enough simply to point out that it has always been and is thus inherrantly good.

so

Firstly, if left to personal donations, politics naturally settles in the hands of the middle classes who can afford to buy influence in their local party with a £1000 donation. This is a common problem for the Conservative Party that has hindered the progress of many working class, black, and other minority Tories getting into councils, let alone government.

And hence unions matter to labour. Ignore even that Labour doesn’t have a large rump of middle class supporters able to stump up a grand here or there, and thus can’t compete without union support. More importance is that the unions ensure that working people can engage in party politics to the full by nominating councillors and MPs themselves.

That has practical consequences.

It is because of trade Union involvement that Labour broke down barriers for black and asian MPs. While Labour started to represent all in the 80s, it took until 2005 for the Tories to get their first black or asian MP (an internet Millionaire), and 2004 for even the left leaning Lib Dems (who only did so because a brown face helped capitalise on anti-war sentiment.)

It’s interesting that this entire debate goes from state funding to funding cap but very little discussion about why General Elections are so bloody expensive these days.

Hasn’t anyone noticed an interesting [possible] correlation between rising costs and falling turnout?

Couldn’t you simply count the union members’ payments into the union’s political fund against those individuals’ cap, rather than parceling them all up together and counting them against the union?

Leon

To be fair – General Elections are very cheap in the UK. We elect 650 MPs with typically less than £50million of campaign expenditure.

few countries anywhere in the world are anywhere near as efficient as that.

Jono

nope – the Tories stormed out of the cross party talks because they demanded that the cap apply to the Union before considering any further talks.

“people end up voting on personality not policy in that situation.”

Like they aren’t now?

…the Tories stormed out of the cross party talks because they demanded that the cap apply to the Union before considering any further talks

This was classic politics. The Tories knew this was impossible for Labour to accept – and anyway, the Trade Unions represent voting members (and Thatcher ensured opt-outs were available). The Tories knew they could walk away from talks, and then they could blame Labour.

£50m for a general election campaign?

That’s just less than £1 per person and just more than £1 per registered voter (roughly speaking).

And we’re talking about a cap at £50,000 for individual donations???

Hmmm, there’s an answer here to be found, if only I could open my eyes.

Labour cannot abandon the Trade Unions, but the Trade Unions probably will abandon Labour. Ke sera, sera!

I’m glad to see my post has provoked a good discussion here. I agree with Margin4Error that our politics are fairly cheap – and that we want to keep it that way, to stop the ability to fund-raise being something that can dominate the beginning of an election campaign [like it does in the early stages of the campaign for party nominations for president in the US].

Re the union link, I think it is important because it is what makes the Labour Party Labour. It was founded to stand up for the interests of the working-class. And, when it was founded, trade unions took the leading role in starting the process. Although the trade union leadership do not seem to be using their influence to curtail the rightward drift of the government, they have the potential to. To break the link would remove this potential.

“Our politics are cheap – so cheap that people can’t afford £10 a year to support them!”

Um, what?

Expecting 5 million people to give £10 a year may not be reasonable currently, but if that were the only way for parties to raise funds (that is, a cap of maybe £100 per year, not £50,000!) then we might see them trying a bit harder to engage with the population. 5 million people is only 10%!

“So, what is the solution to party funding? To my mind, the situation we have already is ok.”

“Re the union link, I think it is important because it is what makes the Labour Party Labour.”

I’m blinking in utter disbelief!

So, there’s no problem to fix and Labour still represent the working class. If that’s the case, we may as well pack up now, go home and drink the kool-aid…

Nothing to see here, kindly move along?

ceedee

It is worth pointing out that labour has done quite a bit for the working class since 1997. it has created the tax credit system, the minimum wage, flexible working hours, the right to union members, enhanced workplace training, big increased spending on free schools and healthcare, and so on.

I wouldn’t argue that the party funding situation is fine as it is. But unions are perfectly transparent about their donations and pretending that labour in power has not directed energy and money towards benefiting normal working people is hardly constructive.

Ceedee its also worth pointing out that Vino in lots of ways is correct- our system may be flawed but it isn’t completely broken as arguably the system in the States is. Reform is neccessary but not revolution- and we have to distinguish between the two concepts.

Vino one point of distinction I have with you though is that the unions don’t neccessarily represent the working classes- as their numbers decline they represent a part of the working classes rather than the whole. I’m not hostile to the union link but it is worth remembering that the unions represent the unionised working class- not the whole of the working class.

The Trades Unions were never meant to represent the working classes – they were set up to represent the workers, and therefore, BY INFERENCE ONLY, the interests of the working classes.

@M4E Labour has certainly messed about with the system since 1997, but it is stretching it a bit to unequivically argue that Tax-credits, the minimum wage, flexible working hours, ‘enhanced’ training and increased spending are benefitial.

Sure it all sounds fine and dandy, and a number of areas did need attention, but are you saying that Labour acted wisely in all those cases? Haven’t some sectors benefitted disproportionately and unnecessarily? Hasn’t differential levels of equality widened as a result of Labour’s time in power? Have we abolished poverty, or just made the issue history?

Have we solved all the problems, or has Labour just papered over the cracks?

In the same way, I’m glad that the unions exist, for they have done a lot of things, but I don’t think they act out of any motives of altruism. The unions say they act in the interests of their membership, yet the membership is on a long downward trend since the party heirarchies long ago became institutionalised. The unions are not representatives of people, they are a social estate and should officially take their place in the reformed House of Lords where many of them end up retiring anyway.

A number of points i would like to comment on:

1. Re the comment @ 12, even in the heyday of mass party membership in the 50s there were only about 1m Labour members and 2-3m Tory ones. As such, the idea that a mass party can be funded on small donations is an incorrect one.

2. Re the comment @ 13, the unions do have the ability to push the party to the left – both from their role on the NEC, at Conference and, yes, their financial role. After all, the unions helped drive the move to the left in 1970-4 and, to some degree, in the 80s.

3. I don’t think Labour has done as much for ‘the working-class’ (however defined) as it could. However, it would be churlish to deny that the minimum wage, tax credits, pension minimum income guarantee etc have not benefitted some people.

thomas

I find myself agreeing with you again.

Tax-credits, the minimum wage, flexible working hours, ‘enhanced’ training and increased spending – I’d say those have unequivically benefited the working class.

However,

“are you saying that Labour acted wisely in all those cases?” – heavens no. I completely agree much more could have been done, some things were run poorly, and other policies have sometimes weakened that progress further, (such as opt outs for long working hours laws).

so while the list above was unequivically positive, it is just as unequivical that they could have been much more positive.

–

having said that I have to raise a question about “Have we abolished poverty, or just made the issue history?”

Poverty has fallen under Labour. And quite significantly so. For the first time since the 1960s the poor have got consistently richer under this government. That in itself is quite a turn around. (in the 70s 80s and 90s the lot of the poor worsened). I don’t suppose you really think poverty could be eliminated in ten years, most of us never believed it could be done by 2020 as the Government has targeted. But for the first time in generations eliminating poverty is a political aim of government. And that is a good thing.

@M4E well it does depend on whether you are using real, relative or simple nominal terms to define your conclusion.

Undoubtedly there are some benefits from each of the reforms that have taken place, but I don’t think I said it was one-way traffic.

Tax credits are the new means test for this generation, and while they have benefited many, the cynic could justifiably argue the greatest beneficiary was the treasury, by disincentivising take-up with the complexity of it.
The minimum wage makes for a great lefty headline, but it was set at such an uncontroversial level so as to make little or no difference to those in areas of average or above-average living costs ie the majority. Here the cynic would say this was a purely electoral policy designed as a sop to the northern and ex-industrial heartland vote of the Labour party.
Flexible working practices, including hours, hiring and firing (including anti-discrimination legislation), parental leave etc, together with a more relaxed approach to business planning has effectively created wider access to the workplace. While active economic participation is vital on a personal and social level, htis has had the effect of expanding the capacity of the labour force, which has replaced visible registered unemployment (see the rise of NEET’s) as the restraint on wage inflation. As this spare capacity has shrunk, so the demand for greater immigration has increased under the guise of a ’skilled’ workforce. As a result wage differentials have sprung apart, although more drudge jobs and sales slaves have been secured to occupy the masses.
While all training and targeted spending is to be welcomed there has been very little quality control to ensure that it has, as a general rule, been effective or efficiently instituted.
Finally, the complete lack of planning as to how all these changes would work in practice has meant that pressures have been transfered from one area to another without solving the underlying systematic and regulatory problems. Take the transport infrastructure, as a basic example. We Brits now have the longest commute of anyone, anywhere. Gridlock is approaching, and the time we spend in our cars in traffic jams is time we don’t spend with our children, and the family unit (whether nuclear or not) is exploding.

This break-down has numerous additional interconnected and unseen consequences which government would be embarrassed to relate, so before you blow any trumpets please find yourself a philharmonia.

We can legitimately applaud what has been achieved, but we should be scandalised by the duplicity with which the half-hearted and short-sighted manner of their implementation has been explained to us as some form of messianic intervention.

thomas

“Tax credits… disincentivising take-up with the complexity of it.”

but they could just not have done it – and that would surely have been worse for those in need?

“The minimum wage… so as to make little or no difference”

tell that to london security guards and cleaners on £1.50 an hour in 1997, who now earn around £5.50. A nigh on 400% pay increase over ten years is phenomenal.

“Flexible working practices…”

I was talking about flexible working hours for mums, dads, and carers for elderly and disabled loved ones.

“…training and targeted spending… …very little quality control to ensure that it has, as a general rule, been effective or efficiently instituted.”

couldn’t agree more, but while it could have been better, it has at least been good.

“We can legitimately applaud what has been achieved”

Thats pretty much all I was doing when some one claimed labour no longer bothered with working class issues.

—

I think the difference between you and I is very little except our perspective.

I tend to be somewhat grateful for the good that has happened under labour, having dispaired at the uncaring, brutal and destitute nature of my country in the early 90s. You meanwhile dispair at the bad that has happened under Labour, maybe more focused on a prior less terrible time than the 90s, or on an optimistic and achievable nature for the future.

I’m not grateful in the least, I’m expectant and wide-eyed at what is going on around me. I criticise where I can see criticism is due.

Did/does Labour care about the working class and associated issues? Well, you can’t disentangle any issues from the greater workings of the whole country so this is an irrelevant question.

One would expect the Labour party to place greater policy emphasis on the electoral sector(s) which would enable them to maximise their electoral return. As Labour’s core constituency can be categorised as working class one might take your assumption therefore. Although when the political debate became more polarised so your assumption became less valid – what were the voting tribes going to do, cut off their noses to spite their faces? They had no choices.

The same rule of thumb holds true now, just look across the Atlantic where a two-party dictatorship alternates every few years.

Returning to the minimum wage and London cleaners and security guards.

I agree a 400% pay rise can be pointed to as a real statistical difference, but by factoring in the living costs such as tax and housing and utilities and transport exactly how many more extra beers can you buy at the weekend? One, maybe, unless you’re lucky enough to be contracted to work overtime.

Come on, think about the keyworker crisis, has it really taken this much time to move so little forward? Was it worth it?

At least Labour got rid of all the sleaze that was dogging politics…

It’s very easy to say the electorate is apathetic, indeed a lot of politicians seem to agree, but it may not be true.

It is well worth looking at the results of the Power Inquiry. What this found is that there seem to be several myths and ‘red herrings’ about political disengagement in the UK. Not least among these is the idea that we are apathetic – an increasing number of people are getting involved with charities and community work, and more people are becoming involved with (and voting for) minority parties.

According to the inquiry, the reasons for disengagement from mainstream politics appear to be that:

citizens do not feel that the processes of formal democracy offer them enough influence over political decisions – this includes party members who feel they have no say in policy-making and are increasingly disaffected;
the main political parties are widely perceived to be too similar and lacking in principle;
the electoral system is widely perceived as leading to unequal and wasted votes;
political parties and elections require citizens to commit to too broad a range of policies;
many people feel they lack information or knowledge about formal politics; and,
voting procedures are regarded by some as inconvenient and unattractive.

The Hayden Phillips’ review had similar conclusions – most importantly, it seems, that there are issues of trust. So what is the solution? No, don’t improve the level of trust! Don’t be silly – let’s just take more money from the taxpayer. Much easier.

What I find interesting about Labour is that there appears to be no suggestion that they should live within their means, like other organisations. The smaller parties, Sinn Féin, the Social Democratic & Labour Party, Plaid Cymru, Respect, the Democratic Unionist Party, and the Scottish Green Party, all had less outgoings than incomings in 2005 – why can’t Labour?

Indeed, so bad are they at managing money that they have now resorted to breaking the law. Is this – and I quote – “investing in our democracy”?

Vino, so a total of 3 million people? For £50m today, that would be ooh, £17 each.

Do you really think that there aren’t 3 million people in the UK that can’t spare £20 a year?

They just need to be convinced that a political party is a reasonable investment for them.

Parties could help by not being so shit.

thomas

I take it back – we don’t agree – your lack of respect for people is astounding. I have family who, if I put their annual increase in minimum wage into the context of a pint, would hit me. Hard.

I can’t imagine ever being so patronising and disrespectful as you about hard working people on on low wages. (far lower than i’d know how to get by on).

So I think I’ll just let this lie with a suggestion that you get a little perspective and stop letting your notion of perfection taint your opinion and serve as an enemy of the good.

uk liberty

it’s just a thought – but is it not possible that people back single issue campaigns and charity groups because they fit better with the public’s consumer mentality?

people can engage with a campaign that fits their lifestyle, provides them with the satisfaction derived from ‘making a difference’, and that offers the idealogical purity that makes people feel confident and (lets be honest here) a bit superior to those who don’t have it.

so, a bit like going to tesco, they look at all the world’s problems and all the issues in politics, and pick and choose those that they like, discarding those they don’t.

They need never make a difficult decision that way. They can just like the environment. And that’s about it.

-

That’s bad news for political parties that have to have a position on every political issue, no matter how hard, and reflect all 60million people of the UK.

how can a party sell a full political package based on a sensible assessment of the structures and realities of the world we live in – to people who could instead opt for a single ideal to campaign for?

after all – if greenpeace were to campaign as well for greater or lesser religious involvement in education, it too would start to lose members who disagreed with whichever stance it took. Add in an opinion on abortions, the EU, housebuilding, etc, and how many of its members would stick around?

Margin 4 Error

It seems possible. I don’t know what proportion of the public has moved away from mainstream to single-issue politics because of a ‘consumer mentality’.

But I imagine more people are disengaged because of the reasons listed in the Power and Phillips documents rather than that mentality.

ukliberty

the consumer mentality is of course ill-defined. I guess we can’t really quantify it.

but I do dispair at people everytime some one says “I could never vote for… because…” and then give one specific policy.

Its that consumer mentality that makes my blood boil. I don’t know how widespread it is though.

@M4E Sorry to give you a dose of the consumer mentality, putting things in the context of tangible reality.
I’ll draw the conclusion that you’ve made an assumption about my own lifestyle, however it’s nearly the weekend and I should count myself lucky enough to have money for one pint after I finish here, provided I don’t catch the bus home and walk instead (is it worth it?), so I won’t blame you.
It is, of course, easy to despair and allow yourself to get angry, but I view that as just an expression of the near futility of the exercise of looking for signs of progress while trying to make a difference. You never will reach the summit if you constantly stop and turn round to try and enjoy the view.

Margin 4 Error

It seems silly to be angry about a problem when you don’t know how important it is.

It seems silly to be angry about a problem when you don’t know how important it is.

I’d suspect that M4E’s opinion on this matter is shaped by personal experience and anecdote. But if you think it’s silly, it’s worth bearing in mind how many people get angry about problems without even realising that they don’t know how important it is.

People get angry about immigration, but I’ll bet that most of them have know idea how many immigrants were allowed into the country last year, or the year before , or whether the numbers are going up or down?

People get angry about bureaucracy, but how many of those people actually know how wasteful government bureaucracies are relative to their private sector counterparts?

Anecdote and experience shape our emotions far more easily than facts and figures, it’s a fact of life.

Mr Paterson,

I think those people are silly too.

Andreas said: People get angry about bureaucracy, but how many of those people actually know how wasteful government bureaucracies are relative to their private sector counterparts?

This is a disgraceful attempt to create a generalised slur without actually providing any figures to back it up. While I agree that governments bureaucracies are more than capable of waste it is pure dogma to suggest the assumed alternative counterpart is necessarily better – it indicates a political agenda is at work.

What is clear is that there are some things that public bureaucracies do better and other things that private bureaucracies do better. The public and private sectors occupy different positions in the economy because they play different roles. Both may learn from each other and there is usually some overlap and confusion caused as each side fills the areas of an expanding economy.

We shouldn’t seek to exclude the benefits that may be provided by either side of any argument without hoping to create a flawed imbalance commensurate with the requirement for future compensation. That is, unless you don’t accept the possibility of self-delusion.

thomas

Sorry to get angry about that. I tried not to assume much about your income other than that your view of the minimum wage suggested you didn’t earn £1.50 an hour in london ten years ago.

but I have a question about your ‘enjoying the view’ comment. How can we hold government to account without ‘enjoying the view’?

Holding it to account, far from being dogmatically negative, actually means assessing government on its actions and results.

We have to be able to look at the debacle of Iraq and condemn, and look at the benefits of the minimum wage and commend.

-

otherwise there is no insentive for government to be good – and no basis on which to decide between possible governments at the ballot box.

ukliberty

I should stress that my boiling blood was something of an exageration – and I didn’t mean I sit at home at night stressing out about unknown people out there who have vowed never to vote tory because of the poll tax or never vote labour because of Iraq.

It’s just that I get annoyed when in political conversation with seemingly intelligent people, they come out with that statement, since it shows a lack of depth to political thought akin to never shopping at tescos because one doesn’t like olives.

thomas, you appear to have misunderstood my point.

I was not attempting to slur public sector bureaucracies, I was attempting to illustrate that people can often develop strong opinions on a subject, in this case the opinion of public sector bureaucracy as inefficient and wasteful without actually properly analysing the subject.

My actual opinion on the subject is similar to yours, there really ain’t all that much in it.

Andreas, not misunderstood, but hoping for a clarification, so thanks.

I think it is easy to attack any position with a valid critique without providing a balanced argument (as Sunny seems to be in favour of doing) to compensate for the weakness. That methodology of criticising tends to degrade into a nihilistic spiral which doesn’t offer any solution is one that is a cause of much of the apathy we see growing all around us. It is also the source of the description of the ‘lack of vision’ in the current Brownite regime, and the underlying failure of Melanie Phillips contribution to political commentary. It simply doesn’t aid the intelligence of debate.

Even-handedness often doesn’t satisfy our primal urge to express disgust at identifiable wrongs, and descriptions of it are quickly manipulated into the perception of wooly-minded passivity, so it takes disciplined principles to withstand the inevitable accusations from short-term machinators.

The political movement of trades unionists to gain recognition for their activities was the main impetus for the Labour Party as they remained on the outside of the social establishment, but since Labour successfully rode the wave of this coalescent opinion into power the transition has become complete and Trades Unions can now claim to be an accepted national estate.

For this reason the separation of Labour from the unions has now become necessary, if only we can agree on the representative position they should take in parliament.
I advocate reform of the House of Lords which would account for workplace representation in this manner – after all their original charters didn’t ascribe a partisan bias, nor should they any longer. For the Trades Unions to continue to unfairly influence the common good in this way is for them to undermine the secularism of our society to the detriment of national policy.

Historically viewed, Trade Union partisanship is similar to the damage caused by the union of church and government, the military and government or all other recognised estates, be they judicial, medical or whatever else when they were able to exert undue influence over government. And the solution is the same: where the religious councils formed synods and provided Lords Spiritual, so other councils were formed for their field of operation and the most distinguished experts were sent to make their representations in parliament. The Labour Party is afraid of maturing because this would wean it off the teat they have become dependent upon for their survival.

@M4E without full separation of powers the view is clouded, so proper levels of scrutiny is actually made impossible and accountability is prevented in practice. The longer we wait before this is enforced the closer we come to a devastating crisis.

Thomas

so there is no accountability anywhere in the world?

I ask because although on paper we lack seperation of powers, in practice we have a far better seperated judiciary than Germany or the USA, where on paper the judiciary is 100% independent but in practice is a branch of party politics.

Likewise how can one seperate the executive from the scrutinising role of parliament in a parliamentary system? Do we thus have to scrap parliament in order to establish accountability?

In that case what do we replace it with? Is a president better held to account by the legislator anywhere in the world than a Prime Minister?

I accept that ‘full’ seperation of powers is utopian, but it can and does exist no where in the real world. And that being the case we must surely enjoy the view through what mist of unsperated powers exists.

fortunately that mist is very light in the UK, where seperation of powers is fairly strong, at least compared to almost anywhere else in the world.

Unless you simply feel all politics is pointless as you can never assess any government?

Margin4 Error,

I can see your point . That said I am sure people generally have more than one reason for not voting for a party, even if they are unable or unwilling to articulate it (and of course that reason might not even be the truth). I think if someone asked me, “Why won’t you vote for Labour?” and I responded, “because they are a bunch of sleazy socialists”, I could come up with a few more reasons if prompted. It’s a matter of time and interest I suppose.

As for the separation of powers, we don’t really have it on paper or in practice in the UK, except with regard to the judiciary, as you pointed out, which seems fiercely independent and rightly so. I think the CPS should be independent from Government too.

I think the Government (big G, the Executive) is too closely entwined with Parliament (the legislature) – as I explain on my blog’s about page, the reason I might appear to mostly attack the Government is because it is the Government, under our constitution, that proposes most new legislation, and most of the Parliamentary time available for debate is spent on Government Bills.

I think the separation of powers is a worthy aspiration, though unlikely (and naturally) to ever be perfected – as you say, utopian.

With regard to Trade Unions, I do not believe they should be given a ’special’ rule, just because they have some ’special’ place in the history of the Labour party. It seems a fairly simple situation to me: ‘organisations’ should be free to donate money to any party they choose; if an organisation is only allowed to donate £n, then another organisation should only be allowed to donate £n.

I couldn’t care less if this ‘breaks’ the Labour party, as I do not think the Labour party is essential, just as I do not think any particular party is essential. I think what people forget (or neglect to remember) is that the main parties we have today were born from particular contexts in yesteryear, and those contexts have been replaced, so perhaps it is time to let those parties die a death (if they are unpopular – but hey, that’s democracy) and let new ones rise up.

It does make me smile when so-called proponents of democracy insist on maintaining the unpopular.

ukliberty

if you answered ‘because they are a bunch of sleazy socialists’ then thats an honest statement I could well support.

If you fundementally oppose the philosophy (’sleazy’ socialism) then the government representing it is likely to move the country in a direction you, a ‘non-sleazy’ liberal i assume (based on your name), abhor and thinks makes life worse.

That’s different to saying ‘because they nationalisted healthcare in 1948′

Sure that too was a socialist thing and thus an illiberal thing to do. But it can surely only be a symbol of an underlying truth. That truth is that no policy or policies would sway you either way, because you fundementally oppose the ideology of the party in question.

–

The curse of that truth is of course impotant bias. And most people with strong political views can’t accept that impotence.

Margin4 Error,

That’s a fair point, about the distance between ideology and specific policy – I agree with you.

Can you elaborate on ‘impotent bias’? I’m not sure I understand.

Ah – good question –

the problem with having an ideology (as most people on here do) is that it creates a degree of impotence.

Your vote (like mine) has lost all (or at least much) leverage by nature of that bias. In this instance it becomes unrealistic for you to expect a socialist party to listen to your opinion when it can’t win your vote. That is mirrored by a socialist who need not be canvassed by a socialist party since they can take that vote for granted.

Your only influence on government therefore becomes that of a campaigner. but because our votes can be ignored we foster personal hatred for government and a notion that politicians are sinister in motive. We detatch from it and thus extend our impotence by misdiagnosis MP behaviour.

In effect you can’t oppose a government as sinister and then hope an MP that supports that government might listen to your case.

take the 42 day thread further up.

there are some MPs who don’t like the idea of 42 day detention. But they will vote for it. They won’t do so because they are sinister and evil. They will do so because they honestly believe labour is better for the nation than the tories, and that rebelion would help bring about a tory government.

attacking them as evil or power hungry or lacking in concience therefore blunts your capacity to convince.

instead we have to convince them that a rebellion won’t herrald the rise of Cameron – and that it will actually benefit Labour in the long term.

so

the impotence can be overcome – but only by casting off one common consequence of that bias – ie inherrant suspicion and hatred for those that don’t share it.

The seperation of powers is ensured by having two houses of parliaments, as no one person can sit and vote in both. That the two between them aren’t adequately representative is what prevents full scrutiny.

Full independence for the constituent isn’t politically desirable in practice, as demonstrated by the membership of the Monetary Policy Committee – sure, they outwardly present all the characteristcs of a body uninfected by governmental creed, but while the term of the committeee’s membership remains shorter than that of the appointment board (the Prime Minister) they effectively become a tool for the indirect control of the higher office. So last week’s decision on interest rates should be seen as an outward expression of Brownite policy, despite his fingerprints being nowhere near the decision itself.

Accountability can only be upheld before a broadly-based body of opinion, such as the national electorate, which is constituted to reflect the widest section of interest, without which there is no guarantee against the damage of bias.

M4E, your description of impotence seems a little short-sighted, as is appears to depend on no partisan pre-judgments being made about the merits of the parties. When it comes to the crunch, higher interests than those of any one party do prevail, as this is what builds alliances for shared actions and is the originator of party structures in the first place.

Democracy is secured by the ability to shift opinion, so those that would claim to be motivated by fixed ideals are essentially anti-democratic in their ideas.

thomas

your first paragraph contradicts itself in that if full seperation is assured by having two houses, and then you nit pick that the two houses are not good enough. Such nit picking is surely possible with any two houses or any system anywhere in the world.

hence my point that while the nit picking might be accurate, the conclusion from that nitpicking that the imperfect is thus absolute failure is beyond reason. For that to be the case we would have to believe there is no seperation or scrutiny in government anywhere in the world.

-
in regards to the MPC – it is of course not meant to be independent in its aims – since its twin target for growth and inflation is quite understandably set by democratic government.
-

on impotence – I’m refering to the situation of individuals at a given time. Over many decades the public outlook can be swayed.

so in the 1950s when both labour and tories saw national ownership as an answer to problems, those who disagreed were impotent. By the 1980s they were ascendent. But that took a long time and a willingness to engage. (imagine if pro-market Thatcher had never joined or voted for the tories because they were ’sleazy socialists’ in the 1950s.)

likewise in the 1970 both Labour and Tory leaderships were pro-EU, making nationalists inpotent. They have taken a different route to change the public will their way by owning newspapers and establishing their own party. And increasingly the Conservatives are now responding to their view after casting out pro-europeans.

but I disagree that those motivated by fixed ideals are anti-democratic. They are at any given moment impotent and thus frustrated. But they can remain democratic by restraining that frustration and engaging.

Margin4 Error,

Thank you for a most informative and interesting post.

no problem UKliberty

I do worry when posting stuff like that i’ll insult people by saying they are biassed. So hopefully I make clear I don’t mean bias as a slur.

Margin4 Error, I understood that you didn’t intend a slur. I think bias is an appropriate word to use (unfortunately some do take it the wrong way).

Thomas, I don’t understand how a secondary reviewing chamber of the legislature “ensures separation of powers”.

@M4E – Having reread what was written a number of times with the aim of trying to maintain a clear head, I can identify only your insertion of ‘full’ as the point of difference. Other than that, it is just nit-picking with my nit-picking.

I can’t make the grandiose claim that perfection is possible, therefore neither can I say imperfection may be valueless. Yet it seems impossible to ignore the slippery slope that is created by a lack of rigour (I accept I can be as guilty as anyone, though it’s hard to admit).

While it is easy to nit-pick according to the bias of any particular perspective, it is much more difficult to agree improvements (which is my aim, as well as the avowed statement of this site), so I can only ask you what sort of dispassionate suggestions you could make.

To go back to the MPC, yes, it is not overtly independent in function, according to its constituted aims, but this is natural, provides accountability and is good. Neither was this the basis for my criticism that it is not independent in practice – which is a devious way of undermining the accountability of the regulatory function of the system and a barrier to the improved certainty that a fully democratic appointments method would (and would have) provide(d). It certainly appears to have hoodwinked you.

My suggestion for improvement with reference to the MPC couldn’t be spelled out more clearly (yes, I could provide more details, but I won’t) – what is yours?
My argument for the separation of the Trades Unions from Labour should also be clear – do you agree with it?

@ukliberty – Apart from to the HoL, where else are you going to divert, and how else are you going to co-opt the democratic energies of constituent national estates?

As argued above by both M4E and myself, full and perfect separation is unrealistic, so it must be accepted that partial as well as partisan bodies have their forum for representative debate.
By recognising the distinction between the roles of the houses they combine to provide better results, but while government continues to seek to diminish the separation in order to exert its control the wrestling match outgrows the politicking.

Of course the level of separation depends entirely on perceptions of the actual grasp of power of the the Prime Minister (which develops over time) and the status of the current situation is a pure reflection of the success and coherence of the PM’s policies.