Home

Civil Liberty
Coalitions
Debate
Electoral Reform
Europe
Impeachment
Media
Parliament
Party Funding
Petition
Politicians
Referendum
Swiss Model
Taxation
What others say
 

Brown wants fast track reform on expenses


This newspaper headline sums up all that is wrong with today's politics. The article states that 'Gordon Brown will tell MPs today that he wants legislation to clean up their expenses system to be rushed through Parliament before the end of the autumn parliamentary session' (Times, 10 June 2009).
The citizens have no say in the way the politicians regulate their own affairs and the representatives of the people are bludgeoned into submission by the party machine controlled by the Prime Minister. As usual, there is no effective separation of power.
10-Jun-09


Many Elections but no Change
Due to the federal structure of Germany there is not only one major national election after 4 years but the elections in the federal states also have a national impact as their governments have a say in national legislation.
2009 is even called a 'Superwahljahr'. The national elections are held in September and there are also elections in a few federal states. One could say that a permanent election campaign is taking place in Germany.
The odd thing is - all this voting changes very little in the political landscape due to perverse effects inherent in the Constitution. The ruling political class has never bothered to explicitly consult the citizens when the Constitution was decreed in 1949. But there is also very little or no chance to change it from the bottom up via initiatives that are instigated by the citizens as an overpowering system of machine politics controls executive, legislature and the judiciary.
8-Jun-09



Should Constitutional Laws be subject to a referendum?
The Austrian President asks if changes in the constitution should be made subject to further checks by the constitutional court. We would say that the present sorry state of affairs where the large parties can easily change the constitution at a stroke of the pen is insufficient and also undemocratic. The two-thirds hurdle (of parliamentary votes) poses no problem as the two main parties can muster the necessary votes ever since World War II.
We demand that any changes to the constitution are subject to a mandatory referendum. The majority would have to be two thirds as well. In cases of changes to an eventual European Constitution there should also be the requirement that a majority of all member states is in favor of any change.
22-Apr-09


British MPs to get paid twice for same job
People in most countries would have no hope of recognizing the member of parliament that is supposed to represent them. So it is no surprise that the electorate becomes more and more emancipated and critical of Parliaments.
In recent weeks there was growing criticism of real or supposed abuses by MPs that made excessive use of generous allowances that they get in addition to their salary.
Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, stated "The issue of expenses is casting a cloud over the whole of Parliament. So Members of Parliament need to have the humility to recognise that the country has lost confidence in the current system."
But what did he do next to fix the discredited system? Unbelievably he proposed to pay MPs a fixed daily attendance allowance in lieu of the allowance for a second home they can presently claim.
It is as if the ordinary employee gets two salaries, one for accepting the job and another (tax-free one!) for turning up at his place of employment.
22-Apr-09



Veto on tax increases proposed
In Britain the conservative opposition announced plans that residents would be able to veto increases in local council taxes. David Cameron said he wanted a fundamental 'shift of power and wealth' back towards local people.
We welcome this announcement but would like to see voter participation extended to all parts of government.
19-Feb-09


US Presidential Campaign - Party Machines or Personalities?
The endless Campaign exposes a dilemma in modern politics - should candidates, and in particular the candidates for the top positions - be selected by party machines or should they be personalities that are backed by the media or their own substantial wealth?
We think that both methods have their disadvantages and that Direct Democracy offers an effective safeguard against the abuses latent in either system of selection.


Olympic Games: who picks up the bill?
A report just released by the CBI and KPMG found that more than half of London businesses feel they will get no direct benefit from the 2012 Olympics.
This reminded us of the fact that the IOC found the perfect recipe to make other people pick up the bill for the frolics.
We would not mind if the people making this generous contribution would be doing it voluntarily and because they are dedicated sports enthusiasts.
But the unfortunate fact is that the IOC (whose structure does not appear to be all that democratic) is getting the money on the say-so of politicians who refuse to consult their electorate.
It is in any case not clear that it should be the task - much less responsibility - of the state to spend money on what is after all a private entertainment. It should be not beyond the capability of the IOC and all the worthies sitting on its committees to raise the required funds. If the facilities for the games have to be scaled down it might be a worthwhile contribution towards preserving a better environment.


Stop to 'proposals', 'initiatives' and 'schemes'
More and more legislation and bureaucratic regulation is created as a consequence of so-called 'proposals', 'initiatives' or 'schemes' launched by elected politicians or civil servants.
We think this is a symptom of what is wrong with the legislative process in our societies. People who have an in-built interest to increase their power or force their individual views on others are in the driving seat when their main focus should be on the smooth running of the government machinery. Their attention should be directed towards the efficient execution of existing legislation and only in extremis should they add new rules and regulations. These should not be created with the stroke of a pen and nodded through by subservient placeholders (aka Members of Parliament) but the process of launching new laws should start at grassroots and only be moved forward if enough citizens are willing to back it.


Every new initiative that is set up increases the distrust we feel for the State
writes Camilla Cavendish in The Times (12 June 2008).
Apart from the fact that most of these 'initiatives' are thinly disguised edicts based on only a shred of legitimacy we just want to point out the main cause of this malaise: the citizens are effectively excluded from the process of legislation and only a radical reform can reverse the growing distrust that is felt.
Direct action in the form of protests such as truck drivers blockading streets in order to support their demands will become a growing feature in our societies if this root-and-branch reform is not started soon.


Politics as Spectator Sport
All too often one hears that a politician (we do not like the word 'leader' for obvious reasons although it is continuously used in the English-language press) has 'won' a victory when a vote in a usually docile Parliament is going his way.

This is not the way that political decisions are reached, much less celebrated or commented on. Legislation should not be the expression of the will or preference of an individual person (or narrow clique at the top of political parties) who just happens to be responsible for the management of government functions at a particular point in time but the expression of a consensus established after broad debate among all concerned citizens. This consensus should be validated by a referendum (or at least be subject to a facultative referendum in less important legislation).


London Congestion Charge -How not to conduct a referendum
Transport Politicians all over the world are given the impression that the £8 congestion charge that drivers into central London have to pay has been a success. They are keen to emulate this measure and pile another tax onto the already overtaxed citizen.
An extra argument in favour of the London tax is the claim that the citizen's of London had been 'consulted'. We beg to differ as there was no proper legally-binding referendum. A key question that is always overlooked is also the problem of the wider implications of such a charge. The present charge is arbitrary and discriminatory: people inside the zone are not taxed at all, they pay no tax driving through zones that are nearby. Only in a patchwork of arbitrary rules that constitute the so-called 'unwritten' British Constitution is it possible to introduce taxes that are levied only on a certain part of the population. Why is it not possible that areas that surround Inner London levy a tax on those that pass through them on their way into and out of London? Should there not have been separate referenda inside and outside the charging zone and only a clear majority in both votes would have been a signal to introduce the congestion tax? Why not vote on the level of the tax, and what provisions are made on how to repeal the charge when a sufficient number of citizens wants to abolish or change it?


The Elections are over, now let's start to vote!
That would be our comment now that the elections in Italy and England are over. The result of the elections may lead to some small changes in the life of the ordinary citizen but we think that the permanent impact on everyday life will be modest at best. The faces of the politicians may change, some egos will be bruised while some will be boosted but in the end the big questions related to the cost effectiveness and quality of government services will not be answered in any conclusive fashion.
This should come as no surprise to anyone who questions the viability of the current system of representative government which is an ineffective parody of democracy.
Once every few years the citizen is asked to participate in a box-ticking exercise and select one option among a very limited and never-changing menu of political parties. The voter is basically expected to give carte blanche to a party to do as they please during the term in office. Electoral promises are treated as an inconvenient hindrance and the only check on government tend to be the media (who often also follow an agenda of their own).

Basic immorality of selective bail-outs