Home

Civil Liberty

Coalitions

Debate

Electoral Reform

Europe

Impeachment

Media

Parliament

Party Funding

Petition

Politicians

Referendum

Swiss Model

Taxation

What others say
 

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).