Democracy - help me out here!

Don't voters count as key stakeholders?

POGS, their is much I can agree with and in your questioning of in regard to your above post @14:10 today.

However, in one area I feel you are incorrect. In that, you state that the trades unions "lobby in parliament" which is not the case.

The Labour Party was born out of the trades unions in the early nineteen hundreds and within that the trade unions have always been an integeral part of the Labour party by way of representation on it's National Executive Committee.

During the Tony Blair dominance of the party the representation of the unions on that committee was virtually abolished, but under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn that representation has been restored. The forgoing now brings many to refure to Labour as the "Labour Movement.

Representation on the National Executive Committee (NEC) is as follows:-

The NEC is structured so as to represent all key stakeholders in the Party and movement.

Chair: Wendy Nichols
Vice Chair: Andi Fox
Leader: Jeremy Corbyn MP
Deputy Leader: Tom Watson MP
Treasurer: Diana Holland
Shadow Frontbench: Jon Trickett MP
Shadow Frontbench: Rebecca Long-Bailey MP
Shadow Frontbench: Diane Abbott MP
Shadow Scottish Frontbench: Richard Leonard MSP
Welsh Labour Representative: Mick Antoniw AM
EPLP Leader: Richard Corbett MEP
Young Labour: Lara McNeill
BAME Labour: Keith Vaz MP
Div. I – Trade Unions: Keith Birch (Unison)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Jim Kennedy (Unite)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Andi Fox (TSSA)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Pauline McCarthy (Bakers)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Michael Wheeler (Usdaw)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Wendy Nichols (Unison)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Andy Kerr (CWU)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Sarah Owen (GMB)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Jayne Taylor (UNITE)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Cath Speight (GMB)
Div.I – Trade Unions: Ian Murray (FBU)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Mick Whelan (ASLEF)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Joanne Cairns (USDAW)
Div. II – Socialist Societies: James Asser
Div. III – CLPs: Huda Elmi
Div. III – CLPs: Yasmin Dar
Div. III – CLPs: Rachel Garnham
Div. III – CLPs: Ann Henderson
Div. III – CLPs: Jon Lansman
Div. III – CLPs: Navendu Mishra
Div. III – CLPs: Claudia Webbe
Div. III – CLPs: Darren Williams
Div. III – CLPs: Pete Willsman
Div. IV – Labour Councillors: Nick Forbes
Div. IV – Labour Councillors: Alice Perry
Div. V – PLP/EPLP: George Howarth MP
Div. V – PLP/EPLP: Margaret Beckett MP
Div. V – PLP/EPLP: Shabana Mahmood MP

In addition, the PLP Shadow Chief Whip (Nick Brown MP), and PLP Chair (John Cryer MP) attend ex-officio without a vote.

absthame

You make some interesting points. Can I politely pursue them with you. . You posted:-

Sat 24-Aug-19 22:11:25
"So what is the answer?

I believe that no one organisation should be permitted control of more than one national source of news information"

What constitutes 'organisation'?

Are you saying a newspaper Group should not be permitted to also own a news channel, Internet companies etc. They should only be ' allowed' to have holdings/shares in one single company and that company is restricted to choosing whether it is a newspaper, social media company or TV Producer/Channel.

That is censorship of the press / the media surely.

Under those rules either The Guardian or The Observer would have to go as they are both owned by The Scott Trust.

Reach plc, formerly Trinity Mirror publishes Regional Papers, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, The Sunday People, Daily Express, Sunday Express, Daily Star, Daily Star Sunday, Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail and the magazine OK!. Since purchasing Local World, it has gained 83 print publications.

Which paper would be allowed under the 'no one organisation should be permitted control of more than one national source of news information' dictat.?

Then you have politically motivated ' organisations' who have newspapers /magazines/social media outlets how does it work for that side of what we in the 21st century deem as being our ' Source for Information'?

Get rid of the open press and swallow the Dark Web of lies and misinformation which we know exists and sadly some people swallow hook line and sinker.
---

I equally believe that no person should be permitted to serve more than 3 terms in elected office, this will reduce the risk of corruption or being absorbed into the establishment.

Agree.
-----

I believe that it should be illegal for an organisation or person to lobby for profit, their own or that of the ones that they represent.

Cash for questions comes to mind. How does that work for the Unions who are major lobbyists? This is a cross party problem. Lobbying is a bit of a tightrope to walk at times.
---

MPs should be provided with an adequate salary and that the only office facilities and staffing permitted are those provided by Parliament, something that they currently barely undertake and is the route of our current distrust of MPs. No outside source should be permitted to providemembers with staff or facilities.

Not sure on that one. ' Nepotism' is something I would go along with getting rid of. People in ' high places' hold dear to having their family and friends as staff so I think it would be contested by MP's. Constituency staff are for the most part needed by the MP to understand the constituency and politics they represent, a trust should be formed
----.

MPs, while serving should not be permitted to earn monies outside their parliamentary salary

Not so clear cut. A politicians job is so insecure and why should a doctor for example still not practice to keep their professional life current. MP's have families / responsibilities, maybe financial commitments and need to be able to support them it is not viable to expect our MP's to lose sources of revenue to become an MP.
--

Ministers including the PM should not receive any payment beyond their pay as an MP, this would stop governments buying votes.

Not sure what you mean by ' would stop governments buying votes.'

Thank you.

He knows his brief Grany, that's for certain. I was disappointed to see Sophy Ridge suggest something had changed because Johnson and Trump both declared "the NHS is Safe". She is not a stupid woman and must know this isn't true.

Of course, we will be "allowed" to keep our NHS as a state-run entity rather than an insurance-based one but that is really not, and never was the point. Because the Tories (and it has to be said, the Lib Dems) started down the road of separating various parts of the running of the NHS into privately run entities these areas can now come under that various rules that the USA will want to be included. This will put up the costs to the NHS and I have no doubt, that will be shortly followed by an argument from the right that we "need" to move to an insurance-based medical system and thus a two-tier system.

Mmm. It is good to have another point of view absthame but like Maizie I would have to ask if what you say has any factual basis. I understand that leopards do not change their spots but I just don't see anything of what you say actually happening.

Of course, I am not privy to the LP and don't have an in-depth knowledge of its workings but so far the only thing I could accuse the leadership of would be being overly democratic where the membership is concerned and really that cannot be a criticism.

We need a Labour Government

Absolutely spot-on ! Barry Gardiner nails it square in the head!! But I guarantee that this con-niving govt will do everything it can to avoid answering this truthfully!! They indeed rely on the underhanded clauses of contracts , to fulfill their ‘ideological agenda

Barry Gardiner on what Labour will do to keep our NHS safe from Trump and on why Johnson needs to do a lot more than just talk.

twitter.com/iNdiGoDocToRDee/status/1165556292959821824?s=20

Are you privy to their plans or just speculating?

I'm afraid I'm far more scared of what the tories, under the direction of Cummings, are planning to do in the next few weeks, probably culminating in the imposition of the Civil Contingencies Act and martial law, than I am of Labour government.

I am pleased that you at least have an answer to my question; it's more than anyone else has managed.

How are they going to undermine the independence of the courts?

Sorry undermining courts. Not understanding

I have no fears of the Labour party without the current leadership cabal. With it, yes believe that they will destroy our democracy, initially by understanding the independence of the courts, they have done it by ignoring party conference decisions that they disagree with and destroying the independence of the NEC, then attacking our parliamentarians, recalling and deselecting them. They will weight the electoral system such that large cities and towns will have even more representations than the populations can justify, at the same time reduce representation in areas where they are less popular and they will extend the length of parliament. Introduce antisidition laws.

That is the usual routes trodden by those anti-democratic governments around the world. Why would that old Stalinist -Leninist behave any different? Please don't say because this is Britain, we are not that special afterall our two main political leaders are Johnson and Corbyn, that says it all........ Two guys with Peter Pan delusions and fixations with younger ladies

'Boris Johnson has asked the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, whether parliament can be shut down for five weeks from 9 September in what appears to be a concerted plan to stop MPs forcing a further extension to Brexit, according to leaked government correspondence.
An email from senior government advisers to an adviser in No 10 – written within the last 10 days and seen by the Observer – makes clear that the prime minister has recently requested guidance on the legality of such a move, known as prorogation. The initial legal guidance given in the email is that shutting parliament may well be possible, unless action being taken in the courts to block such a move by anti-Brexit campaigners succeeds in the meantime.

Sign up to our Brexit weekly briefing
Read more

On Saturday Labour and pro-Remain Tory MPs reacted furiously, saying that the closure of parliament, as a method for stopping MPs preventing a potentially disastrous no-deal Brexit, would be an affront to democracy and deeply irresponsible, particularly given the government’s own acceptance of the economic turmoil no-deal could cause.
Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer said: “Any plan to suspend parliament at this stage would be outrageous. MPs must take the earliest opportunity to thwart this plan and to stop a no-deal Brexit.”
The prominent Tory remainer and former attorney general Dominic Grieve added: “This memo, if correct, shows Boris Johnson’s contempt for the House of Commons. It may be possible to circumvent the clear intention of the House of Commons in this way but it shows total bad faith. Excluding the house from a national crisis that threatens the future of our country is entirely wrong.”

Dominic Grieve said: ‘This memo, if correct, shows Boris Johnson’s contempt for the House of Commons.’
Johnson has said he is “not attracted” to the idea of proroguing parliament and that he wants a Brexit deal, but has repeatedly refused to rule it out. After becoming prime minister he immediately promoted Dominic Raab, the first senior Tory to propose the idea of shutting parliament to get Brexit through, to the post of foreign secretary.
The email shows that the feasibility of a five-week parliamentary shutdown is under active consideration, from soon after the date on which parliament returns on 3 September, until the eve of the last EU summit before Brexit, on 17 and 18 October, when it will be too late for MPs to block no deal. The revelation will also anger EU leaders as Johnson makes his international summit debut at the G7 in Biarritz this weekend.
Johnson was due to meet US president Donald Trump for talks on Sunday, with Brexit and international trade high on the agenda. He will also meet EU council president Donald Tusk who said on Saturday that he would not cooperate with Johnson on a no-deal Brexit, but rather wanted to find a way forward with him to secure a deal on issues including the Irish backstop.
Tusk said as G7 leaders gathered that he was “willing to listen to ideas that are operational, realistic and acceptable to all EU member states, including Ireland, if and when the UK government is ready. The one thing I will not cooperate on is no deal, and I still hope that prime minister Johnson will not like to go down in history as ‘Mr No Deal’.”...from The Observer. Why is there not a public outcry about this? This isn't democracy; it's a dictatorship. I'm appalled and, quite frankly, terrified. Oh and also rumours of an emergency budget, something else that the leave campaign used against remain in the run up to the referendum...[but it's ok now...]

I would agree with much of what you suggest, absthame. I would go further and suggest that political parties should be state funded ( and accountable for the money they receive) and not permitted to receive donations from organisations or individuals; this would, I think, make them concentrate on policies which they believe are good for the country as a whole, not for their donors.

On the other hand, I'm finding this fear of the Labour Party on the grounds of revolutionary Marxist Leninism to be quite odd. As GG2 said, the current LP policies are nothing to fear. What do you think might happen should the LP under Corbyn get into government? What might it do? Overthrow our democratic parliamentary system? I think they're certainly getting pointers as to how to do it at the moment...

Sorry growstuff not foodstuff.......I do hate autocorrect

Unfortunately I believe that you are right foodstuff. But as I always say, one very small step in the right direction, in a generation is all it takes given time

I agree with most of what you've written absthame. The trouble is (and I'm sure you're aware of this), nobody with any power has the will to make such changes. Current populism is possibly even worse than the established parties. It needs a rebellion by fair-minded people, who can see how democracy is being undermined. Unfortunately, because such people tend to be tolerant, they're actually not the people best placed to be rebels.

Most politicians enter politics wanting to make things better. However it is not possible to make changes by oneself, it requires a number of people to work in concert. To be able to do this across a range of policies requires us to join a substantial group, a political party.

No political party's total range of views, matches exactly any individuals' views, so they join the party of best fit. However party rules dictate that all support all of the party's views. So the politician is forced if they are to achieve even a small part of their desires to enable many things that they disagree with and may even despise. Their self-esteem and their esteem in the eyes of the public for most rapidly diminishes.

The press piles on the agony, often not caring about the long-term harm that they do, after all why should the owner of a newspaper who left his native home to take up residence in a land thousands of miles from his native shores and then acquires control of 80% of the newspapers in another land thousands of miles from both his native shores and his new home; why would such a person give a fig about the health of the last nation, its democracy or the wellbeing of its people, as long as they can maximise the profits to enrich themselves and their family. It gets worse ofcourse when such a person ensures that the publications they control all support only one political party or grouping. The effect is to corrupt the democratic system. Such a person or organisation is as dangerous to democracy as is the Corbyn cabal

So what is the answer?

I believe that no one organisation should be permitted control of more than one national source of news information

I equally believe that no person should be permitted to serve more than 3 terms in elected office, this will reduce the risk of corruption or being absorbed into the establishment.

I believe that it should be illegal for an organisation or person to lobby for profit, their own or that of the ones that they represent

MPs should be provided with an adequate salary and that the only office facilities and staffing permitted are those provided by Parliament, something that they currently barely undertake and is the route of our current distrust of MPs. No outside source should be permitted to providemembers with staff or facilities.

MPs, while serving should not be permitted to earn monies outside their parliamentary salary

Ministers including the PM should not receive any payment beyond their pay as an MP, this would stop governments buying votes

Thank you for the historical perspective absthame.

It would take me quite a leap to believe that any other government could be worse than this one in the hands of the New Tories and I haven't yet heard any policies from the LP that worry me other than feeling they are old fashioned. I shall keep watching as I find them interesting - but then everything is, if anything, too interesting at the moment?

GracesGranMARK3 thanks for your reaction.

In the past, under the labour party constitution, the parliamentary party's independence was protected from interference from the party itself.

You are right that trades unions had a great deal of influence, however that was limited within the constitution which was designed to give the membership control of the organisation and the appointment of candidates. However there was no mechanism for the removal of MPs etc unless they broke party rules or had the whip withdrawn.

Under that constitution which originated just after the first World war, Corbyn would and should have been ejected from the party for continually rejecting and breaking the party's rules.

The failure of the party to impose proper discipline in the critical periods was mainly down to the Blair leadership team who wanted to avoid the appearance of a witchhunt and instead they opened a Pandora's box that contained a mass of Revolutionary Marxist Leninist, including Corbyn and the cabal that surrounds him.

My personal view is that Corbyn and those that surrounds him are a greater risk to our nation than Brexit or even than a rabid Tory government, which I believe that Johnson is in the process of facilitating. I pray every day that our peoples will exercise their will, through parliament and stop this bloody mess.

I'm sorry for dressing more than intended and shall reflect further before responding to the rest of your points

POGS, I feel as though I'm bashing my head against a brick wall. Tactical voting wouldn't be needed with PR.

eazybee, Germany has had a coalition government for all except a short time during the "Grand Coalition" since the Federal Republic was established. Are you seriously suggesting that the government hasn't been able to get anything through the Bundestag? The electorate has matured and accepts compromise as a way forward, which might partly explain why Germany is the powerhouse it is.

The US also describes itself as a democracy and has FPTP. However, its systems mean that the government really does have problems getting laws passed. Think about the problems Obama had with healthcare.

POGS, How can you claim that PR hasn't delivered a safe form of government in Germany over the last 70 years? It's actually delivered a very safe and consistent form of government, which means policies haven't see-sawed from left to right.

No, I wasn't saying that POGS.

GGMK3

"but as we can't pass the government's Bills through parliament"
-

What do you mean?

Are you saying NO Bills have passed through Parliament , from when to where time wise, e. g 2016 - 2019?

So much to agree with absthame. Have you any thoughts about how you would/could separate the lay movements from the party and MPs. It's an interesting proposition.

Didn't the Labour Party have to decide whether it would but union members into parliament or start a separate party? I don't know much of the history of the LP but perhaps someone could enlighten me.

Your last paragraph speaks more of politics and journalism than democracy to me. You sum up everything I have been led to believe about the democratic position of our MPs. Sadly, when politicking both the newspapers and the politicians know they can sell a lie.

First past the post system has much to commend it, but being democratic is not upon that list. Nor is the way that the system of government has evolved.

If we wish to claim that the system is to be democratic then we need to give our parliamentary groups real power over the ministers and PMs who they claim legitimacy from. At the same time MPs and their party groups need to be separated more from the lay parties' to avoid the risks of small cliques like momentum excercising a corrupting influence over Parliament.

But first of all each one of us needs to accept that our MPs, councillors, EMPs are there to represent all of their constituents' interests and that does not imply that they do exactly what we individuals want , they have the power of discretion and contience and it is time that the whips and government also accepted it.