ELECTIONS FOR WHAT?

I did not anticipate that the British electorate, who voted in the local elections across middle England, would actually support the new Reform Party. I can only assume it reflects some sort of protest vote. Similarly the Runcorn and Helsby by-election was decided by 6 votes allowing the Reform Party Candidate to take the seat. The insanity of the election is that the winning candidate only had 38.72% of the actual vote. The other parties took 61.28% which means that two thirds of the people who bothered to vote in Runcorn did not support Reform. To top it all, it was only a 46.2% turnout. Which means that only 17.88% of the total electorate, in middle England, has voted in a Reform MP.

How on earth does that represent democracy. Clearly the vast majority of people in middle England, or indeed in Great Britain, do not want anything to do with Reform; but then, the Labour Party managed only 38% of actual voters to gain a large majority. So under no circumstances can any political party claim to speak for the British people There is no majority consent of any kind, so it is no wonder that there is little confidence amongst the general public for any government. The majority of citizens, by the very fact of the scattered multiplicity of votes and candidates, clearly want something other than what we have. Where there is so much discontent, how can any party claim a mandate for its proposed agenda simply because they have more MP’s than any other party.  

The object of the exercise would, or should, be an attempt to bring views and aspirations together. In essence a consensus should be found that can be accepted by the majority. Probably an impossible task, but, I repeat, for any political party, elected on such slim percentages, to claim a mandate from the British people to implement their party’s manifesto is dishonest. When one perpetuates an obvious fraud, is it any surprise there is discontent; however, that discontent is self inflicted. The low turnout is what causes this imbalance. If those who oppose sit at home and do nothing, then the active participants will mange to rule. It has been said time and again, in a democracy citizen’s have the right to vote, but voting changes nothing if you do not vote.

So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, since the Anglo Saxon period (410-1066), when continental refugees and nomads from Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, came to colonise these Islands, a chequered nation was established.

Individual little kingdoms eventually coming together - at times reluctantly or forcibly - under a single sovereign. It is now Great Britain, a hierarchical nation, no doubt, which still maintains a monarchy. It had at one time ruled across the world, exceeding every previous empire, but which, despite its chequered history of colonialism, chicanery, dubious trade and duplicity, nonetheless established the bedrock of the rule of law and human rights in world affairs.  That is something to hold on to. Not the colonialism, chicanery, dubious trade and duplicity, but the rule of law and human rights.

I am afraid that what the Reform party seeks to hold on to, is the vestiges of colonialism, chicanery, dubious trade and duplicity. Their vision of an isolationist populist commercial Britain is seriously flawed. It is based on blame and suspicion of the foreigner. It wants to separate and not incorporate. Instead of connecting with the rest of the world it seeks to do ‘deals’.  Like Mr Trump, who claims to be the master of the art of the deal, the vision is narrow, entirely stupid and short sighted. There is no art in what they do.

Most citizens recognise that shortsightedness but somehow fail to see their own. Because they find it difficult to support any political party, their discontent with politics prevents them from making a decision. As a result they fail to exercise their historically fought for enfranchisement. The right of every citizen to have some say, no matter how insignificant, in the governance of their country has taken a millennium to establish. To find a way to ensure that the freedom and rights that have evolved over the this period is surely an imperative. Making a political decision in order to elect a political party that is most likely to ensure that security is, I would have thought, very necessary. Of course there are difficulties and one single ideology may not fit every point of view. In fact, there are so many political agendas it is very difficult to make that decision. Nonetheless, by bringing together, in a democratic manner, a consensus of representatives to form a government which will maintain the basic uncontested human rights and freedoms under the rule of law, is surely something to achieve. There are indeed some truths that are self evident. The present system of first past the post has got to go and some proportional system must be sought in the interest of the public to maintain the peace. It is a compromise, but there are too many victims to maintaining the status quo.

Allowing the populists and nationalist agenda to pressure every progressive agenda from coming to fruition, is not the answer. Most people are willing to deal with transition. Tempering necessary action, under pressure, in order to gain votes to maintain power is not compromise. Achieving a consensus is what is required. This is done through reasoned argument and acceptance of possibilities.

The tragedy of the present situation is that too much emphasis is given to  the election results for the Reform party. The actual vote is small. They have a number of individuals elected from a minority that went to the polls. This is being played up by the media as some great success and given a large amount of coverage in the press, on television and on line. That does not change the actual maths. It is a minority movement and should not put the fear of God in other political parties. The others should concentrate on governing, on getting the vote out and on making the voting system more relevant to the current situation and the state of democracy. Reform may well have a roll in parliament under a system of proportional representation, but it would never be in a position to lead a government. Continuing with the current system under first past the post and the easy publicity given by a populist press will only promote continued voter apathy and sad electoral outcome.  

It is too disconcerting to contemplate a United Kingdom sinking to the appalling level of the United States. A country led without a shred of decency or integrity by a convicted thug and his unelected stooges. None of the executives in government, bar the president and his vice president (bearing in mind the vice president is coupled with the president on the ballot - it’s a sort of buy two get one free) is elected to office. The cabinet is chosen by the president and although approved by the Senate it ends up, in effect, the president’s choice. There is no such thing as cabinet responsibility. The so called checks and balances envisioned by the founding fathers and the constitution has been virtually eroded. Trump rules by decree. He believes his executive orders are the law. L'État, c'est moi. He says as much. He even disappears to Mar-a-Lag, his puny version of Versailles, at the week ends to play golf. His own family clearly have no wish to live with him in Washington, and are probably grateful he spends his time there on a golf cart. How is this man not ostracised by rest of the world? He is so below contempt it is difficult to understand why people tolerate his criminality.

So, can His Majesty’s Government please step up to the intellectual integrity and gravitas it once held around the globe and stop weaselling to gangsters in the shape of Trump and Putin et al. They are not statesmen, they are imposters. Can we show a little grit please?