What is a Democracy?

I am now going to correct an error that has existed for far too long.

Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

The key phrase here is ‘government by the people’. The literal definition of oligarchy is government by the few. As I previously said an oligarchy is a form of government in which the rulers are drawn from a dominant class or clique, hence government by the few. Therefore it stands to reason that a democracy is where the rulers are not drawn from a dominant class or clique, hence government by the people.

The definition of democracy then goes on to qualify it further by reference to ‘direct democracy’: ‘exercised directly by them’ or by representation: ‘by their elected agents under a free electoral system’. There is a massive error here in this definition because it allows an oligarchy to creep back in. It doesn’t stipulate any conditions by which the elected agents rule. So in a multi-party system (the de facto standard for a democracy in practice) the clique, that is the winning party (which is of course a sub-clique of the main clique, that is the political class) appoints all government positions from its own party. This is what I call a representative oligarchy. Therefore a democracy must stipulate that the rulers are not drawn from a single clique like one political party.

The correct definition of democracy (based on the one above) therefore is as follows…

Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system where the elected agents do not appoint the members of government from a clique.

So here the elected agents will be the winning political party in an election of course. And in my definition of democracy they will not be allowed to appoint ministers of state from only their own party. They will have to appoint from outside their own clique, i.e from other parties and in addition outside of the mega clique i.e the political class themselves.

It therefore follows that a democracy will involve a separation of party and state. Just like there was a separation of church and state in which the institutions of religion and state were kept separate, a democracy would not involve a political party holding the seat of government. Or prehaps more accurately said, a political party that appoints from itself only.

New Govt, New PM, New Politics???

So we have finally elected a new government in our politocracy come representative oligarchy. A ConDem coalition with Dave at the helm. After all the horse-trading that took place I think the Lib Dems have hoisted themselves with their own petard regarding PR. I don’t believe the public will go for it now if we have a referendum. As things stand the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg have lost a lot of kudos with the public as they seem to have been looking after themselves rather than the national interest. That may change in the months/years ahead if the love affair between the two men blossoms.

Mervyn King the Guv’nor at the Bank of England said that whoever wins this election will be out of power for a generation due to the severity of the austerity programme that needs to be implemented to deal with the debt crisis. From the Tories POV it could be a great blessing to be in bed with the Lib Dems. They will shield the Tories from Labour attacks.

Nick Clegg is synonymous with the ‘new politics’. Don’t believe a word of it! I shall have fun exposing these dilettantes of the so-called ‘new politics’. The Lib Dems are as much a part of the political class as the LabCon duopolists and now they actually have some power for the first time. Watch this space…

Why the Conservatives Couldn’t Win Outright…

There are many commentators asking themselves this question: Why is it that in the middle of a recession and with a deeply unpopular prime minister the Tories couldn’t win a majority? The answer is easy. The Labour Party had successfully parked their tanks smack bang in the middle of the lawn since the late 90s and have more or less kept them there. Or more accurately I should say they have created the illusion that this is the case. You just have to make people think you are have a centrist ideology, once in power you can implement non-centrist ideologies by stealth if you wish, well Labour have done so. Unfettered immigration policies are in effect Marxist. The British electorate gave the Labour government no such mandate. Leftism is the blood of the Labour Party not centrism.

Anyway, for the other half of the duopoly to then win power decisively once the other occupies the centre becomes extremely difficult. He who occupies the centre wins most votes. If multiple parties occupy the centre-ground of the political spectrum (as they do in a politocracy)  it stands to reason that neither is likely to win a majority. Therefore hung parliaments should be the status quo.

The Day After…

So as expected we have a hung parliament. It looks likely that David Cameron and Nick Clegg will do a deal to form a working government with David Cameron as PM. Personally speaking I’m happy with this. I think these two parties could form a working coalition which could work quite well. Indeed I think this could be a blueprint for the future to keep the Labour Party in permanent opposition. Left-wing parties always pursue the same suicidal combination of borrow and waste fiscal policy the world over. Good riddance to that!

It is worth noting that as in 2005 the Tories won England easily. This fact is not mentioned in the media. They got about 55% of the seats and Labour about 35%.

Regarding my bet on the voter turnout being less than 60%. I knew this was lost a while back when after the first leaders’ debate there was a massive surge in voter registration. It is predicted to be about 65%, still way down on past years (the 90s and before).

Regarding my post called ‘The Null Media Effect‘. After the first leaders’ debate with the massive 10 pt surge for the Lib Dems I thought it might need some rewriting. But the Lib Dems had an awful night actually losing seats despite ‘Cleggmania’. So it still holds, that is ‘the media does not have any significant effect on determining how the public vote in general elections’. The fact of the matter is we live in a LabCon duopoly. This can only be broken in exceptional circumstances which do not yet exist.

Personality Politics in the UK…

For the first time ever we have had the leaders debates here in the UK, an import from across the Atlantic.

As differences between the parties have been eroded, the personality of the leaders (& wives) naturally comes to the fore as a means of differentiating. You have to differentiate somehow. Personality politics therefore is a feature of politocracy. The leaders debates seem to be a sort of talent contest like ‘Pop Idol’ for the triumvirate of politocracy.

Nick Clegg won the first debate by emphasising that they are different. That is, not of the same ilk as that to which you are used to – LabCon.  The second debate was more or less even-stevens between Nick & Dave. The third debate saw Cameron coming out on top in the polls.

The Lib Dems got an unprecedented 10 point boost in the opinion polls after the first debate. The message was simple, ‘Nick won’, that combined with the scooping up of the anti-politics vote saw Nick Clegg catapulted into the mainstream big time. After the second debate the Lib Dem surge held its ground with Labour languishing in third place in the polls. After the third debate their was no initial bounce for the Conservatives but the latest polls seem to show the Tories looking stronger.

The leaders debates have focused more on policies than their American counterparts according to observers. However the publicity that follows is of the format that ‘so & so’ won it. This gets broadcast throughout the media. Furthermore the publicity surrounding the winner can be out of proportion to the degree by which they actually won it. I don’t know whether they are a positive thing or not but they are here to stay for sure.

How the Political Class Police Themselves…

I was reminded of a bizarre fact a while ago when Stephen ‘cabbie’ Byers referred himself to the Commons Standards Commissioner, John Lyon. I remember when Keith Vaz was accused of trying to influence a High Court judge on behalf of a friend who was facing bankruptcy, he also immediately referred himself to the Committee on Standards and Privileges which oversees John Lyon. Now can anyone think of any other walk of life where someone who has been accused of a misdemeanor, an impropriety or an infraction of some rule, the accused reports THEMSELVES to the rule arbiter, regularity authority or court of judgement? Read on and you’ll see why…

John Lyon joined the Home Office in 1969 and on the 1st January 2008 he was appointed to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards which was set up by the House of Commons in 1995 as a result of recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (an independent public body which advises government on ethical standards across the whole of public life in the UK.)

He replaced Elizabeth Filkin who was undermined and did not have her contract renewed as many thought she was over-zealous in her job in checking up on MPs conduct, you can read an interview with her here. So John Lyon was appointed in the context of his predecessor getting up the nose of some very important people.

John Lyon does not have to publicly explain his reasons for rejecting complaints against MPs. In addition he prepares SECRET reports to the Committee on Standards and Privileges which is in turn made up of 10 MPs. They then decide what action if any to take based on the secret report of John Lyon.

He is paid a tidy sum of £108 000 a year, that’s more than a Minister of State (£106 000 including MPs pay) and apparently resides in a £1.5 million house in Islington. He is himself of the political class and hired by the political class in some sort of regularity role over the political class. You can imagine that being so well paid he is not going to start upsetting the apple cart is he? So let’s get this straight shall we? An establishment hack writes a secret report into an MP’s conduct assuming he decides to take up the case in the first place. The secret report then goes to 10 MPs who write another report into the conduct of one of their colleagues. The joys of self-regulation eh?

The Daily Mail reported that three months into his job 113 complaints had been made but he had only resolved one of them. More recently he will have largely been concerned with the expenses scandal so his hand would have been forced somewhat due to the public outcry.

So we can now see why the likes of Keith Vaz and Stephen Byers report themselves to the Commons Police. They have complete confidence in the system, it is toothless! All smoke and mirrors. We shall see what happens to Mr Byers and the others, they have now been suspended by the Labour Party, but what will Mr Lyons and the kangaroo court of 10 MPs do with them?

The regulation of MPs conduct is a den of anti-democratic values and procedures!

Great Democracy Quotes No.1

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.