Political Parties, Democracy and Voter Engagement

Political Parties, Democracy and Voter Engagement

By

John E. Strafford

            Political parties play a major role in our democracy.   At a General Election they issue a manifesto showing their policies and use it to persuade the electorate to vote for them.   They choose the candidates who will stand for election.   From those candidates Members of Parliament will be decided by the electorate.   Members of Parliament from the Party capable of obtaining a majority in Parliament then form the Government.  

            The political parties choose their Leaders and one of them will become the Prime Minister.   This is all very well if our political parties are democratic organisations open to all, but what if they are undemocratic organisations?   Who controls our political parties?      Does it matter if they are oligarchies of the political elite?   In such a case a small group of people will determine who governs our country and hence the policies by which we are governed.

            Political parties are part of the democratic process in the United Kingdom.   Their role is recognised by Parliament.   In the current financial year nearly £7 million of public money known as “Short” money will be paid to the opposition political parties.   During the period that the Conservative Party was in opposition, 1997-2010, it received over £40 million of public funding.   In government the gravy train does not stop.   £8.4 million is being paid this year for 103 political special advisers to the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.   All this money is supposed to be given to enhance our democracy – it does no such thing.   All it does is perpetuate the power of the oligarchs who run our parties.   Whilst ever the parties are able to rely on the State and/or big donors like businessmen or Trade Unions they can ignore their party members.  

            Both of our main political parties – Labour and Conservative, are undemocratic organisations run and controlled by oligarchies.   Who are these oligarchs?   They start with the Party Leaders, who are elected by the Party memberships but then effectively cease to be accountable to the members.   The Leaders appoint the Cabinet and the Shadow Cabinet and other Ministers when in Government.   They exercise a great deal of patronage by creating Peers and giving out honours.   The oligarchs include businessmen who advise the Conservatives and Trade Unionists who advise Labour.   All are totally unaccountable to the Party members.   The net is spread wide.   If the Parties had been successful in retaining the trust of the people, perhaps one could understand their desire to maintain the status quo, but the reality is that they are failed organisations, their membership has suffered catastrophic decline and public confidence is in free fall.   Soon, as membership organisations they will cease to exist.

            William Hague said that the Conservative Party “was like an absolute monarchy moderated by regicide.   The Nation abolished absolute monarchy and regicide 350 years ago.   It is time for the Conservative Party to follow suit.

Membership

            A major factor in the reduction in turnout at General Elections is the long term decline in the membership of our three main political parties.   Correlated with the lesser satisfaction which the people have with the political process, we have a toxic mix.   Party activists represent approximately 10% of members.   With the decline in membership there has been a decline in activists.   It is the activists who work to get the electorate out to vote.   Critically it is feet on the ground that gets that last marginal voter to the polling station.

            At the end of World War II the membership of the Conservative Party was about 250,000.   As a result of the efforts of Lord Woolton membership had risen by 1952 to 2.8 million.   Since then the decline has been continuous.   By 1979 membership had fallen to 1,350,000 and during the 1980s and 1990s it declined further to 400,000 by 1997.   When David Cameron became Leader of the Conservative Party in 2005 there were 258,239 members of the Party.   By the beginning of 2010 membership had fallen to 177,000 and in the three years to the end of 2012 membership fell a further 43,000 to 134,000.  

            So we can see from this that in 1950 when turnout at the General Election was 83.9% there were approximately 280,000 party members working to get out the Conservative vote.   By the 2010 General Election when turnout was 65%, there were 17,700 members trying to do the same.   The activist members of the Conservative Party are now primarily local Councillors and their families.   After the elections of 2014 there were 8,296 Conservative Councillors in the United Kingdom      

            Individual Labour Party membership in 1951 was about 1 million.   Today it is less 200,000, so activists have declined from 100,000 in 1951 to 20,000 today.    The Labour Party gets significant help from Trade Unionists but we have seen a decline in the membership of Trade Unions also from some 12 million to 6.5 million.   Some 70% of Labour MPs are linked with the Trade Unions.

            Liberal Party membership has fallen from some 300,000 after the War to less than 50,000 today.

            So from a party activist base for the main parties of over 400,000 in 1950 it has declined to 38,400 today.   In view of these figures it is surprising that turnout has not collapsed further!

            Why has this happened?   What effect will it have and can anything be done to change this disastrous trend?

            The number of people not correctly registered to vote has risen substantially from 3.9 million in 2000 to 7.5 million in 2012 per the Electoral Commission.   The major factor that affects voter registration is the decline in membership of the political parties.   The origin of political parties was as registration societies which were set up in the 1830s after the passing of the 1832 Reform Act.   Their function was to ensure that all those entitled to vote were registered and did vote.   Today this function has almost ceased, except in some marginal constituencies, because there are no longer the activists to do the work.

            So what are the costs to society of low voter registration and turnout?   Potentially the costs will be significant.   There will come a point when the legitimacy of the elected government is questioned because of the low turnout.   Democracy is a process by which you determine the will of the majority.   If the gap between the majority and those elected becomes too great the people may say what can we do to change this.   The only solutions will be major electoral reform or revolution.   Time is running out.

            Research on party membership, done in the 1990s, showed two main reasons why people join political parties.   The first reason was for social purposes.   People like to be with others of a like mind.   They feel more comfortable.   There is a tribal instinct.

            Party members like to be led, but they also like to know that the Leader has listened to them before he or she takes a decision.   The second reason is participation.   This has to be meaningful participation i.e. they either vote on decisions or vote for the people taking the decisions.    It is this latter reason which has not been met by the two main political parties.   Effectively large numbers of people join these parties each year wanting to participate.   When they find that they have no voice they leave, usually after a couple of years.   Only by adopting a radical approach will we break this cycle of decline.   I set out below the measures that need to be taken.   It is a check list to which all parties should comply:

·         Party constitutions should be capable of being altered by the members of the Party on the basis of one member, one vote, if a clear majority vote in favour of change.

·         There should be an Annual General Meeting of the Party to which all members are invited.

·         The Chairman of the Party should be responsible for the Party Organisation.

·         The Chairman and Treasurer of the Party should be elected by the members of the Party.

·         The Chairman of the Party should present an Annual Report on the Party organisation at the Annual General Meeting of the Party for adoption by the members.

·         The Treasurer of the Party should present the Annual Accounts of the Party to the Annual General Meeting for adoption by the members.

·         The Chairman of the Committee on Candidates should be elected by the members of the Party and should present a report on candidate selection at the Annual General Meeting of the Party.

·         The Chairman of any policy groups should be elected by the members of the Party and should present a report on their workings at the Annual General Meeting of the Party.

·         Motions for debate on policy should be allowed at the Party’s Conference and voted upon.

            The most important of these provisions is the ability to change the Party’s constitution on the basis of One Member One Vote.

             If we believe in democracy the fundamental requirement for political parties is:

“No political Party should be registered with the Electoral Commission unless it has a democratic constitution which can be changed by a clear majority of its members on the basis of one member one vote.”

            By adopting the above, participation would be guaranteed for party members.   Some parties already have some of the above provisions in their constitutions.   The Conservative Party has none of them.   The Labour Party is still dominated by the Trade Unions although moves are afoot to have One Member One Vote.   Both Conservative and Labour operate electoral colleges which distort democracy by breaching the principle of One Person, One Vote of equal value.  

           

            For years our two main political parties have protested that the decline in membership is because membership is a redundant concept.   People have other things to do.   They are too busy.   They join single issue pressure groups.    Rather than give any power to members the oligarchies would rather retain all power in a diminishing Party.  The Scottish National Party has demonstrated just how wrong they are.   In September 2014 at the time of the Scottish Referendum their membership stood at approximately 25,000.   In just three months they have increased it to over 100,000 so how does the Scottish National Party compare with the Conservative Party?

The Scottish National Party:

·         Has quarterly newsletters to members.

·         Policy is determined at their annual Conference.

·        Their Officers are all elected by their members including their Leader and Deputy Leader      who are elected annually.

·       They can change their Constitution on the basis of One Member One Vote with a two       thirds majority.

           

They are a democratic Party!

            What a comparison with the Conservative party where the Chairman and Treasurer of the Party are appointed by the Leader, so are unaccountable to the membership.   There is no Annual General Meeting of members, so there is no formal forum for members to raise questions about the Party’s organisation or policies.      The Annual Accounts of the Party are not tabled for approval at an AGM.    The selection of parliamentary candidates of the Party is controlled centrally.   The Party Board can and does take control of any Constituency Association, which does not toe the line.   The infamous clause 17 of their constitution states: “The Board shall have power to do anything which in its opinion relates to the management and administration of the Party”, and this makes the rest of the constitution meaningless.

            What does a member get from membership of the Conservative Party?   Prior to the Party reforms of 1998 there were a number of reasons to be a member.   There were meetings at area and national level where you could raise issues of policy or organisation.   Social gatherings emphasised the tribal feeling and sense of belonging.   The Party Conference was run by the voluntary party and it had motions for debate.   Votes were taken at the end of the debates and although they were not binding, they reflected the views of the members.   Constituency Associations were for all intents and purposes autonomous.   The Party had three distinct sections - the parliamentary party, the voluntary party and the professional organisation.   There were checks and balances in the distribution of power.   All of these were swept away in 1998 with disastrous result.

           

Policies

            Who determines policy?   Of the two main political parties, policy in the Conservative Party is decided by the Leader and is constructed by a small coterie of people around him.   In the 2014 European Parliament election the Leader of the Conservative MEPs only discovered what was in the manifesto on the day it was published.   The Conservative Party no longer goes through the charade of pretending that the members of the Party have any say.   There are no motions for debate at the Conservative Party Conference.   The Conservative Policy Forum has little, if any influence on policy.    The Labour Party has the National Policy Forum and policy discussion papers.   Its conference sets the “framework” of policy, but the days when it was the conference which decided policy are over.

            Policy in the Liberal Democrat Party is determined by their Party conference and it was their Conference which had the final say on the Coalition Agreement.   Ironically, as soon as they got into government they changed their rules so that their MPs now will have the final say on a Coalition Agreement.   Power corrupts!

            Contrast the approach of the three main parties with the three political parties whose membership is increasing.   In the Scottish National Party, UKIP and the Green Party, policy is decided at their National Conferences.   Perhaps when people have a say in policy they take ownership of the policy and are better able to propagate it?   By allowing members to participate you increase membership.

Candidates

            Why cannot any registered member of the Labour or Conservative Parties be a candidate, subject only to vetting to ensure that they have no criminal convictions and comply with electoral law?   It should be up to the members of the Parties to determine who shall be their candidate.   This is a fundamental principle.   If the members do not decide, who does and how are they accountable to the members?

            The selections of parliamentary candidates of our political Parties are controlled centrally.   They do this by controlling the Approved List of candidates.  

            We have heard a lot recently about how the range of candidates should be widened and the Conservative Party have made much of Open Primaries.   The model for Open Primaries is the United States so how do Conservative Open Primaries compare?

            In the United States anyone can stand.   In the Conservative Party the candidates are sifted and three or four candidates put forward.   In many States electors have to register support for the Party in order to vote.   With the Conservatives anyone on the Electoral Roll can vote in an Open Postal Primary or an Open Meeting Primary, even if they are members of another Party.

            The candidates in the United States raise their own funds for campaigning in the Primary.   The Conservative Party pays for a postal primary.   The costs in Totnes amounted to £38,000.   There are only half a dozen constituencies in the country that could afford this, so unless the Party at national level pays or State Funding is given postal Primaries will be few and far between.

            Campaigns in the United States are usually prolonged, giving plenty of time to investigate the candidates.   The campaigns run by the Conservatives are strictly limited in time.

            Caucus meetings of registered voters are held in the United States at which the merits of the different candidates are debated and then voted upon.   These are banned by the Conservative Party.

            A distinction should be drawn between Open Primaries where there is a postal ballot as in Totnes and Open meeting Primaries.   The most common, because of costs are the Open Meeting Primaries.   The Conservative Party imposes a number of restrictions on Open Meeting Primaries:

            The meetings are advertised in the local paper so there is no guarantee that every    elector is aware that the selection is taking place.

            At the meeting no debate is allowed between the candidates – they are not even    allowed to be on the platform together.

            The elector must be present for the entire meeting and cannot leave the room for any         reason.   Contrast this with a postal primary where the elector doesn’t have to hear      any candidate before voting.

            Limits are imposed by Central Office on the amount of money candidates can spend         on their campaigns.

            The vote on the final adoption of the selected candidate is by Conservative Party members.

            It can be seen from the above that there are major differences between what the Conservatives call Open Primaries and what in practise most people understand as Open Primaries.   The Conservative Open Primaries are a gimmick.   The people and the media have been hoodwinked into believing that the process is open.   It is not.   The process is controlled in detail by the Party hierarchy.   There is also the danger that the selection can be manipulated by the members of other parties, who can vote for the weakest candidate.   The Conservative Party does not care, because it has decided on who the candidates will be.

            Some Constituency Associations now run Open primaries for local government elections.   In these cases the sift of candidates is done by people accountable to the members of the particular Association, so the fundamental objections do not apply.

            In Hong Kong in 2014 the people took to the streets in protest at the Chinese Communist Party imposing a short list of four candidates for the people to choose from.   Yet this is the very same process that is used by the Labour and Conservative Parties in the United Kingdom.

            All the other main political Parties operate with approved lists for parliamentary candidates but because they are more democratic than the two main Parties there is democratic accountability of those who decide who can be candidates.

Funding

            There is no doubt that the public’s perception of politics is influenced by the way in which the political parties are funded.   Big donors or Trade Union Leaders have more access to the Party hierarchies so more opportunity to influence. “Cash for honours” is continuously levelled at the Conservative party.   “Controlled by and funded by the Trade Unions” is levelled at the Labour Party.   People believe that money buys influence in politics.   There needs to be a complete overhaul of party funding with a cap on donations of £5,000.   There may have to be a transitional period for this to be brought in.

            It is estimated that 50% of the Conservative Party’s income is from financial institutions i.e. fat cat Bankers and Hedge Fund Managers and 80% of the Labour Party’s income is from the Trade Unions.

Social Media

            The development of social media has been a lifeline to our main political parties.   Twitter, Facebook, email, have all improved the Parties ability to communicate at little cost.   A daily email requesting a £10 donation to several hundred thousand supporters brings in a substantial amount of cash particularly when those supporters have been targeted for their views.

            The appointment of Jim Messina (former social media guru to President Obama) as an adviser is an indication that the Conservative Party believe that the way forward is to organise our campaigns as in the United States by gathering up supporters rather than relying on members.   The Labour Party has made a similar appointment.   What of course is forgotten is that the Presidential Election in the United States costs approximately $6 billion.   Support is bought.   Canvassers are paid.   Because of the financial restrictions on campaign spending we cannot do this.

Conclusions

            With the rise of UKIP, the Green Party, and the Scottish Nationalist Party, not forgetting the Democratic Unionist party we are now in an era of multi party politics.   Who now knows which seats are marginal?  

            By one of those moments of irony the next General Election will be fought on an Electoral Register drawn up by individual registration rather than household registration.   When this was done by the Northern Ireland [Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002] 10% of the Register disappeared.   The origins of political parties were as Registration Societies.   Their main function was to ensure that their supporters were all registered to vote.   This job will now be resurrected, except that there will not be the Party activists to carry it out.

            The most important factor in the General Election will be “feet on the ground”   At the margin it is the canvassing and the knocking up that will count most.   For that you need volunteers and the most committed volunteers are members.   The political Parties will ignore this at their peril and unless our two main Parties reform themselves into democratic organisations their decline will continue until they cease to exist.

            The Scottish National Party with 100,000 members is fighting in 59 seats.   It is the only Party that can mount  a “feet on the ground” campaign in all the seats it is contesting.   The other parties that are fighting 650 seats would need a million members each to fight a similar campaign.   Makes you think!   It ought to make the Parties think too!   You can virtually guarantee that turnout in Scotland in the General Election will be higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom.  

Support Peter Oborne - one of the UK's best journalists

Why I have resigned from the Telegraph

PETER OBORNE 17 February 2015

The coverage of HSBC in Britain's Daily Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril.

Five years ago I was invited to become the chief political commentator of theTelegraph. It was a job I was very proud to accept. The Telegraph has long been the most important conservative-leaning newspaper in Britain, admired as much for its integrity as for its superb news coverage. When I joined theTelegraph had just broken the MPs’ expenses scandal, the most important political scoop of the 21st century.

I was very conscious that I was joining a formidable tradition of political commentary. I spent my summer holiday before taking up by duties as columnist reading the essays of the great Peter Utley, edited by Charles Moore and Simon Heffer, two other masters of the art.

No-one has ever expressed quite as well as Utley the quiet decency and pragmatism of British conservatism. The Mail is raucous and populist, while theTimes is proud to swing with the wind as the voice of the official class. TheTelegraph stood in a different tradition. It is read by the nation as a whole, not just by City and Westminster. It is confident of its own values. It has long been famous for the accuracy of its news reporting. I imagine its readers to be country solicitors, struggling small businessmen, harassed second secretaries in foreign embassies, schoolteachers, military folk, farmers – decent people with a stake in the country.

My grandfather, Lt Col Tom Oborne DSO, had been a Telegraph reader. He was also a churchwarden and played a role in the Petersfield Conservative Association. He had a special rack on the breakfast table and would read the paper carefully over his bacon and eggs, devoting special attention to the leaders. I often thought about my grandfather when I wrote my Telegraph columns.

‘You don’t know what you are fucking talking about’

Circulation was falling fast when I joined the paper in September 2010, and I suspect this panicked the owners. Waves of sackings started, and the management made it plain that it believed the future of the British press to be digital. Murdoch MacLennan, the chief executive, invited me to lunch at the Goring Hotel near Buckingham Palace, where Telegraph executives like to do their business. I urged him not to take the newspaper itself for granted, pointing out that it still had a very healthy circulation of more than half a million. I added that our readers were loyal, that the paper was still very profitable, and that the owners had no right to destroy it.

The sackings continued. A little while later I met Mr MacLennan by chance in the queue of mourners outside Margaret Thatcher’s funeral and once again urged him not to take Telegraph readers for granted. He replied: “You don’t know what you are fucking talking about.”

Events at the Telegraph became more and more dismaying. In January 2014 the editor, Tony Gallagher, was fired. He had been an excellent editor, well respected by staff. Mr Gallagher was replaced by an American called Jason Seiken, who took up a position called ‘Head of Content.’ In the 81 years between 1923 and 2004 the Telegraph had six editors, all of them towering figures – Arthur Watson, Colin Coote, Maurice Green, Bill Deedes, Max Hastings and Charles Moore. Since the Barclay Brothers purchased the paper 11 years ago there have been roughly six more, though it is hard to be certain since with the arrival of Mr Seiken the title of editor was abolished, then replaced by a Head of Content (Monday to Friday). There were three editors (or Heads of Content) in 2014 alone.

For the last 12 months matters have got much, much worse. The foreign desk – magnificent under the leadership of David Munk and David Wastell – has been decimated. As all reporters are aware, no newspaper can operate without skilled sub-editors. Half of these have been sacked, and the chief sub, Richard Oliver, has left.

Solecisms, unthinkable until very recently, are now commonplace. Recently readers were introduced to someone called the Duke of Wessex. Prince Edward is the Earl of Wessex. There was a front page story about deer-hunting. It was actually about deer-stalking, a completely different activity. Obviously the management don’t care about nice distinctions like this. But the readers do, and the Telegraph took great care to get these things right until very recently.

The arrival of Mr Seiken coincided with the arrival of the click culture. Stories seemed no longer judged by their importance, accuracy or appeal to those who actually bought the paper. The more important measure appeared to be the number of online visits. On September 22 Telegraph online ran a story about a woman with three breasts. One despairing executive told me that it was known this was false even before the story was published. I have no doubt it was published in order to generate online traffic, at which it may have succeeded. I am not saying that online traffic is unimportant, but over the long term, however, such episodes inflict incalculable damage on the reputation of the paper.

Open for business?

With the collapse in standards has come a most sinister development. It has long been axiomatic in quality British journalism that the advertising department and editorial should be kept rigorously apart. There is a great deal of evidence that, at the Telegraph, this distinction has collapsed.

Late last year I set to work on a story about the international banking giant HSBC. Well-known British Muslims had received letters out of the blue from HSBC informing them that their accounts had been closed. No reason was given, and it was made plain that there was no possibility of appeal. ‘It’s like having your water cut off,’ one person told me.

When I submitted it for publication on the Telegraph website, I was at first told there would be no problem. When it was not published I made enquiries. I was fobbed off with excuses, then told there was a legal problem. When I asked the legal department, the lawyers were unaware of any difficulty. When I pushed the point, an executive took me aside and said that ‘there is a bit of an issue’ with HSBC. Eventually I gave up in despair and offered the article toopenDemocracy. It can be read here.

I researched the newspaper’s coverage of HSBC. I learnt that Harry Wilson, the admirable banking correspondent of the Telegraph, had published an online story about HSBC based on a report from a Hong Kong analyst who had claimed there was a ‘black hole’ in the HSBC accounts. This story was swiftly removed from the Telegraph website, even though there were no legal problems. When I asked HSBC whether the bank had complained about Wilson's article, or played any role in the decision to remove it, the bank declined to comment. Mr Wilson’s contemporaneous tweets referring to the story can be found here. The story itself, however, is no longer available on the website, as anybody trying to follow through the link can discover. Mr Wilson rather bravely raised this issue publicly at the ‘town hall meeting’ when Jason Seiken introduced himself to staff. He has since left the paper.

Then, in November 4 2014, a number of papers reported a blow to HSBC profits as the bank set aside more than £1bn for customer compensation and an investigation into the rigging of currency markets. This story was the city splash in the Times, Guardian and Mail, making a page lead in theIndependent. I inspected the Telegraph coverage. It generated five paragraphs in total on page 5 of the business section.

The reporting of HSBC is part of a wider problem. On May 10 last year TheTelegraph ran a long feature on Cunard’s Queen Mary 11 liner on the news review page. This episode looked to many like a plug for an advertiser on a page normally dedicated to serious news analysis. I again checked and certainly Telegraph competitors did not view Cunard’s liner as a major news story. Cunard is an important Telegraph advertiser.

The paper’s comment on last year’s protests in Hong Kong was bizarre. One would have expected The Telegraph of all papers to have taken a keen interest and adopted a robust position. Yet (in sharp contrast to competitors like The Times) I could not find a single leader on the subject.

At the start of December The Financial Times, The Times and The Guardian all wrote powerful leaders on the refusal by the Chinese government to allow a committee of British MPs into Hong Kong. The Telegraph remained silent. I can think of few subjects which anger and concern Telegraph readers more.

On September 15 the Telegraph published a commentary by the Chinese ambassador, just before the lucrative China Watch supplement. The headline of the ambassador’s article was beyond parody: ‘Let’s not allow Hong Kong to Come Between Us’. On September 17 there was a four-page fashion pull out in the middle of the news run, granted more coverage than the Scottish referendum. The Tesco false accounting story on September 23 was covered only in the business section. By contrast it was the splash, inside spread and leader in the Mail. Not that the Telegraph is short of Tesco coverage. Tesco pledging £10m to fight cancer, an inside peak at Tesco’s £35m jet and ‘Meet the cat that has lived in Tesco for 4 years’ were all deemed newsworthy.

There are other very troubling cases, many of them set out in Private Eye, which has been a major source of information for Telegraph journalists wanting to understand what is happening on their paper. There was no avoiding the impression that something had gone awry with the Telegraph’s news judgment. At this point I wrote a long letter to Murdoch MacLennan setting out all my concerns about the newspaper, and handing in my notice. I copied this letter to the Telegraph chairman Aidan Barclay.

I received a cursory response from Mr Barclay. He wrote that he hoped I could resolve my differences with Murdoch MacLennan. I duly went to see the chief executive in mid December. He was civil, served me tea, and asked me to take off my jacket. He said that I was a valued writer, and said that he wanted me to stay.

I expressed all of my concerns about the direction of the paper. I told him that I was not leaving to join another paper. I was resigning as a matter of conscience. Mr MacLennan agreed that advertising was allowed to affect editorial, but was unapologetic, saying that “it was not as bad as all that” and adding there was a long history of this sort of thing at the Telegraph.

I have since consulted Charles Moore, the last editor of the Telegraph before the Barclays bought the paper in 2004. Mr Moore confessed that the published accounts of Hollinger Inc, then the holding company for the Telegraph, did not receive the scrutiny they deserved. But no newspaper in history has ever given an unfavourable gloss on its owner’s accounts. Beyond that, Mr Moore told me, there had been no advertising influence on the paper’s news coverage.

After my meeting with Mr MacLennan I had received a letter from the Telegraphsaying that the paper had accepted my letter of resignation, but accepted my offer to work out my six month notice period. However in mid January I was asked to meet a Telegraph executive, this time over tea at the Goring Hotel. He told me that my weekly column would be discontinued and there had been a ‘parting of the ways.’

He stressed, however, that the Telegraph would continue to honour my contract until it ran out in May. For my part I said that I would leave quietly. I had no desire to damage the newspaper. For all its problems it continues to employ a large number of very fine writers. They have mortgages and families. They are doing a fine job in very trying circumstances. I prepared myself mentally for the alluring prospect of several months paid gardening leave.

Story, what story?

That was how matters stood when, on Monday of last week, BBC Panorama ran its story about HSBC and its Swiss banking arm, alleging a wide-scale tax evasion scheme, while the Guardian and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists published their 'HSBC files'. All newspapers realized at once that this was a major event. The FT splashed on it for two days in a row, while the Times and the Mail gave it solid coverage spread over several pages.

You needed a microscope to find the Telegraph coverage: nothing on Monday, six slim paragraphs at the bottom left of page two on Tuesday, seven paragraphs deep in the business pages on Wednesday. The Telegraph’scoverage only looked up when the story turned into claims that there might be questions about the tax affairs of people connected to the Labour party.

After a lot of agony I have come to the conclusion that I have a duty to make all this public. There are two powerful reasons. The first concerns the future of theTelegraph under the Barclay Brothers. It might sound a pompous thing to say, but I believe the newspaper is a significant part of Britain’s civil architecture. It is the most important public voice of civilized, sceptical conservatism.

Telegraph readers are intelligent, sensible, well-informed people. They buy the newspaper because they feel that they can trust it. If advertising priorities are allowed to determine editorial judgments, how can readers continue to feel this trust? The Telegraph’s recent coverage of HSBC amounts to a form of fraud on its readers. It has been placing what it perceives to be the interests of a major international bank above its duty to bring the news to Telegraph readers. There is only one word to describe this situation: terrible. Imagine if the BBC – so often the object of Telegraph attack – had conducted itself in this way. TheTelegraph would have been contemptuous. It would have insisted that heads should roll, and rightly so.

This brings me to a second and even more important point that bears not just on the fate of one newspaper but on public life as a whole. A free press is essential to a healthy democracy. There is a purpose of journalism, and it is not just to entertain. It is not to pander to political power, big corporations and rich men. Newspapers have what amounts in the end to a constitutional duty to tell their readers the truth.

It is not only the Telegraph at fault here. The past few years have seen the rise of shadowy executives who determine what truths can and what truths can’t be conveyed across the mainstream media. The criminality of News International newspapers during the phone hacking years was a particularly grotesque example of this wholly malign phenomenon. All the newspaper groups, bar the magnificent exception of the Guardian, maintained a culture of omerta around phone-hacking, even if (like the Telegraph) they had not themselves been involved. One of the consequences of this conspiracy of silence was the appointment of Andy Coulson, who has since been jailed and now faces further charges of perjury, as Director of Communications in 10 Downing Street.

Urgent questions to answer

Last week I made another discovery. Three years ago the Telegraphinvestigations team – the same lot who carried out the superb MPs’ expenses investigation – received a tip off about accounts held with HSBC in Jersey. Essentially this investigation was similar to the Panorama investigation into the Swiss banking arm of HSBC. After three months research the Telegraphresolved to publish. Six articles on this subject can now be found, between November 8 and November 15 2012, though three are not available to view.

Thereafter no fresh reports appeared. Reporters were ordered to destroy all emails, reports and documents related to the HSBC investigation. I have now learnt, in a remarkable departure from normal practice, that at this stage lawyers for the Barclay brothers became closely involved. When I asked the Telegraph why the Barclay brothers were involved, they declined to comment.

This was the pivotal moment. From the start of 2013 onwards stories critical of HSBC were discouraged. HSBC suspended their advertising with theTelegraph. Their account, I have been told by an extremely well informed insider, was extremely valuable. HSBC, as one former Telegraph executive told me is “the advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend.” HSBC today refused to comment when I asked whether the bank's decision to stop advertising with the Telegraph was connected in any way with the paper's investigation into the Jersey accounts.

Winning back the HSBC advertising account became an urgent priority. It was eventually restored after 12 months. Executives say that Murdoch MacLennan was determined not to allow any criticism of the international bank. “He would express concern about headlines even on minor stories,” says one formerTelegraph journalist. “Anything that mentioned money-laundering was just banned, even though the bank was on a final warning from the US authorities. This interference was happening on an industrial scale.

“An editorial operation that is clearly influenced by advertising is classic appeasement. Once a very powerful body know they can exert influence they know they can come back and threaten you. It totally changes the relationship you have with them. You know that even if you are robust you won’t be supported and will be undermined.”

When I sent detailed questions to the Telegraph this afternoon about its connections with advertisers, the paper gave the following response. "Your questions are full of inaccuracies, and we do not therefore intend to respond to them. More generally, like any other business, we never comment on individual commercial relationships, but our policy is absolutely clear. We aim to provide all our commercial partners with a range of advertising solutions, but the distinction between advertising and our award-winning editorial operation has always been fundamental to our business. We utterly refute any allegation to the contrary."

The evidence suggests otherwise, and the consequences of the Telegraph’srecent soft coverage of HSBC may have been profound. Would HMRC have been much more energetic in its own recent investigations into wide-scale tax avoidance, had the Telegraph continued to hold HSBC to account after its 2012 investigation? There are great issues here. They go to the heart of our democracy, and can no longer be ignored.

Voter Engagement

The Political Reform and Constitution Committee of the House of Commons has now reported on Voter engagement.
See the report:

You can respond to the report.   Written submissions by 9th January 2015

Extract from the Report:

19. We have been told that both the structure of political parties, and the way in which they 
are funded, should be reformed in such a way as to increase voter engagement. John E 
Strafford told us that the structure of political parties did not allow for “meaningful 
participation”, and that there was therefore little incentive to be a member of a political 
party.41 He suggested that individual party members should have a greater say over party 
matters, and that there should also be greater party activity at a regional level.

Voter Engagement Registration and Turnout

See John Strafford's submission to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons on Voter engagement in the UK. The pdf version is best.


http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/political-and-constitutional-reform-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/voter-engagement-in-the-uk/?type=Written#pnlPublicationFilter

Monarchy to a Republic and back 1603-1685

Updated weekly. See above. Latest update 27th April. "Democracy at the time of Charles II" 

Douglas Carswell and UKIP

Conservative calls for the voters to back them as that is the only way they will get a referendum on Europe do not stand up.   If UKIP's support continues they may well get 20-30 MPs in the General Election.   This could then give them the balance of power.   Their criteria for support would be the referendum.   The Conservatives would accept that and you can bet your bottom dollar that if the same proposal was put to Ed Milliband Labour would accept it also, so voting UKIP is more likely to get a referendum on Europe.   Are Tory MPs deluding themselves not to realise this? 

Douglas Carswell's defection to UKIP is a wake up call for the Conservative Party. The Party must now face up to issues that have been ignored for too long. It must re-connect with the grass roots of the Party. Douglas Carswell is quite right when he says that the Tory leadership was not “on the side” of many grass-roots Conservatives.

He is also correct when he alleges that "both the Conservative and Labour parties were treated as the private property of a “privileged elite” in Westminster.

We are operating a political system devised a hundred years ago. It is time to create democratic parties fit for the 21st century. Only in this way will the Leaderships get in touch with their grass roots and through them get in touch with the people. Zac Goldsmith's Bill for the recall of MPs should be brought in immediately, making MPs accountable to the people all the time instead of just at a General Election.

State finance should be withdrawn from all parties unless they have democratic constitutions which can be altered by their members on the basis of One Member One Vote.

As for the Conservative Party the Party Chairman should be elected and accountable to the members of the Party. The Party should have an Annual General Meeting to which every member is invited, the Party conference should have motions for debate and votes taken. In a democratic party, ultimately it should be the members that are sovereign.

Only by taking steps such as these will the catastrophic decline in membership be reversed.

Unless actions such as the above are taken now we will witness the terminal decline of our two major parties.

Sin Taxes

People in the bottom fifth of the income stream who drink moderately, smoke and drive a car spend 37% of their disposable household income on sin taxes and VAT.   The comparable figure for people in the top fifth of the income stream is 15%
Halving "sin taxes" on fuel, tobacco and alcohol, scrapping green energy subsidies and returning the rate of VAT to 15% would reduce tax evasion, reduce black market activity, improve labour market flexibility and stimulate the economy.   Above all it would put money back in the pockets of those who are in greatest need of it.
"Which" magazine estimates that "green taxes" add £185 to the average household's annual £1,247 energy bill.
Virtually no other country in the EU has such high taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and fuel.   Halving tobacco duty would bring it close to the EU average and lowering VAT to 15% would bring it to a level that was the norm between 1979 and 1991.   Halving motor fuel duty would make it about the same price it was in Britain ten years ago.

 "Aggressively Regressive" by Institute of Economic affairs 

Cameron is right for the wrong reasons on Jean-Claude Juncker

David Cameron is quite right to try and block Jean-Claude Juncker's candidadacy for president of the European Commission, but his reasons for blocking the candidacy are wrong.

The Commission is a powerful body and part of the legislative process of the European Union. It is not democratically accountable to the people of Europe. It would therefore be legitimate for Cameron to argue that the powers of the Commission should be removed and it should act like a civil service for Europe, in which case the position as president would not be so important.

On the other hand if Cameron does not want to do this he should make the case for the president of the Commission to be directly elected by and accountable to the people of the European Union. This would reduce the democratic deficit between the institutions of Europe and the people.

By arguing as he does, that the position of president should be determined by secret negotiation in closed rooms is an affront to democracy and Cameron will deservedly lose that argument.

Grammar Schools - if only!

A hundred and thirty-six grammar schools were founded during the long reign of Elizabeth I, another 83 under James I, 59 under Charles I, and 80 under Charles II.   Many of these foundations failed over time, but Christopher Wase, who set out upon a national survey of grammar schools in 1673, found 704 in existence at that date.
A boy normally entered grammar school aged seven or eight, and stayed there another six or seven years if he was to complete his education.   His school day began at six or seven in the morning, and continued until five, or in summer time six, in the evening, with breaks for breakfast and dinner.   This regime was varied by between five and eight weeks holiday a year, although holiday tasks might be set.

Britain and Ukraine

The British approach to Ukraine reminds me of Enoch Powell's speech in which he said that Britain had become "a nation with a split personality, rent between illusion and reality, withdrawing ever and again like the schizophrenic into a dream existence peculiar to ourselves.
Under God's good Providence and in partnership with the United States, we keep the peace of the world and rush hither and thither containing Communism, putting out brush fires and coping with subversion.   It is difficult to describe, without using terms derived from psychiatry, a notion having so few points of contact with reality".

Votes of Equal Value

One of the fundamental principles of democracy is that each vote is of equal value. Because this is not the case in the United Kingdom our democracy is flawed.   The Western Isles (renamed) has just over 22,000 electors. They elect one MP.   The Isle of Wight have 110,924 electors.   They have one MP so a vote in the Western Isles is worth five times the vote in the Isle of Wight.
In the European Parliament the United Kingdom has 73 members, yet the 15 smallest countries in the European Union with a combined electorate two million less than the United Kingdom has 173 members, so a vote in these smaller countries is worth approximately two and a half times more than in the United Kingdom.
These distortions in our democracy are a scandal and a disgrace.   They distort the democratic process.   When are the politicians going to do something about it?

Members of Parliament - so what's new? Now they want a big pay increase!

In the 15th century publication "Mum and the Soothsegger"  MPs were described as follows:

"Some members slumbered and slept and said very little.   Some mumbled and stammered and did not know what they meant to say.   Some were hired men and would not take any step for fear of their masters.   Some were so pompous and dull-witted that they got hopelessly muddled before they reached the close of their speeches".

Roman Britain to Magna Carta - 1215

Roman Britain to Magna Carta - 1215 (see page above) will be published in instalments on a weekly basis.   Latest update 3rd March 2014. The effect of Magna Carta.

Definition of Democracy

Have a look at the "Introduction" page to see the definition of "democracy".

Referendums

             In Switzerland citizens have a right to call a referendum on any issue they like, so long as they gather enough signatures.   Indeed any new law brought before the Swiss Parliament can be challenged by the voters before it is enacted.   If 1% of the population sign up to a proposal within an 18-month period, the public can vote on it and if passed, it becomes law.   This is direct democracy in action.  Suppose we were to require a 5% threshold that would require nearly 2 million people to sign up – an exacting demand, but by no means a prohibitive one.   Once an action had been voted on there would have to be a minimum period before it could be brought up again to prevent a yo yo effect on contentious issues.

The people should have the right to have a referendum on any issue where 5% of the electorate have signed a petition calling for one.   If passed it should become law.

Right of Recall

One of the weaknesses of our electoral system is that once a representative has been elected they cannot be dismissed until the next election.   This diminishes accountability.   Voters should have a right to recall, effectively dismiss an elected representative if they were dissatisfied with the representative’s performance or record.   This would enable voters to have some say over how representatives carry out their duties between elections.   The electorate is quite capable of distinguishing between a representative and a delegate and would use this right sparingly, nevertheless it would make an MP think twice before voting against the electorate's wishes.

The procedure would be that a specified percentage of voters would have to sign a legal petition calling for a referendum on the simple question “should ……… be recalled – yes/no”.   A majority vote would prevail.

Voters should have the right to recall and/or effectively dismiss their elected representative.

Qualifications to Vote

QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE

 All British citizens, Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Irish Republic who are resident in the United Kingdom and over the age of eighteen are eligible to vote.   In addition citizens of those countries which are members of the European Union and are over the age of eighteen are eligible to vote in local government elections and elections to the European Parliament.   All voters have to be registered and their name appears on the Register of Electors.

In 1948 Eire declared itself a Republic and left the Commonwealth.   British reaction to the setting up of the Republic and the challenge to British sovereignty in Ulster took the form of a political initiative.   British nationality laws were altered; and although the Republic had left the Commonwealth and her citizens were no longer British, they were not classed as foreigners.   As Herbert Morrison humorously assured Parliament: “Indeed the Republic of Ireland does not want to be in the Commonwealth but it does not want to be foreign.   It is, as far as I know, quite sincere on both points.”

There are over 400,000 citizens of the Republic of Ireland registered in the United Kingdom that have the right to vote in a General Election.    They are not evenly spread over all the constituencies.   There are concentrations of Irish voters in Liverpool, Glasgow and Camden Town in London.   Where there are concentrations they can clearly influence the decision of the electorate.   This cannot be right.

It is one of the extraordinary anomalies of democracy in the United Kingdom that the citizens of a foreign country, that have no allegiance to the United Kingdom are allowed to vote in elections in the United Kingdom and in so doing determine who shall govern the United Kingdom. 

Only United Kingdom citizens should be allowed to vote in United Kingdom Parliamentary elections.    

Three Member Seats at Westminster

Prior to 1884 all constituencies consisted of two or three MPs.   We could have 150 constituencies each with three MPs.   This would have a number of advantages.

        To those MPs with a strong feeling for tradition we could go back to the electoral system prior to single member constituencies.   For six hundred years constituencies consisted of two, three, or even four member seats.   If we were to opt for three member seats throughout the United Kingdom this would introduce an element of proportionality into our electoral system.   Electors would be able to split their votes between different parties.   This would introduce an element of competition between members of the same party.   It would give voters a real choice.   It would also reduce the power of the parties.   It was in order to strengthen the power of the parties which led to the single member constituencies in the first place.   It is time for the pendulum to swing back the other way.

        There is a general recognition that as a result of legislation now being produced by the European Union and other legislation devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales there are too many MPs at Westminster.   The number should be reduced to 450.   If this reduction were to take place there would be a golden opportunity to reform the whole system at the same time.

                Why is it that in a world where people are used to shopping around, telephones and electricity have been made competitive, there was still a single supplier of representative services.   In an environment where consumer choice is the dominant force, and people increasingly look at politics as consumers, why not have multi-member constituencies?

                Competition and choice improve standards. Lazy MPs, or those who did not represent the views of their constituents properly, would face internal competition, and there would be fewer barriers to new talent and new ideas coming forward.   Almost certainly there would be an increase in the number of women in Parliament.   If electors could choose from different candidates from within a political Party Parliament would become more representative of the people.   The system would be more proportional.

                The House of Commons should consist of 150 three member constituencies. 

Proportional Representation

In the General Election of 2005 the Labour Party with 35.2% of the votes got 55% of the seats in Parliament.   Conservatives with 32.3% had 30.5% and the Liberal Democrats with 22.0% of the votes cast had 9.6% of the seats.   In other words it took 26,858 votes to elect each Labour MP, 44,241 votes each Conservative MP and a massive 98,484 votes to elect a Liberal Democrat MP.   The Labour Party’s 35.2% of the vote gave them a majority of 66 seats.   Only 22% of the electorate voted for the Labour Party.   In England the Tories got 50,000 more votes than the Labour Party but ended up with 193 seats against Labour’s 285.   With these results it cannot be said that Parliament is representative of the people.   18 million people who were entitled to vote did not vote in the 2005 General Election.

In recent elections we have seen the growth of smaller parties.   In the 2005 General Election parties and candidates other than the three main parties won more than 10% of the vote.   In comparison in 1979 the share of the vote was less than 6% and in 1955 less than 2%.

Political Parties know that General Elections conducted on a First Past the Post basis will be decided by what happens in marginal constituencies which are usually less than 10% of the total.   It is the “Swing” or “Floating” voters in those constituencies – generally less than 10%, who determine who will win the seat.   The election battle is therefore over less than 10% of the votes in less than 10% of the seats – less than 1% of the electorate.   It is more important to win 100 votes in a marginal seat than 5,000 votes in a safe seat under this system.   In the 2005 General Election the average number of telephone/doorstep contacts in “safe” seats was less than 18% of the average in the most marginal seats.

 With a proportional system every vote counts.   The Conservative elector in a Labour safe seat and the Labour supporter in a Conservative heartland both have an incentive to vote.   Supporters of small Parties have more reason for voting.

 A form of Proportional Representation (excluding the closed list system) should be used for all elections in the United Kingdom, whilst retaining the constituency/ward base.

The Church of England should be disestablished

The establishment of the Church of England is upheld on the grounds that it is a national church, but it is a national church, at most, only in England.   It is a Church based on the gratification of King Henry VIII’s carnal lust.   It is entangled with the United Kingdom Parliament.   A Church Commissioner sits in the House of Commons.   Twenty-six of its bishops sit by right in the House of Lords.   The Prime Minister retains residual rights over appointing its bishops.   Its endowments and even its doctrine are nominally under the control of parliament.   Its status as a national church of only one of the four parts of the United Kingdom, even though it is by far the largest part, cannot justify these entanglements.   The entanglements between the Church of England and the state have endured for hundreds of years; they are at best anomalous, and at worst insulting to the people of the other three nations of the United Kingdom, as well as to many of the large non-Anglican population in England.

                The really extraordinary thing about the present constitutional establishment of the Church of England is not its absurdity but that nobody really believes it any longer.   The tight links between parliament and the Church’s general synod seem to both sides a mysterious encumbrance.   Parliament is no longer solely a Christian Parliament.   There is no reason for Parliament to be able to veto the synod’s legislation, as it presently can, and no reason why the Church of England should regulate its own affairs by legislation, as it presently must.   If the Church were no longer established, then those ties would quietly be seen as serving no practical purpose.   Neither the Monarch nor the Prime Minister would have a role in appointments.   Nor is it clear why bishops should sit in the House of Lords.   Breaking those constitutional links, which is what is usually meant by disestablishment, is a simple sensible reform.

                In 1988 Tony Benn tried to disestablish the Church of England.   Conservative MPs saved it, but for how much longer?

                The Church of England should be dis-established.

Religious discrimination!

There is no prohibition on a Catholic or a Jew becoming Prime Minister, but, as matters stand, it could create constitutional complications.   These relate to the Prime Minister’s role in advising the monarch on senior appointments in the Church of England.   The Catholic Relief Act of 1829, section 17, asserts that no Catholic can offer counsel to the monarch on ecclesiastical matters.   A provision in the Jews Relief Act of 1858, section 4, places the same restriction on followers of that faith.   But there is no prohibition in law for those of the world’s other major faiths, let alone individuals that have opted for some of the more obscure religions or bizarre cults.   It is perhaps significant to note that Tony Blair converted to Roman Catholicism after he ceased to be Prime Minister.

                There is no doubt that Prime Minister Tony Blair deferred his conversion to Roman Catholicism until he ceased to be Prime Minister because of the complications that were involved.

The provisions in the Catholic Relief Act of 1829 and the Jews Relief Act of 1858 preventing Catholics and Jews from advising the monarch on ecclesiastical matters should be repealed.

                As Cardinal Newman said “There are no religions in heaven”.

Ballot on the Monarchy

               The Monarchy has many advantages.   It stops a career politician fulfilling the role of Head of State, although if the powers under the Royal prerogative were given to the House of Commons there would be little advantage to the politician.   There is always the danger of slipping towards a dictatorship as we saw with Cromwell.

                The monarchy is a unifying force, and in the case of a long serving Monarch builds up great experience.   Nevertheless the Monarch is the servant of the people and to ask for the endorsement of the people at the beginning of a reign would reinforce the Monarchy.   It is not too much to ask.

Such an approach would give legitimacy to the monarchy, thus strengthening it.

Within one month of the monarch’s death a ballot should be held of all the people to endorse the successor.   Should such endorsement not be given a ballot should be held on the successor’s eldest child becoming monarch.   Should endorsement once again not be forthcoming the monarchy would be abolished.

Defender of Faiths

The monarch is the Head of the Church of England and under the Act of Settlement has to be a Protestant.   This is religious discrimination writ large.   In a democracy it has no place.   The monarch’s eldest male heir succeeds to the throne.   This is sexual discrimination and in a democracy should have no place.

    The monarch should be the “Defender of faiths”

                This course of action is favoured by the Prince of Wales.   

Quangos and Statutory Bodies

Various governments around the world have toyed with time-limited legislation; that is, laws that automatically lapse after a certain period unless explicitly reaffirmed.   Britain, too, has occasionally made use of the device, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, annually renewed throughout the 1970s and 1980s being the supreme example.

 Sunset clauses should apply to the creation and maintenance of statutory bodies. 

 The major Quangos should be required to justify their continued existence and applications for funding before the relevant parliamentary committee at a minimum of once every three years.

                       Appointment of the heads of Quangos should be scrutinised by a parliamentary committee with the power to reject the appointment.

State Funding - more points

In his book The Liberal Vision S. Ringen says

"Mega-expensive politics comes with very considerable benefits for a powerful coalition of actors.   It is to the benefit of people who have money to spend because it gives them the opportunity to buy political influence and glamour.   It is to the benefit of parties and politicians who are able to attract money because it eliminates the competition of those whom moneyed interests see as less worthy investments.   This benefit is tilted heavily in favour of the established parties and serving politicians, who are the ones who would have to take action against transgression.   And it is to the benefit of those who finally earn the money: advertisers, pollsters, advisors, consultants, professional fundraisers, influence peddlers and so on.   It will take a great deal to break this coalition". 

There should be a limit on the amount that a government can spend on political advisers.   An equivalent sum to their costs should be given to the opposition Parties.   This should replace the “Short” funding.   These monies should be properly accounted for. 

                      The “free” post at parliamentary elections should be abolished.

          Party Political Broadcasts (PPBs) should be abolished.

         The maximum amount that any Party can spend on a General Election should be capped at

         £15 million.