Some years ago following the riots in Liverpool and other Cities I was asked what my opinion was.
My concern at the time was that it might be possible for the Conservatives to argue that with rioting and the inner cities burning, that it would not be possible for elections to called or carried out safely or 'fairly' and that the then Prime Minister might choose to suspend the democratic process and we would be stuck with an unpopular and partisan government governing in the interests of its own supporters and funders rather than the country as a whole.
Now, with all that is happening in banking, with the attacks on welfare and the proposed changes to the NHS and the proposed reductions in public services generally it is possible to see a similar danger.
The democratic process is vulnerable.
We take it for granted, less of us exercise our vote than ever and yet the franchise was hard won, working people gained the right to vote in the bloody aftermath of WW1, universal suffrage being granted in 1918, less than a hundred years ago, and it took another ten years until women gained the right to vote.
Various campaigns have been started mainly using the strategy of petitions to demonstrate wide popular support for or against what it being proposed but the real strategy, which must be protected, is the right to vote for a political party to form a government in the public interest.
It is interesting that the public is, it seems, wearying of the con-dem coalition.
The closet of thread bare clothes has been revealed for what it is, even in their recent appearance in a carriage factory the Prime Minister and his Deputy both stated as an obvious fact that their marriage of convenience was an arrangement to ensure that they stayed in power.
Simply that.
A minority Government was not an option, this presumably aimed by Mr Cameron at his opponents in his own party, so the coalition was a ruse to ensure that their attacks on public services and welfare and their support for their privileged and wealthy supporters could be pursued without worrying about votes in the Commons.
On decidedly shakier ground Mr Clegg seemed to be simply saying that his party deserved an opportunity to influence policy although how or where this influence was felt and who benefited was not clear.
The Labour Party seems to be doing well in opposition and winning the argument so it is possible to be optimistic that despite their clinging on to power, we may see an election called before the five years are up and even more damage has been done and before the proposed gerrymandering can be brought introduced which will in effect mean that in future it will be harder to elect a Labour Government.
Increasingly public scrutiny is being seen in the work of the select committees.
They have done some important work demanding that public and private figures have given account of their actions and their stewardship.
The Murdoch's have been challenged as has Mr Diamond and now Mr Buckle.
Although it seems Mr Buckle is not for buckling.
There are two strong themes running through all this, that private is good and public bad. So the Army is faced with reductions in the number of full time soldiers a there is a massive reduction in the the numbers of police. Yet, despite paying a substantial amount of money to G4S it is the Army and the Police who have to take up the strain once again.
The second is that part time and temporary jobs are all that is on offer and on the whole people would rather keep looking for permanent work rather than surrender their benefits and then have to go through the wearying process of re-applying once the Olympics are over, which of course they will be.
It is also true that this coalition will also be over and that will afford an opportunity to elect a Government that will seek to serve the public rather than sectional interests and protect the essential services this country needs if it is to protect the poor, the sick and the elderly.
My concern at the time was that it might be possible for the Conservatives to argue that with rioting and the inner cities burning, that it would not be possible for elections to called or carried out safely or 'fairly' and that the then Prime Minister might choose to suspend the democratic process and we would be stuck with an unpopular and partisan government governing in the interests of its own supporters and funders rather than the country as a whole.
Now, with all that is happening in banking, with the attacks on welfare and the proposed changes to the NHS and the proposed reductions in public services generally it is possible to see a similar danger.
The democratic process is vulnerable.
We take it for granted, less of us exercise our vote than ever and yet the franchise was hard won, working people gained the right to vote in the bloody aftermath of WW1, universal suffrage being granted in 1918, less than a hundred years ago, and it took another ten years until women gained the right to vote.
Various campaigns have been started mainly using the strategy of petitions to demonstrate wide popular support for or against what it being proposed but the real strategy, which must be protected, is the right to vote for a political party to form a government in the public interest.
It is interesting that the public is, it seems, wearying of the con-dem coalition.
The closet of thread bare clothes has been revealed for what it is, even in their recent appearance in a carriage factory the Prime Minister and his Deputy both stated as an obvious fact that their marriage of convenience was an arrangement to ensure that they stayed in power.
Simply that.
A minority Government was not an option, this presumably aimed by Mr Cameron at his opponents in his own party, so the coalition was a ruse to ensure that their attacks on public services and welfare and their support for their privileged and wealthy supporters could be pursued without worrying about votes in the Commons.
On decidedly shakier ground Mr Clegg seemed to be simply saying that his party deserved an opportunity to influence policy although how or where this influence was felt and who benefited was not clear.
The Labour Party seems to be doing well in opposition and winning the argument so it is possible to be optimistic that despite their clinging on to power, we may see an election called before the five years are up and even more damage has been done and before the proposed gerrymandering can be brought introduced which will in effect mean that in future it will be harder to elect a Labour Government.
Increasingly public scrutiny is being seen in the work of the select committees.
They have done some important work demanding that public and private figures have given account of their actions and their stewardship.
The Murdoch's have been challenged as has Mr Diamond and now Mr Buckle.
Although it seems Mr Buckle is not for buckling.
There are two strong themes running through all this, that private is good and public bad. So the Army is faced with reductions in the number of full time soldiers a there is a massive reduction in the the numbers of police. Yet, despite paying a substantial amount of money to G4S it is the Army and the Police who have to take up the strain once again.
The second is that part time and temporary jobs are all that is on offer and on the whole people would rather keep looking for permanent work rather than surrender their benefits and then have to go through the wearying process of re-applying once the Olympics are over, which of course they will be.
It is also true that this coalition will also be over and that will afford an opportunity to elect a Government that will seek to serve the public rather than sectional interests and protect the essential services this country needs if it is to protect the poor, the sick and the elderly.
No comments:
Post a Comment