Our Agenda

As the nation’s rulers, we must enhance our democracy by increasing our control of government at all levels through the ballot box, through national referendums and through our pro-democratic pressure groups. Further, we want to encourage our fellow citizens to form pro-democratic pressure groups.

Goal 1: Protecting and enhancing our sovereignty

1, Protecting the Electoral System is a necessity because it is the only means we have of controlling all public servants is through our control of Parliament. The electorate must have complete confidence in the voting system, so that they will be encouraged to play their part by electing MPs responsibly.

“It’s not the voters who count, it is the one who counts the votes.” Josef Stalin

2. Upgrading our Voting System

2a) Who should or should not have the vote? There is a democratic principle at stake: “The only people who must have the vote, are those who are going to experience the consequences of the vote, including those who will pay for it.” This encourages well-informed, responsible voting. Further, this principle not only applies to general elections, but also advises that local referendums should be used to decide local issues like cycle lanes. Conversely “The people who should not have the vote, are those who will not experience its consequences.” Otherwise, elections can be rigged and it encourages irresponsible voting.

2b) Our present voting system has various strengths; “first-past-the-post is the winner” principle ensures that a clear-cut choice is made and also the system allows us to vote for a candidate irrespective of their party. These are essential qualities of a democratic voting system.

But our present voting system also has various weaknesses. Suppose you and quite a number of other voters want to get rid of your sitting MP, then that is very difficult to do, because your votes are likely to be spread among the other candidates to no effect. Another weakness is the lack of relevant information to encourage voters to make evidence-based decisions.

2c) To give the voter more control, the simplest idea would be to allow the voter to use their single vote to vote against a candidate.

2d) But a better idea would be that the voter should choose between “vote for”, “vote against” and “vote withheld” for each candidate, If no choice is made, it would be treated as “vote withheld”. This gives the voter a greater chance of getting rid of an undesirable candidate or two. Some building societies, companies and charities use this system.

2e) This still leaves us to discuss what information a voter should receive about each candidate before the election. At present, in local elections, on the voting slip, the voter is told the candidate’s name, their party and whether they live within the constituency. Personally, I would like to know about their occupation, about their political experience and about any voluntary work they do. Also, I would like them to write a short statement of, say, no more than 200 words, about what they think is important and what they would do about it. On the other hand, I consider unwise to publicise their home address or even a photo of their face. Be honest, almost all voters won’t have the time or inclination to dig up this data for themselves, so we must make it easy for them. Further, one can see that the authorities are reluctant to publish much, in case they are accused of being partial.

This should be a key task for pro-democratic pressure groups. These groups should keep records of each candidate’s words and actions. Then at election times, send a questionnaire to each candidate to provide information about them and their political stance. Collectively, the pro-democracy group should write a report/pamphlet condensing their data so that the report’s readers can reach their own conclusions. An effective method of making your results known is to deliver pamphlets to the voters homes and even better give them a personal visit. Be diplomatic! Be polite! Be calm!

2f) To elaborate, an important source of excellent information is a questionnaire sent to each candidate. Questions would ask about their occupation, about their political experience, about any voluntary work and about their position on various issues. The questionnaire could ask them to “agree/ disagree/ undecided” about various issues such as improvements to the voting system (as above), public service salaries and pension changes, replacement of the House of Lords by a Second Chamber, an acceptance of national referendum results and in particular to hold a national referendum to stop Parliament making arbitrary changes to our sovereignty and to the voting system and to Press freedom and so on.

2g) An essential task for all pro-democratic pressure groups is to continually remind the electorate of outstanding political issues. We want the voters to look at the whole picture when they vote. It is only human to treat each issue as a one-off and become vulnerable to emotive appeals.

3. Parliament is the greatest threat to our democracy, at the present time. It can arbitrarily change the voting system in various ways that can rig elections without needing our consent through a national referendum, It happens quite regularly and nobody seems to realise what a fundamental change is being made. For instance, for the time being, the Labour Party is removing from its manifesto, the aim of giving the vote to 5 million EU citizens resident in the UK. But they are keeping the aim to give the vote to the malleable, idealistic, mainly non-tax-paying 16 and 17-year-olds. They have suggested putting ‘proportional representation’ in their manifesto. The government has already given the vote to the residential non-British citizens of 56 Commonwealth countries plus all the Irish. The government has suggested, and possibly implemented, the idea of giving the vote to all non-residential ex-pats, especially in the EU, no matter how long they have lived abroad! How reassuring! when they call a second BREXIT referendum to have its result already rigged! First, we democrats must work to ensure that Parliament cannot make any significant change to the election system without the consent of the electorate through a national referendum.

We should expect British citizens to be loyal to Britain

… In most countries, you have to be a citizen to vote in national elections. Not here. Legally, resident nationals of any one of the 56 Commonwealth countries, and of Ireland, can vote in UK general elections, and EU citizens can also do so in Stormont votes. Similarly, Commonwealth citizens, and indeed, EU citizens resident here before 2020, can work in the vast majority of jobs in our central Civil Service, and negotiate around the world on British interests. …

… the British national state isn’t just the sum of people who happen to be standing on these islands at any given moment. It’s a project, a creation of mutual loyalty, a wish to solve our problems together in our own homeland. People can join it but that ought to bring with it unfashionable concepts like loyalty to Britain, opposition to the King’s enemies, and in certain circumstances, putting the country’s interests above your own. We should do more to ensure it means something to have British citizenship. …

David Frost, The Daily Telegraph, p17, 20 October 2023

Democrat:- There are many reasons why people don’t owe their allegiance to this country. They are all self-inflicted; Parliament does not exert its primacy over all other executive bodies like the judiciary, remainders refuse to accept the result of the BREXIT referendum and they undermine Parliament, we have a high tax economy because of a bloated, overpaid civil service with their gold-plated pensions and a colander of sleaze including the House of Lords. If Parliament wants us to be loyal to our country, then they must set an example and put the nation’s best interests before their party and personal interests.

A few months ago, Sir Keir Starmer, leader of the opposition, said that in the national interest the Labour Party would vote with the government on the Irish Protocol. How silly and naive we voters are! We voters thought that all MPs were there to put the national interests first, all of the time! But no, it appears that it is such a rare event that it has to be remarked upon. No much hope for the changing of the guard at the next general election then.

Further, Parliament is unaware and unconcerned over immigration which can threaten our basic beliefs and culture. Its assessment of immigrants is laughable and incompetent. It allows in large numbers of religious believers whose allegiance to their religion is dominant, which means they will only obey our laws when it suits them. Many commandments of their religion are written in stone like FGM and are set against our culture. Many believe authoritarian government like a caliphate. We should be very active converting them into the ways of democracy instead of letting them form ghettos where they preserve their beliefs and practices. Yet over time, these ever-growing groups will have an ever-growing influence on our democracy and not necessarily for the nation’s good.

4. The primacy of Parliament

Politicians have lost faith in politics. This explains the state we are in

… the Commons, elected by the public is the ultimate source of political power and democratic legitimacy, and as such enjoys primacy … No parliament can bind its successors, and any parliament may change the law as it deems necessary. … And yet things are not really working as they should. Parliament has, for example, voted to make the scheme to remove illegal immigrants to Rwanda operational. Yet, 15 months after the deal was struck, the policy is stuck – the Court of Appeal having ruled it incompatible, on novel and narrow grounds, with Article Three of the European Convention on Human Rights. …

Often what Parliament decides is overturned by courts and watered down by public bodies through their own internal politics and published guidance, The Crown Prosecution Service, for example, elects not to prosecute any number of criminal offences, from drug crimes to illegal immigration. …

Elsewhere, one part of the state is stopping another from doing what it is supposed to do. Natural England has blocked the construction of 160,000 new homes, citing nutrient neutrality rules and the protection of sites and species that could, with just a little imagination, be protected even if building went ahead. One part of government wants to get tough with the water companies … others are sanguine about … the failures of the regulator.

Lawfare … looms large. The Home Office funds many of the asylum charities that launch legal proceedings against it in their war against immigration controls. …

Ministers are afraid to issue guidance to schools grappling with “pupils transitioning” between genders because they are advised they will be in breach of equality laws. …

Nick Timothy, The Daily Telegraph, p14, 24 July 2023

Democrat:- In the end, it is always comes down to the quality of the people who are supposed to be in charge. The Cabinet and all MPs must, before all else, protect the primacy of Parliament. Only then can the public be in control through the ballot box. All public servants are hired to act in the best interests of the nation. This includes judges who can have their say but, in all circumstances, must refuse to abuse their power by trying to tie the hands of an elected government. This also applies to the House of Lords who must put the nation’s best interests first and never obstruct an elected government. All significant decisions must be made by people who are accountable to us the voters. The electorate must be the final judge of Parliament. Without that, the public will lose faith in our democracy and force fundamental changes which may lead to dictatorship. When Parliament betrayed the BREXIT referendum, Boris Johnson won a landslide victory because he promised to be obedient. The people know what they want. No one can outwit them in the long run. We voters should move up to “government by referendum” where we make clear what we want and the public services have to continually report progress, to explain themselves and to justify their existence. We the people are the only people we can trust.

Health Secretary’s anger as 77 trusts sign up to rainbow badge scheme that marks down hospitals for using words like ‘mother’

NHS ‘TRYING TO ERASE WOMEN’

Angry MPs have called for ministers to step in after 77 trusts joined the NHS Rainbow Badge Scheme, which rewards them for dropping ‘gendered language’ from policies, forms and signs. …

Staff who just want to to treat patients and so speak out against the NHS’s focus on gender identity are branded homophobic and transphobic, while facing ‘tougher consequences’ from bosses. …

And it comes even though health bodies have been warned by ministers to rethink their close ties with the likes of Stonewall.

A source close to the Health Secretary Steve Barclay told … : ” Any scheme which does not recognise the role of women and biological sex in the NHS directly contradicts ministerial steers and raises serious questions of propriety. The Secretary of State has been very clear that women should be called women and freedom of speech upheld. He expects the guidance to be followed.” …

And Caroline Ffiske from Conservatives for Women said: “We have to ask ourselves who is running the NHS? We are in the absurd situation whereby Stonewall dictates important policies through the back door.”

Daily Mail, p1, 28 August 2023

Democrat:- To control all public bodies, we voters require Parliament to be the prime public body so that by controlling Parliament through the ballot box, we control all public bodies. We hold Parliament responsible for all the activities and attitudes of all its subordinate public bodies. When any subordinate public body ignores or undermines the elected governments diktats, then we voters need to see Parliament exert its primacy. We expect Parliament to do whatever is necessary to bring wayward subordinates into line. When an employer gives an employee a legitimate, relevant command and the employee disobeys, then the employer must sack them. However, the employer must make it clear that a command is a command, not guidance. When push comes to shove, the elected government must steel itself to enforce its commands over all other public bodies especially over the courts.

5. Parliament is not allowed to undermine its own authority. Parliament has passed a law which embodies its plan to achieve net-zero by a certain date. In principle, this is wrong. Firstly, that law gives the impression that anyone can control Parliament by taking it to court and winning a verdict. We cannot tolerate a subordinate judiciary issuing commands that Parliament must obey. Secondly, Parliament doesn’t have the power to tie the hands of future Parliaments. The best decisions are made by decision-makers taking into account the latest situation using the latest evidence.

6. Parliament is not allowed to sign away our sovereignty permanently without a national referendum. Do you remember? We voted in a national referendum to join the Common Market. A wise choice. It was a cooperative of independent nations. Occasionally, they would make a European treaty that benefited all, like removing all import and export duties and agreeing open borders. But also there were treaties between subgroups to their mutual benefit like the maritime nations agreeing fish quotas and agreeing fish conservation areas.

Then a megalomaniac persuaded other megalomaniacs plus other trusting, naive politicians that they would all be better off in a European Union (EU). Too few recognised it for what it is. The EU is a dictatorship run by an immense, well-paid civil service. It has the trappings of democracy like a parliament but in fact the EU is run by an oligarchy of unelected and unaccountable officials.

PM John Major and the Conservative Party took us into the EU without our consent through a national referendum. A national poll had suggested the public would vote against joining the EU. The Tories panicked and signed us in any way. This is the most appalling, anti-democratic reason for doing anything at any time. With the flick of a pen, they turned us into a vassal state and we have paid for it ever since. It is the most heinous, anti-democratic act of treachery and arrogance in the history of Great Britain.

In general, dictatorships fail their nations. They organise all state departments into hierarchies to keep tight control of them. As information passes up and down layers of employees it becomes distorted as it does in the game of “Chinese Whispers.” Employees are chosen for their loyalty rather than their competence. Further, the EU has its own particular weakness. To encourage new countries to join, they are given the right of veto. This reassures them that no European law can be passed to their detriment. The downside is that one rogue country can paralyse EU efforts to act decisively. For instance, dictator Orban of Hungary uses the veto to undermine the EU’s response to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Over time the EU usually gets its way by various tortuous methods like threatening to withdraw a country’s funding. But over the last few decades, the EU economic zone has fallen behind other economic zones like USA, China and Asian countries. It has not created one new global giant company like Apple, Google, Boeing etc.

Cybernetics predicts that the EU will either collapse or have a complete reconstruction in order to survive. A confederation like the old “Common Market” is recommended!

7. All public servants, especially Parliament, must experience the consequences of their decisions, like the rest of us have to.

MPs’ pension funds shunning British firms

British pension funds are unpatriotically shunning UK companies, with those responsible for investments for MPs’ retirement savings being among the worst. ….

The Parliamentary Contributory Fund (PCPF) invests just 1.7 per cent of its £835 million assets in Britain’s listed companies – compared to 59.8 per cent in global equities outside the UK. …

A PCPF spokesman said: “The Fund invests in a range of asset classes on a global basis, including a ten per cent allocation to UK properties.”

Jessica Beard, Deputy Money Editor, The Mail on Sunday, p20, 5 November 2023

Democrat:- We support the principle that “Those who have the vote should experience the consequences of their collective decision.” If all pensions for all public servants, especially politicians, had to be invested in the British economy, then by looking after the economy they would be looking after their pensions, and ours! As it is, they can and do play fast and loose with the economy without suffering the consequences of their bad decision-making. Intolerable! But we democrats can respond. In our questionnaire spent to candidates, we will ask them if they will actively support all public servant pensions being “defined contribution” pensions paid out of their salaries as it is for the public in general. Further, will they support the PCPF investing all MPs’ pension contributions in the British economy? Then we will publish their replies for their constituents to judge before they vote.

8. Transparency is absolutely essential to our democracy

How MPs are gambling with your pensions

But how much do the pension promises being made to MPs cost the taxpayer every year? The 2022 PCPF accounts show a costs of 12.9pc of salary, after MPs’ own contributions, taking annual pay and pension to £98,000 – £87,000 and £11,000 pension. But the real cost to taxpayers, calculated in the same way as all private sector schemes, is buried in the footnotes. The annual bill, the cost of meeting new pension promises made during the year, is an eye-watering 54pc of an MP’s salary. So an MP’s annual pay and pension is really £133,000 – £87,000 [sic] salary and £46,000 pension.

Taxpayers should also be relieved that the “official” funding level showed a £192m surplus in April 2022.

Not quite so fast. The footnotes show a deficit of over £200m – again calculated in the same way as all private sector schemes – almost £400m worse than the official position.

Understating annual pension costs, and overstating the funding position, is outrageous, and plays right into the “snout-in-the-trough” view of MPs.

Talk of guaranteed inflation-linked DB (direct benefit) pensions for MPs will stick in the throat of millions in the private sector with DC (direct contribution) pensions, and no guarantees, especially those on the minimum 3pc employer contributions.

In 2013, Harriet Baldwin, PCPF trustee and chairman of the Treasury select committee, argued that MPs should move from DB to DC pensions like “the majority of private sector pension schemes”.

John Ralfe, The Daily Telegraph, p6, 4 November 2023

Democrat:– To reiterate, natural selection favours survival groups that make the most effective survival decisions. The most effective decisions are based on evidence. So the quality of that evidence is paramount. For instance, everyone’s biological sex needs to be recorded because that data is essential for the effective allocation of resources. A person’s declared gender must be recorded separately, otherwise the data is corrupted and the quality of decision-making worsens.

Transparency is essential so that voters can make informed decisions. This requires not only that the data is honest but also that it be clearly presented in an easily digestible form. Hiding essential data in footnotes is damning evidence of foul play and corrupt public servants. We need a set of standard formats that public servants must use in their reports to ensure that essential data is clearly presented in an easily digestible form.

Now only 1 in 10 councils publish accounts voters are meant to see

Hundreds of councils are failing to publish their accounts – some for years – at a time when many are teetering on the brink of disaster. …

Just 31 of around 380 major (non-parish or village) councils released audited accounts for the last financial year …

And 27 have failed to file any audited accounts for the last four years. Town halls have a statutory duty to publish audited accounts annually. Residents have a legal right to inspect and challenge their local authority’s books. …

Earlier this month the Local Government Association warned councils are facing a £4billion black hole over the next two years.

In 2022/23, 31 councils published audited accounts, 252 posted draft (non-audited and changeable) statements and 97 released nothing. Some 658 audited statements are overdue over the last four financial years.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance’s Elliot Keck, who led the research, said: “The failure to file accounts is causing a transparency crisis in local government. It’s unacceptable that struggling Brits have to stump up for growing council tax bills when their town hall bosses either won’t or can’t show them what they are spending their money on. …”

David Churchill, Chief Political Correspondent, Daily Mail, p26, 26 October 2023

Democrat:- Lack of transparency means lack of evidence means lack of criticism by the electorate means lack of our control over our public servants means enhanced danger to our democratic way of life. Intolerable!. Of course, all of our public servants like a well-paid, quiet life and a lack of transparency achieves that. By castrating the citizens so they cannot make evidence-based decisions about their representatives, the authorities undermine our democracy. We are all losers. Parliament is to blame. There is no point in them passing legislation if they don’t enforce it.

This situation adds another string to a pro-democracy pressure group’s bow. Taking a local authority to court for its breach of statuary duty and hopefully fining all the councillors should focus their minds in future and set an example to the rest. It should be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel! What fun! What a way for a pro-democracy group to earn its spurs!

9. The judiciary must learn what its function really is

Like all other public servants, the judiciary owes its allegiance to the public who pay them. The public need Parliament to be the prime decision-making body so they can control the whole public sector through the MPs and the councillors that they elect. Therefore, the judiciary must be subordinate. It does not have the power to command Parliament, but only to advise. They are to be good servants who put the nation’s best interests first. Yes! They must put the nation’s interests above the law, if need be. Of course, overriding the law is no trivial matter. In such a case, the judiciary should immediately seek the endorsement of Parliament. Natural selection requires results and the way those results are obtained doesn’t count..

The judiciary are a serious threat because by their interpretation of the law or by applying unapproved principles or by mission creep, they make new law for which they are unaccountable. Any appeal from a judge’s verdict is heard and assessed by another judge! We need Parliament to exert its primacy by approving or amending or striking out any new law quickly. In particular, Parliament must stop the courts from threatening the people’s sovereignty and rights. For instance, free speech is an essential part of good decision-making and an essential part of the people’s ability to control Parliament. And yet the judiciary undermine it. They are a public body employed to work in the nation’s best interests. The people have not given it the power to undermine their democratic rights. It would be wonderful if the judiciary saw themselves as the ever-faithful guardians of democracy instead of being such ardent worshippers in the church of Mammon.

Free speech is lost in Britain, where the rich silence reporters

Slapps stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation” … to denote legal actions brought by the wealthy to kill media investigations. …

If the Government really wants to enhance freedom of speech, it must reform the law entirely. Defence of free speech has become unaffordable for most people – simple defamation actions may cost millions in legal expenses, …

Defamation law in the UK is notoriously favourable to claimants … In other civil actions, the party coming to court seeking damages must prove their case, but here the media is always on the defensive, bearing the burden of proof in not only the truth of its statements but their public interest and honesty of comment.

The more recent threat comes from privacy law, used to punish those who purvey information they think should be secret. It was always thought , when the European Convention was adopted, that it would protect public interest journalism unless there was an overriding reason – a “pressing social need” – to censor them.

But instead, judges have ruled that claims of privacy have equal weight to the right of freedom of speech [a perverted, unjustifiable, unapproved principle – ORS] and so must be “balanced”, …

Recent court rulings on privacy have severely inhibited investigative journalism, especially in relation to crime and policing.

There is also exploitation of the press regulator, Ipso. One classic recent case concerned Yevgeny Prigozhin [‘Putin’s chef’ and killer], who bare-facedly complained against The Daily Telegraph over reports that he ran the Wagner organisation. The credulous regulator took it seriously!

Yet denying access to justice is unlikely to find judicial favour. A government who genuinely wishes to help public interest journalism has more straightforward ways to do so

Geoffrey Robertson KC, Author of ‘Lawfare: How Russians, the Rich and the Government Try to Prevent Free Speech’, The Daily Telegraph, p14, 12 September 2023

The judiciary also threaten Parliament’s right to rule. Recently, politicians have appealed to the courts to make decisions that bind the government’s hands. Intolerable! The judiciary is a subordinate body that does not have such power. So the courts must make it clear that they can only advise and not command Parliament. The only possible exception is when Parliament itself threatens the sovereignty of the people, then the Supreme Court should be able to call a national referendum or general election

10. The Electoral Commission is another public body that can threaten the integrity of the election system. There are worrying signs that like so many other watchdogs it wants a quiet, well-paid life and to only react when forced to by public outcry. Instead, we want watchdogs that go looking for trouble and we need an annual report from all watchdogs in which they try to justify their existence by describing what they have achieved. Here are some examples of the Electoral Commission being absent without leave.

The National Trust is concealing from its members how controversial it has become

With more than five million members, the National Trust is the biggest membership charity in Britain. Its Annual General Meeting will be held in Swindon on November 11. Members can vote in advance to fill the five vacant places on its governing body and for members’ resolutions. The online and postal poll opened last week.

As a member, I have just voted. The AGM’s first webpage says voting “will take only five minutes”. This is not true if you wish to know on what and for whom you are voting. … You should also read the annual report which must be approved by members. … the annual report is not ready. We can vote for or against it, but we cannot, as I write, read it.

There is only one way to get through everything in five minutes. It is called “Quick Vote”, and you only need press only one button. The trouble is you can Quick Vote only one way – to approve the Trust’s choice of candidates, resolutions, auditors, and its annual report – everything the Trust wants and nothing else, If you disagree with the Trust on anything, you must vote slowly.

This is a disreputable method for a supposedly democratic organisation. If you press Quick Vote, by the way, you will automatically be opposing a resolution which calls for Quick Vote to be abolished. (Its legitimacy may also be challenged in a lawsuit.) …

[ In November, Lord Jonathan Sumption, the former Supreme Court Justice, stood for election to the governing body and was NOT elected! ]

Charles Moore, The Daily Telegraph, p20, 9 September 2023

Democrat:- Where is our knight in shining armour? Where is the Electoral Commission? Is it coming to the rescue of 5 million people’s democratic rights? Don’t be silly! Its asleep in its castle waiting to be woken by the public outcry.

There is a very similar outrage that affects millions of investors that has been going on forever. In many annual company reports, the investors are asked if they would give their vote to the chairman to vote in their stead. Such a practice rigs the vote and makes it far easier for the corrupt to continue in office. It should be abolished. An investor should either use or lose their vote.

Sometime ago, the press reported that families were arriving at voting stations and their patriarchs were telling them who to vote for. Whether they accompanied each family member to the voting booth, was not reported. How the supervisors reacted is not known. The Electoral Commission remains silent.

During the ongoing strikes by public servants and the railwaymen, some of their leaders have stated that they are communists or anti-democrats challenging an elected government’s authority. One wonders how they achieved such positions of power and wealth. Has the Electoral Commission checked and satisfied itself that all trade union voting procedures are being carried out correctly and honestly? Of particular concern is “Are candidates for trade union office who don’t belong to the union clique, being intimidated into withdrawing their applications?”

Many years ago, I remember there was a certain Arthur Scargill, head of the National Union of Mineworkers, who led miners on strikes aimed at bringing down an elected government. Later, Arthur declared himself President of the NUM for life so he would never have to stand for election again. Moderate miners found that they could make no improvements to the NUM from inside. So they had to leave and form their own Democratic Mineworkers Union. Where was our white knight, the Electoral Commission? Still asleep even that long time ago.

11. Watchdogs – Many watchdogs like the Electoral Commission and Ofwat, have failed to protect us from the most basic disasters that they were set up to avoid or control. After decades of failure, it is often a concerned citizen that raises the alarm. We democrats need constant reassurance that these public servants are actively fulfilling the tasks that they are employed to perform. At least, once a year, we need them to publicly and loudly report their aims and what progress they have made towards achieving them. The onus is on them to to justify their continued existence, not us. We have neither the time nor the skills to collect the data and judge them.

In the long term, we democrats can gain more control over our public servants by demanding “government by referendum”. In Switzerland, about every three months, each citizen receives a questionnaire. It is in two parts; national issues and local issues. So the citizens vote on national issues like neutrality and financing the air-force and on local issues like allowing a block of flats or a cycle-path to be built. The big point is that when the government wants us to vote the “right way” on an issue, it has to explain itself clearly and show that is in the nation’s best interests. So we get the transparency we yearn for and we get the final say. This process does wonders for national pride. More citizens get involved because they can make a difference. Further, while government proposes most issues to be decided, a swiss citizen can force an issue into the referendum, if they can get more than 100,000 citizens to sign a petition.

Switzerland has more to teach us. It is composed of self-governing cantons that form a confederation with a national government that encourages the cantons to work together and it resolves any conflicts of interest. A canton can make treaties with foreign countries and a canton can even leave the confederation! These ideas should be applicable to the UK. But we need to go steadily because Switzerland is much smaller and much wealthier than we are. Also they are landlocked and we are not. Such an confederation of UK countries would be far better than the present arrangement which is opaque and grossly unfair to England.

Democracies can fail, if the government is so incompetent or so corrupt that the people will no longer tolerate them. To minimise the chances of such an outcome, we need to check the workings of all public institutions. But it will be a long process, so let us start on the worst cases of failure.

12. The House of Lords is not fit for purpose for a variety of reasons. It should revise proposed legislation to maximise its benefit to the nation. Instead, it is using its privileges to undermine the acts of the elected government. Whenever the Lords revises legislation, it sends the revision back to the House of Commons. If the Commons need to revise it again, the proposed Act is sent back to the Lords again. This can happen three times before the Common’s version prevails. But a Bill can only be revised once per parliamentary term. So the House of Lords can delay legislation for over a year. The problem is that most members of the Lords are old party loyalists. They are all too willing to put their party’s interests before those of the nation. Previous attempts at reform have failed. The simplest solution is abolish the House of Lords and start afresh with a Second Chamber.

Tories dish out 8 times as many honours as Labour

The findings have led to allegations of “cronyism” and claims that a “broken” honours system is being used as a tool by prime ministers to try to win the support of mutinous MPs.

According to this analysis … at least 96 sitting MPs have been given knighthoods or damehoods since the Tories came to power in 2010. …

Some of the honours – such as the knighthood given to Sir Gavin Williamson, the former education secretary , after the exam grading fiasco – have proved particularly controversial. …

Sir Alistair Graham, a former head of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, told The Telegraph : ” A lot of it, you suspect, is because of divisions in the Conservative Party. If you’re looking to get an MP on your side in any particular argument or vote, a hint from the Whips’ Office that an honour may be coming your way might influence your judgement. It’s rather depressing if the honours system is being used as a political tool to get a majority in the House of Commons.”

Will Hazell, Political Correspondent, The Sunday Telegraph, p8, 26 November 2023

Peers on payroll of ‘hostile’ states

LORD (John) Browne, 75, Former BP boss, paid £174,000 a year by Nogaholding, part of the Bahrain government’s National Oil and Gas Authority. …

Lord (John) Deben, 83, Former Tory Minister, paid £10,000 in 2022 for advising the oil and gas-rich Qatari government on sustainability through his consultancy company, Sancroft. …

Lord (Peter) Goldsmith, 73, Ex-Labour Attorney-General, paid £381,000 over four months this year by the government of Azerbaijan and £42,799 by Israel’s government since January 2022.

Lord (Philip) Hammond, 67, Former Tory Chancellor, was directly paid £274,545 by Bahrain government and £6,250 in 2021/22. Also paid £68,631 by the Saudi government last year …

Lord (Archie) Hamilton, 81, Former Defence Minister, received $75,000 (£61,400) a year as a director of a fund directly owned by the Libyan Africa Investment Portfolio, which is subject to British government sanctions. … is also paid £1,000 for every board meeting he attends.

Lord (Peter) Levene, 81, Former chair of Lloyd’s of London, was paid 275,000 Hong Kong dollars (£29,000) for six months as a director of the state-owned China Construction Bank. …

Lord (Francis) Maude, 70, Ex-Tory Party chairman, paid consultancy fees of up to £400,000 from the governments of Bahrain and Iraq, … he has provided parliamentary passes to two employees of his consultancy … through which he does his foreign government work. Asked why he needed two parliamentary staffers when he has only spoken on three occasions in the Lords since 2020 … he did not reply. A Lords spokesman said: “Members may only sponsor passes for staff members who require them in order to directly support them with their parliamentary work.”

Baroness (Helena) Morrissey, 57, City Financier, paid £12,000 by the Saudi government owned Neom, … Neom has been criticised by the UN for human rights violations …

Lord (David) Pannick, 67, Veteran Barrister, paid £1.9 million since last year for legal work by governments including those in the Cayman Islands, Denmark, the United Arab Emirates and the Netherlands,… In May 2018, he spoke at a debate on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill which the the Cayman Islands government was concerned about.

Lord (Mark) Sedwill, 58, Former Cabinet Secretary, paid up to £80,000 last year by Temasek, an investment fund owned by the Singapore government.

Peers are pocketing millions from foreign nation including China and Saudi Arabia …

Some lords earn up to seven figures a year from hostile states, off-shore tax havens or the oil-rich Middle east while they help shape British legislation. And, shockingly, it is all within the rules.

We can disclose that 24 peers were paid more than £5million in total in just 18 months from foreign sources including Libya, Iraq and Qatar.

Anna Mikhailova, Deputy Political Editor, The Mail on Sunday, p14, 1 October 2023

12a) A possible design for a Second Chamber would be to have an Appointment Committee. They would approach august bodies of expertise such business and science federations to appoint teams of, say, three members. Each appointee to serve for thee years before seeking re-appointment. The point is to throw the net as wide as possible. So each political party represented in Parliament would have a team. The Appointment Committee could appoint temporary teams when they can contribute expertise to legislation being debated. Groups like BLM or Stonewall could be invited to explain themselves and be questioned by other members of the Second Chamber. We would all get a clearer picture of what is going on and what we should do about it.

12b) Democrats encourage fellow citizens to be volunteers in ways that benefit our society. The Honours List is an excellent way of doing that. However, the system has been prostituted by Parliament. Anyone who is made a peer, receives a well-paid job for life and a gold-plated pension too! Every prime minister submits a list of those to be honoured. Too often, their list contains people who are completely unworthy of being put into such positions of wealth, reputation and power. When the governing party changes, they flood the House of Lords with loyalists in order to control its revision of new laws. Thus, at tremendous cost, they undermine the House’s ability to fulfil its prime purpose of revising new bills to maximise their benefit to the nation. The whole thing stinks. We need to have an Honours List that carries no financial reward.

13. Quangos are an example of the worse kind of public body.

Put wild boar on the pill instead of culling them, say scientists

Populations of wild boar in Britain have soared in recent years … Previous estimates suggest there are about 5,000 in the country. with the majority in the South West specifically the Forest of Dean.

Growing numbers of grey squirrels, deer, feral goats, pigeons and parakeets are also causing concern and measures to tackle them will be debated …

Boar are good at uprooting plant seeds and disturbing ground-nesting animals, while also destroying crops and vulnerable habitats … They have also been linked to the spread of African swine fever to domestic pigs. Last year, Scottish farmers demanded a cull after warning boars weighing more than 30st were attacking lambs. … In 2012, researchers … found wild boar in the UK are threatening five native bird species and could force them out of some areas of the country.

Alex Barton, The Daily Telegraph, p10, 28 August 2023

Democrat:- The reintroduction of extinct species is just one of the many schemes being foisted on to the public without adequate debate and without their consent. Who pays when damage is done? We taxpayers do. Who else is there? These schemes are illegitimate. It is not legitimate for small groups of lobbyists or quangos to have more influence over the government than the public has.

• Quangos are set up as “independent” public bodies to advise Parliament. But they are often given powers to control certain situations like the environment and our heritage. They make and enforce their decisions onto the public without their consent. The principles they apply are opaque. There is no easy, cheap and quick way that distressed citizens can appeal their decisions. They are unaccountable. They are intolerable.
• Politicians often set them up for the worst of reasons. They hope that when things go wrong that the public will blame the quango rather than the government who are in fact responsible.
• We have no idea how much influence these quangos have in the corridors of power. Such lobbyists seem to have more say about future legislation than the public has.
• The public doesn’t have a list of all the quangos that exist nor do we have their terms of reference. We don’t know who the members of these quangos are nor how they are chosen. What are they paid? How much does each quango cost annually? The point is citizens should not have to become experts on quangos before that they can make such assessments.
• At the start of each year, each quango should carry out a “zero-based request for finance”. That is, instead of tweeking upwards the amounts they spent last year, they have to start with a blank sheet of paper and justify every amount of money they put on it.
• Transparency requires that each quango issues every year a report that tries to justify their continued existence.
• What happened to the “bonfire of the quangos”? It got extinguished by the gravy that the quangos have their snouts in.

Goal 2: All financial time-bombs must be defused

Parliament is treacherous. It fails to carry out its most basic duties. By bribing the electorate with their own money, the major parties try to maximise their chances of being returned at the next general election by making financial commitments that the nation cannot afford in the long-term. Thus they fail in their prime duty to maximise the nation’s chances of survival in the future. So instead of nurturing the young, we are loading them with huge, unsustainable financial burdens. Parliament is a house of traitors and incompetents only because we voters don’t know to control them.

Suppose nothing is done. Then as the proportion of old people grows and the proportion of young people declines, we will find that the cost of supporting the old will increase while the taxation on the young earners will also have to increase to pay for it. How will the young respond? As is already happening, the educated young are emigrating to countries like the USA where there is less taxation, less regulation and more opportunities for a fruitful life. In the long-term, the following financial time-bombs threaten the very existence of our democracy. We democrats must not allow treacherous, short-sighted politicians and top civil servants to get away with it. At the next election, we democrats must ask each candidate where they stand on public finances and inform the electorate of their answers.

The financial time-bombs that we cannot afford in their present form are: the state pension, the triple lock, public sector pensions, the out-of-control civil service salaries and the cost of net-zero.

14a) The state pension and the triple lock

Hooray, I hear you cry, the State Pension is getting an 8% boost!

A WORD OF WARNING: It may appear untouchable but, trust me, the triple lock is on borrowed time.

… the so called ‘triple lock’ … means the State Pension will increase by the highest of of average earnings growth (between May and July year-on-year) , inflation (in the year to September) or 2.5 pc. …

Yet at some stage, the elephant in the room – the massive cost of the State Pension, more than £120 billion in the current tax year – will have to be addressed. And the debate will probably centre around the sustainability of the triple lock, which will cost an estimated [extra] £10 billion next year.

To contextualise these figures, … it won’t be long before more public money is spent on the State Pension than on the combined day-to-day budgets of the Department of Education, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. Rather scary …

Helen Morrissey, head of retirement analysis at wealth manager Hargreaves Lansdown, also says with a falling birth rate and an aging population, a review of the State Pension will have to be ‘addressed in the very near future’.

The Adam Smith Institute, renowned for its free-market thinking, has already proposed reform. Tt argues the triple lock is ‘unsustainable and unjustifiable’ and exposes the Government to large State Pension payouts which outstrip the growth of the economy that underwrites them.

It proposes that the increases are linked to earnings, although there should be scope in the system to boost the State Pension in times of significant inflation shocks. But its most radical idea is to means test the State Pension. …

Contrary to widespread belief there is no ring-fenced multi-pound fund [like Norway has] from which it is paid.

Jeff Prestridge, Group Wealth and personal Finance editor, Daily Mail, MoneyMail p31, 23 August 2023

14b) Public sector pensions

Public sector pensions are pushing us into bankruptcy

In the past eight years, the number of civil servants pocketing annual pensions of over £100,000 has more than tripled.

Public sector pensions, which include all civil servants, NHS staff, teachers and members of the Armed Forces, are famously generous. They cover about 5.3 million workers, which represent nearly 20 per cent of the UK workforce. But hiding behind this generosity is a story of political short-termism, untrammelled self-interest and, most tellingly, deep unfairness.

… for most of the last century … civil servants were paid somewhat modestly in return for security and stability in employment, and a good pension. … A good pension, but one which was very similar to those offered by most medium-sized and large private sector companies. … Firms offering generous salary-based pensions were required to build up large funds – pension funds – to ensure there was always enough money available to pay their pension promises, even if they, the employer, failed. … this funding became overly expensive, hence the closure of final-salary schemes in the private sector.

But the same pensions offered by governments were exempted (by government!) from the laws … The result was this was that, although governments of all hues paid lip service to the idea of paying contributions into a fund, that fund never existed. And although “contributions” where paid by employers … they were promptly spent as if they were tax income.

The result is that over the past 50 years or so a huge government debt has been built up in the form of all these pension promises – a debt which is now so colossal, at about £2.6 trillion, that is actually slightly larger than the official national debt.

The debt is fully index-linked, so it cannot be inflated away and it cannot be defaulted on without bringing real hardship to millions of pensioners …

Neil Record, The Daily Telegraph, p14, 11 August 2023@

Neil Record is a former Bank of England economist and author of’ “Sir Humphrey’s Legacy”

£2m pension for mandarin who oversaw Kabul debacle

Sir Philip Barton, the Foreign Office’s most senior civil servant, has the largest pension pot … worth more than £2million.

Sir Philip, who faced calls to resign in 2021 after spending 11 days on holiday after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban, is guaranteed an inflation-linked retirement income currently worth £92,000 each year, plus a lump sum of at least £235,000.

Sir Matthew Rycroft, the most senior civil servant at the Home Office, who has overseen record levels of net immigration, ranked second with a pension pot worth £1.7million which will pay an annual income of almost £103,000.

The top 20 civil servants running government departments are entitled to a pension worth £1.1million on average, according to analysis of accounts by the Taxpayers’ Alliance campaign group. …

Civil servants and other public sector workers enjoy “defined benefit” pensions, which guarantee an income in retirement until death. These gold-plated pensions are so expensive for employers to maintain they have largely been phased out of the private sector. Instead, most private sector workers are enrolled into “defined contribution” pension schemes, which invest their savings and are vulnerable to money market fluctuations. …

While the typical private sector worker contributes around 5 per cent of their salary into their pension, in the civil service pension scheme it can be as high as 8 per cent. However, this comes with a much higher employer contribution – the Government pays as much as 30 per cent to its highest-paid workers compared with the normal rate of 3 per cent in the private sector. …

Public sector pensions made up two-fifths of the national debt in 2021, at £2.3trillion, according to government accounts.

Jonathan Eida, of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said: “Senior civil servants enjoy retirement packages that most private sector workers could only dream of, with the taxpayers who pay for them being crushed under the tax burden. It’s time to reform these overly-generous schemes and bring public sector pensions into line with similar benefits enjoyed by those in the private sector.”

Lauren Almeida, The Daily Telegraph, p5, 28 November 2023

14c) Civil Service salaries

Pay freeze ‘loophole’ doubles £100,000 mandarins

ministers urged to get grip on civil service promoting officials to higher salary bands

… There are now 2,050 mandarins who take home six-figure pay – an increase of 88 per cent since 2016 – of which 195 are on salaries above £150,000.

At the same time, the number of staff in the bottom wage brackets, which typically include frontline workers such as prison officers, has declined by more than 11 per cent.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance … highlighted the discrepancy as evidence that promotions , which automatically push civil servants into higher pay bands, have been used to get around Whitehall constraints.

Ministers capped wage rises for mandarins at 1 per cent between 2016 and 2018 and froze salaries in 2021 to try to bring down the cost of Whitehall.

However, despite those decisions, median pay has risen by 26 per cent over the last seven years, with the number of officials on more than £75,000 almost tripling. …

The figures also show that the total Whitehall workforce has grown by 101,440 since 2016, a 24.2 per cent that marks the biggest growth in half a century. …

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg , the former business secretary, said: “The Civil Service is like Topsy – it just grows. To stop this, ministers need to enforce controls including freezes on hiring and approving any new contracts. …”

Sir John Redwood said ministers should “impose an immediate ban on all external recruitment”. He added: ” The Civil Service is far too top-heavy and the big increase in top management has coincided with a big decline in productivity. You certainly wouldn’t run a private sector organisation like this …”

John O’Connell, chief executive of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said: “With the tax burden at near record levels, tax-payers are paying through the nose for the boom in public sector employment. … Only once politicians start to be honest about what the state can reasonably be expected to do, can we wind down functions and scrap unnecessary jobs.”

Nick Gutteridge, Political Correspondent, The Daily Telegraph, p1, 9 August 2023

Democrat:- All salary negotiations use the concept of a “fair salary”, unfortunately different people have different definitions of it. Personally, I would recommend “the median of salaries in the free market” as “the fair salary”. The point is that salaries in the marketplace are decided by market forces and not by people’s desires. In other words, the median salary of a group of civil servants should be compared to the median salary of a commensurate group in the private sector. Further, gold-plated index-linked pensions should be banned in the public sector as being unaffordable and unfair. As a general principle, decision-makers must experience the consequences of their actions, like the rest of us have to. By looking after their own well-being, they will be looking after ours!

14d) The cost of net-zero

With the best will in the world, our nation can only reduce world pollution by 1%. What is the point of ruining the country for such small rewards? We may want to set a good example and set up an industry to supply the needs of climate changers, but it must be in proportion. The omens are bad. The political system fails us. They are opaque; what are their plans? what are the costs? We face a bottomless pit of debt. They impose measures like cycle lanes on us without our consent. In Switzerland, it is so different. All local measures like cycle lanes would require the consent of the local people through a local referendum. That forces the authorities to be clear, if they want the people’s consent.

The Primacy of an Elected Government

Democrat:- When an employer gives an employee a legitimate, relevant command and the employee disobeys, then the employer must sack them. However, the employer must make it clear that a command is a command, not guidance. When push comes to shove, the elected government must steel itself to enforce its commands over all other public bodies especially over the courts.

Illegitimate Government Policies

Put wild boar on the pill instead of culling them, say scientists

Populations of wild boar in Britain have soared in recent years … Previous estimates suggest there are about 5,000 in the country. with the majority in the South West specifically the Forest of Dean.

Growing numbers of grey squirrels, deer, feral goats, pigeons and parakeets are also causing concern and measures to tackle them will be debated …

Boar are good at uprooting plant seeds and disturbing ground-nesting animals, while also destroying crops and vulnerable habitats … They have also been linked to the spread of African swine fever to domestic pigs. Last year, Scottish farmers demanded a cull after warning boars weighing more than 30st were attacking lambs. … In 2012, researchers … found wild boar in the UK are threatening five native bird species and could force them out of some areas of the country.

Alex Barton, The Daily Telegraph, p10, 28 August 2023

Democrat;- There is a continual stream of projects foisted onto the public by small groups of enthusiasts. These projects threaten to change the quality of life of the local people without those citizens having a say. Without their consent, these projects are illegitimate. We democrats believe that the people who are going to experience the consequences of these projects, should have the right to decide their fate by a local referendum.

(To be continued)

Please write any queries or any constructive criticism in the boxes below. Thank you.