Blog

Your views count. Please comment on our team's views--we'll follow--up your suggestions

Big business was once all-powerful and workers had few rights. Labour unions were established to change that, helping workers to achieve better pay and conditions and a more balanced distribution of social power.

Today, power is again unevenly distributed. It has shifted towards the centralised state. In the coming year the public sector will spend about half of the nation's income. Government has acquired enormous surveillance powers. More and more laws are passed, with big implications for the way we all live. But while the state has grown, our democratic culture has almost shrivelled up. Never have the politicians seemed such a class apart. The more they talk about "engagement", the more it feels as if they speak a foreign language.

One of the angry voices in a recent BBC Question Time audience shouted out: "Do you think you're better than us?" People have a sense of being mocked by the patronising tone of the political establishment. Now it's time for a new movement that will give voters more powers. That new movement is called the National Union of Voters and it is launching online today. Every British voter can join and every member will have an equal say in deciding the union's reform manifesto.

The weaknesses of Britain's political system have been exposed by this newspaper's daily revelations about MPs' expenses. The Telegraph has performed a vital public service. There is now the huge question of what should happen next. Do we enter a dark period for democracy, with the relationship between voters and politicians deteriorating further? That would be a disaster, because good government depends absolutely on trust. We must use this wake-up moment to create a more responsive and transparent democracy by creating greater equality between voters and those they elect.

The politicians have been quick to suggest their own remedies to the current crisis, but they should not be the sole authors of a new settlement. We can use the internet to remind everyone of that most traditional idea - that Parliament is owned by the people. Voters must be a central part of the renewal process and the National Union of Voters will be a democratic movement that makes it easier for people to represent themselves.

The union starts with the belief that there are four big weaknesses in our democracy. First, the problem of too many MPs thinking they have a safe seat for life. We need reforms that ensure every MP faces meaningful re-selection during the course of every parliament. We also need "recall" mechanisms to give voters the power to sack MPs if they lose the trust of their constituents.

Second, the political class has hidden important information about its income, expenses and connections for too long. We need complete transparency. Third, political parties rely on a few big donors for their money. They would be a lot more responsive to voters if they had to raise their funds from them. So long as they can rely on big business, big labour unions or big government to pay their bills, they will remain detached.

Fourth, the mainstream parties agree on too many big issues, denying debate as they cling to each other like spent boxers. Voters should be able to force Parliament to discuss a broader range of issues, and should be part of the debate. And there should be referendums on the big decisions.

I personally like and respect most politicians. The majority of them don't deserve the public ferocity that is currently directed at them. The Union of Voters is not anti-politician but pro-voter and pro-reforms that give voters more power. The internet gives us a tool that allows the relationship between voters and their representatives to work better. Let's use it.



Tagged in: Untagged 
Comments (22)Add Comment
...
written by Nicholas Kulkarni, 03 June 2009
Dear Stephen
you do not address the issue of Permanent Secretaries and other faceless unaccountable mandrins in whitehall, city hall and every government body there is.

We not only need to give the voters more power we also need to give the ministers the power to remove the mandrins of whitehall, city hall et al.
...
written by Gareth Thomas, 03 June 2009
I am happy to support this: the time is right. Twenty years ago there was the launch of Charter 88 and I was one of the early signatories. It fizzled out eventually because there was not enough popular demand for constitutional change. The difference today is that there is a widespread popular demand for change, and what has driven that more than anything else is the utter contempt for the electorate that has characterised the present government. I deeply regret having believed in the 'New' Labour project back in the mid-90s. I have no time for the Labour power freaks and slick spinners who turn any discussion into Newspeak.

It is time we took back control. We owe it to all those who fought to create the democratic instruments and institutions we have in Britain, from the enlightenment to the present day, to bring those instruments and institutions up to date and ensure accountability not the corruption and outright fraud we now see in the stinking heap of Westminster today.
...
written by Scott, 03 June 2009
While I agree with much of your program, it is important not to let constitutional radicals hijack this debate. Any wider program of constitutional reform should reflect core conservative principles. Not for narrow partisan reasons, but because conservative ideas are the right ideas to get us out of this mess.

We need a clear, targeted package of reforms centred around the idea that it should be as difficult as possible for the government and its agencies to spend public money. What we are being presented with by Labour and its friends in the media is a glut of hurried, ill-conceived, crowd-pleasing measures. Each element carefuly selected for pure partisan advantage. We need a set of decentralising measures, mechanisms to shift the balance of power away from the centre and the executive towards parliament and the people.

This means renewing and revitalising the legislature. It means an end to the reliance on statutory instruments. It means more time for debate. It means a more robust committee system. It does not mean abolishing the monarchy, abolishing the Upper House or any of the other radical reforming mechanisms trotted out by the beleaguered, bewildered rump of this demoralised and discredited government.
...
written by Nicholas Kulkarni, 03 June 2009
part of the reason charter 88 fizzeled out (yes I was and am a member) is that our whole system of education is geared to teaching the young that they must be good little fishes and swim quietly and willingly into the mouths of the waiting political sharks when ordered too.

I am in 20 minutes time on my way to meet a state registered paedophile i.e. a headmaster someone who takes away your kids for 5 days a week and supposedly has them in his/her care whilst allowing them to be abused mentally and sometimes physically as well by other students whilst intoning the mantra "there is nothing wrong with our school system it is your child that has not adjusted".

I am about to put to him that if he was paying me for child care and after 6 months his child was in tears at the mention of going to him that a) he would be furious with me and that b) he would take his child away from him as a danger to children.

Sadly to date the answer from him and his staff is "we do not have a problem"
...
written by jsfl, 03 June 2009
Given the content of the survey this seems a worthwhile but please please please can we change the name. I hate Unions!
...
written by Michael Grove, 03 June 2009
ENCORE to ALL that Gareth Thomas has said.

Humpty Dumpty IS broken and WE THE PEOPLE need a NEW Humpty Dumpty !
...
written by Gareth Thomas, 03 June 2009
Scott, by your statement,"it is important not to let constitutional radicals hijack this debate," you raise some interesting questions. Maybe they were bound to emerge here sooner or later. "Important not to let"... Who exactly is it who will not let the debate enter these forbidden areas of yours? What is a "constitutional radical"? How is seeking constitutional change through existing democratic means "hijacking this debate"?

Clearly, many people will have widely different views on what should happen next. The nature of the debate itself is patently ad hoc. A Voters' Union is a good idea, but to begin such a project by telling everyone that the ideas about change should be carefully controlled and limited smacks entirely of the depressing mess we are in: a shipwreck produced by those with a limited understanding of the need for change and a desperate failed attempt to hang onto total control.
...
written by Jill Anderson, 03 June 2009
May I propose as a first objective (urgent as polling day is tomorrow) that we vote to get out of the EU by supporting UKIP. This is perfect, since the three main parties are clinging together to deny us a vote, to ignore public opinion either on whether we agree to Lisbon, or would like our terms of membership radically renegotiated or to quit altogether. Cameron has refused to discuss the subject, Hague says he would not consider leaving the EU and Conservative spokesman Beazley told the EU Parliament that an incoming Tory government would ditch sterling and apply to join the euro. So none of the big 3 can be trusted.
...
written by Paul Andrews, 03 June 2009
This is a great idea. It would be good if we could debate the constitutional issues, direct democracy and all the other changes we want to see whilst minimising as far as possible tribal political allegiances.
...
written by jsfl, 03 June 2009
Jill Anderson:

Perhaps in the interests of developing sensible and acceptable constitutional ideas we can avoid lowering the tone by dissolving into petty and destructive (and disingenuous) partisan party propaganda. This is not about party politics it is about the constitutional needs of the British people.

Stephan Shakespeare:

Suggestion. Any post that mentions a political party should be deleted!
...
written by Could someone please clarify with me who is running this site and what their political leanings are? I think if we're asking for transparency, it has to start here. I'll then decide if I want to j, 03 June 2009
In the interests of transparency, please could you advise who is running the site and what are your credentials and political leanings? I like the sound of what you're saying, but I think reform is for all parties, not just Labour as the whole system is currently open to corruption. Please advise details about all those who are involved in the funding and running of this site and community. Thank you. Annie
...
written by Jill Anderson, 03 June 2009
Stephan
In your own blog you cite the three mainstream parties clinging together like spent boxers. How can we discuss what they are doing and what the alternatives might be, without referring to them by name? Not possible. You are going to strangle free debate before it has even started. There is talk by one of these parties (which happens to form the government) of producing a written constitution in spite of having passed the Treaty of Lisbon through the House. This Treaty provides a constitution for the EU of which we are part. The EU has primacy over the members and EU law has primacy over our English law. Nonsense, or what? I stand by my opinion that we should get out of the EU even if you think I should not suggest the means.
...
written by Aalok Kanwar, 03 June 2009
The union starts with the belief that there are four big weaknesses in our democracy. First, the problem of too many MPs thinking they have a safe seat for life. We need reforms that ensure every MP faces meaningful re-selection during the course of every parliament. We also need "recall" mechanisms to give voters the power to sack MPs if they lose the trust of their constituents.


Dear Stephan

With due respect i firstly, would like to see the research done on the 'fact' that MP's believe they a seat for life? To my knowledge this is not true. Each MP is voted for in an election, every 'x' amount of years by the voters, if anything the electorate have given the mandate for the seats of MP to stay safe?

Considering that elections occur every 4-5 years normally, no seat should be a safe, the accountability is within the system already. When you talk about recall, when do you expect this recall to occur? After 3 months, after 2 years - or most importantly after a certain degree of populism?

There is a certain contradiction here; within the manifesto it is claimed that MP's should have 'freer votes' i.e. be able to shake off the shackles of the whip, yet instead the 'recall system' creates a whip, just now in your constituency populace, is that what we want? I believe there is a fundamental failure to recognise the role of an MP. For me the MP acts as my representative in government NOT a delegate, there is sharp difference, a difference many of you have not realized to my knowledge. Hence the first democratic change will inevitably lead to delegative populism rather representation. This is my major issue with such a policy, maybe the writer needs a stricter methodology and ideology of what he believes the role of an MP should be, because that is fundamentally the point being thrashed out here.
...
written by thomthumb2, 03 June 2009
Indeed, the role of an MP is central to the debate. Once upon a time we elected MPs to represent our interests when legislation was being mooted or framed. Now that Parliament has virtually ceased to perform this function, MPs have become glorified social workers and count themselves as doing a good job if they can take the cause of countless Mrs Bloggs against the tyranny of countless jobsworths. All very laudable, but I believe a psychiatrist would call this displacement activity.
...
written by Martin Hazell, 03 June 2009
Dear Stephan - when I first read your blog I was very interested in what you have to say. However when I go to register I note that the ONLY video loaded is a party political broadcast for the BNP. To repeat Annie's earlier question, who your backers and funders for this union? Regards Martin
...
written by Terry Woods, 03 June 2009
Remember BROWN is unelected, and will fight to the end, his legacy will be "never elected to be Prime Minister" thats what is obsessing him, power for powers sake.Nothing to do with the countries interests.
...
written by Don Anderson, 03 June 2009
Martin - If you watch the loaded video you will find it is anti BNP

The election of a new batch of MPs and knee-jerk imposition of new expenses rules is not a cure-all.
Just as land will run to weeds if it is not cultivated, then as long as the EU makes over 80% of our laws, so will our Parliament rot, and its MPs become lobby fodder to rubber stamp EU diktats and decisions made by party leaders. The starting point must be our disentanglement from the EU which costs us a fortune and brings no benefits. A substantial vote against the main parties tomorrow must send them a clear signal.
...
written by Martin Denning, 03 June 2009
Love the idea of the Union of Voters, but something seems to be missing. The four key areas identified by Stephan Shakespeare in his article are fine and have my support. However any organisation which seeks seriously to remedy the so-called "democratic deficit" must surely address the following.
We cannot go on with a voting system which ends up with:-
(a) government achieved by a minority of votes cast - some system must be devised which reflects the will of the majority. Simmering resentment, low levels of interest/engagement and turnout will continue if the existing constituency system is retained.
(b) government headed by an unelected Prime Minister (so far as I know G. Brown has never been elected to anything or body in England).
(c) government of England in which non-English MPs have a voice/vote. This - the West Lothian question - remains so far as I know, unresolved. Government of the UK in which all participate would not be ruled out, but the English (MPs elected in England) must govern England.
(d) unelected ministers in government. How and why has it been made possible for P. Mandelson for example to be enobled and brought into government? Currently, if rumour is correct, he is a possibilty for Foreign Secretary. That a prime minister can do this is potty and on more than one level completely alien to any cocept of democracy.
Add these to your manifesto Stephan and you will recruit at least one more member.
...
written by Richard Bellamy, 03 June 2009
I suggest we also think of the small things that can make a difference.
For instance - If MP's are supposed to represent ALL consituents, not just that voted for them then -
Why should you have to go into a political office to see your MP.
Why not have a respectable Consituency Office manned by civil servants near the Town/City Hall that can be used by the MP in office at the time - like No 10?
This could then be the base for IT allowing live video to the MP whilst they are in London.
Also a survey system could be developed like (www.CommunitySurveys.net an impartial social enterprise company) to find out what Parliament is going to debate, allow the MP to give their thoughts on what they think and encourage constituents to be breifed about an issue then blog and vote.
Imagine an MP being able to stand up and say to the governemt of the day " My constituents have debated this and they feel the proposal could be improved and X,000 of them suggest the following amendment"
Now that is real democracy!
...
written by Nicholas Kulkarni, 04 June 2009
Dear Richard Bellamy

Whilst I appreciate your sentiment and feel IT allowing our MP's to be in London and the constituency is nice I disagree with the implication that a constituency office would be respectable just because it is manned by civil servants. True it would remove the partisan use of public funds to pay relatives but it would not prevent partisan decisions by civil servants.

It is the unelected tyranny of nameless civil servants that I fear far more than the elected MP's.

The vast majority of senior civil servants do not serve the civilians at all. Instead they believe they are the civilian's masters and that they know better than the people or their elected representatives and they use red tape to prevent any initiative they do not like.

As Sir Humphrey put it so eloquently in Yes Minister. "Yes Minister I did say NO." Then in explanation to Jim Hacker's amazement in being told what he could do by his Permanent Secretary was told "Ministers may come and Ministers may go but I go on forever after all that is why I am called a Permanent Secretary".

Think about a bit and you will realise that city halls have bent bosses too and that they are unelected, unremoveable and on salaries larger then the PM.
...
written by Gareth Thomas, 04 June 2009
Oh dear, this doesn't appear to be going anywhere, does it? Pity: I thought you were starting this with proper backing. Action is needed now, not new websites in backwaters of the internet. Stephan: send me an email if it gets off the starting blocks and I'll take another look... Meanwhile, there's too much happening to waste time returning to a dead conversation.
...
written by Aalok Kanwar, 04 June 2009
written by thomthumb2, 03 June 2009
Indeed, the role of an MP is central to the debate. Once upon a time we elected MPs to represent our interests when legislation was being mooted or framed. Now that Parliament has virtually ceased to perform this function, MPs have become glorified social workers and count themselves as doing a good job if they can take the cause of countless Mrs Bloggs against the tyranny of countless jobsworths. All very laudable, but I believe a psychiatrist would call this displacement activity.


Yes i would acknowledge such changes. Although it seems to me that you are resigned to the fact that MP's are social workers and therefore the systems of election must now adapt to that. I don't believe such a notion. The role of the MP should be constitutionally protected, and if we are to preserve the due process of democracy then we should not simply be reactionist but pro-active in correcting the system. I still don't find any merit in a 're-call' system, apart from that it will bring populist politics to the fore.

There were musings towards petitions being signed to allow for a re-call, maybe there is merit in this system, i would be willing to engage in its debate and conception (regardless if i fundamentally do not like it). If a petition of 50% of those who had originally voted for that MP find him/her incapable of performing their duty then there is due merit in there being a by-election and a re-call. This would be qualification for the 're-call' system that would signify voter power and most important accountability to the original voting electorate.

Write comment

busy

Action Centre

InviteCommunity Donate Connect

Follow the Union

Latest Campaign Video

More video »

On the blog

Snap Poll Results: Unelected Lords are an affront to democracy

On Friday we launched a poll of the Union of Voters to measure your views on unelected Lords taking cabinet positions. The majority of those who responded siad that it was an affront to democracy.

83.5% said that it is an affront to democracy.

11.3% said that it is a pragmatic way to bring new talent into the highest levels of government.

5.2% said that they were not bothered either way.

 

 

97 people voted in Friday's snap poll. For the full results, see here.

Union of Voters Community

Members Login | Register Now