The most political thing
A little late to the party I have recently discovered Philomena Cunk. In
the first episode of a new ‘mockumentary’ - Cunk on Britian (BBC
2) - Cunk (Diane Morgan) takes us through a whistle stop tour of the history of
‘The United Britain of Great Kingdom’. Along the way she interviews a series of
experts managing to simultaneously appear interested and bored, confused and
informed (if of a parallel history and world). In the first episode one of the
experts was Robert Peston, political editor of ITV news. It’s fair to say that
Peston, who I almost felt sorry for,
was flummoxed by the question: ‘What is the most political thing that has ever happened in
Britain?’ I found this surprising for, at least to me, the answer is
obvious:
QUESTION: ‘What is the most
political thing that has ever happened in Britain?’
ANSWER: ‘Enfranchisement, that is
the right to vote, within a democracy (a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives).
A little detail:
Pre-1832: Prior to the Great Reform Act, voting was dependent
on three criteria – sex, age and property. Only men over the age of 21 were
allowed to vote – and only if they owned property over a certain value. This was
a way of making voting a rich man’s privilege, reinforced by small boroughs
having more MPs than larger counties, which were predominantly inhabited by
poorer workers.
The Great Reform Act – 1832: In 1832, the Great Reform Act broadened
the spectrum of voters to include the likes of landowners and shopkeepers as
part of the property criteria. Householders paying more than £10 in annual rent
were also given the vote – and the constituency boundaries were rearranged to
make representation less unfair. The act still defined voters as ‘male
persons’, and continued to exclude swathes of working class workers from
elections. Subsequent reforms in 1867 and 1884 increased the electorate further
with broader property and rental criteria. They also continued to make voting
boundaries more fair, but failed to make any changes for women.
The Representation of the People Act – 1918: In February 1918, the
Representation of the People Act made two major changes to voting criteria – it
removed practically all property requirements for men over 21 and allowed women
over 30 to vote. Property qualifications were kept in place when giving women
over 30 the vote. Men in the armed forces aged 19 and over where given the vote.
This landmark change for women came after 85 years of debate on the issue, with
over 15 years of protests, militancy and hunger strikes by the Women’s Social
and Political Union and Women’s Freedom League.
Equal Franchise Act – 1928: Women were given voting equality to
men. In 1928, the Equal Franchise Act gave all women over 21 the right to vote,
removing property requirements completely.
Representation of the People Act – 1969: The 1969
Representation of the People Act made many changes we’re familiar with today.
The voting age was reduced to 18, with undergraduate students now allowed to
vote in their university constituency.
Adapted a little from https://www.halarose.co.uk/news/a-timeline-of-british-voting/
Currently there are
campaigns to the extend voting rights to 16 and 17 year olds. These individuals
can by law:
·
Give full consent to medical treatment
·
Leave school and enter work or training
·
Pay income tax and National Insurance
·
Obtain tax credits and welfare benefits in their own right
·
Consent to sexual relationships
·
Get married or enter civil partnerships
·
Change their name by deed poll
·
Become a director of a company
·
Join the armed forces
·
Become a member of a trade union or a co-operative society.
But do not have the
right to vote.
Democracy OR Hypocrisy?
Energy (and apathy)
The General Election 2018 showed just how much people want to be part of the
process, part of and energetic, inclusive movement that works 'for the many and not the few'. See (for example):
http://arwenackcerebrals.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/a-tale-of-two-campaigns-ge2017-and-some.html.
As one participant in a recent Labour Party Political Broadcast said 'Jeremy Corbyn, and the politics of the Labour Party, is an absolute inspiration. They can't say now, 'you're all alike', because they're not.' You can watch the broadcast here:
As one participant in a recent Labour Party Political Broadcast said 'Jeremy Corbyn, and the politics of the Labour Party, is an absolute inspiration. They can't say now, 'you're all alike', because they're not.' You can watch the broadcast here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/8bap9c/housing_crisis_labour_party_political_broadcast/
Of course there is more to do. Every vote matters. The turnout for the 2018 General Election was 68.7%, the highest since the 71.4% turnout in 1997. But how to engage the other 30% is only one of the concerns. Others include:
·
The Conservative Government’s discriminatory focus on the tiny issue of individual
election fraud. See something I wrote previously: http://arwenackcerebrals.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/votes-for-all-or-not-importance-of.html
·
Party political data protection and election fraud: See (for example):
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-call-centre-tory-party-police-investigation-south-wales-neath-labour-mp-wayne-david-a7912641.html
AND:
AND:
The UK Refused To Raid A Company Suspected Of
Money Laundering, Citing Its Tory Donations
https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/uk-refused-to-raid-lycamobile-citing-its-tory-donations?utm_term=.ilqo5omN4#.qwVZyZjzP
Democracy OR Kleptocracy? (Kleptocracy: a government with corrupt leaders (kleptocrats) that use their power to exploit and to extend personal wealth and political power).
This 'privilege' leads to boldness outside of the House exemplified not least by the infamous tweet a few weeks ago by Ben Bradley MP, leading to the following apology:
And the following by MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said in an interview for Channel 4 News:
"These briefings appear to have been offered to members of the Labour opposition not on the basis of privy counsellor status. But on the basis of those Opposition members who are sympathetic to the Government's position. That leads to concerns that the Government is using intelligence briefings to manipulate Parliament. And to bolster its own case for its behaviour on the Opposition benches - not on security terms, but on politics."
A funny thing happened on the way to the despatch box
Parliamentary privileges are the ancient and undoubted rights and
privileges of the Commons that are claimed by the Speaker of the House at
the beginning of each new Parliament. Most of these are now obsolete but some
remain active including:
Freedom
of speech: members
speaking in the House are not liable for defamation.
This allows members of the House of Lords and the House of
Commons to speak freely during ordinary parliamentary proceedings without
fear of legal action on the grounds of slander, contempt of court or
breaching the Official Secrets Act.
Perhaps
this explains why at PMQs the Prime Minister felt, a few weeks ago, secure
enough to say of the Leader of the Opposition:
‘Normally he stands up every week
and asks me to sign a blank cheque. I know he likes Czechs but…’
[NB: just
one example of the false smears hurled at the Opposition, not to mention the
many, many examples of less than honest responses to questions and queries on policy
and practice, with the just the latest ‘lie’ or at the very least misleading of
the HoC coming earlier this week in a PMQs focusing on the Windrush generation https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-falsely-tried-to-blame-labour-for-the-windrush-fiasco-to-deflect-jeremy-corbyns-questions_uk_5ad74773e4b0e4d0715c25b1 More on this another day].
This 'privilege' leads to boldness outside of the House exemplified not least by the infamous tweet a few weeks ago by Ben Bradley MP, leading to the following apology:
And the following by MP Jacob Rees Mogg, said in an interview for Channel 4 News:
“I’m unaware of any Brexiteer who is in favour of abandoning the Good
Friday Agreement – it was Jeremy Corbyn, incidentally, who voted against the
Good Friday Agreement when it came to Parliament.”
Who also, following much pressure (on twitter) 'apologised' or at least admitted his 'mistake':
@Jacob_Rees_Mogg: Mea culpa, I was
wrong to say that Mr Corbyn voted against the Good Friday Agreement. He did
not.
As many have noted the word ‘sorry’ seems to be missing from this
(non)apology.
Political game-playing
We have a government (with sadly, shockingly, some cross-bench support)
that do not appear to respect democracy in any way. Just a few of examples
here:
- Refusing to vote following Opposition Day
Debates on issues such as the public sector pay gap, university
tuition fees and the roll out of Universal Credit. The votes
following such debates are symbolic and not binding but it is widely believed, despite the Speaker of the House calling such behaviour a ‘mockery of parliamentary
procedure’ that Tory whips must have considered it less embarrassing
simply not to engage with the vote, and for their MPs to abstain. With
specific reference to the debate and vote on Universal Credit Annosh
Chakelein argues: ‘Without having the guts to back its policy through a
vote, it revealed both dismissiveness towards the people it’s supposed to help,
and lack of confidence in its own reform.’
- Refusing to recall parliament for debate and
discussion prior to the recent Syria airstrikes. One of the reasons given for
which was the need for ‘secrecy’ ahead of the strike which is strange given
that @realDonaldTrump had already tweeted about his (admittedly at times confusing)
intentions. This despite strong suggestion, not least via opinion polls and
anti-war demonstrations, that the public would have wished this to have
happened. Add to this the accusation made
by SNP MP Stewart McDonald that the government ‘selectively’ offered
intelligence and security briefings. He told the Commons:
"These briefings appear to have been offered to members of the Labour opposition not on the basis of privy counsellor status. But on the basis of those Opposition members who are sympathetic to the Government's position. That leads to concerns that the Government is using intelligence briefings to manipulate Parliament. And to bolster its own case for its behaviour on the Opposition benches - not on security terms, but on politics."
- Relatedly, resisting (and denying the origin of) the War
Powers Act (the requirement for a parliamentary debate and vote before and
military action):
@ToryFibs:
- William Hauge March 2011: I vow to “enshrine in law […] the necessity
of consulting Parliament on military action.
- William Hague 17 April 2018: The idea of “enshrining in law all the
circumstances when ministers need to use armed force overseas was not
practical”.
During his speech on this issue this afternoon (17th April
2018) Mr Corbyn said: ‘There is no more serious issue than sending our
armed forces to war – that is why we are elected to this house, that is what
our democratic duty requires us to do’.
Seems hard to disagree with this and yet:
@EL4JC
This is just shocking, really. Juvenile
interruptions and pointless interventions designed purely to disrupt Jeremy
Corbyn's speech on a grave and serious matter. Tories really don't like
democracy, do they?
Democracy. HAH.
AND FINALLY (for now) – THIS posted on 17th April 2018.
@jeremycorbyn: This year, the Tories haven’t posted anything about
registering to vote. They don’t want you to vote because they know they’ve
failed you. This is your chance to send them a message on Thursday 3 May.
Register to vote before tonight’s 11.59 deadline: https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote
No comments:
Post a Comment