Democracy

Overnight, President Obama made a speech to the two Houses of the Canadian Parliament. It's worth watching and listening to. (Justin Trudeau's words are also worth listening to - so, if you have time, don't skip the first 9 minutes of this video). I would particularly draw your attention to the following words in the President's speech, very relevant in this week of turmoil  -

"I think we can all agree that our democracies are far from perfect. They can be messy, and they can be slow, and they can leave all sides of a debate unsatisfied.  ... But more than any other system of government, democracy allows our most precious rights to find their fullest expression, enabling us, through the hard, painstaking work of citizenship, to continually make our countries better. To solve new challenges. To right past wrongs.

...

Democracy is not easy. It's hard. Living up to our ideals can be difficult even in the best of times. And it can be harder when the future seems uncertain, or when, in response to legitimate fears and frustrations, there are those who offer a politics of "us" versus "them," a politics that scapegoats others — the immigrant, the refugee, someone who seems different than us. We have to call this mentality what it is — a threat to the values that we profess, the values we seek to defend. "

Interesting times?

As I walked around my local estates in the last few days of the referendum campaign, a number of people said that they were looking forward to the end of this long, long debate. I have to say I was joyfully anticipating a few days off - then the Tsunami hit! Thursday was just the start!!!

There is so much to be concerned about. We've seen the uncertainty about the future - our own personal futures, as the value of our pension funds have been hit; as threats to jobs begin to emerge; as opportunities disappear. It's very easy to feel very depressed about what has happened, and fearful of what is to come.

Yet, as progressives, we have to believe that a better future can be built. There are alternatives that we can choose - that can improve the lives of our fellow citizens - and those around the world. The environment may have changed beyond recognition - but, like reformers through the centuries, we have to look at the realities that face us - and think about the policies and actions which are needed to build that better future.

So let's leave off the grieving - and start thinking, and discussing, and planning to build for the future. We need to remember that politics is about citizens negotiating our collective future. The priorities for Britain (or whatever is left as events run their course) must be articulated. We mustn't let a vacuum exist, which will be filled by those who have ideas and objectives very different to ours.

Politics is not about shouting at each other - it's about thought and discussion. It's about generating ideas and getting things done. The front page from today's Metro has one message



...but today MPs & Peers will return. There will be a lot of noise - but also the more thoughtful work at Westminster will recommence. Committees will consider legislation and policies. There will be lots of discussion as to how to move forward. So too in council buildings; within the political parties at national and local level, within civil society generally. We all have our part to play.

Brexit Hangover

By the early morning of Friday, Farage was ecstatic - his vision was turning into reality. He'd convinced people to turn their back on the positive side of our history - to embrace parts of his warped ideology. (A key point here - it's not necessary to get people to buy all the ideology - just a taste - and they are in - just like that first cigarette).

Now the hangover has set in. People have begun to realise the enormity of what has been done - what has been destroyed. I won't go on - I've felt it myself - and read the real anguish of many, particularly young people, about what has happened - and what it means.

But I think we should take a lesson from the regressives.

In 1964 Barry Goldwater stood on a right wing platform that was seen as so extreme that he was defeated in one of the biggest landslides in US history. But he & his associates didn't give up. They analysed their strengths and the weaknesses of the progressives. They planned - and with tenacity worked tirelessly to push their agenda. Much went unnoticed at the time. But the organisation and the low key efforts at persuasion began to show fruits. Reagan was elected - Newt Gingrich set about turning Congress rightward. Now neither Goldwater nor Reagan would be selected as a candidate - their successors have pushed things so far rightward.

Moral of this tale - start thinking, planning, taking action - so that your opponents are pushed back - and the values you hold dear are reestablished.

I personally will be doing a lot more reflecting - looking closer at what worked (and considering what is acceptable; unacceptable; effective; do-able). This will be reflected on this blog - and I hope that we can engage in a productive dialogue.

Do bookmark this page - or subscribe to this blog. But most of all - start now to fight back.

Regressives 1 Progressives 0

The Regressives won a significant victory in Britain yesterday. As the day has unfolded we have started to  to see the damage that has been done. It's been painful to read the anguish, particularly amongst young people, on Facebook and Twitter, as they face up to what has been done to their hopes for the future. Britain has started on its path to disengagement from the EU, and the prospect of the UK itself breaking apart is already being discussed.

But we ought to keep in mind one important fact

16,141,241 people voted to "Remain".

Now we have a choice - we can follow the approach taken by those who campaigned for withdrawal, and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world - and look only inwards. Not just as a nation, but as individuals. We can disengage from politics - and leave the field to the regressives.

or we can rise to the challenge.

We won't be the first generation to have to do that. And there are no easy answers. As individuals, and political and social groups - we will need to examine how we better engage with our fellow citizens. We must consider how we can better articulate our values - and how they offer a better future.

Perhaps we need a short rest, a few hours or a day or two, to tend to our sore feet, and our bruised hopes - but then WE must face the key question for any human - how can we leave this world a better place than we found it?

The Critical Day Arrives....

Polls are open from 7.00am to 10pm in today's Referendum.

Whatever position you have come to, I would urge you to vote. Democracy can only continue as long as people participate.

With uncertainty as to the result - and its immediate consequences - I won't be blogging again today - but I'm sure that there will be a lot to discuss tomorrow and subsequently.

David



If you have any problems -  The officials at the polling station (who are independent of either campaign) can advise you.

Where is my designated polling station? 

You can find the address of your polling station on your polling card. You can only vote at your designated polling station.  If you can not find your polling card you can contact us and we will be able to provide that information. You do not need your polling card with you to vote because your name will be on the register at the polling station.

How do I vote at the polling station? 

If you are on the register of electors you should have received a poll card a few weeks ago. This will tell you how, where and when to vote.

This card is for information only so don't worry if you lose it or forget it. (You can still vote without the poll card but it is easier if you have it with you).

You will be assigned to a polling station in your area, for example, at a school or village hall. On election day you should go to the polling station during the times it is open - this will be stated on your polling card.

At the polling station you will be given a ballot paper which is stamped with an official mark.

Take the ballot paper to one of the polling booths and put a cross in the box next to the option you are voting for. Do not write anything else on the ballot paper, otherwise your vote might not count. Once you have voted you must fold the ballot paper and show it to the clerk before you put it in the locked ballot box. You don't have to tell anyone what you voted for.

Do I need to take my polling card to the polling station to vote? 

No, you do not need your polling card to vote. This card is for information only so don't worry if you lose it or forget it. (You can still vote without the poll card but it is easier if you have it with you).

How long will polling stations be open on 23 June 

Polling stations will open at 7am and close at 10pm, if you are still queuing at the polling station at 10pm you will still have the opportunity vote, you will be invited into the polling station or given a ticket that will identify you as being eligible to cast your vote. Find out more information about polling stations on the gov.uk website

Can I still register to vote for the EU Referendum?

No, it is now too late to register for the EU Referendum. If you have registered to vote for any other election at your current address then you will automatically be registered to vote for this referendum. You cannot check if you are registered to vote online. If you have a polling card in your name at your address then you are registered to vote.

Things need to change...

I decided not to post in the immediate aftermath of the murder of Jo Cox MP. It's easy to say things in the midst of shock and horror that might not be said after some reflection.

I was shocked, but not - I'm afraid - surprised. The tone of politics has been deteriorating for some time. I've heard some comments from ordinary people that that only a few years ago - people might have thought, but would have been ashamed to utter in public. Some politicians, and they must know what they are doing - are using language which can incite racial hatred - and, though most would not be roused by such talk, some people can be incited to violence. Many of us will be familiar with the story of Henry II - who after had falling out with his former friend, Thomas A Becket - said "Will no one rid me of the turbulent priest?" He didn't directly call for Becket's murder - but (taking the most generous view of Henry) some hotheads saw that comment as a suggestion for them to follow. Yet Henry did not escape condemnation.

I have argued in previous posts that for the last fifty years there has been a determined effort by "regressives" to push politics further and further rightwards. Newt Gingrich has stressed the central importance of language in pushing politics in a particular direction. (Take a look at his 1996 GOPAC memo - available at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm  )You'll see how some pretty strong language is recommended to demonise his opponents. I think he must take some responsibility for the degeneration of political discourse in the United States. When you start talking about your opponents as "traitors" - and throwing the word "corrupt"around - then you risk some extremists feeling embolden to take "direct action".

British people have always taken a sceptical view of their politicians (and that is NOT a bad thing - as Lord Acton said 'power TENDS to corrupt' - and we must scrutinise those who exercise power, and have in place 'checks and balances' - in our own interests!) - but there are some who have sought to undermine any trust to push their own ideology that rests upon the idea that ANY action of government is a bad thing. As Ronald Reagan said "Government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem."

Things have moved on since then. Neither Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan would be regarded as sufficiently "conservative" (for which "regressive" is the real word meant) for many in the Republican Party. Behind a SIGNIFICANT part of the Brexit movement are people who want to push this 'regressive' agenda.

As 'progressives' we need to consider - as a matter of urgency - how we can effectively push back this movement. Some think that we should adopt the methods of the regressives - and manipulate language to demonise them - that we should encourage 'hatred of the haters'. I fear that path takes us towards the violence that saw the similar battles of the 1930s.

I would argue that we have to redouble our efforts to reach out to fellow citizens. I acknowledge the value of Voter ID (canvassing - or whatever term you feel comfortable with) in enabling election machines to predict the likelihood of individuals to go out and vote, and for whom they are likely to vote. But data-gathering can easily become more important to us, than the more difficult task of engaging with voters. If a person is identified as a non-voter or more likely to vote against our party, we are urged to move on - and records will tell us to avoid those people for perpetuity, lest we stir them up to vote against us.

Targets are important when you have a large district or constituency to cover. Volunteers (and existing activists) can easily be seduced into lots of effort - but isolation from "ordinary" life and activities.

I wish I could present a 10 point plan that, if adopted, would force back the tide of the regressives. But I can't - but I would like to provoke fellow progressives into thought and discussion about how we could change things for there better.



One version of the story of King Canute and his failed attempt to push back the tide - is set at his palace, on the River Thames, at Westminster. He failed to succeed. 

But visit Westminster today -  The Thames is half its width - it is held back by the engineering work within the Palace of Westminster (most of the current palace was in the Thames at the time of Canute (see 'The royal palace, abbey and town of Westminster on Thorney Island' Museum of London Archaeology Service) and on the embankments either side of the river.

Fact Checker

The latest claim I've heard about the EU is that - "THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties."

Upon closer examination - this is a 2001 report in the Daily Telegraph. I urge you to read it - as the Brexiters would. It can be found at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1325398/Euro-court-outlaws-criticism-of-EU.html



But go further, as I did. My response (slightly edited) was

The case itself, Bernard Connolly v Commission of the European Commission, is available in full at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=46230&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=726338http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=46230&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=726338...
It is a case worth reading in full - to see the arguments that were put forward and the reasoning for each of the conclusions. 

I wonder whether anyone - on the facts and arguments in that case - would expect the UK Supreme Court (presumably after the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed) or the US Supreme Court to come to a different conclusion? 

Don't the same restrictions apply to Civil Servants the world over? and employees of private companies?



One of the lines of arguments heard in that 2001 case was that the European Commission had violated Connolly's rights under Art 10 of the Convention. The ECJ comes to a reasoned conclusion as to why they didn't accept his claim. That is in the ECJ judgment. I've searched in vain to find any decision by the ECHR which considers whether they accept or reject that reasoning. The Telegraph article mentions - "Mr Connolly now intends to take his case to Europe's other court, the non-EU European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg." - unless I've slipped up in my research (always possible!) no such case has been brought. I'm sure if it had have been, and the ECHR - which the Telegraph acknowledges is not an EU Court - had found that the Commission had been in breach of Mr Connolly's Art 10 right rights - we would have heard about it (& I'd be using it in my teaching!)