The case AGAINST Democracy

The theory is that citizens think and discuss the various options set before them as they prepare to select a representative or a governor; or vote on a proposition. Debate and reasoned discussion precede the visit to the polling station.

The reality is something very different - campaign strategists carefully chose the pyschological tricks they will deploy to subtly (and in some cases not at all subtly) pressure voters to go (or refrain from going) to the polls (I recommend Sasha Issenberg's 'The Victory Lab' - http://www.thevictorylab.com/about_sasha for the science behind the practices). Language is specially chosen to trigger fears and exploit prejudice. More & more money is raised to assist this work. Candidates spend more time soliciting funds - & become indebted to their donors.

Instead of government by the wise, whose judgement is based on years of study of the issues, and sober reflection on the arguments - We allow decisions to be made by people who have no background in the policy area (A Minister in a British Government department might have none - or worse still bases decisions on their own, sometimes unique, experience)

The referendum in Britain, and the election in the US (and there could be more - the French have elections next year with some deeply flawed candidates) - plus all the above arguments, have caused some to question whether 'democracy' is such a good idea. The people can get it (very) wrong sometimes. Let's remember that Hitler came to power, not by a coup, but through elections.

As the USA & Britain seem to be on the decline, some of the rising powers have no time for the western model of democracy. I'm currently reading Daniel A Bell's, "The China Model". It challenges the idea that democratic elections are a better way of choosing our leaders.

WE CANNOT IGNORE THESE ARGUMENTS. They have some merit. I'm sure that we will be hearing more of them in the future. And while it is easy to quote Churchill's "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” that is insufficient.

We need to address the issue of how we deal with Acton's observation that "power tends to corrupt..." Is "party discipline" an effective way of dealing with the abuse of power that does not involve accepting money from those seeking to influence decisions? Must we have to take the medicine prescribed by the meritocrats, against our will?. Should we be allowed to have what we want, when it is decided that another option is "better"? Should the inconvenience and costs of protest be permitted? Are the freedoms of expression, of protest, of privacy worth keeping?

We may be in danger of taking rights gained over the centuries for granted. If we are not ready to explain why they are so precious - and to counter the 'solutions' to our problems that WILL be proposed - We could lose them all.

Your comments please!!!

What now?

Jdm_progressive has been silent for a while (though I've been tweeting under that name - & will continue to post news & opinions via that twitter account) - too much going on, too little time. But now it is back - to a very different world.

We've had Brexit at home (I am a Milton Keynes based UK (and for the moment EU) citizen) and now the transition begins from the Obama presidency to a very different kind of Presidency, that of Donald Trump. I campaigned in both the referendum and the US elections - and after my track record , I am considering volunteering for Marine Le Pen's campaign in France - in order that my curse can descend on that - and a good result is obtained.

Interesting Times lie ahead - and Washminster will be following, explaining & discussing what happens in the USA, the UK, France & then the next big Election - Germany.

This will be a challenging time for progressives. As well as fighting for change, we need to reflect upon how we can become more effective.

Do send your comments and questions. The next twelves months will be interesting!!!

Thoughts after reading today's paper

When I was younger there was a belief that we had learned the lessons of (then) quite recent history. We were turning our backs on the abuses of the past, where minorities were persecuted just because they were different; where state officials (officers and employees) abused arbitrary power to get vulnerable people to confess to things they didn't do - or beat them up. Where justice was denied, on an industrial scale. Never again. The UN had a charter for human rights. A European Convention on Human Rights was enacted, and made legally enforceable.

But, we don't seem to have progressed - in fact we are going backwards. This summer we went to Hamburg & were moved by a statue remembering the Kindertransport, which saved thousands from the gas chambers - and the many, many, many plaques in the pavement noting the site of homes From which real people were taken away - many to their deaths because they were Jews, homosexuals, political activists, or had just helped a neighbour or work colleague. Yet the report in today's paper records what happened this week, We see newspapers propagating lies and inciting hatred. People who will face Election in the days & months ahead will gain millions of votes despite the ugliness of the hateful rhetoric they use.

History can, does & will repeat itself. We need to recapture the optimism - and take the actions required - to stop it.

( The article which prompted this - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/27/calais-camp-minors-children-abandoned-uk-france-human-rights?CMP=fb_gu )

Brexit - and the death of the UK Parliament

Despite the rhetoric about reviving "parliamentary sovereignty" should Britain vote to leave the EU - it seems that Parliament is now to be relegated to being a mere advisory council - which isn't going to be listened to. The last time we saw that was prior to the civil war of the 1640s!

The Government is insisting upon its (questionable) assertion that triggering Article 50 is solely a matter for the Royal Prerogatative - a claim which is challenged (for a summary of the arguments see the House of Lord's Constitution Committee Report) - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldconst/44/44.pdf

So, if the Prime Minister insists on this, Parliament will be locked out of THE key decision. (And in a worrying sign, the Indication of when Art 50 will be triggered was NOT given to Parliament, but revealed in an interview given to coincide with the Tory Party conference.)

But more bad news is on the horizon - Le Monde is reporting that there will be "un vaste chantier législatif aboutir à un divorce définitif au printemps 2019" (roughly translated - a huge legislative task needed for springtime 2019.) That suggests to the British mind - lots of parliamentary bills leading to primary legislation. But think again, will it be secondary legislation? Pushed through with minimal opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny? (The supposedly weaker French parlement has had to put up with a limited role in legislation - because their Constitution specifically gives the Executive the power to legislate). By a sleight of hand is the Westminster Parliament about to be similarly neutered?

These are questions that need urgently to be answered.

A progressive future?

There's a lot of gloom around concerning the future for the parties of "the Left". The Conservatives seemed to be entrenched in power in Britain. Many wonder whether they will see another Labour government in their lifetime. Right wing nationalism has had an excellent year - Despite their own internal weaknesses UKIP had much to celebrate with the referendum result, the AfD has had its successes in Germany, Many think that Le Pen will be in the second (& final!) round of the French presidential election next spring - and Donald Trump is the Republican candidate in the US Presidential Election.

Does anybody expect (or want) Hollande to win in France? Hillary seems to be attracting votes, not for what she is or would do, but because she is NOT Donald Trump. What do progressives have to offer?

This is the key question that we must face. Working harder to get Labour/the Democrats/le Parti socialiste/ the SPD elected isn't the answer. My colleagues/comrades HAVE worked very hard. Effort is not the problem, but our ideas are. We need to adopt and articulate ideas which can win the enthusiasm of a MAJORITY of the electorate. (OK, enough of the electorate to be able to enter government).

And actually we are doing that. I'm writing this in Manchester -  where Labour has 95 out of the 96 seats on the City Council. There is a Labour Police & Crime Commissioner (& last year Labour won 3 more across the country - including Willy Bach's spectacular win in Leicestershire).

To move ahead we have to get closer to the people we seek to represent. We have to give power back to people - NOT hoard it at Westminster. We should be championing decision making at the local level (and not draining it away by stealth - as the Tories have done with schools and the Regional Schools Commissioners).

But we also need to be talking & working with our neighbours. Rallies are fine - but have nothing to do with enthusing the currently uncommitted. Handing out or delivering leaflets is no substitute for listening to what our neighbours say (and think).

Following the ins and outs of national politics may be interesting (I am an addict), but the problem that requires our greatest attention is how we engage with the only people that will make a Labour/PS/SPD/Democrat Election victory possible - our neighbours.

And on from Liverpool...

I'm writing this at Liverpool Lime Street Station. I'll soon be on the way home to Milton Keynes. As ever, there is plenty to think about - issues to reflect upon further - new campaigning tools and techniques to try out. Conference should be stimulating - and I always find it is. I'll be honest, I prefer the fringe meetings; the chats with exhibitors, the discussions with old and new friends - to speeches in the main hall.

So what am I taking away from Liverpool? I'm encouraged by the enthusiasm shown by some - and the energy they are bringing into the party? It can be tiring being a progressive - but we can never let ourselves become tired. At most there are 44 months until the next General Election - and it may come sooner. In the meantime there are hundreds of country, district & parish council seats to be won - and services delivered. We need enthusiasm and energy.

But to do that we have to persuade neighbours, friends and fellow citizens that we have the capability to make a real - positive - difference. We have to discuss ideas - a process which involve debate and the use of argument. That could be messy, but need not be. We need to show that we can engage with people who might not share our passion - but can agree with our principles.

There was some unedifying behaviour at conference. Some people got personal. Some put winning arguments and scoring points above addressing the challenge of convincing voters. ALL this is unsustainable. Let's move on.

Why Labour Members are backing Owen Smith

This article appeared on Owen Smith's website - and sets out reasons given by members why they will be voting for him. This piece accurately reflects MY views as a progressive.

Here are the top 5 reasons that Labour Party members have given for getting involved in the campaign to elect Owen Smith as Leader of the Labour Party.

1) Because Owen can form an effective opposition to challenge the Tories' deep austerity cuts and unfair Brexit negotiations

“I'm backing Owen because he realises, intrinsically, that real change in people's lives comes through achieving power. This country is crying out for a Labour opposition that can take the Tories to task on the Brexit negotiations, on the austerity agenda and on the continued privatisation of the NHS. Owen Smith can deliver the opposition that people up and down this country deserve!” - Alexander 

“I am backing Owen because I want a leader who can deal with the press, who can present a real challenge to the current government, who can build and unite a full, strong and experienced shadow cabinet but most of all who heart and soul wants to win the next election.” - Fran

2) Owen can reunite our Party, so we can take the fight to the Tories.

“I voted for Jeremy last time, his strong and hopeful message inspired me. Since then I've seen the party I love fall apart. Owen has the policies and the ability to take us back into government.” - Johnathan

“I'm backing Owen because he can build the bridges between the membership and the elected representatives to unite us in a common purpose - a Labour government. He has already shown he can hold the Tories to account effectively and he will stand up for the things we in the Labour Party care passionately about. He is a team player and a team leader.” - Sarah

 3) Because Owen believes in fighting social inequality

“I grew up in a working class community with a single mother who had to choose between feeding her children and heating the house. I don't want the next generation to live through the same. Jeremy Corbyn can't win over the voters we need to form a government, but I believe Owen Smith can.” - Vince

 4) Because Owen has the right policies, to drive the Labour Party

“Owen to me represents the hope and future we can have as a united country in these turbulent times. A hope that Britain can prosper, but Owen's promises are also backed up by genuine policies. I joined the Labour party not because I wanted to be a part of a protest movement that is destined to be in opposition, but because I wanted to be part of a political party that has a real chance of getting back into government and that can change the lives of people in Britain for the better.” - Hannah

“I am backing Owen because ideals need to be backed by political action. I have never felt more in tune with a politician since Owen Smith said, "It's not enough to be anti-austerity, you've got to be pro something." Austerity was always a terrible economic plan, but saying that means absolutely nothing when we have nothing to replace it with. Owen will formulate the policies that can kick the Tories out of office.” - Oliver 

 5) Because Owen can win the next election, for all those that desperately need a Labour Government

 “At nearly 83 years old, having campaigned for Labour since I was a teenager in 1945, I know how vital a Labour government is.” - Edna 

“I'm backing Owen Smith to be our next Labour Prime Minister because I love my party. I joined because I wanted to make a difference in this country, but to make a difference we need to be in Government. We now need a credible leader with a radical message, and that person is Owen Smith.” - James 

Owen Smith's Workplace Manifesto

On Wednesday Owen Smith announced his Workplace Manifesto, which details his plan to deliver a revolution in workers’ rights. These measures will make Britain the envy of the world for employment rights and job security - under Owen’s leadership real change will be made.

Below are each of Owen’s commitments, with the steps needed to achieve them.

 

Improve collective Trade Union rights

 

1. Strengthen union recognition rights to provide for recognition where majority support is clear.

 

2. Provide mandatory access arrangements to workplaces for trade unions where requested by workers.

 

3. Amend the law to remove unfair obstacles to industrial action, unfair time limits, and opportunities to use injunctions to obstruct democratic votes. Ensure law complies with ILO standards.

 

4. End use of sweetheart unions to avoid recognition.

 

5. Modernise balloting with e-balloting to increase participation.

 

6. Repeal the Trade Union Act 2016 immediately on taking office

 

Improve individual rights for working people

 

1. Introduce Day One employment rights.

 

2. Enhance definition of “worker” in employment law, to outlaw bogus selfemployment, strengthen rights and address agency labour issues.

 

3. Outlaw exclusively foreign recruitment.

 

4. Require all workers to receive a statement of rights, pay, hours, living wage

and average wage.

 

5. Outlaw zero hours contracts.

 

6. Introduce compensation for cancelled shifts.

 

7. Restore access to justice for workers by abolishing fees for Employment 

 

8. Strengthen enforcement of the National Living Wage.

 

9. Strengthen enforcement of Health and Safety legislation, including restoring civil liability for breach of regulations and restore Health and Safety protection for self employed workers.

 

Ensuring a voice for people at work

 

1. Worker representation on all Remuneration Committees.

 

2. Information and Consultation rules to apply to companies of over 50 employees without restrictive trigger requirements.

 

3. Protect Works Councils in larger companies in the event of a Tory Brexit by introducing Works Councils with similar powers and composition (including trade union reps where present) to all companies with over 500 employees

 

Strengthen collective bargaining

 

1. Introduce Modern Wages Councils to cover 9 million workers in Hospitality, Retail and Social Care. Membership of Councils would be balanced between employers, TU reps and workers. Responsibilities would include to negotiate minimum terms and conditions, gender and race equality, access for disabled workers and at least a living wage in the sector.

 

2. Provide a legal framework for voluntary sectoral collective bargaining in other sectors with universally applicable wage rates and provide tax and investment

incentives to encourage participation in such voluntary sectoral arrangements.

 

3. Restore full collective bargaining and end pay freezes in the public sector. National pay bargaining to continue in Health, Local Government and Education

and to be restored in the Civil Service - with Pay Review Board decisions to be respected. Require contracted out services to pay comparable rates. 

 

Achieving lasting  equality

 

1. New Equal Pay legislation, to close the gender pay gap.

 

2. Simplify the enforcement of equality law and abolish fees for Employment Tribunals.

 

3. Reintroduce discrimination questionnaires and employments rights from Day One, for workers with protected characteristics including pregnant women, older and young workers, LGBT workers and disabled workers.

 

4. Require publication of race equality plans for all companies over a certain size.

 

5. Require publication of the highest and lowest rates of pay for all companies with over 20 employees

 

Protecting workers rights after the EU referendum

 

1. Defend workers’ rights in the Brexit negotiation process, where UK labour law and Heath and Safety regulations directly flow from our EU membership.

 

2. Insist on a seat at the table for Labour in the negotiation process.

 

3. Put the terms of the Brexit deal to the British people in a second referendum or at a General Election for their final say

The State of Play

We live in interesting times! - and frankly, worrying times. My nightmare scenario involves

Trump winning the US Presidency (though losing it may bring its own problems - he's already talking about a conspiracy to 'steal the election' from him!)

The Labour Party in Britain opting for purity over power, and re-electing Jeremy Corbyn as leader of a dysfunctional opposition. That might increase the chances of the Scots moving closer to independence as Tory hegemony over Westminster extends beyond the short term.

Sarkozy or Le Pen winning the French Presidency....

Today I will summarise the state of play in the various UK party leadership elections.


LABOUR PARTY

Owen Smith is challenging the incumbent Jeremy Corbyn for leader. Edible voters (Labour Party members; Registered supporters (who signed up and paid during a brief window in July) and Affiliated Supporters (members of affiliated trade unions, socialist societies and other affiliated organisations who individually sign up as affiliated supporters before next Monday) - will be sent ballot papers (Members only) and an email with instructions on voting electronically - from 22nd August. Ballot papers must be returned (or online voting completed) by noon on 21st September. The result be be announced immediately prior to the start of the Labour Conference the following weekend.

Owen Smith's website can be accessed at http://www.owen2016.com

Jeremy Corbyn's website can be accessed at http://www.jeremycorbyn.org.uk 


UKIP

The favourite to succeed Nigel Farage was disqualified because computer problems meant his online application was only successfully received minutes AFTER the deadline closed. (you couldn't make this up! - but serves as a warning to any students submitting essays or eTMAs (OU) close to the cut off time!!!)

The candidates are

Jonathan Arnott - an MEP for North East England. Aged 35

Phillip Broughton - a former UKIP candidate in the parliamentary seat of Hartlepool

Lisa Duffy - A Cambridgeshire councillor , who is a party organiser. She is a former chief of staff for Patrick O'Flynn - a UKIP MEP. If she wins, he will be HER deputy.

Bill Etheridge - 46 year old who is both an MEP and a Dudley councillor.

Diane James - an MEP for South East England - an admirer of Putin.

Elizabeth Jones - a member of UKIPs NEC and the deputy chair of UKIP in Lambeth.

A new approach to politics

Please submit any comments - either on this blog - or directly to me at washminster@me.com

Why Owen Smith deserves a close look

The leadership election is on - and Labour Party members and supporters have the opportunity to reflect on the future of the party - and consider which path to take. There are serious decisions to make - and as a Labour Party member for over 40 years, I want to see ideas which will lead to a Labour Government.

Owen Smith has set out his vision - and I invite you to consider his ideas. I welcome any comments.

 
The MP says he will tackle inequality and transform the tax system if he becomes leader of the Labour Party

Owen Smith today sets out bold plans to overhaul the tax system and give workers a pay rise.

The Labour leadership contender ­promised to bring back wage councils to stop greedy bosses exploiting staff.

And he pledged to ­transform the tax system to end the “ballooning” inequality in Britain.

In an interview with the Daily Mirror, Mr Smith also reached out to supporters of Jeremy Corbyn by claiming he would be just as “radical” as the left-wing Labour chief.

He said: “My offer is that in me you have someone just as radical as Jeremy. I will bow to no one in terms of my socialist belief, my heroes are Nye Bevan and Keir Hardie, great Labour titans.

“I will take their legacy forward but communicate to people and give people faith we can do it.” Setting out his stall, the Pontypridd MP pledged plans for a £200billion investment fund to build schools, transport links and hospitals and kick start the economy.

He also wants to rewrite Clause Four – Labour’s defining mission statement – to include a duty to tackle inequality.

At the heart of this will be the reintroduction of wage councils – a forum for bosses, unions, workers and the Government – to agree pay, terms and conditions. Wage councils were set up in the 1930s but the majority were phased out by the Tories in the 1980s and 1990s. The last to go was the Agricultural Wages Board, which was axed in England under David Cameron.

Mr Smith said he fought for Wales to keep its own Agricultural Wages Board and, as a result, farm workers there are now paid 6% more than their equivalents in England.

He continued: “That’s a model we should be thinking about right across our economy.

“I think there’s a real case for re-inventing modern wage councils, operating sector by sector, looking at the specific terms and conditions in individual sectors and arguing for better terms and wages for workers in those sectors.

“They were a brilliant way in which we gave working people a bulwark against employers eroding wages and it was a way in which people could bind together and argue for better terms and conditions.

"I would start with retail and hospitality where so many workers, in particular women, are often working in insecure circumstances on low wages and often on zero hours contracts.

“Other countries have these still, Germany has them, Sweden has them.

“They are very powerful way in which you have an independent debate about the right wage levels and argue in that forum for better terms and conditions.”

The Welsh MP, who has pledged to bring back the 50p tax rate for high earners, also said he would transform the way people are taxed. He added: “We need to go further than that [the 50p higher rate]. We need to ­overhaul our tax system.

“The last Labour government was too timid in looking at taxation – we haven’t had a major overhaul of tax in this country for many, many generations.”

On the current Leader -

“[Jeremy]  left Labour sidelined in the debate. We are not thought of as being a government in waiting. We are not thought of as being a credible government and that is a dereliction of duty on his behalf because we have to be about winning power in order to put our principles and values into practices.”

Mr Smith insisted he could continue carrying Mr Corbyn’s torch of fighting for social justice and economic reform while also being able to “heal the party.”

And in a dig at the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown years, Mr Smith said there would be none of the “nuance and timidity” of recent Labour governments.

He said: “We can’t just say we are anti-austerity, what does it mean to be pro-prosperity? For me that means a Labour government doing traditional Labour things: investing in our communities, investing in public services, investing in the infrastructure we need – schools, hospitals, new roads.

“It’s not rocket science, it’s a traditional Labour platform I am standing on. If we can get back to that without some of the nuance and timidity we have seen in the Labour Party, the managerialism that has held us back from being radical in the past, then we can have a new Labour offer to the country that people would realise is properly Labour but fit for the 21st century.”

What now for Labour?

The Conservatives have a new Prime Minister - who could remain in power until (and beyond?) a General Election in May 2020. She could also engineer an early General Election. Most ministerial posts are now filled - and Parliament is about to head off the summer.

Labour faces a less certain future. Their current leader has lost the confidence of almost 80% of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Opinion polls suggest that he commands the confidence of only a small part of the electorate. An election for the party leadership is now underway.

MPs will meet to put nominations, as Constituency Labour Parties - either have done, or will do in the next few days.

You will have access to many opinions and news stories in the coming days. I will happily share my views with you - and my reasons. But today I want to street something that is often overlooked.

The value of looking at history - 

No leader of ANY political party has had an easy time of leading their party. I've heard many friends in the Labour Party wish that we could return to the days when leaders could command the support of all members of the parliamentary party. Those days NEVER existed. Attlee had to manage conflicting egos (and boy were some of those huge - Bevin, Bevan, Morrison, Cripps - to name just a few) and very different policy preferences during his premiership. Wilson was a skilled operator, but his ability to manage was severely tested. Callaghan struggled (and he was a very skilled operator!) with a fractious party and a majority that disappeared. Blair and Brown faced rebellions from the very start of their premierships. They could all describe their challenges - in fact they have. We have a wealth of Prime Ministerial and ministerial memoirs and diaries. If nothing else is to be gained from reading these, we can at least begin to appreciate the extraordinary skills demanded of anyone who hopes to lead the main Opposition party; or to be Prime Minister.

No one can please all the people, all of the time. But to step into Downing Street as Prime Minister requires that the party leader can enthuse sufficient people to vote for their party. If Labour want to take power - and have the opportunity to fulfil their manifesto promises - they must win 13 million votes. That means appealing to a wide range of views. There are detailed election studies showing what attracted and what repealed voters. A study of those can be useful.

The Lords

As employers (and employees) have known down the centuries - job security enhances independence. This also applies to the House of Lords. There's no de-selection if a Peer speaks his or her mind - upsetting the party hierarchy. As a result the House of Lords is harder to manage - and questions can be direct and embarrassing, especially for the Government. There are a number of progressive peers - and they are ACTIVE.

The full business for this week can be found on the parliamentary website - www.parliament.uk but I'd like to highlight some matters which will be coming up.

Today, in the 30 minutes of oral questions - subjects relevant to my home city of Milton Keynes come up. One is about continuing the centuries old practice of printing master copies of Acts of Parliament on vellum. This is done in Newport Pagnell. The other question concerns when the Government can terminate a rail franchise where it has failed to provide the service required. This is about Southern Railway - which used to provide a service through west London onto Croydon from Milton Keynes.

Tomorrow a question will be put by Lord Roberts of Llandudno about how the government intends to fulfill its promise to accept 20,000 refugees from Syria by 2020.

On Wednesday Lord McKenzie of Luton will ask how the government intends "to address the causes of the increase in the number of council tenants in receipt of Universal Credit who are in rent arrears"

Thursday will see a debate on the case for tackling the causes of poverty in the UK.

The Investigatory Powers Bill will be considered in Committee (of the whole House) today and on Wednesday

Action REQUIRED

What do the findings of the Chilcot Inquiry and the current post-Brexit mess that we are in have In common?

They reveal that the structure of institutions and safeguards against the abuse - and failings in the use of - power in this country are inadequate. We can blame individuals - and should do so - but our Constitutional structure has proved sadly lacking.

I have been putting forward the following thesis for all of my political and academic life - but please bear with me - I believe it has merit, and relevance.

Lord Acton highlighted that "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely". Our Constitution addressed that final point in The 17th Century. It is the undeniable truth of the first phrase which demands that adequate "checks and balances" are built into the Constitutional structure of any State. The convention which led to the US Constitution discussed methods of doing that. Our checks and balances arose in response to particular events - have been moderately useful - but are now clearly not up to the job. "Conventions" - in the British constitutional sense of "non-legally binding principles, which Constitutional actors REGARD as binding on them" are not enough. In the lead-up to the Iraq War - and before and after the Brexit referendum - there were insufficient constraints - or guidance - for key politicians. Chilcot is scathing about how the system allowed Decisions and Policy to be made without proper control from other parts of the System. Brexit shows that fears of the 'tyranny of the Majority' have not been properly addressed, and that the conflicting ideas of Parliamentary and Popular Sovereignty have not been resolved. In Our current constitutional crisis, we are essentially "making it up as we go along."

We need clearer principles - and checks & balances which are useful. How are Rights to be protected if a referendum can be effectively binding, on the basis of a bare, perhaps even a challenged threadbare majority which doesn't even enjoy the support of half the country? A "super-majority" threshold could address that issue. Binding only if a proposition changing the Constitutional settlement gets the support of a set percentage (and we should debate the figure - not too high to make change practically impossible, but not too low that a minority turning out could impose their will on the rest of us). Scrutiny of decision making - be it by other members of Cabinet, or through Parliamentary committees, or external review needs to be CENTRAL to Our Constitutional structure, and not developed as ad-hoc responses to events. The Media can - and does - play a role in not allowing claims made in an election or referendum to go unchallenged - but I certainly feel some sections of Our Media played a disgraceful role in spreading untruths - or gave demonstrably untrue assertions of fact equal weighting with arguments backed by evidence.

We have come a long way in recent years - but as this month has shown, not far enough.

Revolution!

A happy Independence Day to all our friends from the USA. To celebrate the day the text of the Declaration is set out below - it's always worth reading and reflecting on - because it is founded on so many important ideas - which remain important today.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. 
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. 
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: 
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. 
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. 
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The Paranoid Style

In the 1950s and 60s, an historian called Richard Hofstadter wrote a number of essays, which included "The Paranoid Syle in American Politics". It was a response to the McCarthyite hysteria and the rise of the (then - sadly not by today's standards) extreme conservatism of Barry Goldwater. It's an interesting book for all students of American history and politics.

Sometimes we Brits are amazed by the crazy things that go on in the States. Honestly - Donald Trump as the Republican candidate for the Presidency?????

But this book describes a phenomenon which we are now seeing in the UK. I heard some really weird conspiracy theories aired in the EU Referendum. It's been reported that some voters were taking pens to the polling stations as the pencils were provided so that inconvenient votes could be rubbed out if they weren't what "the authorities" wanted.

And some of the tweets and Facebook postings that I've seen - in the debate about the Labour leadership are unbelievable - this appeared in one comment that appeared on my Facebook feed

"....Especially, the amount of corrupted councillors and MP's who are associated with the Bilderberg group, free mason etc. And the links of this labour party has with Bilderberg group and the back handers it's getting from elite and the filthy rich to manipulate governments to their own advantages."

and lots of other comments have been made suggesting international conspiracies by sinister forces.

I would encourage you to read this excellent book - it is both a history and exposer of the tactics - powerful tactics - that exploit fear. We need to consider how to respond to this rising tide of fear-mongering.

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!)

Is there a viable alternative?

I argued in my post "Three Competing Views", that within the western democracies (and particularly the UK and USA), the major battle was now between "Regressives" on one side and "progressives" with "traditional conservatives" on the other.

In the two great electoral battles going on this year - the EU Referendum in the UK, and the Presidential Election (but let's not forget the Congressional; State & Local elections - also on November 8th) in the USA - we have seen the approach taken by "Regressives". It is bold, assertive & plays to fears and prejudice. While we might be appalled at that - these tactics work! As well as being active in campaigning - I am at heart an academic. I like to look at the "science" behind elections - and I'm afraid that what works may not be to our taste. I thoroughly recommend Sasha Issenberg's "The Victory Lab". It shows what  techniques research has shown  to be effective - and voter suppression; fear; guilt work.




Does this mean that we are condemned to ape the tactics so powerfully used by the "Regressives"? or consign ourselves to permanent defeat? I wish I could give a confident, easy answer - but it's complicated. Both the Democrats in the USA and the Labour Party in Britain have learned from, and used, what the "science" has shown to be effective. I would urge progressives to refuse to use unethical means of acquiring and holding on to power.

But I'm not advocating surrender. There have always been those who are prepared to use any means,  however foul, to acquire and hold on to power. The twentieth Century is full of horrific examples - yet progressives have won power - and haven't had to sell their souls to do so.

I put forward some suggestions for discussions. Please do send me your comments - we need this debate.

First - we need to expose the grubby techniques that are being used. One of the most insidious aspects of the tactics of the "Regressives" is that they are done 'under the radar'. People can get angry when they see that trickery and deception is being used to try to deceive them. I always remember Bruce George (Labour MP for Walsall South 1974-2010) back in February 1974 using Lewis Carroll's "The Hunting of the Snark" to illustrate these tactics - "What I tell you three times is true". George used it to draw attention to his prospective voters what his opponents were up to. We must not merely 'tut' when we read the "Fact-Checker" we must draw the lies to the attention of the public. We must expose the contradictions in arguments put forward. We must share with each other, and the electorate, what these people are up to.

Second we need to show that there is a better way. Trump and the Brexiters put a lot of emphasis on confrontation and aggressive competition. Yet people don't think that politics carried out in this way is working. We need to stress that the great lessons of history show that confrontation and intransigence achieve little of positive value (but much that can be VERY negative). We need to make a positive case for
- Discussion
- Negotiation and
- Cooperation.
The Labour Party Constitution (Clause IV) - which is printed and highlighted on every members' membership card - states that the Party "believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone". We need to be stressing that - and arguing that it is a better approach than division and conflict.

Thirdly we need to work on speaking WITH people - not at them. The current "wisdom" is that door knocking is not for attempting to PERSUADE people, but to get enough information in order to predict their likelihood of voting, and voting for us at forthcoming elections. Actually, we need a dialogue - we need to listen to peoples concerns (and to seek to understand - even if what we hear is unpleasant). This was central to the thinking of Saul Alinsky




and Paul Wellstone



Let US talk about how we can do that more effectively. (This Blog is always welcome to publish guest contributors - please send them directly to me.).

Fourthly, we need to draw attention to ideology. I know that worries some people. I'll be honest with you - I've steered clear of talking ideology with electors (the legacy of many wasted hours in the Young Socialists during the late 1970s). But do we need to put on an intense gaze  as we talk in the language of obscure French  theorists? We need to explain, in ordinary words, the implications of our beliefs and the ideology of the "regressives". Brexit makes perfect sense if you believe in extreme individualism and the superiority of unrestricted competition. People understand the good sense of Sam Rayburn's "If you want to get along, go along." - it applies in families and in work. The Trump approach is ultimately self-defeating. Progressive ideology makes sense to us - we have to learn how to share that with others. We believe that "regressive" ideology is destructive. Let's not think that attacking characters can substitute for explaining the ideological underpinning the differences that exist in politics.

Please do send me your comments.  (Click on the highlighted text at the bottom of this post - on the same line as Posted by J David Morgan at 05:30 - if no one else has sent a comment it will say "No comment" or if they have, "x comments" (x being the number of comments made & published - in order to avoid "spam" posts - I read each comment before I publish them on the blog)