Democracy in Disrepute

© OECD

The United Kingdom has for long prided itself on having one of the world’s most highly regarded democracies. The history and workings of the parliamentary political system have facilitated the smooth transition of power for generations. However, recent going ons has meant that its gilded reputation has become less than sparkling. In recent times other than Tony Blair and David Cameron there hasn’t been a prime minister that has been elected into the post. Now a new prime minister is about to be chosen but by a narrow partisan political group rather than a national mandate. Of the two contenders for prime minister; one is seeking to defund civil servants who work in the North, and the other wants to defund deprived neighbourhoods all over the country. So we are left to put up with a pantomine prime minister playing out his last days; and two witless clowns spouting inanities in the slap dash scramble to succeed him in the circus.

The parliamentary and presidential political systems in the United Kingdom and United States are generally considered to be the foremost examples of the democratic process. However, neither of them actually make provision for the country prime minister or president to be elected directly by a straightforward majority count of votes. The U.K. is comprised of four nations yet in recent years the country’s prime minister has come from a political party that barely wins enough votes to come second in three of those nations. And still the prime minister is able to assume office as the leader of a United Kingdom! In America there have been two recent elections in which the winner of the presidency actually failed to win the popular vote. At least Vladimir Putin had the decency to dispense with the people’s mandate and take power by trickery and scheming. 

Across the world democratic elections now represent a trade off between partisan jingoism and nationalist fear mongering. Ideology and public service barely get a look in anymore. The notion of a democracy being a government of the people for the people has become a distant ideal. Now government’s get voted in to protect special interests. No true democracy should elect a national leader without a national vote in which the whole electorate gets a say. France’s elections are one of those to adopt this approach but even  then it doesn’t guarantee the election of a universally liked candidate. Too often a compromise has to be settled on between aspirants who might often be considered a choice between bad and worse. 

Democracy has evolved from from a political idea into a universal ideal. However, a system in which the will of the citizens is subverted by the desires of a select few is not ideal or even acceptable. However, while a powerful elite only seek to perpetuate their control and power then the majority will remain disenfranchised. 

Labour Party's Halfway Housing Hokum

One thing Karl Marx made clear was that first principles don't add up to much if they are not backed by a sound working theory. Jeremy Corbyn is very quick to flaunt his socialist credentials but it has become clear that he has no idea of what a coherent theory of socialism for the 21st century should be. He doesn't seem able to define the role of a socialist government in relation to public services, economic production or social welfare. The Labour Party's new housing proposals seem to be another example of him lacking the rigour to define a fair and responsible approach without alarming a section of the electorate.

Labour's new housing policy proposes more action against 'rogue landlords', more new builds including social provision and reversing housing welfare reforms. These sound appealing but are mostly populist attempts to sway voters rather than a genuine effort to reform housing policy. Focus mostly on building more homes for sale will further the ambitions of the middle class and increase urban purge of poorer working class groups. There's no mention of support for sustainable housing.

A genuine socialist housing policy would come up with rent control proposals for inner city and urban areas, scrapping of right to buy policy and targeting help to buy solely at essential staff. That way low income and young people have improved access to affordable rental accommodation in accessible areas. It will also ensure that social housing is targeted at those most in need. This will provide an opportunity to reform council housing allocation policy.

While these Labour proposals will do some good; yet again Corbyn sacrifices coherence for convenience. Housing requires both policy reform and attitudinal change. A cohesive policy that will change things for the better for the most people over the longest time is what is needed. The Labour Party's proposals offer little more than more of the same.

Carry on Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn appears to be failing both as the leader of the Labour Party and the leader of the opposition. He has alienated most of Labour's parliamentary party and still seems unable, reluctant even, to develop an effective working relationship with them. When he was voted leader of the Labour Party the hope was that he would rescue the party from the centrist reactionary mode it was stuck in. Maybe he would bring a more person friendly and compassionate approach to policy making. Unfortunately it appears he is stuck in a past of grandstanding soap box politics where people make loud speeches and promise to give power back to the people. Unfortunately, in this day and age what people want are wealth and security. Neither of which Corbyn has a plan for.

There are major concerns about how the UK government is handling the process of exiting the European Union. However Corbyn seems determined to do all he can to ensure that Article 50 is triggered as quickly as possible. He hasn't come up with any proposals for dealing with quitting the single market or handling the ending of free movement agreements. Two issues that are fundamental to the future wealth and welfare of Britain. It's almost as if he's expecting Brexit to lead to a revolution which will end in the people rising up and overthrowing the government. Given that Corbyn's ideas have not been revolutionary, or even evolutionary, it is highly unlikely that he will be at the forefront of that revolution should it materialise.

It could be said that inexperience and constant talk of leadership challenges have undermined and impeded Corbyn's tenure. He however has repeatedly gone rogue with statements not in line with Labour Party policy and clearly not discussed with beforehand with his cabinet or MPs. He has failed to adequately engage with influential groups in the Labour Party and put forward an effective front as opposition. This has also meant that the Labour Party has not successfully presented itself to the public as a government in waiting. In fact, it has not come up with any clear positions on the economy, transportation, health, housing or immigration.

It is unlikely that the Labour Party can win a future election under Corbyn. He could however do a better job of holding the government to account. And maybe developing a policy framework that presents a viable and attractive alternative to the current brand of fascistic conservatism being shoved down our throats at the moment.