We have long cherished our particular form of democracy and refer to our Parliament as the “Mother of all Parliaments”. We have long emphasised to others, both those we have colonised and more recently those we have not, that our form of representative democracy is the most appropriate model and is the one to be copied throughout the civilised world. So how truly representative of the electorate is it nowadays?
Assembly democracy in one form or another was born in Athens around 5 BC or modern Iraq at the same time, depending on which history you believe, however it is certain that the development of our representative democracy did not fully flower until much later in the early 20th Century when women were fully enfranchised as a result of the WSPU (Suffragists) efforts led by Emmeline Pankhurst, labelled a terrorist at the time, to which her response was tellingly:

“The grievances of those who have got power, the influence of those who have got power commands a great deal of attention; but the wrongs and grievances of those people who have no power at all are apt to be absolutely ignored. That is the history of humanity right from the beginning.”
Emmeline Pankhurst- Freedom or Death Speech- 13th November 1913- Harford Connecticutt

In light of historical fact it is probably presumptuous of us to claim very much in the development of Democracy as it is today. Those accolades belong in other countries and shores that were well ahead of us in full enfranchisement of all their citizens.
So, what of now and the form of democracy, which is ours today?

Voting Patterns

Let us examine first some of the voting patterns which have elected our representative governments of the day.
Voter turnout has steadily declined from a high of over 84% after the Second World War to less than 66% at the last election.
Only 2/3rds of people who have the vote use it.
What is the impact on the level of turnout required then to elect a “representative government?”

In 2010 the Tories received 36% of the vote. Only one person in three actually voted for this government. The last successful individual party was Labour in 2005 with only 35% of the vote. The Lib Dems in 2010 received 23% of the vote, so less than one in four people voted for the party which eventually formed the government with the Tories. Neither of these two parties received sufficient votes to form a government and yet under our representative rules they could go ahead and form a government without the permission of the electorate.
I suppose one could argue that 59% of the total vote represents a first past the post majority but ask voters who voted for either party how they feel about that and I am sure the answers in the majority would be, No! I do not like the policies of the other party in government and would not have voted in this way if I thought that the current government did not truly represent my views and translate those into policy.

Current Political Party Demography

Perhaps more importantly let us examine the demography of the main political parties.

The common factors amongst the dominant Tories in government and most poignant in the cabinet which includes the Liberal Democrats, are the narrow sociological factors drawing this group of people together in a dominant political affiliation.

A Public School Education, this is often glossed over or completely omitted when researching the current cabinet members biographies. Only 7% of people are privileged enough to attend these fee paying schools.

Attendance at a Russell Group University overwhelmingly Oxbridge and particularly graduates in Law. Nearly 37% of Oxbridge places are filled by people from the 7% of privileged fee paying public schools and the average cost of this education is over £150,000.

A limited and narrow upper middle class upbringing.

Mainly white males, with very few women and almost no people from a BME background.

The Labour Party Shadow cabinet is also dominated by people from this narrow stratum of society and this in the party founded by the Working Class in 1900 to give a voice to the Working Classes resulting in a landslide victory to form the government after the Second World War. Post that zenith and after sometime in the political doldrums due to errant leadership and counter productive policies, Tony Blair decided that the gentrification of the Party was the only way for it to be both credible and elected. Sometimes known by the chattering classes disparagingly as “Champagne Socialists.” It’s easy to be a socialist when you can fall back on a privileged upbringing, and who collectively are remarkably similar in values and beliefs to the Tories and The Liberal Democrats, who as a party have also reneged on their core policies just to be in power. Aaaah, that wonderful aphrodisiac, which somehow manages to suppress the highest of political ideals merely for a sniff of House of Commons leather seating, on the right side of the house.

Many of our MP’s nowadays move from these privileged universities, to political research roles and then seamlessly to safe seats without even entering the world of work, save to spend a minimum amount of time in an unpaid internship both engineered through their privileged power networks and supported by Bank of “Mum and Dad”.

Ask anyone who has an interest in politics and wishes to enter the political world in order to be an MP or a Local Councillor what the process is and I suggest it becomes both very difficult and convoluted unless you join a mainstream political party or are willing to invest a huge amount of your own capital to be a successful independent.

Conclusions

It appears that we are only able to elect a group of people from a very narrow group of society who often appear collectively to have no idea of the rigours and obstacles that ordinary people face on a day to day basis in terms of employment, housing, education, travel and bringing up a family. Voter apathy maybe to blame but it begs the question why is the electorate so apathetic and continues to become more apathetic as time goes on. My conclusion, which is based only on anecdotal evidence although I am sure there will be some statistical polls to support this, is lack of trust in our politicians and lack of leadership by the political elite.
Examples of this assail us in the media constantly and are highlighted with scandals of MP’s expenses, Leveson etc, but a couple of individual examples spring to mind which encapsulate this continuing mendacity and lack of veracity from our political leaders over many years.
The infamous Paxman-Howard interview on Newsnight, where the question was posed eleven times in one form or another by Paxman without a reply of any semblance of a direct answer by Howard and of course more recently the Marr- Cameron interview, where when asked if he had spoken to Crosby, his political advisor with interests in the corporate world of tobacco about cigarette packaging, the obfuscating replies moved over time by Cameron from “not lobbied” to “did not intervene” but never answered the question of “Did you speak with Lynton Crosby on this subject?”

The natural conclusion is because of your obfuscation that you (Cameron) probably did.So say so and state clearly that it did not influence your decision.

We may not have a truly representative democracy but it would certainly stick in our throats less if we could have confidence in their leadership and believed what they told us.
The essence of leadership is and always has been authenticity and consistency and the result is trust and confidence even if the governing political party is not truly representative of that most recently patronising descriptive phrase “The Great British Public” whoever that includes.
The lack of representation is not just an issue of elitism but also of authentic and consistent leadership which may well be a leadership principle for all leaders at all levels in all areas of society.

References:-
Great Speeches of the 20th Century- Preface 2008
The Life and Death of Democracy- John Keane- Simon and Schuster 2009

So as usual the political commentators are now adding their hue and cry to the recent Eastleigh bye election result and if you believe all the comments, they either rationalise down into “a momentous shift in UK politics ” or ” nothing more than a mid term election blip as  result of a protest vote”.

So what is the truth?

It seems to me there are three key factors involved here which are all significant in their own way.

The global economic backdrop.

The coalition policies.

Political trust.

The global economic backdrop is one over which most politicians have little or no influence. Whether it is Cameron huffing and puffing around Europe insisting on demonstrating his power and influence over our European neighbours to his home electorate or Clegg insisting that his lies and deceit were not meant and now his hands are tied in order to hold on to office or Miliband continuing to avoid apologising for the economic policies of his party in office, it seems to me that we are not all in this together nationally or internationally and as usual when people find themselves in difficulty the natural tendency is to look after one’s own. We see this in current economic policy, at home and abroad, which is demonstrably widening the gap between rich and poor and is becoming progressively more and more socially divisive. 

The coalition policies are clearly not working for certain sections of society and this is causing political alienation of large tracts of our society. They intuitively know that if one is economically hidebound then the opportunities for education which can lift one from the deprivation they are experiencing is less and less available. That if they become ill or seriously sick then the opportunities for treatment and recovery in a reasonable time are also limited. They also realise that the safety net of society is being withdrawn across the board as cuts bite so deep that across Maslow’s hierarchy of needs people are more likely to go hungry and  right down to less likely to have their rubbish collected as often,  and ” The Big Society” actually means you are responsible for your own welfare and if you cannot manage then the philanthropic will take up the slack through charitable giving but the state has less and less responsiblity in looking after those of our society in need. This at the same time as witnessing the continued growth and accumulation of wealth by the rich and their siblings generation after generation through privileged education, unpaid internships and the network of wealth which excludes people even though they are both  intelligent and creative.

These, plus the scandals of impropriety, lack of ethics and downright corruption at the top of our public and business world has caused people to have no trust at all in our societal elite. The pigs are in the trough because that feeds their self interest and because they can. The danger which I believe was demonstrated in Eastleigh is that this creates a “political trust vacuum”  and we have seen throughout history this will inevitably be filled with either right or left wing rhetoric as witnessed by the grinning face of the xenophobic and right wing UKIP leader Farage. He is right when he says ” people are listening to what his party has to say”. People are concerned about immigration and the perceived broad link to the economy and their increasing deprivation through the strain on public services and jobs. He is right when he says ” We have a broad spectrum of people who are voting UKIP”,  because they are frightened and because he is playing into that fear.

The answer for the politicians is to lead. Leadership is most importantly about “Authenticity” and “Consistency”. Simply telling the truth however difficult it is for people to hear, being sincere and not just defending the party and oneself when questioned, creating a relationship with the electorate which is personal and real, bracketing egocentricity and ethnocentricity and appealing genuinely to all members of our society whatever their background. I believe if our leaders lead in a genuine and sincere way, even though the public may not like the message they will respect the messenger and may even vote for them again. We are simply crying out for authentic and consistent leadership if only our business and political leaders would realise this their job would be so much easier.

As the wonderful celebrations of the Diamond Jubilee draw to a resoundingly successful finale, a moment to ponder the ramifications and thoughts for the future.

The Queen came to the throne when I was 4 years old and I knew little about it at the time. I have now lived and served her in public service in the Army and Police Service for 35 years and feel as loyal and honoured to have done so since I first took the oath of allegiance. At no point did I ever feel that she had let me or the country down in any way. She fully deserves our acknowledgement and appreciation for a life of selfless service and duty that she has given throughout her life to us and the nation.

As a product of Empire, created by Empire for the continuance of Empire all people in the now Commonwealth consistently have demonstrated their loyalty and allegiance to her.It has been a very personal relationship. However loyalty is not blinded by deference and times change. Was it right for Gary Barlow a kid from a humble background in Manchester to place his hand on the Queen’s arm to steady her as she crossed the stage at the concert? Yes of course it was.What polite young man would not assist an elderley lady across the road if he saw her struggling?

The Queen has adapted and her position over the years is still ostensibly a benign one,at the whim of politicians who elected by us, ask her to sit down to lunch or invite into her home the most odious characters from around the world in the interests of our country. Uncomplainingly she does it. 

She of course recognises this and knowing that her forefather Charles was beheaded, understands her position can be precarious at times, but she remains the rudder that steadies us in rough seas and the jib that catches the following wind and keeps us all on the track to the future. She is a consummate politician and since a young woman in awe of Winston Churchill when new to the job, she now steers the crop of bright young things in the House of Commons with adeptness. She intuitively adapts to the wishes of her people, albeit with reluctance at times as she demonstrated when being behind the curve over the death of the Princess of Wales. However she always learns from the experience which is the mark of a person who is a great leader.

What of the future? do we really need a “firm” as extensive as it currently is and all the Lords a leaping and Princesses by the bucketful? I don’t think we do. A slimmed down Family is inevitable. We have three generations in place of succession and I am sure that the newly marrieds will soon produce an heir to the throne. It is no longer necessary for the public purse to support those with little chance of succession and perhaps they could best serve us in another way either in business or public service. Deference is dead.

One thing which now troubles me is the lack of diverse people surrounding her. All the froth and bubbles of many diverse people in her sphere of influence are all on the periphery,her close advisers and people close to the family are all people from the establishment,who were formed by the establishment and perhaps give the same advice that she wants to or they think she wants to hear.All the Queens horses and all the Queen’s men are of one ilk. She along with the rest of the family tend to dip in and out of the communities they serve. Lots and lots of excellent charity work is done I know, however look at the honours system. I really don’t see the need to honour a person for being the Queen’s bedchamber person when many people who have fostered literally hundreds of children and saved them by their intervention from a wasted life of sloth are not honoured for instance. I would certainly nominate the couple on the recent 56 UP programme who have done exactly that.

Her Bodyguard, The Household Division and Senior people in the Civil Service, Foreign Office and all the other establishments of government are overwhelmingly mainstream whether they are female or male and certain groups of society tend to dominate.

I urge the Queen to now, in the evening of her reign, to once again adapt the monarchy and recognise that disadvantaged kids and people  all need to see in a proportionate way people like themselves in her service and that there is a chance for them in the new civitas to be given the same opportunities as all other people in her dominion.

Congratulations Your Majesty on your “Diamond Jubilee” and long may you serve us all.

So after 18 years two people have been brought to book for this heinous crime and all because of the overturning of the “double jeopardy” rule.

Initially I was against the rewriting of this cornerstone of British justice as I thought it may lead to trial by the media and public opinion, but times and technology change and in order to keep pace with this, surely it is right, that given strict safeguards, if it means more people being brought to justice for their crimes, then it is generally a good thing.The fact that it is based on new evidence leads me to believe that the sureness of a safe trial is of paramount importance. Did the defendants receive a fair trial? on balance I believe they did.

In any crime there are only 3 types of evidence:-

Forensic, Witness and Admissions and all evidence which is gathered will always fall into one of these categories. There may tend to be an overreliance on Forensic nowadays and we should always remember that this evidence only places the person at the scene, it does not allow us to know what they did whilst there. Hence the “contamination defence” in this trial as the defendants never explained the forensic link to the scene, pursuing instead a now proven lie supported by others that “they were not there”

We have now been fortunate as a society with this trial to have shone a chink of light through an open door into the dark and murky world of racist thuggery, which still exists in our society and is demonstrated by many contingent instances. As recently as this festive season and in the form of the murder of an Indian student in Salford for no apparent reason other than he came from a different cultural background. Let us continue to force the door open to expose this awful crime to the world and demonstrate how we as a nation deal with those who peddle this hate filled animosity to others of a different background.

As the good people of this country demonstrated after the riots, by clearing the detritus of riot from our streets, let’s do the same for racist thuggery. There may not be any forensic evidence now to link others to  this crime due to the time delay or lack of forensic ability, but it is inconceivable that arrogant and ignorant young men such as the other people who participated in this vile act have not boasted to others of their deed and now is the time for the police to use all means at their disposal to help overcome the fear or misguided loyalties of people who know what happened and help them to come forward as witnesses and say so in open court and convict the others involved and shine the light fully so that justice is seen to be done and the Lawrences’ as a family can grieve at last for their son.

Times have changed and these racist and xenophobic views are diminishing day by day but we must never be complacent because like any pandemic they can metamorphasise, gain credence and momentum and return at any time.

Winston Churchill was a visionary of his time who saw that the future of Europe lay in a united Europe free from any more wars. The original reason may have receded in the youth of today, particularly those politicians and movers and shakers who have no memory of great war, but dutifully apply their poppies once a year to remember.

We now find ourselves in the position where our Prime Minister is appearing in Europe to lecture and harangue the leading players of the continent in how to run the Eurozone.Quite rightly he has been told to “butt out”. He is only doing this as a response to the fact that the eurozone scoops up 40% of our exports and any tragedy to this currency will be a disaster for us and throw all this governments policies to overcome the debt crisis into disarray. None of this is lost on our european partners.

Lets look at the long term greater reasons for a successful euro and our place in it.

You cannot buck the market and increasingly it is playing a bigger and bigger part in global politics,hence the cosying up by the west previously to such nauseous people like Saddam Hussein, Gaddaffi and others.If money is the root of all evil then it can also be a force for good. Britain is no longer a world power and we are belatedly beginning to recognise it . So how can we exercise influence and power in the modern world and I believe it is as part of a strong Europe in a single currency. How often can USA, China and an emerging India ignore a trading bloc which will also have the ability through it’s trading power to influence world policy.

No longer will those other major powers be able to ignore Britain’s wishes if we place them at the heart of a united Europe. The only thing keeping us out is our deep xenophobia and fear of foreigners which manifests itself regularly in our press, sport,  politics other areas of national life.

Now is not the time to draw away but to draw closer and demonstrate our committment by not standing on the sidelines and telling them what we want but becoming part of a pan-european currency which allows us to have a place in the world in waiting. Failure to do so will mean we will gradually become less and less relevant and go back to The Sick Man of Europe and eventual inconsequence. It is no coincidence that Germany is now the strongest of european nations. Think long and hard as to why.

I find the current situation very interesting,firstly from the point of view that not one politician seems to be dealing with it very well and also the huge difficulties that we as a nation and as a continent(Europe) are facing seems to be bringing us to quarrel and argue based on self interest without any consideration for the utilitarian perspective of the greater good.

Democracy is being virtually suspended in Europe(Italy and Greece now have an unelected CEO) and the criteria for leading well seems to be set in a very narrow sphere of experience, i.e. a financial background. We really are in big trouble on a global scale but it does not appear to be being dealt with on that basis. Also in my limited understanding, this all came about because the gambling bearpit of the sub prime was allowed to go on unhindered without  interference by those who govern, because it assured them of the next ticket into power. (A little tongue in cheek, I  grant you, but not much I suspect)

So it seems to me that the check and balance which was needed was the stabilising influence of public ownership.I am not suggesting a return to the bad old days of union interference in government policy or those who remember beer and sandwiches at Number 10, but I am suggesting that if all businesses had a less than 30% public ownership would that enable a hand on the tiller which still allowed entrepreneurial growth but  also prevented the excesses that we have seen over the last 10 years and which has almost brought us to our knees.

Perhaps in the same way that jury trials still maintain some semblance of ownership for the common man and woman in the street over the excesses of the judiciary perhaps a similar thing might have prevented the bright young things in the banking world bringing us to our knees with their unbridled enthusiasm for making money and bonuses,in that order.

It’s a thought not yet fully formed but one about which I would value your views.I know it is a little off the wall but hey! nobody else seems to be playing the long game, just let’s get through it all and then we can go back- To what? what will be normal in the future?

Let me state right at the beginning I am not a republican or an anti-royalist and in fact have served Queen and Country very proudly in both the Army and Police Service for over 35 years.However I have some real concerns about the development of the relationship between Monarchy and public. I am pleased to see a more engaging presence from the younger royals and there is no doubt they are making moves in the right direction including marrying “commoners”. (Dont you just hate that expression, harking back to a bygone age of deference and inequality). So this is definitely not an anti-royalist rant and I firmly believe that the good they do in terms of overseas business and prestige is enormous. Whoever the transient incumbents of whatever superpower comes to UK on a state visit you can bet your bottom dollar that the state banquet, if afforded to them is the highlight of the whole trip.

My concerns are the lack of transparency that is afforded to monarchy by the laws to which The Queen gives Royal Assent.I find this position untenable.To explain further.

I noted recently, that august institution “The Queen’s Bodyguard” which is staffed on a voluntary basis by ex-soldiers from the ranks, is all white all male and all of a certain age and has always been so. AnecdotallyI have been told that in order to serve one has to be invited i.e. it is all done by word of mouth and that only recently has it been opened up to ex-soldiers outside of the Household Division.

I then made some enquiries with The Lord Chamberlains office who have the responsibility for staffing the “Bodyguard”. My correspondence with Mr Jonathan Spencer CVO is interesting to say the least.He states in writing that:-

1. The Bodyguard is a military unit and recruitment is handled by the Military Secretary’s Branch in MOD.

2. The Lord Chamberlain’s office conducts final interviews for the posts in the Bodyguard. (therefore has a final say on the ultimate demography of the organisation.)

3. On appointment members of the Bodyguard fill a Royal Household Honorary post.

4. The Royal Household complies with the principles of the Equality Act but is not defined as a public body. This of course means they do not have to comply with the general duties or specific duties of the Act. The duties which apply to all public services and the law to which the Queen has given Royal Assent in the parliament of her people.This includes eliminating unlawful discrimination,advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations between different groups.Incidentally this can be effectively achieved by conducting Equality Impact Assessments to ensure these things are happening practically on a day to day basis.

5. It should also be noted that the Lord Chamberlain’s office are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act and so do not have to give details of the demography of any of their staff organisations.

There has never been one Black or Minority Ethnic member of the Bodyguard in it’s entire history since 1485, neither has there ever been a female member and there has certainly never been a female black member of the Bodyguard. Anecdotally since I have raised these questions with the Lord Chamberlain’s office the “unofficial” website now has the recruitment criteria displayed on it’s home page.Interesting?

It is clear from my anecdotal evidence that there is no positive move to recruit either women or people from a Black and Minority Ethnic background.In this day and age this is a disgrace and clearly is not congruent with the law of our country. It is time to end this discrimination now and the only person who can end it is our Sovereign.

Incidentally I wrote to Her Royal Highness The Queen about this subject on 10th August 2011 – To date there has been no reply.