Ducking Femocracy - What have we learnt?
alienfromzog
Shipmate
in Purgatory
Back in February 2020, I had one of my rants down in the other place with the title Duck Femocracy!
This was 100% a rant but there was a serious point underlying it, namely that the in-built accountability of democracy was failing us. (i](Language warning: Hell levels of swearing from me in the rant)[/i]
What sparked this particular pique of righteous indignation was my reading in detail about the Windrush Scandal. I stand by my anger and the issue has not been solved.
My main thrust here is that the public reaction to Windrush was actually very muted and that what should happen is that a government who was responsible for such atrociousness should lose an election almost by default.
Over Christmas, ITV ran a (by all accounts) brilliant drama-documentary about the Post Office's sub-postmaster scandal. Mr Bates vs The Post Office. I haven't seen it but I have been following the story for over 5 years now. Over 5 years. And I was a late arrival, Private Eye picked up the scandal in 2011.
The point of this thread is to discuss two things specifically. Since the ITV program has managed to raise this scandal in the public consciousness there has been an incredible rush by those in power to do something about this and be seen to do so.
So two questions:
1. Should we be encouraged to see accountability working in this way? This is the heart of democracy and freedom that the governing are accountable to the governed
2. Or should we despair? Where were all these politicians who are suddenly born-again advocates for the wrongfully convicted in 2011 or when Radio 4 ran their documentary 4 years ago or when the public enquiry was set up 3 years ago? Windrush is a worse scandal than the Post Office yet there has never been a similar outcry!
Hope of despair? How is our democracy doing?
AFZ
This was 100% a rant but there was a serious point underlying it, namely that the in-built accountability of democracy was failing us. (i](Language warning: Hell levels of swearing from me in the rant)[/i]
What sparked this particular pique of righteous indignation was my reading in detail about the Windrush Scandal. I stand by my anger and the issue has not been solved.
My main thrust here is that the public reaction to Windrush was actually very muted and that what should happen is that a government who was responsible for such atrociousness should lose an election almost by default.
Over Christmas, ITV ran a (by all accounts) brilliant drama-documentary about the Post Office's sub-postmaster scandal. Mr Bates vs The Post Office. I haven't seen it but I have been following the story for over 5 years now. Over 5 years. And I was a late arrival, Private Eye picked up the scandal in 2011.
The point of this thread is to discuss two things specifically. Since the ITV program has managed to raise this scandal in the public consciousness there has been an incredible rush by those in power to do something about this and be seen to do so.
So two questions:
1. Should we be encouraged to see accountability working in this way? This is the heart of democracy and freedom that the governing are accountable to the governed
2. Or should we despair? Where were all these politicians who are suddenly born-again advocates for the wrongfully convicted in 2011 or when Radio 4 ran their documentary 4 years ago or when the public enquiry was set up 3 years ago? Windrush is a worse scandal than the Post Office yet there has never been a similar outcry!
Hope of despair? How is our democracy doing?
AFZ
Comments
And the politician who deported elderly black British citizens to their death mostly had her reputation rehabilitated.
These issues are nothing new; the Birmingham 6, Bloody Sunday, Orgreave, Spy Cops, Hillsborough, Grenfell, etc. In many of these and similar cases there was an initial inquiry that was a whitewash, followed by a subsequent one years after the event that was more robust, other cases went the way of Operation Legacy.
At least two bits of legislation passed recently make such issues *more* rather than less unlikely (the Overseas Operations Bill and the Covert Human Intelligence Sources -- both passed with minimal scrutiny by the current opposition).
The biggest hurdle to fixing any of this is the admission that all are the result of various forms of corruption. It's easier to adopt the favored liberal stance that it's all a recent innovation and a deterioration from a higher state of being.
The politicians who are now wanting to be seen to Do Something have known about the problem since 2011 (as you point out), they could have ordered an investigation at any time. But now, they think they can spin it to their political advantage.
But you also have a point - those in power should be accountable to the general public. That means they should be accountable to Alan Bates. Not just to whoever is shouting loudest. Not just to whoevers votes they think they can win.
So much of the system is built around hanging onto power. Not actually using their power to do the right things.
Because women are human and if the last 10,000 years has taught us anything, it's that rule by humans, in general, sucks.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
But the substantive point remains the same. The Post Office scandal, Windrush (and a few others we could mention) are clear abuses of power.
The fundamental concept in a free society is that a citizen should not fear the state unless they have transgressed. Clearly, this is failing. Democracy is supposed to protect us from this. Why is it failing and what can we do about it?
AFZ
*I like the spoonerism, shoot me.
Let me explain. The ideal of the right is that the government should be light touch. Business is the answer. So the business will be given a lot of leeway. Add to this the idea that the further right wing you go more self serving the politicians tend to be and have given a lot of public money to mates. A right wing government will give more breaks to a company than a centre or left wing government.
Once a company with dodgy leadership (which the Post Office seems to have) finds it can get away with things, it will.
Which was Labour for 12 years of the 16 year scandal and then then PO minister was a Lib Dem. for 3: 15/16 years. 94%. Under the Tories it's being fixed. After 9 years...
(IRONY)
In answer to the question in the OP - uck fall...
And yeah, I can't tell what the regression on the arc of the moral universe is. Feels like it's dipping. But from what? If our democracy is dead, when was it alive? 1946? Two years before Windrush.
I think it's actually still on the up. And all of the evil intrinsic to history, to the golden age of our democracy, is coming out. Despite the all but permanent stagnation of British politics. The intrinsic flaw of democracy. Property rights.
It was never government policy to deport people who were entitled to be here. Civil servants messed up big time.
When, in 2009-2010 the landing cards were destroyed it wasn’t apparent that there would be a need for them when people recorded on them had been living in Britain for 50-60 years.
The hostile environment policy as practised under Theresa May changed all that, and was implemented in the face of multiple warnings of the problems it went on to create.
Yes I meant the Royal Mail. It is an age thing I think. I still use the terms interchangeably.
Also as right wing governments want light touch they give leeway to businesses.
This has always been nonsense.
Your refusal to engage with the evidence presented to you as to why it's nonsense and your refusal to offer any counter evidence is tedious. Or rather would be if it wasn't so offensive.
It was and is the government's fault. The primary responsibility lies with the then Prime Minister and then Home Secretary.
Ironically perhaps though, your post offers a complete answer to the OP question:
We have learnt that for some politicians in some situations there is zero accountability because the people will obfuscate and shift the blame or just not care.
There are two consequences of that, one is deeply troubling, the other is terrifying.
The troubling one is that our democracy is effectively dead (or at least in cardiac arrest). The terrifying part is that there is no limit of what the government can do to its citizens (providing they pick the right target).
AFZ
This.
It's also salutary to remember that Theresa *Hostile Environment* May identifies as a Christian...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/05/what-theresa-mays-christmas-plans-tell-us-about-her-faith
(Nota Bene: the article is over seven years old)
https://www.ft.com/content/1b11f96d-b96d-4ced-9dee-98c40008b172
(Subscription needed)
If this is accurate, that is deeply worrying. In a similar vein, this government has gone out of its way to make legal aid unavailable for all sorts of stupid reasons. If people cannot access the courts to obtain justice then there is no justice. The large fees for bringing an employment tribunal that were blocked by the SC is the same issue.
Democracy and freedom depend on a free vote. And access to the courts and a free and fearless press. I see so much of this failing at the moment.
AFZ
Yes, well...
Yep. Spot on.
His Majesty's benevolent government is busy *delivering* all manner of good things to *hard-working British families*, so all is well.
(IRONY)
Is this not rather a childish dichotomy? Until somebody can explain to me the positive point of despair, there seems to be only one alternative. And that's a bit debatable.
As has already been pointed out, whilst the politicians are doing there election-year handwringing, the laws are quietly being passed to make a repeat of the success of the postmasters class action harder if not impossible. And whilst we are all dumping on Paula V and Fujitsu, others are quietly ignored.
Most people still echo the words attributed to Churchill that the only good thing to say about democracy is that every other system is even worse. And I think this is the case.
So there is always hope that things can be improved. No certainty, but still worth trying. I'm a bit heartened by the exposures there have been but I don't think they will affect things that much.
So I don't feel encouraged, but see little point in sulking in the corner.
The place to start is to acknowledge the problem; which involves acknowledging how widespread and structural it is and push for serious reform.
That these things only get solved when they are dramatised doesn't help, because it perpetuates the myth that all corruption is exceptional and spectacular, if this were ever the case it hasn't been the case for some time.
It has been my observation for some time that every so often in the UK we vote for people or parties who tickle our ears with promises. They then become unaccountable dictators. The only redress we are given is to vote them out next time - but each party does the same thing.
Only in the periods leading to an election do they seem to concern themselves with the issues on the general public’s minds.
It is a shame that in the UK very few are educated in or become involved in politics, and it seems to be mainly those educated in public schools who perpetuate the system, the debating society of hot air which keeps those within it out of touch with those affected by their decisions. Even people intending to change it end up being wooed by and absorbed by it.
It would be good if those paid or elected to take responsibility were always held accountable and expected to face up to the effect on people of their decisions.
It would be good if I felt I could trust someone enough to vote for them.
It would be good if democracy was seen to work in the sense that those leading in the country were clearly doing so for the benefit of the whole population rather than pursuing their own interests or pet projects.
But I won’t hold my breath.
One reason I joined the Greens many years ago is that I wanted something that was not driven by the political left-right, something that was politically driven by something other than simple economics.
It was a politics that was driven by a desire to protect the earth. I am not saying that is "the answer" it is just that a different approach seemed refreshing, and felt like a driver that was important. Not money.
1. The influence of big money, both rich individuals and businesses. It's reflected in party funding, donations for both regular operating expenses and campaign spending. The amount of money some parties have access to skews the whole political landscape in favour of those giving that money. When some parties are so awash with money that they can easily cover fines for overspending on campaigns and other infringements of election laws it even renders the laws to protect our elections ineffective.
2. Connected with that: lobby organisations, especially when funded by rich individuals and big business. When lobby groups can employ the people to be constantly talking to politicians, and giving perks to those they get support from, skews the political landscape away from the interests of the majority who can't afford to throw millions at lobbying. Even worse when lobbying is unaccountable, without proper minutes produced of what politicians have been told - and in the case of the Royal Family even whether Ministers have been approached can't be reported.
3. Leader and personality focus. In the last few decades we've moved quite a long way from discussing the policies of parties to the personality of party leaders. Approaching an election, we'll get TV debates between party leaders (and, usually a select group of party leaders with several parties standing in multiple constituencies not getting a seat at the table) which tend to focus attention on those leaders - at the same time we're losing most local hustings where people can question the people who will actually appear on the ballot paper. And, programmes like Question Time turning into a form of reality TV where extreme views and reactions seem to be the intent, rather than an opportunity to present policies for consideration of the audience.
4. Media. In some ways the media can behave like a lobby group, presenting the concerns of the owners of papers, and when the same people (or people with very similar views) own multiple titles that can overwhelm coverage of politics with the same views. Also, participation in the focus on party leader personalities.
5. The lack of mass participation in politics. The big one of these has been the decline (often as a deliberate policy decision of government) in Union membership. And, though we still have lots of petitions and protests, most people don't see these as making any difference - if you don't have enough money to buy a peerage your views, even if shared by millions, seem to be ignored. If the views of people are ignored then why express them? The voting system, where there's massive variation in the impact of votes in different constituencies with the result of an election determined by a small number of constituencies, doesn't help people feel their opinions are heard.
6. Budgets. Government budgets set yearly are a really stupid way of doing things - we're constantly told that business dislikes uncertainty, yet by setting a budget once a year for a year that's exactly what we have. Multi-year budgets would be much more sensible. But, for the discussion of democracy the main point of annual budgets I would make is government shifting to tax-cuts and/or spending in an election year to attempt to buy votes.
I do think getting the money out of politics - which is about the lobbyists too and MPs with second and third jobs - would make a huge difference. Getting the politics out of the media would also make things better.
There are many predictions for this years election in the UK, but one think I expect is that turnout will be low. Which is bad for politics but also a reflection of the disillusionment created by both the main parties.
The problem there is that there isn’t any one combination of policies that can ever work for the benefit of the whole population. Different groups have different needs, wants and priorities, and those of different groups are often in conflict.
You can make the case that our standards for actual democracies should be much higher than they are for autocratic government (and I might agree with you), but that's a very far distance from saying that democracy itself is the problem.
Quite so.
In fact, since 2015 (or even 2010) I’ve been increasingly of the opinion that many of those complaining about the state of our democracy are doing so primarily because it has failed to produce a result they like, and that they would in fact be perfectly fine with a less democratic state as long as it was run the way they think things should be run.
It requires an educated electorate for manipulation and corruption not to be childsplay. I would argue that it requires a functioning welfare state, because envy and poverty are such fundamentally distorting factors, and can so easily be manipulated into the formation of a mob.