Democracy

27 Jun 2016

Democratic Elitists

As part of my MPhil, I studied a unit on political philosophy. Being a political science course, naturally, we looked at the debates relating to democracy, including John Stuart Mills initial assertion (later repudiated) that certain competent citizens should have extra votes. He was dubbed a democratic elitist.

If that isn’t the tendency running through the, mostly middle class, remain voters I don’t know what is. The number of people who have thrown out the idea that the Leave voters were some combination of simple-minded, misinformed, deluded, racist, bigoted idiots, whose views can not be considered to be legitimate is astounding. Even I am shocked by the anti-democratic sentiment and utter hypocrisy that I have seen. I thought the mood after the General Election was bad.

Right Answer or Choice?

There was no ‘right’ answer to the EU referendum. I repeat there was no right answer that the voters should have chosen.

There was a choice between two alternatives – to remain or to leave. This simple distinction between right/wrong answer and choice is eluding far too many right now.

If you believed remain was the better choice, fine. If you disagree and still disagree with the argument that Leave is a better choice, fine. But to argue there is a right answer which everyone should mindlessly rubber stamp to give the illusion of democracy is nonsense.

Well-Informed or Ill-informed?

Let’s tackle this one from the top. The notion that some people were better informed to make a decision and others just should not have been allowed a say is contemptuous. Compared to me – with a degree incorporating European History, Politics, Law – most people’s understanding of the EU, it’s history and treaties is woeful. You probably don’t know your arse from your elbow when it comes to the ECSC, EEC or EU. No, let’s go the whole hog here. My MPhil involved years of studying the British constitution, sovereignty, and devolution – I should get at least twice as much say as most people if not more based on the ‘well-informed’ criteria. In fact, why should anyone without a degree or equivalent which did not have an element of studying the European Union be allowed a say at all. You are far too misinformed. If you don’t know that Vernon Bogdanor is the authority on the British Constitution then minus votes for you.

Except that is not how democracy works. There are blatantly people who know more than I do on any particular aspect of all the above. In the intervening years, things have changed in the EU for better and at times worse. Well-informed is a matter of opinion. I can set my criteria; you can set yours. It is not objective. That’s why it is not a criterion for being eligible to vote. Just as well too as it would disenfranchise the majority of the world’s population in an instant.

I voted Remain in the end because I have benefitted from being part of the EU and I did not want to pull up the ladder behind me. However, the idea that others should think or feel the same way is ridiculous. It’s not their experience, and no one has to take what I think into consideration while voting whether they were voting the same way as me or the opposite. Take the NHS – the idea that £350 million a week is going to be spent on it is ridiculous, but I took those claims with a pinch of salt and to mean that we ‘could’ in theory. On the other hand, the idea that the NHS is completely safe if we had stayed in the EU is equally ludicrous given TTIP. No one, and I mean no one, had a definitive handle on every single aspect of the all the issues. That’s arrogance talking.

Remain Teachers

I’m most bemused by those remain teachers who argue against a more academic education for working class or poor children because of its irrelevance, then wonder why as adults they have not made ‘better informed’ decisions. Then use this as a justification to undermine their vote and negate their choice.

If you think that we should all follow our hearts and that rational thought is an imposition, you can hardly complain that it’s the basis of some of the voting that took place. If you believe that we should only teach children what’s relevant based on their socio-economic background, then you can hardly complain if they vote as ‘little Englanders’. Not that I believe this was the case for most of those who voted Leave but if it was then so be it. People have the vote and can use it as they wish.

Accept and Agree

No one has to agree on the issue of the EU now or at any future point but it is one of the foundations of democracy that we all accept the democratic decisions that have been made. The way that some people are trying to find technicalities to try and get out of this vote is disgusting and shows a genuine shallowness of their commitment to democracy. It also tells me how little cause these people can have for arguing they are ‘well-informed’ when they can ignore the horrific realities of undemocratic regimes around the world and throughout history. The consequences of Brexit might be bad, but the effects of undermining democracy are far greater.

Racism and Xenophobia

I get that many people are gutted, for themselves, their children and their futures, but this is the same feeling that some on the Leave side have been contending with for decades. I have a whole group of friends that I would not know if it hadn’t of been for Erasmus.

Also, I can see how we have ended up here. Setting the parameters narrowly on what could and could not be debated in this country, in particular on the question of immigration. Are there white racists out there being violent, horrible and displaying the worst kind of nastiness? Yes, but they were there last week too. The laws in this country have not changed to enable them to get away with it. If remain had won, the same incidents would have taken place with slightly different slogans.

Even here, I would argue that those on the left, in particular, have lost any moral argument against the thugs. Those on the far, and even moderate, left betrayed universal liberal values decades ago. How many times have I seen people agree that ethnic minorities can’t be racist? How many people, especially BAME complained about this poster?

I found myself in the rather odd position during the referendum campaign of agreeing with Paul Nuttall of UKIP over this. Saying UKIP’s poster of refugees was racist but not uttering a word about this is the kind of hypocrisy that the far right feed off. Both posters are wrong for the same reasons, but only one got criticised. No amount of virtue signalling or belief in one’s righteousness hides the reality that the principle of treating people equally regardless of race has been wilfully abandoned in some quarters.

The vast majority of those who voted Leave did nothing at all that was threatening or racist and neither are they responsible for the actions of those who did. Having talked to @5N_Afzal yesterday, I accept that some leadership from Leave would help to at least calm the situation down. But it does not invalidate the vote of those who voted to Leave anymore than the views and actions of SJWs or anti-semites invalidates those of the Remain voters.

The reality is that every single group in our society was split on this issue, including ethnic minorities. But of course they can’t be racist so they must be deluded, ignorant or worse still ungrateful. I felt tested a few weeks ago when confronted by a Sikh UKIP member whose argument was that he believed Britain was better off out of Europe because he thought it was better for his business. He was right to vote Leave based on his circumstances. It might give some succour to the far right, but if we wanted fascists to dictate how we act and behave, we could have saved ourselves the trouble of fighting at least one world war. He was born here, he works, he contributes, and he can exercise his judgement to use his vote. If this causes some to abandon their commitment to anti-racism well, it was never meant all that much to them in the first place.

Class War?

My favourite tweet today has got to be the one claiming that working class people have been duped by the elites and that middle-class people were working in the interests of the working class. This Marxist nonsense holds no truck in many parts of the country.

The Labour Party has decided to return to the 1980s and simply can not fathom that the society they are in is a totally different one.

Liz Kendall spoke eloquently months ago at a Progress meeting that Labour could not rely on its traditional base, not the white working class, not ethnic minorities, not the moderate left – they were out of touch with all of them. I couldn’t agree more. None of these are not homogenous groups if they ever were, and certainly, they are more fragmented now than ever.

Jeremy Corbyn also seems to have missed the point that he appealed to the far left, would be radicals, revolutionaries and rebels, and not to the aforementioned groups who no longer see the Labour Party as their natural home.

Individuals and groups in society are entitled to form alliances on issues as they wish. Why should the working class or any other group vote dutifully in a particular way?

Democratic Will

To continue with the story of my philosophy lesson, we argued between ourselves and hammered out every reason why it might be better if certain people had a greater say. In the end, it was clear that nothing excused minority rule because that is, no matter how benevolent the particular ‘elite’ think they are, a dictatorship not a democracy. We just couldn’t bring ourselves to throw democracy or the principle of one person one vote under the bus. It is sad how many have argued to do just that this weekend from the Remain camp.

If there is a second referendum called, so people make the ‘right’ decision, I am going to do what I think is right. I’ll just switch my vote to support Leave because I just don’t agree that those who voted for Brexit deserve to be delegitimised by those who display the kind of contempt for democracy that I would expect from the ruling elite in a tinpot dictatorship.

22 Mar 2016

Not Waving But Drowning

Teachwell Democracy, Education Policy Academisation, Conservative Party, Education Policy, Labour Party, Local Authorities, Local Democracy, Primary School, Secondary School, White Paper 3

Having argued that the ability to mass academise schools is not undemocratic, I read this today from @dutaut – here where he argues that it is not undemocratic but anti-democratic.

First things first:

“Simply put, it (democracy) is a governmental system which allows people to hold their political leaders to account. They do this at the ballot box, but, as my Year 10 reminded me today, in a myriad of other ways too: protest and demonstrations, petitions and letters, campaigns and advocacy, litigation, membership of parties and pressure groups.”

Except that the ballot box is what counts. All the other means that JL points out are valid ways for individuals and groups to make their voices heard but it is not un or anti-democratic for a government to ignore these and make policy regardless.

No doubt those who take part in the anti-austerity marches feel their ideas and beliefs should influence policy but so does the EDL when it protests against Muslims and immigration.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Now I am sure that many of the righteous will baulk at this but the truth is that it’s anti-democratic to say the protests of the former are ‘right’ and those of the latter are ‘wrong’ in some objective way. The former did not get a mandate at the ballot box any more than the latter. They do have a right to their views whether I like it or not. Freedom of speech, thought and conscience are universal human rights – specifying the content would make them redundant.

JL goes on to state that a key argument against PR is that it loses the local link. I think he means those advocating for first past the post. There are many ways of maintaining a link between the local and national even in a party-list PR system.

Even if you do agree with the link between constituency and MP, it doesn’t mean that you are contradicting yourself if you favour more centralisation. The fact is that there are many ways of selecting national representatives in a democratic system – geographical is only one of them. In some countries representation is linked to social classification (as in India). You could have a system where the representation is based on height, weight or shoe size of the population. Silly? Maybe but does not make it anti-democratic. Representing regions in parliament is a historical legacy.

The other argument he proposes is that it is anti-democratic to centralise power. Except it isn’t.

I spent many months over three years researching the arguments for and against devolution. Both in theory and practice unitary states are not inherently less democratic than federal states, or highly centralised systems inherently less democratic than highly decentralised ones. There are pros and cons for each system – take your pick and accept both the good and the bad that goes with it.

The government is well within it’s right so centralise as it is to decentralise. It’s not even true to say that there is an optimal place for power to reside on any issue. It depends on circumstances, the nation and society in question at any particular point in time.

Ultimately JL has played to his audience perfectly. They think it’s wrong on principle and no matter how awful the LAs are they are considered preferable to MAT’s. If they can add the accusations of it being anti-democratic then all the better.

Instead of analysing localism and democratic accountability, JL reifies it, even more so when blaming liberal economic thinking of robbing us all of local democracy.

“Who will you vote out if you’re unhappy?” he asks as though it is the norm in this country to vote out councillors when LAs have dire records. Jonathan Simons highlights that the idea of local democratic accountability is a sham when it comes to education.

Who will we vote out? If we vote out anyone at all, then it’s only MPs from the governing party (in this case the Conservatives) who have anything to fear.

Actions speak louder than words.

We expect the Secretary of State to take ultimate responsibility for problems in education so why shouldn’t she have the power to match?

21 Mar 2016

Is Academisation Undemocratic?

Teachwell Democracy, Education Policy Academisation, Accountability, Centralisation, Conservative Party, Education Policy, Labour Party, Local Authorities, Local Democracy, Primary School, Secondary School, Teachers, White Paper 9

As could have been predicted, there are a lot of people who are angry about mass academisation. The last time I saw the word privatisation this many times in a day, I was reading about Thatcher for an essay. If that isn’t 1980s enough, some people are threatening to flee the country and go live abroad, mimicking celebrity reactions to the idea of Labour being elected. Mary Bousted is tweeting every bit of the white paper that she thinks is ridiculous. The NUT are going to fight academisation to the death (or near enough).

There’s a petition which has over 100,000 signatures. People power to the rescue? There will have to be a debate about a public inquiry into academising all schools. Nevermind that there was going to be a debate about the white paper regardless.

In EduTwitterWorld revolution is in the air but how educators from EYFS to Higher Education are going to manage it given their breathtaking lack of understanding of the British political and electoral systems, is beyond me.

Here’s a guide from an ex-political scientist.

UK Population: 63 million

Electorate: The exact number who are eligible to vote depend on who is eligible to vote and this differs (see: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/total_number_of_registered_voter).Before anyone spots a conspiracy theory – actually go ahead – if the trains heading to Paranoia Central I’m not going to stop it reaching it’s destination.

The BBC’s election 2015 website stated 46 million (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results) however it’s not clear if this is registered or eligible voters.

Electoral System:

“It’s not fair – we need PR”

Well there have been many attempts to reform the electoral system – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform#United_Kingdom for a quick overview. It is worth noting that demands for PR usually come from those whose party have lost the election and really don’t like the party who won. It is rare that such arguments are made when one is happy with the results, government or policy being implemented. Neither has the electorate penalised any of the political parties for failing to introduce electoral reform.

“Not enough choice. They’re all the same”

Sigh – will come to this later.

“But the Conservatives don’t represent the country they only won a minority of votes”

Indeed they got 36.9% of the vote share but crucially in a first past the post system it is winning constituency seats that matter. They did get a majority – with 331 seats overall.

Is it unfair? Let’s look at the 1945 election in comparison:

Your eyes are not deceiving you – the Labour Party won a majority of seats with a minority of the overall votes. Yep – just like the Conservatives in 2015.

47.7% is better than 36.9% I grant you, but still a minority of the votes and any argument that hinges on a government needing a majority of the votes applies here too. The turnout was better but not by much 72.9 % compared to 67.7%. Still roughly a third of voters did not vote in either election.

“The majority did not vote for the Conservatives or their policies”

The majority of those (registered or eligible) to vote in 1945 did not vote for the NHS, the system of welfare benefits for the sick and unemployed, free secondary education for all, nationalisation of industries or full employment.

Now if you are Labour and you have a beef at the moment, then the Conservatives in 1945 would have had an even bigger one – they won 36.2% of the vote compared to Labour’s 30.4% in the last election. Oh I know the Corbynites think that they have the third of voters who didn’t vote in the bag but proof of the pudding is putting x’s on ballot papers.

“But it’s not in their manifesto – no one voted for it”

Well here’s the Labour Party manifesto from 1945. There are many things the Labour Party did in their term of office, including maintaining rationing, that were not in the manifesto. Manifestos are rarely adhered to in their entirety, usually because circumstances influence what you can implement.

“But they should stick to their manifestos.”

Should they? In which case the Conservatives should not have agreed to fly in 20 000 refugees – wasn’t in their manifesto.

“That’s different”

Remarkable how it always is.

“Attlee was different, he ran the government for the whole country”

Well it’s clear from the fact that a welfare state was introduced that he didn’t give a fuck about the overall percentage of votes, the opposition or those who did not vote. Neither did he worry about representing the entire nation’s views.

If you don’t like first past the post, fine. You live in a country where you can do something about it. If you think that you can only choose from the main political parties then let me show you the 2015 results again.

Even the stoneheads managed to get their act together, started up Cannabis is Safer than Alcohol and stood some candidates. All political parties start somewhere.

Democracy does not lead to utopia. It involves compromise. It involves putting up with the occasional government you don’t like. It involves the implementation of policies that you will not always agree with. If you think the Conservatives are evil incarnate so be it. I think I have a greater claim than most on having been adversely affected by the Conservative governments in the 1980s – but they are not on a par with undemocratic regimes I studied and spent years writing essays about.

First Past the Post may not be ideal for some but PR systems ultimately have winners and losers too and their own lists of pros and cons.

The anomalies of the first past the post system have existed for a long time. Change it by all means but retrospectively delegitimising governments because they are not to your liking does not wash.

The 2015 elections were free and fair (fair in the way they were held rather than fair to you personally and if that is patronising – well I am doing my best here in the face of what is utter ignorance of the system we live in, it’s history and evolution over time).

Personally, I would rather have an imperfect democracy – Conservative government and all – than exist under the dicatatorship of the self-appointed righteousnous police made up of educationalists (who think votes only count if cast by people they agree with for MPs they want in parliament).

And if I am going to live in a dicatorship then of course I want it to be to my liking and sure as hell not yours!