John Rees Evans is standing on a leadership platform advocating Direct Democracy,whereby the members of UKIP will be asked a direct question and the majority response becomes Party policy and direction. I hold my hands up and admit that when I first heard of this idea I foolishly thought that it was a non-starter. An idea invented by someone without the ability or imagination themselves to capture peoples attention with inventive and radical ideas of their own. I had visions of John standing there after a successful campaign to then ask, “Right, what do you want me to do now?” as if bereft of any original thought.
However, the more I have thought about this then the more convinced I am that this simple idea, Direct Democracy has the potential not just to change UKIP, but also to change the entire democratic process in our country, maybe even the world, and my initial misgivings were wrong.
Democracy in itself is a very simple idea. One man one vote could not be any simpler. Yet in practise it is anything but, as we are once again experiencing with the turmoil created by the EU Referendum vote.
17.4million people voted to Leave, the largest vote for anything ever in UK history, yet here we are over 12 months later still full members of the EU, while vested interests argue over what Leave actually means.
That isn’t democracy as we understand it. Nowhere did Cromwell suggest that the public vote can carry, but only when international finance, car manufacturers or supermarket chains have had their say. Yet it happens all of the time.
Our system of Government was set up in a time where to canvass public opinion was nigh on impossible, so a representation system of MP’s was an obvious solution, but how many of you have contacted your MP during an important debate to find out that after speaking to you that they still voted against what you stand for? When was the last time your MP called you to ask your view on an important vote? Never is the answer, as an MP cannot physically represent every view of the numbers of people in their constituency. Its impossible yet we persist with this system designed hundreds of years ago. Then throw into the mix the concept of the Parliamentary whip system, where Party loyalty overrides an MP’s constituency ties, and the public’s voice is set aside. Is that actual true democracy?
How many times have you heard people say that they don’t bother to vote, as they’ll just do what they want anyway so what’s the point? I hear it expressed all of the time, and those saying it are right to do so as the powers that be usually do want they want once in power irrelevant of manifesto pledges or the publics wishes. The rest of us who do take the time to vote continue to do so with the hope that by keeping on chipping away that we can change things but its nigh on impossible as over the years those same vested interests have put in place mechanisms and procedures designed to prevent us from being able to do so.
Our democracy is a charade as its run for the few and plainly exists in name only and we foolishly allow ourselves to believe that our voice is important when it so patently isn’t.
A million people marched on London protesting against Tony Blair’s war in Iraq. He went ahead with it anyway. 17.4million people voted to Leave the EU and we haven’t left as those same vested interests go through the charade of publicly complying with a vote but in reality exploring every avenue to prevent it or subvert it so that we Leave in name only.
Its a scam and we let them get away with it, as they tell us that Governance is very complicated and if they acted on every populist vote that it would be wrong. Yet the definition of populism is the majority view of the common man, which is what we the public understand democracy to be.
Somewhere over the years our system and institutions have become corrupted once again like in the days of Cromwell and the enactment of the people’s wishes becomes subverted and distorted. Unlike Cromwell though, we live in the Communication Age. At the touch of a button I can canvas the opinions and views from millions of people on social media platforms. We have the means not only to ask every single person out there their thoughts, we also have the opportunity to bypass MPs, Parliament and party politics and give the power to vote on issues back into the direct control of the public.
Think about it. A simple question asked of the public. Their votes counted instantly, and then the majority vote enacted. No greater voice than that of the people.
If an institution or vested interest doesn’t agree with the vote then that is unfortunate, as this country is for the benefit of the British Public, not of political parties, big business or billionaires who live in the Bahamas, but the people.
The ability for the public to become Parliament is the next evolutionary step in the way in which we are governed. No more Parliament in an old crumbling building, no more Lords and Ladies with snouts in the trough, no more old political parties out for their backer’s interests over the public’s.
We have had many forms of rule over thousands of years and they were fit for their time. Our current system of government is past its sell by date. Technology has advanced sufficiently to enable a true, proportional, representative democracy in this country, where the instruments and institutions of the past can be dismissed.
John Rees-Evan’s plan for UKIP should become the blueprint for a revolution in the way that our views are heard and acted upon both nationally and internationally. There is no greater force than the will of the people and finally it can be fully harnessed through using the greatest method of communication ever seen.
Direct Democracy will put the power firmly in the hands of the electorate. Its inevitable that as mechanisation impacts on the workplace, that Politicians and political parties find themselves redundant too.
It’s true that there’s a profound democratic deficit in this country – the current state of representative democracy is simply not fit for purpose.
However I think that DD in its current outlined form could have the potential pitfalls as below:
– Mass infiltration from marxists and anyone else who dislikes ukip
– Produce lunatic policies voted through by a determined minority
– Result in policies being in a constant state of flux, thereby reducing certainty and confidence amongst the party membership and non members who are considering voting ukip.
– Result in the leader of ukip (and overall the leadership team) being nothing more than “order takers”, like waiting staff in a restaurant. Not much leadership going on, just constant referral to the membership. And if that’s the case, why have a leadership team at all? May as well just put a computer program in charge of ukip which interacts with the media by repeating parrot fashion what members have voted / decided.
The safeguards being proposed do not seem sufficient in my view to prevent 3 of the potential pitfalls noted above.
So I do believe that members should have the opportunity to be more involved in policy making, but I’m not convinced the current DD model is the answer.
Henry Ford probably never said the following, but it’s still relevant anyway: “I’f I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they would’ve said faster horses”
Dear Lauren (H),
You say “Mass infiltration”.
Maybe we have in the back of our minds a concept of “UKIPness” or “Core UKIP values”.
In the past we seem to have applied a plethora of means to suppress non-UKIP thoughts and people: assessments, carefully timed suspensions, vetting, rule book changes, proscribed parties, managed NEC elections, merit point panels, NEC adjustments of London and Welsh lists, dummy branches, dummy members. Or a rule against telephone canvassing and then a massive phone operation by the clique.
I can see both sides of this. I don’t like cheating by I do worry about “core UKIP values”.
I do worry about this election procedure.
Maybe a lot of members will NOT do enough research. Or the hustings could be wrecked by surplus candidates.
For this election I suggest: Adoption of the French system, under which the top two slug it out. And huge amounts of phone campaigning before the final vote.
That way we shall find out what a majority of the party members want.
Maybe that procedure would satisfy the central clique. Maybe they won’t be tempted to rig the vote.
To protect against infiltrators ….. how about giving members a vote for every year they have been in the party?
Regards, Toby, 01932-873557
Toby,
I like the “Vote per years in UKIP” suggestion.
So as I understand it I joined in November 2009; that would mean I get 7 votes.
Does that mean I could give one vote to 7 different candidates (if there were that many) or say split them 4/3 or 5/2, between my main choices?.
I assume you actually mean all 7 votes must go to one person, but, perhaps my alternative system might give a fairer opportunity for perhaps (dare I say it) a more sensible less gung-ho candidate to emerge as a more stabilising leader.
I do detect one fly in the ointment; it would be necessary for each voter to be advised how many votes he qualified for,
a) For reasons of “continuous” membership requirements
or
b)Whether whole years are required, for instance, as I said I joined in November 2009,
if the vote was counted in December 2017 that would be a clear 8 years, since this count is September, I might feel pretty miffed that I had missed out on one vote for a fraction of a qualification year, I might suggest anything above half a year qualifies as a full year.
“E & O excepted”
Punctuation expected – average (I did Latin, French and Greek, but failed dismally in all three)
Thanks Lauren for detailing some of the constituents of “PURE CHAOS” sustained in this form of Direct Democracy.
A situation that already exists within UKIP where there is only a limited form of democracy.
………but while all this is going on, who is providing an authentic “Voice” for 17.4 million voters who were united in a real referendum?.
They had most of them put aside previous political loyalties and “Lent” their votes to a common cause, can it be any be any surprise when they vanished like snow from a dyke when their mother parties called. They never were UKIP converts.
They were all enthusiastic on June 24th, having achieved a glorious democratic victory over the massed ranks of the perceptively dishonest parliament, its crooked system and its at best passive establishment.
But who or what establishment made any effort to ensure they stayed together as a body, able to punch its weight in ensuring an effective outcome
I was all for forming an A-political cross party organisation based on the Leave.eu and some from Vote LEAVE came together for the simple purpose of keeping the body together.
What did UKIP do to help – nix – it just sodded off and imploded internally – what a great and pathetic example we have been.
Meanwhile those 17.4million people have disbanded and there is no party in parliament that speaks for them (or the percentage from the 14million who were terrified into voting that way by the campaign of FEAR they endured and have subsequently found out to all have been a load of codswallop – even WW3 hasn`t happened yet!)
I think the next leader of UKIP would do well to “Drain the swamp and make Great Britain GREAT again” and if that involves in making us an offshore Hong Kong or Singapore – so much the better
We must leave COMPLETELY the sink of the EU while we have this one chance (Hammond must go!)
In California they voted in a referendum to increase expenditure and then they voted to limit taxes. This meant they didn’t have the money for the first proposal.
In a party of say 30,000 if each made a comment on a policy which takes say 1 minute to read, it would take roughly 3 months of full time work to read all the comments. (Nationally it would take about 200 years)
To make it work requires constitutional restrictions and a team that reviews proposals to make them grammatical consistent and capable of yes/no type responses (or graded responses like 1 to 10)
The system can then automatically inform members and schedule the date for a vote. But, again there is no tech way to process views unless they are predetermined choices.
Doesn’t Switzerland already run a sort of similar system? People vote on issues and the government has to implement the results?
As for the 70-odd million disorganised people taking part, I’d sincerely hope that number was considerably reduced before setting up a similar structure for this country; otherwise our “replacement population” might well vote to remove us all from the country!
I think Direct Democracy definitely has a place within UKIP – a forum where Q and others can argue the merits of economic policy proposals, just as a for instance. After a given time members vote yea or nay, giving membership number to avoid infiltration. It would mean that members truly were able to have an input into UKIP policy – and I think it would attract members who are interested in a really Democratic Party (if we ever achieve one). However, I just don’t think it will fly with the general public, certainly at the moment – so take it from the other end, John, enough members, enough votes, power, and so power to the people! A great idea for UKIP.
JRE has consistently failed to liaise with ann address most of the concerns of the finance and technical sub-committees.
This does not bode well for him working with the NEC if he becomes leader… ?
Sorry, I may be thick, but to me this sounds like the craziest “in your dreams” scenario I have ever heard outlined, it even beats the delusion or nightmare of the “Emporor`s new clothes”
“No more parliament in the old crumbling buildings no more lords and ladies……….”
“Politicians and political parties redundant too”
Yes, I agree the present political system of “Parliamentary Democracy” is much as the author of this article describes and I also agree it would be lovely if the people had more say in the actual motivation of policy.
……………..but,but,but………………..
If you`ve got rid of the stablishment and their crumbling buildings and dodgy authority;
Who would actually give the orders to the Civil Servants who are the ones who have to ensure the orderly running and functioning of a supposedly civilised society?
Because I cannot conceive that an unorganised and disorganised rabble of 70 odd million discordant and different voices could ever be effective..
It appears to me you are advocating some sort of system of continuous referendum where even the result of one referendum can be reversed by a vote in the next or next but one referendum.
PURE CHAOS.
I echo a retired Doctor who turned up at a market stall meeting during the referendum campaign.
He said “You are all mad”
I`m all for more democracy and for the genuine voice of the people to be heard and headed, but to me Direct Democracy as advocated in this form is a non-starter
Roger
Thats because you arent imagining the potential.
Currently we have the ability to raise a topic for discussion in parliament, where a member of the public can raise a petition and if enough people sign it then parliament must discuss it.
I envisage an extension of this whereby a petition is still raised but Parliament becomes the public.
With safeguards in place for minimum number of votes required before anything is enacted.
It might be a non starter to you, but if you wish true democracy then the only way to get it, is by doing things differently than before.
Yeah, you may be right about all your suggested rigmarole of the people being parliament, but at the end of the day Sir Humphrey and his die hard band of civil servants are the ones who call the shots.
If you watched “Yes Minister” you would know they always win in the end, and I know Bliar is supposed to have fixed it by putting politicians in as “advisors” to civil departments, but even if they haven`t “gone native” most of them are made to be ineffective nincompoops.
For instance the Chancellor is controlled by Civil Servants in the office of Budget Responsibility etc.etc.etc..
You might have all sorts of schemes for direct democracy, but in the long run the “people” will not be allowed to take control.
Our Government still remembers the French Revolution
NB
Please read “heeded” not “headed”, the “Glasgow kiss “was never intended
Dear David (Winder),
It’s great that you have posted here, but…
Could you please clarify whether you are acting on behalf of JRW?
Are you on JRE’s team?
Regards,
Regards, Toby, 01932-873557
Hi Toby
No im not connected in any way
The first step in any reform is to deal with election fraud.