Well, because, as usual more than a quarter of all eligible voters didn't actually bother to vote, and as per usual, those who did weren't particularly involved in the whole political process beyond that single symbolic act, there is an old adage that people get the governments they deserve, and more often than not when I look around I believe this to be the case."A call to action – the case for occupying Parliament Square"
Our political system is increasingly unable to deal with the consequences of a social crisis it helped to create. Record numbers of people in the UK are homeless, while many more struggle to keep a roof over their heads. Record numbers are relying on food banks to feed their families.
Record numbers are facing fuel poverty as energy prices rise eight times faster than wages.
Nobody voted to be made homeless, hungry or unemployed.
So how did the government get away with it?
There was no mass campaign to retake the Labour party, accompanying suggestions it had become a mere shell of itself serving the neo-liberal agenda; there was no populist uprising in line with climate scientists' repeated warnings, of the irreparable damage being caused to the global eco-system by the excesses of unrestrained capitalist consumption, no Green revolution; there was no concerted effort to vote against the Tories and avoid the continuation of Thatcherite destruction; there was merely amnesia and repetition in the traditional British manner; the Conservative party exploiting the financial situation following the Global banking crash, ran a negative campaign against the Labour parties handling of the economy and got elected on the basis of fear mongering about the need to tackle "out of control" public spending.
It isn't particularly idealistic to suppose the drastic social spending cuts, ideologically driven privatization of many public services in pursuit of profit, decreasing the higher income taxation rate and huge dents made in borrowing for Government investment -while facilitating the sale of British infrastructure to foreign Government's and private investors-, the needless deaths of many thousands of benefit claimants and disabled people pressured into work or starvation, introduction of pro-management economic reforms further eroding worker's rights, increased tuition fees etcetera, would have been avoided if there was a coordinated campaign to oppose the election of the Tories, if Labour had been elected, or indeed shared power with the Liberal Democrats, the Tories would not have had the chance to damage public confidence in economic and parliamentary institutions, as much as they have and continue to do.
In my limited experience, though I don't think it's unusual, it's these very people, those who need the changes who refrain from voting, or participating in the Democratic process altogether, when they are confronted by the 'transgressions' of 'the Government' and constantly reminded of the adversity they endure by propagandists merely using these facts as a political football, they are the people who suffer from the cynical rejection of a system they perceive as unrepresentative, the interests of entrenched wealth would be happy if the poor and disenfranchised didn't vote at all like the good old days of the 19th Century, encouraging them to reject the entire system because of the effects of their own inaction within it, is surely less positive an ambition than encouraging their positive action within it.
The problem is bigger than the Tories and their austerity program. The problem is with our whole democratic system.I find it hard to dismiss the idea that there is a problem with our whole democratic system, and yes corporate influence is a large part of that, but while the funding in the Conservative party is overwhelmingly derived from private companies and individuals; the majority of financial support provided to the Labour Party comes from Unions and large numbers of hard working everyday people, to dismiss "our whole democratic system" in this general way, for being completely co-opted by "corporate influence", when it's really one party specifically (and increasingly UKIP aswell) which is supported by private vested financial interests, is just typically misguided sloganism lacking any basis in fact.
That is why, this October, the Occupy movement is making democracy the heart of its campaign. We want to live in a genuine democracy free from corporate influence. And we want to invite all the movements that have been resisting the cuts to join us.
As this research by Channel 4 shows there is a very large distinction between the overwhelmingly publicly funded Labour Party, who's sources of funding are shown in red; and the party of the rich, the Conservatives who's sources of funding are shown in blue, as you can see "corporate influence" is the basis of the Conservatives who receive nothing from grass roots democratic organizations like the Trade Unions, while a tiny minority of Labour Party funding is derived from those who have accumulated private fortunes.
Occupy London is adamant that people should ignore this huge difference in the material and ideological composition of the two main political parties in Britain, it's akin to the vague, misguided demagoguery of UKIP who refer to all three main parties as "Social Democratic", a tactic intended to paint the Conservatives as favourable to the EU in order to draw the most xenophobic and reactionary elements, away from their traditional mouthpiece, towards UKIP's new radically right wing movement.
If Occupy is sincere in their "want to live in a genuine democracy", then they must accept what the majority of people want, if they want the meagre rewards trickling down from corporate influence, which their constant support of corporate profits through consumerism seems to imply, then Occupy London has no choice but to accept this as their will, that is democratic, what is not Democratic is trying to manipulate people into believing certain elaborations of the truth, and convincing them to demand ill-defined radical change, democracy is not about using the people to refashion the world into a small groups idea of what it should be.
Those seeking a society in which the antagonism between financial interests and working people, is mediated by a party backed by working people making socially beneficial reforms, need not get arrested or ridiculed in the streets of London, they need only organize and vote against the Conservative Party to the benefit of Labour.
Those who would prefer the antagonism to be mediated in favour of financial interests, and a government making financially productive reforms, costcutting, lowering taxes for the highest earners and tackling welfare dependency, need only continue to vote Conservative or simply refuse to participate at all, wasting the votes which female and working class activists for universal suffrage gave their lives to obtain and protect in the past.
Below are details of the ambitions of the Occupation itself, and a detailed analysis of the problems with our current democratic system. Please keep reading for more information, or:
Join us on October 17th in Parliament Square, to campaign for a better democracy.
What they're suggesting is to withdraw completely from Democratic participation, and to introduce a pseudo democratic process external to the Parliamentary system, rather than forming a citizens lobby group to work within the political system, rather than working to make the representative system of Democracy more representative by their participation, rather than do what the businesses they complain about, or UKIP have successfully done, they have taken numerous reforms being enacted by existent political parties, and sought to channel public appetite for these reforms into a mass movement, which external to, alienated from and antagonistic towards the entire Parliamentary system, will have next to no bearing upon the political or legislative process it rejects, except perhaps for further curtailment of rights of assembly in public places.The OccupationThis action has the potential to ignite a movement for democratic change in this country.
It means the opportunity to establish a huge People’s Assembly for democracy, and to produce a statement of demands as the outcome of a democratic forum, open to amendment, modification, and addition.
Inspired by the Chartists six points, it could include a list of demands as straightforward as:
- Give electors the right to recall their MP and all elected representatives by petition.
- Prohibit MPs and Lords from voting on any bills in which they have a vested financial interest.
- Ban all confidentiality clauses in government contracts
- End the revolving door between big business and government.
- Remove the Remembrancer from Parliament.
- Cap the salaries of MPs and Ministers at the National average wage.
The "massive transfer
of wealth and power away from the majority over the past 30 years" which they speak about, has coincided with a decrease in political membership, it's currently at an all time low, less than 1% of the UK electorate is now a member of the three main parties, compared to 3.8% in 1983, while membership of Nationalist parties like UKIP or the SNP is increasing, and this is the moment Occupy suggest we do away with the parliamentary system entirely?
Political parties like all organizations represent their members, Democracy is about more than the occasional ritual act of voting, it's about participation, membership, being part of a community and being active within it, apparently the Occupy movement seeks to withdraw from this altogether, to introduce a range of totalitarian and punitive measures to punish a Political class they perceive as irreconcilably estranged from them.
Why the insistence in political non-participation, why can't they use the means used for every other policy to bring about this "people's assembly"?[1]
1. Introducing the right to recall elected representatives makes sense, this power currently belongs to the Prime Minister of the Country, and some suggest the Queen of England retains the right to recall Parliament in her function as "protector of the realm", but there are already proposals being debated in the House of Commons to introduce this ability anyway, the current legislation will grant power of recall to a committee of MP's, or for those sentenced to a Prison term; automatic recall, further than this, and pursuant to my above comments regarding the material and ideological differences between not only parties, but between the individuals within these parties; amendments have already 'been tabled' which would place the power to recall politicians in the hands of the people within their constituencies.
Just because those intent on making the world conform to their abstract ideals, haven't studied the material conditions, the ongoing power struggles within the Houses of Parliament, does not mean they don't actually exist, but it does enable them to perhaps somewhat innocently misinform people, Russell Brand merely shouting through a megaphone that "there has been no political reform for decades", doesn't erase the effect of these actually existing reforms which are ongoing, just because these reforms don't conform to a subsection of societies "demands", doesn't mean they don't exist, nor that they are undemocratic, quite the opposite they're the result of fear based politics regarding the economy, and xenophobia towards Europe seemingly acceptable to the majority of British people.
MP's from all major political parties support introducing the Right to Recall, so what about this current reform in the House of Commons does Occupy disagree with exactly?
2. This is a symptom of the delirium becoming increasingly evident within the camp which claims to oppose it, the reality is we all have a vested interest in the issues MP's are voting on, themselves included, we all have a vested interest in affordable housing being widely available, on the affordable availability of health and social care, commodity prices remaining affordable and on the maintenance of law and order within society, it's an irrational absolutist dictat that would if followed, lead to an alienated caste of technocratic leaders, sheltered from any and all of the material conditions of society they have to deliberate and vote on.
All members of Parliament currently have a legal obligation to adhere to the Code of Conduct governing their specific House, and in the interests of transparency must declare their financial interests in the Register of Members Financial Interests, furthermore the rules of the House of Commons already prohibit paid advocacy, so members cannot advocate for measures which directly benefit any corporation from which they receive financial rewards, besides these preventative measures, all candidates for appointment to public office must adhere to the rules already in place prohibiting corruption, with legislation such as the "Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill" being used to clamp down on non-governmental, unelected influences determining policy.
If one observes the recently proposed investigation into child abuse, not only was Lady Butler Sloss forced to step down following repeated accusations of a historic link to targets of the inquiry, but the choice to replace her; Fiona Woolf and another member Dame Moira Gibb have both faced repeated calls to step down, for perceived conflicts of interest through their personal links to Lord Brittan, though there is no evidence to suggest there would be a coverup because this individual had dinner with various people at Lord Brittan's house a few times, the perception of a conflict of interest -particularly in a case like this where the entire political establishment's credibility is at stake- can be equally as damaging.
Where obvious conflicts of interest arise they be easily identified, scrutinized and acted upon, but again as opposed to focusing on the specific examples of this Conservative government, agitating and protesting those cases (of which there are many) where a case could be made for conflicts of interest existing; this Occupy group would rather a vague demand that simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, an abstract principle they think people might be interested in, are they saying politicians shouldn't have second jobs at all, should an MP who writes the occasional column be refused participation in any debate regarding print media; should any politician who prefers online news outlets be allowed to contribute to legislation governing televised media?
Highlight a specific example where a conflict of interest exists, publicise it and operate in coordination with local MP's to address the problem, whether this means writing letters to opposition MP's regulatory committees and so on, organizing public meetings, asking awkward questions of the politicians in public and on record, or utilizing the right of recall soon to be granted thanks to the Parliamentary democratic system, the information is there for you to do that, politicians know this and behave accordingly, apparently Occupy don't.
3. Arbitrarily banning all confidentiality clauses on Government contracts, is yet another ill-considered idea in a list of oppressive, excessive and ill-considered demands, in some cases it may be worthwhile to increase transparency, but if you think about it even a little bit there are many circumstances when it could completely undermine a National Government; National security; regulatory systems; or the private contractors providing the technology; software or resources Governments require to operate, transparency to the public is transparency to everyone, antagonistic Nations, corporations with the financial clout to interfere or even terrorist networks could easily retrieve such information and target suppliers of medical products, oil refineries, food supplies etc, to ban confidentiality in all cases is to open up the complete inner workings of Government, who supplies IT, server storage, stationary and so on.
This is not to say that increasing transparency where required isn't a good idea, it's currently being employed in a global context by financial institutions like the World Bank, the IMF other governments and institutions, in the United Kingdom the National Audit Office provides reports and conducts investigations into this very question, something set up through the Parliamentary system but which is entirely independent of it, to scrutinize and advise Parliament on public spending, perhaps Occupy should explain why banning confidentiality, something the NAO hasn't advised, is preferable to the more nuanced approach the NAO suggests?
4. In a list of six demands you'd think they would like to use all six, what does it even mean to "end the revolving door between business and the government"? The statement clearly operates on a number of assumptions, and while it sounds nice, like something worth supporting, it's ambiguous enough to be meaningless or worse, does this mean people who were top of their fields in the Private sector would be precluded from Politics and likewise Politicians couldn't work in the Private sector? Surely the key here is something Transparency International have already highlighted proper regulation, a strong system of checks and balances in place to easily identify conflicts of interests if they arise, and a transparent and effective means of dealing when them when they do?
5. Removing the Remembrancer from Parliament is something the Green Party and their leadership have already suggested, again it appears the Occupy movement have taken something happening in Parliament or in Politics and sought to reproduce these reforms in a less meaningful context.
Rather than start a positive campaign to support the Green Party on a range of issues including this one, which aren't too dissimilar to the general demands here although undoubtedly conveyed in a more enlightened and moderate fashion, the Occupy movement is insistent about removing the entire Parliamentary system the Green Party would use to do so, along with stealing any potential support they may have had and diverting it into street protests.
6. Like the above "demand" capping MP's salaries appears to be a purely symbolic punitive suggestion, a punishment to MP's for not creating the world the Occupy London movement wanted. Why should IT managers in Corporations be paid more than elected Politicians mediating the demands of thousands of constituents? Why should the job of executives in Charities pay five times more than Politicians who's work is extremely similar, if not more highly pressured, less rewarding and less respected? Why should politicians be paid a fraction of Footballers wages when clearly their job is far more important, and of far greater service to the population of Great Britain?
Obviously a set of democratic demands on their own cannot undo the harm inflicted by the massive transfer of wealth and power away from the majority over the past 30 years. No system of constitutional checks and balances can undo that. But if we want to fight to redress this harm, and prevent more in future, then we will need the tools to enable us to stand up to corporate power.I wonder in what sense Occupy feels these 6 demands are actually democratic? Maybe because they've all been plagiarized from a wide range of pre-existing Parliamentary, Democratic and Non-Governmental organizations who have nothing to do with Occupy and who convey these aims less as totalitarian "demands", but as reforms to be pursued democratically within the parliamentary system, to improve it rather than justify it's rejection, it begs the question
I also question the assumption that in general people are poorer and less powerful now than they were 30 years ago, if anything on average wealth has increased, but then so has income inequality as highlighted recently in the work of French economist Thomas Piketty, who's suggestions to redress this imbalance included increasing income tax on the highest earners, something Nations require a strong government with popular support, and security from the machinations of corporations to enact, so why do Occupy fail to mention this as one of their 6 points?
Granted it's not a symbolic, punitive measure or absolute ban on something deemed immoral, but it would provide a great deal more tangible relief to a society oppressed by the ideologically driven austerity reforms of the Tories, and is the policy of the Labour party.
In the early 20th century building on the progress begun by the Liberal Party reformers of the 19th and early 20th century, the tool people created and used to "stand up to corporate power" was the Labour party, at the time strongly supported by militant trade Unions. It was by voting for Labour and supporting their party that working people improved their conditions in society, and the majority secured rights from their oppressors in the Lords and Conservative party, indirectly improving the standard of the entire country in the process, anyone who argues otherwise is doing so from an ahistorical perspective or harbouring ideological antipathy towards those reforms. The Labour party has traditionally supported working people and those within society who need it most, but they also need the support of working people they need these same masses to stand behind them, to support them and to join in the fight for a socially conscious UK, Europe and World.
Parliament itself originated as a tool to mediate the caprice of the British Monarchy, originally composed of "Tenants-in-chief"; the Nobility and Clergy to whom William the Conqueror had infeudiated lands, by the 13th century it had developed into a forum for all subjects to petition the Monarch. Over the centuries Parliament was used to progressively limit the powers of the Monarchy, culminating in the English Civil War and "Glorious Revolution" of the 17th Century, which established the Sovereignty of Parliament; restricting the role of the Royal Family to that of a Constitutional Monarchy holding limited executive power, though once in power Cromwell's government was in itself little more than a military-religious dictatorship.
It wasn't until the mid-19th century, that the lower house started to become representative of the greater majority of people in the UK, with the introduction of the Representation of the People Act 1832 to "take effectual measures for
correcting diverse abuses that have long prevailed in the choice of
members to serve in the Commons House of Parliament", even still it wasn't until the first decades of the 20th century that the Liberal Party (formed circa 1850) under the direction of Herbert H Asquith, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill began to make real improvements in opposition to entrenched conservatism, attempting to reform the vastly inequal distribution of land, wealth and power still lingering from feudal days with a "People's Budget":
Unfortunately this war is still ongoing, some rumours even suggest wolves have returned to stalk the woodland realms of Chipping Norton, preying on any immigrants, handicapped or poverty stricken individuals who stumble off the path the Labour Party and Liberal reformers worked so hard to lay the foundations of."This is a war Budget. It is for raising money to wage implacable warfare against poverty and squalidness. I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away, we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time, when poverty, and the wretchedness and human degradation which always follows in its camp, will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests"[2]
As the twentieth century advanced so did beneficial reforms improving rights, living and working conditions, creating the NHS, Nationalizing key industries, creating actually affordable social housing, and the requirement to build it to a high standard for the formerly unrepresented, frequently exploited working masses of British people, while Conservative attacks on the progress they secured became ever more insidious and underhanded.
So why does the Occupy movement believe these methods of political organization, participation and victory, have become worthless in the last few decades, preferring to take reforms proposed in that very system outside of it?
Why do they think now is the optimum time to abandon the means used to secure our freedom to hold such progressive values?
Let's read on and see what they think "the problem" actually is...
The problem with ParliamentUnfortunately the reality is the Tories won many people's vote on the basis of their proposal to tackle the budget deficit, or "fixing the financial system" which unregulated lending on a global scale and the property bubble it inflated, almost completely destroyed which the Tories blamed on the Labour Party, they also got votes for their views on the E.U including no further transfers of power until a referendum on participation in the EU was held, the Liberals brought to the coalition demands to reform the political system and raise the tax threshold, both of which they have been able advance though the former unsuccesfully.
How is it possible that a government can make major policy decisions, such as privatise the NHS, triple tuition fees, or introduce the Bedroom Tax without any mandate from the voters? None of these policies were put before the voting public by the governing parties, indeed, in the case of tuition fees, it was a guarantee of the opposite that was presented to us.
The imposition of austerity in Britain is clearly devastating, but its democratic illegitimacy is often overlooked by campaigners and commentators. Austerity is not the sole or even the main problem.
Some right-wing pundits may say that the alternative to "the imposition of austerity" would be a lot worse than austerity, many people have bought the lie that a National economy functions in the same way as a household economy, that large budget deficits are a bad thing, however as the recent austerity measures have shown, they are an essential part of providing services and investment in non-profit motivated areas such as health care, support for the long term unemployed, public infrastructure, social housing and supporting emerging Green technologies in a market dominated by fossil fuels.
But what is the alternative suggested by the occupy movement, other than to decrease politicians pay by 25%? The policies enacted by the Conservative government have followed more or less exactly what 36% of the voting public wanted, to tackle the economic situation and return Britain to economic growth by "getting the credit markets moving" through policies such as :
- Cutting corporation tax
- Simplifying the tax system
- Starting business-led Local Enterprise Partnerships
- Supporting new business by an employer National Insurance waiver for the first ten employees
- Building a network of business mentors
- Providing loans to would-be entrepreneurs
- Opening up government procurement to small and medium-sized businesses by reducing administrative requirements
The problem is a parliamentary democracy that has allowed the government to get away with the largest assault on our individual and collective well being since the Second World War. It is this system that allowed the party leaders, Nick Clegg and David Cameron, to stitch up an austerity program which has no democratic mandate.Mandate is defined as a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative, as previously shown getting elected on the basis of reducing the budget deficit is a mandate for economic reforms, sadly including the austerity measures, the media and leading figures of the Conservative Party using the work of leading economists, have adequately convinced a large proportion of people and equally so across Europe, that austerity is the only acceptable solution to the Global financial crash, how many of the 60% or so who voted does the reader think actually read the party manifestos?
I didn't, unfortunately where I live is an entrenched Conservative constituency, but this makes the choice of who to vote for easy for me; I vote for the party that stands a small chance of toppling their dominance which was the Liberal Democrats, Labour, the Greens, UKIP and range of Independents serve no purpose in this situation, other than to detract from the overwhelming need to organize in opposition to reactionary conservatism, by operating tactically to remove them from office. Despite a particularly good result the Liberals were still 10,000 or so votes short of achieving this, the people didn't organize but they voted, the democratic process worked and the large number of conservatives here got their desired outcome.
This small paragraph betrays a little more beneath the surface however, who are these people the author refers to which suffered from "the largest assault on OUR individual and collective well being", isn't this just more empty sloganizing, I mean a large number of individuals undoubtedly benefitted and continue to benefit from current Government policy, in all likelihood the people who voted for the Conservatives, donated to the party and who organized and coordinated their efforts to get them elected.
Likewise who is this collective they refer to, would they not be served by organizing in a similar manner and uniting behind any party (except UKIP) which stands a chance of defeating the Tories, have we not taken two steps back by refusing to participate, by walking off the pitch because it's 4-0 at half time?
We must realize we have a party that was made for the very purposes Occupy are attempting to emulate, we have a political organization that was won by a similarly disenfranchised though much less comfortable collective in the past, it's the British Labour Party and it needs supporters, the more people who support the Labour Party the less they be forced to try and appeal to financial interests and compromise in order to field a worthwhile socially minded opposition to regressive conservatism, as the selfish interests of Nationalism are rising lead in the UK Parliament by a Party with a £ sign as it's emblem, capitalizing on the politics of fear and xenophobia, surely now is the time for increasing our participation, for taking part in the political process and becoming active members of the Labour party again.
One can argue that coalition governments are sometimes inevitable, but if that is the case then it is even more important that our MPs and Lords are able to hold the government to account, acting as a democratic check on what the government does. Our MPs, irrespective of whether their party is in the governing coalition or not, should be there to defend us from the government. In this they have failed us.I actually wonder if the author understands the political process they are writing about, if MP's didn't have the ability to act as "a democratic check on what the government does" if they weren't "there to defend us from the government" then in all likelihood the threat of ISIS would have been wiped out long before Islamist militants had secured heavy weaponry and mass support, proceeding to attack numerous civilian populations of Iraq and Syria and the democratic resistance to Assad which has almost been completely eradicated.
The vote in Parliament about whether the UK would support the Democratic opposition in Syria during August 2013, was an example of politicians defending us or failing to depending on one's perspective, resulting in the initial reaction of the International community; European and American calls for action to stop to the bloodshed conducted by Bashar Assad; his use of chemical weapons and shelling of civilian towns, being overridden by popular anti-war sentiment and Parliamentary opposition.
This is a very obvious example but there are numerous others, like the democratic process what "the collective" obtains doesn't always correlate to what "the individual" wants, simply because MP's aren't successful when opposing the majorities wishes, doesn't mean they haven't tried, arguably it's the drive to represent their constituents particularly those who voted for them, that puts the Lib Dems in an awkward position, having to support their coalition partners reforms in order to win support for passing their own.
The usual response from the defenders of the status quo is that an MP can always be voted out in a general election, but this state of affairs is highly unsatisfactory, and highlights one of the key problems with the representative system of parliamentary democracy. Some decisions are irreversible, such as voting for war. In the case of the NHS, the contracts signed with private companies are protected by clauses which would make the government liable for untold sums if they attempted to reverse the decision.Then not only is it imperative that we operate on a National level, to elect a party dedicated to improving the NHS rather than selling the services it provides, but also we must be involved at the level of the European Union in much the same way that reactionary British elements like UKIP are, through which deleterious policies such as revoking Human Rights or rejecting membership of that political union could be reversed or overruled.
In any case, the EU is currently supporting a secret trade deal with North America (TTIP), which would put such decisions in the hands of unaccountable arbitration panels that would have the power to override any law made in a national parliament.Perhaps the author has a reason to be as tangibly pessimistic and cynical as they are, perhaps there is a substance or ideological framework underpinning this obviously negative perspective towards the creation of an international agreement, Karel De Gucht has faced similar complaints in his role as EU Trade Commissioner, quoted in July this year he highlighted the three themes which have "been on the forefront of the criticism levied against TTIP: the alleged lack of transparency, the alleged risk of lowering of regulatory standards which underpin our way of life and ISDS...Given the wide spectrum of opinion in this parliament, disagreement is unavoidable. But I hope the debate will be based on facts and logic, we cannot afford to let it be controlled by irrational fears or false information."
It's arguably the secretive nature of the discussions which has led to this situation, and the ideologically underpinned opposition from anti-American media outlets intent on fearmongering, doesn't help, but again going back to the earlier point on confidentiality clauses for Government contracts, it's entirely counter-productive for Governments to completely disclose sensitive financial information, I am as yet undecided on the finer points of the TTIP or TPP discussions currently ongoing, but two facts cannot be ignored, the slowed progress of WTO negotiations, and the protectionism of National Governments who stand to lose many currently enjoyed privileges, such as France or Italy which currently dominate trade in certain commodities, the United Kingdom will be relatively unaffected, since Thatcher it has had very open rules regarding foreign trade and investment, the TTIP will infact in all likelihood benefit the UK economy more than many others, lifting unnecessary bureaucratic constraints on small and medium business which have to work harder than huge multinationals to comply with product safety regulations in numerous export Nations.
Critics generally ignore the reality or are at least unaware, that many countries in Europe have already developed a complex maze of bilateral investment treaties with other economies, including the United States which contain Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) agreements, already offering an extremely high level of protection for investors, Portugal’s State Secretary for European Affairs Bruno Maçães, an informative participant on current negotiations says; "Cleaning up excesses and preserving policy space for democratic decision-making, while creating a level playing field within the EU is precisely the argument for including ISDS in our trade negotiations. A country like Portugal, which has over the years suffered from not having investment protection treaties as developed as Germany or the UK, will not easily tolerate the status quo on this matter."
It's quite painful the level of faith based ignorance passing for credible alternative perspectives these days, one wonders the more they are encountered, whether anybody claiming to know all the problems, offering their own solutions and generally running around wildly shouting for all out insurrection, has any clue of what it is they're actually doing, perhaps they're useful idiots sheilding nefarious interests, or perhaps they are merely the demagogues of a veiled emergent populism the shape of which is as yet undecided.
MPs are elected on the basis of the promises they and their party make to the voting public. If these promises are broken there is little in the way of redress. This means that, once elected, the party leader is free to ignore the promises he or she made to the voters. This is unacceptable.What is populist demagoguery but the reduction and debasement of politics to a level of emotional manipulation and fear based propaganda, the misrepresentation and simplification of facts to fit an impetuous and unguided general narrative of angst at the challenges our society faces?
Calls for a spiritual revolution are all well and good, but when they are part of a wider call to reject everything the common man struggles to understand; parliamentary politics, economics, foreign policy commitments etc, we should pay particular attention as to the substance if any, which these passionately conveyed idealistic platitudes contain.
________
[1] or is this merely a poor choice of tactics? Questionably the worst thing about the initial Occupy Movement was setting itself up in a region where they could cause the most disruption, make the most significant symbolic "point". This immediately split the 99% into at least three antagonistic groups,
a)those who viewed the disruption as an inconvenience, absurd, pointless and ineffectual, particularly the Police and political establishment, or those watching the selective coverage via the Media, which I would say were of far greater number than...
b)those who viewed the street protests and physical occupation, obstruction of property and disruption favourably or sympathetically...
c)those who weren't interested in the slightest, which as I'm sure the 99% are aware; reduced this slightly arbitrary number to at best a generous 10-15% of the populace they were referring to, who were in favour of the general idea of rebellion.
[2] David Lloyd George while arguing for "The People's Budget".
