Democratic Reform Party

An opinion piece by a member.

As I have said to many of my colleagues within the DRP the most important thing to sort out in my opinion is the flow of money. Now many within the party have personal issues of interest such as housing, policing, employment and so on. My own personal interest is the environment, but a few years ago the economy collapsed and I decided to research why. The short answer was the way banks were run, how money was created and where it goes.

Against a background of everything falling apart I realised no environmental change was going to happen as money was never going to be diverted to those causes under our current system. This is not only due to the banks but also corporations and general financial interests.

My journey of discovery has taken me a long way from how I used to understand the world. I used to believe we lived in a democracy and that anyone who worked hard could succeed. I am sure many people still feel the same. The crazy thing about what I have come to realise is that the world is more corrupt than most of us ever suspected or even feared. Some people call me a conspiracy theorist because I don’t believe we have a free market, because I try to tell them their money is debt. But mainly because most of the time I try to tell them that banks create money from nothing and then charge everyday people like you and I interest – which the banks directly profit from.

People really need to start making the above issues their priority when looking at what we want from government. However there is one more pressing issue which I worry about more than money, more than global warming and more than anything else anyone can mention – and that is peak oil!

Our whole economy is built on the back of cheap oil. The profit gained from and system of distribution of all our goods – including food is based on the backbone of oil – without it we will see a dramatic crash. Yet we are facing increasingly high oil costs and may have reached a point of peak oil.  This is not entirely new news; there were voices as early as the 1970s pointing this issue out. We have even seen many times the effects of not having oil (although not for the same reason). Many people who spoke about peak oil or oil running out were described as mad and almost immoral because it questioned our right to consume, consume, consume and thus drive the economy. However in the last few years we have seen the price of oil reach its highest level ever with barrels costing around $106 – a massive increase compared to previous decades. Many people think the issue of peak oil means we will run out completely – but this is not the case – what it means is that the cost of oil will rapidly become more expensive as oil is harder to obtain. As oil prices rise this will have an absolute impact on economy. What amazes me is so few people talk about it. Virtually no politicians do – and yet this is an issue where we are driving a truck into a cement wall on. We need to open the debate.

Now I need to connect this back to finance. A lot of our wealth is connected to oil in simple and more complicated ways. For instance it affects the cost of heating, it affects the cost of travel, it affects the cost of production and so on. Whatever affects us as householders – also affects business. These are some of the more simple ways to see the connection between oil and money – but it goes a lot deeper when you consider the stock market makes its profit on oil directly and indirectly on all the businesses that need oil to run their operations. We need to sort the finance industry out in the UK (and wider world) because we absolutely need a fairer distribution of wealth to prepare us for some bigger challenges ahead. We need to create an energy infrastructure that is sustainable and inexpensive. In other words we need to free up money and create jobs in certain areas that will provide this. With a viable energy infrastructure we can save ourselves some of the issues from a global market – issues directly linked to energy costs and supply

How do we do it?

Well this is the big question. I do have an outline. We would need to tackle corporations and tax avoidance – this is crucial – all organisations operating in the UK need to pay their way. We support the SimPol pledge and we would encourage all countries that we trade with to do the same, pointing out that business can no longer hold whole countries to ransom on the issue of taxation.

We would have some kind of ‘green bank,’ that would be a national bank that operates normal current accounts, but also lends to ethical business and business that promotes green technology or products. All accounts would be guaranteed by government – meaning that no person would lose their money, it would be independently regulated, but accountable to us (similar to the Positive Money model). Our customers would become shareholders – whereby we pay interest based on the amount of money they have invested into the bank. We would begin by being an internet/ phone operation – but expand to have physical banks around the UK.  

We would introduce a Carbon Tax that is paid through products by the consumer and directly by business’s that create the most carbon. Therefore items that cost more carbon would cost more, but there would be savings for consumers and business in other areas. The money from this tax would support the green bank.

Any business that gets fined for pollution, corruption etc – the money would also support the green bank.

We would provide mortgages, with some very flexible rates and undercut other mortgage suppliers.

We would use the green bank as a direct way to finance and support companies that are building green, clean and sustainable energy sources such as wave, wind, solar or combined heating plants.

All of these things are tied into each other – which is why I despair when people said Occupy never had a clear message. They always knew that the work that was needed was something that needed to be attacked at the same time on multiple fronts. What made the protest against the banks and finance industry so important was freeing up the money to begin the process.  If we can democratise the money – then we can right of the injustice we face.

The present House of Lords is currently the worst of all worlds. An over-sized relic based on a murky system of patronage, with a handful of hereditary peers and bishops remaining, it lacks the legitimacy to scrutinise legislation and complement the work of the Commons. Reform so far has been fudged, partly because the constitutional purpose of an Upper House has not been clarified. I will argue that it should be an independent chamber that balances executive domination of the legislative process and checks against abuses of power. By transforming the composition of the Lords, these powers be realised effectively. I will propose an Upper House composed of a healthy mix of appointed Senators, elected Senators and jury-style Senators. This would enhance democracy whilst maintaining the supremacy of the Commons on which our political system is grounded.

Why do we need an Upper House at all? Upper Houses are designed to scrutinise legislation, ensuring that rushed and poorly drafted laws are not passed. In a country such as Britain, where power is highly concentrated in the executive, checks and balance on the government are essential. MPs act as the elected representatives of the people; we lend them power which we then renew or remove periodically at elections. However, the Commons maintains a strong party system meaning power is concentrated in the hands of the Cabinet and Prime Minister. An Upper House is needed to act as a check against this immense power.  The Commons, as the democratic representative of the people, should still be the dominant chamber and the elected government’s program should not be obstructed without good reason. Yet an Upper House that can delay, scrutinise and propose amendments to (but not block) legislation enhances the democratic functioning of parliament.

The current Lords lacks the legitimacy to perform these democratic functions effectively and needs reform. Proposals for reformed composition of the Lords essentially fall into three categories: appointment, election and jury selection. There are benefits and drawbacks to all these suggestions, but it is possible to create a system combining the best features of all three. A chamber dominated by elected Senators would lead to one of two equally undesirable situations: another chamber of politicians paralysed by conflict with the Commons, or another chamber closely controlled by the executive. A chamber dominated by random ballot would directly conflict with the commons, potentially undermine the whole political system and is not necessarily more democratic than a representative system.  A chamber dominated by experts would lack democratic legitimacy and give too much power to an independent commission. We do not have to choose between all three, however, so I believe in a healthy balance: 100 Expert Senators to add experience and insight into debate, 100 Elected Senators to maintain links with constituents and 100 Jury Senators who represent a cross-section of the population. This would reduce the Lords to a manageable, efficient size, rather than the current 788-member colossus, the largest second chamber in the world.

Appointed Senators would be appointed by an independent commission, rather than through patronage as at present. They would offer expert insight: businessmen, industry experts, teachers, lawyers, scientists, doctors, economists, defence analysts, academics and so on would help to turn the Lords into a truly deliberative chamber where experts add real value and insight into debates in the long-term best interests of Britain. The Wakeham Report in 2000 outlined how an independent Honours and Appointments Commission would function. Blair claimed to accept the report’s proposal, but crucially chose not to sacrifice the Prime Minister’s power over appointments resulting in a murky system of patronage. A truly independent commission, as outlined in the report, would be effective at raising the quality of parliamentary deliberation.

Further Senators would be elected for one-off, fixed seven-year terms. These Senators would be the link between the Lords and local regions, and be as free as possible from patronage and party whips. Some link to political parties is desirable, however, to allow these Senators to propose government legislation in the Upper House. This is roughly the proposal supported by the major parties, who probably believe they will still be able to control the Lords if it is dominated by a party system. An elected component is essential to maintaining links with both citizens and the Commons. However, the Upper House should primarily be a check on governmental power and a fully elected system would lead to a chamber controlled by political parties. The alternative outcome, gridlock as the two chambers compete for supremacy, is equally undesirable.

The remaining Senators would be selected by random ballot from the population as a whole. A random selection of the population contributing to the Upper House would add a further, important perspective to debates: it would show how policies actually affect ordinary people. These 'jurors' would be paid the same wage as MP's for short, 3 months terms and technology means some work could be done from home. This would be a symbol of trust in the British people, hopefully restoring some faith in the political process. Anthony Barnett offers an excellent blueprint of how what he calls ‘contrition’ would work in ‘The Athenian Option’. There are problems with a chamber radically chosen mainly by ‘contrition’, as Barnett suggests, because of the potential for conflict with elected representatives in the Commons. However, a significant jury component would increase both the functioning and democratic legitimacy of an Upper House.

Committees combining expert insight, elected representative and ordinary citizens whose lives are affected by government policy would work together to scrutinise legislation. The current consensus between mainstream parties is inadequate: House of Lords reform cannot be solved just by creating yet more politicians. A healthy mix of appointed, elected and jury-selected Senators would create a truly great deliberative chamber that would enhance British democracy. It would complement, rather than compete with, the Commons whilst being an effective check on governmental power. One of the world’s most archaic and undemocratic Upper Houses would be transformed into probably the most progressive, democracy-enhancing and effective Upper Houses in the world.

Further Reading

Bogdanor, The New British Constitution

Norton, Parliament in British Politics

Barnett, The Athenian Option

Constitutional Affairs Committee Publications http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/conaffcom/conaffcom/

Author: Naomi Chapelhow
Politics BA Hons Student & DRP intern

Introduction

A constitution is similar to a rule book and it can either be written or unwritten.

We had a number of technical issues with regards to the Show on Sunday which created difficulties for our views.

The DRP team are profoundly sorry for this, and we can assure you it has now been taken care of.  As part of our wish to improve the show and the experiance,

We are this week debating environment.  Below are the links which are some of the paramerters to which we are going by to help formulate a policy: