Posts Tagged "Democracy"

Mayor decides to censor his own council

Everyone’s favourite mad-cap Mayor (of the people who read this blog) Christian Estrosi has made a final coup against freedom and democracy: he has banned the recording of council meetings, after censoring street performers it was the next logical step to censor his councillors.

The Mayor of Nice decided without warning that the recordings would be cut, claiming that it was necessary to make economies.

He said that the practice costs the local government 25,000 euros per year. He runs the Conseil Municipal (the town of Nice) which serves about 450,000 citizens.

Here’s a video for francophones:

Compare this to the Conseil Régional, that serves the entire region of Provence, the Alpes and the Cote d’Azur (including  Nice), that’s about 4,781,000 people, with a much bigger number of councillors and hence a bigger room and presumably more cameras. To broadcast a meeting, it costs the region 2,000 euros.

The Region meets 5 times a year, so broadcasting costs 10,000 euros per year. Estrosi holds 4 meetings per year, the legal minimum. To reach his figure, over double the cost despite fewer meetings, his cameras must be made out of gold. Note that 4 times a year is the legal minimum for the Conseil Municipal to meet.

Also note that the propaganda “magazine” that gets distributed to everybody’s letterbox, as well as “letters from the mayor” costs the town 450,000 a year.

Having dispelled the money myth, the real reason he was to censor the broadcast is because it is the only source of unbiased, unfiltered news left. The Mayor’s office buys “advertising space” in the local paper, to the extent it provides a third of the newspaper’s total revenue.

Estrosi is simply trying to hide the truth, and by preventing the  recording of the council meetings he does a disservice to democracy and his electors.

Bulgaria to ban Turkish language on state broadcaster

Bulgaria has begun parliamentary proceedings for staging a referendum on whether public broadcaster Bulgarian National Television (BNT) should continue a special daily news bulletin in Turkish.

In a move which resembles the recent ban on Minarets in Switzerland, the Bulgarian Prime Minister, Boiko Borissov, and his ruling party GERB have publicly endorsed the campaign launched by the ultra-nationalist party, Ataka, which states:

Bulgarian is the official language of Bulgaria and there is no place for news in Turkish on the public broadcaster.

The subtext behind all of this really comes down to the role of state broadcasting, and the suppression of the Turkish (that is to say Muslim) minority. It is a standard act of aggression against an ethnic minority, misguided and twisted into a regressive stand against Islam and immigration.

Ethnic Turks make up 15% of Bulgaria’s population.

It is the responsibility of the state broadcaster to promote and encourage diversity, it is the channel not for a minority, or a majority, but the entire nation. Compare the situation with the state broadcaster in Britain, and the relationship between Wales and the United Kingdom. The BBC has several broadcasts in the Welsh language for cultural and linguistic purposes, which are not restricted to factual programs, despite the general decline in native Welsh speakers. However, the Turks are not demanding that their language is compulsory in schools or that sign posts are bilingual, the issue pertains to one news program.

Here, we see that language is the key barrier to society and it is typically reactionary to suggest that these news broadcasts entrench segregation. In fact, I would suggest that the newscasts improve cultural cohesion. The Turkish population will better understand Bulgarian news which enables them to appreciate and participate in community activities, helping them to integrate with the majority. In addition, it is also useful for native Bulgarians to familiarise themselves with Turks and the Turkish language.

Thus this proposed ban on a single 15 minute long newscast is purely symbolic. The state broadcaster’s schedule is not packed with Turkish-language programs any more than the Swiss cityscape was infested by the five minarets.

The timing is also entirely cynical. Though the campaign was started five years ago, it has only gained real traction thanks to the fear of globalisation and migration exacerbated by the financial crisis. Politically, the cause has gained credibility and profited from the result of the Swiss referendum.

This referendum, like most referenda, will not be democratic. It will bring out the tyranny of the Majority designed to enforce conformity. The only consequence will of the ban will be to strike a blow against the Turkish (again, Muslim) population and make them less welcome in their own country, which in turn makes them less inclined to participate, which strengthens segregation and fragments society.

This post was written on the request of a Bulgarian associate of mine who asked me to investigate the issue. If you have any ‘requests’ or issues you would like me to turn my attention to, please send me a message via the contact page and I’ll be happy to oblige.

We can look to Europe for ideas to reform our democracy

I have been working for our French colleagues in the Parti Socialiste for 6 months now, and though I don’t know what a Jedward is, I have been able to experience ‘continental democracy’.

The debate about electoral reform in Britain has always been “PR or not to PR”, with the third way of AV or AV+ and other complicated overhauls creeping in to the lexicon. The conclusion is always a very British paradox; FTPT is unfair, unrepresentative and needs reforming…but that’s the way we like it.

As a reaction, rather than a solution, to the expenses scandal when it broke a few months ago, there was a whole package of changes designed to restore a democracy in crisis. Fixed Term Parliaments were suggested and then forgotten about; meanwhile the Tories are determined to self-harm by reducing the number of MPs in the Commons as part of their ghoulish quest for cuts.

I have been looking at various democratic innovations we could import from other European countries, particularly France.

Both nations are suffering from a declining turnout, but for opposite reasons. The French tend to experience election fatigue, as they are required to vote for their MEP, the Président, their MP, then Regional, General and Municipal councillors, as well as their Mayor (no matter how small the town).

Britain, conversely, experiences election atrophy, creating the attitude “We only see you at election time” every four years, and there are generally only three levels of representation; the MEPs, MPs and Local Councillors, then depending on where you live there may be Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Assembly members or the Mayor of London and the GLA.

Creating more levels of representation will not have any effect if it is impossible to justify introducing them. Regional Assemblies, for example, were piloted then abandoned, though there is still a vocal lobby for an English Parliament.

Instead, the main argument used against British First Past the Post is the fact we have ‘two horse races’ in a three party system, which leads to either tactical voting or ‘wasted’ votes.

To solve this, we could experiment with a two-round system. It’s quite simple to implement ‘two elections’; the French vote on a Sunday (weekend voting is something else we should consider) and the two candidates with the highest share of the vote go through to a second round the following week. Sometimes three candidates qualify, but it’s all in the detail.

The effect on Britain could be a great many more parties form, as well as more independent candidates standing (coalitions are very popular here) but voting for one of the weaker candidates wouldn’t necessarily exclude you from having a say in the final decision between the more successful candidates. In the local by-election we fought over the summer in Nice there were eleven different candidates, though predictably the PS and UMP (Labour and Conservative equivalents, broadly speaking) qualified. This also means that ‘the underdog’ can stage quite a miraculous recovery thanks to the ‘reserve votes’.

It could transform tactical voting and make safe seats less safe, but the downside is of course that it would make two-party constituencies even clearer. Currently, many constituencies are Labour/Conservative marginals with the Lib Dems trailing in third place, so Lib Dems have to choose whether to vote for their own party and ‘waste’ their vote or to vote for whichever party they see as the lesser of two evils. Under a two-round system, they would be free to show support for their party in the first instance but on the second round they could make a straight choice for whomever they prefer. Labour voters are in a similar situation in the south.

When the ‘left’ vote is split (this mainly depends on how you view the Lib Dems) the Tories get in. But voting twice will allow voters to keep to their principles and be realistic at the same time. This vote-splitting is prohibited and so safe seats become a lot less safe. It may even increase turnout because, in the second round at least, every vote will make a difference.

The time between first and second rounds could also be used effectively to sharpen and clarify dividing lines while having the advantage of making political events more practical. For the Leader’s debates, there is still the question of what to do with Nick Clegg. It seems silly to have him on between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, but unfair not to invite him as he is after all a party leader.

Similarly, during the London Mayoral election campaign in May 2008, Newsnight had to invite Brian Paddick along, despite the fact the campaign was so evidently a Johnson/Livingstone affair. Second preference votes are obviously weaker than First preference, but if even the most dedicated Lib Dem voters were posed a straight choice between Ken and Boris, Ken might have made it (or Boris may have had a bigger majority).

A key argument against PR and AV is that they are more confusing and complex than one vote, one winner elections. So when it comes to Electoral Reform, all I propose is that Britain looks beyond the same debate we have had for decades and starts to think about real changes we can make. To that end, it may be worth looking to Europe for ideas.

Statement on Nick Griffin on Question Time

The episode of Question Time which featured the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, has just aired.

Once again, Twitter came into full force. According to @tweetminster there were up to 53.5K tweets with 12.49 tweets per second at close of #bbcqt.

Analysis of the debate will no doubt dominate the headlines and the blogosphere tomorrow and for several days to come.

However, I believe this is a maiden victory for the Coalition Against No Platform but the work is far from done.  Those STILL in favour of No Platform rightly ask “What about next time? What about the time after that?” because now the boycott is broken, we can avoid the mistake France made with the Front National, and hopefully start to deal with the BNP in a practical and not hysterical way.

Despite this, UAF protesters continued their typical activities, with a fleet of police officers required to prevent a riot. A caption on BBC News suggested that 3 police officers had been injured as protesters had attempted to storm the BBC. 6 people were arrested. I have said time and time again that I believe this method to be wholly counter-productive.

Question Time showed that Griffin’s views are as safe as sandcastles, and his backtracking and squirming was evident.

I am proud to have been able to contribute to the debate. I can only hope we can stop arguing with each other when we should be arguing with the BNP.

Hadleigh ROBERTS

Sarkozy tries to privatise La Poste, the citizens vote No

Yesterday concluded a massive public consultation across the whole of France.

The French were asking themselves about the privatisation of the postal service, La Poste. When I say “asking themselves” I mean it literally; the whole project was a mock referendum.

The mock referendum was designed to show support for a real referendum, which is turn is designed to block the government’s plans.

The project was organised by a “national committee” comprising of 62 different associations, unions and political parties and has already seen popular support. In Nice alone, there were nearly 1000 votes against the government. (I think the exact figure was about 9,634.)

The campaign poster found all over town

Since the start of the year, around 3 post offices have closed every day and 7400 jobs have been axed.

Nicolas Sarkozy has given two main arguments to justify his privatisation proposal; Europe and Finance. He pretends that it is the European Union which is imposing changes on the monopolisation on the delivery of post weighing less than 20 grams. This argument is false. The EU has in no way tried to change the status of the service-operator, much less its privatisation. Financially, La Poste has several other means available to it than privatisation to fund itself.

I don’t have the figures for the whole of France yet, but it looks like another Sarkoscheme that will be stopped dead by a self-made referendum.

Other countries should learn from this; democracy isn’t just about voting once every 4/5 years.

Knocking Tom Miller off his platform

Recently I wrote a piece denouncing the Labour Party’s No Platform Policy and its attitude towards the BNP. (Link to that)

Shortly afterwards, fellow Labour Colleagues came forward with their own pieces agreeing with me, including Bryony King, Adam Connell, James Alexander and Olly Deed. (Each name links to each post)

Even on the Right, it won support from Working Class Tory.

In the name of debate, I’ll also present to you those who are still in favour No Platform; a piece by Ellie Levenson and then Tom Miller.

Normally I avoid the practice of Fisking (definition) because I find it a rather vulgar and ugly form of rebuttal, but I think it’s right that we have this debate within the Party, and it’s an important one to win. I hope you’ll permit me to take the gloves off this one time.

A lot of the debate was sparked by the suggestion that the BNP is to be invited on to Question Time. Imagine that Tom Miller and I are sitting next to each other on such a panel, he is arguing in favour of No Platform and I am arguing against.

If you don’t want the point-by-point reconstruction, skip to the second image for general comments.

Having framed the debate, Miller begins his piece by quoting the comedian Mark Steele:

“There’s something touchingly innocent about the argument put forward by many people that the BNP should be allowed space in the mainstream media as this will “expose their ignorant ideas”. Because history doesn’t necessarily prove this to be the case. I don’t suppose that, in 1941, many people thought: “You see, this is all working to plan. Now he’s invaded Russia everyone will see just what an idiot this Hitler really is.”

That’s completely inappropriate. First, it totally misrepresents our approach; abandoning No Platform does not mean we roll out the red carpet for the BNP, and we’re not giving them rope in the hopes they will hang themselves by “exposing their ideas”. If we let them loose with their own TV spots (to which they are legally entitled in the form of Party Political Broadcasts) then they are not going to be stupid enough to say “We support fairer taxes, safe streets, oh and also the immediate deportation of anyone with thick lips.” They will hide their racist agenda if left to their own devices. We’re arguing that we should lead the charge against the BNP, not sounding the retreat and leaving the door open for them.

I want to dismiss the historical example out of hand because it’s so ridiculous, but I can’t help myself. I don’t suppose in 1941, many people thought “You see, this is all working to plan, we should carry on ignoring Hitler’s invasion of Europe and it will just fizzle out.” Chamberlain appeased and appeased, not confronting the problem as it grew and grew. By the time we decided to fight them on the beaches Hitler was a lot more powerful than he might have been.

They are only on Question Time because they hold office, and their immediate goal is to hold office. More of it. If we concentrate only on fighting the effects of this, a spilling over and legitimisation of racism in public discourse, and the social discord which goes with that, then we are lost.

I don’t quite understand your sentence because it’s quite convoluted and doesn’t seem very clear to me. Just to pick up your point about the “legitimisation of racism in public discourse” though, it’s only legitimised if it goes unchallenged by other parties, and it’s not likely that the general public are going to continue nonchalantly sipping their tea and think, “Oh, we can use that word again? Jolly good.” Olly Deed made an excellent point when he said “Surely the election of two MEPs and nearly a million votes at a European election suggests that they are a legitimate political party. Legitimacy is not an emotive term; I would argue it is an empirical term that shouldn’t be bounded about willy nilly.”

Bearing in mind that many of those who vote for the BNP, particularly as a protest against the other parties, often know little of their policies full stop, imagine how many people would see the BNP for the first time in their life on such a TV performance? Even if the BNP are roundly defeated in debate, this number will be such a large one that the percentage of people who find themselves agreeing with them will almost definitely outstrip the number who would support them without having seen question time.

I’m trying to be reasonable, but that’s just nonsense. Simultaneously you claim that people vote BNP without knowing their policies yet that knowing about their policies will get more people to vote for them.

If voters are informed then it is their democratic right to be able to vote BNP, that’s not negotiable. If they are uninformed then they could be making a mistake, having only hearsay and gossip to consider, which links to the question of martyrism and protest voting.

More alarming than your assault on Democracy, Tom, is your assault on the Working Class. I believe it to be very patronising, and you write them off as racist and stupid. The mother of a friend of mine was prepared to vote BNP because they seemed like a genuine alternative. He had to explain their racist policies to her to change her mind, but sometimes people won’t believe what they hear because the No Platform line comes across as fear mongering because you don’t want them to vote BNP.

In other words, while it is satisfying for politicians to look forward to ‘winning the argument’ against people who are already seen even by many of those who vote for them (let alone Labour MPs) as profoundly illogical, that means very little if it boosts their vote.

You’re suggesting that people knowingly vote BNP because they are illogical! Again it shows your pathological distrust of voters by suggesting that people will see BNP claims being exposed as false but will still vote for them regardless. Not to put words in your mouth, but it seems like we might as well restrict suffrage to those with a degree in political science.

The argument that the No Platform policy has failed has been fashionable lately. But it has been treated lazily and accepted with little question. The fact is that with regards to the BNP, it is one of the only parts of mainstream politics which still works.

It’s not fashionable, it’s a realisation. As one of the commenters brilliantly puts it, “Well if 2 MEPs for the BNP means the policy is working, I hate to see it fail.” The fact is that with a growing base (that erodes our own, I may add) the equation has changed and we need to up our game, which we can’t do if we tie our hands behind our backs.

That’s my rebuttal Tom, I hope you’ll have found me reasonable, now allow me to make some of my own points:

When it comes to the BNP, I’ve seen the whites of their eyes. It gave me a chill down my spine but I didn’t blink and I didn’t flinch because I knew I was doing what was right. Similarly, I’ve also gone face to face with the much more powerful Front National. For years and years in France, the FN was No Platformed, yet it grew and grew feeding and thriving on its victim status until it was too big to continue ignoring, which was also the point where it became too big to extinguish.

You will perhaps recall that Front National leader Jean-Marie Le Pen beat the Socialist Lionel Jospin in the presidential race of 2002 and went head-to-head with Jacques Chirac. The shock was similar to the one we felt on June the 4th, but the lesson is that you have to have faith in democracy and in people, because a week later 80% of the French people went out and voted for Chirac, or rather, against Le Pen.

We in Labour have a unique opportunity to learn from this mistake and prevent a similar event happening in our country.

The “utopian stuff about the messianic power of debate” as you describe it suggests you have a much bigger problem with democracy than you do with the BNP.

If the BNP are continuously allowed to spout out their hate-filled rubbish and it goes unanswered, then I put it to you that it is this that actually legitimises their claims more than anything else because it doesn’t hold them to account.

No Platform on the grounds of one of their policies makes us look cowardly, not just on the subject of racism (where I would hope we have the better side of the argument!) but also on all the other policies. If we can’t defend our own policy on immigration and so on then we look desperately shifty.

No Platform ultimately comes down to a question of trust in the electorate. If we don’t trust voters enough to make the choice for themselves and treat them with contempt as if they are stupid, even those Labour voters who disagree with the BNP will not turn out for us at the polling stations if they continue to see “their” party as patronising and willing to act undemocratically.

We in the Labour party have an obligation to engage with the public. If the public, especially the working classes, are turning to the BNP to be their voice then we need to engage with the BNP and show that they do not hold the answers. You are wrong to blame New Labour, and “triangulation” for the disillusionment of the ‘core’ vote; the Labour Party must make a choice between the authoritarian approach of No Platform or the democratic one of enfranchisement.

I appreciate that the BNP strikes fear into the hearts of many Labour members, but remember, we are at our best when at our boldest.