Thursday 25 February 2010

Help to say Goodbye to Party Politics. Part Two.

In previous blogs I have explained my reasoning in support of aiming for a government that is divorced from Party Politics. As a first step to achieving this I would hope to see an Independent candidate standing in every constituency in the next election. Voters, throughout the UK, will then have the opportunity to show their feelings as regards to the worth of party politics. It is my wish that every seat will be won by an independent. Failing this I would hope that independent candidates win enough seats to ensure that they either have an overall majority or to be able to exert enough pressure to make their views known and courted.

What ever the outcome it is to be hoped that the question as to who is going to be chosen as Prime Minister will depend on the outcome of a vote in Parliament, the same applies in appointing other Ministers and Deputies.
At this point I wish to query the tradition that seems to require that a Government should fall, and an election be held, if they lose a vote in Parliament. Surely that, in modern jargon, is "not a train smash"? It may well indicate that whoever instigated the matter, that was voted on, did not get it right in some way or other but surely that is the point in a democracy, a matter is debated and then voted on. My contention, explained in a previous blog, that, via a vote of no confidence MPs can force a Minister or Deputy to relinquish their office could be invoked if such a drastic step was felt to be needed.

"In a No Political Party Parliament" it virtually goes without saying that members will discuss matters among themselves, and agree to support particular aims as a group, this is not to say that they will always act in the same group. They should, at all times, be acting in a manner that they feel the majority of voters in their constituency would want; at times they may not agree with what their voters want but they must not assume that they know better than their voters, the MPs must follow the wishes of their voters. As explained previously I feel that voters should be able to force the resignation of "their" MP
In debating a matter, MPs, without having to think about pleasing the hierarchy of a party, will be able to express what they think are the views of "their" voters, as well as arguing the pros and cons as they see them. In my opinion this is how a democratic government should function.

Frederick W Gilling Thursday 25 February 2010

Friday 19 February 2010

Please help to say goodbye to Party Politics.Part One

Greetings, my first four blogs explain my desire to arrive at a more democratic way of governing the UK than that demonstrated by PARTY POLITICS. Time is now very short, but not too short, to make a meaningful impact in the next election, if you would like to help, the following points are, I think, applicable. I will talk about one constituency for easier presentation,but the points apply to all.
1/ Hope that the major parties promote one candidate each .
2/ Hope that just one candidate, with long residential qualifications in the area, stands as an Independent, he or she may well have previously supported a Party or been connected in some way to local government.
3/ Hope that on polling day a truly massive turnout returns all of the Independent candidates in a text book example of a countrywide landslide victory.
4/ One "hand on heart" pledge that Independent candidates must give before being nominated is that; "If legislation, giving voters the right to force the immediate resignation of "their" MP, has not been passed prior to my election, I will give top priority to seeking the promotion of such legislation.

This blog will be continued in Part Two.

Frederick W Gilling Friday 19 February 2010

Tuesday 16 February 2010

Switching to "Party Free Politics" in the UK

Party Politics have, in my opinion, dominated government in the UK for far too long. The hierarchies of the major parties are often much too powerful and in many cases this negates basic aspects of democracy. Is the fact that we went to war with Iraq an example of this?
In order to win the votes of "floating" voters the major parties are not likely to produce manifestos that are too far to the right or left of centre. And, on the evidence mounting up during the last few days, they are all too aware of the need to appeal to persons worried about the services traditionally provided by the NHS and the education system, as well as making very obvious attempts to assure the growing numbers of pensioners, and families on benefits, that they will be looked after. These are areas which were traditionally the domain of labour but are now being cultivated by parties that were, historically, more inclined to the right.

In my opinion a great unknown in the next election will be the anger that is felt by many people over MPs expenses, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the damage that has been inflicted on the world by reckless financial institutions and the fact that many bankers, guilty or not of bringing on the World Financial Armageddon, will still be getting total incomes that to many people are astronomical.

I feel that the time is ripe for party politics to be swept out of sight. My ideal scenario for the next election should see the major parties backing a candidate in each constituency, these would be opposed by just one independent candidate, this candidate should have had a long period of residence in the constituency, he or she may even have belonged to a political party previously. Come election day and there would be a massive turn out of voters and they could show their desire for change by voting for the independent candidate. As I said that would be my ideal scenario.

Another system, that I would like to see introduced, would involve juggling the schedule controlling the days that Parliament sits. The system is as follows, in order to provide officially designated times, for all MPs to meet their constituency members, two days a month would be specified for this purpose. For example the first Wednesday in the month and the third Sunday. The MP would be available, in a suitable hall, paid for by Government, from 9AM until 5PM, say two hours for a working lunch between noon and 2PM. These days and times should be suitable for most people who wished to attend Q and A meetings with their MP. These officially scheduled meetings should not detract from the MP's normal arrangements for meeting and consulting residents of their constituency.

Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 17 February 2010

Electing UK Prime Minister, Ministers & Deputies.Part Two.

The following suggestions are aimed at supporting a Party Free type of government, interestingly though I have just had the thought that they could well be utilised in a situation where no party had an overall majority. They also assume that MPs, Ministers and their Deputies can be forced to resign or relinquish their office in ways outlined previously. In my opinion these methods of censuring MPs or Ministers by voters or MPs are essential for a truly democratic government.

My first suggestion is that at the first meeting of newly elected MPs the Speaker invites nominations for the position of Prime Minister. If there is only one nomination then that is taken as a unanimous result. If there are two nominations then it is a straight contest. If there are more than two nominations the contender with the lowest number of votes drops out, this system continues until there is a clear winner. The MP who was defeated in the only or final round may, if they wish, accept the position of Deputy PM. Failing that the Speaker will call for nominations for the position of Deputy Prime Minister and the election for that position will follow in the same way as that for the PM.

The Speaker will then conduct elections for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and such other Ministers and Deputies as thought necesary. In a previous blog I have proposed that thought be given to letting the position of Speaker be made on a permanent basis, that a serving MP cannot be the Speaker, that a Speaker, once elected by MPs, remains in office until he or she wishes to resign, has a health problem or is voted out of office by MPs.

The Chairmen of Select Committees will be elected by MPs and, once elected, may list the MPs they wish to serve on their Committee. Any MP who objects to any of the MPs named in the list may register his concern and if needs be a vote will be conducted by the Speaker to resolve the issue.

How to obtain "No Party Politics", and related matter will be suggested in my next blog.

Frederick W Gilling Tuesday 16 February 2010

Monday 15 February 2010

Electing UK Prime Minister, Ministers & Deputies.Part One

In the two blogs preceding this one I advanced suggestions regarding different ways in which MPs could be forced to resign as an MP, and ways in which Ministers or their Deputies could be forced to relinquish their office. I also stated that action aimed at achieving these events should not, obviously, be undertaken lightly, I indicated where methods that I had suggested could be referred to. I also suggested penalties that could be applied if such action did not succeed. Summing up that facet, I freely agree that better ways of compelling the resignation of MPs, or Ministers and/or their Deputies to relinquish their office may well be found. Essentially it must not be too easy or too difficult to instigate such action, what will be difficult will be to find the right balance between those parameters. I feel that the availability of such action is a vital step towards a more democratic and open form of government.

A matter which is closely linked to the above is a question that I have puzzled over, the question is, " Why are leaders of democratically elected governments often lionised or hated, as an individual, with great passion"?, after all they should only support actions that they think the majority of the population want. The wishes of that majority should have been conveyed to them by the persons that had been elected, by the population, to fill that role, in the UK of course this is by MPs.

In recent times the matter has been raised as to whether our Prime Minister should act as a President or as a Chairman. Again, quite recently, many people believe that the government failed to seek the opinion of MPs and that, indeed, the PM did not seek the opinion of his Cabinet. In harsh judgement such behaviour of a PM is approaching that of a dictator.

Turning attention to our elections, are the voters, in effect, voting in a Prime Minister or just some one who happens to be the leader of a party that they support? Many people have been critical of Mr Brown on the grounds that he was not "elected". My knowledge of how different
PMs came to fill that role without being elected is not extensive, there are others of course, notably, I think, Mr Churchill during the darkest period in WW Two. There is little doubt in my mind that he was, at that time, lionised.

I will put forward my suggestions regarding the Election of the PM and other Ministers in my next blog.
Frederick W Gilling. Tuesday 16 February 2010

Sunday 14 February 2010

Forcing Resignation of MPs. Part Two

In part one I advocated the passing of legislation that would " enable voters to force the immediate resignation of their MP".
The second suggestion I had is that legislation should be formulated that would "enable MPs to force the immediate resignation of any MP". There may be a method already available for MPs to do this, if there is I feel that it should have been used in at least one instance, about a year ago, that being in respect of an MP from whom the Conservatives had withdrawn their whip. This power must not be invoked lightly but, conversely, in order to propose a vote of no confidence in a fellow MP the MPs proposing it need only advance the general complaint that they are not satisfied with the particular MPs performance in Parliament. Penalties can be devised against the proposers if the vote of no confidence is not carried. In my book and in my first blog on politics I have suggested, for example, that the MPs who proposed a vote of no confidence that failed should be forced to resign their seats or, alternatively, they could be fined, say, 3 months salary.

My third suggestion is that MPs need to be able to force any Minister or Deputy Minister to relinquish their office by proposing a vote of no confidence. Here again a penalty should be imposed if the vote is not carried, in this context it should be a fine of so many months salary. If such a vote is proposed the Minister or Deputy Minister may relinquish their office before the vote is taken. Further ideas that have a bearing on the above will be raised in my next blog.

In closing this blog I will quote a few words from my first blog, these are; "There is, I am sure, a prime need to give every responsible person in the country a justified feeling that they, the people, are fairly in control of events, other than natural disasters, and that their efforts and opinions, on a grand scale, do matter and are seriously considered".

Frederick W Gilling Sunday 14 February 2010

Saturday 13 February 2010

Voters Forcing Resignation of "their" MP.

On 15th December 2009 I wrote a letter and headed it "Open Letter to all of the UK's MPs", a copy of this was published on this site. I wish to record my sincere thanks to the providers of this facility for this absolutely fantastic service.

On 16th December 2009 I sent a copy of the letter to the leaders of our three main political parties, I asked them to kindly arrange for a copy to be given to each of their MPs. Not one of the letters to the leaders has been acknowledged and I do not know if any MP received a copy of my "Open" letter.

The open letter asked for three new pieces of legislation to be introduced, preferably before the next election. The first piece of suggested legislation was "Voters need to be able to force the immediate resignation of "their" MP". Mr Cameron, maybe a year ago, did raise the issue of MPs being recalled by the voters in the MP's constituency, I subsequently formed the opinion that Mr Clegg, in principle, was not averse to the idea, evidently several American States can do something similar. In my blog, Politics One, on this site I suggested several ways in which such legislation could be formulated. These ways are broadly similar to those I wrote in a self published book about two years ago.

In the last couple of weeks it has dawned on me, rather forcibly, that many MPs would be very averse to passing that particular piece of legislation, at this moment, as it could be used by angry voters to force the resignation of MPs whom they thought had exploited the expenses regulations. Perhaps such legislation could be enacted, by this government, with a starting date of 01 August 2010. I feel that it is an essential piece of legislation.

In my next blog I will deal with the second and third suggestions mentioned. Thank you.

Frederick W Gilling Saturday 13 February 2010

Friday 5 February 2010

Complaining Directly to Newspapers

Over a year ago, I sent a six page letter to the leaders of the three main political parties in the UK, as well as to eight of the national papers. The letter was prompted by a deep feeling of injustice I had over a decision by the Press Complaints Commission. This decision caused me, almost involuntarily, to really assess the press and its impact on so many aspects of our lives.

In the letter I stated that, while being very much in favour of the freedom of the press, within the bounds of national security, I was also totally against the unbridled power of the press. I lived in a country for many years where the press was not free and that is truly a deplorable situation.
As regards the power of the press in large democratic countries there are usually several papers, owned by different people or companies. This tends to level out the impact of their power in respect of, for example, influencing the result of elections. Interestingly a major UK national daily announced that they were switching their support from the government party to that of the opposition. However I feel that most politicians, public figures and celebrities are very aware of the power of the press and would think long and hard about being in any way critical of a paper or individual staff members. The following five paragraphs are as written in my letter to the politicians and papers.

"As a first step, to curtailing some aspects of the power of the press, I suggest that a law is passed requiring that every newspaper or magazine, offered for sale to the public in the UK, should on page three of every issue publish in the top left hand corner of that page the essential parts of the law, under words such as "This space is reserved for complaints against this paper". The exact wording should be specified in the law. Legal experts will write the law of course but the aims are covered below.

If a reader thinks a particular article or statement is distasteful, hurtful, inaccurate or? or? they may write a letter of complaint to the paper, no longer than (say) 100 words.

The paper must publish the complaint as written providing it complies with
existing laws regarding, for example, bad language. If more than two complaints, over essentially the same matter, are received then the paper need only publish one but must also state the number of complaints received, and give the names only of the writers of the unpublished letters.

The existing laws regarding race, libel and/or slander will apply and legal action by the newspaper, complainant or the police will, as usual, be at their discretion, in which case the courts will decide the outcome.

I feel,that in the course of time, well established and acceptable boundaries will be formulated regarding potentially distasteful, misleading, damaging and/or hurtful remarks or statements, beyond which newspapers, contributors and complainants will step at their peril". End of quote from my original letter to politicians and papers.

In thinking about the rallying call "Freedom of the Press" I am sure that most people thinking about that expression realise that it needs to be qualified in some respect or respects. That raises the question "Who has the right to determine in which way or ways should it be qualified"? and having answered that the next question is, "Who has the MIGHT to enforce the qualifications and impose punishment for any transgression of the qualification"?

One obvious qualification, I think, is in respect to National Security, guide lines to this may well be in existence, if not they should be. They could be backed up with the instruction, " If you have any doubts whatsoever about an article, bearing on National Security, that you wish to publish get in touch with "So and So" and ask for an interview to discuss it.

Another area where the " Freedom" is subject to some form or other, I know not what, of qualification is in connection with swear words, particularly the four or seven letter words connected with sexual acts. If a paper were to come out with front page headlines, containing any of those words, has a crime been committed? And if so what would the charge be?

The next questions, "Is the Freedom of the Press a misnomer"? followed by "If the answer to that question is yes do we accept, at least tacitly, that it is a misnomer, because we all know that it is qualified in several ways, but so what?

I feel, though I may be in a minority group, that the power of the press can be used in many ways to shape public opinion, I feel sure that the press has it in its power to demonstrate what is acceptable behaviour in many aspects of life in the UK at the moment. I have suggested that legislation should be enacted to enable reader's complaints to be published in the paper concerned, there is nothing to stop the publishing industry as a whole, or even individual publications, from agreeing to that suggestion, or something like it, without the need for legislation. That I feel would be a magnanimous and much appreciated action truly in line with the objective of self-regulation. This may result in more papers being sold but it should certainly not result in a fall in sales.

A new thought, at least on my part, regarding complaints is that draconian laws, and supreme technical expertise will be needed to control the use of the internet in "Publishing" anything whatever under the guise of "News", or even "In the public interest". The papers have power but one shudders to think about the ultimate power potential of the online route to untold millions of eyes and, consequently, minds. Not only the established media have access to that route for it is also available to virtually anyone with the ability to use the technology needed. Vast capital expenditure is not essential as low cost, even free, use of such technology is provided by many public libraries.

Yours sincerely
Frederick W Gilling
Sunday 07 February 2010

Thursday 4 February 2010

My Ideas for a New Look PCC. Part Two.

In Part One I explained my thoughts about the expression "Independent Self-Regulating" and then went on to deride it as a charade as, I think, the expression contradicts itself and should not be used as such. In the case of the publishing industry the expression can also be described as a facade behind which the industry can hide. The PCC, which presumably the industry created, helps to prop up this facade, indeed they often pat themselves on the back as they thicken the wall by claiming the success of "Independent Self-Regulation". I repeat the question, how can the word "Independent" be used when the industry tells them what rules [Code] to follow and pays their wages to do it?

At this point I feel another question can be asked, why the need for self regulation? Part of the answer could well be that many editors realised the need for curbs, within the industry, to restrain practices that they had felt were unbecoming. Yet again some editors and/or owners may well have thought that if the industry itself did not attempt, where necessary, to clean up its act then Government may seek to regulate the industry, and impose its own legislation for a Government created regulating body to follow. Such a body could truly claim to be an Independent Regulating body but no one could claim that it was a self- regulating body as, in fact, it would be an imposed regulating body.

As I have acted, metaphorically, as a bad cop so far, I will, all part of the act, switch to being a good cop. Having been exposed to a large range of the PCC's activities, and, though, to a much smaller encompass of those of the Editors' Code of Practice Committee I do feel that I know enough to be able to comment, favourably, on both of these bodies. The comment being that they both have honourable and commendable intentions, I put forward that statement with the hope that they will be able to, at least, acknowledge that a drastic change is needed to be able to do justice to the concept of self-regulation of the publishing industry, and in so doing gain the approval and acceptance, albeit in some cases grudgingly, of most of their critics.

Some of my suggestions are:
Firstly, the PCC and the Editors' Code of Practice Committee continue mainly, but not exclusively, in their present and accepted roles.
Secondly, neither of these bodies must countenance the use of the word "Independent" in describing the function of the PCC.
Thirdly, great stress should be placed on the words "Self-Regulating", as that concept will exactly describe the cohesion that exists in the publishing industry regarding, the rules created by the industry and the body created, also by the industry, to enforce those rules.

I have covered most of the following points in previous blogs and/or letters but, in rounding off this blog I will repeat and enlarge on some of them below. I also accept that there must be many more proposals made with the aim of enhancing the effectiveness and acceptance of the
publishing industry's self-regulation.

The PCC must have power to punish publications that have clearly not abided by the Code and have not accepted instructions from the PCC as to what to do to resolve a complaint.
The PCC voluntarily offer to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act
The PCC voluntarily ask for an ombudsman to be appointed to cover their actions if needed.
The PCC must have the power, even the duty, acting on their own initiative, without the need for a complaint from the public, to point out to the publisher that they have infringed the Code either in word and/or in spirit.
That the Editors' Code of Practice Committee consider writing in a clause in the Code that gives clear parameters within which the right of reply is obligatory.
That the same Committee consider formulating a clause under which newspapers, particularly, give space to complaints of readers. I will give suggestions regarding this specific matter in my next blog.
If the PCC cannot resolve a complaint to the satisfaction of both parties then they put the matter to the Editors' Code of Practice Committee. In effect that Committee is acting as though they are an industry court of appeal, if that Committee's decision fails to resolve the matter, to the satisfaction of both parties involved in the complaint, then at least the industry can claim to have followed their path of self-regulation to the end. From then on both parties can obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act, and/or seek the services of the Ombudsman, and/or consider legal action. In that connection the self-regulation of the industry could be tested to the limit.

In explanation of this please consider the following, the PCC tells the publication to follow a specific clause or clauses in the Code, the publication declines to do so. The PCC put the matter before the Editors' Code of Practice Committee, they agree with the PCC's decision but the publication does not follow the Editors' instructions. The PCC could now offer to pay the complainant's costs in an action against the publication concerned. That would show the industry's commitment to self-regulation.
Another suggestion I have made follows this paragraph. This suggestion could well be adopted if the PCC is given more power, it would support both their aim of "Fast" as well as the spirit of self regulation.
Two senior personnel in the PCC secretariat should be given the authority to demand, in simple non complex cases, the appropriate action from the publication concerned. If the demand is met the case need not be referred to the Commission Members. A thought in addition to this is that
"All Cases Referred to the Commission Members Should be Adjudicated at a Formal Meeting of the Members". The Members should not be given draft resolutions by the secretariat. This should make it easier for recording, under suitable headings, the data regarding how complaints were dealt with by the PCC as a whole, and at which level complaints were handled.

Yours sincerely
Frederick W Gilling
Friday 04 February 2010

Tuesday 2 February 2010

My Ideas for a New Look PCC. Part one.

Addendum to my previous blog that commented on an online article published by the Press Gazette on 21 January 2010.

As background information to this new blog please note that, the Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission [PCC], Baroness Buscombe, initiated an Independent Governance Review of the PCC, and invited submissions to the Panel formed to conduct the review.
More or less at the same time the Editors' Code of Practice Committee are due to hold their annual review of their Code, they also invited submissions in regard to their Code. It should be stressed that these reviews are completely separate.

I have written twice to both the Governance Panel and the Editors' Committee. The following paragraph was communicated to both Panel and Committee.

"Kindly consider the following reasoning, an industry can be independently regulated, an industry can be self-regulated but, I contend, an industry cannot be independently self-regulated. If the industry happens to be the publishing industry the power of the press can be used to support the effectiveness of their "Independent Self-Regulation". When the PCC self praise themselves, as they do, regarding the effectiveness of independent self-regulating they should at the same time acknowledge that they are dependent on the publishing industry, for the Code they have to follow, and for the funding, from the same source, that enables them to operate. Having acknowledged that they should think long and hard about the correctness of using the word independent in regard to their status." End of quote.

In trying to reconcile "independent self-regulation" with the fact that the PCC is dependent on the publishing industry for its very existence, I feel that both parties are guilty of trying to justify and perpetuate an Alice in Wonderland type charade. This coupled with other shortcomings has left both parties open to criticism. In my next blog I will outline what I think will go a long way toward justifying the expression "Self- Regulating" as well being much more effective in dealing with complaints, satisfying most critics and forestalling Government intervention except in exceptional circumstances. One example of that being "A right of reply", or, to show that I am, hopefully, not lacking in humour "A write of reply", or even "Rite of reply". There is, of course, nothing to stop the publishing industry introducing a cast iron right of reply themselves.

Yours sincerely,

Frederick W Gilling

Tuesday 02 February 2010