baldysblog.co.uk

The two previous essays were to describe a current and a possible future situation but in this one hopefully, I can try to pull the various elements together. As to whether my ideas are practical is a matter of opinion but at least I’m thinking about it and trying to communicate with others in order to provoke thought and discussion.

I want to move on to the more important part of these 3 essays, the politics and political impacts of change. The principles of democracy are far more important than just “one person, one vote”, they extend to the structures too and within which democracy is served.

What a Government Is

As an example and regardless of party preference, the reality is that we give Parliament our approval to follow the policies and manifesto they laid out at the last election and on the basis of which they were elected. The principle is that we give them a maximum 5 year lease, what we do not give them is the right to sub-lease that to a third party or, a foreign power which the Labour Party has done over the EU Constitution.

Our freedoms are not theirs to give away and for whatever reason this parliament has done so, they are totally incorrect to have behaved in this manner and most likely are guilty of ‘impeachable offenses’ in doing so. Unfortunately there appears to be a conviction amongst some MPs that they have a Divine Right to Rule which most certainly isn’t the case.

Whilst Magna Carta described a basic legal process and some fundamental freedoms, the Petition of Rights 1628 followed by the Bill of Rights 1689 which together formed the basis of the American Constitution in terms of defining the rights and responsibilities plus, the constraints upon both in the terms of citizenship and governance are what do, or should, guide our Parliament.

Let Them Eat Cake

It is irrelevant whether your or my view is pro or anti the EU Constitution, the simple fact is that we were promised a referendum and are denied it whilst all 3 major parties, promised us one at the last election only one was prepared to keep their word. Regardless of the result of such a referendum and regardless of which way you or I might vote, not giving us this referendum is the ultimate proof that our “political classes” and the political scene generally is in dire need of a major “make-over”.

That will include removing people from office and more importantly taking away powers such as the Speaker being appointed by another body rather than elected by MPs as now. Now whilst I think the current incumbent of the office, Speaker Martin is not up to the job the reason the selection should be done differently is because the circumstances have changed dramatically whilst Parliament has stood still.

The primary job of the Speaker is to ‘defend’ the House and its customs, which is why he gets to live at the Palace. Previous Speakers have been executed but this was in the days when the power and potential tyranny lay in the hands of the Monarch, today those same powers are in the hands of the Prime Minister and therefore the post falls under his patronage which is not good, time for change including, why should it be an MP anyway ?

Politics Is…

Politics is the art of the possible, what can actually be done within the particular context and at that moment in time. Whilst at the time of writing MPs are being accused quite rightly, of having their snouts in the trough, a charge difficult to refute when a married couple both Cabinet Ministers have claimed £300,000 in expenses on top of their £120,000 salaries giving them a joint income of £540,000 – not bad for a pair of socialists I would say.

However, a good politician is worth their weight in gold (which they seem to be taking rather too seriously), if they can both see and seize the moment when the public are ready to accept radical change. Recent events though have shown them as devious which would be normal for any politician but now, unreliable and lacking in integrity, which is not. The Palace of Westminster today, is as distant from the public in the same way that The “Sun King” and the Palace at Versailles was from ordinary French people in those days.

We Need to Reduce Their Powers

If we accept that politicians crave “power” and that power derives directly from the control of vast sums of the citizens money – our money, to control parliament better, we need to restrict parliaments access to the ‘commonwealth’ and even their ability to tax it.

We the people need to understand precisely where centralizing powers makes sense, where it doesn’t and where consequently, concentration of power only leads to “patronage” which is that essential conduit to corruption both moral and material.

That politicians generally have got totally the wrong idea of what their job should be shows up not only in denying the electorate a promised referendum on the EU because “Gordon knows best,” but also in the way that policies are framed, our taxes used in pursuit of their rather than our aims. To add insult to injury these are always wrapped up in some hypocrisy such as “My Moral Compass” the contemporary version of the ‘last refuge of a scoundrel’.

The plain truth is that not just this current crop but historically many of people who become politicians, are generally vain fools who lack both commonsense and personal honesty which shows up well when looking at pension provision. Indeed, Gulliver’s Travels and Lilliput are as relevant in today’s political scene as it was to the then British political scene when first published in 1726 .

We Need to Reduce Our Expectations

The main problem with Parliament as it stands today is that the government of the day wants to be both the “funder” and the “deliverer” of services such as Health, Education and so on and that is a big mistake in our current economic model. I would suggest that apart from Defence and a handful of other things, the government should specify the service, legislate for standards and leave it to other organizations to do the actual delivery.

In fact through Hospital Trusts and City Academies, this is happening already but needs to go a lot further and Parliament needs to let go completely and avoid halfway house, half baked ideas such as PPF schemes which are a total nonsense. Diverting NIC into pensions savings would most certainly lead to sacrificing certain kinds of services and a cut in the government payroll.

We Need Politicians Who Want to Serve

For a politician to do a proper job over reforming UK Pension Provision and regardless of which political party they came from, they would need to be honest and totally dedicated to serving the Nation above both their party and their personal ambitions. They would also have to accept that given the long term nature of the project, they perhaps not nor even their children would benefit fully from it but, most likely their grandchildren would.

The Consequences of these Changes

The power of the House of Commons would be reduced substantially. There would be a massive transfer of money into the private sector and a constant flow of money which would have to be invested into the productive side of the economy, most likely into those businesses, health care, education for example that the government would “buy services” from.

In the UK people have most of their wealth tied up in their property, over time under this type of arrangement, that would become less true. In a sense this is a logical development of a “right to buy” scheme in housing except that unlike housing and as the funds will have to be invested, it is far more productive for the economy as a whole.

Turner in his report was totally wrong, the only way to solve this problem is by forcing pension savings on individuals and restricting the Governments ability to raise taxes. We need to totally free up pension funds from all the current rules but, obviously there must be some covering how benefits can be taken, there will always be some fool who would blow the lot if they could, in a year.

If people are forced to save then it must be done at source and be a fixed percentage, we already have this, it is called National Insurance so let us say 8% of that money is ring fenced and may not be used by Parliament as its revenue, instead it is paid directly to the financial institutions for investment into the personal pension accounts.

Whatever the percentage is, if we plan for a 40 year turnaround, it may be possible to start with a lower percentage and build it up in the future to allow for funding the transitional stages better. Because we have a well established financial sector in the UK, lots of choices are available and a whole lot of technical expertise to get such a scheme up and running smoothly with the right kind of regulatory oversight and minimum costs.