Monarchy or Republic? The Proposition is Premature

Posted on | Friday, 1 June 2012 | No Comments


On Tuesday 29 May 2012, I attended a debate at the Bishopsgate Institute entitled, 'Monarchy or Republic?’ The Panel of speakers were:

Supporting Monarchy
Jacques Arnold (former MP and member of Council of the Constitutional Monarchy Assoc)
Peter Conradi (journalist and author)

Supporting a Republic
Graham Smith (Republic’s CEO)
Joan Smith (columnist and author)

Before the debate commenced the audience were asked to vote on the proposition, 'should we end the Monarchy'.  4 voted 'no', 3 'undecided', and the remainder (around 60) voted 'yes'. The effect of this overwhelming support for the Republican argument resulted in raucous shouts of outrage whenever the Monarchists spoke and rounds of applause extolling almost every Republican viewpoint, regardless of the banality of many comments.

However, it soon became apparent to me that the whole argument of Monarchy v Republic is a side issue to whether we want to be administered within a true democratic system or a sham one.  I’ve blogged many times on concerns over our democracy here, here and here.  

I was one of the 3 abstainers by the way, but by the end of the evening, was left deeply concerned that so many in the audience blindly supported pro Republican arguments that were clearly flawed, or at the very least, were open to more critical debate. Here is an extract from the first speaker, Joan Smith which basically summed up the level of debate:

She commenced by proclaiming that she loves voting and elections, emphasising the value of our democratic process.  Her naïve faith in what I consider to be an outdated and dysfunctional process undermined her credibility from the outset.

Next she ploughed into the quagmire of the Sovereign’s wealth, tax concessions and restricted Freedom of Information (FoI) access. Well, excuse me for mentioning this but our Government gives away unmandated sums far larger than the Sovereign's collective wealth to failed banks and in Foreign Aid. I’ve only to mention Dave Hartnett to send shivers down the spine of HMRC when they reflect on their reluctance to claw back tax owed by major corporations. As for FoI (aka transparency), hello Mr Lansley can we have that NHS Risk Report please?

Already disillusioned by the banality of the lead speaker’s arguments, Ms Smith then announced, ‘the Queen was never interviewed for the job!’  Words almost fail me on this revelation by the obviously popular columnist and author, who incidentally complained that the Queen ignored her after the prickly journalist greeted HRH (at the Palace no less) with a simple ‘hello’. One suspects she’s carried the grudge ever since. Does Ms Smith believe for example that Lutfur Rahman, Tower Hamlets ‘elected’ Mayor (elected incidentally by just 13% of the electorate) was interviewed before he took office controlling a £1billion+ annual budget and wielding almost despotic power? Or that any politician for that matter is interviewed other than by their own party electoral committees that are by definition not representative of the total electorate?

The remaining speakers swayed me to believe there is no substantive case for a Republic and I was getting an uncomfortable feeling that an angry petite bourgeoisie jealousy was bubbling to the surface through their flimsy arguments. Did this Republican cause consider that society ought to be respecting them rather than the untouchable Monarch – seen as a barrier to their own oligarchy’s upward mobility? One dreads to consider the prospect of a Joan Smith Lord Protector.

The final pitiful comment by Ms Smith was to decry the national campaign for the country to be bedecked in ‘red, white and blue’ to mark the Jubilee celebrations. But then perhaps that’s in line with a Cromwellian Puritanism that would denounce any form of revelry, or festivity.  Personally I’ll be flying the flag and hanging bunting - out of national pride; the celebrations are an opportunity for the nation to unite – young and old, poor and rich, black and white. One flag, one people. For the time being at least, God Save the Queen.


Category: , ,

Tower Hamlets’ dismantled democracy – where the majority is the opposition

Posted on | Saturday, 25 February 2012 | No Comments

Events that unfolded during the Council’s 2012/13 Budget review, on Wednesday 22 February 2012, revealed the blatant misuse of power and the depths we have blindly allowed ourselves to sink to in accepting a dysfunctional democratic process.

Midway through the proceedings, shortly after the leader of the Conservatives, Peter Gold raised an issue of probity which challenged the council’s adherence to the Nolan principles of transparency, a surprise request for an ‘Emergency Amendment’ was tabled by the Independent member Cllr Alibor Choudhury  (Cabinet Member for Resources).  It proposed cutting the Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) provided to Peter Gold, by some £5,000 pa. A paltry amount you may think, when the council was deliberating a £1.3billion budget.

Below is a copy of the Motion, with my notes added in italics. It refers repeatedly to the ‘Report from the Independent Panel on the Remuneration of Councillors in London’, published October 2006.

Motion – Independent Amendment: Additional savings and income opportunities
Proposer: Cllr Alibor Choudhury
Seconder: Cllr Aminur Khan

This Council Notes:

1. On SRA’s:
a) There are currently two levels of SRA’s for the leaders of groups with over 6 Councillors: The leader of a group with 6 members receives £5,531 pa, whilst the leader of a group with 7 or more councillors receives £10,174 pa (These arrangements do not include the leader of the majority group, who receives an SRA at the same level as a Cabinet Member).
         
Choudhury, or his boy adviser Landin, has the facts wrong from the start. The two levels are not for groups with over 6 Councillors, the first level is for groups, ‘up to 6 Councillors’. A minor point but they need to get their facts right.

b) Currently there is only 1 group in Council with over 6 Councillors.

Technically wrong again, as there are 2, Labour (with 32) and the Conservatives (with7); whether Labour is a majority or not, it’s a group in terms of the Motion. Now this is interesting, as they do not consider the Independent Councillors a group, and are accordingly referring in b) to the Conservatives only.

c) That the leader of this group’s SRA is £10,174 over and above the basic allowance of £10,065.

Referring to the SRA being ‘over and above the basic allowance’ is provocative as all SRA’s are payments made in excess of the basic allowance.

d) This is higher than the recommended level by the Independent panel on the remuneration of Councillors in London or £2,368 to £8,852

Indeed it is, and the Council approved and adopted the higher payments through the Members’ Allowances Scheme less than a year ago - on 13 April, 2011 – 5 years after the panel’s recommendations were published. This established the following SRA’s:
·         Leader of the Majority Group on the Council: £12,658 (i.e Labour)
·         Leader of any other Group with over 6 Councillors:  £10,174 (i.e., Conservatives)
·         Leader of any Group with up to 6 Councillors (subject to having at least 10% of the Council):   £5,531

For reference, the Independent panel recommended 5 Bands and the figures given by Cllr Choudhury  are taken from Band 1 (Leader of second or smaller opposition group).

e) This is far higher than in comparative boroughs Lewisham and Newham, where the SRA is £5,275 and £3,621

Entirely irrelevant, as any comparative analysis would need to take into account a far more complex sampling.

This Council Believes:

1. On SRAs:

a. The two tiered system is unnecessary and not supported by the Independent Panel’s recommendation.

The Council applied the two tiered system on 13 April, 2011 as part of the Members’ Allowances Scheme in full knowledge of the Independent Panel’s earlier recommendations.

This Council Resolves:

1. On SRAs:

a. To bring the SRA of the leader of any group other than the majority group inline with the recommendations of the Independent Panel and other comparative Councils.
b. That this level of SRA should be the same level as for a Committee Chair, at £5,531. This would create a saving of £4,643.

Cllr Choudhury has cherry picked from the Independent Panel’s recommendations. Should the Council have applied all the Panel’s recommendations, the leader of the Conservatives, Peter Gold should receive an SRA of between £14,418 and £26,609, i.e., under Band 2 as the leader of the Principle Opposition Group. And here is the crux issue that this slimy motion has revealed. In a constitutional sense (parliamentary constitutional conventions) a party/group cannot be both in a majority and at the same time in opposition. The Council has already accepted that the Labour Party is the Majority Group in Council (63%); it cannot therefore be the Principle Opposition Group at the same time. As the Conservatives are the next largest party/group after Labour, they logically and constitutionally become the Principle Opposition Group. Hence warranting a Band 2 SRA leader’s allowance.

The cunning Cllr Choudhury has been hoisted by his own petard and in so doing has highlighted a serious constitutional crisis at Tower Hamlets’ government. This has been the installation of an autocratic Executive Mayor with the authority to overrule an elected council chamber, including his own Cabinet, (see here). It is Mayor Lutfur Rahman who has turned a majority party/group into the opposition. Tower Hamlets’ Government, if we can call it that, is where the majority party is in opposition to just one man – Lutfur Rahman. Aren’t these the politics of a third world dictatorship?

A further example of the misuse of power was demonstrated by Lutfur Rahman in his ridicule of the Conservative’s amendments to the 2012/13 Budget. After spending time explaining his reasons for agreeing to Labour’s amendments, he picked up the Conservative’s amendments, dramatically motioned as if throwing it away, and said simply non of their amendments were accepted. It’s worth noting that of the 17 Councillors who attended the earlier 8 February 2012 Cabinet meeting to discuss the 2012/13 Budget, non were Conservative.

In my humble view Lutfur Rahman and his ‘Independent’ followers must expect to suffer the very serious consequences of undermining the integrity and process of our constitutional system. It won’t be enough for central Government to intervene and restore a democratic Cabinet, and remove Rahman’s executive powers. Lutfur Rahman must also be removed from ever taking public office for his blatant misuse of power in dismantling the democratic process; power unwisely entrusted to him by the people of this borough. 

Category: , , ,

Our Shameful 'Democracy'

Posted on | Sunday, 19 February 2012 | No Comments

Or how we meekly allow ourselves to be are governed by a minority in our community.

Tower Hamlets Council consists of 51 elected councillors, i.e.,

32 Labour (representing 63% of the full council)
9 Independent (17%)
7 Conservatives (14%)
2 Respect (4%)
1 Liberal Democrat (2%)

However, the council operates on a Cabinet form of executive decision making. This means that key decisions are made by a smaller executive - in the case of Tower Hamlets - 9 councillors selected by the Mayor from the above. However the Mayor retains sole executive power to make decisions within his Cabinet.

Now to the layman, a Cabinet selection would logically, and democratically be based broadly on the representation within the full Council, i.e., it would consist 6 Labour, 2 Independent and 2 Conservative. Am I right or wrong?

What we have in fact is a Cabinet, autocratically selected by an Executive Mayor, (himself representing only 13% of the local electorate) consisting of 6 Independent (his followers) and 4 Labour councillors!

Democracy? You decide...

Category: , ,

Search This Blog

Categories

Grenville Mills