I have resisted Tom's call to write an article. Much of this is down to me admitting I write too much from personal experience or analysis, and do not have the time, energy or resources to research material that could pass muster from someone marking a university submission. However, I feel that the state of British democracy warrants any article, even a short one and below normal journalistic standards, that can open a serious debate about what we can do about the Starmer Government.
At the last election in July, I voted Liberal Democrat. For the first time since I have voted, the number of their MPs fairly reflects their popular vote nationally.
I read today that the Zombie Chancellor Reeves is not ruling out "hard decisions" over to withdraw the 25% discount in Council Tax for those living alone. This was introduced in order to satisfy critics of the Poll Tax, which was levied on individuals even though living alone, they may use far fewer council resources than couples or families, who are also have access to two or more incomes to support a household. If I recall, there was a major public outcry over the Poll Tax, which brought down the Prime Minister of the day (Margaret Thatcher) and led to a campaign of civil disobedience and some rioting. In the end, Michael Heseltine had to cobble together a formular that would at least restore peace amid the great unwashed. I would myself have preferred a local income tax - something supported by local Tory MP Peter Temple-Morris, who later defected to Labour, whose constituency interestingly is now held by the Greens.
The Council Tax is quite invalid anyway, considering how little discretion elected councillors have over how this money is to be spent, and that councillors neither have any alternative and fairer ways to raise revenue.
I owe the public's incapacity to bring 20% Starmer to account to the sad reality that, like most of our national institutions, Parliament has been brought into disrepute and is no longer worthy to pass laws or govern the nation. There is a whole litany to back this up, and everyone has their favourites. I point in particular to the manner the Equal Marriage Act was introduced and pushed through Parliament eleven years ago. This required no electoral mandate, no White Paper, no Green Paper. It was not in any Party election manifesto, nor in the Queen's Speech. It was guillotined through the Lords, and the Second Reading allowed two spokesperson (Maria Miller and Yvette Cooper) 45 minutes to speak in favour, and anyone else had to catch the Speaker's eye for their three minutes during a debate made so short, little could be scrutinised or held to account.
There was a public consultation, led by another spokesperson (Lynne Featherstone) who presented it by declaring "you will get this whether you like it or not; all we are interested in is how to implement it most effectively". There was no overwhelming public call for it - the nation was split about 50/50 over the issue, and there were serious liturgical issues (such as the violation of one of the seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church) that needed to be aired. Even Peter Tatchell spoke against it, arguing instead that marriage was an outdated institution, and that civil partnership should be made universal and represent how it was to be treated by the civil authorities.
As for an overwhelming landslide for Labour at the 2024 General Election with a 20% mandate, clearly the split in the Conservative vote had much to answer for. I do not criticise Nigel Farage for what he had to do, nor the support he attracted to his version of Conservatism. Yet it split the vote, and Farage is the first to admit that. Starmer knew that power was being handed to him on a plate, and that he had no need to offer anything constructive to the nation.
Particularly to blame, according to our current democratic rules, are those who voted for the Green Party and Reform, who have had their votes handed over to the Labour Party when it comes to allocating MPs. The two parties between them attracted nearly 6 million votes, and just nine MPs came out of it. Even the February 1974 election allowed the Liberals fourteen MPs for their 6 million votes. The only result even more distorted I can remember was in 2015, when, if I recall 4 million votes cast for UKIP led to one MP. The consequence of that was gross misrepresentation over Brexit that brought Parliament into chaos for years, and a state of anarchy in 2019. Back to the 2024 election, the Tories' 6.8 million allowed them 121 MPs, and Labout got 411 MPs for 9.7 million votes.
The electoral system has long been a disgrace, but now their voters are being made to pay dearly for it.
Starmer's response to anticipated gross unfairness at the 30th October Budget, which the Opposition is powerless to do anything about, is to empty the prisons of criminals so that space can be found for protestors. Pensioners, who are notoriously hostile to Labour, are singled out for punishment under this regime.
I now throw this debate open to others, who hopefully might be able to unite and mobilise effectively. I welcome ways to do this that Starmer won't be quite so capable of jackbooting to oblivion...