"Democracy Is A Minority Issue"

Both Autonomous Mind and Richard North have superb pieces on the arrogance of local councils, specifically Brighton and Hove, and their refusual to hold a referendum on any proposed council tax increase:

The referendum rule is mad. It’s not really workable and would cost about £300,000 to run.

As AM notes:

There you have it.  A sitting councillor who no doubt prattles on about ‘democracy’ and the ‘wishes of the people’ when trying to get elected, declaring that having to seek our democratic consent for a raid on our personal wealth, is unworkable.  In other words, the council should be allowed to demand what it likes and to hell with what residents think.

Quite. Though I guess there is one positive outcome - it is clear validation of at least one of the Harrogate Demands of "no taxes or spending without consent". Local councils would not be so vigorously against the idea of referendums if they did not work.

Arrogance and a sense of entitlement. Recently an acquaintance of mine has had a similar experience courtesy of Oxfordshire County Council via email albeit on a rather more modest issue than one of spending our own money.

As I noted in May the recent local elections saw the Conservatives lose control of Oxfordshire County Council which lead to one of the incumbent Tory councillors losing his temper at the count. Four Independents were elected but after the election three of the four opted to form a “Conservative – Independent Alliance” (Lynda Atkins for Wallingford, Mark Grey for Benson and Cholsey and former Labour Councillor Les Sibley for Bicester West), thus ensuing that the Conservatives would retain effective control of the council after a deal had been struck:

The alliance means the independents will support the election of Tory leader Ian Hudspeth on Tuesday and add their weight to the party’s budgets for the next four years, but they will not sit in the cabinet. 

Occurring as it did after the election had taken place meant the deal had no reference to the electorate's wishes and certainly had no mandate on which the independents were elected (interestingly the only independent who has remained so and upheld his promises is the one that represents me - but then I know where he lives).

The leader of this independent grouping (if that is not an oxymoron) is Lynda Atkins (from Wallingford) and she has publicly stated, in what is an attempt at some sort of a defence, the following (my emphasis):

It’s not an administration, it’s not a coalition, we’re calling it an alliance. We’re not joining the Tories. This is something which fits the current circumstances, something that will work right here and right now.

We believe that what we have done is very much in the best interests of our constituents and all the other residents of Oxfordshire. I think we always have to go back to our voters and explain our decisions, and this will be no exception.

A crucial element in explaining to voters decisions that have been made is to have the voting records of local councillors made as a matter of public record. I'm not sure how well known this is but there is no statutory requirement for councillors to record their votes. Conversely it is a matter of public record just how our MPs vote in Parliament (and indeed the EU Parliament as well) but there is apparently no such equivalent requirement for county councillors to demonstrate transparency to their electorates.

There is the option at county council for someone to publicly wish for their vote to be recorded in the minutes but crucially it is not compulsory - for most votes only the overall result is recorded. However, any councillor can ask for the way they voted to be added to the minutes. Similarly, if there's sufficient support among the councillors at a meeting, the votes of each member can be recorded.

As Oxfordshire County Council do not keep records of councillor voting records, not unreasonably due to the "deal" done, an enquiry was made via email to Lynda Atkins of which the following is an extract:

That in the interests of open, honest and transparent governance, you agreeing to the publication of your voting records is the only manner in which your electorates can have faith in your promises to hold the conservative minority administration to account.

After a delay in response and further promoting for a reply, Lynda Atkins eventually responded in a revealing manner (I publish her replies without permission in respect of her views of explaining decisions to the voters):

I prioritise emails and deal with non-urgent ones such as this when time allows, and am happy to take 3 or 4 days if that means I can focus on more urgent matters earlier.

The way in which County Council votes are taken is entirely different from that in Parliament, and recording who votes how is very cumbersome and time-consuming.  Yours is the only request I have ever come across (in 5 years on the County Council) for votes to be routinely recorded, so there does not seem to be a broad wish among residents for that to happen.  Given the problems of introducing a routine system of recording votes, I would not support it.

Intriguingly Atkins lets us know what she thinks are urgent issues as per the first paragraph, then makes assumptions on the "broad wishes" of residents (who actually may be unaware that votes are not recorded and would welcome them if informed that was the case), then with a flourish she decides that such a process would be "very cumbersome and time-consuming". Atkins presents no specific evidence of that of course and nor can she since she has no experience given Oxfordshire County Council do not implement such a system.

It's unacceptable that we have no public record of how councillors vote - using the excuse of cost to hide the workings of the council is simply arrogant, particularly in a public organisation with a budget of nearly £600 million. Ensuring transparency and accountability via voting records can be done relatively simply - for example recording such things in the minutes or by a method that the use of a piece of paper, pen and a pair of scissors cannot solve. The Ventnor Blog - Isle of Wight's local site - showed a possible low cost way in 2011:

We thought it would be helpful for you to know how your local councillor voted, so have built a system to let you know. We’ll endeavour to update it live as the votes are being taken.

Atkin's concerns therefore look suspiciously more like concealing her decision-making than a concern for public savings. Further reiterated by a subsequent email in response to one that pressed her on the above points:

All I can do is to repeat what I said previously, that you are the only person who has mentioned this as an issue.  I was not 'surprised' at your request, but I do believe that it is very, very much a minority view. 

Thus in the words of an "elected" councillor a moderate request for democracy becomes "very, very much a minority view".

Here we have a small number of councillors (three), holding the balance of power in Oxfordshire County Council who then refuse to let their electorates see just how they intend to support this failing council. Lynda Atkins' statement about “explaining decisions” is entirely worthless if she, and the rest, refuse to let the public know how they voted.

Spameron

Apparently on Monday Cameron waffled on about protecting "our" children on the internet, a policy that not unsurprisingly started to unravel rather quickly. Anyway I know this because Mr Cameron kindly sent me an email on Monday:

Today I gave a speech about how we protect our children on the internet. I want for your children what I want for mine: that they’re safe and that their innocence is protected.

So today we’ve announced big, new steps forward. In a nutshell, the internet providers have agreed to do much more to filter inappropriate images out – they are going to install family friendly filters automatically unless you, as a parent, say otherwise.

So why am I blogging about this on a Friday? Well put simply I've only just discovered the email 5 days later...because, with some irony, it ended up in my spam folder...

Confused?

 

Apparently Jane Austen is set to appear on a £10 note after an outcry that no bank note would have otherwise featured a woman.

Jane Austen is to become the face of the new £10 note after a public outcry that every banknote featured a man.

New Bank of England governor Mark Carney today unveiled the new design as a tribute to ‘one of the greatest writers in English literature’ which will appear from 2017.

The move comes after the Bank faced criticism that a plan for Winston Churchill to feature on the new fiver meant there would not be a woman on any English note.

Or as the BBC reports:

Author Jane Austen is to feature on the next £10 note, the Bank of England says, avoiding a long-term absence of women represented on banknotes.

Have I missed something? There was me thinking that the Queen was female. Oddly enough a similar outcry hasn't been made against the woeful lack of women on Euro notes (after all there are plenty of important women to choose from).

A Future King Who Can't Rule In His Own Kingdom.

It's worth noting that the new born royal boy is not a subject of his great-grandmother but like the rest of us is merely a citizen as per the Nationality Act 1981 which came into force in 1983. Then in addition he is also, without choice, a citizen of the European Union as per the Maastricht Treaty 1992. The Queen has been relegated to being only a citizen of the EU as well.

A symbolic example of the impotence of our country was laid bare during Prince William and Kate Middleton's wedding day in 2011 when they were photographed in a car with " Euro" plates.

Late this evening as the royal couple were preparing to show off their new born to the world's press, the BBC's royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell reiterated time and time again live on air that they would not be allowed to leave unless the hospital were satisfied that they had the appropriate child car seat. His frequent comments and references were summarised very briefly on the BBC website as follows:

1839: BBC correspondent Nicholas Witchell says the royal couple will come out with the baby between now and 7pm. They will answer a couple of questions - there is a microphone set up. They will then re-enter the hospital and put the baby in his car seat before departing for Kensington Palace.

And as a government website makes abundant clear the use of car seats is an EU competence, specifically EU Directive 2003/20/EC.

It's revealing that the little lad is hardly a day old but already he's subject to EU laws his parents have no say over.

Private Eye

Front cover, like it.

Breaking News: A Woman Gives Birth

It was to be expected I guess that the impending birth of a royal baby would induce the very worst of media vacuousness but expectation doesn't make it any less nauseating or painful.

Naturally one would expect that the birth of a baby third in line to the throne is likely to be mentioned on the news, but the over-the-top coverage has gone beyond farcical. The Telegraph for over a week has been running "a live update" segment on its front page in anticipation coupled with a webcam that has shown nothing but a brickwall for days on end - as shown above. Revealingly it was one of its most read articles.

Given that the process of birth ("process" the word used by Nicholas Witchell) means that there isn't a lot news to report until the baby has been born has left broadcasters labouring the same points over and over again to fill the time.

A point inadvertently demonstrated by the BBC one o'clock news today. The conversation went something like this:

• Nicholas Witchell: "We know Kate Middleton has gone into labour but I can't give you any more news until the baby is born and announced at Buckingham Palace".
  
  
• BBC Reporter; "Ok, we'll go over to our reporter at Buckingham Palace where they're waiting for news. What can you tell us?"
  
  
• Reporter at Buckingham Palace: "Well, we're waiting for the news to be officially announced...

Still, at least the comprehensive and saturated coverage allows stuff like this and this and this to be made public largely unnoticed.

Patronising Electronics

Today I have taken delivery of a new car - minus a "Euro" plate. It's the same model as before but as expected with newer cars there are one or two tweaks and "improvements" that have taken place over the years. In this instance most of the changes as far as I can see are refinements to save costs and money - and there are some changes like an absence of a spare wheel which are presumably to improve the car's fuel economy by saving weight.

With the evolution of electronics and computers, we often find that they have moved on from being useful tools to help us into ones that provide useless and superfluous functions all in the spirit of marketing. Digital cameras, mobiles, televisions and DVD players all suffer from this affliction, usually to the extent where a line gets crossed into the territory of being patronising.

And so it proves with my new car - the dashboard display helpfully informs me when to change gear. One wonders why I bothered with a driving licence, or passing my test, when a car now tells me how to drive. Nothing makes my point better than this lifted directly from the car's manual:

"Upshift"... is shown as a symbol in the Driver Information Centre with Uplevel Display (what?) or Uplevel-Combi-Display (again what?), when upshifting is recommended for fuel saving reasons". 

Apparently this new feature is known as "EcoFlex drive assistant".

Well thanks chaps, all I need now is a YouTube tutorial on how to open a can of beer as well. Thank God I don't have to think for myself anymore.

Magna Carta Day

June 15th 1215 was the day the Magna Carta was signed (in English "The Great Charter" in case Cameron is reading this blog and still doesn't know what it means). To celebrate, the Freedom Association organised a day long river trip on Saturday up the Thames from Windsor to Runnymede which I happily partook in. To my slight shame I'd never been before so here was an opportunity to see the historic spot for myself. Here's a couple of personal photos from the day:

Disappointingly it's made clear that the memorial was erected by the American Bar Association. It begs the sad question why a monument to mark such a important moment in English history was not funded by ourselves. At times like this one has sympathy with Bill Bryson's view in his book; Notes From A Small Island:

"It sometimes occurs to me that the British have more heritage than is good for them..."

We essentially take it for granted.

"If You Fail To Plan Then You Plan To Fail"

Passing by without too much of a murmur south of the border is the Scottish independence referendum due to be held in September of next year. The relatively lack of comment is in direct contrast to the significant implications for the rest of the UK should the Scots wish to go it alone, not least on the thorny issue of the EU; would a breakup of the UK make our EU membership null and void? I've not heard a convincing answer on that one yet.

That aside, the referendum campaign has thrown up some interesting parallels to a potential EU referendum post 2015 and some lessons we can learn from. It should be noted first that there are one or two differences; with the except of a couple of forays by Cameron north of the border the Westminster establishment has largely refrained from interference. In addition polls consistently show Scottish voters supporting staying in the union, rather than exiting. Factor in the "don't knows" and the inherent "status quo effect" of around 15%, then it's clear the SNP and Alex Salmond has a very difficult, if not impossible, task. One suspects that Salmond has been forced to call a referendum earlier than he might have wished due to his success of winning a majority in 2011, leaving him little political choice.

Yet the useful parallels are imbued in a campaign that wishes to seek exit from a union it is a member of, a break from the status quo against the wishes of the establishment. Thus using the Scottish referendum as a dry run in anticipation of an EU one, it is immediately clear the effect major errors have on success or otherwise. Throughout it's becoming increasingly apparent that the SNP has no coherent exit plan in place which is compounding their already poor position - their case has been unraveling.

The referendum may have come earlier than Salmond hoped, but he seems remarkably unprepared given that the SNP is a party that has been in existence since 1934, and Salmond has been its leader since 1990 (albeit with a 7 year hiatus between 2000 and 2007).

Perhaps the lack of detail was the reason that Salmond preferred initially to concentrate on a sense of Scottish national identity and patriotism culminating, just before last year's Olympics, in the rather ridiculous phrase Scolympians:

In a bizarre intervention, the First Minister has devised a new group name for the Scottish athletes at the games that studiously avoids any British connotations.

Mr Salmond issued a good luck message urging everyone to cheer on the “Scolympians”, an inelegant combination of the words “Scottish” and “Olympians”.

Earlier this week, he issued a press release congratulating Sir Chris Hoy as being chosen as the Olympic flag-bearer for Team GB without mentioning the team’s name. 

But the scrutiny won't go away nor can it be papered over by vacuous appeals to national identity and scrutiny is what is now happening. For years the SNP has suggested that they received legal advice that an independent Scotland could remain in the EU and as a consequence inherit the UK's opt outs such as the Euro. Salmond went as far as to confirm it categorically (10:30 mins in):

The BBC’s Andrew Neil asked the First Minister on March 4 if he had sought legal advice. Mr Salmond replied: “We have, yes.

But it turns out that was never the case, as the Scottish Sun waded in with the headline "EU Liar":

THE SNP were forced into a humiliating climbdown yesterday after finally admitting the government had never taken legal advice on Scotland’s entry to the EU after independence.

The party’s referendum chief Nicola Sturgeon announced they were dropping a bid to block demands for them to reveal law experts’ guidance.

The Nats’ challenge has already cost taxpayers £12,000 as they battled to keep the details secret.

For a country to split while still being members of the EU would be uncharted territory legally, however many including the EU Commission, are of the opinion that Scotland would have to reapply for membership:

A letter from Mr Barosso to the House of Lords economic committee, which is examining the independence question, also confirmed his position that a new independent state would "become a third country with respect to the EU". 

"What I said, and it is our doctrine and it is clear since 2004 in legal terms, if one part of a country - I am not referring now to any specific one - wants to become an independent state, of course as an independent state it has to apply to the European membership according to the rules - that is obvious."

Asked whether an independent country would have to renegotiate its terms, Mr Barroso said: "Yes.".

Which then throws up the question of what happens to Scottish exports to the Eurozone while renegotiation was happening, given that they would have no right of access to the Single Market in the meantime as they immediately become a "third country". Exports would simply stop overnight. Such a possible scenario is a damning indictment of the SNP's lack of preparation and as a consequence has been hugely damaging to their cause.

Another big question is what happens to currency. This question has long been a problem for the nationalists. They have at various times supported an independent Scottish currency or even been cheerleaders for membership of the Euro. Currently they have instead settled on a currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK, a policy that seems to be a hasty response to changing circumstances, not least the Eurozone crisis. In short a least worst option.

But this comes with its own problems. It requires agreement of the rest of the UK and there's no guarantee of that. Also, as the Eurozone is painfully aware, currency union requires political and fiscal union to work. So there would need to be budgetary and fiscal constraints in place, a common system of banking regulation, so that the lender of last resort is not underwriting the debts of financial institutions over which it has no control. The UK will inevitably insist on tight controls on Scotland’s ability to borrow, and on its ability to vary the structure of its taxes. It will be political union in all but name. An independent Scotland would have no influence over the Bank of England but would still effectively be under its control, thus making a mockery of independence. Another ill thought-out policy.

Then there's the issue of the welfare state. A vote to leave the UK would be a vote to leave its institutions, including Department of Work and Pensions and the services it provides. A report backed by SNP ministers warned that pensions are at risk:

The study, by the Scottish Government expert working group on welfare, said creating a new system immediately after independence would be so complex that there would be a “significant” chance claimants would not receive their money.

This would also affect millions of pensioners and welfare claimants in England, the report claimed, because their payments are processed at Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) offices in Scotland.

But the report’s authors were forced to admit they did not know how the Scottish benefits system would be administered after [transitional period] because they had too little information about the policies that would be pursued.

The lack of detail means for Salmond that fear, uncertainly and doubt will be the deciding factor in the referendum - dull detail matters, not empty rhetoric. The lack of preparation will put back Scottish independence for generations meaning Mr Salmond, undoubtedly against his wishes, will die a UK citizen. It has turned into a campaign where professionals are knocking seven bells out of the amateurs as Jim Sillars in the Holyrood magazine observed (my emphasis):

These inherent fault lines should have been addressed long before there was any launch of a Yes campaign. The lack of what I call “the Bible” – that is, a document based on asking all the difficult questions and providing the answers, which then delivers solid well researched, intellectually tight material for activists to use – is proving fatal. Currency, EU membership, Nato, pensions both state and private, are but four examples of work not done or sloppy thinking.

Given the woeful performance of the SNP leadership so far, it is a foolish gamble to believe that when they produce the civil service-created White Paper in the autumn, that it will fix things. There needs to be a much wider involvement in the production of a “Bible” without which Westminster will continue setting the agenda and continue to run rings round the Yes side.

It all sounds so wearily familiar, but at least we've been warned. In an EU referendum we also need to provide a "Bible" that answers difficult questions such as the one posed by Autonomous Mind:

On Day One of [unilateral withdrawal] how will British goods will be landed in continental Europe and sold into the EU market.

Otherwise we follow Salmond down the path of glorious failure.

A Weapons-Grade Clown

How anyone takes Alex Jones seriously has always been a mystery to me, further proof if required that the man is an idiot on the BBC's Sunday Politics:



Well at least the BBC will take comfort in interviewing another raving lunatic against the EU thus doing more damage to the 'out' movement by association. Expect more of this the closer we get to a referendum.