What an unholy mess!

The anniversary of the Brexit vote has passed with confusion on both sides. No one seems inclined to 'celebrate' for there is little to celebrate.

The vote divided the country into two almost equal camps who have continued to bicker for 12 months with plenty of heat but no light. The government has expected us to be satisfied with empty soundbites: 'Brexit means Brexit' and 'No deal is better than a bad deal' (a general principle that does not stand up to any analysis, especially given the option of not leaving Europe).  

A couple of months ago Theresa May told us that 'the country is united but Westminster is not' we would therefore have a general election. The result simply highlighted how wrong she had been. Her rhetoric did not got through to the voters (especially as she studiously avoided meeting any); the polls were as misguided as ever; Jeremy Corbyn was not 'unelectable'. The country is now as divided as ever and Westminster is more evenly balanced than it was before.

She actually had the nerve to announce after the election that 'nothing has changed' and that she would be 'getting on with the job' (repeated several times for the hard of hearing). How crass could she be? How ignorant of the message coming out of the balance of votes: that we were not all her greatest fans. She does not have the confidence of the country.

She stumbles on - because we all know that only the Tories are allowed to rule the country - with a divided Party, a divided Parliament and a divided country, while David Davis postures about 'negotiating' when he has actually had one day of talking about the cost of divorce: from a position of considerable weakness.

Of course, the outcome of the election is being interpreted in ways that bear no relation to the question on the ballot paper, just as happened with the referendum.

The referendum asked a single question: should we leave the EU. The answer was interpreted as meaning that we wanted to control migration, get rid of regulation, have freedom to do trade deals, give the NHS more money, and take back sovereignty (for whom; the people? the country? parliament? the Tory party?).  It is ironic that the one explicit thing on offer - more money for the NHS - was withdrawn by the 'winning' side within 48 hours of the vote.

Theresa May then added that we had also voted to leave the Single Market and Customs Union: something that some Brexiteers had specifically said, before the vote, we would not be doing.

The same post-event interpretation happened with the general election. We are now told that we have just voted to 'reject Theresa May's Hard Brexit'. Welcome though this is, I don't remember reading that on the ballot paper. All I saw was a list of names. Is this conclusion the result of some backroom number crunching on who might and might not support her if it came to a vote?

Theresa May takes comfort from the fact that 'over 80% of people voted for a party which supported Brexit'. This is simply more spin. That was not the question on the general election ballot paper. Many voters, on both sides, will have held their noses and voted for the manifestos in the round rather than the different approaches to Brexit, especially as neither major party gave us any detail on what they propose.

What both these votes included was a common cry of protest from the dispossessed, from those who had suffered under austerity. And yes, I am probably falling into exactly the same trap as those commentators who interpreted the results. Both votes were demands for change: an end to austerity.

The Tory front bench refuses, or is incapable, of understanding this as they carry on with 'business as usual' as though they had not just been given a bloody nose by the electorate. 'Nothing has changed' repeated Theresa May in case we had not heard it the first time.

For once, I agree with arch-Brexiteer Gisella Stuart when she said that the 'vacuous' referendum should never have been called. Her argument, amongst others, was that there was no one around to be accountable for the result. No one had been prepared to take ownership of all those vague promises.

At least with the election, we will know who to blame when it all goes horribly wrong. The slimmed down Queen's Speech - hardly long enough for one year's worth of work let alone two, said Jeremy Corbyn - mercifully left out some of the nastier Tory policies but was still pathetic for the first year of a government which is meant to be lasting for five. A fat chance, in my view.

There is talk of having another general election in two years' time to put the Brexit deal to the public. This will simply compound the problem. You cannot bury a question like that in with a whole raft of other policy measures and expect a clear answer. Not unless you are a spin doctor, determined to interpret any result to suit your agenda.

The Tory front bench is hardly a beacon of sanity. As one commentator pointed out, 'We now have a climate change sceptic in charge of environment, a man who hates Europe in charge of Brexit, an NHS enemy in charge of health and a PM who hates human contact (Did I mention that we have a justice secretary with an appalling voting record on LGBT rights)'. They don't often write headlines like that.

The list gets worse, not least with a Chancellor that the PM wanted to sack now throwing his weight around and (thankfully) insisting that economics should be the main consideration in the Brexit negotiations.

Andrea Leadsom demonstrated her grasp of the message from the election when she said that broadcasters (ie the BBC) 'should be a bit patriotic' and suggesting that the country needed to come together. Which bit of democracy does she not understand? Is she suggesting that people should give up their strongly-held views to support her? Why? Has she not understood that the British people do not like being told what to do, or preached at?

Before long, it will finally dawn on people that the referendum promises are undeliverable. Being British, we will not be brave enough to declare the truth and face the consequences. That might look like 'failure'. Mayhem will never allow that. Instead we will cobble up some ghastly compromise with a little bit of everything and the worst of all worlds to show that 'we have delivered what the nation wanted'.

Because of the deep political divide we are now hearing suggestions, including from the Archbishop of Canterbury, of a possible cross-party commission on Brexit. Very sensible in terms of building bridges but I would have expected a better understanding of human nature from him.

In our adversarial system of party politics, the Labour Party has no incentive to help Theresa May achieve a successful Brexit. Napoleon's adage about never interfering with your enemy while he is destroying himself, comes to mind. If Jeremy Corbyn helped out then who would take the praise? And he would have to share the blame if the process, of which he did not have control, did not work out 'brilliantly'. Neither Theresa May nor Jeremy Corbyn behave like team players.

Why would anyone work with the leader of a party they did not believe in? If there is to be joint working on Brexit then the Commission will have to be headed by someone different. Neither May nor Corbyn would be acceptable to voters on the other side.

Is it a surprise that, with a lame duck Prime Minister, no one is putting themselves forward from within the Tory party as a possible substitute. 'Boris' says someone. 'Amber' says another. 'Phil for a maximum of two years', says a third. Who would want the poisoned chalice?

We still don't know what Brexit might mean in practice as the government has been so secretive. How can we come together Andrea?

All of which shows democracy at its worst: blunt, ill-informed, open to abuse.

So how do we actually get out of the bind in which we find ourselves? A new Tory leader before the Autumn perhaps? A statesman honest and brave enough to call out Brexit for what it is? A degree of honesty and openness about the nightmare of Brexit, any flavour of which, both sides agree, is going to cause real pain in the short to medium term ... a Macron perhaps. A person without significant baggage who can cut through traditional two-party loyalties and unite people. Someone prepared to put a range of practical and achievable Brexit options to the public, to allow a real, informed debate before decision, before triggering Article 50.

No chance. This is Britain. We are the experts at democracy. The Tories rule and the rest of you do as you are told.

How different it might have been with proportional representation and years of experience of consensus-building as used by those perfidious Europeans with their weak, unstable governments. 'That jeering sound is Europe laughing at Britain' as Andrew Rawnsley's article puts it.

One thing is certain: no one wants another general election just now, no matter how much we need it. I can understand why no one wants to risk making our current woes even worse.

Selecting our MPs

If ever one needed evidence of the nonsense of a First Past The Post voting system then the omni-shambles of the 2017 general election result is it. We have a hung parliament.

You can spin it any which way:

• The Tories have the largest number of seats but do not have a majority. That means they won.
• The Tories received the largest proportion of the popular vote (42%). That means they won (even though it is below 50% and the majority did not vote Tory)
• The Prime Minister gambled her slim majority on her personal approval ratings and the siren voices which told her that she would win a landslide - and failed. But she is staying because continuity is needed
• She ran a disastrous campaign and is morally wounded while Labour put on the largest gains and won the moral victory, so they should be in power
• The Tories are attempting to patch up a coalition of sorts with the DUP, while everyone else holds their noses at the DUP's policies. This shows 'strong leadership' and continuity in action

We are all for coalitions, confidence and supply arrangements or whatever. But with the DUP? The nice irony is that Jeremy Corbyn was criticised in the right wing press for having been soft on terrorists and now we have a right wing PM cosying up to former terrorists to survive.

I guess they did not even think of the Lib Dems this time, fearing a bloody nose.
 
A look at the Cornwall results shows the inequity of our voting system. There are six constituencies, all of which started, and ended up, in Tory hands. The Tories received 49% of the votes (36% of the electorate) and received 100% of the seats.

Labour got 26% of the popular vote and the Lib Dems 24% (making 50% against the Tories) and received nothing: no representation, no voice, no influence. Nothing.

Is this fair, decent or honest?

People argue that 'this is how it has always been done' and this is 'the best way for a strong government' but is it really the right answer in the C20? It is good to see the LSE agreeing with us that the current system is no longer fit for purpose. Why, even David Dimbleby hinted his support during the election broadcast.

The purpose of an election is to gauge the will of the people and allow the majority view to prevail. During campaigning, the one question we were asked on the street was 'What is the tactical vote to get the Tories out?' One website suggested Labour for our constituency, another suggested the Lib Dems.

Is this really how we ought to be managing our elections in the C20: by relying on tactical voting informed by websites (which may have had agendas of their own)? Why cannot we state what we really want, at least as a starting point, and go from there?

If I want to vote Green but would be prepared to settle for Labour, or, if pushed, the Lib Dems, but absolutely not Tory, then how can I express this view? If I wanted to vote UKIP but, if pushed, would prefer the Tory candidate then how can I express this?

The two main ways of managing Proportional Representation are the Single Transferable Vote (STV) - as used in the EU and London Mayoral elections, and in many other countries; and the Party List approach.

Had we had STV then Cornwall would now be enjoying 2 Tory MPs (North and South East), 3 Labour (St Austell & Newquay, Truro & Falmouth and Camborne & Redruth) and 1 Lib Dem (St Ives). A much fairer split if marginally too generous to Labour (thanks to a close call in St Austell & Newquay).

The Party List approach would have allocated the six seats 3 Tory (North, South East and St Austell & Newquay), 2 for Labour and 1 for the Lib Dems: a very much fairer split of the views of the county.

The Party List is attractive to the large parties but is more difficult to manage and risks divorcing MPs from their constituencies and so the STV system seems much the best.

Proportional Representation has to happen, if only to avoid the disenfranchised continuing to believe (rightly) that their views are being ignored. Only vested interests keep it in place and they are not serving their real masters: the people.

Had we had STV, we would have taken Thursday's result in our stride. The Tories might well still be in power but at least they would have had to talk to others - and not just the DUP - before indulging in their wildest fantasies again. But that would prick their belief that they have a divine right to rule.

It is time we stopped believing that there are only two parties that matter and followed other countries by trying to reflect the views of everyone, not just half of them. It would certainly feel more democratic.

In case I am accused of living in La la Land, I shall deal with some of the other benefits and disadvantages in a later post.

Rethinking democracy

After any terrorist disaster it is conventional to say that we must not let others 'undermine democracy'. But it is worth reminding ourselves what this democracy looks like in practice.

Democracy is meant to be about running the country for the benefit of its inhabitants - avoiding the inevitable questions as to how we define these - through a system of votes. It encourages mature debate instead of violence and allows involvement by the people.

As citizens, we are allowed a vote - one person one vote - every five years (ish) to elect an MP who then represents our interests. They, or rather their party, puts together a ragbag of ideas in a Manifesto which consists of a variety of things we detest - such as allowing fox hunting - alongside things we like - such as cutting taxes. We have to take the rough with the smooth, holding our nose over the things we detest or don't understand, and emphasising to our consciences the things with which we agree.

The MPs then get on with the job of running the country, implementing the Manifesto and taking as little notice of us as they feel they can get away with, unless the media - acting as our self-appointed agents - decide to stir up dissent.

Gosh! That sounds exciting and involving. No wonder countries around the world are keen to become democracies.

As we have seen over the last twelve months, it does not always work smoothly.

You do not have to look much further than the unnecessary, appalling, ill-thought through and divisive referendum in the UK which was characterised by blatant lies and half truths. Because it cost a lot of money and despite what we were told at the time, it has been accepted as valid. Just over half of those who voted (27% of the total population) voted to leave the EU. Just under half voted to stay. So the Leavers won.

That is called 'doing what the majority want'. How could we have believed a result based on such incoherent 'facts'?

Neither side had offered a plan of any sort - and the vast majority of the pre-vote promises of the 'winning' side have already been denied as having been 'illustrative' without any acceptance that this might in any way invalidate the result.

We were told that the referendum result was, as much as anything, a cry of protest from the voters at the 'whole system'. Strange: if they did not like the system, why had they voted in a Tory government only the year before?

The referendum was followed by the 'democratic' election of Donald Trump in the USA. His vile campaign was surrounded by lies and emotion which steam-rollered any mature debate. And yet people voted him in (or, if we believe the conspiracy theorists, the Russians fiddled the IT systems so that he won).

It is the era of the 'strong' leader - almost the antithesis of real democracy. President Erdogan of Turkey seized the opportunity to hold a referendum on giving him extra powers, thus initiating the fragmentation of the secular democracy created by Attaturk. He seems headed on a path which will turn him into a tin-pot dictator; no doubt as 'President for Life'. Kim Jong-Un would be proud of him.

They are all following the route of Vladimir Putin who knows a thing or two about manipulating the press, locking up rivals and muzzling free speech. Our own new Prime Minister seems to be following suit, arguing that any opposition or questioning is unacceptable.

David Cameron's resignation after the referendum left a vacancy for a new Prime Minister. All the senior figures of the Leave side were so tarnished by the lies that no one could countenance them as leader. Theresa May swallowed her pride, crossed the floor to Leave and simultaneously fulfilled her very obvious ambition to be the big boss.

We, the people, were given no say in the choice of the new leader matter. Why should we? The Tories were simply re-arranging their deckchairs. They believe it is their 'natural destiny' to rule, after all.

Other 'Remain MPs' followed her lead, turned their coats and have been proclaiming their loyalty to Brexit like born-again Christians, often in the teeth of the declared wishes of their constituencies. So much for principled politics.

Having said she would not call an election, Theresa May changed her mind, spurned the Fixed Term Parliament Act, to suit her own agenda - and that of her party - showing that her grasp on fair dealing was as fragile as the other quasi-dictators.

The resulting general election is now being fought as a presidential election with letters from Theresa saying 'Vote XX, my candidate'. No Theresa, an MP is actually 'our' candidate.

She billed it as the Brexit election and yet there has been almost no mention of Brexit by the various parties, mainly because the Tories have refused to discuss their 'strategy'. Perish the thought that we might actually know what we are voting for. All we are allowed to vote on, in her view, is who might lead the negotiations.

Why do I get the strong impression that the Tories do not actually have a plan, any more than Leave had a plan before the referendum?

To make matters worse, the Tory strategy, guided by the malign Wizard of Aus, seems to consist of five elements:

• A series of mind-numbingly dull and vacuous sound bites of which 'strong and stable' outscores most others
• Very personal attacks on Jeremy Corbyn
• Putting words into others' mouths to reinforce the personal attacks
• Avoidance of questions from any genuine voter, or interviews on television or radio
• Malicious, unmediated messaging on social media

The first four are the stuff of most political campaigns but the last is a nasty trend, especially when combined with the tactic of putting words into others' mouths.

All this subverts democracy in a way which the Bolsheviks and Nazis would recognise. Both won power through the ballot box and then changed the rules to suit.

Despite arrogant Anglo-Saxon beliefs, democracy is not a book of rules. It is a fragile flower which requires hard work and nurture. It requires honesty and involves trust: trust which is now sadly lacking as MPs are revealed to have some very human frailties.

Ah, we are told, the UK has the 'mother of parliaments' and invented parliamentary democracy. So it must be the best. Yes, but that was a few hundred years ago. Things have changed since then. Others have found some improvements which may be worth considering.

The last big change was the Great Reform Act of 1867. Yes, we have 'given' women the vote and a few other niceties since then but the basic model has not changed. Did I just write that? 'The basic model has not changed much' in 150 years?

In 1867, there was no mass communication. News of events in London would take days to reach all parts of the kingdom. Polling did not exist. Telephones did not exist although Twitter-length messages could be sent by telegram.

MPs had to be delegates. They were elected to represent the views of their constituents in a general way, not issue by issue for there was no way to keep closely in touch with them. They were trusted to make up their own minds and do the best for their voters. Few, probably, were able to spend each weekend in their constituencies, talking and listening.

This same model has served us since then. But today we live in a world of instant mass communications, surrounded by social media in all its forms, of polling, of broadcast media, of 24 hour news.

Could it be that the systems of the mid C19 might no longer be suitable in the C21? I surely cannot be suggesting that some improvements might be possible? No, the UK never likes such things. Sir Humphrey would never approve.

And what about the rise in unmediated social media and its love of spreading fake news? Or the domination of the media by a few very biased individuals? Or the opportunities offered by instant communications?

As the opportunities for communication have increased, so have the powers of the party whips. It is unthinkable for a modern MP not to obey his or her whip: certainly if they want to have any sort of career within the party. Parties have become monolithic, inspiring devoted and unswerving loyalty in the teeth of reason, rational analysis or truth. Spin doctors have become past-masters at dealing with inconvenient truths that occasionally rear their heads.

As the referendum has shown, we live in an age when the majority sees itself as having a divine right to rule: the thuggish tyranny of the majority. 'You lost, get over it'.

Many of us struggle to remember when our vote last counted in an election. We simply shrug our shoulders and wear t-shirts emblazoned 'Don't blame me I voted XX'.

The winners argue that a majority gives them a 'strong government' which can get things done: and never mind the views of anyone else.

This is not what democracy is supposed to be about. Yes, the will of the majority should prevail but it should take into account the views of the minorities. It should be tested in debate and discussion. It is not meant to be a licence to overrule all opposition for five years.

A brief nod to Tony Blair who, on coming into office with the largest majoirty Labour had ever seen, involved his predecessor, John Major, in completing the Good Friday Agreement in N Ireland. He also allowed Michael Heseltine to continue to work on the Millennium Dome with which he had been associated. It was an attempt to be inclusive whatever others' political views.

What makes things worse is that the majority is not actually a majority. Parties and MPs are elected by ever-smaller proportions of the voting public often representing a distinct minority of the popular vote.

In the 2015 election the Tories received 60% of the English seats with 41% of the votes; Labour 39% with 32%. So the top two parties received 99% of the English seats with 73% of the popular vote. And we call that democracy? No, it is a legalised duopoly.

Both parties like the present system as it gives them a 'strong' government and squeezes out alternative voices. No one wants dissenting voices do they? The newspapers referred to Theresa May's opponents as saboteurs. This is the language of tyranny. If you are not with us you must be against us and must be eradicated, marginalised, re-educated.

Such tyranny cannot be good for democracy or for our country.

Churchill's famous quote that Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others is only the start of the story. He never said that there was only one way of doing democracy.

The tragedy is that there is neither an appetite for change nor a consideration that might be a better way. No party in power is ever going to propose something which might in any way weaken its hold on the reign of power.

This is the first of a series of posts looking at some areas where there is obvious room for improvement in our democratic processes. One day, I hope we have a leader strong enough and 'democratic' enough both to recognise the need and to make changes.

Then we might have a democracy worth defending.