Ritchie’s a Chartist now, is he?

The 1838 Chartist demands were:

Universal male suffrage
Secret ballots
Parliamentary elections every year
Constituencies of equal size
Paid MPs
The end of the property qualification for MPs

When we try to get to constituencies of the same size the Ritchie tells us that is gerrymandering.

And this is just wondrous:

So what do we do about it? Is this the time for The New Chartist Movement? The New Chartist demands night be:

….
A constitutional requirement to continually reduce income, wealth, regional and international inequality and to increase the share of GDP that goes to labour

Err, neoliberal globalisation has and is reducing global inequality. It’s also increasing domestic inequality. Bit of a poser that, which is more important? And once the labour share of the economy is 100%, we’ve absolutely no capital investment whatsoever as there are no profits, what do we do then?

Quite apart from the fact that the easiest way to increase the labour share is to reduce taxes on and subsidies to consumption. Lower VAT and abolish the feed in tariffs.

Twat.

35 thoughts on “Ritchie’s a Chartist now, is he?”

  1. “Five of these six demands have been fulfilled: we do not have annual elections and most might think that a good thing. But we have gone further. We have:

    Universal suffrage
    The voting age has been reduced to 21”

    The voting age is now 18

    “And yet so much that we would recognise as problematic in the parliamentary system remains in place:

    First past the post”

    Depends what trade off you want. The idea that some form of PR is inherently more democratic or preferable is nonsense. PR can produce many results which are unrepresentative and allow minor parties to wield executive power.

    “Tens of millions without an MP who represents their views and no chance that they will get one”

    What does this mean? Is there some untapped demand for a politics we havent seen brought to the political market before? Unlikely.

    “Universal suffrage from 16”

    Okay but only if 16 year olds are regarded as adults in every aspect of their lives.

    “A written constitution covering individual rights and the responsibilities of each tier of government”

    Not this again. We have a constitution that contains written pieces. It is UNCODIFIED, not unwritten. Once again why do people assume that have a codified constitution is inherently superior to our current arrangement. It depends what trade offs you want.

  2. With a codified (thanks RobH) constitution, does that make it more of a big deal when someone wants to mess with it?

    Seems to me like the UK one is kinda made up as we go along, so weaker.

    It’d be nice to see some absolute untouchables codified, like freedom of speech, trial by jury of peers, self-defence, property, not tax without rep, that kind of thing.

    Not gonna happen, but I can dream.

  3. Rob Harries:

    “Tens of millions without an MP who represents their views and no chance that they will get one”

    I think he wants a permanent place in Parliament without the need to win an election – who else could represent ‘civil society’ so effectively as this ‘man of the people’?

  4. “Tens of millions without an MP who represents their views and no chance that they will get one”

    Are there ANY MP’s in Parliament representing the views of a significant portion of the electorate? If there are, it’s news to me.

  5. We have the technology now that would enable us to scrap parliament and enable direct voting on all issues. Security and fraud would have to be considered carefully, but we no longer need to have a system where each person has a choice of two or three representatives to vote for where none match exactly what they wish.

    Of course, that’s not likely to happen any time soon…

  6. I love the old electoral fraud excuse for not having direct e-voting.

    ‘Cos it’s not like we have any problems with that right now, is it?

    COUGH – postal voting – COUGH

  7. any mention of the HofL? Some time back I read something posted here about taking a representative sample of layman and giving them responsibility for making decisions. I thought that it could help solve the problem of the peers. i.e. there is work for a second chamber but should not democratically challenge the commons.

  8. “Tens of millions without an MP who represents their views and no chance that they will get one”

    As RA mentioned above we have the tech to enable the entire electorate to vote on every single act or debate in Parliament.

    You know, issues like:

    Immigration;
    Creeping sharia;
    Multiculturalism;
    The death penalty;
    Brexit;
    etc.,etc.

    I’m sure that our governmental and cultural elites would love to hear the views of the person in the street on these and many other issues. And of course they would act accordingly.

  9. Of course, if the constitution is codified it comes down to judges deciding what it means. Not sure that is better than what we have now, eg the European Court

  10. “Tens of millions without an MP who represents their views and no chance that they will get one”

    Yup – like all those Brexit voters in Labour constituencies.

    Oh, but I’m sure that’s not what he meant at all…

  11. You know you have managed to get it spectacularly wrong when an endorsement from a commentator who is basically the embodiment of evil in online form, the truly terrifying Andrew Dickie, basically an advocate of mass murder, appears – his response is worth quoting in full , to see how hairbrained these people are.

    ‘Richard, given my several, detailed, posts on essential and necessary constitutional reforms,you will hardly be surprised that I wholeheartedly endorse what you say, with the addition of two comments.

    First, I had not thought of your final suggestion of a constitutional requirement to continually reduce inequality etc! Bravo, but perhaps only E.M. Forster’s “Two Cheers for Democracy”, if only because of the “law of unintended consequences”, and the concern that there might be occasions when even such a well intentioned fetter might, nonetheless, prove to be a fetter.

    Secondly, on the question of the Senate, and its utility, even its advisability. I DO believe a Second Chamber is advisable, providing its remit and composition are sufficiently different, but complementary, to the House of Commons.

    The problem with the American Senate is that neither remit nor composition are sufficiently different from the House of Representatives, the only key differences being a) term (Senators 6 years and Representatives 2 years), and numbers (EVERY State has 2 Senators, irrespective of size, where numbers of Representatives are defined by population).

    The canting of terms DOES permit some differentiation between the two Chambers, but nowhere near enough, leading to unnecessary competition for ground between the two. This is because the only criterion of differentiation was that of population – giveing small States the same Senatorial clout as big ones – with no attention paid to other possible criteria.

    However, as an “expert” Chamber, which our HoL most certainly is, a Senate could perform a truly useful role of scrutiny, and also, I would suggest, of constitutionality.

    It is essential, then, that, however elected, this “expert Chamber” element is preserved in the Senate, in addition to the strong regionality you have proposed.

    I would also argue that the Constitutional Court that I would like to see set up might also be drawn from the Senate, with power to strike down laws legislated by the Commons that it sees as “unconstitutional” (for me the “Bedroom Tax” would have been deemed unconstitutional for basic unfairness).

    As an extra check, I would envisage a specialist “Constitutional Committee” of the Senate, whose rulings on an unconstitutional law would then need to be ratified by the whole Senate.

    The only option then open to a PM and the Commons would be to take such a struck down law to the whole electorate via a referendum, with the referendum’s decision being conclusive, as is the case wirh Swiss referenda, and not merely advisory, as was the case in our EU referendum’

  12. I love the cycle of brown-nosing / being rebuffed / bridge burning / find someone else then rinse and repeat.

    That, and coming up with schemes from which he believes he can profit with said brown-nosing.

  13. The bedroom tax is very fair – it took the limited resources of the state and reallocated them based on need.

    Weird constitutional committee vs. constitutional court vs. senate structure, which makes no sense. Also if the senate is made up of non-lawyers why draw the constitutional court from it?

    It’s the ramblings of an ignorant individual added to the ramblings of a moron with no knowledge.You can almost feel the entropy created by the vast lack of understanding of Murphy and his chums.

  14. “The bedroom tax is very fair – it took the limited resources of the state and reallocated them based on need.”

    Well, quite. Is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” not a founding mantra of the left?

  15. Rob Harries said: ” “Tens of millions without an MP who represents their views and no chance that they will get one”

    What does this mean? Is there some untapped demand for a politics we havent seen brought to the political market before? Unlikely.

    It’s a sense that I can only be truly represented by someone I voted for. Which I think is bollocks and divisive. Once an election is done with I expect my MP to be fighting for my area and tackling the problems we make them aware of, whether I voted for them or not.

  16. Security and fraud would have to be considered carefully

    I have a colleague who was involved in the trial of e-voting in the UK and numerous colleagues who have done analysis, reverse engineering and then hacking of (primarily US manufactured) electronic voting kiosks.

    The current received wisdom is “the technology is insufficiently robust (against targeted attacks) or reliable (against the fact that computers, power supplies, etc fail) to make it useful any time that the stakes are high enough to make it worth using.”

    As a note, pre-Trump at least, the CEO of Diebold, the market leading manufacturer of voting machines, was a major donor and state campaign leader for the Republicans.

  17. ken, abcab>

    It was notable that the only problems with the bedroom tax were a result of councils overcharging tenants for council housing – where there is massive oversupply of council housing, the real difference in rent for having more bedrooms is pennies a week.

  18. “Tens of millions without an MP who represents their views and no chance that they will get one”

    Brexit.

    Shut the fuck up Richie.

    And the ‘gerrymandering’ bollocks. Pure Labour shilling. Fucking hypocritical cunt.

  19. Rational anarchist – yes we could have the public voting as they wished on many subjects.
    Judging by recent referendums is that a good thing? Those who take the time to study an issue before deciding are drowned out by those who merely listen to someone spouting views they can accept. Ideology rather than truth. Fantasy rather than reality.
    Simple solutions to complex problems. Even if it makes those problems 10 times worse.
    Can you imagine the public voting on something simple like medical issues? Or something complex like international relations, benefits laws, homelessness, abortion, nuclear deterrent?

  20. The solution isn’t to wail about how terrible it is that thickies have the vote; the solution is to remove government from much to most of that list of issues.

  21. “Judging by recent referendums is that a good thing? Those who take the time to study an issue before deciding are drowned out by those who merely listen to someone spouting views they can accept”

    Well, I spent years, maybe a couple of decades, thinking about Brexit and then voted. Unlike the Remainers who just listened to Owen Jones, Goldman Sachs and the BBC spouting views they could accept.

  22. Martin: Can you imagine the public voting on something simple […]?

    Simple or not so simple, these are the people who make up the jury who will determine whether or not you are guilty of the crime of which you stand accused.

    If you object to this simple premise you should choose a more enlightened system and country.

  23. Richie’s a Chartist now? I can’t quite see him marching over the Monmouthshire hills in the pissing rain and being shot by the army in Newport. Though it is an encouraging thought.

  24. @Rob “Richie’s a Chartist now?”

    Richie is whatever the fuck he thinks will get him money, influence or in the spotlight at any particular moment in time.

  25. Having spent part of my life living in Newport and recently on a trip back showing my daughter around the cathedral I find the thought that he tries to equate himself with the Chartists quite offensive. Almost offensive as the councils destruction of the mural celebrating the uprising

  26. @Martin

    “Judging by recent referendums is that a good thing?”

    If you are judging by the most recent, a resounding yes.

    If you count the 1997, 2001 and 2005 GEs as referendums, you might have a point.

    Not sure I like where that line of thinking will take us though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *