UK Democratic Forum

The model of the US Congress is not ideal but interesting nonetheless – the Senators in the Senate are elected for 6 year term, the Representatives in the House are elected for 2 year terms. There are 100 Senators, 435 Representatives. The number of Senators per State is 2, the number of Representatives depends on the population of the state.

With a bit of adaptation the Lords could be our Senate, the Commons our House of Representatives.

The Nameless Tory:

The toothless 'Second Chamber?'

Interesting phrase to use – and it shows the way the Lords is perceived. As a second tier organisation when compared to the Commons. And rightly so – it can send legislation back to the Commons but ultimately it can be over-ridden. Also, it is not democratically elected so there is no accountability. And the leader of the country sits in the Commons, meaning the Commons will always be seen as superior. Which leads some to question what is the point of having a second chamber which is little better than a debating forum for elderly ex-MPs and wealthy friends of the political parties?

Again I would maintain that debate in itself is a worthy end. Plus the Lords have been able to get controversial legislation at least amended. That said I personally like a properly two tiered parliamentary system and would favour the Lords having a bit more power to propose legislation and veto other legislation. In other words, I want the Lords to have more power.

The reason why it has always been controversial to propose more power for the Lords is because historically they have been unrepresentative and also because they are unaccountable. Therefore I would propose a House of Lords that remains a second tier chamber to the Commons but also:

The Lords will be democratically elected – the Lords are elected for fixed terms of ten years, thus giving them a longer term view point but at the same time as giving them accountability
There will be around 200 Lords, less than the House of Commons but representing regions of the UK rather than constituencies, giving the Lords a more national perspective and hopefully freeing up the MPs to spend more time working on their constituencies
They will have the power to propose legislation, and send it to the Commons, as long as the legislation is passed by two third’s of the Lords
They will have the power to veto legislation from the Commons, again with a two third’s vote from the Lords.
They will elect a President/Leader of the Lords who will act as a spokesperson for the Lords and also act as a Deputy Prime Minister – performing the more ceremonial functions of the Prime Minister (and hopefully giving the Prime Minister more time to govern.

These thoughts are off the top of my head and are subject to change.....


The Moai:

I agree wholeheartedly with this, especially this:

'If you are a rich man, and you are so public-spirited as to donate squillions to a political party, so that its members can get on with their task of understanding and improving the condition of the country, then you should surely be encouraged, not vilified. The last thing we want is for the whole political clerisy to be bankrolled exclusively by the taxpayer, with state funding for all manner of cranks, bigots and extremists. If Chai Patel and others want to give money to Labour or to the Tories, then I see no reason why they should not be rewarded with a suitable gong for their philanthropy: on two conditions.

First, that they should in future give on condition that the gift (or loan) is public; and second, that they cannot thereby ascend to the legislature. It is time to end this crisis, and rescue the Lords, by insisting on a fully elected chamber, in which all peers are chosen by the same method, and yet without the same democratic mandate as the commons....'

The Nameless Tory:

OK, good topic to start with.

We need to understand what prison does before we can discuss those points. Prison must serve (at least) one of the following purposes:

1. Punishment

2. Reformation

3. Imprisonment of those who are a danger to society.

And those objectives are potentially contradictory. If you are punishing someone, it is difficult to reform them at the same time. Equally, if you are looking to reform someone then sending them to prison, where they will be surrounded by other criminals, might be the worst possible thing to do. And some people are clearly a danger to others, but if prison is genuinely to reform people, then the concept of life meaning life has to be abolished. But then again, can you reform Dennis Nielsen or Peter Sutcliffe?

If prison is to play a meaningful part in today’s society, perhaps we need to focus more on the deterrence side. People should be afraid of going to prison. And it also needs to be clear what crimes will result in what sentences. We need to be sending the right people to prison. Is there any point in sending Pete Doherty to prison, where he can buy more drugs? No, there is more mileage in sending him on enforced rehab. Equally, if someone commits an assault, they should know that they will be going to prison and the length of the sentence will depend on the severity of the assault. Also people need to have more faith in the sentencing laws. If you can get 20 years for using a forged note and 7 years for raping someone, well, people are not going to respect the prison/justice system, are they?

Probation probably needs to play a part in the debate.

The Moai:
As does early release, which has been involved in a frightening number of recent murders.....

When you read what that gang did to those two girls, you struggle to believe that there were no warning signs.

Sion Jenkins is another interesting point. In theory you can only stand trial for the same offence once in this country. He has had multiple trials and is still not, in the eyes of the media and therefore the eyes of the general public, and innocent man. And the one striking thing is that regardless of whether he is innocent or not, a child killer is walking the streets. This has to be seen on some levels as a failure of both the police and of the criminal justice system.


As ever, statistics comes into the debate. It is often said that we imprison a lot of people in this country compared to the European average BUT when you look at how many we bang up compared to our (relatively high) crime rate, it is actually far less than comparable economies. See here.

The imprisonment-for-its-own-sake function of prison is seriously underestimated by policy makers. I have seen whole communities breathe a sigh of collective relief when a one-man crime-wave is finally incarcerated, and they know they can safely leave their cars out in the street again. Similarly, the same people feel utter dismay when these individuals are released. My own village was different place for the two years when a certain evil b*stard I went to school with was finally banged up after his umpteenth offence. He has moved now, and similarly, the relief is palpable.

Prison is no longer a deterrent. If it was, reoffending would not be as high as it is.

As for reforming the Sutcliffes et al of this world, I would argue they are not criminal as such, they are ill and must be treated. And if they are not treatable, permanently incarcerated. This is another good example of someone who should have been treated or at least kept away from the public - an awful, awful case.

I once read that forgery, fraud etc. get higher sentences because of the relative rarity of these crimes - judges do not become inured to them, unlikely assault, mugging, and all the other petty things that only happen to plebs - and because more often than not, the government itself is a victim.

I would point out that Sutcliffe is not mentally ill. He claimed to be schizophrenic and is being treated at a mental hospital, but there is strong evidence he knew exactly what he was doing and was in control when he killed. Legally, you are criminally insane if you are not in control of your actions – the best way of explaining it is the case of John Christie. At a trial a psychiatrist was asked whether Christie would have killed repeatedly if a policeman was stood next to him. The answer was no – therefore he was in control of his actions. Amongst other things, Sutcliffe had a pair of trousers with the crotch cut out so he could pleasure himself as he killed. And when he was arrested he hid his weapons and managed to appear little more than a man soliciting sex. He may have had terrible, violent impulses but he did have a choice – and he chose to act on them.

A good example of someone who murdered then was released to kill again is Henry Lee Lucas. He murdered his abusive mother and served his time, before being released. He then went on a killing spree across America which, if his confessions are to be believed, may have claimed up to 350 lives. Interestingly, he is also the only death row inmate granted clemency whilst George W Bush was Governor of Texas.

The reason why forging money gets such a high tariff if because it is seen as attacking the infrastructure of the state. Although if you want to be popular and looked after in prison, forgery is a good thing to go down for.

The Purpose

To create a forum where people from all over the web can debate policies, suggest ideas, and generally speak freely about what direction they would like the UK to move in.

Background

The Moai and The Nameless Tory are, on paper, at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Typical greetings to each other include “Communist scum” from The Nameless Tory and “Capitalist Pig Dog” from the Moai. And yet, recently, two odd things have happened. Firstly, both have come to feel that no party in the UK represents them. And secondly, when they sit down and debate political issues properly and intelligently, there is a lot they agree on.

Further to these realisations comes a critique of modern politics in the UK. This nation has politicians who are solely focussed on the next election, which makes them afraid to say anything controversial or unpopular, or pursue a policy that will come to fruition outside of the life time of a parliament. And the fact is the country needs people who are willing to take a risk, say something controversial, and look beyond a five year term in power.

Since our elected politicians won’t do it, someone else must. Which is why the United Kingdom Democratic Forum (UKDF) has been created.

How it works

The Moai and The Nameless Tory will discuss key areas of policy, and then publish a topic on the UKDF with a few thoughts. Then – for a stated period of time – the debate is open to anyone who wants to comment (as long as the comments are not offensive – controversial and imaginative ideas are fine.) When the debate is closed, the Moai and The Nameless Tory will pull together the disparate strands, thoughts and threads and then agree on a coherent policy. This will then be published as the policy for the UKDF.

The Future

So, why contribute?

Well, debate in itself is a worthy aim – to express ideals, to have them challenged, to adapt/defend them is an intellectual challenge. But hopefully the UKDF will be more than an online debating society. If decent policies are created, the UKDF can look at ways of bringing them to the attention of a wider audience. The UKDF can seek to change the way people think and potentially change the agendas of our political parties. But it can only do that if it has the ideas and the backing of a wide spectrum of people.

This much is clear – the political ideas of this nation’s politicians are at best holding the nation in limbo, and at worst letting the country slip backwards. This forum is an attempt to find new ideas to stop that.

Hopefully this will work... if it does then more will follow later on what we are trying to do.

First post on the UK Democratic Forum Blog, brought to you by The Moai and The Nameless One....