………….but many a mile to go.

Simon Jenkins, writing in the Guardian, suggests that we should: move Westminster to Manchester and reclaim democracy. Regular readers will understand if my response to that is: you could move Westminster to Mars because it would, likewise, make no difference in that you can’t reclaim something you do not have in the first place. The people do not have even a vestige of democracy under the current system, one which, it can justifiably be claimed, is closer to a democratised dictatorship than democracy per se.

Still, Jenkins has made an attempt to highlight deficiencies within our system of democracy and politics, so a response is therefore deserved.

First, Manchester has a total of 27 parliamentary constituencies, whereas London has a total of 73. The radial distance from London (taken as Charing Cross) varies from 12.5 miles (20.1 km) in Potters Bar to 19.5 miles (31.4 km) in Byfleet. Admittedly I have not done the maths for a similar radius from the centre of Manchester and worked out the number of constituencies that would be involved on a pro rata basis (there are 75 constituencies in the Northwest of England), but the initial feeling is that there would be far more London MPs then claiming second home ‘expenses’ than there are currently Manchester and surrounding MPs doing likewise presently. Ergo, it then follows that there would be an additional expense to the public purse?

Jenkins writes: There would be nothing like this to so acknowledge the revival of provincial England. Nothing would do more to correct the metropolitan centralism of modern government. A regional move would reassert parliament as a popular congress of a united kingdom. It would be a gathering of the commons, not a colloquium of elites. Removal from London would weaken parliament, but that in turn might encourage it to self-assertion.

While the current system of democracy remains in existence, it matters not where ‘Parliament’ is located – it will not correct any centralism of government, it would not reassert Parliament as a popular congress of a united kingdom as it would still be a colloquium of elites due to the selection process by political parties; and under the current system of democracy parliament cannot introduce any sense of self-assertion due to the lack of separation of power twixt Executive and Legislature.

Still ‘way off beam’ Jenkins continues: Arcane customs and procedures baffled new MPs, until they were slowly drawn into the freemasonry. With parliament mostly an electoral college of candidates for government, there was no purchase in nonconformity. The only spark of life was from an occasional select committee.

Just what is wrong with arcane customs and procedures – aka tradition? Although I have to admit that having to refer to the Honourable Member of XXXXX, instead of Joe Bloggs, when you wish to call him a prat, baffles me somewhat. But then to bring in ‘Freemasonary’ – FCS! Likewise, if only there was a spark of life in any occasional select committee – they all seem to have a hidden agenda. Where Jenkins does get anywhere near the truth is that he acknowledges there does exist, in the present system of democracy and the political system, an electoral college of candidates for government.

Jenkins’ article continues: Manchester could be to London what Canberra is to Sydney, or Brasilia to Rio de Janeiro. I agree with Bercow that this would be a pity. The Palace of Westminster may not be fit for purpose, but it is a holy of democratic holies. Venal it may be, but it symbolises British history as does no other building, not even Buckingham Palace or Westminster Abbey.

Manchester could not be to London what Canberra is to Sydney, or Brasilia to Rio de Janeiro, simply for the reason that in the two examples he quotes, the parliaments are sovereign while on the other hand that of the UK is not, it having ceded sovereignty to the European Union. The other point that needs to be made is that for the Palace of Westminster to be a holy of democratic holies, there has to be a democratic system in place – which currently there is not. A further point is that symbolising an aspect of British history where the subject of democracy is concerned – especially when it can be shown that the particular system of democracy is skewed against the people – is not something which should be ‘trumpeted’.

We then get the mantra that MPs are underpaid and lead anti-social lives – again, FCS! Of course the ‘government’ precludes MPs from scutinising its work; and this is purely due to the lack of separation of power twixt Executive and Legslature – and by a system of design, dictated by an outmoded and undemocratic system of democracy to which the political class are wedded for their own benefit.

Jenkins then goes on to speculate that should Parliament move to Manchester and wishes to return to Westminster, then a ‘commission of the people’ should lay down terms and conditions for the reoccupancy of Westminster, continuing that there should be no more than 400 MPs – although from whence this figure originates we are not informed.

We then a repeat of the idea that MPs should be paid six-figure salaries, with outside ‘interests’ being banned, coupled with the number of ministers being capped by statute. What then follows must be the most laughable point in Jenkins article: he believes the press maintain a daily barrage of scrutiny of politicians and their work; how he can maintain that a daily regurgitation of politicians utterances – without hardly a word of logical criticism – constitutes a barrage of scrutiny, defeats me somewhat.

Had Jenkins read The Harrogate Agenda (together with the explanatory articles in the side bar) and based his article on that document, it would have resulted in an article of glowing logic – not the half-arsed one that the Guardian published. He would have learnt immediately that democracy translates as ‘People Power’ – and not ‘Political Power’; he would have learnt that while the Executive and Legislature do require a separation in their functions and that while the latter should hold the former to account, that both ultimately should be held to account by the people virtually on a daily basis and that the people should have the means to so do. He would also have learnt that the number of MPs could be reduced below his arbitrary figure of 400 and that also an MP would be paid that which his constituents thought he/she was worth; which may well be the figure he suggests – or on the other hand may well be considerably less. He might also have learnt about the idea of ‘Referism’ in which taxation is agreed by those who have to pay it, rather than the current system wherein taxation is demanded of them under pain of imprisonment should they refuse so to do.

That this article is no doubt being read by those who share the author’s lack of understanding about democracy must be the saddest part.