Saturday, 11 July 2020

Category » Articles

What Is Social Credit?: A Simple Explanation For The Busy Reader


THE SOCIAL CREDIT ideas of Major Clifford Hugh Douglas (1879 – 1952) are of great interest to the National Liberal Party.  We feel that Social Credit has the potential to put a halt to the insane – and seemingly endless  – economic cycles of boom & bust.  It aims to do this by making the purchasing power (‘money’) available to the public match the goods & services available to them.  This’ll also end the absurd situation of ‘poverty amidst plenty.’  Here, the likes of food is produced (and then thrown away or destroyed) because people don’t have the money to buy it.  This in turn leads to food poverty – starvation.

What Is Social Credit?: A Simple Explanation For The Busy Reader (produced in the early 1940s by the Social Credit Board of Edmonton, Alberta) is a six page booklet which provides an excellent overview of his ideas.  However, one only has to read its bold text to understand – in very simple terms – Social Credit.

The NLP is also particularly interested in the Social Credit idea of reducing (and eventually abolishing) taxation as we’ve more than some sympathy with the libertarian belief that Taxation Is Theft!

We’ve reproduced What Is Social Credit? in an attempt to promote a mature debate into the various alternatives to capitalism & socialism.  Readers are more than welcome to post their comments on our National Liberals Facebook page:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/

Please note that we have used the original North American spelling & currency here.  We’re also aware that a 16 page expanded version of this booklet exists and we hope to reproduce it in due course.

.

What Is Social Credit?

THE NATIONAL Liberal Party is interested in the Social Credit ideas of Major Clifford Hugh Douglas (1879 - 1952). Like him, we oppose the power & influence of the banks - the ‘Money Power’ - and believe that they should serve the people and not the other way around. What Is Social Credit?: A Simple Explanation For The Busy Reader shows how this can be achieved.

“SOCIAL CREDIT” is not just “a scheme of monetary reform,” as some people seem to think.  Social Credit – “the credit of society” – is the motivating power which arises from the belief (credo) inherent in society that its individual members in association can obtain the results they want.

This credit in association (social credit) can be realized by the people of a community if they are organized to that end.

The only form of social organization that will enable this to be achieved is one in which the people are the supreme authority – i.e., are “sovereign.”  The modern term applied to this type of society is “democracy.”

Democracy can be defined correctly as “government and management of a people’s affairs to give them the results they want” – i.e., to realize their credit in association (social credit).

The Social Credit proposals for a reform of (a) the political and (b) the financial systems, are designed to enable a smooth transition to be made from the present system of political frustration and financial domination to a properly functioning  political and economic democracy.

1. Political Democracy – involves the absolute supremacy of the people over all political institutions – i.e., parliaments, legislatures, armed forces, etc.  This can be achieved by making their political voting power effective.  For this purpose the people must be organized as the sovereign authority with complete control over their representatives all the time.

2. Economic Democracy – involves the absolute supremacy of the people over their economic institutions – industrial, commercial, etc.  This can be achieved by making their economic voting power (money) effective.  To this end the people must have sovereign control over the operation of the monetary (i.e., economic voting) system.  Instead of organizing a new monetary system, the technical faults in the existing system (which are the main cause of the evils of the present system – poverty amidst plenty, unemployment, debt, low wages, etc.) can be corrected by certain simple but far-reaching adjustments.  These faults are:

(a) The control, restriction and exploitation of the monetary system by a highly centralized private monopoly.

(b) The arbitrary limitation of money supply (by restricting it to gold or security holdings), thereby limiting production and consumption.

(c) The automatic operation of the system in distributing an increasing shortage of purchasing power in relation to the prices of the goods produced – e.g., prices of goods on the market = $2,400 : : purchasing power = $1,000.

(d) The distribution of purchasing power only via wages, salaries and dividends, in the final analysis for work in producing goods and services; whereas industry is progressively discarding manpower in favour of power-driven machine production.  Thus as ability to produce increases, ability to purchase, i.e., to consume the production, decreases, resulting in poverty amidst plenty, etc.  Moreover, the wages system, which forces men to work under conditions obnoxious to them at inadequate incomes as an alternative to destitution, renders the majority subservient to the will of a minority; it is a system of slavery.

The Social Credit proposals for a reform of the monetary system follow naturally from the ongoing:

(1) The control over the financial system would be exercised by a national authority responsible to the people through a Parliament under their control.

(2) Money supply would be limited only by the nation’s ability to produce wanted goods and services.

(3) The shortage of purchasing power would be made good by the issue of new money direct to consumers.  Taking the foregoing illustrative figures: goods = $2,400 : : purchasing power = $1,000; $1,400 new purchasing power would have to be distributed to make good the deficiency.

It should be noted that these figures are merely illustrative, and are used for the purpose of providing a simple explanation of a complex question.

This can be effected in the following manner:

i. All prices to be reduced by, say, 25% to consumers, the difference being made good to retail merchants on condition they observe a fair ratio of profit.  This would absorb $600.

ii. Taxation to be drastically reduced and progressively abolished.  Suppose this absorbs another $300.   (A balance of $500 remains to be distributed.)

(4) As power-driven machinery replaces man-power in the field of production, the increased economic security for all thereby made possible to be distributed as a national or social dividend payable to every citizen in addition to and irrespective of any earned income.  In the first instance this should be sufficient to provide basic economic security.  (The remaining $500 referred to above could be distributed in this manner.)

In this way a constant balance would be maintained between the total prices of goods on the market, and the total purchasing power available to buy those goods – without danger of either inflation or deflation.

Though simple, the foregoing mechanism would have far-reaching effects.  A person with a dividend having complete economic security  has freedom in a real sense.  He can decide for whom he works, under what conditions he will work, at what he will work – and no man can control his life by threatening to render him destitute.

* * *

This transition from the present system to a fully functioning Social Credit order – i.e., democracy – can be smooth and rapid.  No individual will suffer.  There will be more for everyone.  But there will be no wide gulf between “the haves” and “have nots.

Everybody will be secure and will enjoy increasing personal freedom as social dividends increase in relation to earned incomes.

Leisure will be widely distributed and opportunities for cultural development will automatically expand.

The power of money over human life will disappear and the administrative positions will automatically become filled by men and women commanding the affection and respect of their fellows.  In short, an effective democracy will be established.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

COVID-19 KASHMIR CONFERENCE

An electronic Conference on Kashmir’s Lockdown running quite separately and earlier than the global one was held last week. Various Kashmiri organisations, politicians, human rights activists and our (national) Self-Determinist pressure group Nations without States, attended.

Some notable attendees included the Conference Moderator Barrister M. Tramboo, Chairman Professor K. Buchner MEP (the Conservative Green ODP), and President in exile Carles Puigdemont (of Catalonia). The Conference discussed the need for the world to acknowledge Kashmir’s Self-Determination and Human Rights.

A Resolution was agreed by the participants calling the UN, EU, individual states and whomever will listen, to lobby for a solution (to follow). It was agreed that such conferences should be held on a regular basis.

Our Parliamentary petition was brought up as one initiative, amongst many, that supporters can get behind: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300570/

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

Harrow Voice Debate (2) – What Should We Make Of The Coronavirus?

Coronavirus. Where did it come from and how did it travel to the four corners of the earth in such a short period of time? Is it just another form of flu – if not, how does it differ? And why are governments talking about introducing drastic measures to counter it?

WHAT SHOULD we make of the Coronavirus? Where did it spring from – and by what means – and how did it travel to the four corners of the earth in such a short period of time?

These are just some of the questions that people are asking since the outbreak began in China and then spread rapidly into Europe, North America and the Middle East.

It’s generally accepted that the Cronoavirus (Covid-19) originated in late September in the Huanan Seafood Wholesales Market in city of Wuhan. Wuham is the capital of Hubei province in Central China. Huanan Seafood Wholesales Market is also sometimes described as a ‘wet market’ – and it’s where live animals such as bats, snakes, rabbit and birds are said to be illegally sold

To give an idea of scale, the population of Wuhan’s metropolitan area is 19 million whilst the population of Hubei province – in 2015 – was 58,500,000. Wuhan serves as a major transport hub and the political, cultural, and economic hub of Central China – which could explain why the virus travelled so fast within China – and Hubei is known as the ‘Land of Fish and Rice’.

It also seems to be clear that Northern Italy was the first area in Europe to be hit. And it was hit hard. Many people – including ourselves at Harrow Voice – are mystified as to why this should be. Does anyone have any thoughts regarding this?

The rapidly moving situation (relating to Covid-19) makes it next to impossible to accurately predict how many people locally, nationally and internationally will contract it, or, sadly, die from it.

The main thing to remember at the moment is that – unfortunately – the UK figure is liable to rise as the government believes that coronavirus will spike in around two weeks time. Hopefully, the figures will go down after that, but there’s still no indication of when things will go back to relative normality.

Despite this – and along with many other people – Harrow Voice (HV) has an odd feeling about what’s going on. We fully admit that we can’t quite put our finger on it, but we’re wondering why various governments are going to such extraordinary (and unprecedented) lengths to tackle this virus.

This Live Science site https://www.livescience.com/56598-deadliest-viruses-on-earth.html

provides some context and we certainly recall the SARS and Avian flu scares from yesteryear. We’re also aware that ‘ordinary’ flu kills thousands of people each year. However, a health scare has never been used to effectively crack down on the civil and religious liberties of our people – so much so that it’s been suggested that we’re sleepwalking into authoritarianism.

So what makes Covid-19 so different and does the government know something that we don’t? And what’ll happen once this is all over?

To be fair, no one outside of a select few could probably answer the first question. However, HV would like to give some pointers in an attempt to answer the second. And we hope to expand on these ideas in future debates.

First of all, we think that the slogan Small Is Beautiful! makes even more sense now than it ever did. No matter how coronavirus originated we get the feeling that one vital aspect of globalism – the entirely free movement of people – has helped to spread it. Therefore, more should be done to protect our territorial integrity. We feel that it’s entirely reasonable and sensible to know who’s in our country at any one time – especially if they are harbouring highly contagious viruses.

(On saying the above, and we want to make this perfectly clear, it does not excuse any personal attacks on Chinese nationals here or anywhere else. Such attacks are completely out of order – not to mention counterproductive – and it’s important to remember that the vast majority of people, Chinese or otherwise, are in no way responsible for the actions of their respective governments.)

We also feel that it would be preferable to be more autonomous and as self-sufficient as possible. This should apply across the board and includes individuals, local areas – such as our borough of Harrow – and all nations. And when we talk about self-sufficiency we’re talking in terms of food, energy, water, recycling and so on.

In particular, we need to start investing in Research and Development here and encourage a wide industrial base by making things ourselves rather than importing. That means investing in education and training and not relying on importing skilled or unskilled workers.

On a similar theme, we’re more convinced than ever that capitalism (as well as socialism) has to go. We need to go back to our economic roots in terms of small businesses, local independent businesses, sole traders, family farms, Co-Operatives and so on. These should form the backbone of the economy. Indeed, we really need to wean ourselves off of our over reliance on massive supermarkets and fast food chains. In short, we need to move away from centralisation and promote a more decentralised, organic – or rooted – way of living that’s in tune with nature.

Autonomy, decentralisation & self-sufficiency also ties in with our belief in ‘small government’ – meaning that we should be less reliant on central government.

Whilst we’re on the subject of autonomy, we believe that there’s something to the argument that London (along with many other cities – and the South East of England as a whole) is now far too large & over crowded to be sustainable.

For instance, Greater London, of which Harrow forms a part of, covers 1,572 1,572 km2 (607 square miles) and the population, as at the 2011 census was 8,174,000. Therefore, Harrow Voice has some sympathy with the belief that the capital city should be scaled back to its original inner boroughs. This would mean that outer London boroughs will return to their original historic counties. Thus Harrow will become part of Middlesex again.

As with our first debate (see the link below), we’d appreciate you comments – especially if you have any specialist knowledge relating to Covid-19 – on any of the points we’ve raised here. Just look out for this debate when it appears on our National Liberals Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/ – or the National Liberal Party Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/

• ALSO check out

Harrow Voice Debate (1) – What Do You Think Of Universal Basic Services? http://nationalliberal.org/

harrow-voice-debate-1-–-what-do-you-think-of-universal-basic-services
Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

A Referendum Is An Act Of Self-Determination

.

REGULAR READERS will know that the National Liberal Party (NLP) intended to stand up to 25 candidates in theGreater London Assembly elections – which were scheduled for 7th May.


Here, we were going to campaign on the issue ofSelf-Determination ForAll! The election would have provided us with an excellent opportunity to hone our social media skills and build a powerful Self-Determinist electoral bloc. However, as we reported two days ago – http://nationalliberal.org/public-notice – they have now been postponed for a year due to thecorona virus outbreak.


With this in mind, the NLP has cancelled its planned donors dinner (27th) and election meeting (29th) until further notice. But this doesn’t mean that we’ll be placing less emphasis on Self-Determination. In fact, we’ll be stepping up a gear! In the same way a dog is for life and not just for Christmas, we feel that Self-Determination is for life and not just for elections!

We believe that the principle of Self-Determination can be applied largely in three areas – National, Political and Economic. Our intended Greater London Assembly (GLA) election campaign would have mainly focussed on National Self-Determination. However, we also intended to look at matters relating to Political & Economic Self-Determination as well.


The first article (in this series of three) looked at Economic Self-Determination – see For Economic Self-Determinationhttp://nationalliberal.org/for-economic-self-determination However, in this article we’ll be looking at Political Self-Determination.

The NLP definesPolitical Self-Determination as a system which ‘seeks to ensure that the collective will of the people as well as the variety of political opinion is reflected in decision making. Thus, for example, we favour greater use of Referendums to meet the former, and PR to reflect the latter (we favour a system close to the Swiss model of Direct Democracy).’

As the title of this article –A Referendum Is An Act Of Self-Determinationsuggests, we would like to see representative democracy replaced by participatory democracy in the form of Referendums (as well as Preferendums). The NLP feels that direct democracy should be the only show in town.

For those who don’t know, a referendum isa method of referring a question or set of questions to the entire electorate directly.’ Since 1973 the UK has held 11 referendums, the most famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view!) being the EU Referendum of 2016. (1)

We would prefer that referendums were held on a much more regular basis – as they do in Switzerland. In future articles we’ll take a more in-depth look at referendums (and look at some examples from Switzerland itself).

Referendums are usually decided on a simple ‘Yes/No’ vote. However, it could be argued that preferendums are more democratic in that they allow the electorate toselect a range of different options (generally, three or more) in order of their preference. It’s thought that the use of a preferential voting system – rather than a simple majority – also accurately allows everyone’s point of view to be taken into account.

Other elements of Political Self-Determination must include replacing the ‘First Past The Post’ (2) voting system with one of Proportional Representation. As indicated in the articleFrom The Liberty Wall – Total Democracy – We Want Total Democracy! there also needs to be a ‘None Of The Above’ (NOTA) option on the ballot paper (3) and a process of Voter Recall.

We’re also interested in the system whereby members of the public can create petitions which can be debated in parliament if they attract100,000 signatures or more (4). However, it has obvious flaws in that the Petitions Committee (which consists of around a dozen MPs) has the power to decide what and can’t be presented for debate.

Again, we’ll be looking at these issues in more depth in the near future.

So far we’ve concentrated on Political Self-Determination initiatives that are largelyNational in nature. However, we feel that many of them can also be adapted toLocal government. With this in mind, we’ve recently been advised of a system employed in Spain whereby locals have a direct say in the spending of a portion of the local budget. As this brief article (5) from The Post (a Spanish-based weekly English language paper) of early October 2019 notes:

‘Residents of San Pedro del Pinatar can have their say on the local budget until October 13, the town hall announced last week.

The council has allocated€200,000 to a participative budget scheme (presupuesto participativo), for which residents can send their proposals via the municipal website, www.sanpedrodelpinatar.es

Proposals can be made by any resident aged over 16, who is registered on the municipal register (padrón) and the cost of carting them out cannot exceed the €200,000 budget.

Council technicians will then select the most feasible proposals and these will be posted on the website so that they can be voted on between November 18 and 22.

The winning proposal will be included in the budget for 2020.’

The NLP feels that a similar system could be introduced by UK local authorities. This’ll give local communities some say over the spending of a proportion of their rates and would be an effective form of local political Self-Determination.

  1. https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/elections/referendums-held-in-the-uk/
  2. We believe that the current ‘First Past The Post’ (FPTP) electoral system is not fit for purpose. Indeed, it could be argued that FPTP is anti-democratic. It’s certainly injust as it actually allows governments to be formed with only a fraction of the overall vote. For instance, the 2005 Labour government only had the support of 35% of the electorate whilst in 2015, the Tories formed a government with only 37% of the vote https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/first-past-the-post/
  3. http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-–-total-democracy-–-we-want-total-democracy
  4. https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/sign-a-petition/
  5. https://issuu.com/rotativosdelmediterraneos.l./docs/post_628
Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

New Horizon – National Liberalism In Action – The Nature of Democracy

THIS IS the third in a series of articles reproduced from issue 1 of New Horizon – the ideological publication of the National Liberal Party. This series to copper-fasten a central tenant of National Liberal belief – that the ‘Idea’ is all important and that it trumps everything else. It even transcends concepts such as a ‘Leader’ and the ‘Party.’ National Liberals also recognise that at times – usually in regrettable & extreme circumstances – the ‘Leader’ and the ‘Party’ are not one and the same as the ‘Idea.’ In short, sometimes leaders and political parties come and go – but the idea remains. The former are there to serve the latter.


We feel that this viewpoint sets National Liberalism miles apart from Conservatism or Socialism. Whilst we’re obviously interested in examining the lives of those who we regard as ‘points of reference’ (in that they’ve said or done things that we find interesting) we’re certainly not into ‘hero worship.’ But just look at the way some Labour Party supporters (depending on how they define ‘Socialism’) view Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn through rose tinted lenses. The same rose tinted glasses are employed by many Conservatives who harp back to the days of Margaret Thatcher or who think that the current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson can do no wrong. National Liberals believe that it’s unhealthy – almost cultist – to view ‘Leaders’ (and, indeed, the ‘Party’) in this way.


Another thing that sets us apart from others is our love of internal & external debate. Indeed, the National Liberal Party – as well as our various publications – has been promoting regular debates for many years now. Eagle-eyed readers will also know that (from the start of last year) we’ve introduced a series of eye-catching posters, all designed to promote discussion & debate on all matter of subjects. The most recent poster-based debate – from just a couple of weeks ago – can be found here: http://nationalliberal.org/the-national-liberal-party-asks-…-does-big-pharma-have-too-much-power-join-the-debate


Therefore, whilst we obviously believe in the validity of our ideas, we’re not ideological purists in the Stalinist sense – where even the mildest (or constructive) criticism is rejected out-of-hand.

With all of the above in mind, we’d appreciate any comments – good, bad or indifferent – relating to our ideas. Simply post them up when this article appears on either our National Liberals Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313/?fref=nf – or our NLP Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty/

.

National Liberalism In Action!


ISSUE 1 of New Horizon – the online ideological magazine of the National Liberal Party - was launched towards the end of 2015. To get hold of a FREE pdf copy, simply e-mail natliberal@aol.com

WHILST New Horizon is dedicated to promoting the ideology of National Liberalism, we cannot forget those National Liberals who are attempting to put this into practice. We know that there are individuals (groups?) who ascribe to the movement’s ideals throughout the Europe, from Turkey to Scandinavia and beyond, even globally. Here in the UK some are involved in pressure groups such as English Green (a non-socialist green movement), whilst others are in the political party – the National Liberal Party.

.

We shall dedicate a section each issue to those operating in the ‘real’ rather than our ‘cyber’ world. In this first issue we host articles supporting and expanding on the NLP’s latest recruitment campaign that focused on Five key policy areas; Civil Liberties, Democracy, Environment, and the NHS.

.

The Nature of Democracy

.

To hear David Cameron and William Hague on television and radio, anyone might be forgiven for believing that the United Kingdom, in its democratic institutions, is the last word in ‘democracy’. Westminster flatters itself as the ‘Mother of Parliaments’ which implies that it is a model for other nations to emulate.

.

We do have much to take pride in. For much of the past millennium the word of the Sovereign was law. The King was set on his throne by God and had a ‘divine right’ to govern in any way he pleased, however capricious and arbitrary he might have been.

.

Magna Carta

.

This arbitrary power was first challenged in England in 1215 at Runnymede when King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta – the Great Charter of the Liberties of England – by feudal barons. This set down the principle that the King is also subject to the law of the Land.

.

When Charles I refused to be bound by the Law he had to be defeated by parliamentary armies in 1642-49 and eventually executed for his treason.

.

The Glorious Revolution of 1689 finally vanquished the doctrine of ‘the Divine Right of Kings’, as practised in France by the ‘Sun King’, Louis XIV. Louis was the absolute dictator of France and James II wanted to have the same dictatorial powers in England, Scotland and Ireland.

.

In England, the principle had become well established that elected representatives of his subjects should check the King’s actions and that those representatives should be able to make laws. It was by no means truly democratic, but it was a significant step away from absolutism. It is not surprising that James encountered strong opposition, which led to his removal by William of Orange and his defeat at the Boyne. The Constitutional Monarchy and parliamentary government finally put down roots.

.

At first the vote in the UK was restricted to certain classes; all of them male. New Zealand adopted universal suffrage for all citizens in 1893. In Britain it was in 1928 and as late as 1971 in Switzerland. Democracy as an idea seems to be catching on, albeit slowly.

.

What is Democracy?

.

But what exactly is ‘democracy’? We hear of ‘liberal democracy’, ‘representative democracy’, ‘parliamentary democracy’, ‘majoritarian democracy’, ‘direct democracy’ and ‘consensus democracy’. All that these have in common is that somewhere in the process, somebody gets to cast a vote and somebody or something wins a majority. Is that it then?

.

Is democracy simply the rule of a majority?

.

Apologists for the ‘First Past the Post’ system of parliamentary representation argue that it is. A candidate with the support of, say, 26% of the total poll is deemed elected even though his ‘majority’ is tiny. What counts is that he is out in front. The fact that 74% of voters supported other candidates is deemed irrelevant. According to its apologists, this system enables stable government with a workable majority in parliament. Its detractors, in contrast, point out that such a government is in danger of losing touch with the people it purports to represent. Once ‘the people have spoken’ their elected representatives can ignore their wishes for up to five years. These parliamentarians are often at the mercy of party whips that use a mixture of threats and promises to keep them in line.

.

Democratic deficit

.

In a divided society this can be dangerous if one section of the community is, in effect, always excluded from decision-making by a form of parliamentary despotism. The (failed) attempt to replace FPTP with the Alternative Vote earlier this year was intended to address this democratic deficit. AV would have been an improvement on FPTP, but inferior to the Single Transferable Vote system of Proportional Representation as used in Northern Ireland.

.

Northern Ireland has one major flaw in its system, however, as it is governed by a mandatory five-party coalition. There is no opposition, so no alternative government is waiting in the wings to take over if the incumbent regime messes things up. No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in!

.

In Westminster FPTP elections, we get the chance to ‘throw the rascals out’ every four or five years, but once elected our parliamentarians can do whatever they like without reference to the electorate.

.

Direct Democracy

.

One suggested improvement might be a system of direct democracy where Members of Parliament act as popular delegates. This worked well in ancient Athens where everyone knew almost everyone else but seems impractical in a modern largely anonymous society. How are MPs to be brought closer to the people?

.

The National Liberal Party suggests that we introduce referendums as a regular consultative constitutional measure. The party is circulating an on-line petition which states:

.

Everyday important decisions are made by Government which directly affects the people. However the people are never consulted as part of the decision making process. The war in Afghanistan is just one example of this.

.

The National Liberal Party and the undersigned call for the introduction into law the use of Referendums based on the successful direct democracy system used in Switzerland, allowing people to vote on major issues such as Europe (including renegotiating the Lisbon Treaty), Nuclear power, immigration, the creation of an English Parliament and going to war.

Go to http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/consult-thepeople.html

.

Switzerland: a practical application of ‘Direct Democracy’

.

In Switzerland regular elections are held to elect representatives to their Federal (national) Parliament. As in Northern Ireland, the use of PR ensures that the party split in the number of representatives more closely resembles a party’s percentage vote than clearly is the case in Westminster. This allows government to reflect the ‘popular will’ by forcing the main parties to act in coalition. Significant minority opinion and minor parties are not shut out of influence. The government will still get in, but it will vary in response to the shifting strengths of the constituent parties in the parliament.

.

In addition to this superior electoral system, Switzerland operates three mechanisms of Direct Democracy: Referendums, Initiative and Recall. Referendums cover votes on Government proposed changes to the Constitution, important Federal (National) laws or International treaties. Initiatives allow the public themselves to call for changes to the Constitution or Federal law. Recall allows the electorate to petition for a reelection of public officials for unacceptable behaviour. Had a similar system been operating here, electors could have petitioned for the recall of those MPs who fiddled their expenses to pay for duck ponds and for similar abuses of office.

.

This form of Direct Democracy institutionalises the voters’ right to decide on issues themselves. Implementation of these measures would go a long way to address the ‘democratic deficit’ in the United Kingdom.

.

These ideas are anathema to the European power elite for whom democracy is a bit of an inconvenience. Whatever might be said of the former Prime Ministers of Greece and Italy, they were at least elected to office. Not so their ‘technocratic’ successors. It ought to be astonishing that these changes of government were given such an easy ride by the press. Witness the howls of protest when Mr Papandreou announced his intention to put a euro-zone bailout scheme to a popular referendum. Within days he was forced to cancel the referendum.

.

For the EU ‘Eurocrats’, democracy is all very fine as long as the people make the ‘right’ decision. When this does not go according to plan, the aberrant nation is bullied into voting again, as happened when the people of the Republic of Ireland rejected the Nice Treaty in a constitutional referendum.

.

In contrast, Switzerland today is prosperous, peaceful, democratic and not a member of the European Union. There’s probably a lesson there for us all.

.

• ALSO Check out:

Build New Horizon! http://nationalliberal.org/build-new-horizon

New Horizon – Head & Heart http://nationalliberal.org/new-horizon-head-heart

New Horizon – National Liberalism In Action – Civil Liberties http://nationalliberal.org/new-horizon-–-national-liberalism-in-action-–-civil-liberties

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

From The Liberty Wall – Nations without States – Calling AllAché People …

.

NATIONS WITHOUT STATES – NwS – kicked off this year with an appeal to anyAboriginal Australiansliving in London (who would most probably be youngsters from an artistic or sporting background) who’d be interested in promoting their case for Self-Determination at the highest level in the capital.

.

The opportunity to do so is due to the forthcomingGreater London Assembly elections – scheduled for 7th May. Here, our friends and comrade of the National Liberal Party (NLP) intend to stand up to 25 candidates under the slogan ofSelf-Determination For All!

.

We now turn our attention to theAché People.

.

The Aché – sometimes called theAxe people – are hunter-gatherers, an indigenous people who live in eastern Paraguay, South America. Like many other indigenous people in South America, they have suffered years of persecution at the hands ofcolonists, loggers, and ranchers. This was particularly so in the 1960s & 1970s.

During the latter half of the 20th century, the Paraguayan government launched a ‘pacification program’ which encouraged theAché to settle in permanent villages or camps. However, in recent years theAché have demanded land rights – the return of historical land which is currently being deforested by landless farmers and unscrupulous timber merchants.


NwS concedes that it’s probably unlikely that any descendants of theAché people living in London (and thus able to stand in the GLA elections in three months time). However, we feel that this is no reason to ignore their plight. When it comes to issues relating to Self-Determination, we work on the understanding thateither we all have rights – or none of us have rights!


With the above in mind, the National Liberal Party have advised us that they’d be happy to accommodate anyone – no matter what their ethnic background – who has a special interest and knowledge of the Aché people.  Election to the GLA would provide an excellent platform to promote – and give a voice to – the cause of theAché (and other South American indigenous people.)


The GLA has wide-ranging powers – all relating to London. However, a member of the GLA taking up the cause of the Aché people would be newsworthy in its own right. That member can also help organise support for the Aché people in communities, work-places and colleges and add weight to campaigns for allindigenous people. And let’s face it, there arehundreds of unique ethnic minorities in the world – all of whom are victims of globalism. They are losing their culture, identity, languages & traditions. We feel that they’re all unique and all are worth protecting and preserving.


Therefore, we’d ask anyone who has a special knowledge and interest in theAché people to come forward and play your part in righting the many wrongs they’ve been subjected to. Are you up for it?  If so, contact our friends in the National Liberal Partynatliberal@aol.com now. Make history – not excuses!

• ALSO check out


From The Liberty Wall – Nations without States – Calling AllAborigineshttp://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-–-nations-without-states-–-calling-all-aborigines-…

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close