A People’s Manifesto

[ks.234]

It should be obvious to everyone that our politics is broken.

It should be equally obvious that opposition parties and government are part of the broken system. They are part of the problem. Each of our parties to a greater or lesser extent, buys into the values of our broken system.

We cannot therefore hope that any part of our current system, be they left, right or centre is capable of fixing what’s broke.

That is in part the fault of the electorate because we have at no point made it clear what we want. We vote for vague promises from parties that have shown themselves to be corrupt and hope for the best and moan when it all goes wrong.

Instead of waiting for promises from our parties and relying on hope that they will not wriggle out of them we need a set of demands that we put to our representatives in exchange for our vote. Instead of being passive and accepting what is offered, we need to be clearly stating our demands for a better society.

There are certain things, certain values, a People’s Manifesto, that everyone, be they Tory, Labour, Green or even Lib Dem, can agree are the basics of a decent society founded on moral values for all.

As a starting point for such a manifesto, there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Is there any part of this document that anyone could not sign up to? Is there any value that we could not expect any of our political representatives to live up to and implement?

Our Government has already signed up to the UDHR, maybe it’s up to us to use our democracy to make sure they live up to it in it’s entirety, in good faith and in the name of improving society at home and abroad.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I suspect all parties will say that their existing policies conform to the UDHR, though. After all, they are required to as it's the basis for the HRA1998, which all UK public sector bodies' acts, and laws, have to be compliant with. The problem is partly about rights, but also about interpretation and implementation. So I'm not sure asserting our rights under UDHR takes us very far.

What might help as a first step, though, is a wider awareness of those rights among the population. And not just how they apply to them, but how they apply to everybody, even those pesky immigrants, benefit shirkers and darkies. We might hope for a reduction in scapegoating, which would be a decent outcome in itself. If politicians are less able to 'other' minorities, they have to act in the interests of a wider swathe of the population.

 

[ks.234]

I suspect all parties will say that their existing policies conform to the UDHR, though. After all, they are required to as it's the basis for the HRA1998, which all UK public sector bodies' acts, and laws, have to be compliant with. The problem is partly about rights, but also about interpretation and implementation. So I'm not sure asserting our rights under UDHR takes us very far.

What might help as a first step, though, is a wider awareness of those rights among the population. And not just how they apply to them, but how they apply to everybody, even those pesky immigrants, benefit shirkers and darkies. We might hope for a reduction in scapegoating, which would be a decent outcome in itself. If politicians are less able to 'other' minorities, they have to act in the interests of a wider swathe of the population.

Yes, it is absolutely about interpretation, but, to take one example, article 23 seems pretty unambiguous and one that is very clearly ignored

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.​

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Yes, my problem here is that the government, certainly the Tories but I suspect also Labour and the LibDems, will argue that 'just and favourable remuneration' in these terms means 'a fair rate in the market and, in any event, at minimum wage or above'; and 'supplemented, if necessary [...]' points to the need for states to make some form of social protection available. Which they will quickly point out, they do. The 'existence worthy of human dignity' bit is also pretty subjective, hence arguable. Compared to what we see in the developing world, or Syria or Afghanistan, there's no question we do OK in absolute terms. Given this is a 'universal' declaration, it then falls on us to argue why our sub-standard but still first world conditions don't clear the bar.

 

[awkwardbydesign]

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment,
​

You might want to think about that bit. Convicted paedophiles as sports coaches? Unvaccinated hospital staff? Is there a red line? And where would it be?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

You might want to think about that bit. Convicted paedophiles as sports coaches? Unvaccinated hospital staff? Is there a red line? And where would it be?

This is why there is considerable interaction between the various articles. My right to free choice of employment doesn't trump your right to personal safety, and so on. Human rights law is complex, and subject to a lot of interpretation not least in where the lines between competing rights should be drawn. In many cases, where the line is is decided by government policy. It is challengeable in the courts

 

[SteveG]

I'd agree that the 3 main English parties are a disgrace these days, but here in Scotland we're fortunate in having the SNP who (while not perfect by any means) are at least a party that I don't feel bad voting for. If I was in England I'd probably have to hold my nose and vote Labour as the only realisitic alternative to the Tories and their enablers the LibDems. I'd potentially vote Green if I was in a constituency where they had a chance but not otherwise.

 

[Stuart Frazer]

Can we please have Proportional Representation as an Electoral System.

 

[SteveG]

Can we please have Proportional Representation as an Electoral System.

We already have it for the Scottish Parliament and the downside is that it lets lots of the crazy parties (Tories, Labour etc.) get seats when they'd have done lots worse under an FPTP system. The SNP don't even have a majority when under FPTP they'd have had the most massive of landslide victories.

 

[Stuart Frazer]

We already have it for the Scottish Parliament and the downside is that it lets lots of the crazy parties (Tories, Labour etc.) get seats when they'd have done lots worse under an FPTP system. The SNP don't even have a majority when under FPTP they'd have had the most massive of landslide victories.

Yes, I accept that we will get a proportion of crazy/extreme parties, but Proportional Representation would make all votes count. That would, hopefully, get more people to participate and vote. Coalitions could be needed to form Governments, like the SNP is now in with the Greens. FPTP is designed to maintain main parties dominance of the electoral system. In my view, it is not very democratic because a large proportion of the votes cast are uselessly wasted at a local level.

 

[Bananahead]

Can we please have Proportional Representation as an Electoral System.

Yes, to replace the unelected second house.

 

[Darren L]

Can we please have Proportional Representation as an Electoral System.

I guess that may work if voting was mandatory?
As you probably know we have a 'power sharing' system in NI, one of the major problems (and there is many) is that only 63% of the population of voting age actually voted so now we've ended up with the DUP having the place of first minister (though he's just resigned ) despite only having 23% of the eligible populations vote, that in turn means that NI is being represented on the world/UK politics stage by creationist fascist bigots.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Yes, to replace the unelected second house.

Before you opt for an elected second house, be careful what you wish for. Not going so well for the USA.

 

[ks.234]

You might want to think about that bit. Convicted paedophiles as sports coaches? Unvaccinated hospital staff? Is there a red line? And where would it be?

The conviction would create a red line, much as it does now.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Article 29 is where it starts to get more complicated than at face value, in particular 29(2):

Article 29 1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. 3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

If you look in the HRA 1998, you'll see that most of the rights set out in an article are qualified by a subsection which permits the state to limit those rights where 'necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others'. That power of the state to set limits to the rights derives from Article 29.

What this means, to take an extreme example, is that your right to life isn't absolute. This is, clearly, the most basic human right, yet the state can limit the extent of your entitlement to it. What it means is that, for example, my right to life can be forfeit if I were to enter a crowded space with an assault rifle, or a bomb belt. The police could shoot me dead to protect the right to life of the innocent people around me. Similarly, soldiers at war can take the life of enemy combatants lawfully.

This is why I say it is all about interpretation and implementation. The extent to which the state can interfere with the stated rights is limited to purposes of securing the rights of others, or meeting the requirements of morality, public order and general welfare. And, by and large, the government gets to decide what the limits to these are.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

None of which is to say that I disagree with the premise of the OP. For far too long, we the people have been offered a choice of options selected for us. It's time we went 'off menu' and told the powers what we want in order to lend them our support.

 

[Bananahead]

Before you opt for an elected second house, be careful what you wish for. Not going so well for the USA.

But this sort of thinking abolishes representative democracy altogether. (ignoring that the USA doesn't have a PR system)

 

[ks.234]

None of which is to say that I disagree with the premise of the OP. For far too long, we the people have been offered a choice of options selected for us. It's time we went 'off menu' and told the powers what we want in order to lend them our support.

Yes.

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Only violent revolution and subsequent starting again from scratch and getting it right this time could really work.

We have only the illusion of democracy here and in most so called western democracies. Only those parties which can "be trusted" to keep the status quo of the wealthy elites running things for their own benefit will ever be allowed to win an election.... they can tinker with the window dressing a little but real change for the better that takes from the landed gentry, oligarchs, mega corps etc and lessens their power and wealth will never be allowed. Look what happened to Corbyn!

Democracy itself can be a big part of the problem when the tyranny of the majority is allowed to harm the minority ie people voting scum party party party on dude to try and maintain their wealth and increasing property prices forever etc that very much harms all those at the poorer end of the spectrum.

 

[tpetsch]

Politics has taken on a team sports herd mentality, people sticking with their team no matter the consequences.

Like when people voted for Brexit only to later Google afterwards "What is Brexit".