The quest for democracy is a long road with a seemingly intangible destination. The last week has shown us just how elusive it can be.
The Labour Party in the UK continues to struggle with the decision of their electorate to choose Jeremy Corbyn as their leader. Whatever one's political leaning, the behaviour of Labour Party MPs in recent weeks has hardly emboldened the public to engage with the political process. If democracy is the result of asking the people what they want, the recent election of Jeremy Corbyn has provided one of the most overwhelming mandates in history. Such was the public desire for his election, there was no need for a second ballot. We might be forgiven for thinking that even the most arrogant of MPs would have to take such a result on the chin with a modicum of good grace. Not so. Their behaviour in recent weeks has been an insult to the masses who did their bit by engaging with the leadership election during the summer. The legacy of such behaviour is clear enough. Young people toying with the prospect of becoming politically engaged will simply turn away and justifiably ask, "What's the point?".
As I write this, news has just emerged that the first women councillors have been elected in Saudi Arabia. Let none of us underestimate the scale of such an achievement. In a country where women aspire to be third class citizens this is progress of Stakhanovite proportions. It shows what can be achieved where there is a will but it also reminds us of some of the obstacles along the way.
Also in the news today, we learn that the far right Front Nationale in France has mercifully failed to acquire any of the large seats in the French Elections. But that is not the point. The point is that people engaged in large numbers and had their say at a time when that country is still struggling to come to terms with the recent terrorist attacks in Paris. There is no more fertile territory for the far right than this so democracy in this instance has served to reassure us that human nature remains as grounded as we would want it to be.
I had lunch with two work colleagues last week each of whom comes from a very different part of the world. As our discussion turned to the health service, there was general agreement that the existing health service can't carry on in it's current format. Not because it shouldn't - the model upon which it was founded in 1948 was both honourable and humane. Jeremy Corbyn was elected because large numbers of people took responsibility for their part in the process and engaged accordingly. Applying the same principle, the only conceivable way in which the current health service can continue to provide health care free at the point of access for every man, woman or child is if funding is dramatically increased or if the public start to take greater responsibility for their own health decisions. It may even be a combination of the two but on current evidence, the portents do not look encouraging.
But back to democracy. As much as people do choose to make the right health decisions, the ageing process stops for no man and man gets older. It was ever thus. As man gets older, like the car he has driven for all those years, parts of the machine start to go wrong. The car taxes us throughout our lives - literally. As Benjamin Franklin was perfectly correct when he said that "the only things certain in life are birth, death and taxes". That though fails to take account of the events after birth and before death. Most of the time, most of us enjoy reasonable health. It is a good example of the bell-shaped curve of the normal distribution. We begin our lives with a big threat to our health and end our lives in the same predicament. The middle bit in simple terms is the part where we pay those taxes so that our young and our elderly can be provided for in their hour of need.
So you see the founding principles of our health service are very noble. The problem is that life is so very different now from what it was in those hopeful post-war years. People then were just grateful to have a roof over their heads and food on the table - although rationing still ruled the roost. The car in those days was the preserve of the few with the legs propelling the many. The family unit in 1948 was rather different to the one we see today. Local councils at that time were just coming around to the idea of providing care for elderly members of the community whose care needs had surpassed the capabilties of their caring families.
But even the time served local council is a far cry from it's post-war ancestor. Much has changed since those days. A job with the council in those days meant a job for life with the compromise of slightly lower pay than those in the private sector. Even the elected councillors in those days did the job for the honour of serving their community. They certainly didn't enjoy the salaries of the council officers and councillors of today. Of course, there are undoubtedly still councillors who do the job foremost for the honour of serving their local community. But the current system of democracy with it's Cabinet system seems rather distant from the democracy of those post-war years. More power devolved to fewer people is a familiar picture which democracy sought to banish. So we have to ask ourselves how far we have come since those fragile post-war years.
Society in 1948 was more caring because it had to be and that is what people had to do to survive. That was the era of the Scouting movement with it's mantra "Cub scouts always do their best, think of others before themselves and do a good turn every day". In a way, that mantra tapped in to the existing values of everyday people because they had to be that way to survive. In one sense, it is possible to see a re-emergence of such attitudes as growing numbers find themselves with so little after so many Draconian cuts to public services. In 1948, I would very much doubt that any council would have been putting forward proposals to absolve themselves of their care homes even if they were being asked to make cost savings. The councillor of 1948 put the needs of his local people first and had to argue their points at committee meetings before any decisions were reached. Thus they called the shots. Their contemporaries call no shots and the majority sit outside Cabinet with no chance of fighting for their local community. As 2015 draws to an end, the people of Denbighshire are about to witness the end of an era in which the local council farms out elderly care to the private sector. 1948 seems a long time ago both in years and moral values. We await 2016 with trepidation and pray for a sniff of democracy.
The Labour Party in the UK continues to struggle with the decision of their electorate to choose Jeremy Corbyn as their leader. Whatever one's political leaning, the behaviour of Labour Party MPs in recent weeks has hardly emboldened the public to engage with the political process. If democracy is the result of asking the people what they want, the recent election of Jeremy Corbyn has provided one of the most overwhelming mandates in history. Such was the public desire for his election, there was no need for a second ballot. We might be forgiven for thinking that even the most arrogant of MPs would have to take such a result on the chin with a modicum of good grace. Not so. Their behaviour in recent weeks has been an insult to the masses who did their bit by engaging with the leadership election during the summer. The legacy of such behaviour is clear enough. Young people toying with the prospect of becoming politically engaged will simply turn away and justifiably ask, "What's the point?".
As I write this, news has just emerged that the first women councillors have been elected in Saudi Arabia. Let none of us underestimate the scale of such an achievement. In a country where women aspire to be third class citizens this is progress of Stakhanovite proportions. It shows what can be achieved where there is a will but it also reminds us of some of the obstacles along the way.
Also in the news today, we learn that the far right Front Nationale in France has mercifully failed to acquire any of the large seats in the French Elections. But that is not the point. The point is that people engaged in large numbers and had their say at a time when that country is still struggling to come to terms with the recent terrorist attacks in Paris. There is no more fertile territory for the far right than this so democracy in this instance has served to reassure us that human nature remains as grounded as we would want it to be.
I had lunch with two work colleagues last week each of whom comes from a very different part of the world. As our discussion turned to the health service, there was general agreement that the existing health service can't carry on in it's current format. Not because it shouldn't - the model upon which it was founded in 1948 was both honourable and humane. Jeremy Corbyn was elected because large numbers of people took responsibility for their part in the process and engaged accordingly. Applying the same principle, the only conceivable way in which the current health service can continue to provide health care free at the point of access for every man, woman or child is if funding is dramatically increased or if the public start to take greater responsibility for their own health decisions. It may even be a combination of the two but on current evidence, the portents do not look encouraging.
But back to democracy. As much as people do choose to make the right health decisions, the ageing process stops for no man and man gets older. It was ever thus. As man gets older, like the car he has driven for all those years, parts of the machine start to go wrong. The car taxes us throughout our lives - literally. As Benjamin Franklin was perfectly correct when he said that "the only things certain in life are birth, death and taxes". That though fails to take account of the events after birth and before death. Most of the time, most of us enjoy reasonable health. It is a good example of the bell-shaped curve of the normal distribution. We begin our lives with a big threat to our health and end our lives in the same predicament. The middle bit in simple terms is the part where we pay those taxes so that our young and our elderly can be provided for in their hour of need.
So you see the founding principles of our health service are very noble. The problem is that life is so very different now from what it was in those hopeful post-war years. People then were just grateful to have a roof over their heads and food on the table - although rationing still ruled the roost. The car in those days was the preserve of the few with the legs propelling the many. The family unit in 1948 was rather different to the one we see today. Local councils at that time were just coming around to the idea of providing care for elderly members of the community whose care needs had surpassed the capabilties of their caring families.
But even the time served local council is a far cry from it's post-war ancestor. Much has changed since those days. A job with the council in those days meant a job for life with the compromise of slightly lower pay than those in the private sector. Even the elected councillors in those days did the job for the honour of serving their community. They certainly didn't enjoy the salaries of the council officers and councillors of today. Of course, there are undoubtedly still councillors who do the job foremost for the honour of serving their local community. But the current system of democracy with it's Cabinet system seems rather distant from the democracy of those post-war years. More power devolved to fewer people is a familiar picture which democracy sought to banish. So we have to ask ourselves how far we have come since those fragile post-war years.
Society in 1948 was more caring because it had to be and that is what people had to do to survive. That was the era of the Scouting movement with it's mantra "Cub scouts always do their best, think of others before themselves and do a good turn every day". In a way, that mantra tapped in to the existing values of everyday people because they had to be that way to survive. In one sense, it is possible to see a re-emergence of such attitudes as growing numbers find themselves with so little after so many Draconian cuts to public services. In 1948, I would very much doubt that any council would have been putting forward proposals to absolve themselves of their care homes even if they were being asked to make cost savings. The councillor of 1948 put the needs of his local people first and had to argue their points at committee meetings before any decisions were reached. Thus they called the shots. Their contemporaries call no shots and the majority sit outside Cabinet with no chance of fighting for their local community. As 2015 draws to an end, the people of Denbighshire are about to witness the end of an era in which the local council farms out elderly care to the private sector. 1948 seems a long time ago both in years and moral values. We await 2016 with trepidation and pray for a sniff of democracy.
Comments
Post a Comment