Emancipation
2nd Quarter, 2008   

    England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales

   Home page    Editorial    Archives    Right to reply    About Emancipation    Contributions & support    Contact
Emancipation, the imperative for Britain's future...

Emancipation is a process of liberation of people from unnecessary constraints and controls such as the removal of corrupt representation, factional impositions and unjust settlements.

The ability of our children to enjoy a free and just society can only be founded on the current generations defending such a freedom for themselves.

Widspread failures in social cohesion are the result of too much decision-making resting in the hands of political parties and their representatives who centralise as much as possible to concentrate their power.

Today's children have difficulties in recognising participatory social responsibility because today's parents as members of the electorate have no effective social role through the political system. The initiative of the electorate has been crowded out by the ambitions of political parties and their representatives. This political alienation is resulting in our children being less prepared for an increasingly uncertain future. The future has become less certain because direct participation of the electorate, society, in the shaping of events, has been stripped away. Parliament does not reflect the majority and important decisions are taken by a factional minority.

In order to secure a better future for the children of today the electorate needs to take back the means to influence the decisions which affect their freedom and that of future genrations.The people of Britain need to rediscover the importance of freedom and of the freedom to defend it; this is not something that can be delegated to anyone else.

Hector McNeill



The popular vote

The legitimacy of a government's mandate is that its party manifesto meets with the approval of the majority of the electorate or, at least a substantive proportion of the electorate. A mandate can become more inclusive if Parliament sustained free votes based upon a separation of the powers of government and parliament. But such a majority principle has failed in Britain under practices finely honed to favour the interests of political parties. The too-frequent referal to "the popular vote" masks a depressing and dangerous reality that all of the political parties together attract the support of only some 40% of the electorate.

In statistical terms it is impossible for a governing party with less than 20%, and a Parliamnet with just 40%, of the electorate support to represent the preferences of the electorate. As a result the government can have no real mandate and all government action degenerate into a series of arbitrary decisions in a downwards spiral deepening the tyranny enveloping the people of Brtain.

Governance with no mandate


EUCONT.JPG - 17474 BytesThe arrogance with which British political parties have disregarded the wishes of the people of Britain has served to further diminish the standing of Parliament and the relevance of political parties to British democracy.

One of the most offensive justifications for not holding a referendum on the European Treaty is that British governments have ignored the views of the people of Britain in the past and therefore are right to continue to do so. We have a factional minority government with the Labour party gaining less than 19% of the electorate vote. Their behaviour exercised from a vantage point of voting power enabled them, and some in the Liberal party, to impose their minority viewpoints on a decision affecting the majority.


House of ill repute?


Labour and some factions of the Liberal party have won a vote but they have further undermined the poor reputation of British political parties. Such arbitrary decision-making is a tyranny and the people of Britain are begining to recognise that their governance, and in particular the House of Commons, the much vaunted Parliament, does not represent the will of the people.



The mathematics of tyranny

Governing political parties in Britain do not have the support of the majority of the electorate and yet Parliamentary voting balance is so biased that the minority faction controlling government has an absolute voting majority in Parliament. Such parties with no majority support have an over-riding power to impose their own dogmas on the majority. The mathematics of British governance is a tyranny which constrains the freedom of the people of Britain.


Note: Thousands of members of the British electorate visited the Houses of Parliament on 27th February, 2008 to request that their MPs vote in favour of a referendum for the European Treaty. In the event these requests were ignored under the pressure from the whips.

Most of the lamentable mainstream British press did not bother to comment on this public lobbying but prefered to give more coverage to a protest by individuals on the roof of Parliament who were concerned about the extension of London's Heathrow airport.

Britain's problem of political alienation...



Parliament's willingness to take decisions at odds with the current
preferences of the majority of the British electorate has
seriously undermined participatory democracy...

Why the Irish vote is important

The Irish will have the opportunity to vote in a referendum on the European Treaty. As in the United Kingdom, the Irish debates have avoided the single most serious issue facing all of us. Politicians wish to avoid the taboo topic of the rapid decadence and loss of impartiality of the European Court arising from the continuing politicization of the 37% of its judges serving the specific interests of factional political interests in Central and Eastern Europe.

Why the European Treaty is a constitutional issue

A misleading initiative




The Government Department of Communities and Local Government recently published (April 2008) a document entitled, "The Community Power Pack". This, the Introduction states, is an aid for local groups to organise and facilitate discussions on the topic of empowerment. But in terms of Britain's needed constitutional change this approach does not tackle to real issue of the government political party sustaining its minority power through control of the very large centralised budget. Local participatory exercises simple fob the electorate off with a theatrical exercises with the semblance of participatory decision making for the majority while the minority, the political parties continue in command.

Participatory democracy?



The freedom to become the person you want to be

The fundamental value of freedom is its contribution in helping each of us become the person we wish to become and on our own terms. Essential aspects of this evolutionary voyage through life are the many personal decisions on the setting of boundaries upon the expectations of acceptable behaviour.

This free and socially-cohesive initiative is very different from the social engineering model promoted by most political parties within which as obedient "citizens" we are obliged - let us say "expected" - to exchange legally-founded rights with the exercise of predefined responsibilities.



Citizenship as a concept of collectivism

Lord Goldsmith's report,"Citizenship - Our Common Bond" is extremely disappointing and has almost nothing to commend it. It provides a worrying glimpse of the failure of politicians to understand that it is their rights and duties which are in need of serious review.

Goldsmith and Citizen's involvement in politics

Participation in "formal politics" is in decline and Lord Goldsmith's proposals will not change that; the probem remains the behaviour and lack of relevance of political parties.

Is the government planning to kill off juries?

Goldsmith's treatment of this topic indicates a possible agenda.

Not exactly a vision thing...

Goldsmith's report did not have a very good terms of reference

Goldsmith on compulsory voting

Lord Goldsmith is right in not recommending that voting should be compulsory.

Real Incomes

Real Incomes is an online medium which provides an analytical review of the essential issues concerning the British economy.

It explains, for example, why current macro-economic policies create their own instability. This fact has been known for some time and Real Incomes provides both explanations and pathways to solutions. This sister publication can be accessed here.



Freedom, Democracy & the Rule of Law and other buzz words...

Since our democracy does not uphold freedom of expression legislation represents the imposition of minority factional dogma. And therefore as night follow day, the rule of law is becoming an increasing tyranny.


Cabinet secrecy and sovereignty

The rights of the people of Britain can only be upheld if those elected to represent the people are subject to the scrutiny of the people. Agents, those who represent the interests of principals, have no right to hide their arguments from those they represent. The argument of "collective responsibility" is more often a hollow idol fashioned to defend the interests of political parties.



Britain's empty jury seats...

As the British governments have covertly reduced the role of a jury of citizens in contributing to the fair application of the law, so the rule of law has become socially devisive.

There are compelling arguments in support of increasing the role of juries in both criminal and civil law.



Constitutional questions arising from macroeconomic management

Macroeconomic management under Keynesianism and Monetarism has relied upon the operation of a monopoly intervention in markets by the state or an "independent" agency following state directives. Such interventions affect people and economic units in different ways. In cases of losses in real incomes arising directly from government policy decisions there has never been any consideration for compensation.

In representative terms the operation of macroeconomic policies contains a considerable element of arbitrariness responding to policy-induced failures to achieve economic objectives without safeguarding the state of livelihood of some segments of the population. This raises serious constitutional questions which have yet to be addressed by governments and the economists who serve them.