Sadly, seeing Farage go down to defeat against a pretend
intergalactic space warrior with a bin on his head was never more than an
outside hope, but the dream
was pleasant while it lasted. For Farage himself, despite all his bluster about
a resounding victory, and the people having exonerated him, he’s now back
exactly where he was before he resigned, with a parliamentary enquiry into his
amazingly generous, completely non-political ‘gift’ of £5 million now
due to restart. Apparently, he didn’t even realise
that resigning and getting re-elected wouldn’t make the investigation go away.
Actually, perhaps there is a difference – there are more questions being asked
about the source and legality of funding for his company, Reform Ltd, now than
there were before he resigned. He may yet face another by-election, this time
not of his choosing and against an array of political parties rather than the
only credible one being our friend with the bin.
Although it may not have achieved much from Farage’s
point of view, it may not have been entirely a waste of time. It has demonstrated
how little he cares for the rules and regulations by which others are expected
to abide, as well as a certain lack of attention to detail. And his statement
last night that he missed the count not for the reasons being claimed by his company’s
spokespersons, but because, as he put it, “I’m damned if I’m going to stand
on a stage … and be demeaned and humiliated by nobodies” betrays a certain
arrogance towards people he considers less important than himself (a category
which increasingly seems to include almost everybody else). Election rules in
the UK may well turn by-elections into a bit of a circus (I’ve been there
myself, although not to the extent of metre long ballot papers with 34 names on
them, having fought a by-election in 1989 which was also contested by Screaming
Lord Sutch and Miss Whiplash, among others), but them’s the rules, and even if democracy
sometimes works in mysterious ways, effectively challenging the right of people
to spend their time and money on fringe campaigns has to be better than the
alternative of candidates needing to be approved by the state before they can
stand.
He will, no doubt, try to claim that getting more
votes than in 2024 on a reduced turnout shows that the electors of Clacton aren’t
interested in what he seems to see as arcane rules about political donations. Getting
63% of the vote on a 44% turnout means that only around 28% of Clacton’s
electors felt strongly enough to go out and vote for him – but it is a quirk of
the UK’s parliamentary election system that 28% of the total electorate across the
UK on a normal turnout with multiple other parties standing would probably be
enough for a party to win a resounding overall majority. I might believe – I certainly
want to believe – that the by-election and his approach to it has led to him
being a somewhat diminished figure, but we should not be complacent. An
electoral system which works, after a fashion, when two large parties manage to
gather 80% or more of the votes between them does not work at all well with 6
or 7 parties in the mix: the danger of electing a UK government which is even
more unrepresentative of the population than the current Labour government is
still present. Electoral reform is desperately needed, yet Burnham seems
unwilling to address the issue with anything like the speed needed.
Posts
2 comments:
Borthlas, you mention “the rules and regulations by which others are expected to abide.” Sadly these are very bad rules. We have a crisis of democracy. One of the features is allowing bureaucrats (Bain in Cardiff) to pick, or anyway deselect our MSs and MPs. I will not abide by this sort of regulation. Its not a pro or anti Farage thing. I want good MSs and MPs, and bureaucrats who are answerable to them. Not vice versa. I don’t want politicians of suc low calibre that they use Bain to defeat an opponent, not merit ie what voters want. What do you call it when unelected bureaucrats run politics? Not good!
"Sadly these are very bad rules" On my understanding, the rules which Farage and his limited company are alleged to have breached are those which are intended to ensure transparency about the amount and sources of income received by politicians and parties. Are you really arguing that they shoud be allowed to receive unlimited monies from whomsoever they choose and that we have no right to know about that? One can argue about the detail, of course, but in principle it is surely a good thing to ensure that we know who is funding our politicians, even if the fact of funding does not, in itself, tell us very much about the motivation.
Once we decide we need some sort of rules in this area, we also need a means of investigating whether they've been adhered to and some sort of accountability if they've not been. Whether in Cardiff or in Westminster, the person responsible for doing that is, indeed, unelected, but (s)he is appointed by the relevent parliament with a remit decided by that parliament to monitor adherence to rules set by that parliament. I suppose it could be made an elected rather than appointed post, but that is likely to make the whole role more partisan and political. Alternatively, the rules could be enshrined in legislation and investigations carried out by the Plod, but I'm not sure that would be much of an improvement.
None of that is to argue that the current system is perfect, or that the standards required are set at exactly the right level in all cases, or even that the processes in place to enforce them could not be improved, but it's surely better than a free-for-all in which slippery and devious politicians get to do whatever they want.
Post a Comment