Local autonomy is the next big political step, but we must be careful not to narrow our horizons

At a time when UKIP are pushing their anti-Europe message, often without regard for decency or accuracy (Sparrow, 2014; Jones, 2014), it is important that new parties are springing up with less nationalist views. The Yorkshire First Party was founded to promote a regional assembly with devolved powers for Yorkshire, akin to those in Scotland and Wales (Collier, 2014) Like their equivalent parties in Scotland and Wales, they have managed to steer clear of the politics of identity in which UKIP have engaged.

The founder of Yorkshire First, Richard Carter, has stressed that the underlying purpose behind the group is to move power closer to the people over whom decisions are to be made. What is interesting, like with those who champion Scottish Independence, is that the vision is not isolationist. The talk is of regional autonomy within a larger federalised system.

That distinction is important. Reining politics in, and restricting power of local decisions to an increasingly local level, could have unfortunate consequences if not done in conjunction with an openness to broader interaction politically, diplomatically, and economically with other communities.

Right now the traditional nation state model is receiving criticism for its limitations (Orr, 2014). Power continues to be hoarded by the governing bodies of these agglomerate 'nations', despite their two-way limitations. Nation states are insufficient in scope to tackle the problems caused by international corporations, and are too far removed from local issues to involve those local people affected in the decision making process.

The emergence of local assemblies provides a solution to one of these problems. Yet, community self-governance, even within a nation state, risks reducing even further the ability of people to protect their rights. By focussing too much on our immediate surroundings we risk isolating ourselves from potential allies, something that will only make the wealthy and the influential, even more readily, too big to touch.

A well balanced federal system offers a solution. Local assemblies, governing local communities, standing alongside others in larger federations, offers a way to keep power close to the people while ensuring that the wider issues can also be tackled. Power dispersed and decentralised into the hands of the people, but within an institutional framework capable of coping with major international issues: high-earner and corporation tax-dodging, consistency in humans rights and civil rights, and protections of basic freedoms like movement and healthcare.

The narrow borders of nation states and nationalism, with their flags, anthems and patriotism, are becoming chains. Their limited view of identity is being exposed as dangerously problematic. Groups like Plaid Cymru in Wales, Mebyon Kernow in Cornwall, and the Scottish National Party all seem to have distanced themselves from the nation state forms of old and embraced the idea of local self government combined with a wider federal model.

Yorkshire First look like the next group in Britain to pursue that approach. As they do, they must remain wary of the dangers of being sucked in by the politics of nation and identity, and must remain open to the worth and indispensable value of openness and friendship towards other self-governing communities. As a community cannot stand without the participation of the individuals composing it, so the wider issues of the world cannot be tackled without communities working together in co-operation.

==========
References:
==========
+ Andrew Sparrow's 'UKIP likely to come out top in European elections, warn Hain and Tebbit'; in The Guardian; 27 April 2014.

+ Andrew Sparrow's 'UKIP candidate's comments on Lenny Henry disgusting, says Jeremy Hunt'; in The Guardian; 27 April 2014.

+ Owen Jones' 'Stand with Lenny Henry, not just against UKIP's bigots'; in The Guardian; 27 April 2014.

+ Hatty Collier's 'God's Own Party? Yorkshire First to contest the Euro elections'; in The Guardian; 24 April 2014.

For more information of the Yorkshire First Party:

James Reed's 'New party promises to put 'Yorkshire First''; in The Yorkshire Post; 12 April 2014.
http://www.yorkshirefirst.org.uk/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_First

+ Deborah Orr's 'There is a lot more to British democracy than Westminster – or there should be'; in The Guardian; 14 March 2014.

Should Nigel Farage's expenses scandal be able to burn the whole UKIP political movement?

Nigel Farage, the leader of the populist UKIP party, has ironically fallen foul of some popularly controversial media coverage. Allegations have been made regarding his exploitation of expense allowances provided by the EU for MEPs (Mason, 2014). Stories such as these have affected the outcomes of elections and turned public opinion to or from political movements.

The reason populist methods work is simple: populism, by making simple and emotive appeals to the people, is able to bypass reasonable consideration and sensible process. Regardless how pleasing the irony may be of a populist being caught out by populism, and whatever the truth behind the allegations, it's still a dangerous game to play.

The Liberal Democrats have seen both sides of that game. Their fortunes over the last five years have risen and fallen on the personal popularity of their leader Nick Clegg. In the process, objective opinion has been lost on the merits of Lib Dem ideas. Their ideas were swamped by positive popular opinion before the election and since have been drowned by popular dislike for Clegg.

This kind of shift in popular opinion creates both tremendous instability and prevents us from making informed, well reasoned decisions about the policies and ideologies with which, and by which, we will be governed. Instead we get sidetracked into confusing personal scandals or corruption, debates over technicalities of the truth, or measures of personal integrity, as playing a role in our political beliefs.

It is, ultimately, problematic to judge public policies on the basis of individual private lives or personal scandals or corruption. Hypocrisy, or the inability to live up to your own ideals, is no measure of the ideals themselves. They should be weighed rationally on their own purposes and merits; and the parties that propose them should be weighed on their own track record for applying those ideals and their capacity to do so according to those ideals; just the same as the individual figures should stand and fall themselves alone on their own integrity.

As one man's integrity must be judged on the evidence regarding his own individual thoughts and actions, so too must an organisation receive the same treatment, and ideals as well. If UKIP are to be beaten at an election, it aught to be because their manifesto has been rejected because of its seriously problematic elements (Randall, 2013) - and certainly not because of the indiscretions of one man.

==========
References:
==========
+ Rowena Mason's 'Nigel Farage rejects 'outrageous' EU expenses allegations'; in The Guardian; 16 April 2014.

+ David Randall's 'Special Report: What voters should know about UKIP'; in The Independent; 3 March 2013.

In troubled times, people are beginning to look again at a Citizen's Income

In the face of conservative austerity, it is unsurprising that the idea of a citizen's income has returned to the table (Fearn, 2014). Cutbacks are stretching the welfare systems of Europe thin. Grotesque affluence shares the same media stage as reports on the necessity of food banks. In such a world, we cannot be surprised when people want to talk seriously about restructuring the economy to make room for ending poverty.

As far as the UK is concerned, the Green Party has so far been the only reasonably prominent political organisation to take the idea seriously. The idea does, though, have long roots; and it has gone through a number of forms.

Thomas Paine in 1795 proposed a system of universal inheritance, as a form of restitution to the individual from their society, for allowing others to profit personally from common property. And in 1879 Henry George's Georgist economics, likewise sought to recover for the common good, what was exploited for personal gain, through taxes, to be repaid in the form of a social dividend like a pension or a citizen's income. Over time, however, the intellectual support for the idea of an entitlement to some sort of social dividend was threatened by the emergence of the present welfare system, which swept away all talk about alternatives.

Now, in the midst of tough economic times, the idea has returned to the table. Last month, Italy saw proposals for the introduction of a wage for home-makers (Davies, 2014). The aim in this case was to increase the personal independence of those who take care of house, home and often children, but who at present do not receive an independent financial remuneration for their time and efforts.

But the case for a personal independence payment carries merit that isn't limited to just seeking to tend the gaps that the established systems cannot address - the course adopted, possibly sensibly, by those looking to avoid a conflict with the present welfare orthodoxies. Tackling those orthodoxies, such as means-testing, would mean preparing for a fight over, not just the economics, but over the ideologies that are used to prop up social attitudes regarding work, contributions and the rights of a citizen.

Yet, despite such institutional obstructions, the citizen's income is worthy of pursuit. It is, in essence, a proposal to make real the civilised ideal of poverty abolished and of free unfettered choice for the individual, without the equivocation and qualifications and conditions required by the models of the present and the past. It proposes to make the abolition of poverty the starting point for all in civilisation, rather than one of the privileges that come with compliant membership.

France sees a change of government, but it may not be enough to bring about real reform

Last week, in the face of unpopularity at the polls, France's Socialist Prime Minister resigned (Willsher, 2014). Jean-Marc Ayrault left office in the face of poor results for the Socialists at the 2014 municipal elections. With the Socialists being overtaken by, and dropping to second place behind, the right wing Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP), French President and Socialist Francois Hollande was forced to respond.

The resignation of Ayrault certainly gave Hollande more options and some freedom of movement as he sought a response. He used the opportunity presented by Ayrault's departure, and the public rejection of his party, to bring in a new government. Under former Interior Minister Manuel Valls, that new government plays to a number of strengths, combing a mix of old faces amongst the ministers with a great deal of diversity - for example just under half of the ministers are women. But the ministers consist once more of politicians from the same party that was humbled at the elections.

Rearranging cabinet governments is only a stop-gap measure. There is only so much that a new group of faces from the same party can achieve following a reshuffle. They're still going to be bound to the same commitments and ideals.

Right now, those are difficult restrictions for France. It faces all the same problems common to most of the countries of Western Europe: the ongoing decline of voter turnouts, great difficulty in recovering from the financial crisis through the orthodox moves available within the legitimate political processes and disaffected voters turning to the more extreme options on offer (Penketh, 2014).

These are all symptoms of an affliction affecting all of western democracy and nowhere has it been healed by a cabinet reshuffle. Such measures are temporary, and aimed at keeping one group in power through turbulent times. The real question that France faces is whether the present systems can offer what the country and its people want and need.

All of Europe's governments are struggling to overcome a rising 'democratic deficit'. People are staying away from polling stations on voting day and the state is failing to get consistent popular backing for solutions to the major economic crises that they face. The traditional solutions are not producing answers.

Shaking things up by changing the faces in government is a pretty standard response to disappointments or setbacks. The time may have come to look at alternatives, like a much broader set of political and constitutional reforms and not just in France. Improvements are needed in democratic representation and oversight. We need to address where power comes from and how it is exercised.

To solve these problems that France and Europe faces, people need to be engaged. They need to be informed, involved, listened to, and debated with. No one man, or small group from one party, is ever going to have all of the answers. And where some few seek to solve everything alone, they inevitably exclude others. These problems face all of us, and need to be resolved by all of us.

==========
References:
==========
+ Kim Willsher's 'French elections: Francois Hollande under pressure after crushing losses'; in The Guardian; 31 March 2014.

+ Kim Willsher's 'French PM Jean-Marc Ayrault quits after Socialist local election losses'; in The Guardian; 31 March 2014.

+ Kim Willsher's 'France's new prime minister to appoint 'government of combat''; in The Guardian; 1 April 2014.

+ Anne Penketh's 'French MEPs expect low turnout in European elections'; in The Guardian; 1 April 2014.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_municipal_elections,_2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valls_Cabinet