Alien is a 1979 science fiction horror film directed by Ridley Scott, and starring Sigourney Weaver, Tom Skerritt, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Dean Stanton, John Hurt, Ian Holm and Yaphet Kotto. It is the first film in what became a large Alien franchise. Based on a story by O’Bannon and Ronald Shusett, it follows the crew of the commercial space tug Nostromo who encounter the eponymous Alien, a deadly and aggressive extraterrestrial set loose on the ship.
Where this article is concerned I have to ask from what planet is the author? Whilst possibly an ‘alien’ and deadly, due to his sycophancy of his ‘Guru’, unfortunately where the progression of direct democracy is concerned he is not sufficiently aggressive due to the fact he appears to lack a mind of his own.
To take his points in order, together with his comments which are in italics:
1. The roots of the Chartist Movement were partly political and partly economic – A combination of both makes the ‘People’ dissatisfied.
I am at a loss to understand his comment. If he is implying that the combination of politics and economics makes the people ‘dissatisfied’ then he is contradicting this aspect of the 6 Demands of THA and the idea of ‘referism‘. On the other hand, if he is implying that the people are not content with the economic power that politics has over the economy, then perhaps he has a point. Unfortunately the ambiguity of his comment leaves one to wonder if he engaged brain prior to committing fingers to keyboard.
2. The mass discontent in Lancashire and Yorkshire were motivated by economic distress and social exploitation of industrialism more than political ideology – People today are still generally too comfortable.
Again, I am at a loss to understand this comment. What is the point he is attempting to make? He quotes phrases such as: ‘economic distress’, social exploitation of industrialism’ and ‘political ideology’ without providing any link twixt the three. Is he implying (a) they are content with all three; or (b) is he implying they are content with their life within the political system in which we find ourselves?
3. Five of their six demands took between 20 and 73 years to enact – The political reforms contained in our six demands are far more complex than the Chartists demands and will take a generation to enact if of course the ‘People’ wake up and demand them.
It is acknowledged that the demands for the introduction of direct democracy will take time, but to equate the ‘progress’ that the Chartists achieved is total rubbish. The Chartists did not have the ability to disseminate knowledge that now exists, courtesy of the internet. So how about said knowledge is used to further the aims he wishes? It is that information that might just make ‘the people’ wake up and demand same – something which will not happen whilst he, as Director, makes no apparent effort to achieve this.
4. The Chartist’s demand that was never enacted was for annual General Elections – Had a system of annual elections been permitted our political system would have become more one of direct rather than parliamentary democracy which is no doubt why politicians didn’t enact it!
There the author may have a point, but annual elections are not direct democracy when the people cannot control the actions of their government between elections; and are unnecessary when, under true direct democracy, whatever the term of office politicians may be granted, if the people have the right to dictate the actions they want from their politicians. As an aside, the ability of the people to instruct their politicians rather negates the need of an ‘advisory’ referendum, but perhaps I digress?
But then the author of The Harrogate Agenda is on record of stating that he quite likes the idea of representative democracy; which begs the question why he – and the Director of THA – has ‘taken hold’ of the idea of direct democracy (see paragraph 10: “But my thinking is that this happens alongside our current system of representative democracy, which I rather like, even if it has currently lost its way”.
5. Parliament is sovereign, both in the legal sense that it can pass any law about anything, and in the political sense that nothing the electorate can do can ensure the dismissal of a government or dissolution of a Parliament before the end of its legitimate five-year period in power – Be in no doubt Parliament holds ALL the power and this point alone is why we need our Agenda.
Whilst the author is correct that Parliament holds all the power, it is obvious THA requires redrafting as it is impossible to run representative democracy alongside direct democracy where the power remains in the former. As an aside this is why the Democrats & Veterans Party (DVP) will never suceed (their manifesto can be found here). They say they are ‘for’ direct democracy but look at where the power ultimately lies.
7. After ten years Chartism lost its prominence to the Anti-Corn-Law League – We are currently struggling to compete with Brexit.
We should not be ‘competing with Brexit’ but working to achieve Brexit. Seven years have been wasted which could have been spent educating the people about their sovereignty thus showing them they have power. Again I defy anyone to deny that by now the people would have been ‘climbing all over their politicians demanding change – which would have given the media something worthwhile to get excited about.
8. The periods of greatest activity occurred during periods of depression and distress – We still have this to come from a botched Brexit and the likely downturn in the world’s economy.
Correction: we are already in a period of depression and distress; the people are depressed and distressed at the calibre of our current crop of politicians. Imagine the state they might now be in had seven years not been wasted.
9. Chartism routed in 1848 did three things – It was the first widespread and sustained effort of working-class self-help, second, it was directed to the cause of parliamentary democracy and constitutional reform and third and lastly the impetus it gave to eventual political reform on the one hand and trade union organisation on the other was never wasted. All these three facts about it gave it lasting importance – let’s hope the same will be said of THA in the future!
Yes, the Chartists were important, but suffered from the period in which they were active. While THA remains stagnant – and likely, on current form, to be permanent – the only epitaph for it may well read: what a wasted opportunity.
The author pens a footnote that it is always useful and relevant to consider the lessons from history. This is very true only if you learn from history; and learning is something which appears beyond the ability of the author.
I would have posted this critique on his blog but having seen what happened when I posted on this video (my comment was deleted and comments disabled) it appeared I would be wasting my time as no doubt the same action would have taken place.
If direct democracy is to succeed then perhaps the principles of that need to be adopted where THA is concerned. Perhaps those in control of the progression should be elected, rather than being ‘self-appointed’? But then, what is the point of shutting the stable door when the horse has bolted?