Institutions and The Widening Gulf between Indians and Chiefs
Democracy and representation in Britain are in crisis.  There is a widespread apathy towards politics and politicians.  There are various reasons for this.  The crisis over the fraudulent expenses claims of some MPs certainly hasn't helped, but it would be a mistake to identify this as a major factor, since the process leading to the current indifference was underway long before this phenomenon became known.  It is certainly true that the the main political parties are not as distinctive as they once were; it is much more difficult to describe what each of the parties stands for than it was, say, thirty years ago.  The three main parties seem very close together in their overall philosophy.  Even with regard to the current fiscal deficit, there is a general consensus among the parties that that cutting public expenditure is the solution; the parties differ only as to how quickly and deeply the cuts should be made and how much should be done by government to stimulate the national economy.  People often say that 'they're all the same nowadays', using this as a justification for their not bothering to cast their vote.

These, and perhaps other, factors have undoubtedly contributed to a tendency for fewer people to go to the ballot box.  There is a very real sense in people that their vote counts for little.  On top of this, it cannot be doubted that voting in a Westminster election has less significance than it did in the past.  This is because, increasingly, we are subject to legislation made beyond our shores, in Europe.  This makes the sense of 'distance' even greater; people feel even more powerless as more and more of the laws which govern our lives are made further away from us, in geographical terms.  Leaving aside the important matter of where in the European Union real power resides (European Parliament/Commission), voting figures in elections for the European parliament are pitiably low; and most people have no idea who their Euro MP is.  So whilst it cannot be said that the European parliament is actually undemocratic, it can certainly be argued that the whole European project, as currently construed, is inimical to true democracy and proper representation; most people are simply indifferent towards it.

So domestically and on the European level, we have a political situation in which the people are largely and increasingly non-participatory.  A gulf has opened up between those who govern and those who are governed.  Our 'democracy' has, for a variety of reasons, mutated into what might almost be desribed as an oligarchy.  The political 'establishment' has become a phenomenon in itself.  It claims to 'know', it consorts with those who are eminent in their fields and with those who are described as 'celebrities', and has cosy and unhealthy relationships with the leading lights of the newspaper media.  And on top of this, there has been a noticeable 'professionalisation' of our political representatives as the House of Commons in particular has become populated more and more by career politicians who are seen to have little or no experience of a 'proper job'.

The Church of England, supposedly counter-cultural (that's what the Gospel is) predictably, and depressingly, follows suit.  Its General Synod, supposedly representative but actually anything but, operates as if its power and authority has no parameters.  It has taken to itself the authority to pronounce on doctrinal matters, and on matters to do with the ordering of the Church's ministry.  It does its business by way of majority voting, as if matters of truth can be so decided.  It is as good an example of centralised power and the tyranny inherent therein as anything I can think of.  It has fed itself on the vacuum in authority of the House of Bishops which, for decades, has lacked the will and the courage to rein it in.  Synodical government has turned the Church of England into a debating society, within which there appears often to be a lack of the charity and mutual respect essential to healthy discussion.   Much of what it tears itself (and the Church) apart over are beyond the immediate concerns of the people in the parishes (who pay its burgeoning costs).  The synodical leadership of the Church of England has the characteristics of an oligarchy and appears remote from the grassroots of the Church.

Beyond the Synod itself, life in the Church of England for everyone has become more and more centralised, as diocesan bureaucracies become more extensive and intrusive.  Not only are there fewer people in the churches each week, but there are more bishops than ever before.  Most archdeacons do not look after parishes and even such as diocesan directors of ordinands are now full-time in those posts because the institutional church has, from the centre, sought to impose a prescriptive pattern of training for ordained ministry, which now extends even beyond ordination.  I can't remember which theoretician it was who said that two of the characteristics of institutions in terminal decline are increasing centralisation and increasing bureaucracy - whoever it was might have been commenting upon the contemporary Church of England.  It seems that those at the centre, when faced with difficulties, abandon any trust they ever had in those actually doing the ordinary, everyday work and try to control everything themselves; and so the institutional church continues to cut the number of stipendiary clergy in the parishes whilst leaving the bureaucracy intact and sometimes even increasing it.

In the political arena and in the Church of England, there appear to have developed huge lacunae between those 'at the top' and everyone else.  Politically, this leads to progressive disengagement on the part of the mass of people.  Within the Church of England, it leads to a progressive disengagement on the part of the laity and, therefore, to a reduced likelihood that the Church will be able to support itself financially in the future.  It's time that all who find themselves in any kind of leadership position began to remember that they are set there for the common good of all rather than for the benefit of the institutions themselves.

The Problem for Labour - and for the majority of the British people

The Labour Party has a serious problem, which it must rectify if it is ever to deliver for the people the party was formed to represent.  The problem is an ideological one.  Since Tony Blair managed to get the party to ditch Clause IV of its consitution, it has been almost impossible to identify one single feature of the party which makes it distinctive.  I acknowledge that the Labour Party has never been a socialist party (though it has aways contained socialists), as Tony Benn has reminded us often; but Clause IV did give the party some, perhaps idealistic, philosophical underpinning.  Even those who never really accepted it nevertheless eschewed the kind of rampant economic liberalism that was encouraged to flourish under the Blair government; Clause IV acted as a kind of ideological check, a touchstone, for many in the party, which is precisely why Blair consigned it to history.

The reason why Blair got away with his ideological rebranding of the party is because, after long years of opposition, many people within the party were so desperate to get into power that they were prepared to say and do almost anything to secure it.  Tha attainment of power became the first principle, and many of the leading lights in the party simply crucified their consciences to this end.  Principle was replaced by pragmatism. 

Blair, with his chancellor, 'Prudence' Brown, set out to show the electorate that they could be fiscally responsible; and this roughly translates as being able to run capitalism better than those who really believed in it.  The eighteen years of opposition, which could have been used fruitfully to rebuild a party committed to its founding principles, were wasted.  Instead, Labour people toured the country under Kinnnock engaging in the so-called 'Labour Listens' initiative; this amounted to the conveying of a message to the electorate along the lines of 'tell us what you want and we'll provide it'.

During the years of Labour administration, under Blair and then Brown, Labour was often accused by some in the trades unions, among others, of simply aping the Conservatives.  It is certainly true that, whilst Labour did find more public money for schools and the like (easy at a time of economic prosperity), the gap between rich and poor widened significantly - a severe indictment for a party traditionally concerned with wealth redistribution.  It is also true that Peter Mandelson declared the party to be 'relaxed' about extreme wealth.

Now, back in opposition, it would appear that Labour is determined to retain its new character.  Yesterday, Ed Balls, hitherto more stubbornly Keynesian than some of his cuts-driven colleagues, actually committed Labour to the Tories' public sector pay freeze agenda.  Today, Ed Miliband defended him in the party's latest plea to be seen as 'fiscally credible'.  It is almost impossible to identify any real difference between Labour and the Conservatives, other than that the former would like to go more slowly and less aggressively.  Philosophically, they are the same.  Labour traditionally benefits from higher electoral turnouts, and yet the party is doing everything, it would appear, to discourage people from bothering to go out to vote.

Because of its philosophical deficit, Labour is now quite unable to offer voters an alternative to the Tories' approach to the current financial challenges.  It's as if There Is No Alternative.

Yet there is.  The total personal wealth in the UK is £9,000bn, a sum much larger than the national debt.  The richest 10% owns £4,000bn; this sector of the population has an average per household income of £4m.  The bottom half of the population owns 9%.  As Greg Philo argued last year in The Guardian, a one-off tax of just 20% of the wealth of the richest 10% would pay the national debt and reduce the deficit significantly, precisely because of the fact (as the Tories keep reminding us) that interest payments on the debt represent a large proportion of government spending.  There is no reason why this tax could not be graduated within this sector of the population.

The policies of the coaltion government, by contrast, are having the effect of increasing unemployment and reducing benefits; these policies are hitting the bottom 6 million people the hardest.  We have already seen some serious social unrest; there is likely to be more.  We are emphatically not 'all in this together' - a fact shown by the recent record profits for Rolls Royce and a huge increase in profits in 2011 for Fortnum and Mason.  The rich are most certainly not 'in this' with the rest of us.

We are the sixth richest nation on earth, and yet we are cutting the school meals services and making even more unjust what are already regressive forms of taxation.  The scandal is that the Labour Party is complicit, and that ordinary working people have no major political party to represent them.  There may be a fiscal deficit - we hear about it all the time - but there is also a philosophical deficit within the Labour Party and a democratic deficit in our nation.