Thread by @atatimelikethis

An excellent summary of the cost of living in Germany vs in the UK.

This has very little to do with the EU. It's about corruption in politics.

One country invests in the long term future of its citizens

The other gives out backhanders, crony contracts and dodgy deals to donors

https://twitter.com/skedeschi/status/1638217655587840004

One thing @skedeschi doesn't cover is a comparison of the two political systems.

Like the UK, Germany is a collection of smaller states working together under a United Federation.

But unlike the UK, each state is fairly represented. In the UK, England gets a 90% block vote.

Lke the UK, Germans value both their local representatives and the ability to choose between various policies offered by political parties.

And both countries have roughly 600 MPs, albeit Germany makes this work with a much larger population

But there the similarities end

In General Elections Germans vote twice, for a local representative and for a political party. This results in a system that is locally representative AND proportionally in line with the democratic view of the population as a whole.

It forces collaboration and accountability

In the UK, though elections are nominally local, the nature of first past the post means not only local representatives but Governing parties are almost always elected by a minority of the electorate.

Once elected, the voting record of MPs correlates poorly with local interests.

This results in a perpetual situation in the UK where those in power claim to represent a majority governing in the interest of the people as a whole, yet only ever representing a minority and governing for a select base.

In other words inherently undemocratic and built-in.

The UK's second parliament is The House of Lords. It makes laws and scrutinizes the House of Commons. Together they are in a complete mess.

Justify that?

Check parliament.uk. Notice no agreement on even the role of each house. Defined differently by Lords vs Commons

The Lords should be a good idea.
Take your wisest and most successful citizens with a lifetime of experience.
Ask them to work together much more across lines, reducing politics, in the interest of the citizens as a whole
To ensure and insure the long-term future of the UK

If the Lords had an independent and fair selection process, this might have a chance of working.

But then it would have a democratic mandate and might apply some of that wisdom, legitimately challenging the Commons.

So instead, successive PMs have stuffed it with cronies.

And the Press, 90% of which is owned by Conservative Party donors, have then used this 'democratic gap' like a face to slap on both sides.

- to attack the Lords whenever they might scrutinize those in power
- to block 'unnecessary modernisation'

A mess

Meanwhile, in Germany...each of the 16 states also has local elections.

These elections select representatives to act as the voice of the states in another German Parliament - the Budesrat.

Calling it an upper parliament is controversial in Germany. It's democratic: sideways

The "upper parliament" thing is a bad analogy with the various Senates or The Lords, upper chambers in other Western Democracies.

The real role is more equal, and vs the UK, very much needed. The Bundesrat considers all laws affecting local states and/or the constitution.

Maybe some examples might help:

Germans can be sure an out-of-control executive won't attempt a coup since those powers are with a different house.

There's no regional democratic deficit since all regions must work together to achieve a majority in the Bundesrat.

Devolution, or maybe better stated, collaboration, is 'built in' in Germany and can't be a political football. There is no central block vote that can suppress the democratic wishes of an individual state or its people.

Whereas the UK ...

... is a mess

My sense is British 'devolution' properly described in German would be offensive if not insulting.

No powerful state deigns to grant powers to yapping regions. The state is the result of regions pooling a collective authority.

No poll data on this so, Germans, is this right?

Regardless of whether my translation of devolution is accurate, the German system of two parliaments is:
- better defined,
- more functional,
- constitutional and
- MUCH more democratic
than its UK 'equivalent', so much so that any comparison is quite unfair to Germany!

and then there are the courts.
Outside the UK, the separation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary is important for democracy.

I won't get into why but ironically, it's linked to "Consent of the Governed", a Magna Carta concept that the UK removed ages ago

In Germany, this separation is guaranteed by ensuring the Bundestag makes and executes laws, which are ratified against the constitution and regions by the Bundesrat, which selects a Judiciary that interprets those laws in the German courts.

Neat eh?

The UK...

is a mess

Brits are still getting used to a supreme court, and I'm willing to bet (again no poll data to cite) that almost no one knows how our Supreme Court and Judiciary are selected.

Lots of gobbledygook is written down, but the simplest interpretation is they select themselves 😲😲

Moreover, unlike any other Western Democracy
- because of a whole number of factors
- not least a constitution that isn't worth the paper it isn't written on...
that process is opaque, eve while claiming to be competitive

but it gets worse

Because again, unlike all other Western Democracies where separation of powers guarantees accountability and prevents corruption

- an out of control UK Executive
- is introducing powers to reduce judicial oversight and escape review or accountability

That's more than a mess

Maybe that's why Germany, while definitely not perfect, is regionally democratic, nationally proportional, with a system anchored in a constitution protected by regions and interpreted independently by a judiciary for the long-term interest of her people

And why the UK is a mess

Epilogue:

No one asks why successive Governments, particularly the current UK Government, continue to worsen this situation.

From FOI requests, to public appointments to Government metrics the best achievement of this Government is to have removed accountability

A UK executive has no checks and balances on its powers, which it cannot legislate away using a majority of MPs holding a minority of electoral approval.

The last check on power is a free press. In the UK 90% of this is owned by donors to the Conservative Party.
Not free then.

And of course, as #Brexit showed, the unwritten constitution isn't even that, no super majority, no regional protections, not even parliamentary sovereignty guaranteed against Executive coup.

This is why the UK has been described not as a democracy, but an elected dictatorship

I find it all quite baffling, even in muddle along and don't make a fuss Britain.

It's almost as if a cabal of politicians and press barons want to ensure there's no accountability in politics so they can do whatever they want.

Not Fascist, more Mafioso

But who am I to say?

Postscript

Some say the ballot box is the final arbiter, and that ultimately holds UK Government to account?

I can think of 6 reasons this is either untrue for the UK or an unfit mechanism in the UK to prevent corruption, ensure accountability or support long term UK interests

1. Liberal Western Democracies need informed voters to hold Corrupt Governments to account.

In turn, to avoid undue influence (see 1984), or suppression of corruption , a free press and pluralist media is needed

The UK has lost both.
This enables many following corruptions.

2. Data Independence
A Government which can choose what data, when to report them and how, is marking its own homework.

UK still has some independent bodies (eg Office
of Budget Responsibility), but Johnson's regime had an unreported bonfire elsewhere⬇️

https://twitter.com/atatimelikethis/status/1538110525992837121?t=R_a8WQLMKoA3Me0T2nOMXg&s=19

3. Consent of The Governed
Mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
From Magna Carta, common democracies, no longer English law.

Simply, you consent to be Governed, provided they do not abuse that power.

In particular if you vote on something, they will not abuse your consent

#Brexit at multiple levels is a betrayal of Consent of The Governed. Ironically we invented CotG to hold a corrupt King to account, then removed it so politicians could become corrupt Kings.

How did #Brexit break it?
Voter Terms were changed
As were Parliament terms (G Millar)

But most egregiously, after the vote a series of red lines were added to the definition of #Brexit by an extremist minority of the Governing party.

These conflicted with pre-vote commitments and their contradictions made #Brexit even less able to be delivered.

Stupid? Corrupt?

4. Contracts are TWO sided.
One reason Manifestos are not legal voter agreements is...wait for it...they might prevent politicians acting freely forcing them to deliver.

This is a poor argument defending worthless manifestos. But with no 3 above, it's a referendum disaster

A referendum is a simple two sided agreement.

We approve for Politicians to do one thing (often a cost)

So long as they deliver another thing (often a benefit).

If they don't deliver the 2nd, all bets are off, and you want a refund, or you're a banana republic, out of control

You know this model when it's not wrapped into politics. That's because it's the bargain you strike every time you buy something online.

The store agrees to deliver you a gadget, you agree to pay for it expecting the gadget.

You're screaming in outrage if it doesn't arrive.

However in the UK, a fraud can be perpetrated on the electorate. The ordered gadget can be lost, or be a knock-off, and it's still YOUR WILL to pay for it

We agree to allow you to take us out of the European Union

In return you will deliver on the benefits you promised to us.

5. The Judged are LISTENING

For an electorate as a whole to judge a Government at the Ballot Box, then that judgement must be counted AND have consequences.

No majority electorate has ever supported our Government, or their partisan reinterpretations of promises made to us.

Even #Johnsons famous 80 seat majority, which has been used many times to justify a mandate for that Government to do pretty much anything...
was opposed by a greater number of voters than it was supported.

No majority, no mandate, no support = huge parliamentary ability to act

If the set up of the system, in our case FPTP, conspires to support arguably the most corrupt Government in our history.

If that Government has already ignored the majority at the Ballot Box which judged it?

When exactly are we, the voter, see our Ballot Box judgement?

6. Irreversible Damage

Most impartial observers agree #Johnson & #Truss regimes:
- left the UK permanently worse off
- squandered the unique terms of our previous EU access
- burned away fundamental British freedoms
- removed metrics tracking their performance
- lied constantly

- in some cases, like the ring of protection around care homes - lied outrageously
- burned through billions as they hacked through wild mini-budgets, making millions of mortgages unaffordable, reducing pensions
- undermined UK's reputation as a supporter of international law

Thwy even
- faked #Covid test results
- deliberately misquoted WHO quarantine requirements (see Italian planes landing)
- fired the excellent test and trace team who stopped SARS and MERS spending billions failing to replace them
- flogged off PPE just before it was needed

- they stood infront of you in March 2020, sadly informing you that all attempts at containing a virus had failed and now you were going to participate in a series of lockdowns

...all while knowing no containment phase ever took place.

And we haven't got to herd immunity

Almost every Western Democracy accepts that some decisions are so problematic, so potentially damaging, that a majority of the people deciding upon them is insufficient. A super majority is needed.

This sort of decision is wrapped in a Constitution

In the UK there is no constitution, just conventions which can be discarded by the immoral, the unaccountable, the corrupt or as we were lucky enough to elect - all three.

There's no super majority required any more. The one we had was ditched prior to #Brexit, then lied about.

The self serving, supported by a an offshore press owned by rich men in tax havens, argue this is because the 'British People' can be trusted.

Oddly, those in democracies other than ours wish to honour those who died for freedoms we enjoy today, not giving them up easily.

They also, oddly, want to ensure that truly calamitous decisions need to be taken very carefully, just in case they were the result, say, of a populist, or media fraud, or election fraud, or even all of those together.

Seems a reasonable safeguard? Especially after a coup
Or⬇️

The 6 reasons summary:
No Theory. Our ballot box does not and will not hold Governments to account. Not even those so criminally negligent that at best they worsened a pandemic. At worse they have more deaths on their hands than any other yet are not on trial.

The UK is a mess.

Whatever the UK is, it's not a democracy. My opinion? No deep thinking needed. Apply the 6⬆️
- Government is not elected democratically
- No basic rules or media to hold it account
- Can change rules at will
- can mute the Judiciary
- Demonstrably was still not held to account

Maybe it's just me, except our unfree media devote so much time to the sacrifices for democracy and freedom made during World War Two. Yet miss that we have neither.

It's a tacit admission that they ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

But as always, who am I to say?