The People’s Choice

With the UK facing a general election in the coming months, Nick Foulkes exercises his democratic right to deliberate over the demise of democracy, and suggests ways of making the ballot more entertaining for voters – some might say of sexing it up

What with one thing or another, the concept of exercising the democratic franchise, voting and all the other associated paraphernalia of living in a democracy has been occupying many of the editorial conferences at the global HQ of the FQR Group of Publications.

This is, of course, a time of year when the ballot springs to mind. It is the season of Oscars and Baftas and, therefore, a hugely busy time for our eponymous proprietor. In addition to the strains of running a multimillion-pound empire straddling numerous continents and time zones and organising pre-Bafta and Oscar dinners, he readies himself to receive the awards that will – in time, I am sure – be heaped upon him by a grateful industry… although quite which industry will be honouring his achievements in exactly what field is as yet unclear.

And so, while minds are being made up, we at FQR Towers have decided to institute our own awards, awards that will honour achievement in the things that really matter in life, such as the most stylish use of the doubling cube in backgammon, the most elegantly sewn buttonholes, the most beautifully finished shirt collar and the most highly glossed shoes… that sort of thing. We will, of course, be inviting the ballots of our readers and, should these concur with our own findings we will, naturally, honour them. If not, we will quietly ignore the outcome of the vote and press ahead with what we know to be the right result.

The thing about democracy, the vote and the enfranchisement of those who have reached their majority is that we still manage to get ourselves into terrible scrapes. After all, let’s not forget that it was the exercise of the democratic principle that brought Herr Hitler to power. In the wrong hands, democracy can be a very frightening thing.

I have to say I rather admire Graham Greene, who once said, “I never found myself very politically involved in England. I have only voted once in my life. It was soon after the war, when I cast a protest vote for the communist in the constituency of Westminster.” After making this statement, he then paused and added, “That was a joke.” Quite what the joke was – the communist in Westminster, perhaps – remained unclear, as the gnomic author doubtless intended. You see, the thing is that Greene was a very political animal. “I find myself constantly getting involved in politics that really are a matter of life and death,” he later admitted, “as they were in the Far East and are in Central America.” He was speaking in 1984.

For those of us who live in the damp islands off the north coast of Europe this is an election year and, for the next few months, we are condemned to listen to the claims and counterclaims of our great political parties as they tell us what they think we want to hear. Quite frankly, it has all been going downhill since the Great Reform Bill of 1832. I sometimes wonder if we at FQR are alone in feeling nostalgic for the days of the “rotten boroughs”, where the electorate might number fewer than a dozen.

It is, of course, William IV I feel sorry for. The Commons wanted reform, the Lords did not, and it was suggested by Lord Grey that William IV create sufficient new peers to push the bill through. Understandably, the monarch didn’t like it one bit and even asked the Duke of Wellington to form a new government, but in the end he had to recall the Grey administration.

Lord Brougham went with Lord Grey to see the King and Brougham recalled it as “one of the most painful hours I ever passed in my life, because the King evidently suffered much, and yet behaved with the greatest courtesy to us”. Although the monarch’s patience must have been sorely tested when, having at last agreed to create new peers if necessary, he was asked by Brougham if he could have the promise in writing. In the end the mere threat of an avalanche of new peers was enough to bring the Lords round to Reform.

Back then, politicians were impressive people: Lord Brougham would give his name to a carriage, while the dashing Second Earl Grey’s efforts to reform Parliament are largely forgotten and his immortality lies in the eponym he lent to a delightful bergamot oil-infused tea. However, since then I think that reform has gone a little too far without actually achieving its ends.

Let me explain. I was, of course, wholly against the reform of the House of Lords on purely sentimental grounds. While it was clearly incorrect by modern standards, I was rather proud of the fact that the upper house contained a number of people who sat there for no other reason than having had some ancestor who rendered service (or payment) to the nation – it was quaint, charming and altogether British, like our touching belief in the value of the British pound and our persistence in driving on the left-hand side of road.

My memory may be playing tricks on me, but at the time there was a lot of noise made about how it was iniquitous that this state of affairs should be allowed to continue, that unelected people be allowed to have a role in government and all that. This all came back to me when I saw Baroness Ashton, who revels in the title of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the EU, answering questions about her role in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. While thrilled to have a Brit in the job of foreign minister of the EU super state, and while completely unperturbed by her membership of CND (I have to admit I was never that keen on nuclear weapons myself – nasty things), I must say that I don’t recall ever voting for her. Like I say, maybe I am forgetting something, but I thought all that had gone out when the last of the (non-elected) hereditaries were helped out of Sir Charles Barry’s grandiloquent neo-gothic building.

Accordingly, I have asked the European editor of our sister publication, the political review FQR Democracy Today, to prepare a leader article explaining to me why I am wrong and why the rise of Baroness Ashton is entirely in line with the reformed Parliament and the spirit of the new House of Lords.

In the meantime, Charles and I have been kicking about a few ideas for electoral reform of our own. It struck us that the British electoral system appeared to be fundamentally flawed in that we simply do not have the election we deserve. Clearly the titanic clash of the two great rival ideologies of the ever-so-slightly right of centre and the ever-so-slightly left of centre is the single most important political and philosophical faultline of our times and, as such, we stand at an ideological crossroads unparalleled in our island’s history. Why, then, are we deprived of the full gladiatorial spectacle of the two most recognisable and characterful politicians of the age fighting it out?

In the interests of the democratic process and, much more importantly, voter entertainment, FQR and its sister publications call upon the leaders of both the Labour and Conservative Parties to step aside in order to allow the two great political characters of the age to stride to the centre of the national stage. Like it or not – and I am not sure I do – British politics is much more presidential these days, and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (BoJo) and Baron Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and of Hartlepool in the county of Durham (Mandy) are much more likely to galvanise the voters come voting time.

And given that Charles, Tristram and I, particularly Tristram, are concerned that democracy is seen to be done, we suggest that voters be allowed to vote by SMS, simply texting one word – “BOJO” or “MANDY” – or, of course, by phoning ruinously expensive hotlines. Given that almost every other aspect of life has been distilled, or do I mean diluted, to the level of entertainment (and not always edifying entertainment at that), why should politics be exempt from the reductio ad absurdam “X Factorisation” of life?

Of course, as befits a true media baron, Charles is keeping his powder dry and The FQR Group of Publications has yet to decide which political party to back. And to this end I have a word of advice to any political leader reading this… a knighthood for Charles will deliver you the election-winning support of the entire FQR Group of Publications. A bargain, you have to admit.

-Nick Foulks is the editorial director of the FQ Group of Publications and editor in chief of Finch’s Quarterly Review

Tags: politics

Would you like to comment on this article?

You must be logged in to post a comment.