Super Rich control US Politics

"...we know America’s elite Super Rich gained virtual control over Washington the past three decades" says Paul Farrell (Marketwatch). Only radical reform based on comprehensive introduction of Direct Democracy will allow to neutralise the influence of Lobbies.

Bonjour Tristesse - Professional Pols hard at work in France

Francoise Sagan will excuse the title, but checking the 'credentials' (or lack of thereof) of the two leading contenders for the French Presidency in the upcoming elections one can only feel sad, for France, for Europe and for Democracy in general. Both Francois Hollande as well as Nicolas Sarkozy have no experience in the real economy, outside the closed world of free-spending civil 'servants' (it should actually be the other way round as the citizens are now usually the servants, or maybe serfs of the political class). One has to be sceptical of President Sarkozy's sudden willingness to 'give' the electorate a say in some carefully selected and orchestrated referendums. This should not trick anybody as these concessions towards a real democratic government could quickly be consigned to the dustbin in case he would be reelected. Only a fundamental shift in the political system in the direction of full and comprehensive direct democracy offers any hope for a change in France's fortunes.

At least partial public financing of parties and elections is inescapable

States Martin Wolf (FT). We beg to disagree. While the purchasing of political power as currently demonstrated in the US is certainly objectionable we think that the introduction of direct democracy would put a major spanner into the works of lobbies. In conjunction with other reforms (term limits, less reliance on individual politicians such as Presidents, Chancellors to name just a few) power would be based on persuading the public rather than just bribing voters to tick a box once every so often to give nearly unlimited discretionary powers to certain parties.

The Rich are electing the next US President

The decision to allow give more freedom to corporations and similar entities to donate money to advocacy groups in a relatively unrestrained way illustratea that excessive reliance on a handful of judges in a Supreme Court does not necessarily result in good legislation. The 2012 Presidential Campaign is more than ever going to be decided by the spending power of the respective candidates and the contributions of the 1 per cent will in all likelihood be a decisive factor.

Super Rich control Washington

Says Paul Farrell

65 % believe politicians can be bought

Says an opinion survey in Austria. That does not necessarily mean that this view can be found in all other countries (though in some the percentage may be even higher) but we would venture a guess that the results would not be more flattering in most countries. The regulation of party and campaign financing as well as the end to state subsidies and hidden financing (such as advertising in party-controlled media outlets) is essential to restore faith in elected representatives. The lack of direct democracy is responsible for the fact that the electorate seems to be resigned to this lamentable state of affairs. Only direct control of political decision making would make it possible to enforce adherence to stricter moral standards in political life.

How to control the influence of money in politics

Reports that property developers have been major donors to the Conservative Party in the UK highlight the role that money plays in politics. Some rich individuals blatantly spend their wealth on getting elected to public office (Schwarzenegger, Bloom berg, Corzine in the USA come to mind) while at the other end of the spectrum the hapless citizen-taxpayer is powerless to stop the gravy-train of public subsidy to the establishment parties in countries like Germany and Austria. Dirdem would at least give the voter a say in the regulation of party finances. In addition the requirement (or mere threat) to hold a referendum on any issue will make the outcome of any political decision subject to the approval of the electorate thus providing a safety-valve against behind-the-scenes manoeuvring.

Carbon Trade - Bureaucrats create paradise for scamsters

Apart from the fact that the carbon trade scheme has been decreed without any democratic participation by the citizens we have always argued that the only people to be enriched will be traders, speculators and - above all - the fraudsters. Much - if not most - of the crime in the world is caused by ill-conceived legislation (prostitution, drugs, excessive taxes on alcohol and tobacco to name the most obvious cases) and the agriculture sector so far has been the most high-profile sector involving fraudulent activity in the 'legal' business sector. Before long this will be surpassed by trading in carbon 'credits'. Who is going to monitor, measure and account for the activity in something as ephemeral as air and gas? Certainly not sleepy bureaucrats and their minions in the - already overstretched - police and judiciary. But the political class as always operates according to the well-proven rule of the bureaucrat: why make it simple if it can be complicated (and expensive)? The obvious way to reduce consumption of fossil fuel is cheap and effective: let the rising demand cause price to rise and if necessary increase taxes on fossil fuels. Another observation: the Media are also complicit in the backroom dealing that gives Lobbies that profit from the Carbon Trade as the industry representatives are giving excessive space to propagate their self-serving mantras.

London Riots - blame feral politicians?

When an establishment politician denounces the rioters as part of a 'feral underclass' he may well have a point, but should he not also denounce feral politicians that hike the fees students have to pay by absurd amounts?

How to make Football more democratic

Democratic reform is not limited to the realm of government but has also to include the vast area of business and voluntary activity. A good example is Football where a small clique of officials in Zurich's FIFA headquarters runs the show without any input from the ultimate stakeholders, the members of individual football clubs and the supporters or spectators. When a prominent club manager demands reforms and calls for the inclusion of clubs, player, leagues and referees in the decision process it is remarkable that he makes no mention of the most important stakeholders at all. Associations such as FIFA - and the Olympic Movement  would be another one - today are also vast businesses and to a certain extent monopolies and this should be another reason why the wider public should have a commanding say in the governance of their activities. The existing constitution of FIFA may appear to be democratic - there are elections to its various boards etc - but the tiered structure of the organisation means that the existing members are to a large extend shielded from any proper supervision and elect their successors and supervisors.