Time to change our political system?
Discussion
Why is it we have basically no choice over who our MPs are going to be in nearly 70% of the countries constituancies?
I'm talking about those safe seats that virtually never go to the opposition in an election no matter they be Labour or conservative. Some places will simply never change their MP until one dies or is promoted into the House of Lords.
So, those places never really have the oppertunity to 'oust' an MP that is in-effective, as its the party that basically decideds who gets to sit at that seat.
What we need is a system that people can vote on similar to the 'primaries' that they have in the US. Lets say 3 Tory candidates to choose from instead of 'hobsons choice'. Run this pre-election 6 months before the general election. You'd have to set the date of the general election one year in advance (fair enough I think).
If for instance a seat is always going to be returned as a Tory win, I'd like the oppertunity to select that winner from a group of possibles. That way, all MPs will know that their job is on the line, and need to pull their weight throughout a government. If they dont, they get deselected by the local voters befoer the proper election.
Being an MP shouldnt be a 'cushy job for life'.
I'm talking about those safe seats that virtually never go to the opposition in an election no matter they be Labour or conservative. Some places will simply never change their MP until one dies or is promoted into the House of Lords.
So, those places never really have the oppertunity to 'oust' an MP that is in-effective, as its the party that basically decideds who gets to sit at that seat.
What we need is a system that people can vote on similar to the 'primaries' that they have in the US. Lets say 3 Tory candidates to choose from instead of 'hobsons choice'. Run this pre-election 6 months before the general election. You'd have to set the date of the general election one year in advance (fair enough I think).
If for instance a seat is always going to be returned as a Tory win, I'd like the oppertunity to select that winner from a group of possibles. That way, all MPs will know that their job is on the line, and need to pull their weight throughout a government. If they dont, they get deselected by the local voters befoer the proper election.
Being an MP shouldnt be a 'cushy job for life'.
Some changes I would like to see
1. Ability through petition to force a by-election, say 5 % percent of the constituents needed.
2. Ability through petition, to force a referendum, on any item before parliament or the lords, 5 % of the population needed.
3. A wholly elected upper chamber, or at the very least a 10 / 90 split with elected officials, no hereditary peers at all, limited appointment time for unelected lords, with reconfirmation needed at the end of term.
4. Ability to remove corrupt or members of the lords who bring it into disrepute. Taylor, Archer etc.
5. Fixed term parliament.
6. A written constitution and bill of rights.
7. Any changes to the constitution or bill of rights forces a referendum.
8. Reduced number of MPs to 450.
9. Reduced number of Lords to 400.
10.Reduced number of ministers in line with reduction in MPs.
11.Reform of parliamentary hours
11. Primaries for all MP's
1. Ability through petition to force a by-election, say 5 % percent of the constituents needed.
2. Ability through petition, to force a referendum, on any item before parliament or the lords, 5 % of the population needed.
3. A wholly elected upper chamber, or at the very least a 10 / 90 split with elected officials, no hereditary peers at all, limited appointment time for unelected lords, with reconfirmation needed at the end of term.
4. Ability to remove corrupt or members of the lords who bring it into disrepute. Taylor, Archer etc.
5. Fixed term parliament.
6. A written constitution and bill of rights.
7. Any changes to the constitution or bill of rights forces a referendum.
8. Reduced number of MPs to 450.
9. Reduced number of Lords to 400.
10.Reduced number of ministers in line with reduction in MPs.
11.Reform of parliamentary hours
11. Primaries for all MP's
Edited by Traveller on Friday 29th May 09:42
Fittster said:
Eric Mc said:
That's why some form of PR system needs to be introduced.
Like the stable, corruption free systems seen in Italy?A move to a direct democractic system is required, unless you feel you need someone to make your choices for you.
First of all, EVERY European country uses some form of PR system (not just Italy). Some countries seem to manage very well with it.
Italy's problems are not caused by the system, they are caused by Italians.
Secondly, many elections held within the UK are on a PR basis so we are used to voting this way in limited circumstances.
Thirdly, there is more than one type of PR system in use so one that suits the UK best should be selected. I come from Ireland (which certainly has its problems with corrupt politicians) but it uses a Transferrable Vote PR system which, even though it may not produce the most desirable outcomes on occasions, does at least make the citizens feel that their votes aren't being wasted. And it also cuts down the number of safe seats. ALL TDs in Ireland are insecure.
Fourthly - whether a PR system is ever selected or not, the current 1st Past the Post system MUST be changed. What was OK for 1750 is not OK for 2009.
Direct voting on issues is all well and good, but I'd like to see how the public would have debated, discussed, refined and decided on something like the 2006 Companies Act.
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 29th May 10:17
Eric Mc said:
Direct voting on issues is all well and good, but I'd like to see how the public would have debated, discussed, refined and decided on something like the 2006 Companies Act.
I see your point, but MPs are not accountants either remember, nor are their Lordships. Yet they have debated, discussed, refined and decided on the 2006 Companies Act.. Jasandjules said:
Eric Mc said:
Direct voting on issues is all well and good, but I'd like to see how the public would have debated, discussed, refined and decided on something like the 2006 Companies Act.
I see your point, but MPs are not accountants either remember, nor are their Lordships. Yet they have debated, discussed, refined and decided on the 2006 Companies Act.. Don't forget that the interested MPs will have an army of advisors - both from outside sources and the the civil service who will provide technical back-up and advice during the debate and consultation process when bringing in legislation.
Many MPs tend to be from the professions - with a heavy bias towrads the legal profession - so they are usually well versed in the process of law making. Indeed, that is one of the flaws of the present system in that law making has become far too much of their raison d'etre.
Running a country is a complex and involved process. Putting this type of nitty gritty day to day decision making into the hands of the general public would be unworkable, in my opinion.
However, I would like to see thhe public offered a system where they feel more involved and that they are not wasting their time going out to vote.
Eric Mc said:
Fittster said:
Eric Mc said:
That's why some form of PR system needs to be introduced.
Like the stable, corruption free systems seen in Italy?A move to a direct democractic system is required, unless you feel you need someone to make your choices for you.
First of all, EVERY European country uses some form of PR system (not just Italy). Some countries seem to manage very well with it.
Italy's problems are not caused by the system, they are caused by Italians.
Secondly, many elections held within the UK are on a PR basis so we are used to voting this way in limited circumstances.
Thirdly, there is more than one type of PR system in use so one that suits the UK best should be selected. I come from Ireland (which certainly has its problems with corrupt politicians) but it uses a Transferrable Vote PR system which, even though it may not produce the most desirable outcomes on occasions, does at least make the citizens feel that their votes aren't being wasted. And it also cuts down the number of safe seats. ALL TDs in Ireland are insecure.
Fourthly - whether a PR system is ever selected or not, the current 1st Past the Post system MUST be changed. What was OK for 1750 is not OK for 2009.
Direct voting on issues is all well and good, but I'd like to see how the public would have debated, discussed, refined and decided on something like the 2006 Companies Act.
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 29th May 10:17
And how is the Irish system anymore effective than the UK one? There MPs are just as much on the fiddle as you say yourself.
So a system has worked since 1750 and you want to dump it? Sounds like a very good reason why it's an effective at selecting a representative government.
Why are MPs any more qualified to discuss the 2006 Companies Act, are they all qualified accountants?
Tony*T3 said:
Why is it we have basically no choice over who our MPs are going to be in nearly 70% of the countries constituancies?
I'm talking about those safe seats that virtually never go to the opposition in an election no matter they be Labour or conservative. Some places will simply never change their MP until one dies or is promoted into the House of Lords.
So, those places never really have the oppertunity to 'oust' an MP that is in-effective, as its the party that basically decideds who gets to sit at that seat.
What we need is a system that people can vote on similar to the 'primaries' that they have in the US. Lets say 3 Tory candidates to choose from instead of 'hobsons choice'. Run this pre-election 6 months before the general election. You'd have to set the date of the general election one year in advance (fair enough I think).
If for instance a seat is always going to be returned as a Tory win, I'd like the oppertunity to select that winner from a group of possibles. That way, all MPs will know that their job is on the line, and need to pull their weight throughout a government. If they dont, they get deselected by the local voters befoer the proper election.
Being an MP shouldnt be a 'cushy job for life'.
I agree 100%I'm talking about those safe seats that virtually never go to the opposition in an election no matter they be Labour or conservative. Some places will simply never change their MP until one dies or is promoted into the House of Lords.
So, those places never really have the oppertunity to 'oust' an MP that is in-effective, as its the party that basically decideds who gets to sit at that seat.
What we need is a system that people can vote on similar to the 'primaries' that they have in the US. Lets say 3 Tory candidates to choose from instead of 'hobsons choice'. Run this pre-election 6 months before the general election. You'd have to set the date of the general election one year in advance (fair enough I think).
If for instance a seat is always going to be returned as a Tory win, I'd like the oppertunity to select that winner from a group of possibles. That way, all MPs will know that their job is on the line, and need to pull their weight throughout a government. If they dont, they get deselected by the local voters befoer the proper election.
Being an MP shouldnt be a 'cushy job for life'.
What we need most of all is proper primaries, before each election, not just to select them in the first place.
Fixed term parliaments will also need to be introduced as well with this system.
Whatever happens we need to make our MPs accountable, not just with their allowances but their performance. This Party has hamstrung everything from the NHS to our Police with performance criteria....I think they should reap as they sow. What we need is a system that gives us control over our elected MPs (I realise direct democracy would be ideal but a turkey never votes for christmas)
Invisible man said:
Whatever happens we need to make our MPs accountable!
That's the most important word in this thread!; Accountability!!!! If MP's were accountable for their actions, then maybe they'd be less inclined to cheat, lie, and thieve from the public!As it is, they do want they want without reprise!
Fittster said:
Eric Mc said:
Fittster said:
Eric Mc said:
That's why some form of PR system needs to be introduced.
Like the stable, corruption free systems seen in Italy?A move to a direct democractic system is required, unless you feel you need someone to make your choices for you.
First of all, EVERY European country uses some form of PR system (not just Italy). Some countries seem to manage very well with it.
Italy's problems are not caused by the system, they are caused by Italians.
Secondly, many elections held within the UK are on a PR basis so we are used to voting this way in limited circumstances.
Thirdly, there is more than one type of PR system in use so one that suits the UK best should be selected. I come from Ireland (which certainly has its problems with corrupt politicians) but it uses a Transferrable Vote PR system which, even though it may not produce the most desirable outcomes on occasions, does at least make the citizens feel that their votes aren't being wasted. And it also cuts down the number of safe seats. ALL TDs in Ireland are insecure.
Fourthly - whether a PR system is ever selected or not, the current 1st Past the Post system MUST be changed. What was OK for 1750 is not OK for 2009.
Direct voting on issues is all well and good, but I'd like to see how the public would have debated, discussed, refined and decided on something like the 2006 Companies Act.
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 29th May 10:17
And how is the Irish system anymore effective than the UK one? There MPs are just as much on the fiddle as you say yourself.
So a system has worked since 1750 and you want to dump it? Sounds like a very good reason why it's an effective at selecting a representative government.
Why are MPs any more qualified to discuss the 2006 Companies Act, are they all qualified accountants?
MPs are "qualified" to vote on such matters because
a) it is their job to do so
b) many are LEGALLY qualified - which is more relevant for general law making as knowledge of tax
c) as I said earlier, the law is not just created by them alone. There is a whole army of advisors and civil servants at work behind the scene drafting the legislation.
d) there are also outside agencies - such as professional and industry bodies - who will be part of the consultative process when the legislation is being drafted.
I didn't say PR was perfect - but 1st Past the Post is undemocratic, disenfranchsing and will ultimately lead to a total breakdown in trust in politics and politicians (which is happenoing before our eyes as we speak). These are recipes for disaster.
Just thank our lucky stars that lunatic parties such as the BNP do not at the moment have an intelligent and charismatic leaders.
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 29th May 11:22
Eric Mc said:
I didn't say PR was perfect - but 1st Past the Post is undemocratic, disenfranchsing and will ultimately lead to a total breakdown in trust in politics and politicians (which is happenoing before our eyes as we speak). These are recipes for disaster.
Just have to disagree Eric. With typical PR we the electorate do not get to vote for our candidate, they are taken from party lists. This re-inforces the party system which doesnt seem ideal to me.We just need more control over our MP's. The current system puts the power with the party whips, not the electorate, because most seats are 'safe' seats.
I dont see why PR isnt actually worse in terms of a breakdown of trust, the MP's would be one further step removed from the electorate.
s2art said:
Eric Mc said:
I didn't say PR was perfect - but 1st Past the Post is undemocratic, disenfranchsing and will ultimately lead to a total breakdown in trust in politics and politicians (which is happenoing before our eyes as we speak). These are recipes for disaster.
Just have to disagree Eric. With typical PR we the electorate do not get to vote for our candidate, they are taken from party lists. This re-inforces the party system which doesnt seem ideal to me.We just need more control over our MP's. The current system puts the power with the party whips, not the electorate, because most seats are 'safe' seats.
I dont see why PR isnt actually worse in terms of a breakdown of trust, the MP's would be one further step removed from the electorate.
That is much more fundamental than deciding the manner in which we vote. That changes who and what we actually vote for?
What would happen to political parties or political groupings in an individual based system?
How could consensus every be achieved in government policy?
Could there be such a thing as a "government policy"?
What would "the government" consist of?
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 29th May 11:58
Single Transferrable Vote does not rely on party list systems. It maintains the link between constituents and the MPs, albeit in slightly larger constituencies, and can return working majorities without allowing minority parties to hold the balance of power.
There is more information on it here.
Eric will probably correct me, but I believe Irish politicians have tried to get rid of the system twice but the electorate voted to keep it.
The first past the post system is not fit for purpose, the fact that Labour got such a large majority on the back of only 22% of the electorate shows that.
There is more information on it here.
Eric will probably correct me, but I believe Irish politicians have tried to get rid of the system twice but the electorate voted to keep it.
The first past the post system is not fit for purpose, the fact that Labour got such a large majority on the back of only 22% of the electorate shows that.
tank slapper said:
Single Transferrable Vote does not rely on party list systems. It maintains the link between constituents and the MPs, albeit in slightly larger constituencies, and can return working majorities without allowing minority parties to hold the balance of power.
There is more information on it here.
Eric will probably correct me, but I believe Irish politicians have tried to get rid of the system twice but the electorate voted to keep it.
The first past the post system is not fit for purpose, the fact that Labour got such a large majority on the back of only 22% of the electorate shows that.
Quite right - and with each elected MP/TD having a rival elected MP/TD or two FROM THE SAME CONSTITUENCY they really do have to watch their backs. As I said, there are no safe seats under the Transferrable Vote system.There is more information on it here.
Eric will probably correct me, but I believe Irish politicians have tried to get rid of the system twice but the electorate voted to keep it.
The first past the post system is not fit for purpose, the fact that Labour got such a large majority on the back of only 22% of the electorate shows that.
Whatver system we end up with the aim must be to make all MPs feel unsafe about their seats.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff