Party Politics

[elster]

Why is there a need to be party politics?

Surely it would be a much more efficient and open system if there were just MPs who then sat on committees. Surely this would actually get things done.

Also wouldn't it mean that when you vote for your MP they would actually be a part of the parliament, not just an irrelevant voice in opposition or having to toe the party line.

How did the system of parties actually come about?

[stifler]

Good question. I have thought this myself before. MPs could then vote for what their constituents want rather than people who donate to the party.

I'll wait for the flaming though. No doubt there is an over whelming reason for the party system.

[Stevenj214]

I've also thought the same. I suppose it's a case of if MPs work together, some of their policies have a greater chance of success rather than all of their policies having a slim chance as an independent.

[elster]

Stevenj214 said:

I've also thought the same. I suppose it's a case of if MPs work together, some of their policies have a greater chance of success rather than all of their policies having a slim chance as an independent.

But surely then if you want to put something to the house you come up with a quorum and then to the house.

If a majority agree it will happen, if not then other suggestions should be come up with.

[elster]

stifler said:

Good question. I have thought this myself before. MPs could then vote for what their constituents want rather than people who donate to the party.

I'll wait for the flaming though. No doubt there is an over whelming reason for the party system.

I think we must be the minority

[AndrewW-G]

elster said:

stifler said:

Good question. I have thought this myself before. MPs could then vote for what their constituents want rather than people who donate to the party.

I'll wait for the flaming though. No doubt there is an over whelming reason for the party system.

I think we must be the minority

I think most people will agree with you, I for one would like to see a similar demcoratic process to switzerland where major descisions are voted on by the people ....... true democracy

[elster]

AndrewW-G said:

elster said:

stifler said:

Good question. I have thought this myself before. MPs could then vote for what their constituents want rather than people who donate to the party.

I'll wait for the flaming though. No doubt there is an over whelming reason for the party system.

I think we must be the minority

I think most people will agree with you, I for one would like to see a similar demcoratic process to switzerland where major descisions are voted on by the people ....... true democracy

What you mean letting the real public decide on things?!!

What a preposterous idea!

[JJCW]

Without a party line to toe wouldn't everyone just argue over minor points continually and nothing ever be decided? I could see the times for anything to get decided be even longer than they currently are!

Also, with the generally poor levels of voting numbers, not having a party with your 'general'(ok everybody is pretty much central these days...) viewpoint to vote for, less people would vote imo.

[elster]

JJCW said:

Without a party line to toe wouldn't everyone just argue over minor points continually and nothing ever be decided? I could see the times for anything to get decided be even longer than they currently are!

Also, with the generally poor levels of voting numbers, not having a party with your 'general'(ok everybody is pretty much central these days...) viewpoint to vote for, less people would vote imo.

I think the opposite would happen, more people would vote if they were voting for a person who would really represent them.

[JJCW]

elster said:

JJCW said:

Without a party line to toe wouldn't everyone just argue over minor points continually and nothing ever be decided? I could see the times for anything to get decided be even longer than they currently are!

Also, with the generally poor levels of voting numbers, not having a party with your 'general'(ok everybody is pretty much central these days...) viewpoint to vote for, less people would vote imo.

I think the opposite would happen, more people would vote if they were voting for a person who would really represent them.

Once perhaps, but when they see that nothing ever gets done because its just a circle jerk of arguements, why would they vote again?

Also, how's the PM elected in this?

[elster]

JJCW said:

elster said:

JJCW said:

Without a party line to toe wouldn't everyone just argue over minor points continually and nothing ever be decided? I could see the times for anything to get decided be even longer than they currently are!

Also, with the generally poor levels of voting numbers, not having a party with your 'general'(ok everybody is pretty much central these days...) viewpoint to vote for, less people would vote imo.

I think the opposite would happen, more people would vote if they were voting for a person who would really represent them.

Once perhaps, but when they see that nothing ever gets done because its just a circle jerk of arguements, why would they vote again?

Also, how's the PM elected in this?

You vote for a person.

Committees would work a lot better, as why would everyone argue round in circles. If something works well everyone would agree. They have no need to put an opposite view accross just because you are the opposition.

It also would mean ordinary people would be voted in as MPs as they wouldn't be going through the parties. This would mean the common people would put themselves forward, they are called the house of commons for a reason.

It has been shown over many years party politics can't work, as all the MPs in opposition are pointless.

[JJCW]

elster said:

JJCW said:

elster said:

JJCW said:

Without a party line to toe wouldn't everyone just argue over minor points continually and nothing ever be decided? I could see the times for anything to get decided be even longer than they currently are!

Also, with the generally poor levels of voting numbers, not having a party with your 'general'(ok everybody is pretty much central these days...) viewpoint to vote for, less people would vote imo.

I think the opposite would happen, more people would vote if they were voting for a person who would really represent them.

Once perhaps, but when they see that nothing ever gets done because its just a circle jerk of arguements, why would they vote again?

Also, how's the PM elected in this?

You vote for a person.

Committees would work a lot better, as why would everyone argue round in circles. If something works well everyone would agree. They have no need to put an opposite view accross just because you are the opposition.

It also would mean ordinary people would be voted in as MPs as they wouldn't be going through the parties. This would mean the common people would put themselves forward, they are called the house of commons for a reason.

It has been shown over many years party politics can't work, as all the MPs in opposition are pointless.

The problem would come when people differ on what to do in a situation. In a house of 500 MPs, i would expect close to 50 different solutions (some similar, but still different). To be fair, all 50 solutions would need to be given time for discussion etc.

In this new system, would there be no PM? Nobody with the final say on things?

[elster]

No you would have a person as a PM.

The PM then sets up the committees, so every MP is on a committee.

The committees decide on the different sectors issues.

If an issue is to be discussed a quorum comes together and puts through to the house.

The documents are sent to all MPs to read, then voted upon.

Edited by elster on Wednesday 1st July 16:14

[JJCW]

elster said:

No you would have a person as a PM.

The PM then sets up the committees, so every MP is on a committee.

The committees decide on the different sectors issues.

If an issue is to be discussed a quorum comes together and puts through to the house.

The documents are sent to all MPs to read, then voted upon.

Edited by elster on Wednesday 1st July 16:14

How do we elect the PM? National vote? Everyone would vote for their own MP. If MPs voted on it, then we'd have an unelected head of state...

It's an interesting concept that's for sure.
I feel there's a bigger reason than we're discussing that there's not a single democracy i can think of works this way

[elster]

JJCW said:

elster said:

No you would have a person as a PM.

The PM then sets up the committees, so every MP is on a committee.

The committees decide on the different sectors issues.

If an issue is to be discussed a quorum comes together and puts through to the house.

The documents are sent to all MPs to read, then voted upon.

Edited by elster on Wednesday 1st July 16:14

How do we elect the PM? National vote? Everyone would vote for their own MP. If MPs voted on it, then we'd have an unelected head of state...

It's an interesting concept that's for sure.
I feel there's a bigger reason than we're discussing that there's not a single democracy i can think of works this way

Easy MPs have a vote.

The top 10 then get put forward for a national vote.

I just see this as the only way to get things done.