Re: The General Election Thread : Fri May 15, 2015 10:18 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

So who comes up with 'the issues'? And you'd be happy with a country that has the death penalty (just time the 'vote' just after a particularly nasty child murder for example)? Speaking of which, how long before paedophiles were executed? How would funding be decided within a sphere - e.g. health? I'd bet hardly anyone who hasn't either been affected or knows someone who has been affected would think of putting much money into mental health for example, let alone understand how best to use those funds. Etc etc.

The problems with the sort of model you suggest would be far, far worse than what we have now. Just check any theme trending on social media to see how mob rule by the masses would work in reality.

This is not true at all. Yes, a proportion of the electorate revert to such form. A very large one, too. But do YOU revert to mob behaviour at the first site of a paedophile story in the local paper? I know I don't. I know my friends don't.

I leave you to figure out why this is the case (clue: it's NOT the one which states you're so much smarter than they are).

The only way that could happen is to have the 'bureacracy' actively engage in setting policy directions - i.e. you'd have a completely unelected elite running the country in no time at all.

I really don't see how this is a problem which can't be overcome.

Re: The General Election Thread : Fri May 15, 2015 11:14 am  

It's an interesting idea. It would force people become more informed on the issues that they're voting on, and would do away with a media industry that is no longer fit for purpose.

I'd need more details though, for example, whom would appoint and run the civil service? How would be be represented in the European Parliament, the UN etc? Would they have to adopt the same method?

Re: The General Election Thread : Fri May 15, 2015 11:26 am  

Charlie Sheen wrote:

It's an interesting idea. It would force people become more informed on the issues that they're voting on, and would do away with a media industry that is no longer fit for purpose.

I'd need more details though, for example, whom would appoint and run the civil service?

Give me a chance ... I've only just finished sketching it out on the back of a fag packet! Seriously, it would need a lot of thinking through. But it's not impossible. The important thing is there'd have to be a robust series of checks and balances. With enough smart people working on the task I'm sure we could accomplish something.

To be honest I'm open to ideas. We need new ideas today. The current system is just so hopelessly broken it's no longer funny.

Re: The General Election Thread : Fri May 15, 2015 11:57 am  

Mugwump wrote:

Give me a chance ... I've only just finished sketching it out on the back of a fag packet! Seriously, it would need a lot of thinking through. But it's not impossible. The important thing is there'd have to be a robust series of checks and balances. With enough smart people working on the task I'm sure we could accomplish something.

To be honest I'm open to ideas. We need new ideas today. The current system is just so hopelessly broken it's no longer funny.

Did you write Ed Balls' economic manifesto as well?

But on the whole I'd agree with you, and I'd argue the problem doesn't just stop with our political system. There needs to be a shift in our paradigm regarding our politics, economy, and how we view the world in general. We seem to be collectively confined by the same dogma we have been for 200 years, and we wonder why so much of the world seems broken.

Re: The General Election Thread : Fri May 15, 2015 12:57 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

The whole idea of REPRESENTATION is an anachronism dating back centuries. It necessitates a class of people who once served a critical function in society which is now REDUNDANT in the 21st century. Think about it: back in days of yore when a trip down to London and back took the best part of a week on horseback one needed an individual to REPRESENT your interests along with the butcher's, the baker's and the candlestick maker's from the village.

But this is the information age. An age of instantaneous communication. There is no longer any NEED to keep financing the upkeep of these charlatans and crooks in parliament... <snip>

Good ideas, but I'll advocate once more with feeling, the very first, and possibly only thing that needs to happen with the current method of parliament is to remove the whips.

You can still keep your party's, MP's of a similar persuasion would still be able to gather and discuss issues and present a party manifesto to the public at election times and to their members every working day, but they would have to properly think policies through and convince 51% of 650 MP's (or wherever you place your majority vote) that their policies should be enacted or put into law.

There wouldn't be as much emphasis then on the party in majority because their majority could be lost, or it could be improved at every policy change, everything would depend on their ability to convince enough MP's to individually vote without pressure and retribution from within their own party, in fact I'd go a little further and suggest that any party pressure behind closed doors is made an illegal act as coercion or bribery is, and make the coerciee criminally responsible.

We'd end up with 650 representatives who can vote according to their personal beliefs, or according to their constituents desires and at that point we, the electorate, suddenly become players in the democracy for if a national or local policy grabs our attention then we can easily contact our representative to express our views, its very easy to do this now via the one system of email they all use and this could very simply include spot polls for opinions - it must also be possible given parliaments diary to publish in advance what debates and votes are due in the next month given that that is how parliament works anyway.

In our constituency we have an MP who is prepared to campaign on issues and has voted against his party on 10% of all votes in the last term, is very contactable and publishes his diary of activities every day - we're almost there with him - time to spread it out a bit further afield.

Get rid of the whips, thats all we need.

Re: The General Election Thread : Fri May 15, 2015 1:20 pm  

Charlie Sheen wrote:

Did you write Ed Balls' economic manifesto as well?

The only thing that I do know is that Ed Balls sure didn't.

But on the whole I'd agree with you, and I'd argue the problem doesn't just stop with our political system. There needs to be a shift in our paradigm regarding our politics, economy, and how we view the world in general. We seem to be collectively confined by the same dogma we have been for 200 years, and we wonder why so much of the world seems broken.

The truth is there IS a paradigm shift taking place in politics and the economy. It's been underway since Nixon abolished the gold standard. American doomsday preppers (rightfully) take a lot of stick over their constant warnings that America is about to be invaded by "The New World Order" with NATO troops at the vanguard (presumably parachuting into towns like something out of the film, "Red Dawn").

But over the last two decades there has been significant progress toward what both George H.W. Bush and most recently Lord Rothschild openly admit as such.

As mentioned earlier - big business simply HATES state government. It is the one force with sufficient power and resources to place constraints on corporate expansion.

To prevent anything like what happened in the wake of the Great Depression when Franklin D. Roosevelt practically forced the giants of American industry to heel, the major banks and corporations have worked together (along with "business friendly" US presidents such as Reagan, Bush I & II, Clinton & Obama) to institute a global infrastructure of "trade agreements" (such as GATT, WTO, NAFTA and now TPP), each of which has further undermined and hollowed out the powers and freedoms of state government.

This is the reason nothing seems to change, no matter who we vote for.

Eventually the British government will end up something like today's GP. Thirty years ago the family GP wielded all manner of power and responsibility. Most GP surgeries boasted a host of supplementary services which a patient could access and GPs themselves were free to undertake pretty much anything up to and beyond minor surgical procedures.

Nowadays the family GP functions as no more than a facilitator (with the cheery reassurance that "you'll be fine"). Someone who kicks your problem upstairs to the relevant department in some hospital somewhere. As for his freedoms - about the only things a modern GP can do is lance a boil and syringe ears.

This is the future we face. A future in which we will retain national identity. But self-determination will amount to little more than a rhetorical admission that we possess such.

Of course - all the above is entirely provisional on infinite energy reserves. Should we suddenly find ourselves at the business end of "peak energy" then everything will become very complicated very quickly.

[DaveO]

Re: The General Election Thread : Mon May 18, 2015 11:48 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

In our constituency we have an MP who is prepared to campaign on issues and has voted against his party on 10% of all votes in the last term, is very contactable and publishes his diary of activities every day - we're almost there with him - time to spread it out a bit further afield.

So he voted with the govt 90% of the time.

Our Tory ex-MP took our side against the local council when we campaigned against the introduction of charges for travel to remote special schools for post 16 year old disabled children but he didn't exactly stick the boot in and really go for it. Just paid lip service to our concerns really.

It's easy to appear to have principles. The odd bit of rebellion here or there but until MP's such as yours actually resign the whip the cynic in me says they are just playing a game.

Re: The General Election Thread : Mon May 18, 2015 12:58 pm  

DaveO wrote:

So he voted with the govt 90% of the time.

Our Tory ex-MP took our side against the local council when we campaigned against the introduction of charges for travel to remote special schools for post 16 year old disabled children but he didn't exactly stick the boot in and really go for it. Just paid lip service to our concerns really.

It's easy to appear to have principles. The odd bit of rebellion here or there but until MP's such as yours actually resign the whip the cynic in me says they are just playing a game.

To resign the whip is basically to break completely free of your party and stand as an independent, you'll certainly have to do that at the next election if you do.

There is nothing to say that my MP does not agree with his party and votes with them of his own accord, thats fine too, but banning the whip system would bring a whole new freedom to all votes and mean that a proposal would have to be pretty sound and reasonable in order to gain a majority - in the coming months we face all sorts of untold legislation and changes to rules and regulations that will be steamrollered through parliament by simple and crude bullying of Tory MPs - that is not a true democracy.

Re: The General Election Thread : Mon May 18, 2015 2:01 pm  

I remember when Shaun Woodward paid us a visit at work a couple of years ago. Owing to the fact that he once set foot in Northern Ireland his visit required reconnoitring by two members of Special Branch! They went through the list of employees, wanting to know their backgrounds, how long they'd been at the company etc.

Two weeks later he rolled up (late) with SIX BODYGUARDS - all of which were clearly and very visibly armed. I quipped that I thought Roman Abramovich had arrived and received daggers from the regional manager.

God knows how much his (presumably) lifetime protection detail costs. I'm not convinced he demands one, anyway. IMO, if you're going to stick your neck out politically then you should be brave enough to deal with the consequences - personally.

A couple of weeks later I was talking to one of our customers who runs a major engineering company which refits maritime equipment. He was telling us about George Osborne living in his constituency where HS2 is about to cut the district in two. Apparently, Osborne brought down the wrath of the locals after he flogged his house before the decision was officially announced. He then failed to turn up for the town meeting discussing the project.

It's always dangerous to look back thinking things were better. But at least MPs 50 years ago made some attempt at PUBLIC SERVICE. Alec Douglas-Hume turned down a top job in the city to become Prime Minister because he felt he owed a debt of public service. These lot today would consider him a fool.

Re: The General Election Thread : Mon May 18, 2015 3:06 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

It's always dangerous to look back thinking things were better. But at least MPs 50 years ago made some attempt at PUBLIC SERVICE. Alec Douglas-Hume turned down a top job in the city to become Prime Minister because he felt he owed a debt of public service. These lot today would consider him a fool.

Sajid Javid left his £3m a year job to become an MP.

I am sure there literally hundreds of other MP's who have been, and could be earning more, in the private sector before becoming an MP.