With all the talk of a hung parliament and changing the system to proportional representation why has no one, given all the shout about democracy, ever considered a true democratric system. Thus, we scrap the totally undemocratic whip system, at a general election we elect a representative for our constituancy who declares no party allegience. The MPs then elect a Prime minister and leader of opposition. The PM appoints his Government from any MPs he wants. MPs sit on either side of the house and all votes are free votes. Thus an MP votes according to what he believes his constituants support and not according to a party line.
Electoral reform
- Thread starter maltaron
- Start date
Sponsored Links
And how does he find this out? Hold a referendum on every bill, clause, amendment?
i will tell you why your idea will never work within British Politics, it is far too sensible and would rely on honesty and integrity, and we don't have time to introduce 2 unknown qualities to every MP before next thursday 
R
RedHerring2
With the current and developing technology a true democratic system is not only possible but easily available.
Simply develop a portal for all to access and vote for their preference on evey single issue.
Initially it could be developed for individual MPs to be 'in touch' with their electorate. Then that vote is transferred in the current system to the H of P.
We can curently log-on to all sorts of systems with a satisfactory degree of confidentiality. Why not extend it to the political system.
Perhaps, in 25 - 50 years time the MPs will be superfluous.
The system could develop over time.
Perhaps some issues are too complex to be understood by the average citizen. But they're probably too complex for the average MP also. They seem to mis-understand face to face conversations with an ordinary voter to the extent that they mistakenly call them names!
Simply develop a portal for all to access and vote for their preference on evey single issue.
Initially it could be developed for individual MPs to be 'in touch' with their electorate. Then that vote is transferred in the current system to the H of P.
We can curently log-on to all sorts of systems with a satisfactory degree of confidentiality. Why not extend it to the political system.
Perhaps, in 25 - 50 years time the MPs will be superfluous.
The system could develop over time.
Perhaps some issues are too complex to be understood by the average citizen. But they're probably too complex for the average MP also. They seem to mis-understand face to face conversations with an ordinary voter to the extent that they mistakenly call them names!
Sponsored Links
They are already most rules etc come from Europe
It's not the directives which come from Europe which are the problem. It's the way the UK civil servants and the government (whichever party is in power) turn them into UK law.
They have an unfortunate tendency to "gold plate" everything emanating from Brussels. So a simple directive becomes a 400 page Act with another 100 Statutory Instruments covering every possible situation which might arise.
The French, German and other European governments do not fall into this trap; they adopt the KISS principle.
R
RedHerring2
From a quick google (NoseMonkeys Utopia) http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/?p=2230
In terms of the number of regulations, the EU this year accounted for only 20%. The reduction from the previous EU level of about 30% is the primary reason for the overall decline in 2007/8 (The Institute of Directors [Website])
Richard Corbett has noted other studies in other EU member states
6.3 percent according to the Swedish parliament, 12 percent according to the Finnish parliament and between 12 and 19 percent according to the Lithuanian parliament
This would suggest that something in the region of 10-20% would be a fair guess for the UK as well (a range that has the added benefit of being backed up by the British Chambers of Commerce’s recent study of regulations).
R
RedHerring2
It's not the number of EU laws being implemented here which is the problem, it's the fact that they tend to be far reaching ones.
The Human Rights Act is only one law, but it's had a more destructive impact on UK society than any fifty domestic laws.
The Human Rights Act is only one law, but it's had a more destructive impact on UK society than any fifty domestic laws.
R
RedHerring2
R
RedHerring2
J
joinerjohn
The Human Rights Act has had far reaching consequences in the UK.
Example: An illegal immigrant drives a car without a licence, insurance etc. He runs over and kills a pedestrian. He gets 3 or 4 yrs in prison with the court ordering him to be deported once his prison term is spent.
Meanwhile, he gets one of these do gooder lawyers ( like Cherie Blair) to defend his right to remain in this country under the Human Rights Act. (bear in mind that he's here illegally) Simply because his wife and family are here (albeit illegally as well).
He wins the case. The government have to allow him to remain here. He claims every benefit he can, having paid nothing into the system.
Can this be right??
I certainly don't think so.
The Human Rights Act is too far skewed in favour of those who actually break the Law of the land now and really needs re-evaluating at base level.
If someone breaks into your home and get's caught and arrested, they instantly have more rights than you the victim. All thrown at them by this pernicious act
As far as I can see, no other country in Europe implement the act the way that it has been implemented in the UK.
Just my two cents, I like the fact that I can vote for person, who is member of a party.
I believe that you have to have clear, consistent and intelligent rule.
If the public decided everything, we would have a government of contradictions, because not everyone is bothered about everything.
There is a rule in service, that a happy customer will tell 3 people, but an UNhappy customer will tell ten... so even a service that has customers happy 3/4 still end up with a bad reputation.
This can be transfered to ideas and policies.
If a 'mob rule' happened where individual policies were voted on, we'd most likely end up in bizarre situations...like if a vote on capital punishment was brought up, i'm quite sure we'd get a yes...then if animal rights came up we'd get a yes...because the people that didn't care either way would abstain.
It is very important that we are constant with how we treat issues and not flip flopping between policies.
I know for example how a lot of parties will vote on an issue even before they do it, because that is the party ideology. Remember we do not vote these people to help us rule, we vote them to rule on our behalf.
I believe that you have to have clear, consistent and intelligent rule.
If the public decided everything, we would have a government of contradictions, because not everyone is bothered about everything.
There is a rule in service, that a happy customer will tell 3 people, but an UNhappy customer will tell ten... so even a service that has customers happy 3/4 still end up with a bad reputation.
This can be transfered to ideas and policies.
If a 'mob rule' happened where individual policies were voted on, we'd most likely end up in bizarre situations...like if a vote on capital punishment was brought up, i'm quite sure we'd get a yes...then if animal rights came up we'd get a yes...because the people that didn't care either way would abstain.
It is very important that we are constant with how we treat issues and not flip flopping between policies.
I know for example how a lot of parties will vote on an issue even before they do it, because that is the party ideology. Remember we do not vote these people to help us rule, we vote them to rule on our behalf.
Health bills, crime bills, educational reform, pensions, welfare and many, many others - even tax policy and budgetary decisions - are all affected directly by the Human Rights Act - which, as you rightly point out, is the UK statutory instrument enacting the European Convention (and it's associated Directives) on human rights. Any bill which does not bend its knee to the all powerful Human Rights Act faces the near certainty of being challenged in the European courts. Thus the EU gains the power to tell us what domestic laws we can and cannot have - all in the name of Human Rights, and without any of us ever getting a vote on it.
The HRA has also created a situation within our society where anyone who dislikes a decision made by a professional regarding themselves or the way they have been treated can claim that their human rights have been violated and take their case to Brussels. They often find slightly shadowy backers with their own hidden agendas to fund the case for them (how else does a classroom assistant afford to take a case about whether or not she can do her job from inside a tent all the way to europe?) so one wonders quite what "special interests" those funding these cases truely have.
Even the threat of having to defend themselves against such an expensive legal process is usually enough to cause most public bodies to cave in an quietly give the complainant whatever they want. As a result, the "I want, I want!!" sections of society get to trample all over those of us who have a sense of fair play and accept that our lives cannot always be perfect.
The HRA actively attacks our society both from without and from within, so I believe my desciption of it as "destructive" is appropriate.
The HRA has also created a situation within our society where anyone who dislikes a decision made by a professional regarding themselves or the way they have been treated can claim that their human rights have been violated and take their case to Brussels. They often find slightly shadowy backers with their own hidden agendas to fund the case for them (how else does a classroom assistant afford to take a case about whether or not she can do her job from inside a tent all the way to europe?) so one wonders quite what "special interests" those funding these cases truely have.
Even the threat of having to defend themselves against such an expensive legal process is usually enough to cause most public bodies to cave in an quietly give the complainant whatever they want. As a result, the "I want, I want!!" sections of society get to trample all over those of us who have a sense of fair play and accept that our lives cannot always be perfect.
The HRA actively attacks our society both from without and from within, so I believe my desciption of it as "destructive" is appropriate.
R
RedHerring2
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- Big_Spark
- General Discussion
- david and julie
- General Discussion
