tiggers

Should have said that the first person to use the term Neo-Con gets ejected from the thread Just kidding

The idea of more local government is a good one, but then again local government in the UK is almost as ensconced in point scoring politics as their national counterparts.

No, revolution looks ever more likely

tiggers.

MarfGTti

I'm happy just calling em NWO Cronies if you like

harvey

iTrader: (48)

Tiggers : I fully agree that we need a radical change. How depressing there is not an obvious alternative to what we have just now. That is probably why there is so much apathy. Many people share our views but feel that they, individually can do nothing about it.
We need somebody with charisma and obvious leadership qualities but then again what can one MP do ? For me, he would not be a member of either the Labour or Conservative party because both of these organisations are steeped in their own dogma.
Wake me up when the revolution starts.

johnskelley

what we want is Simon cowell representing the conservatives, sharon labour, and louie the lib dems, and we can a have a phone vote on which party are the biggest load of tossers.
Bet they get more votes than in a general election.

Vegescoob

Oh dear. People thinking as I do. All my life I've been thinking about the political system. I know that what we have have here and, indeed, worldwide basically doesn't work.
Problem is I just can't see any example from the the past or present that gives any hope.
I have posted before how revolutions merely replace one elite with another as others have already said.
Career politicians have become a real problem.
The USA constitution has much to commend it as the founding fathers were concerned to ensure citizens had some power and that the power of the state wouldn't be over powering. Hence the right to bear arms.
Computer power could mean referendums(dae?) on all important decisions and if the population got it wrong. Tough.
One suggestion from me would be that MPs might be selected as juries. A truly representative sample of the population, no getting out. For one term.
How would that work?
Problem is we musn't have a system that stifles progress on the technolocigal front for that could stop sorting out the world's problems. Vested interests, in whatever system, tend to do this.
Problem is you always have to deal with the psychology of the individuals involved and I've come to the view that this is the most important factor. I cannot understand why anyone thinks that their worldview is more important than mine or that they should be able to dictate how I act.
Does this make me an anarchist?

ajm

I'm not sure we want tiggers representing the Conservatives.... he's a bit left wing for my liking!

tiggers

LOL As soon as I saw that comment I knew what was coming next You never let me down ajm - nice one

tiggers.

Lum

Couldn't we just have an "anyone but" tick box on the voting slip, which makes your vote into a -1 for that party.
That might improve turnout. I know I'd go to vote if I could do that.

tiggers

Vegescoob,

Some excellent points. Does it make you an anarchist? I don't think so - I think like me you just want to have more of a say in how the society around you is run. My problem is that neither of the parties likely to be elected are going to let me do that sufficiently for my liking.

Your idea of MP's as juries is an interesting one, certainly would be worth a try - got to be better involving the people as well rather than just the politicians. I do think we should have more referendums which has to be feasible in this tehnological age. I think it's Switzerland where they have referendums on many subjects - anyone know how that works for them?

tiggers.

Vegescoob

Yes, in Switzerland anyone can instigate a referendum. They have to get a number of fellow voters to want one first (can't remember no.). For instance the Swiss population has just voted, in a referendum, to allow stem cell research using human embryonic tissue.
Thing is, I think I have become a libertarian, having been left wing when younger. The left, when I was young though, was I think, libertarian but has over the years become much more authoritarian. It seems that libertarian is now seen as on the right.
What I do feel though, which is much as you have suggested, is that the current system is nearing it's "sell by date". Those in power, I think recognise this, which is why we see evidence of their attempts to have greater control over us.
Oh hang on, there's a knock on my door!!!!

Flatcapdriver

This is going to be a bit long winded but bear with me. They're are three options here, either improve the existing system or start afresh within the Westminster system to create an entitiy that is far more beneficial to the State or bin the whole lot and start again with something akin to the Presidential system.

As I see it, politicians fall into three categories:

a) they're in it for the power.
b) they're in it to milk the system.
c) they're in it for altruistic reasons.

Unfortunately, the last category is in the minority and off the top of my head I can't think of any current MPs who qualify which immediately gives us a problem in that they are unlikely to change a system that suits them and their greasy climb up the totem pole of power. Essentially the problem facing the electorate nowadays is that since Labour's volte face whereby they adopted the majority of the Conservative's policies it's very hard to differentiate between them - hence the disillusionment.

This disillusionment coupled with voter apathy is a major part of the problem because as much as we like to blame the politicians we (the electorate) are also part of the problem, so the first step would be to make the voting process more accessible. Forgetting the technicalities for the moment, I'd suggest that voting becomes mandatory but unlike the Australian system, heavy penalties are levied for not registering on the Electoral Role and an even heavier fine for not voting - let's say £500.00 for the former and £1000.00 for the latter. Immediately, we have an electorate with a 100% turn out (or at least over 90%) which is more indicative of the electorate's wishes and would also have a greater impact on policy making as most Governments allow for certain parts of the electorate being outside of the electoral process and can shape policy where they know they can get away with it (and where they can't) as there will be little oppostion from that section of society. This is my suggestion to improve the existing system.

The second alternative would include the above but make the process of becoming a politician far harder and as previously suggested more vocational rather than a power trip. The French have an excellent schooling system for their civil servants which allows them to graduate from the ENA as a qualified civil servants and in the same way I believe that if a similar system was introduced in the UK for politicians then they would be better qualified at a younger age, thus making a greater contribution due to their potentially longer period in office. Upon graduation, they would then have to get themselves elected whether it be at local or national level with whatever party they have aligned themselves to and begin to put the theory into practice whilst learning the practical elements of running a country.

The other advantage of establishing a political education system such as this would be to foster longer and greater cross party relationships which could help to generate better co-operation between the parties and reduce the neccessity to vote along party lines when its not in the best interests of the country. Admittedly, the party whips wouldn't like the erosion of their power but sod them!

The last addition to this system I'd like to see is the establishment of genuinely autonomous ministries set up for areas such as Transportation, Education and Health for which budgets are agreed across all partys on at least a 10 year basis with some form of index linking and top up by the Government of the day. This way, I believe we would actually see a genuine improvement in these services rather than the quick political fix beloved of recent Governments.

I'll come back to the third option later.

Brendan Hughes

Nice post

I'd certainly agree with making voting compulsory - I've never voted (hate the breed) but it would make me pay more attention if I had to. Autonomous ministries sounds like a nice idea too.

Not so keen on the French civil servants-style training though, not sure why. Firstly French politicians don't have a great reputation, but also there is the criticism that it stunts original thought. Their judges are also civil servants, they are open to criticism that they won't be too anti-state as it would rock the boat for promotion.

How about every potential politician has to pass some sort of qualification, say a Masters degree (er, in Public Administration??) ? The collateral problem will be, who sets the curriculum and teaching style... I can also foresee the first criticism, which is that most politicians are highly qualified anyway (though not to be a politician).

What is the ROOT of the dissatisfaction? I suspect accountability and short-termism. How does one tackle those?

Leslie

I think that MP's who tell lies under the guise of spin, which means lies anyway, and those who lead us into illegal wars and make us a prime target for terrorism, and those who have sold their souls for personal gain such as grace and favour apartments or those donated by unions and then let them out to their familiies, and who jeer at people whom they wrongly imagine to be upper crust, and who take free holidays in the Indian Ocea skindiving trying to con us that it is all for the cause of studying pollution, and those who demonstrate their total lack of morality and who bother pregnant women with nasty phone calls and fiddle expensive rail tickets for non dependants while they are telling us how to lead our own lives and who want to spy on every aspect of our lives, and creepy fellows who deceive us and their mortgage companies and get given incredibly highly paid jobs in Eu, should all get a big boot up the 'arris.

And I have not even started yet!

Les

Flatcapdriver

It could well stunt original thought but how many of these guys have even studied Politics at degree level, let alone any real world experience of running an Education system. Admittedly, many of them have business experience which is applicable on a macro scale to running a country but too many of them are parachuted in to run huge quangos with little or no experience, so what I'm suggesting is a degree course that obviously includes politics as well as planning, regeneration, infrastructure development etc etc. At least they will have a basic understanding when they get into positions of influence.

We agree on the method, perhaps not on the implementation. The Public Administration is a good one though.

I reckon the cause of dissatisfaction is that the majority of the electorate doesn't care or if they do they are of the Sun reader mentality and too apathetic to bother registering their protest or they have major misgivings about the way things are going but feel that its pointless protesting as their feelings will just be ignored.

Brendan Hughes

Other thing is - are you "confusing" politicians with civil servants? There is the argument that it's not the politician's job to run such things, that's for career civil servants. The politician's job is what - to be locally elected and represent his constituency in Parliament, usually when voting for legislation. Train them to understand what they're voting for, but not to manage a country. If they make it to Minister, then yes, they get responsibility for running a big department - but 90% don't. And you can't have training once someone has been appointed Minister, there is no time for it, but seems silly/costly to train 90% of people for a job they'll never do.

I think another big problem is the whip system - lack of a free vote. You vote your MP either as you like him/her, or as you like Tory/Labour/LD, but rarely do the two coincide. Gotta be room for a solution there....

Flatcapdriver

No, far from it. I used the ENA as an example of what could be achieved if an equivalent was set up for political servants and whilst I understand your point about civil servants running things, they can only do so with direction from the politicians who in turn are instruments of their party's policies. By professionalising politics, I believe that politicians would have a far greater understanding of how the process works, how to implement change for the benefit of the country and not just their party which would lead to greater public confidence. Think about it, if you're a salesman you undergo constant sales training, if you're an accountant you have to take exams or if you're a FLT driver you have to undergo training - why shouldn't politicians do the same?

With the addition of the quangos I mentioned earlier which would be largely apolitical, then we could reduce the impact of short term policies that don't work out in the long term.

tiggers

Yeah well Les don't bother - as I said this is not meant to be yet another thread detailing why one person doesn't like Labour or the other doesn't like the Conservatives. FYI as far as I am concerned the previous incumbents were no better hence the point of the thread really.

Cheers,

tiggers.

Brendan Hughes

Yeah, do appreciate the thought about constant training.

I can see more hiccups - if you can get past the initial selection procedure at local level (now you can only select from a narrower, though perhaps better, pool of "officially trained" candidates rather than any John Smith), there might be a problem with centuries of tradition that MPs can be "anyone".

Off to think a bit more... Trouble is, I've never had any education about politics, and no interest either (perhaps that's an advantage in clear thinking!)

tiggers

Flatcap,

Some great points there and I like the way you're thinking. To come back to apathy I think there are two groups sitting in the apathy camp. Both think that voting will not change anything for them, one lot because they don't think about it at all and the other lot because they have thought about it a lot.

I feel that voting is something we should do as our ancestors fought for the right to elect a government, but try as I might I just can't see myself voting next time. As someone else said on this thread there should be a box to tick to say you don't want any of them. Not voting is not an easy decision for me, but what's the point when there's nothing to vote for.

tiggers.

blueone

Not sure if it has been said before but ban political partys and change the way the PM is elected so that it is us the electorate that votes them in and not the way it is decided by the current system of party politics. Then we may see some laws that we actually want being passed.

Flatcapdriver

You've just made my point more eloquently, but I do believe that mandatory voting is the way to go particularly when your next point is taken into context...

The facility to tick a box that says you don't want any of them is all well and good as a protest vote, however, what happens if the majority vote this way? We'd end up with anarchy to begin with and ultimately ending up with situation where the fittest survive as a result of being part of the largest group/tribe and becoming the new power. If you have the opportunity to vote and are capable of independent thought, then you should exercise that right rather than squandering it.

At the risk of turning this into a political debate, one option open to you - given that you don't believe the Tories would be any better than Labour - would be to vote for the Tories on the basis that (in my opinion) Labour will be voted in at the next election. Therefore, its even more important to have a strong and effective opposition (regardless of your political persuasion) to combat any excessive majority that the incumbent will have.

Jye

Getting back to my point re citizens initiatives and referendums (which no one here bothered to say yay or nay for ), California, the Netherlands and Italy all have countrywide citizen referendums and they also have citizen-initiated referendums that can change existing laws. They seem to work, so why look for any huge change in politics when I'm sure we could we manage an occasional initiative and referendum in the UK?

Flatcapdriver

Jye. The problems I anticipate with this system are voter apathy as previously explained and adding another expensive layer to our political system.

Jye

I think a balance could be reached between hindering the potential for direct democratic participation and problems that might arise to prevent the initiative being debated in parliment or to referendum. And yes, I guess part of the risk is that only a minority of the electorate will turn up to vote. If any new initiative is suffocated at (before) birth then it will never become accepted and will never grow.

Brendan Hughes

Jye, referenda cost an absolute fortune - California is the richest state in the US IIRC, and NL only has 15 million people. (Switzerland have both advantages). That leaves Italy (from your list) but they have a very regionalised government system already.

Not sure if they are the right idea either - when you see that the circulation of the Sun newspaper outstrips all the broadsheets combined, do you really want important questions to go the way that the Sun readers would vote? Plus, as loudly declared with the debate about the forthcoming EU referendum, they can be slanted depending on the way you ask the question.

I'd go back to the educating politicians idea. Still curious about this local/central dichotomy though. Maybe blueone's idea about separate votes for the PM is an interesting one.

Jye

Well Brendan, we're still one of the richest nations going, so 'they' say

tiggers

Yeah, but just giving them more votes or more seats even isn't going to make them necessarily a stronger opposition. And just opposing a party for the sake of opposing them (as both Labout and the Tories do) is utterly pointless.

It wouldn't matter whether an idea one party had is a good one or not, the other party will simply oppose it. That is no good for the people of this country.

Sorry, but not voting is looking the most likely for me hence why I would love to find another way. A system which would make me feel like I could have an effect and one that I would want to put my backing behind. There have been some good ideas on this thread, but I wonder how we as the people can ever get any of those ideas implemented.

tiggers.

Vegescoob

We come round in circles on this do we not? Those who fought, suffered and died for universal sufferage would be disgusted at the situation we find ourselves in.
One major problem, at the heart of tiggers complaint, if I understand right, is the party system.
I've posted in other threads that no one party represents my views and I feel that applies to many.
Some twenty or so years ago one's idea of class probably decided one's voting pattern. That has gone.
Proportional representation might help but our two major parties will resist this.

tiggers

Vegescoob,

You're right we are just going round in circles. Whether a party seems to represent my views or not is irrelevant as they don't do as they promise and are only interested in lining their own pockets. Most people either don't care or are still of the belief that voting 'the other party' in is the answer. I don't believe that to be the case.

So I guess we need to turn our attention away from tweaking the current system to throwing it out completely and asking what would we want if we were starting with a blank slate? Once we have that answer then we need to work out the difficult bit which is how could we move towards our chosen system from the current self indulgent mess.

tiggers.

johnskelley

We could start by saying they have got to have an I Q of over 140. Instead of the present situation 140 mp's with an I Q of 1.