Vegescoob

This debate is now getting very deep. Theoretically, anarchy is probably the way forward.
Oxford dictionary, anarchist, a person who believes that government is undesirable and should be abolished.
However, I am not naive enough to believe that anarchism could work in the modern world.
Which brings me back to my earlier post about personality. We end up with the wrong people in government. Hence my post about a true representative selection of the population as MPs.

Sbradley

Like many here I have become increasingly disenchanted with our political masters over the years and have spent lengthy periods examining my navel and trying to see a better way.

Career civil servants having more power is certainly not a better way, and nor, I suggest, is making some sort of qualification a prerequisite for political office. Look at the highest qualified people you know and I'd suggest that though some may be well balanced and all round people, many are simply very good at exams and theory but not so hot in the real world.

Personally I am devoutly in favour of the monarchy so see republicanism as a complete no-no. And yet there are aspects of that system which appeal.

I suspect that we'd actually be best served if we had a prime minister who was independent of the political parties and who could be drawn from the vast wealth of clever, honest, hard-working business people we have in this still great country. No party backing equals no party allegiance, and a vote for the person means accountability to the people. The PM then becomes the person who manages the house and the day to day business of running the country. The cabinet is made up of the elected members of the house who are right for the job, regardleww of political flavour. So perhaps we could have a Foreign Secretary who understood diplomacy and/or foreign trade, a Transport Secretary who could drive and so on. The political parties would then be highly motivated to get switched on and useful people elected as MPs because that's how they could effect the direction the country was headed.

Accountability is the key thing. Without party backing for cabinet posts, incumbents would have to rely on their competence and integrity to stay in the job. And yes, perhaps they could get paid a worthwhile salary as well. But they'd have to justify their expenses properly and in the open.

Where would we get MPs? Actually the idea of a local jury is a good one, but I think that's too much too soon. No, I think the system of getting parliamentary candidates isn't a bad one, but with the different cabinet selection criteria the goalposts for selection would move from "Who can we put forward that would most fit the party ideal for cabinet" to "Who have we got that's most likely to be able to do something useful?" Local selection committees want their candidate in cabinet because it reflects well on them, you see.

Ah well. I can dream, I suppose. Meantime I'll stay working my way through the Soviet Republic of London until they come and take me away...

SB

tiggers

There are some great posts on this thread, but I think we have realised we are going round in circles a bit so I want to turn the argument around a little.

One of the major problems with the UK in my eyes is public transport and out of that I'm going to pick on the train system I think it is widely accepted that leaving party politics aside the train system in the UK has been woefully underfunded since at least the 1950's.

Therefore if we as a nation want a decent public transport system (and obviously that is a decision the people should make) and hence railway network we are going to have to pump some serious money into it. By that I don;t mean the piddling amounts being thrown at it now, but serious amounts of money to make it modern and efficient and to effectively replace all those years of underfunding.

Trouble is in the current political system it would be 'suicide' if one of the major parties were to stand up and say we are going to raise taxes here and here in order to pay for railway investment for the next ten years. At best the other party would get voted in within four years, at worst members of their own party fearing for their jobs would prevent it happening at all.

So if we can't make long term commitments and plans under the current system we are unlikely to ever be able to change some of the long term problems with the UK. So if that is a given (and maybe it isn't - you tell me) how do we overcome the problem?

Regards,

tiggers.

Brendan Hughes

Aw c'mon, give us a difficult one! Kyoto, speed bumps, and more gatsos!

Vegescoob

Let's look at something more fundamental. Housing. I'm "ahem" mature enough to remember general elections when the two major parties vied with each other about how many houses each would build in the next term.
Now I see good housing as a basic duty of government. A mix of public and private.
Government now, though, seems to have abdicated responsibility for this.
The average wage can't buy the average priced house.
Plus when housing plans are announced someone always objects delaying building.
Btw it's too late to sort rail in this country. Look at French and Swiss railways to see why.

Jye

Who says - a PM near you

Jye

Anyhow, this topic is surely a waste of space, a discussion far too important for mere gas guzzling car fanatics