Off Topic Political Debate

I sadly suspect that the political threads have disheartened the overall board usage. I try not to get too involved anymore except when I see blatant lies or deliberate misinterpretations of whatever the facts may be. That said...
As to this country, we have notionally democratic processes but not a real democracy. That's why we're in the mess we're in. It reinforces the "we're right, you're wrong" attitudes so prevalent today. There is little in the way of trying to form a real consensus, meaningful discussion and doing the best for all the people - to create a better society for all. Too much nepotism, jobs for the boys, money going to money, greasy palms and absolute self interest and be damned everyone else. I have long been disillusioned with our political system with the exception, ironically, of the situation of an unelected chamber and the reigning Monarch as an influential yet ultimately powerless figurehead.
I do see a need to reform the HoL but, frankly, I find the idea of a second elected chamber thoroughly objectionable, particularly if installed using the current voting system. Perhaps a nominated chamber, pooling our finest minds: engineers; teachers; physicians; economists; philosophers; scientists; architects and so on, to serve the nation rather than serve a political party? As to the monarchy, as you will all know I have no truck with the "divine right of kings" but as a relatively impotent institution I am happy to support the status quo as it is infinitely superior to that of a self serving president... witness the corruption across the pond.

 

I'd expect you to want the last word. No-one asked you to scroll back. I was simply saying what I did and why there seemed little point in pursuing it. I think it's fairly common to use 'deafening silence' to indicate little positive interaction. Confirms why I shouldn't waste time on this. Adios!

 

Have it your own way Theo. All I did was to ask for imput in order to have a starting point for debate, and I think any neutral reader could see that.

 

Thanks for the imput Fez. Just one question - I often hear of PR in the UK. as being accompanied by a second chamber, why is that ? It is perfectly possible to change the first chamber into a partly PR and partly direct mandate assembly. All you do is double the constituency size to ensure only around half of the MPs get in through direct mandate, and the others come from a reserve list of candidates who round up the totals for each party based on PR. It means some MPs are sitting there representing constituencies and some aren't - there is no need for a second chamber. Conceivably a second chamber could be made up - perhaps as representatives of the regions in a decentralized state, but it is not absolutely necessary.

 

I do like the notion of a second chamber representative of people from all walks of life. It should not be tied electorally to the first chamber other wise it simply becomes a nodding donkey. Can't think of the words! I also like any way that free thinkers not tied to party ideology can have a key role in our parliament and government.


Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

 

I don't remember what you said about PR Theo.. For me some sort of representation that is not bound to adversarial party politics has to be better than the first past the post set up we have now in most of our electoral processes. We desperately need a politics that moves to inclusivity.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

 

I don't know how you can get away from party politics Yorkie. The problem is that any candidate for any election who does not have a party behind them would end up having to pay for their own election campaign - so either they need to have sufficient funds or they need sponsors. This is the situation for many Senators in the USA and the danger is that it cements the relationship between politics and big business.

 

I guess one way round it would be to allow a move to multi party government which for me comes back to a version of PR.. Plus a place in our system for non party politicos as Fez describes..
The two party system is too unwieldy and just creates a politics which is somehow dishonest as mps have to toe a line they don't believe in.
As you have mooted I think we need a more powerful local democracy.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

 

Now you're getting technical! I've not seen a process I'm happy with, I just know what I'm not happy with
I think a second chamber is a good safety net.... usually.

 

As a Civil Servant I often fear appearances at the HoL more than the HoC. A lot of the members care way more about a lot of stuff than those in the other place and ask the questions you can't or don't want to answer. The Lords Ministers hate it because they know they have to answer the question - within reason obviously. I love attending debates there --as long as I have a dictionary in my jacket pocket!

 

There always seems to be more reason and common sense and less partisan drivel... Mind you also a little more dozing!

I think age /wisdom has a lot to do with it...

I'm many indigenous cultures a lot of faith is put in the elders...

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

 

Our current system is hopeless! The adversarial aspect , historical, but also the layout of the commons and also our natiornal attitudes, all contribute to a system that now doesn’t reflect the diversity of our country. It worked well when 90% of the electorate chose 1of 2 parties.
FPTP is almost childish. But it suits the 2 main parties, so neither is inclined to give it up.
Even so, a great deal of the Commons rules and procedures and conventions seem profoundly undemocratic. For example, the charade that is PMQ’s. The questioner had 1 (orvif leader of the opposition 6) questions. If thePM chooses not to answer the question, there is no redress. So it becomes pointless. The Speaker should be able to rule in whether a question had been answered. If not, the question should be put again. A judge in a court can require an answe. The Commons is organised in similar lines but with one side (government) controllong almost all of the proceedings. The degree of control exercised by government usually is out of all proportion to the choices voters made. A hung parliament does a good job indirectly in that it exposes the nonsense. The whip system undermines the credibility of MP’s by forcing them to vote against their own thinking, or risk excision.
The Brexit debate may have done a service in exposing just how hopeless our system had become. (It had certainly exposed just how useless the current government is.)
I have always believed in PR , using single transferable vote, but despair that we could even get this right with our current members of Parliament.
I regret that this contribution is unfocused . I am so frustrated that we have no statesmen able to show leadership. Perhaps any system would suffer with the pygmies we have at present.

 

Thanks for saying as Fez has done... What I want to say..
Come the revolution (joking) I would knock down the present building or turn it in to a museum etc. And build a parliament in the almost round...
Sadly the statesmen and women in the major parties have been silenced in the main.. So common sense is very rare..

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

 

Maybe with the cross bench element it does stop either main party from pushing through legislation without proper scrutiny. I also agree that far more sense can be heard in the Lords on some of the big issues. The Lords Brexit committee had been to Ireland, investigated the problems, and had a report long before the Commons even seemed to know where it was.
It is quite laughable to see votes being called and the MPs wandering off for twenty minutes to cast their preference when there is so much that needs to be discussed. Tradition maybe, but hardly businesslike. Really time for electronic voting.
I am also worried that the Cabinet has too much power v the elected MPs. Yes there needs to be a smaller body to consider and propose legislation, but a better mechanism needs to be found to prevent their views being rammed through against the wishes of the MPs. This system has been extended down to local government, and many councillors are now little more than sheep being told what they must vote for.

 

It is a beautiful building and really ought only be used for ceremonial purposes. It is not fit for purpose. One of the guys I collaborated with and graduated with was a middle/senior ranking member of the conservation team at the Palace of Westminster (treated me to two warts and all tours, good man that he is) when the serious nature of the problems were exposed and he was quite vociferous (privately) in his "not fit for purpose" assessment of the building particularly the Commons, however beautiful it is....
So we have: an undemocratic voting system; an unfit parliamentary building; some pretty outdated parliamentary processes and procedures; arguably more than 2/3 MP's not fit for purpose, let alone serving the country; a second chamber that is also in desperate need of a shake up.

"Come the revolution?" Well, we're not anywhere near there yet but something needs to change PDQ before we are.

 

You have summed up my frustration in far less words. Would you like to be a n MP- I’d vote for you!
Meanwhile, I implore everyone to read ‘on fantasy island’ by Conor Gearty.

 

I'm far too honest to be a politician, nor do I have the temperament, but I thank you! I will add the book to my holiday reading... three weeks to go!

 

Ditto I will look it up...

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

 

Just read the blurb.. Looks to be an important book... And actually may inform discussion as I have never understood why the government is so hung ho about HR legislation except for what might be sinister reasons

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

 

Labour nine points ahead in the polls, time to dissapear Theresa.