Political Reform

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • Only then provide upward scope for the constituency elected winners to (also) oversea a cluster of adjoining constituencies, ie regions. Those who rise to that regional position through merit and voter approval will, after a reasonable innings, make their next step, to rise up the pyramid to be amidst a small select and elected group who run central government.

    But how would this happen in practice? Would they get elected into government?

    At this exalted stage the identity of their political origins and Left vs Right orientation would and should cease to be relevant. What a relief to get rid of that tedious partisanship. This dynamic board of directors would have an equal vote in making decisions. Their chairman would be Prime Minister (CEO) and would have a casting vote in a deadlock.

    Why do you assume that political affiliation would wither away? It could be the opposite. Councils are filled with generations of political hacks, quite often married to each other. Your suggestion could make it easier for such people to get into government, could it not?

    I'm not saying I dislike the pyramid idea, I don't, just not sure how it would work and how effective it would be.

    As for PM, would the PM be the boss, or could the PM be overruled by cabinet colleagues?

    (Thatcher and Blair were more akin to presidents who could not be overruled, whereas as Major and others were the total opposite who wanted to have "consensual" cabinet and got nowhere.)

  • As before, every 5 years there would be a general election at a constituency level, and at a regional level, and at a central government level. I think voters can place more than one tick at a time without having a nervous breakdown. For the 2nd and 3rd ticks (regional and central) the choice should always include "don't know".


    That way we get rid of the ambiguity as to whether people are voting for a local constituency leader or a national leader.


    Obviously in the first year of this new General Election method, it will commence as usual with constituency voting but with the 2nd vote being for regional elected politicians for a cluster of adjacent constituencies and the 3rd vote being politicians electable to central government. It will at the beginning of this new method require some short cuts or ranked votes to build the pool at these 2nd and 3rd levels but in the general election 5 years later the pool will have been established at each of the three levels and the short cuts can be disposed of.

    I like the idea of removing the ambiguity between voting for a national leader and other politicians, but I'm still not sure how they could rise up this pyramid of yours.

    What would be the process that turns a local politician into a regional one and eventually into a national one? If you vote for a local politician, they would stay at that level, so I don't understand your mechanism for how the "cream" would rise to the top.

    Would it always have to be "proper" politicians under your system? Meaning, what if there were a prominent businessman or scientist who wants to take on the statesmanship mantle and become PM. Could there not be a mechanism for them to become PM without involving themselves in the "dirt" of local or regional politics?

  • As for the House of Lords, the only vital change in their legal status that will be needed is to stop them making a nuisance of themselves by being able to sabotage the decision-making of a fairly elected central government. Personally, I think the House of Lords should be closed down or restricted purely to an advisory role. They might have been useful even in their doddery condition to oversee A Ship Of 650 Fools but once we have ended the madness of a board of 650 directors, the overseeing by a mixed bag of wise or dotty geriatrics becomes more a hindrance rather than a help.


    These are just first thoughts summarised. There are other details but I don't want overload my proposal with too much detail at this stage.


    The key point is that 650 MP's is no way to run a country and make decisions. If Britain means business it needs to behave in a businesslike way. None of this proposal is in conflict with the paramount need that all societal needs (not just business-related) that must and will be delivered. Obviously it's not "mob democracy", it's not even "popular democracy", instead I think it's "dynamic democracy" operated by a high grade of politicians who have risen to the top demonstrably by performance.

    I think we have a House of Lords thread already, but as this has become our new home to discuss electoral reform, in here will do just fine.

    After their Brexit votes, I am in no doubt... Abolish the lot of them!

    Overload away with anything you've got! But, can I add an idea of my own into the mix here?

    The referendum has shown what direct democracy can do, ie give a voice to the people. I say that should be the model for the future meshed into your dynamic politics idea.

    Abolish both chambers of parliament. Have a government with a PM and minsters, but key decisions (not the detail) are made by the people via referendums using technology. (Most of the old folks will be gone by then and everyone will have internet and direct voting capabilities.)

  • Thank you so much for torture testing my radical proposal in such a constructive way. At first glance most of your points seem fair comment. some quite inspiring or inventive and 'll address all of them in the next 24-36 hours. I've already dictated some notes to myself on your comments

  • Reply to all Horizon's comments on my suggested government reform:

    Am I suggesting getting rid of 650 MP’s? Yes. Too many of them are just like “middle management”, waste of space and money. But to be less ruthless, by all means let’s just demote them to what they really are: constituency MP’s. Which is surely a just reward to those MP’s who defend their rebellion against what their Government recommends by claiming that their first allegiance is to their constituency (utter bullshit). So let’s make allegiance come true, where they can concentrate on the needs of their constituency.

    You make the point that the great majority of the 650 MP’s don’t make decisions or even implement decisions. Too right! That’s why I am proposing we push them down the pyramid to a local constituency level (which I call level 1)

    Am I proposing duplicating the local government hierarchy below these newly demoted MP’s who now concentrate solely on overseeing the whole of their constituency? Definitely not, that was just my sloppy writing, At the more local level (town halls, parish committees etc etc) I’m sure there is a great deal of wastage or featherbedding or pompous pontificating, as well as plenty potential for merging with adjacent local authority areas - but that’s another story.

    Your proposal of mayors is a perfect solution to separate the local constituency government wheat from the chaff. As you point out, there is already a trend in that direction. Possibly this is the job definition of the constituency overseer who performs well enough to rise to level 2 (a group of adjacent constituencies, ie regions).

    I don’t understand your question about how constituency winners/overseers (level 1) get elected. They get elected just as they do at present but now with upward career scope to level 2 (a region comprising a cluster of adjacent constituencies), who you rightly suggest could be called mayors (but with a title that differentiates them from “major mayors” overseeing a conurbation like London or Manchester).

    I agree with you that the background details of politicians at all three levels cannot and should not conceal their left wing or right wing views (and all the other background political attitudes or “baggage”) but my contention is that, as they progress up the pyramid from level 1 to 2 to 3, their political ideologies and partisanship will decrease in importance or at least cease to be ideological labels to which politicians feel they must adhere. After all, if level 3 has a “board of directors” that mixes politicians of left and right wing views, this will surely encourage politicians at all levels to give more thought to the intrinsic merit of the decisions that lie before them rather than deciding to what ideological label that decision belongs. Implicit in all of this is that politicians will be elected at all levels and each voter will decide on what values are held by that politician and whether those values match the voter’s. It forces voters to think rather than just blindly attach themselves to Labour, Conservative, Liberal, UKIP or Screaming Lord Sutch. Partisanship gets in the way of Thinking Democracy for both voters and politicians. I’m working on the confident premise that since we live in a Capitalist rather than Communist or Marxist society, voters will be disposed to concentrate on the issues in a more nuanced rather than dogmatic way, in juxtaposition with the quality, character and values of politicians running for election rather than their partisanship ideology.

    Like you, I too was wondering how the PM/CEO gets to be appointed. It could be by the “board of directors” in level 3. That would be preferable to letting the electorate decide. We need to get away from political elections being a beauty contest. Those operating at level 3 can and should be entrusted on who they nominate as their leader. As usual, every 5 years there is a General Election where the voters (ie Britain PLC shareholders!) can note for boardroom replacements, including the CEO/Prime Minister. This is the equivalent of an AGM but once every 5 years. If the CEO/Prime Minister was discovered well before the 5 Yearly General Meeting to be a nincompoop and a national embarrassment (eg Theresa May) then the board can call an EGM (Extraordinary General Meeting) and replace that nincompoop. I think that vote should confined to those on the board (level 3) and maybe also level 2, who are already a potential source of new blood for level 3.

    As for insisting on unanimous voting for decisions made by level board of directors, we have surely seen how that paralyses decision making (eg UN, EU, Nato) and I would propose majority voting or maybe two thirds majority for major decisions (which will require an agreed definition of what constitutes a “major” decision).

    Board members whose vote was overrode by a majority will need to understand that they must get behind that decision rather than bitch about it in public, otherwise they could be expelled by the board. Political infighting and backstabbing will become a rarity rather than today’s norm. This is not to gag free speech but simply to pay heed to collective responsibility - or resign.

    I thoroughly agree with your suggestion of opening up level 3 (and maybe also level 2) to non-politicians, in particular, to eminent or highly talented people in business, science or other vocations who would like to serve their country but are sickened by the idea of joining the indecisive Madhatter’s Tea Party that characterises Westminster today. For those in a position to take at least a leave of absence from business, this seems to me to have far more substance than just offering a knighthood or OBE.

    As for abolishing The House of Lords, I’m with you all the way on that. I was just being kind in trying to abolish them with a gentler landing. After all, there must be some good minds in the upper house who are worth retaining, perhaps as a small chamber of bright (or at least non-gaga) experienced dignitaries who could offer a second opinion on anything important when the board (level 3) is divided. But purely advisory. It is the CEO/PM who is entitled to break any deadlock boardroom vote.

    I keep referring to level 3 as a Board of Directors and a CEO just to get across that effective government needs to be more businesslike, more efficient and, above all decisive. But I also realise we need better nomenclature otherwise it will smack of a government having been privatised and there would be an uproar if citizens thought that,

    Where you and I part company entirely is when you say “the referendum has shown what direct democracy can do, ie give a voice to the people and that should be the model for the future meshed into your dynamic politics idea”. Frankly, it kills my idea stone dead and I really do give up if most people share your thought (hard to know when you’re the only person in this forum who has responded, which in itself is pretty dispiriting). I strongly believe far too much voice has been given to the people, which causes politicians to be craven to public opinion rather than provide strong leadership. It reminds me of the joke of the average political leader saying “this is what the public have decided and as their leader I shall follow them”. Britain is a divided nation; most nations are divided to some extent but Britain particularly so. The toughest task for a politician is to still make decisions for a greater good, to accept that there will be winners and losers and to somehow optimise without comprising to the point where the decision is so flaccid that it becomes ineffective, neither one thing nor the other.

    Of course, keep up to date with what citizens want (level 3 must never be an ivory tower) but once you let “The People” call the shots the country ends up being run by a mob rather than a government that citizens voted for to look after their interests. Giving a voice to the people makes democracy dysfunctional.

    Yeah sure, you will argue that you’re only talking about a “voice to the people” for key decisions, not the detail. Like leaving the EU?! A proper level 3 government would know that no-one in their right minds living in and identifying with Britain (with all its flaws) would wants to relinquish British sovereignty and instead become just one of one of 27 member states that takes orders from a centralised government whose aim is to federalise the whole of Europe, including taking charge of our borders, laws, economics and terms of trade with countries outside of federalised Europe. Those that want to remain in the EU either dissociate from what Britain represents or have turned a blind eye to what the EU has become and where it is heading. Only a British government of morons would conduct a referendum that simply asks citizens “do you want to remain or leave?” and only a government of morons would interpret a 52-48% preference to leave as an adequate mandate to leave and then spend 3+ years being unable to make proper arrangements to do so. There are so many easier, more effective, quicker non-moronic ways of handling this, none of which involves screwing up the process by “giving voice to the people”, let alone voice to 650 MP’s, let alone to a House of Lords, let alone to a bunch of high court judges.

  • You make the point that the great majority of the 650 MP’s don’t make decisions or even implement decisions. Too right! That’s why I am proposing we push them down the pyramid to a local constituency level (which I call level 1)


    Am I proposing duplicating the local government hierarchy below these newly demoted MP’s who now concentrate solely on overseeing the whole of their constituency? Definitely not, that was just my sloppy writing, At the more local level (town halls, parish committees etc etc) I’m sure there is a great deal of wastage or featherbedding or pompous pontificating, as well as plenty potential for merging with adjacent local authority areas - but that’s another story.

    Ok, but I'm still confused about your layers of bureaucracy between level 1 (local) and level 2 (regional).

    You said you would push MPs down to level 1/local level, so lets take London as a example of how this would work. We have borough councils and the GLA, are you suggesting that the MPs replace borough councillors and those positions would be abolished? And would I assume correctly that the MPs powers would be limited to decide when streets get cleaned and who deals with constituents rubbish, rather than national issues like defence?

    I don’t understand your question about how constituency winners/overseers (level 1) get elected. They get elected just as they do at present but now with upward career scope to level 2 (a region comprising a cluster of adjacent constituencies), who you rightly suggest could be called mayors (but with a title that differentiates them from “major mayors” overseeing a conurbation like London or Manchester).

    I still don't get how someone gets from level 1 to level 2 and then possibly to level 3 eventually. There is a contradiction in what you say. Here is your original comment:

    By all means run an election for a winner in each of the 650 constituencies but limit their jurisdiction to the constituency and its wards and parishes and polling districts, for which there are already local government elections for councillors etc. Only then provide upward scope for the constituency elected winners to (also) oversea a cluster of adjoining constituencies, ie regions. Those who rise to that regional position through merit and voter approval will, after a reasonable innings, make their next step, to rise up the pyramid to be amidst a small select and elected group who run central government.

    The bit I've highlighted is the contradiction I am questioning.

    To rise up the pyramid through merit and ability is something I fully agree with, but how does that tally with free elections? Those elected into office may not have merit, they also may not have any ability, so I don't see how your system is any different from today's one.

    The cream rises because its the best, or not. Which is it? You go on to say this:

    I agree with you that the background details of politicians at all three levels cannot and should not conceal their left wing or right wing views (and all the other background political attitudes or “baggage”) but my contention is that, as they progress up the pyramid from level 1 to 2 to 3, their political ideologies and partisanship will decrease in importance or at least cease to be ideological labels to which politicians feel they must adhere. After all, if level 3 has a “board of directors” that mixes politicians of left and right wing views, this will surely encourage politicians at all levels to give more thought to the intrinsic merit of the decisions that lie before them rather than deciding to what ideological label that decision belongs. Implicit in all of this is that politicians will be elected at all levels and each voter will decide on what values are held by that politician and whether those values match the voter’s. It forces voters to think rather than just blindly attach themselves to Labour, Conservative, Liberal, UKIP or Screaming Lord Sutch. Partisanship gets in the way of Thinking Democracy for both voters and politicians. I’m working on the confident premise that since we live in a Capitalist rather than Communist or Marxist society, voters will be disposed to concentrate on the issues in a more nuanced rather than dogmatic way, in juxtaposition with the quality, character and values of politicians running for election rather than their partisanship ideology.

    I like the first bit that those who get to the top could be from any political persuasion and hopefully their political ideologies would probably have been jettisoned by then anyway. But the bit I've highlighted above is still a contradiction here.

    You're giving a lot of weight to voters will decide what "values" the politicians have and whether they are closely aligned to their own values. Like Tony Blair, voters might vote for someone because they think he sounds nice on tv or looks nice. Merit doesn't come in to it. Plus, how would voters know what values the candidate has?

    I like the idea of the cream rising to the top, but I don't see that by simply electing people, which is exactly what we do now at all levels, how this would change things.

  • Like you, I too was wondering how the PM/CEO gets to be appointed. It could be by the “board of directors” in level 3. That would be preferable to letting the electorate decide. We need to get away from political elections being a beauty contest. Those operating at level 3 can and should be entrusted on who they nominate as their leader. As usual, every 5 years there is a General Election where the voters (ie Britain PLC shareholders!) can note for boardroom replacements, including the CEO/Prime Minister. This is the equivalent of an AGM but once every 5 years. If the CEO/Prime Minister was discovered well before the 5 Yearly General Meeting to be a nincompoop and a national embarrassment (eg Theresa May) then the board can call an EGM (Extraordinary General Meeting) and replace that nincompoop. I think that vote should confined to those on the board (level 3) and maybe also level 2, who are already a potential source of new blood for level 3.

    Again, contradiction. Either the Board votes for PM or not. I like the idea of the lower tier possibly having a say in the matter, though.

    As for insisting on unanimous voting for decisions made by level board of directors, we have surely seen how that paralyses decision making (eg UN, EU, Nato) and I would propose majority voting or maybe two thirds majority for major decisions (which will require an agreed definition of what constitutes a “major” decision).

    So, the PM could not override such decisions if the Board took a majority decision. Correct?

  • As for abolishing The House of Lords, I’m with you all the way on that. I was just being kind in trying to abolish them with a gentler landing.

    Err, I disagree. They cost a fortune. Lets get rid of them immediately before they do any more damage!

    After all, there must be some good minds in the upper house who are worth retaining, perhaps as a small chamber of bright (or at least non-gaga) experienced dignitaries who could offer a second opinion on anything important when the board (level 3) is divided. But purely advisory. It is the CEO/PM who is entitled to break any deadlock boardroom vote.

    Could have a small council of elders filled with ex-politicians who've have had senior roles in government like Tebbit or Baker or past experience in industry and science like Lord Winston.

    Giving a voice to the people makes democracy dysfunctional.

    Agree. Hence my query at the contradictions.:P (I do know you're talking about referendums in this bit)

    Elections make democracy dysfunctional. The Chinese system is very efficient, do we really want that here or Putin's style of government?

    Where you and I part company entirely is when you say “the referendum has shown what direct democracy can do, ie give a voice to the people and that should be the model for the future meshed into your dynamic politics idea”.

    Ok, I've just quoted the first bit of your final section arguing against referendums. But you appear to be saying that if the level 3 Board of Directors had been in place under your system, the UK never would have gone into the EU in the first place. Thus making things such as referendums irrelevant, as the Board would always make the right decisions.

    Is that a fair summing up?

    If that is correct, then I disagree. Cameron, Thatcher, Heath etc weren't twits and yet they all believed in the EU, well Thatcher did to begin with... It was their opinion that led to the mess we are in now. That's the problem, opinion.

    If the Board, under your proposals, has a different opinion to that of the vast majority of the electorate, what do we do about it? Simply having a election every 4-5 years is not good enough if this Board is working against our interests.

  • Thanks Horizon for torture testing my proposal. In spite of my occasional belligerent or arrogant responses I'm truly grateful to you for helping me strengthen my argument

    Re your query about layers of bureaucracy between level 1 local and level 2 regional. Sorry, I still haven’t made myself clear enough. Level 1 is what we have at present in a constituencv, viz a person who wins the general election or a by-election becomes a constituency leader and they’re called MP’s. That’s who I call level.1, overseeing all the more local stuff beneath that doubtless needs to be made more efficient or with fewer cooks spoiling the broth but, as I said,, that another story.

    But even so I’m not suggesting our elected constituency overseer is the person to sort out missed garbage collections. He is a link between that constituency he oversees and the regional or conurbation mayor (level 2) who, in turn has the ear of the Board of Directors (level 3). Because let’s face it, there are too many constituency MP’s wasting Westminster’s time and it’s got worse ever since the House of Commons let in TV cameras.

    You ask how to get from level 1 to level 2: it’s as I said, by merit and voter approval. Are you now going to ask me what I mean by merit and voter approval (these two criteria can and should be interrelated). Remind me again, when did you become my boss?! Figure it out! It’s not complicated!

    As for how my proposed system is different from what we do today, I can’t believe you’ve forgotten the key point: central goverment, level 3, now has a dozen or so board directors, not 650.

    You raise a good challenging point about how voters can make a reliable assessment. I think you must come to terms with the fact that voters are not clairvoyant. But it matters less at Level 1 because a two-faced winning candidate can’t do much damage at level 1 and, if performance falls short of electioneering promises, that candidate is not going to make it to Level 2.

    It’s not a contradiction that the board votes for the PM or does not. It’s an option. Or a loose end to be resolved. Did you really think I was submitting a detailed final plan?!

    Absolutely correct that the PM can’t override the board decision. It’s not like the New Yorker cartoon where the chairman says to the board: “let me tell you what I think, with my majority shareholding, and then you guys can tell me what you think”,

    Re Your suggestion that the small chamber of advisors includes people like Tebbit. Perfect example. They don’t make enough like him anymore.

    Re giving a voice to the people, maybe I’m taking you too literally or you me. No one can argue that elections are the bedrock of democracy. But when you talk about “giving a voice to the people” I interpret that as something more. I envisage a never ending parade of people protesting virulently about anything and everything and such excitability becomes fractious and encourages anarchy or riots. Mental health is a growing problem. Democracy has much need of calmness and good manners. The only exception to polite acceptance of an opposing viewpoint is where protesters or street speakers are recommending insurgency, particularly that which comes from Islam preachers, where a disturbing amount is within mosques. But I digress!

    As for your point about too much efficiency and crowd control that can lead to a Chinese or Putin or Erdogan style of Government. I can’t be bothered arguing about slippery slopes or the thin edge of the wedge. Most issues are a matter of degree rather than binary and it is a cheap or pointless argument to fret about where to draw the line. It’s a judgement thing.

    Where did I say a board of well qualified directors would never have gone into the EU in the first place? All I can be confident of asserting is that a board of intelligent well qualified, experienced politicians at Level 3 would almost by definition be far less likely to make decisions that are moronic or ill-considered or narrow-minded or irrationally ideological or politically egotistical – because that pretty much describes what happens when you give too much power to tossers like Cameron, May and Heath. At least with a board of directors we get a safety net against a CEO or PM who has lost his or her way. I excluded Thatcher only because the EU she chose to join wasn’t the ugly “basket-case” it has become today. Also, prior to Mrs Thatcher going loopy or despotic, can you imagine her accepting the kind of crap from the EU which Cameron and May were willing to put up with?

    Be all that as it may, only a fool would claim that my broad outline proposed restructure of the political democratic process is foolproof and would guarantee all decisions to be unerringly correct. But c’mon, you surely realise that. Don’t you?

    If the Board, under your proposals, has a different opinion to that of the vast majority of the electorate, what do we do about it? Simply having a election every 4-5 years is not good enough if this Board is working against our interests.

    Finally you ask what happens if the Board has a different opinion to that of the vast majority of the electorate and you suggest that simply having an election once every 4-5 years isn’t good enough. I find this question naive. We already have this problem with our present government and when we look at the alternative we are between a rock and a hard place. All we can do is try to improve the quality of our ELECTED representatives and give them room to do their job, of deciding, negotiating and implementing in our country’s best interests. What do you suggest we do at the moment if our government unexpectedly starts to perform in a way that is at odds with the majority of the electorate. Riot? Okay, that worked with Thatcher’s Poll Tax but by then she had gone loopy and despotic so it serves her right that she got defeated. The Poll Tax was logical its downside was it was cruel or unfair. The range of taxes aimed at different segments of society becomes in the end philosophical rather than logical. In a board of directors Thatcher’s Poll Tax would I’m sure have been outvoted.

    As for your other suggestion, of having a general election more often than every 4-5 years, are you wanting the government to improve this country only with short-term fixes because their appointment is only on a short term contract? If you can’t come to terms with the idea of trusting a government and giving the freedom and length of time to prove themselves, dare I suggest you are possibly not quite at ease with democracy? Actually nor me!

  • You ask how to get from level 1 to level 2: it’s as I said, by merit and voter approval. Are you now going to ask me what I mean by merit and voter approval (these two criteria can and should be interrelated). Remind me again, when did you become my boss?! Figure it out! It’s not complicated!

    Well, not for you, but I'm still none the wiser. Someone is either elected regardless of their attributes or some other system comes into play here.

    As for how my proposed system is different from what we do today, I can’t believe you’ve forgotten the key point: central goverment,level 3, now has a dozen or so board directors, not 650.

    No it does not. Parliament has the 650, government has about 50. Two dozen cabinet members (the Board) and another 30 or so junior ministers.

    You raise a good challenging point about how voters can make a reliable assessment. I think you must come to terms with the fact that voters are not clairvoyant. But it matters less at Level 1 because a two-faced winning candidate can’t do much damage at level 1 and, if performance falls short of electioneering promises, that candidate is not going to make it to Level 2.

    Voters are not clairvoyant, but many of them are busy and many are lazy. I just do not see how the cream will automatically rise to the top, it still seems to me that it could be the scum that rises as tends to be the case now. But perhaps with MPs being axed from national governance, it might make allow better candidates come in at the lower levels and then rise.

    It’s not a contradiction that the board votes for the PM or does not. It’s an option. Or a loose end to be resolved. Did you really think I was submitting a detailed final plan?!

    Either the PM is elected or appointed by the Board. It cannot be both, that makes no sense. I await your detailed final plan with interest.

    Absolutely correct that the PM can’t override the board decision. It’s not like the New Yorker cartoon where the chairman says to the board: “let me tell you what I think, with my majority shareholding, and then you guys can tell me what you think”,

    Re Your suggestion that the small chamber of advisors includes people like Tebbit. Perfect example. They don’t make enough like him anymore.

    Ok. That's all clear and I agree.

    Re giving a voice to the people, maybe I’m taking you too literally or you me. No one can argue that elections are the bedrock of democracy. But when you talk about “giving a voice to the people” I interpret that as something more. I envisage a never ending parade of people protesting virulently about anything and everything and such excitability becomes fractious and encourages anarchy or riots. Mental health is a growing problem. Democracy has much need of calmness and good manners. The only exception to polite acceptance of an opposing viewpoint is where protesters or street speakers are recommending insurgency, particularly that which comes from Islam preachers, where a disturbing amount is within mosques. But I digress!

    Firstly, I am unsure about referendums and I am not suggesting having them for every minor decision, or have a weekly people's vote or any other such nonsense. I am suggesting the possibility that the electorate gets a direct vote on key matters only where there is a simplistic binary choice offered. I am fully aware the details and implementation is anything but simplistic. This al depends on the length of government terms which I'll mention in a minute.

    Also, prior to Mrs Thatcher going loopy or despotic,can you imagine her accepting the kind of crap from the EU which Cameron and May were willing to put up with?

    Accept she signed every European treaty put in front of her. No, No, No, turned out to be yes, yes yes.

    Be all that as it may, only a fool would claim that my broad outline proposed restructure of the political democratic process is foolproof and would guarantee all decisions to be unerringly correct. But c’mon, you surely realise that. Don’t you?

    If the Board,under your proposals, has a different opinion to that of the vast majority of the electorate, what do we do about it? Simply having a election every 4-5years is not good enough if this Board is working against our interests.

    I agree, nothing can be foolproof, but I don't see how we can prevent the very situation we are currently experiencing with our current system if it were to be replaced by your system.

    The range of taxes aimed at different segments of society becomes in the end philosophical rather than logical. In a board of directors Thatcher’s Poll Tax would I’m sure have been outvoted.

    Cast your mind back here... admittedly it was a long time ago!

    Thatcher never wanted the poll tax, she was against it. During that period she was still getting overruled by her cabinet, until she started to get rid of ones she disagreed with.

    Not such a good example to cite.:)

    As for your other suggestion, of having a general election more often than every 4-5 years,are you wanting the government to improve this country only with short-term fixes because their appointment is only on a short term contract? If you can’t come to terms with the idea oftrusting a government and giving the freedom and length of time to prove themselves,dare I suggest you are possibly not quite at ease with democracy? Actually nor me!

    I never stated I wanted a election more frequently. Are you suggesting elections every 10 years or so, perhaps??

    ====

    Points we agree on:

    Abolish both the House of Commons and their 650 MPs and the House of Lords.

    Perhaps have a small chamber/council of elders to advise government.

    Cabinet is made up of the best people possible and decisions are made by majority vote. PM does not have deciding vote.

    Have three tiers of government: local, regional and national with the possibility that regional government may have mayors.

    Agree that current government is too short term in nature.

    Points of contention:

    How to ensure the best people rise up the pyramid and the method, especially how the top level, cabinet level, is formed.

    The fact that MPs still exist, albeit at a lower level than the current system, but at a higher level than councillors, hence creating another tier of bureaucracy at local government level. (I'll come back to this in a minute with a possible solution.)

    Referendums. We may not actually disagree about them, as I am unsure as to whether they are a long term solution or not.

    length of term of government.

    =====

    My biggest issue with your proposals is as said, that MPs exist. We need less politicians, not more! Here's a suggestion:

    Each council ward (level 1) gets one elected councillor only. (My area has three councillors each! Bloody waste of money.X() This councillor deals with purely local matters like rubbish collection, street cleaning etc. As presently, the councillors meet and discuss local issues and they answer to either a council head or MP who may or may not be directly elected too.

    Each council head/MP (whatever the term maybe) has a dual role. They sign off on local council budgets, but on bigger projects, they need approval from the regional level. Thus, each head of the councils in any given area come together and they form the regional government, level 2.

    The heads of the level 2 regional governments are the Mayors (or whatever term you wish to use) and they come together to discuss how the regional (level 2) issues affect each other's areas and they sign off on inter regional projects aka national projects. Either these people are the level 3 national government, or they have a direct say on who becomes a cabinet/board member. Ie, they may wish to appoint the best business/academic minds to government.

    Or, something like that.:)

    The important thing is that each level is distinct from each other, does not duplicate roles or responsibilities and its clear how someone goes up the pyramid of power. What I'm not clear on is who gets elected beyond the basic level one councillor and the method to decide who becomes the head at whatever level it maybe.

  • Someone is either elected regardless of their attributes or some other system comes into play here.

    I don't understand your confusion. They get elected by those living in their constituency. Of course it's based on their attributes. What did you think I had in mind - blindfolded with a pin?! Inevitably their attributes will in many cases tend towards the superficial but we can hardly bar from the polling station page 3 Sun "readers"! That's democracy!

    No it does not. Parliament has the 650, government has about 50. Two dozen cabinet members (the Board) and another 30 or so junior ministers.

    In the immortal words of youth: whatever

    Voters are not clairvoyant, but many of them are busy and many are lazy. I just do not see how the cream will automatically rise to the top, it still seems to me that it could be the scum that rises as tends to be the case now. But perhaps with MPs being axed from national governance, it might make allow better candidates come in at the lower levels and then rise.

    Change automatically to "tend" or "more likely". We're talking about improvements within the realms of human nature, we're not dealing here with an improved specification for a telegraph pole. In other words, think probability. Your last sentence is definitely one of the answers I would have given you. Also, by introducing Levels 2 and 3 into voters' field of vision you are encouraging them and those candidates campaigning for those higher Levels, to deal with issues more National, even multi-national rather than just their own back yard. Voters would be aware that any politician who wants to rise to that higher level (because he has paid his dues on Level 1) will be expected to campaign in a way which demonstrates that he has what it takes to ascend the pyramid. I have to believe that under this system Theresa May would be unlikely to be voted to go higher than Level 1 except by mistake but even then, as a Level 2 Mayor, I'm pretty sure she would crash and burn rather than ascend further.

    Either the PM is elected or appointed by the Board. It cannot be both, that makes no sense. I await your detailed final plan with interest.

    I'm pretty sure it should either be a board appointment or also include those at Level 2.

    Firstly, I am unsure about referendums and I am not suggesting having them for every minor decision, or have a weekly people's vote or any other such nonsense. I am suggesting the possibility that the electorate gets a direct vote on key matters only where there is a simplistic binary choice offered. I am fully aware the details and implementation is anything but simplistic. This all depends on the length of government terms which I'll mention in a minute.

    I'm trying to think of binary referendums. Should Charles be King? Should Camilla be Queen? Should BBC TV be financed by voluntary annual subscription just like with Sky TV rather than a compulsory TV licence?

    The trouble is that all of these referendum questions have wheels within wheels or require a fair amount of background information or pros & cons, to enable a considered choice. The really important stuff like "should the NHS go private?" is impossible to turn into a binary vote. I suspect we'd only be able to have binary referendums on trivial or unimportant stuff and the turn out would be really poor - especially after the farce of the EU referendum.

    Except Thatcher signed every European treaty put in front of her. No, No, No, turned out to be yes, yes yes.

    If only it was a board of directors. The idea that one demagogue could sign that treaty supported by a bunch of yes men clinging to office is precisely why we need a new system. That board of directors would call in an international lawyer to explain the treaty and its implications.

    But I still Thatcher would have been good fighting Britain's corner when the EU got ugly and showed its true colours.

    I agree, nothing can be foolproof, but I don't see how we can prevent the very situation we are currently experiencing with our current system if it were to be replaced by your system.

    Once again, think probability. I'm talking about encouraging the positives and discouraging the negatives. Do you recall a song along those lines?!

    Thatcher never wanted the poll tax, she was against it. During that period she was still getting overruled by her cabinet, until she started to get rid of ones she disagreed with.


    Not such a good example to cite

    Actually it is a good example insofar that with a quality board of directors they would be making this decision by discussing and then voting on it, whereas in Thatcher's reign she was surrounded with a strange mix of nervous or passive courtiers and low profile advisers, which is an underhand rather than businesslike way to run a Government. The two supporters for the Poll Tax were Oliver Letwin and Lord Rothchild. I mean, for Chrissakes, Letwin worked for Rothchilds? Oliver Letwin has a great brain and on that alone he will always be a considerable asset in Government (a bit like Keith Joseph) but his political nous and common sense was always suspect. I can understand Thatcher's desire to sidestep loony left councils by switching from easy money for misspending local councils based on rateable value to a poll tax correlated with volume of use of local council services. But I could also see the financial hardships and injustices which Thatcher ignored and her "cabinet of vegetables" lacked the courage and common-sense to address as a first priority before implementation. Wasn't all of this during Thatcher's declining years and the arrival of the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" syndrome?

    I never stated I wanted a election more frequently. Are you suggesting elections every 10 years or so, perhaps?

    Sorry, I thought you were. Were you just playing devil' advocate?

    I think 5 years for a GE is about right.

    Points of contention:


    1) How to ensure the best people rise up the pyramid and the method, especially how the top level, cabinet level, is formed.


    2) The fact that MPs still exist, albeit at a lower level than the current system, but at a higher level than councillors, hence creating another tier of bureaucracy at local government level. (I'll come back to this in a minute with a possible solution.)

    Referendums. We may not actually disagree about them, as I am unsure as to whether they are a long term solution or not.

    length of term of government.

    I think I've already dealt with (1)

    On your point (2) I agree that Level 1 constituency overseers (demoted MP's) could be fattening up bureaucracy. But I think from level 1 DOWNwards thee needs to be a purging and the salary of some of these councillors is quite obscene compared with that of MP's. I think a constituency overseer (okay, a mini mayor) could justify his or her salary. Besides, just getting these 650 MP's out of clogging up Westminster is the big prize here.

    As you say, "something like that". Anything to cut away the jobworths, timeservers, tinpot status seekers, power-crazies and pompous busybodies.

  • This is my first post, British politics as it is is failing the general population on many accounts

    1. Multiculturalism is creating a devide in our communitys. I.e. the lack of integration with cultures and a backlash if a minority group is criticised

    2. The current established politicians are out of touch with the majority of people. Privately schooled and groomed for their roles

    3. Corruption is rife within the system. Big money can influence policy easily

    4. our geopolitical standing continues to be errored by the current government due to them being inadequate for the job

    5. Groups of extreme left and right constantly undermining eachother

    6. Brexit being mishandled. We have been a country for a very long time and an empire in the past. But current MPs seem to think we are incapable without the EU.. who are becoming more and more like a certain German party in the 30s to 50s...

    My point is, if the system is failing on so many points why can't we look for solutions instead of those in power clinging on and insisting that a system that was made centurys ago should continue.

    If you have any suggestions or comments on this please let me know

  • Hi Rmarriott and welcome to the forum from a fellow member.

    Agreed. The status quo is unacceptable on so many levels.

    Once we have full restoration of our democracy we can change things. The first step is Brexit, and it doesn't end there. We need to get the message across to politicians that many people have woken up 'politically' and are no longer going to accept 'no choice' (to us) and just accept whatever the politicians want, in defiance of the electorate.

    Politics in the western world is going to be very interesting over the next few years. The UK isn't the only country that is concerned about the direction that politicians are taking us.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • 1. Multiculturalism is a PC led disaster , every country has a dominant culture,if it gets chipped away, problems start , end of.

    2. Where do you want politicians to come from ? , I agree people with true political passion are better than people with ology degrees but then you would get Remainer type bile of being called thick and stupid.

    3. Ever heard of trade unions? , they are the worst culprits as the Labour conference will again show.

    4. Our politicians are not eroding our standing imho , political correctness is , as being proud of your country is to be frowned upon.

    5. Nothing new .

    6. Totally agree .

    Finally , welcome to the forum

  • "Drop the deal or we'll contest EVERY single seat': Nigel Farage declares war on Labour AND Tories - delivering Boris Johnson a November 14 deadline to abandon his EU agreement and form a pact with Brexit Party"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7…REDS-seats.html

    Call his bluff and let him put up all these candidates

    We cannot have an unelected charlatan dictating government policy, he has stood for Westminster I think seven times and never won

    What, you prefer elected charlatans dictating government policy, do you? :D

  • Like the democratic process is alive and well, and sitting comfortably on the green benches of the HoC, when those very elected representatives are hell-bent on overturning the wishes of those who voted for them? It isn't called 'democracy' mate, it's called oligarchy.

    oligarchy

    noun

    1. a small group of people having control of a country

    https://www.google.com/search?q=oliga…chrome&ie=UTF-8

    The beauty of democracy is that if you don't like what your elected representatives do, you vote them out

    "A small group of people having control of a country". a fitting description of Farage and co, a man who has stood 7 times for election in the UK and never won

  • I don't know why you have 'a thing' about Farage, but it you'd been him in those circumstances you'd have found out that it isn't easy to take on the Establishment?

    I think that Farage is the greatest danger to democracy we have ever faced, he is responsible for the divisions and hatred that festers in the UK. A charlatan who constantly generates self publicity

    I would lock him up in the Tower, and throw away the key

    There was a glimpse of the real Farage when Susannah Reid tackled him on GMB. He was boasting about why him and his fellow travellers (Ann Widdecombe, how could anyone vote for her) turned their backs in the European Parliament

    She pointed out that he hadn't turned his back on the salary, his fury was palpable

  • The beauty of democracy is that if you don't like what your elected representatives do, you vote them out

    "A small group of people having control of a country". a fitting description of Farage and co, a man who has stood 7 times for election in the UK and never won

    But we don't have a democracy do we, we have an oligarchy? Do you not agree that we have an oligarchy then?

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!