UK Thread? UK Thread.

[Kirrig]

It's true. The Economist good as said so.

Maybe you could poke people over to the Republican thread, rather than discussing it here?

It'd breath some new life into it.

I tried that. I think the ratios put people off.

[Teebeestroika]

Going back to the first post in an effort to drag this back on topic...

So, considering the fantastic situation that the UK is in, what the christ do we do? What is wrong and how do we fix it? Can we fix it? Are you a nutty libertarian that thinks the UK can't be fixed and needs to be destroyed? Are you a little nationalist who wants to kick it in? Are you a rabid Tory that thinks the lazy need to be starved back into work and the ragged youth of BROKEN BRITAIN need to be spanked into line? Do you want a socialist revolution or to suck up to America even more than current? Maybe you think the UK would be better off if everyone learned Swedish? Please tell me.

We're a democratic country, so we fix this through democracy. It's all about public opinion, and chasing votes. Our two main parties have nearly identical policies, because they are vote-chasers. They both walk a tightrope between giving us everything they think we want and not making the country bankrupt. If there's a party that is fairly close to your own political position, joint it, and be active, gain internal influence and bend their policies towards your point of view. Become a candidate, get elected, and stand up for what;s right in parliament. I know it sounds impossible, but it's exactly how those 600-odd people who are MPs got there. If no party is close to your views, form one, and stand for election. You'll lose, but if you're clever, you'll take a few votes away from whoever wins, while making friends with them, and letting them know what to do to make you stand against someone else next time. Get interviewed by the papers, talk sense and change a few minds. You'll never win anything, but you'll swing public opinion a bit, and the big parties will inevitably chase that swing.

[Fnordgasm 5]

Going back to the first post in an effort to drag this back on topic...

So, considering the fantastic situation that the UK is in, what the christ do we do? What is wrong and how do we fix it? Can we fix it? Are you a nutty libertarian that thinks the UK can't be fixed and needs to be destroyed? Are you a little nationalist who wants to kick it in? Are you a rabid Tory that thinks the lazy need to be starved back into work and the ragged youth of BROKEN BRITAIN need to be spanked into line? Do you want a socialist revolution or to suck up to America even more than current? Maybe you think the UK would be better off if everyone learned Swedish? Please tell me.

We're a democratic country, so we fix this through democracy. It's all about public opinion, and chasing votes. Our two main parties have nearly identical policies, because they are vote-chasers. They both walk a tightrope between giving us everything they think we want and not making the country bankrupt. If there's a party that is fairly close to your own political position, joint it, and be active, gain internal influence and bend their policies towards your point of view. Become a candidate, get elected, and stand up for what;s right in parliament. I know it sounds impossible, but it's exactly how those 600-odd people who are MPs got there. If no party is close to your views, form one, and stand for election. You'll lose, but if you're clever, you'll take a few votes away from whoever wins, while making friends with them, and letting them know what to do to make you stand against someone else next time. Get interviewed by the papers, talk sense and change a few minds. You'll never win anything, but you'll swing public opinion a bit, and the big parties will inevitably chase that swing.

I support the abolition of political parties.. What should I do?

[Kirrig]

Going back to the first post in an effort to drag this back on topic...



We're a democratic country, so we fix this through democracy. It's all about public opinion, and chasing votes. Our two main parties have nearly identical policies, because they are vote-chasers. They both walk a tightrope between giving us everything they think we want and not making the country bankrupt. If there's a party that is fairly close to your own political position, joint it, and be active, gain internal influence and bend their policies towards your point of view. Become a candidate, get elected, and stand up for what;s right in parliament. I know it sounds impossible, but it's exactly how those 600-odd people who are MPs got there. If no party is close to your views, form one, and stand for election. You'll lose, but if you're clever, you'll take a few votes away from whoever wins, while making friends with them, and letting them know what to do to make you stand against someone else next time. Get interviewed by the papers, talk sense and change a few minds. You'll never win anything, but you'll swing public opinion a bit, and the big parties will inevitably chase that swing.

I support the abolition of political parties.. What should I do?

Independent MP? Either that or form a political rave...

[Horsefish]

I support the abolition of political parties.. What should I do?

Revolution is clearly the only logical way to gain your aims.

Man the barricades!

[Salandriagado]

2) Monarchies are, on average, more democratic than democracies.

Maths

All data from wiki page on Democracy Index.

[Teebeestroika]

I support the abolition of political parties.. What should I do?

Convince a majority of MPs you're right, convince the leader of the leading party you're right, or form a party in favour of abolition and win a general election...

...or just crack jokes about it on forums, your call :-)

[Angleter]

We're a democratic country, so we fix this through democracy. It's all about public opinion, and chasing votes. Our two main parties have nearly identical policies, because they are vote-chasers. They both walk a tightrope between giving us everything they think we want and not making the country bankrupt. If there's a party that is fairly close to your own political position, joint it, and be active, gain internal influence and bend their policies towards your point of view. Become a candidate, get elected, and stand up for what;s right in parliament. I know it sounds impossible, but it's exactly how those 600-odd people who are MPs got there. If no party is close to your views, form one, and stand for election. You'll lose, but if you're clever, you'll take a few votes away from whoever wins, while making friends with them, and letting them know what to do to make you stand against someone else next time. Get interviewed by the papers, talk sense and change a few minds. You'll never win anything, but you'll swing public opinion a bit, and the big parties will inevitably chase that swing.

If we're talking about fixing the British political system, here's what I think is needed:

1. Open primaries. Have constituents vote for who will stand as the local Tory/Labour candidate. That way, the candidate returned shall represent more the views of the constituents who voted for them, not the selection committee or (even worse) the party's central HQ and its 'A-List' or what-have-you. In safe seats, you get a proper choice of candidates, albeit within the one party, as opposed to one divinely-ordained victor. We may even have primary losers enter the general election and appeal to the other parties' supporters. The alleged old-boys' clubs in control of local parties would see their power dashed, perhaps paving the way for a more diverse Commons. Daniel Hannan writes.

2. Party funding reform. The Tory Party owes its support and existence to various business chiefs, who we can only assume get something other than general centre-right policies in return. The Labour Party, when not under Tony Blair (when it was more like the Tories), owes its support and existence to various trade unions, who we can only assume get something other than general centre-left policies in return. So, I think it best that we ban private donations above a certain figure (shall we say £50k a year? Needs a closer look), and publicly fund parties instead- like in Canada (I think) it can be based on how well the party did at the last election, or perhaps with the two leading parties receiving equal public funding. Furthermore, it would have to be so that the primaries not fall under the influence of money (and party HQ/selection committees should be banned from 'endorsements').

3. Reduce whips' power. The Hansard Society suggested this sort of thing a few years back. Select committees being made more independent of party whips' control would provide a more robust critic of government departments, while Parliamentary Private Secretaries exist almost entirely as a kind of patronage for the ambitious and to reduce the power of independent thought amid backbenchers. Furthermore, I would suggest legislation that only allowed the use of three-line whips on certain, important, kinds of votes. There are all other kinds of possible actions swirling about that would also reduce the whips' power.

4. The West Lothian Question. Sort this out by banning MPs from voting on legislation which is devolved in their area and thus would not affect them. There is no point to an English Parliament. Personally, I'd have suggested that devolution should, if at all, taken the form of devolved issues being voted on only by the MPs from (say) Scotland, but alas, we decided to have whole new legislatures and elections and buildings and everything, and there's really no turning back now on that.

These things, I think, as unlikely as it is that they actually end up being enacted, would do far more to improve our political system than any electoral reform or Lords reform (although that is a mess that could do with being sorted out, and I've posted at length on that issue) would.

[Fnordgasm 5]

If we're talking about fixing the British political system, here's what I think is needed:

1. Open primaries. Have constituents vote for who will stand as the local Tory/Labour candidate. That way, the candidate returned shall represent more the views of the constituents who voted for them, not the selection committee or (even worse) the party's central HQ and its 'A-List' or what-have-you. In safe seats, you get a proper choice of candidates, albeit within the one party, as opposed to one divinely-ordained victor. We may even have primary losers enter the general election and appeal to the other parties' supporters. The alleged old-boys' clubs in control of local parties would see their power dashed, perhaps paving the way for a more diverse Commons. Daniel Hannan writes.

2. Party funding reform. The Tory Party owes its support and existence to various business chiefs, who we can only assume get something other than general centre-right policies in return. The Labour Party, when not under Tony Blair (when it was more like the Tories), owes its support and existence to various trade unions, who we can only assume get something other than general centre-left policies in return. So, I think it best that we ban private donations above a certain figure (shall we say £50k a year? Needs a closer look), and publicly fund parties instead- like in Canada (I think) it can be based on how well the party did at the last election, or perhaps with the two leading parties receiving equal public funding. Furthermore, it would have to be so that the primaries not fall under the influence of money (and party HQ/selection committees should be banned from 'endorsements').

3. Reduce whips' power. The Hansard Society suggested this sort of thing a few years back. Select committees being made more independent of party whips' control would provide a more robust critic of government departments, while Parliamentary Private Secretaries exist almost entirely as a kind of patronage for the ambitious and to reduce the power of independent thought amid backbenchers. Furthermore, I would suggest legislation that only allowed the use of three-line whips on certain, important, kinds of votes. There are all other kinds of possible actions swirling about that would also reduce the whips' power.

4. The West Lothian Question. Sort this out by banning MPs from voting on legislation which is devolved in their area and thus would not affect them. There is no point to an English Parliament. Personally, I'd have suggested that devolution should, if at all, taken the form of devolved issues being voted on only by the MPs from (say) Scotland, but alas, we decided to have whole new legislatures and elections and buildings and everything, and there's really no turning back now on that.

These things, I think, as unlikely as it is that they actually end up being enacted, would do far more to improve our political system than any electoral reform or Lords reform (although that is a mess that could do with being sorted out, and I've posted at length on that issue) would.

This man/woman/person-thing makes sense.

[Kirrig]

We're a democratic country, so we fix this through democracy. It's all about public opinion, and chasing votes. Our two main parties have nearly identical policies, because they are vote-chasers. They both walk a tightrope between giving us everything they think we want and not making the country bankrupt. If there's a party that is fairly close to your own political position, joint it, and be active, gain internal influence and bend their policies towards your point of view. Become a candidate, get elected, and stand up for what;s right in parliament. I know it sounds impossible, but it's exactly how those 600-odd people who are MPs got there. If no party is close to your views, form one, and stand for election. You'll lose, but if you're clever, you'll take a few votes away from whoever wins, while making friends with them, and letting them know what to do to make you stand against someone else next time. Get interviewed by the papers, talk sense and change a few minds. You'll never win anything, but you'll swing public opinion a bit, and the big parties will inevitably chase that swing.

If we're talking about fixing the British political system, here's what I think is needed:

1. Open primaries. Have constituents vote for who will stand as the local Tory/Labour candidate. That way, the candidate returned shall represent more the views of the constituents who voted for them, not the selection committee or (even worse) the party's central HQ and its 'A-List' or what-have-you. In safe seats, you get a proper choice of candidates, albeit within the one party, as opposed to one divinely-ordained victor. We may even have primary losers enter the general election and appeal to the other parties' supporters. The alleged old-boys' clubs in control of local parties would see their power dashed, perhaps paving the way for a more diverse Commons. Daniel Hannan writes.

2. Party funding reform. The Tory Party owes its support and existence to various business chiefs, who we can only assume get something other than general centre-right policies in return. The Labour Party, when not under Tony Blair (when it was more like the Tories), owes its support and existence to various trade unions, who we can only assume get something other than general centre-left policies in return. So, I think it best that we ban private donations above a certain figure (shall we say £50k a year? Needs a closer look), and publicly fund parties instead- like in Canada (I think) it can be based on how well the party did at the last election, or perhaps with the two leading parties receiving equal public funding. Furthermore, it would have to be so that the primaries not fall under the influence of money (and party HQ/selection committees should be banned from 'endorsements').

3. Reduce whips' power. The Hansard Society suggested this sort of thing a few years back. Select committees being made more independent of party whips' control would provide a more robust critic of government departments, while Parliamentary Private Secretaries exist almost entirely as a kind of patronage for the ambitious and to reduce the power of independent thought amid backbenchers. Furthermore, I would suggest legislation that only allowed the use of three-line whips on certain, important, kinds of votes. There are all other kinds of possible actions swirling about that would also reduce the whips' power.

4. The West Lothian Question. Sort this out by banning MPs from voting on legislation which is devolved in their area and thus would not affect them. There is no point to an English Parliament. Personally, I'd have suggested that devolution should, if at all, taken the form of devolved issues being voted on only by the MPs from (say) Scotland, but alas, we decided to have whole new legislatures and elections and buildings and everything, and there's really no turning back now on that.

These things, I think, as unlikely as it is that they actually end up being enacted, would do far more to improve our political system than any electoral reform or Lords reform (although that is a mess that could do with being sorted out, and I've posted at length on that issue) would.

Two and Three, yes. Four maybe. One, no.

I think that a far better option would be to introduce a system like MMP that retains electoral seats and introduces proportional representation in the form of list seats.

[Angleter]

Two and Three, yes. Four maybe. One, no.

I think that a far better option would be to introduce a system like MMP that retains electoral seats and introduces proportional representation in the form of list seats.

Why not 1?

As for MMP, we would either end up with an inordinate number of MPs, gigantic constituencies to which there'd be little point, or no substantive change at all. If the proportional list is to balance things out (like Scotland has), we would end up with the proportional seats almost entirely filled with Liberal Democrats, making their frontbench, who would take the top of their list, almost completely unaccountable to anyone.

[Teebeestroika]

If we're talking about fixing the British political system, here's what I think is needed:

1. Open primaries. Have constituents vote for who will stand as the local Tory/Labour candidate. That way, the candidate returned shall represent more the views of the constituents who voted for them, not the selection committee or (even worse) the party's central HQ and its 'A-List' or what-have-you. In safe seats, you get a proper choice of candidates, albeit within the one party, as opposed to one divinely-ordained victor. We may even have primary losers enter the general election and appeal to the other parties' supporters. The alleged old-boys' clubs in control of local parties would see their power dashed, perhaps paving the way for a more diverse Commons. Daniel Hannan writes.

2. Party funding reform. The Tory Party owes its support and existence to various business chiefs, who we can only assume get something other than general centre-right policies in return. The Labour Party, when not under Tony Blair (when it was more like the Tories), owes its support and existence to various trade unions, who we can only assume get something other than general centre-left policies in return. So, I think it best that we ban private donations above a certain figure (shall we say £50k a year? Needs a closer look), and publicly fund parties instead- like in Canada (I think) it can be based on how well the party did at the last election, or perhaps with the two leading parties receiving equal public funding. Furthermore, it would have to be so that the primaries not fall under the influence of money (and party HQ/selection committees should be banned from 'endorsements').

3. Reduce whips' power. The Hansard Society suggested this sort of thing a few years back. Select committees being made more independent of party whips' control would provide a more robust critic of government departments, while Parliamentary Private Secretaries exist almost entirely as a kind of patronage for the ambitious and to reduce the power of independent thought amid backbenchers. Furthermore, I would suggest legislation that only allowed the use of three-line whips on certain, important, kinds of votes. There are all other kinds of possible actions swirling about that would also reduce the whips' power.

4. The West Lothian Question. Sort this out by banning MPs from voting on legislation which is devolved in their area and thus would not affect them. There is no point to an English Parliament. Personally, I'd have suggested that devolution should, if at all, taken the form of devolved issues being voted on only by the MPs from (say) Scotland, but alas, we decided to have whole new legislatures and elections and buildings and everything, and there's really no turning back now on that.

These things, I think, as unlikely as it is that they actually end up being enacted, would do far more to improve our political system than any electoral reform or Lords reform (although that is a mess that could do with being sorted out, and I've posted at length on that issue) would.

You'd be surprised how many MPs would (at least privately) agree with you on all those points.

Daniel Hannan (who you linked to) is a great person to read if you're knee-jerk tory-hater, he's part of the sane libertarian right, a faction that I dearly hope gains the upper hand in the Conservative party.

[Kirrig]

Two and Three, yes. Four maybe. One, no.

I think that a far better option would be to introduce a system like MMP that retains electoral seats and introduces proportional representation in the form of list seats.

Why not 1?

As for MMP, we would either end up with an inordinate number of MPs, gigantic constituencies to which there'd be little point, or no substantive change at all. If the proportional list is to balance things out (like Scotland has), we would end up with the proportional seats almost entirely filled with Liberal Democrats, making their frontbench, who would take the top of their list, almost completely unaccountable to anyone.

There must be a balance between cost, practicality and democracy. One does not provide it.

It needs not be MMP, there is the list seat low Supplementary Member (SP). The number of MPs does not need to change either, if as I understand it, some electorates elect multiple MPs. That said, some of the smaller ones could be merged as necessary.

[Teebeestroika]

Truly open primaries have a number of problems - ballot-stuffing by opposition parties, and the question of what to do about independent candidates. They also don't work well for new parties who haven't built up much of a voter base yet, and have to choose which seats they can afford to stand in (running a full set of candidates costs £325,000-ish to get on the ballot paper, and at least the same again to do the bare minimum campaigning of 1 leaflet delivered per household.)

[Angleter]

Why not 1?

As for MMP, we would either end up with an inordinate number of MPs, gigantic constituencies to which there'd be little point, or no substantive change at all. If the proportional list is to balance things out (like Scotland has), we would end up with the proportional seats almost entirely filled with Liberal Democrats, making their frontbench, who would take the top of their list, almost completely unaccountable to anyone.

There must be a balance between cost, practicality and democracy. One does not provide it.

It needs not be MMP, there is the list seat low Supplementary Member (SP). The number of MPs does not need to change either, if as I understand it, some electorates elect multiple MPs. That said, some of the smaller ones could be merged as necessary.

Open primaries would cost very little. It could be postal, or held at a venue such as the local party association. Any administrative costs could be recouped by demanding a small payment (say, £2) from voters. As for the effect then on party membership, Hannan writes that Warrington South Tories gained 200 new members after they held a form of primary or caucus for their 2005 selection. I can't see it being too costly or too impractical.

Ah! Supplementary member! That's the Scottish system I mentioned. And I think ending single-member constituencies would be worse for the MP-constituent link as any introduction of proportionality. There are no smaller constituencies, other than on the islands (and that's for obvious reasons).

[Fnordgasm 5]

What about the ability for the constituents to recall their MPs? I believe that in the wake of the expenses scandals the three major parties said they would support such a thing but I don't know if anything has been done about it.

[Angleter]

What about the ability for the constituents to recall their MPs? I believe that in the wake of the expenses scandals the three major parties said they would support such a thing but I don't know if anything has been done about it.

There's another idea. Sort of being done. My main concern with that, however, is that it could be open to abuse in marginals while the sitting MP's party is unpopular. How many LibDems, do you think, could get recalled now?

[Fnordgasm 5]

What about the ability for the constituents to recall their MPs? I believe that in the wake of the expenses scandals the three major parties said they would support such a thing but I don't know if anything has been done about it.

There's another idea. Sort of being done. My main concern with that, however, is that it could be open to abuse in marginals while the sitting MP's party is unpopular. How many LibDems, do you think, could get recalled now?

I imagine all of them. It's strange considering the outrage that would have occurred if they'd sided with labour and how many of their own policies they've managed to sneak in that people hate them so much..

[Kirrig]

What about the ability for the constituents to recall their MPs? I believe that in the wake of the expenses scandals the three major parties said they would support such a thing but I don't know if anything has been done about it.

There's another idea. Sort of being done. My main concern with that, however, is that it could be open to abuse in marginals while the sitting MP's party is unpopular. How many LibDems, do you think, could get recalled now?

I'd stay to discuss this, but it is 4:05am here.

[Tagmatium]

There's another idea. Sort of being done. My main concern with that, however, is that it could be open to abuse in marginals while the sitting MP's party is unpopular. How many LibDems, do you think, could get recalled now?

I'd stay to discuss this, but it is 4:05am here.

Sleep is for the weak.

[Angleter]

There's another idea. Sort of being done. My main concern with that, however, is that it could be open to abuse in marginals while the sitting MP's party is unpopular. How many LibDems, do you think, could get recalled now?

I imagine all of them. It's strange considering the outrage that would have occurred if they'd sided with labour and how many of their own policies they've managed to sneak in that people hate them so much..

Hmm. I'd only support a recall system if the MP in question has been found first by the proper channels to have done something wrong. They're meant to have a mandate for the entire Parliament, not until public opinion turns a bit. It risks going into some form or permanent election.

[Teebeestroika]

Sleep is for the weak.

I think you mean weekend?

[Fnordgasm 5]

I imagine all of them. It's strange considering the outrage that would have occurred if they'd sided with labour and how many of their own policies they've managed to sneak in that people hate them so much..

Hmm. I'd only support a recall system if the MP in question has been found first by the proper channels to have done something wrong. They're meant to have a mandate for the entire Parliament, not until public opinion turns a bit. It risks going into some form or permanent election.

Reading up on it they were proposing forcing a by-election if 10% of their constituents sign a petition. Honestly, that sounds really low..

[The Matthew Islands]

I imagine all of them. It's strange considering the outrage that would have occurred if they'd sided with labour and how many of their own policies they've managed to sneak in that people hate them so much..

Hmm. I'd only support a recall system if the MP in question has been found first by the proper channels to have done something wrong. They're meant to have a mandate for the entire Parliament, not until public opinion turns a bit. It risks going into some form or permanent election.

It would of been useful for Luton South the constituency next to mine (Luton North) to have been able to recall Margaret Moran.

I'm pretty lucky since my MP is honest Kelvin Hopkins. Even though he's a little to left for me...

[Trixiestan]

Give Queen a new royal yacht for diamond jubilee, says Michael Gove

Exclusive: Education secretary proposes taxpayers fund gift – likely to cost at least £60m – to mark 'momentous occasion'

EDIT:

From a different forum:

I know it's several months late but..

She needs a new 60 million pound yacht not an alternative voting system.