advertisement


'democracy v2.0' - what would we like to see?

Hold them to account. Legally, and morally. Ensure there are frequent oversight meetings, chaired by individuals not from the party the MP is from, and ask the intrusive questions - don’t let them off the hook as if it’s all a nice club and one ‘won’t push things too far’.

Turn the screw a bit, 1st. Give it a period of time, and see which ones end up leaving. Sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

Use an actual bit of objective, evidence based, problem solving when dealing with bigger issues and, before voting, actually inform (with legal consequences) what the facts are.
 
I have thought many times that there is considerable scope for a new, written constitution in the UK. It may incorporate many of the unwritten elements that already exist, but there is a need for a better / different constitution for the 'modern', 'connected' and 'diverse' world where we are less reliant on throwbacks from the land-owning fiefdoms of yore. It would be a major task and would have to be conducted and proposed by an all party and both houses agreed Royal Commission. It would take a while.
 
JensenHealey said:
I have thought many times that there is considerable scope for a new, written constitution in the UK. It may incorporate many of the unwritten elements that already exist, but there is a need for a better / different constitution for the 'modern', 'connected' and 'diverse' world where we are less reliant on throwbacks from the land-owning fiefdoms of yore. It would be a major task and would have to be conducted and proposed by an all party and both houses agreed Royal Commission. It would take a while.
Click to expand...
I also think that a constitution would have to be forward-looking. Don't write it to fix problems of the past, and present, but to address the problems anticipated for the future. If you write a constitution primarily to deal with the sort of things we all rant on about, that's the wrong basis for the document. A properly written, forward-looking constitution would deal with those issues in any event.
 
The lesson from Ireland would be to confine the Constitution to basic rights of citizens and principles of law, the separation of powers and the operation of the democracy - and leave it at that. The most contentiously amended parts of the Irish constitution have dealt with social matters, which IMO had no place in the fundamental law of any country.

A constitution is not the place to predict the future, as to have any strength it needs to be a mostly unchanging document. As long as you allow amendments, anything that is found to be obsolete can be fixed. The legislature is much more responsive, and that's where changes to future conditions should me made. Amendments should need public consent, but as long as the process ensures that electors know exactly what they're voting for (i.e., the change to constitution, plus any draft legislation that it will enable, is published beforehand) you'll avoid the charade that you had in 2016.
 
To become a modern, fairer democracy the UK needs a modern written Constitution, an independent constitutional court and an "overseer", with powers to dissolve Parliament and call a GE, elected by the people.

And it needs to end the first-past-the-post system.

And it needs a new semi-circular shaped assembly room which can accommodate all MPs and end the obsolete binary structure which is not representative of the real-world diversity of voters and political forces.
As it stands the UK Parliament and its home are archaeological artefacts, interesting only as pieces of old history... I was quite surprised by the comical performance of the Speaker. Conservatism and tradition stand in the way of progress.

But I would like to praise the representative side of the UK's system which is my view is its major asset.
 
FPTP gone and PR in its place.
The Lords replaced by a 50% jury service-type cohort (supported by experts) and 50% of those who can demonstrate a long history of public service, chosen by MPs. Call it the lords. The word 'peer' would really mean something then.
Political parties funded by the state. No private funding or fundraising allowed.
MPs needs to show some evidence of public service and/or work before being selected.
MPs renumerated properly and not allowed to have other jobs while MPs
MPs cannot take any job they had a hand in any legislation for 10 years.
MPs cannot be involved in any area their family or ex-MPs of their own party have a financial stake in.
Areas that Parliament can override the biggest grouping in power, such as publication of inquiries and changes that severely disadvantage/advantage a significant group.
Fixed term parliament. The date of an elections should not be at the preferential political whim of those in power.
A written constitution and bill of rights.
A temporary cap on MPS from Public school/Oxbridge background to last until Parliament more represents the background of the people.
Move the Lords to Birmingham and institutions to the other cities—Treasury to Norwich, Defence to Manchester, Health to Liverpool and so on.
I'd also like to see a move to a federal system.

That'll do for starters.

Stephen
 
Add tighter regulation of political advertisements to the list:

https://medium.com/@WhoTargetsMe/te...-political-advertising-in-the-uk-52764b2df168

This article was linked to in the following Twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/WhoTargetsMe/status/1277962354219552774

which documents the fate of several supposedly grass roots campaigns that pumped out anti-Labour propaganda in the 2019 election campaign. Nobody knows who was behind these organisations, or how they were funded and most of them have now vanished without trace.
 
Last edited:
stephen bennett said:
FPTP gone and PR in its place.
The Lords replaced by a 50% jury service-type cohort (supported by experts) and 50% of those who can demonstrate a long history of public service, chosen by MPs. Call it the lords. The word 'peer' would really mean something then.
Political parties funded by the state. No private funding or fundraising allowed.
MPs needs to show some evidence of public service and/or work before being selected.
MPs renumerated properly and not allowed to have other jobs while MPs
MPs cannot take any job they had a hand in any legislation for 10 years.
MPs cannot be involved in any area their family or ex-MPs of their own party have a financial stake in.
Areas that Parliament can override the biggest grouping in power, such as publication of inquiries and changes that severely disadvantage/advantage a significant group.
Fixed term parliament. The date of an elections should not be at the preferential political whim of those in power.
A written constitution and bill of rights.
A temporary cap on MPS from Public school/Oxbridge background to last until Parliament more represents the background of the people.
Move the Lords to Birmingham and institutions to the other cities—Treasury to Norwich, Defence to Manchester, Health to Liverpool and so on.
I'd also like to see a move to a federal system.

That'll do for starters.

Stephen
Click to expand...

That might be considered taking back control.
 
Three pages in and nobody's mentioned the "Lords Spiritual"...

(I don't believe a directly-elected upper house is necessary, but I'd put a 10-12 year term limit on appointees, and remove the right of the hereditary nobility to appoint members)
 
KrisW said:
Three pages in and nobody's mentioned the "Lords Spiritual"...

(I don't believe a directly-elected upper house is necessary, but I'd put a 10-12 year term limit on appointees, and remove the right of the hereditary nobility to appoint members)
Click to expand...
I think an unelected upper house is helpful in avoiding the sort of political deadlock we see between the chambers in the US, but I would severely limit the political appointments and counterbalance them with some less partisan and more egalitarian appointments. Maybe a people’s jury to appoint members on a one for one basis to the political appointees. The bishops can stay, provided there is an equal number of imams and rabbis. And maybe a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Jedi or two.
 
I really do not like saying this but we do have a lot of thick people and not just because they have a different point of view to me. The standard of politics is at an all time low represented by people that I have zero respect for, known liars who people condone by their vote, politicians who use personal attacks when losing arguments.

The whipping system( and I do not mean the Tory bloke who died wearing a suspender belt and a and plastic bag). Politicians whose only intention is to pursue money for self interest and stuff the people.

Never mind our wonderful press and cobblers to the Levenson enquiry and declare that potential corruption is over and subject closed------------I reserve the right to come back on conut of the year the unelected weirdo Cummings.

Normally COYP but KTRFFH
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
The bishops can stay, provided there is an equal number of imams and rabbis. And maybe a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Jedi or two.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is that soon you're filling up your upper house just to represent the religions. Currently, it's only the Church of England that is afforded the privilege of a say in the running of the country. No representation for Presbyterians or Methodists within the Protestant umbrella, let alone Catholics.

Certainly Islam would deserve a representation, but then how many Shi'a and how many Sunni? Hinduism isn't a single monolithic religion either. The thing would end up as an endless representation-game that ends up creating strife as one faith considers itself under-represented.

Best thing is to make sure that, in general, the composition of the upper house is consistent with the composition of the nation, and remove all quotas.
 
KrisW said:
Best thing is to make sure that, in general, the composition of the upper house is consistent with the composition of the nation, and remove all quotas.
Click to expand...
A randomly selected "jury" as others have suggested would achieve that.
 
KrisW said:
The problem with that is that soon you're filling up your upper house just to represent the religions. Currently, it's only the Church of England that is afforded the privilege of a say in the running of the country. No representation for Presbyterians or Methodists within the Protestant umbrella, let alone Catholics.

Certainly Islam would deserve a representation, but then how many Shi'a and how many Sunni? Hinduism isn't a single monolithic religion either. The thing would end up as an endless representation-game that ends up creating strife as one faith considers itself under-represented.

Best thing is to make sure that, in general, the composition of the upper house is consistent with the composition of the nation, and remove all quotas.
Click to expand...
My reason for including the bishops was because, in my view, they often inject an important moral and ethical dimension to the debates. I’d like to see that increased, and reflect the moral and ethical positions of other important religions, partly for balance, but mostly to get the wider view this could offer. I don’t want to play the numbers game, so small minority faiths don’t have a right to a seat, but those which represent large swathes of the population ought to get a hearing.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
My reason for including the bishops was because, in my view, they often inject an important moral and ethical dimension to the debates.
Click to expand...
Few institutions are more immoral than organised religions.

Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I don’t want to play the numbers game, so small minority faiths don’t have a right to a seat, but those which represent large swathes of the population ought to get a hearing.
Click to expand...
Would the National Secular Society or the Humanists get a few seats then?
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
My reason for including the bishops was because, in my view, they often inject an important moral and ethical dimension to the debates. I’d like to see that increased, and reflect the moral and ethical positions of other important religions, partly for balance, but mostly to get the wider view this could offer. I don’t want to play the numbers game, so small minority faiths don’t have a right to a seat, but those which represent large swathes of the population ought to get a hearing.
Click to expand...
That's the big problem: how one decides which religion is "important" for injecting morality into the public debate. Take Quakerism: famed for its enlightened, almost humanist approach to faith and morality, but it's a tiny religion in terms of the number of adherents. Meanwhile, fundamentalist, exclusionary sects of both Christianity and Islam have many more adherents in the UK simply because their parent religions are so widely observed.

It's just a bad idea. Plus, once you say morality is the reason, there are many secular charitable organisations in the UK that could be appointed too.
 
Woodface said:
Most religious leaders will probably be Tories anyway.
Click to expand...

Actually the bishops in the House of Lords were often clashing with Thatcher over various issues. Still, hoof 'em out is what I say. They're all heretical Prods and doomed to Hell anyway.
 
Joe Hutch said:
Actually the bishops in the House of Lords were often clashing with Thatcher over various issues. Still, hoof 'em out is what I say. They're all heretical Prods and doomed to Hell anyway.
Click to expand...
There was an old saying about CofE being Conservative party at prayer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top