It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Radical Political Reform for Britain

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Politics in Britain isn’t in a good shape, the people of Britain are becoming even more apathetic to the political party’s whose only concern seems to be themselves rather than the people who put them in office.
Party’s are turning to populist policies and false propaganda to gain votes rather than dealing with issues that people want solving.
The main root of this failure is the design of politics in Britain, I have a thought that without political parties in the system we can function as a much more efficient and workable political system where individual ideas and thought are at the front of politics.

My thoughts are as follows:

Bring an end to political party’s, political party’s would cease to exist, no party would then control the Government, thus boosting individuality.
With an end to political parties people would vote for people as candidates rather than a party. This will lead to individual thought rather than mindless obedience to the party. So in Government we would have non-party MP’s rather than MP’s belonging to a party.

All the MP’s are now elected, but we need to sort out who is in charge of what, who is Minister for Education, Health, Sports etc

Now the next process can be done in either of two ways:

------------------------------------------------



Way 1
The MP’s can either remain as a normal MP’s or can put themselves forward for certain positions within the Government, for example MP Bob wants to be Minister for Health but there are also 5 other candidates who want the role, there is then a vote within Parliament to decide who gets the job.

Way 2
The MP’s can either remain as normal MP’s or can put themselves forward for certain positions within the Government, for example MP Bob wants to be Minister for Health but there are also 5 other candidates who want the role, the total of 6 candidates put forward their ideas to the public through various media and the population votes, but the population are also voting for the other positions at the same time, thus electing each major role in the Government.

------------------------------------------------



The roles for the major Minister are now selected, I believe the new minister should then select their team to help them with their area of Parliament.


The Prime Minister can be selected through either Way 1 or Way 2 depending on which is used.

A MP can only stand for one position in Government, for example they can’t put themselves forward to be PM and Minister of Health.

I know there are problems with this idea, but there are also problems with the current system, but I believe something needs to be done before politics begins to stagnate and drag the country into a place of such apathy that a tiny percentage of the country elects our leaders.

I await your thoughts and opinions.




posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Okey dokey Wizard, you asked so here are my thoughts......

(you just knew I wouldn't let you down, right?
)


Originally posted by UK Wizard
Politics in Britain isn’t in a good shape


- That's one hell of an assertion to start with Wizard; I would not be so sure.

I mean, what do you mean by "isn't in good shape"?

We don't have large scale fascist or communist movements with fairly substantial public support with a major 'plank' of their policy being that democracy doesn't work, do we?

......but we used to.


the people of Britain are becoming even more apathetic to the political party’s


- Hmmm.
I too sometimes feel a bit disappointed at the lack of involvement or enthusiasm but you have to appreciate Wizard that sometimes it is a reflection of contentment that people are not especially moved to engage or conversely that an unwillingness to engage is a statement in itself.

I'd say it is complex stuff but at least we are still very far from the US experience of major elections (for many years) incapable of generating much more than 50% of the elligible vote......and at least we are seeing serious efforts by the parties and the gov to boost the numbers voting - for instance despite the recent publicised local difficulties in a few council wards it looks as if postal voting has a good effect on this.

With security tightened up I can see a major and good influence on voting behaviour with this.).


whose only concern seems to be themselves rather than the people who put them in office.


- I think here in the UK you're about to witness the lengths the parties will go to to chase the publics approval.

I don't think that is especially fair.


Party’s are turning to populist policies and false propaganda to gain votes rather than dealing with issues that people want solving.


- I disagree.
Parties formulate policy on the basis of what their mass-membership (who are at least part of 'the public' afterall) decide (and even the tories - very recently - have opened up the party decision making to the membership).

You have to bear in mind that this era where the general membership of the parties do vote and decide on the issues of which policies are adopted, the party proceedures and even the party leadership is pretty recent and it's effects will be marked over time.


The main root of this failure is the design of politics in Britain


- IMO the 'failings' of the UK's 'system' are that it is totally adversarial and this is a consequence of the British class system which has yet to reach a genuine state of 'settlement' and fade out and away as a more 'meritocratic' system comes in.

Sadly we're still awaiting this maturity to establish itself.


Bring an end to political party’s, political party’s would cease to exist, no party would then control the Government, thus boosting individuality.


- I couldn't disagree more strongly.
Parties provide a network of supporting individuals and venues for political activity. They are much more easily identifiable in terms of what they stand for and have a disciplinary system to deal with those who would use and abuse that 'system'.

In short the party helps people know what they are getting and what they are voting for.

(I defy you to look at the umteen statements individuals make within parties or trade unions when seeking positions within the party or trade union and tell me that is a superior way of going about it than our defined party system with their fairly clear policies.

Believe me it is a nightmare and far from easy or quick to follow if you want to do it with any application.......and if you think it is hard to get people to engage as it is? Wow. Try that way!

Never underestimate that people have busy lives too and "politics" in the sense of organisation etc etc is rarely their first concern.)


With an end to political parties people would vote for people as candidates rather than a party. This will lead to individual thought rather than mindless obedience to the party.


- I'd suggest this would produce shameless populism from individuals able to promise the earth and then later blame other individuals who refused to cooperate with their grandeose schemes.


So in Government we would have non-party MP’s rather than MP’s belonging to a party.


-- If you can see 3 main parties having problems working together (and they do) how on earth are the 650 or so MPs (or 400, 500 or whatever you picture reforming this down to) going to do anything for the first several years it takes of the Parliament to agree, settle down and do any actual work?


Way 1
The MP’s can either remain as a normal MP’s or can put themselves forward for certain positions within the Government, for example MP Bob wants to be Minister for Health but there are also 5 other candidates who want the role, there is then a vote within Parliament to decide who gets the job.


- This is a recipe for endless pork-barrel type deals if not outright corruption IMO.


Way 2
The MP’s can either remain as normal MP’s or can put themselves forward for certain positions within the Government, for example MP Bob wants to be Minister for Health but there are also 5 other candidates who want the role, the total of 6 candidates put forward their ideas to the public through various media and the population votes, but the population are also voting for the other positions at the same time, thus electing each major role in the Government.


- Well we already have the select committee system of advise, review and amendment where those with a serious interest in certain areas work (in fact many say this is where the real work of the UK Parliament is done).


I know there are problems with this idea, but there are also problems with the current system, but I believe something needs to be done before politics begins to stagnate and drag the country into a place of such apathy that a tiny percentage of the country elects our leaders.


- I wouldn't get too carried away with the idea that the UK is so crassly apathetic.
As 1997 showed when the public have decidedly 'had enough' of something they come out in their droves and ensure the result just about everyone knew was the mood of the country.


I await your thoughts and opinions.


- Interesting ideas Wizard but there's more of a touch of the 'remedy in seach of a problem' about it to me.

I would be loath to leave the rigour of the party system for a total array of individuality.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
(you just knew I wouldn't let you down, right?
)


somehow I knew it would be you to reply




- Hmmm.
I too sometimes feel a bit disappointed at the lack of involvement or enthusiasm but you have to appreciate Wizard that sometimes it is a reflection of contentment that people are not especially moved to engage or conversely that an unwillingness to engage is a statement in itself.


People have got to the point of saying 'why bother' people I speak to have either voted all their lives or can't see the point in voting, people simply don't see how their one vote makes a difference.


I think here in the UK you're about to witness the lengths the parties will go to to chase the publics approval.


It's not really approval, more of a who does the least damage...



Parties formulate policy on the basis of what their mass-membership (who are at least part of 'the public' afterall) decide (and even the tories - very recently - have opened up the party decision making to the membership).


News to me, thanks.



- I couldn't disagree more strongly.
Parties provide a network of supporting individuals and venues for political activity. They are much more easily identifiable in terms of what they stand for and have a disciplinary system to deal with those who would use and abuse that 'system'.


But are they individuals, or are they simply a small piece of the party, people no longer vote for the individual but rather who the candidate represents.


- Interesting ideas Wizard but there's more of a touch of the 'remedy in seach of a problem' about it to me.

I would be loath to leave the rigour of the party system for a total array of individuality.


The main purpose of my 'little radical thought' was to spark debate on whether the current structure of UK Government is for the best, are we happy with how things are decided or do we want something different.
Are we happy with one big UK parliament or do we want a more devolved design (I know we've talked on this in the past), do we want PR or our current system. Are political parties to blame or ourselves?

The current system does not look likely to change unless people think about it. I'm hppeing this thread will spark a fair few arguements and discussions on what people want out of Government in one sharp or another.


[edit on 10-4-2005 by UK Wizard]


JAK

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
Politics in Britain isn’t in a good shape


I totally agree UK....



Originally posted by UK Wizard
the people of Britain are becoming even more apathetic to the political party’s




Originally posted by UK Wizard

It's not really approval, more of a who does the least damage...


Without a doubt Wiz. I refuse to believe that the majprity of people who will be returning Labour back into power this coming elections are doing so through the belief that they are electing the lesser of two evils. Both parties are aware of this, and comfortably so.

This reason I'm quite certain it is appreciated by Labour is that they are no doubt fully aware it is the exact reason why the Conservative party retained power for so long after the debacle under Labour in the 70's, and the reason that many will use to justify their choice this time round. Presently people voted with fearful memories rather than focusing on the present policies of the opposition, or recent performance of the current government.

And so it is that this circle rolls round again. That's it. That's how the revolving doors of parliament have been working since at least the Labour Government of the 70's. Anyone who doesn't believe that these two parties are not full aware of the situation and hold a vested interest in seeing this jaded loop continue are, imho, guilty of the most wishful thinking. For even naive optimism has its limits.

As for a replacement system though, I have no alternative to mention. Though I might offer a favourite quote of mine attributed to Sir Winston Churchill:


    Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that havebeen tried
To be honest my experience in this arena makes me reluctant to even post my thoughts thus far.

It is excellent though to see anyone from the coming political genration trying to offer fresh ideas. It is all too easy to shoot down such offers, viable or not, it is a lot harder to sit and think upon such things in attempt to offer positive change.


Good on you UK Wizard.

Jack

[edit on 10/4/05 by JAK]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Am a first time voter in the coming elections, still unsure as to who to vote for maybe tactical or might just not bother as i have a choice of labour or libdem. anyway to the point.

I think that keeping the current form of government in the comiing years is probably a bad idea. Brussels is gaining more power, no doubt about it so the continued need for such a large and quite frankly old form of leadership seems slightly needless.

I have had two ideas as to a new solution to govern britain.

1: form guilds for the major indusrties, like guild of teachers, guild of doctors guild of bin men etc... they have elected leaders who have worked up through the ranks so to speak, these leaders then go to form a governemnt with an elected head, i suppose a bit like how the pope is elected, the leaders gather and decide between them who would be best. You would end up with a government who actualy knew what they were talking about!! a new commitee is elected every few years and no one is allowed more than say 4 years unless a public poll wants them to stay longer.

idea 2

2: scrap the governemnt entirely and follow brussels with just the politicianswho are in brussels left. that would scrap a huge amount of "red tape" and would throw us in entirely with brussels rather than messing around on the edges.

(on europe issue either totally in or out, just no hang around waiting 2 c whats happening)

and these are just a few ideas up for debate.

thanks alot



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by rowingcrazy
1: form guilds for the major indusrties, like guild of teachers, guild of doctors guild of bin men etc... they have elected leaders who have worked up through the ranks so to speak, these leaders then go to form a governemnt with an elected head, i suppose a bit like how the pope is elected, the leaders gather and decide between them who would be best. You would end up with a government who actualy knew what they were talking about!! a new commitee is elected every few years and no one is allowed more than say 4 years unless a public poll wants them to stay longer.


I'd like to see the House of Lords turned into something like this, with experts elected for the various 'fields', teaching, physics, sport, military, law and order etc.

idea 2


2: scrap the governemnt entirely and follow brussels with just the politicianswho are in brussels left. that would scrap a huge amount of "red tape" and would throw us in entirely with brussels rather than messing around on the edges.


In my opinion this will mean one of two outcomes:
1. European intergration creating a super nation that others can't compete against.
2. European intergration causing a super nation that does not reflect the views of the people.

I'm all for great trade, diplomatic etc links with Europe but I don't favour intergration there are simply too many problems.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by rowingcrazy
Am a first time voter in the coming elections, still unsure as to who to vote for maybe tactical or might just not bother as i have a choice of labour or libdem. anyway to the point.


When you say you are a first time voter I take it you are younger than 21? Are you at university? Are your friends? If you are at Uni or planning to go next year I would strongly suggest voting for Libdem over Labour. They are pledging to get rid of tuition fees, top-up fees and thus making university affordable for every student. Labour said they would lower top-up fees but the opposite happened. This resulted in tens of thousands of able students who were in a load of debt. Libdems are also saying they will abolish all tuition fees, giving everyone the chance to go to university. Even if you weren’t in the position yourself to go to uni surely you would understand how good that is? For so many people not to have the stress and pressure of debts would open a lot of doors for a lot of people.


I think that keeping the current form of government in the comiing years is probably a bad idea. Brussels is gaining more power, no doubt about it so the continued need for such a large and quite frankly old form of leadership seems slightly needless.


If it’s not broken why fix it?


I have had two ideas as to a new solution to govern britain.

1: form guilds for the major indusrties, like guild of teachers, guild of doctors guild of bin men etc... they have elected leaders who have worked up through the ranks so to speak, these leaders then go to form a governemnt with an elected head, i suppose a bit like how the pope is elected, the leaders gather and decide between them who would be best. You would end up with a government who actualy knew what they were talking about!! a new commitee is elected every few years and no one is allowed more than say 4 years unless a public poll wants them to stay longer.


Yes this sounds like a good idea, may also have its drawbacks though. How would you know who to vote for if an election came up, surely they wouldn’t have the funding for the sort of advertising our MP’s have? When they did get into power what would happen then? Would they carry on doing the job or would they be put in an office and merely be a replacement for our current MP’s?


idea 2

2: scrap the governemnt entirely and follow brussels with just the politicianswho are in brussels left. that would scrap a huge amount of "red tape" and would throw us in entirely with brussels rather than messing around on the edges.


I personally think that Britain's government is a good thing. What would you suggest replace the current government?



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I am currently in the first year of university and the whole issue of top-up fees is stupid, have a £4000 student loan that just covers tuition fees and accomodation, so to actually eat im up to my eyes in bank overdrafts. fun fun. lib dems definatly sounds like a far better party in terms of student fees, and i dislike how labour has lied, or at least left me feeling like they have lied, but to be honest the chances of a lib dem win is remote so im left feeling what is the point.

I am all up for Britain keeping the current from of government as thousands of people have fought over the years to preserve our democracy, however as i see it europe has two choices, either it amalgamates into one "superstate" with central goverenment dictating policy, that is then implemented by nations own boards. Or europe will fail and break apart. I cant see how our current democracy would in any way be anything more than a figurehead of the country if Brussels were to take control.

Either way all am trying to point out is that sitting on the sidelines is not the best place to be in this issue, either in or out. My preference would be to leave the EU, but this is only because otherwise we will end up as a satelite province of Brussels.

My idea to clarify a little more is this, (this isnt serious just an idea as an alternate form, idea from terry pratchett if any inspiration i guess).
School, then once finished you could join a guild at bottom level, or stay on to sixth form, then have another opportunity to apply to maybe more important guilds or even do away with sixth form altogether and you join a guild of your chocie when you are 16 say.

Then you work your way up how well you perform, how gifted you are, the leadership of the guild is elected by the entire guild every year or two or three dosnt matter, from the "masters, those who have progressed to their best and so know how the thing works. A board of say 10 could be picked, then from these 10, 2could be elected by the board to represent their intrests in a "parliament" that would run the country, an equal number of free politicians could be elected by a free nationwide vote with the primeministerbeing the one who has themost votes, or who could be elected by the entire board once voted in by the free vote.

you would end up with a government composed of half professionals who kenwwhat they were talking about and half representing the people as a whole. The whole thing could be reelected every 3 years, why not, and sombody couldnt serve more than 2terms.
This way every profession would be represented and politicians would truly represent the peoples will, rather than our current system which i think is pretty much an elected dictator for 4 years.

Fair enough if it aint broke dont fix it...but if it isnt broken why do most people not bother to vote?? I believe it to be because people cant see the point as it dosnt matter who is in charge, because it dosnt change and dosnt effect them. Who says we cant try new things? Current form of government is hundreds of years old steeped in tradition, WHY do WE need it in the 21st century?

(When i say this i mean in the long term, more tax, less tax, yes each party will change a little bit, but im sure since the start of democracy in this country if you took an average of everything and compared it to advancements in technology and standard of living, im sure you would find everything rises proportioanly through the years.
Anyway, why cant we try sumthing new? it might work better, it might, european union is new, an so far just seems to be soaking up money but not many people are complaining.

thanks for reading

(ps this is just to clear up my thoughts, if its any clearer)






top topics



 
0

log in

join