It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The silent revolution

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:21 AM
2008 will be known as the year of democratic reform to the United Kingdom, a revolution that no body noticed.

Firstly, a new Bill of Rights (or values) will be introduced to Parliament in the coming weeks for debating and consultation. However, the Bill of Rights 1689 is still in legal force and has never be altered. Why change it?


Party funding, voting system and powers of the House of Commons are being increased and changed. The government is aiming to build a more accountable, representative and democratic system for Parliament, in hope to tackle voter apathy. Also, voting will be compulsory..democracy at gun point me thinks

My views are good, the current system is a monolithic unfair and old fashion animal. The Commons has become a gentlemens club, the government tends to ignore it. But stripping of Royal powers will make the House very strong and significant once again. Restoring the arcane pillars is fundamental in building and improving the foundations of the United Kingdom.

And, most importantly, the average citizen wants more power and control over their own lives. "People power" could help bring about a silent revolution to our land.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:22 AM
reply to post by infinite

Well done mates!

Here's hoping it works out for you.

Now, if we could only return the power to the people here in the states, there might be a ray of hope for this world after all...

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:56 AM
All very grand in design, but will it actually bring any change?

Can't say I am hopeful to be honest, given the reputation of this Government. Maybe they can change my views on them with some radical thinking, but I think they know their time is limited unless they make the right noises, so all this could just be a facade.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link much for the compulsory voting. Gordon scrapped that.

In fact, it was a good start...but not radical enough. I'm in favour of scrapping the whip and allowing MPs to be MPs! instead of forcing them to back up the government.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:02 AM
reply to post by infinite

Constitutionally, Parliament does not recognise individual Political parties, so the "Whip" is, technically, some what against the very being of parliament. MP's are elected to represent your constituency, not to be doing some parties bidding. When you vote, you vote for the individual, not the party he "represents".

Personally I think they should ban parties all together and just have independent MP's for your area.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by infinite

Now this is an idea I can buy in to and would support. I want my MP to represent the people who elected him, and not just be a sheep and follow the whips. My MP has never voted against the Government on any issue and if one reads the letters in local papers, there are many issues that have got the electors up in arms.

On the point in infinite's orginal post, this bill will become law as no is prepared to challenge the Government and are there not more important things that parliament need to discuss?

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:43 AM
Actually, modern MPs are more independent than ever before - they are more likely to rebel and vote their own way than at any other time in our history (I have a professor who's actually worked this out for a book he wrote!). To remove the whip would require a fundamental rethink in the way a government is formed (since, without whips, how can a government 'command a majority in the House of Commons?', the key requirement for being able to create a government).

I used to think that getting rid of the whip would solve a lot of problems, but if you do a bit of research and reading (as I presently am for a couple of essays
) then it's a lot more complex - Whips, for example, also act as 'information officers' to help MPs understand complex or routine legislation and what it actually says (I highly doubt if all MPs have time to sit and read every word of every bill they vote for). I think the whip should be maintained in the Commons but the Lords, when it's reformed, should not have any parties at all. It will retain its status as the 'second chamber' to review and, where necessary, amend and reject legislation but will do so completely independently. That way we have a combination of both systems, and unpopular measures that made it through the Commons due to the whips would be defeated in the Lords due to its independence.

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:58 AM
reply to post by stumason

In fact, I like the idea of banning political parties.

You'll end up with Parliament doing a lot more work and becoming the powerful force it was designed to be.

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 07:15 AM
This is why I believe in reform of our voting system, a more representive system would take the power out of the main three parties and give it back to the individual MPs.

We NEED to get rid of "safe seats" in which MPs have no chance, unless something radical happens, of getting voted out. In fact, apparently the government is not introducing Alternative Vote, but Supplementary Vote (SV)...which is pretty pointless.

SV explained

Here is what the Government is planning to do, it believes most Lib Dem voters would give their second vote to Labour

Jack Straw SV plan

Apparently, Labour is just believing it's game over in 2010 and planning to go out on a high with a legacy of reform.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by infinite]

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 07:22 AM
Whilst i welcome many of these reforms there is one that wories me and that is mandatory voting. The idiots who don't care at al whats going on in their country, who are racist and dogmatic will cause a great problem. Either they will simply tick whatever party they see first on the form or they will give power to someone like the BNP. Dont get me wrong i don't think the BNP will be in full power but i don't even want one of their sickening MP's on the benches and if we make voting mandatory then that's what we'll get.

I used to think mandatory voting was the way but when i seriously sat downa nd thought about it, no it is not a good idea.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

So because you don't agree with someone's views, they shouldn't be represented in Parliament?

That is what your saying...

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:38 AM
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I'm sorry but this country is a democracy. Like it or not but voters, with views the BNP defend, are entitled to be represented. Those people have the same democratic rights as you and I.

I really dislike the RESPECT Coalition, but I have no problem with George Galloway being in Parliament.

Maybe if the BNP got elected into Parliament, or the London assembly, the political class will wake up and start governing again.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:41 PM
reply to post by infinite


Inadvertently you have hit on perhaps the single biggest cause of our problems in one neat little phrase:

"Political class".

Parliament has become almost uniformly middle class, career politicians. Even Labour is more middle class than working class. Many were involved in either law, local politics or business (or a combination of all three) before entering Parliament. My local MP went to Oxford and Harvard University, and yet she represents a constituency which has traditionally being mining and industry.

Part of the problem is that we have a 'political class', a certain type of people (middle class, university education, often went to a private school) who tend to get into government. There's little diversity and that's part of the problem; how can you relate to someone who's been to Eton and Oxford when the vast, vast majority of the population haven't been to either and never will?

All three major parties are pretty much the same on this front, which is perhaps why their ideologies are so similar at present. I recommend reading this article by Jackie Ashley, which makes a reasonable attempt to tackle the subject.

Oh, and compulsory voting is a daft idea... it doesn't seem very democratic to force someone to vote if they don't want to. It seems like a bit of a gimmick... a quick way out of solving the issue of voter apathy instead of making a genuine attempt to re-engage the public with politics and government.

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:18 PM

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

So because you don't agree with someone's views, they shouldn't be represented in Parliament?

That is what your saying...

No not at all, obviously the votes cast decide who goes into parliament, i wouldn't like the BNP getting in, but in the end yes it's our system.

What i am saying is that i don't want mandatory voting because in the end most people don't understand the party they vote for. I'm sure there are plenty of well informed 18 year olds but there are also a great deal of misinformed ones.

If these people are forced to vote, people who take no notice of what is being said then we won't end up with a democratically voted system, what we'll end up with is a random party voted in simply because they were the first name on the form and the people voting couldn't be bothered to look at any other box.

That is what worries me about mandatory voting.

new topics

top topics


log in