Should England have it's own Parliament?

reply to post by Freeborn


That much is true...

What if then, after a system reboot where Parliament was not only representative (not with someone dominating proceedings on 30% of the vote) but were we managed to get our recall powers, powers of referenda and a decent Direct Democracy going, would you then support an English Parliament?

I just have a really bad feeling about regional Parliaments. It won't address the actual issue at hand, cause more bureaucracy (when we really need less) and my biggest fear is the old divide and rule, especially if we remained in the EU. While all the other nations would be united internally, we would be divided against each other and easy pickings....

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Freeborn

 

I'd agree to most of that Freeborn, however I think only the very most important issues should have a referendum held on them. If we are having more than 1 referendum a year then something is afoot.

Do what the Yanks do, have an annual ballot (or every 6 months, whatever floats your boat) and put all of them on the one form. Keeps it from getting silly with votes all the time.

If you look how Switzerland works, if a petition gets a certain amount of support, it gets debated by parliament and if they move it forward to legislation then it gets voted on by the electorate... Me and Freeborn are what you might call the "founders" of a tiny little Direct Democracy movement around these parts

reply to post by stumason


What you don't get Stu, is that the majority of us do not give a stuff about the EU, why should we take that into consideration when deciding how to run our own REAL democracy? The EU is a dictatorship and we need no further part in it, lets negotiate a free trade agreement and get the hell out of there. Lets stop wasting millions of pounds a day on unelected EU beurocrates intent on having one government for all nations.

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!

I guess that's a Yes


pS: star that Mike

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Freeborn

 

I'd agree to most of that Freeborn, however I think only the very most important issues should have a referendum held on them. If we are having more than 1 referendum a year then something is afoot.

Do what the Yanks do, have an annual ballot (or every 6 months, whatever floats your boat) and put all of them on the one form. Keeps it from getting silly with votes all the time.

If you look how Switzerland works, if a petition gets a certain amount of support, it gets debated by parliament and if they move it forward to legislation then it gets voted on by the electorate... Me and Freeborn are what you might call the "founders" of a tiny little Direct Democracy movement around these parts

Direct democracy would not work in the UK like it does in Switzerland because we are very differing Countires. Just look at what people vote for on stuff like pop idol, it is all reactionary and votes made on emotion rather than substance. Many of our electorate are ignorant in terms of politics and policies and would no doubt vote for whatever the Sun or the Daily Mail told them to anyway. Direct Democracy in this Country would be a complete Disaster.

reply to post by michael1983l

What we need is the end of career politicians, I'm sick of hearing about Eaton Schoolboys who study politics solely and end up working in the government, without having had any exposure to any real kind of hardship EVER.

Preaching to the converted mate.

Frank Field and possibly Dennis Skinner are the only current MP's I can think of off the top of my head who I would describe as politicains of conviction.
I would once have included Vince Cable but the man sold his soul to the Devil for 30 pieces of silver and a smell of power.

The rest are indeed career politicians whose only concerns are that of personal advancement and gain and adherence to the party line regardless of personal conviction, if they have any, or the interests of their constituents.

The current system promotes the adherence to party line and the party system above all else - even if that is detrimental to the people.

The party political system has become outdated, is restrictive and no longer serves the best interests of the British people and should be abolished immediately.
As stu has frequently reminded me, the party system is actually contrary to the very essence of Parliament yet we allow it to persist.

We as a country / Union are regressing and we now have a situation where successive governments have had more Eton / Oxbridge educated people in Cabinet than any other since the eighteen hundreds.

That is nothing short of a national disgrace.

reply to post by michael1983l

Direct democracy would not work in the UK like it does in Switzerland because we are very differing Countires.

Two things are certain; firstly the current system isn't working and secondly DD will never work if it's never given a chance.

I'm not so arrogant to believe that I have all the answers, and I know stu well enough to know that he feels the same about himself - but I'm sure that given more exposure and some collaboration from greater minds than our's that we could come up with some workable system that will give greater representation and increased accountability than that which we have at present.

Originally posted by michael1983l
What you don't get Stu, is that the majority of us do not give a stuff about the EU, why should we take that into consideration when deciding how to run our own REAL democracy? The EU is a dictatorship and we need no further part in it, lets negotiate a free trade agreement and get the hell out of there. Lets stop wasting millions of pounds a day on unelected EU beurocrates intent on having one government for all nations.

Oh, I get that, don't get me wrong...

I am not a massive fan of the EU myself

reply to post by Freeborn


You may want to gamble on a diplomatic system, just to see if it will work or not but I would want to bring in a system that we will know will work. The biggest problem is getting the right powers in the right places, if you can acheive that, I don't think much else matters. For me regional control is the only viable method of true representation of the people. DD would still end up being more of a popularity contest than that of any real considered opinion. Lengthening the terms of office, with a much lower requirement for a vote of no confidence would also take some of the short termism, that Labour so spectacularly highlighted to us in the last Government. Longer terms in office would promote an organic growth plan rather than boom and bust. Getting all of these ideas into one plan though is the hardest part.

reply to post by michael1983l


I agree 100% with devolving power to the regions.

I'm not too sure about longer terms in office but I do support staggered elections - perhaps 50% of the elected house to be up for election every 2 - 3 years.
en.wikipedia.org...

I do agree that short-termism is a blight on UK politics and economics.

I don't think DD would be a gamble - and it would definately be better than the current system that is proven NOT to be working.

reply to post by Freeborn


I don't think that anybody would disagree with you on the fact that the current system is unfit for puropse but no matter what you say about DD, it is a huge gamble. You are gambling on the local chip papers not influencing the votes and you are counting on the British people actually voting on something they have actually researched.

For me, there is zero chance that the Media will not influence the easily led Citizens of the UK into voting for their desired outcome. I also believe that only a very small percentage of people will research the questions enough and actually understand the topic fully enough to make a vote that counts. We'd end up like a nation of Turkeys voting for Christmas and I am not counting myself out of that, it is very hard to not be influenced by mass media and it is also difficult to give politics the required time it requires to truely understand what is going on. I am full of ideals and general ideas about how I would like my nation to be run, but if you asked me about paticular policies and the fine detail involved, you would find me floundering for sure.

Originally posted by stumason
I just have a really bad feeling about regional Parliaments. It won't address the actual issue at hand, cause more bureaucracy (when we really need less) and my biggest fear is the old divide and rule, especially if we remained in the EU. While all the other nations would be united internally, we would be divided against each other and easy pickings....

I'm drawn towards your way of thinking there Stu, the regionalisation of England is more in line with EU policy than the devolving of powers as seen over recent years in the UK.

No-one has mentioned proportional voting systems yet, these are used successfully in Wales, Scotland and the London assembly. From what I've read they seem to provide a more reflective balance of representation, and I wonder if employed in an English parliament would this not solve the issues concerned with regional issues.
Certainly here in the South West it would help provide a strong voice for my area which is massive geographically speaking, but with a much smaller population than our neighbours to the East and North.

reply to post by michael1983l

You are gambling on the local chip papers not influencing the votes and you are counting on the British people actually voting on something they have actually researched.

Which is no different to what we have today really.

So would you prefer we limit what people can vote on - or perhaps limit who can vote?

Obviously elected officials have to be given a certain amount of leeway and authority to act for and represent their constituents in legislative and government matters.

But under a modern DD system the electorate would get to vote on more issues than it does currently.
This wouldn't mean voting on every single issue - given time etc I'm sure it would be feasible to work out the exact details of the who, when and how's etc and on what issues these referendums would take place.

reply to post by HelenConway

You are having a laugh mate !!
I think England should extend her territories to include Normandy and Brittany for the same reasons .. plus they used to be English [well defo Normandy].

I have to correct you on this one. When was Normandy EVER English??? The Normans were actually 'the men of the north' and came from Scandinavia - they had been in France for just over 100 years when they invaded England. (Angle Land)

And Brittany? That was 'Little Briton' inhabited by Brythonic Celts. That area of France was known to the Romans as 'Armorica' derived from the Celtic word for 'coastal lands'. Personally I've always toyed with the idea that this was the origin of the word America.

Anyhoo - as the word English is derived from the Angles - a Germanic tribe - I fail to see how you can claim Normandy or Brittany were ever English.

Over time the indigenous Brythonic tribes of Britain - who inhabited almost all Britain including Glasgow, most of Strathclyde, Edinburgh and Lothian - were pushed farther and farther to the west. All of the west of Britain, including Cornwall, Wales and Scotland in the north became home to the original Celtic tribes. They were separated eventually when Bristol and Carlisle were taken. I was once told that the Welsh took great umbrage at being referred to as such because they are in fact the locals.

The Normans of course invaded in 1066 - and their descendants have been the ruling elite in the whole of the UK ever since. (Including Scotland).

reply to post by Freeborn


Nobody should be limited to who can vote, that is not democracy at all. I am not against holding referendums on constitutional issues but I believe that the main decisions should be made at election time. Each leader should set out in their initial manifesto what exactly they plan to do during their term in office and what date they plan to do it by. There should be a target to hit at how many of your promises have been met and if you fail to meet a reasonable target of implementing promises then your seat should be automatically put up for re-election. There should be regular reviews to measure and implement this system. This would make politicians finally accountable and measurable on performance and would negate the need to hold most referendums. Well in my ideal world anyway, but then again I am a direct thinker and my views are often not understood or indeed correct.

The history of our island is interesting of course but the current lines drawn on the land are what is important now.
The 53 million people to the East of Wales and South of Scotland currently subsidise the others, while their elected representatives have a vote in the decisions of England only issues at Westminster.
Whatever the answer, the current situation is unjust and morally questionable.
I'm surprised the vociferous voices from overseas, and also Scotland, have little to say in this topic which is considering the rip-off situation for taxpayers in England. Perhaps it's difficult to comment when you know your standpoint cannot really be defended.

Its pretty damn obvious what needs doing guys...
You should ALL move the Wales, Scotland, and N Ireland...
The you "English taxpayers" will be finally represented by default at least......

reply to post by grainofsand


I dunno - given my post above - I think that there is a sweet irony in the perceived subsidising of the Celtic tribes by the Anglo Saxons

reply to post by stirling
I'm not moving back anytime soon, it's warmer here on the S.Devon coast...still haven't had any frost yet and was working outside in a tee shirt last week

Originally posted by christina-66
I dunno - given my post above - I think that there is a sweet irony in the perceived subsidising of the Celtic tribes by the Anglo Saxons

Actual, not perceived, the figures are clear from the treasury.
I'm of Celtic stock myself anyway, and it's still a wind up that my taxes paid in England fund better services for my family back in Wales.