Be Excellent To Each Other

It struck me last night that the political system in this country is pretty much buggered. The following are my reasons:

• We maintain a fiction of voting for MPs, when instead we vote for parties
• Politician's can switch party allegiance without triggering a by-election, for the above reason
• A politician's employer is effectively the party - meaning his opportunities for advancement and hence loyalty lie firmly with the party. He's only going to be reaching the front benches if he's a good party boy.
• Political debate appears to be for it's own sake. 90% of the populace never watches televised debates or PMQs - the point-scoring that goes on in the house doesn't appear to actually be of any benefit whatsoever, because you're never going to change the minds of those in attendance (mainly because of the third point). The majority of the electorate has no idea what's going on in these discussions, outside of what is reported in the non-specialist media, so what's the point? Even the rallys and conferences are pretty much only ever attended by the party faithful, who don't really need persuading.

What you end up with is a legislature that is utterly opaque to the populous, with no real sense of how and why decisions are made, and a c.20% swing vote switching governments every few terms that seems to entirely hinge on being bored of the current government and blindly hoping for change.

SO! Here is my question - what should change? Proportional representation is a given, I guess - the only reason not to adopt PR is because the current system invariably favours the incumbent.
What else?

Proportional representation is a good idea, until people wit ideas that you don't like gain seats in the government.

Except that they won't be able to do much when they get there.

Well, apart from act as Kingmakers, using that leverage to push forward their agendas. And irritate the anti facists who want a democracy of liberals.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM!"!!!1


I agree with you, and I'm utterly fed up with it. Every time I hear about politics on the news at the moment I have to switch it off - this whole thing with Baroness whatsherface saying something about green shoots (and the reaction to that) is a perfect example.

Do any other countries do it better?

Why can no one spell 'fascist' properly?

I refuse to label them with the title which they seek, comrade.

Fascist.

That's better.

In seriousness, if all MPs were independent, there would be no focal point for policies, and nothing would get done. people are members of parties as they best represent their views and interests, and have the chance of influencing such policies.

Policies, in a modern society, should be decided by internet forum debate and agreement.

No it shouldn't.

I guess you are not entirely serious in this.

I doubt it would work, as it is hard to debate over then net, rather than face to face

All in favour of excluding myp from future debate say AYE.

But that just encourages an "us and them" approach to polices, with the two main parties having opposite approaches and agendas (sometimes seemingly just for the sake of it) - whichever party is in power, a section of the country will effectively be having their needs entirely ignored.

What about special interest groups? Frank the MP joins the special interest group for each political area that best suits his views in that area. That way he can join like-minded MPs on social policy without compromising his interests in fiscal policy.

There's also the problem that the Government is obsessed with rushing through long, complicated, and badly drafted pieces of legislation so Parliament is unable to properly consider all the elements of a bill. Combine that with a whipping system and the fact that if you want to get on in politics you have to do what the party says in order to one day (perhaps) become a minor bag carrier and it's little surprise there are so many bad laws these days. I hate career politicians: when I am Lord Protector the age for standing for election will be raised to 37 years, two months, and three days.

Oh, and we're forgetting that much legislation comes from the EU, bypassing Parliament entirely anyhow.

AYE.

However, there'd be a lot less of calling each other cunts in real life debates, which I'm sure we all agree would be a great loss for the cut and thrust of British politics.

I prefer for it not to get personnal. Unlike it does on the interweb

I've never understood the Anti-Europe-ists' objection to that. I've as much (i.e. little) connection with the UK government as I do with the European Parliament. So what does it matter where the self-serving corrupt little egotists passing the laws are based?

It does to the self-serving corrup little egotists in this country that are made redundant because of it.

They wouldn't be, though - they'd be kept on as a sort of overarching local council.

I'm quite pro the EU at the moment. I think the UK, and its citizens has benefited more, than detrimented from, it.

I suppose they assume that the self-serving aspect overlaps with their own interests and that the politicians might be corrupt on their behalf. Anti-europe people often tend to be minor-league businessmen after all.

I agree. Also - we should join the Euro now, while the pound still slightly outweighs it, rather than joining at a loss.

Howw touchingly naive the British populace must be.



True. Those pesky Europeans and their health and safety, product liability and pro-worker, pro-consumer legislation.

I third this motion. So no need for a referendum, then.

EU-norm-15693-compliant-grammar fail.

They come over here, making our laws...

I'm piss tired today, and got a lot on my mind. but you get the drift. The benefits have outweighed the disadvantages.

Remember all that fuss over the fact we'd be drinking 0.568261485 litres of beer instead of a pint?

It's not a particular anti-Eu position I'm coming from (although I think I'd rather stick with free trade and movement) but more the sense that there should be a connection between those making laws and the populace. If you object to something which is an EU matter, do you know who to lobby? The Commission? The Council? The Parliament?

No, I guess I agree, but I just don't think there's any more of a connection with the home-grown variety, given what up-their-own-arses, fill-me-boots-with-expenses, suck-up-to-big-business-so-I-get-a-directorship-after-I-get-voted-out cuntholes they are.


Your MEP, clearly?

Heh.

Ombudsman are a good place to start.

I was going to say that, but I was worried it was a trick question.

Sorry Don't get me wrong, I actually agree.

In a way, yes.

From what I remember the Commission tends to propose legislation which has to be approved by both the Parliament and the Council, composed of the governments of the member states. Different areas have different procedures and I really can't be arsed to go through all the variations right now.

Wikitruth at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_procedure

It's not like I done an exam on this stuff of late.

You saw that thing where they want to neuter the Sale of Goods Act, right? They want to harmonise things with a Europe-wide 28 day "faulty at purchase" period. Instead of our 6-months-possibly-up-to-6-years joy.

You can always build in stricter legislation on top of Directives though.

Not this one - it's a "maximising" one, specifically to prevent Member States having better protections than those set out in the Directive.

I must have missed that one. Crikey.

The breweries were annoyed that they missed out on charging the same price for 500ml.

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp188.pdf

If anyone cares.

Firstly:

What's your point?

Secondly: The issue with the EU is that, as has been said, the Government would become an over arching 'local' council. I think we can all agree that local councils are essentially ineffectual.

Thirdly: What needs to change? Well, being PM and leading the country should not be something that comes with inherent benefits. The PM should not be a celebrity. They should earn a basic (reasonable) wage, all external assets should be frozen with no loopholes, so they can not make money by the decisions made. Then, if desired after their term is up, can they make money, if they have done a good job, they would be in demand. Also, the term should be limited to one four year period so the PM is not afraid to make decisions of benefit to the country that cost them the public opinion.

Err, IIRC, the PM gets 94k a year. And is a celebrity by dint of running the country. There's a register of member's interests and people get shitty if someone takes the piss.

And forcing us to have a 3.1415926535 and chips!

4265 bananas

Okay, so all (s)he gets is 94k? No other back handers, handshakes and what not? If that is true, all well and good, but I for one do not believe it. Not when you have that pie eater from Hull and his 2 jags. And they do take the piss, all the way down, and no one complains. There is a local MP near us who takes a Taxi everywhere he goes (London) and books it all on our time. It was in the paper, people went, "oooh, naughty Brian." He went, "Meh," and nothing happened.

But I was speaking more specifically of assets, there is nothing stopping the PM investing in a company, and then selecting that company for a major deal. Maybe I am being too cynical, but I am only suggesting what I would do if I could, so they must be.