Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
With the election finally settled, I'd like to gauge the mood of our little world and ask what members feel about genuine political reform.
It seems bizarre to me that Scotland and Wales have their own assemblies, yet England does not: Scotland has its own MPs who sit in a hugely expensive building in Edinburgh and discuss all matters Scottish, Wales has its own MPs who sit in a rather more modest building in Cardiff and talk about Pot Noodles, Rugby and coal mines, whilst England has.........Westminster, at which MPs from Scotland and Wales sit and decide what is the best for England. Northern Ireland, of course, has the Stormont assembly which stumbles from unpredictable to non-existent, and in return the population there votes in MPs who won't even sit at Westminster.
First, is this acceptable? During the recent election campaign the colour map of the UK showed England as overwhelmingly blue, not mirrored anywhere else. Were it not for the Labour heartlands in the North, England would be a vast sea of blue with the odd dot here and there of yellow, green and one or two others. What this effectively means is that the overall Conservative vote of 37% is concentrated almost entirely in just one of the four countries that constitute the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. Whichever way you look at it, that has to be unfair: from an English perspective, how can it be right that people elected in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have the right to sit in judgement over a country they neither come from nor represent? And, is this injustice not further compounded by the fact that those countries do have their own representatives, without reciprocal representation from England?
Second, and bearing in mind that the nation is bankrupt several times over, do we actually need/can we actually afford all these levels of Government? Given that all the other three countries have their own assemblies, can we not contribute to removing at least a small part of the deficit by stripping away some of the levels of Government which we have at present?
I accept that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are entitled to their own Government, but by the same yardstick, England must be entitled to her own Government as well. If the prevailing mood in the Kingdom is for devolved power, then should we not apply that to all four countries equally, do away with the central Westminster government but keep an upper chamber (not hereditary peers, though) with powers that cover UK-wide matters and elect a UK President (for want of a better word)? That way, the present iniquities end - and I believe we'd save a fortune in the process as well.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You make a lot of very good points Andy, indeed in England there is a big Conservative majority in Parliament. Even if you add wales and N. Ireland into the equasion there would still be a working Tory majority. it is only scotland that goes against the trend. there must be reform and I have some strong views on what it should be. I will be post on my ideas when I get more time later today or the weekend.
Excellent post Andy...........Agree 100% with your views.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i thought that was the basis of the english democrats manifesto.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
I wouldn't know about that, Howard - the English Democrat's election literature that came through our door was a pile of poo that read like it had been written by a five year old! "Vote For Me. Simples!" One would have thought that anyone campaigning as an 'English' Democrat would have at least used correct English instead of Russian Meerkat.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
No thanks, Andy! We have Parliament in London, and an English Parliament for England would be a prelude to breaking up Britain! The break-up would be the next step!
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
So, if we don't want an English Parliament, what poltical reform would we want? Bearing in mind, we're not talking about electoral reform, just political reform........
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
OK lets look at political reform. I will ignore local government and the EU in this and refer to just The Commons and Lords.
Starting with the Upper Chamber. I personally believe that a mainly elected upper house is ideal. I say mainly because I believe that there is and should be some room for appointed members. I would like to see no more than 20% appointed with only half of these being political appointments, the remainder being professional/expert appointments. I have no problem with 80% of the Chamber being elected by a PR system and would suggest a long term, say 7 years that does not tie in with the HoC elections (or EU). The political appointments (10% of the total) would provide room for political peers who have parliamentary experience with the numbers allocated proportional to the elected proportions. On the Upper House PR I would have a high benchmark for any party to get over in ordeer to get a member. This would be to freeze out cranks and extremists. 10% of the vote would be my benchmark. The professional apointments should be non-political and made by an independent appointments panel and should include retired Armed Forces personal, lawyers, accountants, engineers, doctors etc etc....non of whom should affiliate to a political party.
Moving to the Commons.
We need to reduce the number of MPs and to level out the number of voters in each constituency. This will increase the proportion of marginal seats (very healthy) making the election result (still first past the post) more responsive to the public mood. I personally would reduce the number of seats by a bit more than the 10% DC wants, to about 550. I would not go lower because the Executive being drawn from the legislature means that the payroll vote would be too high reducing the scope for rebel MPs and 'characters' to enliven parliament.
I would have the number of seats kept at a fixed level of 550 but with the boundaries being constantly under review by the Boundaries Commission to keep the number of voters roughly the same. Other countries manage this so there is no reason why we should not. That does mean getting rid of or truncating any appeals process.
I do not like the idea of fixed term parliaments myself and would not have them.
I also do not like the idea of a seperate English parliament but there is an issue here that must be resolved. First of all we need a review of the powers and responsibilities of the devolved parliaments. I would ensure that they are the same for Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland with revenue raising powers and, if anything, give them even greater responsibilities than they have now in Scotland.
So how do we deal with England? I would ensure that all members of the Westminster Parliament who represent Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish seats are denied any vote or role on laws that apply only to England and are devolved to their home countries. It is a simple and straightforward piece of parliamentary procedure that would have no significant costs or beaurocracy attached. English matters can be resolved by English Westminster MPs sitting as a 'Council of all England' - an elegant and low cost solution to the situation. The only problem that would occur is when the UK Government is one that derives its majority from 'Celtic' MPs only as they would not command a majority in England. A government would have to be sensitive to this.
With revenue raising powers in the devolved assemblies we can then deal with the Barnet formula and ensure a more equitable settlement by which the English for instance are not subsidising free Universities for Scottish students.
And just to prove how difficult this all is, the payment of tuition fees is not a devolution issue per se, rather one of the Government failing to ensure that parity is maintained across the UK. I have no issue whatsoever with subsidising Scottish students, but I do have a real issue with that benefit not being extended to UK students in England, Wales and NI.
All the devolved parliaments should have tax raising powers and there should be NO funding from the centre. If the Scots, Welsh and NI want their own assembly, fine, but they must pay for it. Of course that opens a whole new can of worms.
For once I think Alexander is totally right and I also like Barry's suggestions regarding how we deal with England.
And so it goes on. Weak-kneed government, giving in to nationalist pressure has caused, and will continue to cause, unnecessary stresses and strains the UK really doesn't need. The UK took centuries to knit together and in the blinking of an eye New Labour has almost destroyed a unique arrangement and allowed old arguments and selfish nationalism to raise its head. We may pay a heavy price for this yet.
Anyway, I don't really understand fixed term parliaments, how is that different to now? We shouldn't put ourselves into a situation where a failing government (Heath for example) continues regardless. If they get it wrong we need the right to get rid of them, whatever colour rosette they wear. At the moment this sounds more like job protection for the boys rather than a democratic strengthening of our legislature.
Numbers of MP's in the HoC. Well, I agree with evening out the constituencies as has been done in other countries and lowering the number of MP's. But that change must also include a drastic reduction in parliamentary backroom staff too. And why stop there? KCC for example is hugely expensive as I am sure the others are, therefore I would like to see a big focus on shrinking the number of politicos and civil servants right down through County, District, Town and Parish levels. There are just too many people interfering with our lives.
Turning to the House of Lords.
I reckon those peers who inherited their seats should be allowed to "sit them out", and, once they've shuffled off this mortal coil, the right to sit in the Lords should be withdrawn. I don't agree with an "appointed" system as that will lead to political parties forcing their cronies on us and then the chamber will become nothing more than a rubber stamp, which would be a big mistake.
I think there should be a pre-defined number of Lords who sit in an upper chamber, and they (the peers) should decide who their representatives are. I have no issue with Lords whatsoever, just their right to sit because great great grand-daddy screwed the French (again). Our nation has a tradition of rewarding exceptional service for the country with peerages and this should continue. However, being given a peerage should not entitle someone to sit in judgement over the rest of us. So, I propose the peers themselves select the team. I don't particularly want to vote for members of a second/upper chamber.
Those are my early thoughts and I reserve the right to stray from the opinions expressed.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, 5 % of the vote should be the minimum to enter Parliament. However, the constituencies would either have to be revised in number, or there would have to be a larger number of seats in Parliament, in order to accomodate constituent seats and seats for parliamentarians getting in on a representational basis.
There is no doubt that the UKIP would also be in Parliament with an electoral reform.
Being a fluffy woman, I am not sure why we can't have seperate constitutions for the four countries, or regions, under an umbrella UK constitution with specific remits around equaility and fairness. Organisationally complex but do-able.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
ah ok at last someone has mentiond regions the eu way of thinking.but frownd apon by many eurosceptics.
Federalism by another name perchance?
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
possably sid possably.
Nice use of "perchance" there Sid. Brightens up the sentence!
Berm, you flatterer!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
belgium is being divided into three regions, the bureaucrats will love that.
what hope for us?
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
lots of the same howard.well in theroy anyway.
I think the regions are called, France, Holland and Germany Howard.
Bureaucraps love to take something simple and (m)uck it up. Keep it simple, chaps, try to please the People.