Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
7 February 2010
18:3639919I thought the country was broke Sid?
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
7 February 2010
18:4239921It is Colin, but then we could borrow some more eh?
7 February 2010
19:0339926Sid, perhaps you, as a defender of the status quo, could explain to me why we apparently need 650 M.P.s (at the next election) and 735 members of the House of Lords whereas the United States, with a population five times ours, manages to get by with 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen.
Personally I would like to see on third of the number of M.P.s with boundary changes to reflect the population in each constituency, fixed term Parliaments and 100 elected members of the House of Lords with their electorate based on the present Euro Boundaries.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
7 February 2010
19:4939931bob
i have always liked the idea of a 4 year parliament, however boy dave reckons it would not work.
his reasoning is that a lame duck government that did not have an overall majority due to bye election losses would carry on instead of going to the country.
i do not go along with that, when have we ever had a lame duck government?
7 February 2010
20:0239935Howard,
One alternative which I have always fancied is a quarter of the members up for election every year.
This would stop the majority party placing the economy in a position which is best for their re-election rather than the good of the country.
It would also stop failing Governments holding on by their well bitten fingernails until the last possible moment for an election with a Micawber-like hope that 'something might turn up'.
7 February 2010
20:2739938Sid - how can you possibly write that our parliament has served us well? It has served the elite well, sure, but us? Have another look at the expenses issue, the wars we have had to support, the lovely pensions our MPs get after they retire from all those directorships nurtured during their "service" as MP. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" is a good maxim. So is "to the guillotine"!!
You need to know I am against the death penalty by the way, although I might be persuaded to make an exception for some MPs............
7 February 2010
20:4339941Deleted due to incompetence at attempting to post image below!
7 February 2010
20:4739942howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
7 February 2010
21:0439946looks like rip off britain, our american friends pay US$200 while we pay in sterling.
at the time of that picture there would have been more than 4 dollars to the pound.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
7 February 2010
21:1639948Bob, that picture is copyright so you`ll be reported to the monopolies commision.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
7 February 2010
21:4439952Colin, why is there only one Monopolies Commission?????
8 February 2010
01:2539962Bern, broaden the canvas beign used to view our Parliament and you will recognise that over more than 500 years, our system has become the best in the world. Don't take my word for it, just ask anyone who comes from a foreign country.
I am NOT saying it is perfect, but for heaven's sake, there is more to this than a few over the top expense claims. I'm surprised you and Bob can't see that. Or is the witch hunt more important?
8 February 2010
02:1139965Sid, hardly a witch hunt, but surely an ideal time to see whether the present system is still 'fit for purpose'.
Years ago it was only those with a private income who could afford to go into parliament and rightly this has changed. I fail to see however, especially when the salary and expenses have become a 'nice little earner' for many, rather than a recompense for lost earnings, we need so many of the little darlings.
I consider this especially relevant when so many of our laws and regulations are directed (correctly in my view) from Brussels.
Small government is good government. The flood of legislation from parliament, all well meaning, telling me what I can do, who I can employ, how I have to build, where (and what!)I can smoke, what I can't say, what my children are taught etc. etc. is getting beyond a joke and stifling both enterprise and freedom.
In my own profession, teaching, countless hours are wasted checking that the minutiae of the regulations have been adhered to rather than teaching the little buggers. I suspect that colleagues in the countries which my students will be in direct competition with when they are adults, China, India and so on, are not restrained by such officious crap.
I would honestly like to see a written constitution both guaranteeing my rights as a citizen and putting a limit on the legislature's powers over me.
Your defence of the present system, which I suspect most educated people in the civilized world view as an harmless amusing anachronism along with the Royal Family, reminds me of the saying about the NYPD, that they were the best police force money could buy.
8 February 2010
13:0339995Bob - nicely put!!! I especially enjoyed the reference to officious crap..........
Because a system has worked for centuries doesn't mean it is working now! In fact, given the acceleration in developments in society and globalisation it would be a surprise if it was working! This is, indeed, an opportunity to refine and re-build a democratic structure. Not marvelling at out current system does not imply that we would prefer an unhinged militocray or banana republic - it just means we can see the wood for the trees.......
8 February 2010
13:0839997Bob, you said, "an ideal time to see whether the present system is still 'fit for purpose'." That happens to be the stance of the defence lawyers and yet we wish to deny them the opportunity to do so.
I've no axe to grind on this, but, I strongly support innocent until proven guilty, yet some on this thread seem to have decided before the trials what the outcome is. If the four politicians are found guilty they should receive the full weight of the law in sentencing, but, at this point in time, they are all still innocent men.
8 February 2010
13:1039998D'oh!! Trials in a court of law, yes. Hiding behind "political immunity", no!! Innocent until proven guilty is CLEARLY important and cherished. Let's see what the courts say.
8 February 2010
13:1439999Bern, I expect a trial in a court of law as these are criminal charges. The defence team in that trial in a court of law will possibly test the Parliamentary Priviledge rules. Two for the price of one!
8 February 2010
13:1540000Hurrah!!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
8 February 2010
13:2640003Bob - back to your point about the USA. There is a big consititutional difference, the Executive and the Legislature in the USA are seperate wheras in the UK the Executive is derived from the Legislature and sit in parliament. Our form of Government does require a larger legislature than the USA but.... you do make a good point even so, we still have too many MPs.
Personally I have suggested 500 MPs in the past but even then, if you have a Government with a majority of just one, that means out of 251 Government MPs around 90 are on the Government's payroll. That being the case the power of the legislature to hold the Government to account is reduced.
Cameron's policy of a 10% cut in the number of MPs is a reasonable compromise.
8 February 2010
16:2740028BarryW - 10% is a start.
Life is a compromise.
Eventually one has to look at the compromise between doing what what would like to do (anarchy) and doing what one is allowed to do (tyranny) .
I think that right now the bias is to the latter.
