1. Annual elections, with a maximum of 4-6 weeks of campaigining prior to the date - thus preventing parties making loads of promises that they break straight after the election, knowing the public can't do anything as they can't vote again for another 4 or 5 years. The Tories did this in 1987 and 1992.
2. The PM has to be elected, therefore if one quits then an election is called so the public will only be lead by someone they've chosen and not just the party being chosen (think John Major and Gordon Brown).
3. State funding for political parties, therefore removing the possibility of favours being given to companies who give parties money. A system could be worked out where central funds from the Treasury could be loaned to a party and the more seats they get at that forthcoming election they then get to keep the money or pay it back if they've not won as many seats as anticipated. The bigger the party the more funds they will get.
4. Political parties having no ties with other bodies - like Trade Unions in the case of Labour (although they are less associated than they once were).
5. A narrowing of the range of things former politicans can do when they leave office - banning them becoming Director's of companies they helped create whilst in office (like many former Tory ministers, and some Labour, have done).
6. Prime Minister's spouses can not make money out of their partner being a senior politican (like Cherie Booth, or Cherie Blair when it helped her, did).
A few ideas there. What do people think about these, and what other ones would you introduce?
Some ideas to make politics fairer and better...
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
-
Sarah Kelly
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Some ideas to make politics fairer and better...
7) Stocks and pillories outside Westminster so when any MPs are caught being naughty,the public can vent their displeasure at them via assorted rotting fruits... 8) Recieving a flat wage,with no expenses ..... Why the hell should we pay for some shmucks flat screen tv or bath plug .... Dont they spend ANY of their own money on things,like normal people? If they want to entertain someone at the luxury,heavily subsidised canteen,fine,but they can PUT THEIR OWN HAND in their pocket,not yours and mine ...
Always certed,works to Hard BG/GG/ANAL/DP+EXTREME Fetish.
Easy going,fun,Hard Working,Professional
I turn up prepared,on time,ready to shoot what you want as I`m RELIABLE! ;)
SarahKellyxxx
Easy going,fun,Hard Working,Professional
I turn up prepared,on time,ready to shoot what you want as I`m RELIABLE! ;)
SarahKellyxxx
Re: Some ideas to make politics fairer and better...
>8) Recieving a flat wage,with no expenses .....
If you dont mind me saying so that is a pretty stupid idea.
So an MP from London who can walk to Parliament and has a house nearby will get the same salary as an MP from the Shetland Isles.
But the MP for Shetland has to pay for the cost of a plane, or train, to Parliament out of their salary, and the cost of staying in a hotel in London while in Parliament on business.
I think you will find almost EVERY job pays expenses if a person has to travel on business or stay in a hotel on business.
Where it got out of hand is when you allowed MPs to buy a SECOND home in Londom, and furnish it to a high degree, and make a profit on it when they sold it.
Nobody has ever said MPs should get NO expenses, only that those expenses should be more tightly controlled.
If you dont mind me saying so that is a pretty stupid idea.
So an MP from London who can walk to Parliament and has a house nearby will get the same salary as an MP from the Shetland Isles.
But the MP for Shetland has to pay for the cost of a plane, or train, to Parliament out of their salary, and the cost of staying in a hotel in London while in Parliament on business.
I think you will find almost EVERY job pays expenses if a person has to travel on business or stay in a hotel on business.
Where it got out of hand is when you allowed MPs to buy a SECOND home in Londom, and furnish it to a high degree, and make a profit on it when they sold it.
Nobody has ever said MPs should get NO expenses, only that those expenses should be more tightly controlled.
Re: Some ideas to make politics fairer and better...
>Annual elections,
Not clear here, but are you saying we have a General Election EVERY year?
Do you really think the public WANT that, NEED that, or the political parties could afford that?
If we had one each year no party would get anything done, they would be so busy preparing for each election. Plus the public would soon get fed up and give up voting.
>with a maximum of 4-6 weeks of campaigining prior to the date
How do you define campaigning?
It could be argued that all the parties have started their campaigning (leaders on TV shows, adverts etc) but they would probably deny that.
VERY hard to prove when campaiging actually starts.
Not clear here, but are you saying we have a General Election EVERY year?
Do you really think the public WANT that, NEED that, or the political parties could afford that?
If we had one each year no party would get anything done, they would be so busy preparing for each election. Plus the public would soon get fed up and give up voting.
>with a maximum of 4-6 weeks of campaigining prior to the date
How do you define campaigning?
It could be argued that all the parties have started their campaigning (leaders on TV shows, adverts etc) but they would probably deny that.
VERY hard to prove when campaiging actually starts.
Re: Some ideas to make politics fairer and better...
>The PM has to be elected,
And how would that work exactly?
How would we actually VOTE for the PM. A separate election? Another place for a cross on the ballot paper?
We could even have a situation where they PM was Labour but the party in power was Tory (or the other way round).
If that happened nothing would ever get done.
This has happened in the USA where the President can be Democrat when the Republicans have the majority in the senate and the senate just block whatever the President wants to introduce.
And how would that work exactly?
How would we actually VOTE for the PM. A separate election? Another place for a cross on the ballot paper?
We could even have a situation where they PM was Labour but the party in power was Tory (or the other way round).
If that happened nothing would ever get done.
This has happened in the USA where the President can be Democrat when the Republicans have the majority in the senate and the senate just block whatever the President wants to introduce.
Re: Some ideas to make politics fairer and better...
>State funding for political parties
How would you decide how much money each party got from the state?
Based on number of MPs?
If so you are favoring the large parties, or those parties already in power, against those with no seats or few seats so the small parties could never "catch up".
Who would decide if a fringe party like the BNP or the Communist party should get state funding?
If I started a party with no members and no seats could I ask for state funding?
How would you decide how much money each party got from the state?
Based on number of MPs?
If so you are favoring the large parties, or those parties already in power, against those with no seats or few seats so the small parties could never "catch up".
Who would decide if a fringe party like the BNP or the Communist party should get state funding?
If I started a party with no members and no seats could I ask for state funding?
-
Bob Singleton
- Posts: 1975
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Some ideas to make politics fairer and better...
max_tranmere wrote:
> 1. Annual elections, with a maximum of 4-6 weeks of
> campaigining prior to the date - thus preventing parties making
> loads of promises that they break straight after the election,
> knowing the public can't do anything as they can't vote again
> for another 4 or 5 years. The Tories did this in 1987 and 1992.
I can really see the public at large taking to this idea... whoopee, another election!!! Seriously if Governments only had 12 month mandates, nothing would ever get done. A more sensible solution would be to have fixed elections (say every 4 years) so that the party in power cannot choose to have a snap election when it's popular (especially if it knows that, say, a year later the economy may slump making it unpopular).
As for breaking promises... do you really think that ALL politicians lie about what they will do in power? When Labour won the 1964 election, for example, they had absolutely no idea of the economic mess left them by the previous Tory Government, and many of the "promises" made in their election manifesto had to be left on the shelf for the simple reason that they couldn't afford to carry out their plans. That wasn't Labour breaking promises, that was a Government having to be realistic.
Whilst Britain is geographically an island, what happens in this country is mainly down to what happens in the world at large. This is even more true today, in the modern world of "globalisation" than 50 or more years ago. Blame Gordon Brown as much as you want for the current recession, but have you noticed how there is also a recession in America, in France, in Greece, etc., etc? When something as major as the collapse of the banking system happens in the US, the shock waves, like those of a tsunami, are felt elsewhere. Maybe he could have handled things better, but the bottom line is that the recession was not his doing! (Indeed had the Tories been in, it could have been far worse, as they believed Brown's "light touch" approach to banking regulations was too heavy handed!!)
>
> 2. The PM has to be elected, therefore if one quits then an
> election is called so the public will only be lead by someone
> they've chosen and not just the party being chosen (think John
> Major and Gordon Brown).
Th PM is elected! Given Prime Ministers these days are Members of Parliament rather than members of the House of Lords, they will have been elected to represent a constituency. Or are you wanting a Presidential style of government? Surely what we need to see is a return of Cabinet led government rather than an ever-increasing lurch toward a quasi-Presidential system. Voting specifically for a Prime Minister would put too much power into the hands of one person. Can you imagine how even more dictatorial people like Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair would have been under such a system?
>
> 3. State funding for political parties, therefore removing the
> possibility of favours being given to companies who give
> parties money. A system could be worked out where central funds
> from the Treasury could be loaned to a party and the more seats
> they get at that forthcoming election they then get to keep the
> money or pay it back if they've not won as many seats as
> anticipated. The bigger the party the more funds they will get.
Given your previous annoyance at rising taxes, I'm surprised to read that you wish to give money out of your own pocket to fund the parties.
>
> 4. Political parties having no ties with other bodies - like
> Trade Unions in the case of Labour (although they are less
> associated than they once were).
Completely unworkable. The reason we have political parties is because people with similar political and socio-economic beliefs group together. How will you stop the Tories from favouring big business when they get into power. Just telling them they can't accept funds from individual companies or the CBI won't change a thing. Ditto Labour and the Trade Union movement.
>
> 5. A narrowing of the range of things former politicans can do
> when they leave office - banning them becoming Director's of
> companies they helped create whilst in office (like many former
> Tory ministers, and some Labour, have done).
There is already a provision to stop former ministers and civil servants from immediately working with companies they have dealt with at Government level. In 1975 the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments was set up to oversee whether or not a former minister or senior civil servant, armed forces officer etc could work with any given company, organisation or lobby group.
Given we live in a country that believes in free speech and the free market, it is difficult to then argue that a person with a particular expertise should not be employed by a company wishing to exploit that expertise.
There could certainly be a case put forward that any former minister accepting a well paid directorship should then no longer receive their House of Commons pension when they stand down as an MP
>
> 6. Prime Minister's spouses can not make money out of their
> partner being a senior politican (like Cherie Booth, or Cherie
> Blair when it helped her, did).
Before Tony Blair became Prime Minister, his wife was already one of the country's top lawyers, and considerably better paid than him even when he did become PM. While some parts of the (right wing) media accused her of having her nose in the trough, there is actually no evidence of her making money from her husband's position. It may surprise you to know that she even presented a case against the Government, and won!!!
>
> A few ideas there. What do people think about these, and what
> other ones would you introduce?
I'd introduce a system whereby people (like you, for example) would not get the vote without first showing you had a grasp on reality!
> 1. Annual elections, with a maximum of 4-6 weeks of
> campaigining prior to the date - thus preventing parties making
> loads of promises that they break straight after the election,
> knowing the public can't do anything as they can't vote again
> for another 4 or 5 years. The Tories did this in 1987 and 1992.
I can really see the public at large taking to this idea... whoopee, another election!!! Seriously if Governments only had 12 month mandates, nothing would ever get done. A more sensible solution would be to have fixed elections (say every 4 years) so that the party in power cannot choose to have a snap election when it's popular (especially if it knows that, say, a year later the economy may slump making it unpopular).
As for breaking promises... do you really think that ALL politicians lie about what they will do in power? When Labour won the 1964 election, for example, they had absolutely no idea of the economic mess left them by the previous Tory Government, and many of the "promises" made in their election manifesto had to be left on the shelf for the simple reason that they couldn't afford to carry out their plans. That wasn't Labour breaking promises, that was a Government having to be realistic.
Whilst Britain is geographically an island, what happens in this country is mainly down to what happens in the world at large. This is even more true today, in the modern world of "globalisation" than 50 or more years ago. Blame Gordon Brown as much as you want for the current recession, but have you noticed how there is also a recession in America, in France, in Greece, etc., etc? When something as major as the collapse of the banking system happens in the US, the shock waves, like those of a tsunami, are felt elsewhere. Maybe he could have handled things better, but the bottom line is that the recession was not his doing! (Indeed had the Tories been in, it could have been far worse, as they believed Brown's "light touch" approach to banking regulations was too heavy handed!!)
>
> 2. The PM has to be elected, therefore if one quits then an
> election is called so the public will only be lead by someone
> they've chosen and not just the party being chosen (think John
> Major and Gordon Brown).
Th PM is elected! Given Prime Ministers these days are Members of Parliament rather than members of the House of Lords, they will have been elected to represent a constituency. Or are you wanting a Presidential style of government? Surely what we need to see is a return of Cabinet led government rather than an ever-increasing lurch toward a quasi-Presidential system. Voting specifically for a Prime Minister would put too much power into the hands of one person. Can you imagine how even more dictatorial people like Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair would have been under such a system?
>
> 3. State funding for political parties, therefore removing the
> possibility of favours being given to companies who give
> parties money. A system could be worked out where central funds
> from the Treasury could be loaned to a party and the more seats
> they get at that forthcoming election they then get to keep the
> money or pay it back if they've not won as many seats as
> anticipated. The bigger the party the more funds they will get.
Given your previous annoyance at rising taxes, I'm surprised to read that you wish to give money out of your own pocket to fund the parties.
>
> 4. Political parties having no ties with other bodies - like
> Trade Unions in the case of Labour (although they are less
> associated than they once were).
Completely unworkable. The reason we have political parties is because people with similar political and socio-economic beliefs group together. How will you stop the Tories from favouring big business when they get into power. Just telling them they can't accept funds from individual companies or the CBI won't change a thing. Ditto Labour and the Trade Union movement.
>
> 5. A narrowing of the range of things former politicans can do
> when they leave office - banning them becoming Director's of
> companies they helped create whilst in office (like many former
> Tory ministers, and some Labour, have done).
There is already a provision to stop former ministers and civil servants from immediately working with companies they have dealt with at Government level. In 1975 the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments was set up to oversee whether or not a former minister or senior civil servant, armed forces officer etc could work with any given company, organisation or lobby group.
Given we live in a country that believes in free speech and the free market, it is difficult to then argue that a person with a particular expertise should not be employed by a company wishing to exploit that expertise.
There could certainly be a case put forward that any former minister accepting a well paid directorship should then no longer receive their House of Commons pension when they stand down as an MP
>
> 6. Prime Minister's spouses can not make money out of their
> partner being a senior politican (like Cherie Booth, or Cherie
> Blair when it helped her, did).
Before Tony Blair became Prime Minister, his wife was already one of the country's top lawyers, and considerably better paid than him even when he did become PM. While some parts of the (right wing) media accused her of having her nose in the trough, there is actually no evidence of her making money from her husband's position. It may surprise you to know that she even presented a case against the Government, and won!!!
>
> A few ideas there. What do people think about these, and what
> other ones would you introduce?
I'd introduce a system whereby people (like you, for example) would not get the vote without first showing you had a grasp on reality!
"But how to make Liverpool economically prosperous? If only there was some way for Liverpudlians to profit from going on and on about the past in a whiny voice."
- Stewart Lee
- Stewart Lee
-
Bob Singleton
- Posts: 1975
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Some ideas to make politics fairer and better...
Sarah Kelly wrote:
8) Recieving a flat wage,with no expenses .....
> Why the hell should we pay for some shmucks flat screen tv or
> bath plug .... Dont they spend ANY of their own money on
> things,like normal people? If they want to entertain someone
> at the luxury,heavily subsidised canteen,fine,but they can PUT
> THEIR OWN HAND in their pocket,not yours and mine ...
Flat wage and no expenses would make it unfair to those who genuinely live hundreds of miles from Westminster
Yes some MPs have had their snouts in the trough, but it's unfair to tar them all with the same brush. For example, Dennis Skinner the MP for Bolsover in Derbyshire has only ever taken as his MPs salary what the average person in his constituency earns, and regularly puts in the lowest expenses claims. He doesn't use any of the subsidised facilities available to MPs (bars & restaurants in the House) and is always present when the House is in session (as an ex-miner, his ethic is that if you don't turn up to work, you get sacked). Nor does he pair up (the system whereby a Labour MP will "pair up" with a Tory MP, for example, with the understanding that if one cannot attend a vote, his/her opposite number will abstain from voting too) on the grounds that it stops "them" (Tory MPs) from going off to Ascott, grouse shooting or attending boardroom meetings when they should be doing their job as an MP
8) Recieving a flat wage,with no expenses .....
> Why the hell should we pay for some shmucks flat screen tv or
> bath plug .... Dont they spend ANY of their own money on
> things,like normal people? If they want to entertain someone
> at the luxury,heavily subsidised canteen,fine,but they can PUT
> THEIR OWN HAND in their pocket,not yours and mine ...
Flat wage and no expenses would make it unfair to those who genuinely live hundreds of miles from Westminster
Yes some MPs have had their snouts in the trough, but it's unfair to tar them all with the same brush. For example, Dennis Skinner the MP for Bolsover in Derbyshire has only ever taken as his MPs salary what the average person in his constituency earns, and regularly puts in the lowest expenses claims. He doesn't use any of the subsidised facilities available to MPs (bars & restaurants in the House) and is always present when the House is in session (as an ex-miner, his ethic is that if you don't turn up to work, you get sacked). Nor does he pair up (the system whereby a Labour MP will "pair up" with a Tory MP, for example, with the understanding that if one cannot attend a vote, his/her opposite number will abstain from voting too) on the grounds that it stops "them" (Tory MPs) from going off to Ascott, grouse shooting or attending boardroom meetings when they should be doing their job as an MP
"But how to make Liverpool economically prosperous? If only there was some way for Liverpudlians to profit from going on and on about the past in a whiny voice."
- Stewart Lee
- Stewart Lee
-
Sarah Kelly
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Some ideas to make politics fairer and better...
your absolutely right...point 8 is a stupid idea...id offer myself up for a spanking if it wasnt for the fact it would be entirely innaproprate...Im sticking to point 7 tho..!wink!
Always certed,works to Hard BG/GG/ANAL/DP+EXTREME Fetish.
Easy going,fun,Hard Working,Professional
I turn up prepared,on time,ready to shoot what you want as I`m RELIABLE! ;)
SarahKellyxxx
Easy going,fun,Hard Working,Professional
I turn up prepared,on time,ready to shoot what you want as I`m RELIABLE! ;)
SarahKellyxxx
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Some ideas to make politics fairer and better...
I've never understood why they were ever able to claim for bathplugs, DVD's, cleaners, food, and so on when much less well-paid people have to pay it out of their earnings. I am glad so many of these people were outed by the Press and vilified.