egafd.com

Obviously the MP would have to claim travel costs if they are located a long way away and have to be in their constituency several days a week and in Westminster the other days but it should be no more than reasonable travel expenses and no more. They should have to justify coming aswell, like "there was a major debate that I participated in and was in the House all day." Some have done things like have two days in London so they can watch a play in the West End that evening, will jutify the claim on the travel by popping into the House of Commons for an hour, then hit the town. And the flight or first-class train fare from hundreds of miles away is paid by the taxpayer.

I've always admired Dennis Skinner, he gave most of his monthly earnings to striking miners' families in the 1984 miners strike and whether people agree with the strike or not it was certainly a kind thing to do.

You mention about one MP not being there so their opposite number sits it out aswell - I'd not heard of that before. There is a thing called 'horse trading' where someone says to their opposite number "vote with us in this debate and we will vote with you in the next one". That is quite common in the European Parliament from what I have heard.

The advantage of an annual election is so politicans keep their promises because they are never that far away from having the possibility of being thrown out of office. I mentioned about the Tories in 1987 and 1992, the public realised they'd been had within 3 or 4 months and there was nothing they could do. This way politicans will keep their promises, not lie their way into office, and do what the public expect of them. If a party is doing well, is liked, and seems to be there for the good of the country rather than themselves then they would keep being re-elected and stay in office for ages. With an annual election you would get politicans who deserve to be in office, not just want to be in office.

Regarding the PM being elected, basically whenever a change of leader was on the horizon there would be a general election. Neil Kinnock, the Labour leader, called for one in 1990 when Thatcher resigned but the country didn't get one - John Mayor just became PM without anyone being consulted. The same happened not so long ago with Gordon Brown. It would not be a case of electing a PM seperate from electing the party to rule the country, just a general election when a change of leader is coming up so the public can choose.

Have a look at this national TV debate that is going to be happening between the 3 leaders soon. If David Cameron impresses people his voter base will increase and the chances of the Tory's winning this year will increase. So people are choosing which party to vote for along the lines of whether they think the leader would make a good PM. If the PM can just leave and anyone takes over without the public having a say, then we may as well just elect David Cameron and the Tory's this year and then he might aswell resign the following day. Of course people choose a party along the lines of how good the leader would be as a PM, so I think it is appalling that just anyone can take over whenever they like and no one has a say. If they 'go to the country' when a PM resigns then it is more democratic as the public will have who they want leading them.

Based on how likely that party will do in the forthcoming election. I mentioned that loans could be given to a party, based on its anticipated success at the coming election, then either the money is kept or returned depending on how well they do. This is just a sketch of an idea, some boffins running a think-tank could flesh it out a bit more, but I think this has the rough makings of something that will work. Certainly more fair than bungs from corporations and those corporations expecting favours in return.

The set-terms thing would be fairer than what we presently have but I still think four years is too infrequent.

I heard about Labour having a surprise win in 1964 and them not really having any policies as they did not expect to win. Didn't they win by just 4 seats or something? It is worth bearing in mind though that under my annual elections idea a party doing well, and is liked, would be in power for years and years anyway so they would have lots of time to implement their policies.

The PM is not presently elected as PM, just as an MP and a new PM can just take over. I would like to see, as I've said, there being a general election when a leader resigns so we get the leader we want. You can not deny that many of the people who will vote for the Tory Party to be the Government this year will do so because they think Cameron will be a good PM - so people vote for the party the want by the PM they want and the policies that person has.

There may be rules on how soon an ex-politician can take up a Directorship of a company he/she helped create, but it is not against the rules if they just allow that bit of time to pass. Didn't Norman Tebbit become a director of Mercury (Tebbit helped bring about the privatisation of British Telecom); and didn't Stephen Norris, the man who personally privatised British Rail, become a director of Railtrack later on? There are many other examples too.

I'm aware that Blair's wife is a qualified barrister and I was aware than whilst Blair was PM his missus earned about 3 times as much as him, but I always remember her calling herself Blair at times and Booth at other times, and even autographing certain booklets once and selling them to make money for some personal venture of hers. "Cherie Blair" was the name she signed them as, but she was "Cherie Booth" the rest of the time in her career.

In addition to the 6 things I listed at the top, I have a few more:

7. I would like to see a referedum take place on issues that are not your standard day-to-day decisions that a Goverment takes. Caretaker-type duties, like runnning the Health Service, schools, the Police, roads and so on, the Government can just get on with, but really big decisions like us going to war, us becoming part of an even bigger Europe and all the changes that will make to our country (like when the 10 new countries joined in 2004, and the other 2 that joiined a couple of years later), I would like to see referendums on. I have always been amazed at how much power, and ability to change things long term, a here today/gone tomorrow Government has.

8. Rules on, through total nepotism, family members becoming politicans. The former Thatcher cabinet minister Douglas Hurd is apparently the 3rd generation of his family to be a Tory MP, and his son is now a Tory MP too. Look at how many generations of Winston Churchill's family have been parliamentarians, several before him, and several after him. A generation from now David Cameron and George Osbourne's kids will be MP's aswell.

9. Compulsory voting, like they have in Australia. That will mean a party is elected by a more significant chunk of the population. Labour 'won' in 2005 with 36% of those who actually voted, and it you add in all the voters who didn't vote then only 20% of the voters of Britain voted Labour that year, yet they were still returned to office - and Blair, who promised to do 5 years, went after two years and that egotistical idiot Brown just took over.

max_tranmere wrote:

> The advantage of an annual election is so politicans keep their
> promises because they are never that far away from having the
> possibility of being thrown out of office. I mentioned about
> the Tories in 1987 and 1992, the public realised they'd been
> had within 3 or 4 months and there was nothing they could do.
> This way politicans will keep their promises, not lie their way
> into office, and do what the public expect of them. If a party
> is doing well, is liked, and seems to be there for the good of
> the country rather than themselves then they would keep being
> re-elected and stay in office for ages. With an annual election
> you would get politicans who deserve to be in office, not just
> want to be in office.


Aside from the expense of having elections every year (surely the money would be better spent on schools, hospitals etc???), and the likely boredom created by such annual events, the fact that governments couldn't plan more than a year ahead would effectively be tying this country's hands behind its back!

There are times when governments have to do things which may not be popular with the public, but are necessary for the good of the nation as a whole. With yearly elections you'd end up with politicians pandering to the whim of the lowest common denominator... the winner of the X Factor may sell a lot of records, but it doesn't mean they are actually talented. We'd end up with a form of X Factor politics. NO THANKS!!!!

Max, have you ever thought of doing humanity a favour and taking a large overdose of sleeping pills?

max_tranmere wrote:

> In addition to the 6 things I listed at the top, I have a few
> more:
>
> 7. I would like to see a referedum take place on issues that
> are not your standard day-to-day decisions that a Goverment
> takes. Caretaker-type duties, like runnning the Health Service,
> schools, the Police, roads and so on, the Government can just
> get on with, but really big decisions like us going to war, us
> becoming part of an even bigger Europe and all the changes that
> will make to our country (like when the 10 new countries joined
> in 2004, and the other 2 that joiined a couple of years later),
> I would like to see referendums on. I have always been amazed
> at how much power, and ability to change things long term, a
> here today/gone tomorrow Government has.

Apart from the cost of referendums (and if you had your way, it would probably add at least 1 - 2% to people's tax bills... money that, if taxes increased by that level I personally would prefer to see spent on social housing, education, health etc) there is the thorny problem of "educating" the electorate. Given many people vote the way their paper tells them to, do you really trust Rupert Murdoch enough to allow his papers and TV stations to be even-handed and balanced in their reporting? I don't.

I've found that on the whole it's the people with the least common sense, the least ability to understand both sides of an argument, indeed those with the most blinkered views who want referendums. Democracy is second only to a dictatorship as the worst possible political system... let's not make things worse by allowing idiots to have a say in things that really matter!


>
> 8. Rules on, through total nepotism, family members becoming
> politicans. The former Thatcher cabinet minister Douglas Hurd
> is apparently the 3rd generation of his family to be a Tory MP,
> and his son is now a Tory MP too. Look at how many generations
> of Winston Churchill's family have been parliamentarians,
> several before him, and several after him. A generation from
> now David Cameron and George Osbourne's kids will be MP's
> aswell.
>

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word nepotism. If Churchill had made his son PM when he retired, that would be nepotism, His grandson become an elected MP and then rising to a junior minister long after his death is NOT nepotism!

The fact you show such ignorance only strengthens my belief that you should not be allowed to vote on anything.



> 9. Compulsory voting, like they have in Australia. That will
> mean a party is elected by a more significant chunk of the
> population. Labour 'won' in 2005 with 36% of those who actually
> voted, and it you add in all the voters who didn't vote then
> only 20% of the voters of Britain voted Labour that year, yet
> they were still returned to office - and Blair, who promised to
> do 5 years, went after two years and that egotistical idiot
> Brown just took over.

In 2005 people voted knowing full well that Blair would NOT see out the full five years (what paper do you read? The Beano??), so I really don't know where you get this idea that he lied by only doing 2 before retiring.

Regarding compulsory voting... is voting a civic duty or a civil right? Civil rights include freedom of speech, freedom to marry etc. Surely voting should also be considered a right rather than a duty. Forcing people to vote may also infringe on some of their other rights. For example Jehovah's Witnesses do not vote because their belief system tells them not to be involved in politics. Would you force them to vote against their will? What if I don't believe any candidate standing in my constituency is worthy of my vote... will you force me to vote against my wishes?

The problem with compulsory voting is that people forced to vote against their wishes may vote for a fringe candidate (for example the BNP) as their method of rebellion (the so-called "donkey vote"). What if that BNP candidate got in, not because they were the most popular, but because so many disaffected people voted for him/her as a form of protest. Is a parliament made up of MPs who only got in as a result of a protest vote the best way of governing a country?

Some people say that compulsory voting would increase voter knowledge of the issues. This is pure bunkum. Of those that wish to vote, some will have a decent grounding in current affairs, and some will just vote a particular way because everyone in their family votes that way, for example. Of those who don't wish to vote, a very small number will have taken that decision having weighed up the pros and cons of all the parties involved and decided not to vote. The vast majority, however, don't vote through apathy... an apathy that starts with not really knowing much about current affairs and glibly saying "they're all the same" or some other trite comment, and forcing these people to vote would not make them better informed.

Max,
It might interest you to know that the PM is elected (in a fashion) and works like this.

Members of a political party (at least Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems) have votes to elect the leader of that party when the position becomes vacant.

If that party is them elected (by the public) in a general election then the leader of that party automatically becomes the PM. If during their term office the PM either resigns or there is a leadership contest then the party members get another vote and the winner becomes the new PM. However, if there's only one candidate standing for election then his/her appointment is carried without contest.

It may not be perfect but that's how it is.

Myson
!oldie!