My suggestion was about 2k combined tax and ni circa 18k income....or volunteer work and yes you can mix and match so 1k combined plus 100 hours a year....didnt think it that onerous....if I had said 10k or 2000 hours yes and its more the principle something not earned is not valued
So someone on benefits due to say, permanent disability, is excluded from the vote. As are most pensioners.
Pensioners and the disabled are obviously cases that need to be thought about. This don't forget is a thumbnail outline not a complete blueprint and no we would not want to disadvantage them. Pensioners for example as an off the cuff thought and not one I have thought about deeply so bear with me would get an automatic vote if they had earned it in say 4 of the last 7 elections once retiring
I do sense from the header and other postings that you have a very deep dislike of the idea of people receiving benefits.
It's a view you are fully entitled to hold of course but my view is very different.
Where has the header imply that. I suggested there should be different ways to earn your vote. I would hope not to disenfranchise anyone in point of fact. What I rather hope to do is make them value their vote and be more thoughtful about it
Ooof. That's possibly the first time I've seen Macron look seriously anxious, and self-doubting. His face says it all. He's always highly-strung but always in command of his emotions: normally
First, congratulations on @Pagan2 for his debut piece. It's always good to see new thinking on this forum and this should serve as an encouragement for more of the regular contributors to put up a thread.
Some thoughts on the ideas: - one or two of them are certainly interesting 4) - the notion of a wholly independent evaluation of each party's manifesto proposals is an excellent idea. The IFS has offered something similar in the past.
As for 5), I'm not convinced we should outlaw non-infrastructure borrowing. There have been times of late when it's been quite useful to borrow with rates historically low and obviously unforeseeable events such as global pandemics stretch financial resources.
I need to think more about 2) and 3) as they aren't without merit but I question their practicality.
As for 1) it cuts right across the "party" system and weakens the power of the Prime Minister (as well as his/her patronage) so I can see some pros and cons.
I'm wholly opposed to 6).
On the point about 4 - the IFS used to offer good insight on the offering's of both parties. Now with Paul Johnstone it's a joke. His comments on Labour's bankrupt the nation plan as "ambitious" were completely ridiculous. The IFS used to be about sound money and good economics now it seems to think it's remit is to call for more spending all the time in any situation. The whole leadership needs to be upended.
Lol! Face it, neoliberalism is (thankfully) falling out of fashion again. Even before Covid this Tory government was spend, spend, spend.
The Universal franchise is a right, not a privilege
Universal adult suffrage is less than a century old in this country. Property qualification was the norm on the basis that those with a greater stake in society should have more say than those who didn't. One man one vote was not established in local government elections in Northern Ireland until the 70s.
My suggestion was about 2k combined tax and ni circa 18k income....or volunteer work and yes you can mix and match so 1k combined plus 100 hours a year....didnt think it that onerous....if I had said 10k or 2000 hours yes and its more the principle something not earned is not valued
As a very high earner in the additional tax band I'd be one of the people to benefit from such a system but I find the idea quite disturbing. Money shouldn't be able to buy more of a say in who governs the country. The donation system is already a mess of influence buying, this directly links wealth to having more of a say.
One of the great things about this country is that I have exactly the same amount of votes (1) as someone who has a billion pounds in a bank or someone who is on the dole (1).
I can see merit in some of the other ideas and I think a more direct democracy like Switzerland can be beneficial, I don't see any merit in restrictions on the franchise for citizens.
You might have the same number of votes but the relationship between the wealthy and the governing parties of all flavours shows that is irrelevant, money buys policy already.
Firstly influence buying is completely different to receiving more votes by virtue of income, secondly a person would need to choose to buy influence with large donations to parties, this would be automatic and reward higher earners and very high earners with much more of a say over public life than lower income earners.
It would completely break the current social contract this country maintains between the wealthy and less wealthy. It's already at breaking point with tax evasion and avoidance by billionaires which the government turns a blind eye to.
Come on, pagan is suggesting earning £18k or volunteering or retired or disabilities or other things. It is hardly about restricting voting to the wealthy.
And also increased votes for people who have higher contributions. A sort of incentive to earn more money I guess.
Even the idea of a threshold is completely unpalatable to me. How could I look someone in the eye knowing that I have a say on our government and they don't. It's completely wrong.
If the directly elected executive positions are elected separately, it isn’t obvious how a coherent government with a programme emerges.
That's one of the major issues with @Pagan2's proposals. One can easily imagine that a collection of magistrates rather than a single presidency would lead to both irreconcilable conflict and inevitable cakeism. People would in all likelihood vote for socialist public services and libertarian economics. And how on Earth do you create discrete jurisdictions in policy either? It's a recipe for fragmented Government and turf wars. You can only resolve that by electing an adjudicator - i.e. a president - with the power to break up arguments and knock heads together, which only results in a collection of cabinet ministers that are at once impotent and immovable. It's entirely impractical.
These thought experiments do, however, help one to understand why the hierarchies of power in the nations of the world tend to conform to a narrow range of established patterns in most cases. Nearly all states have a head of government drawn from and answerable to the legislature, and a largely or entirely ceremonial head of state (e.g. the UK,) a full separation of powers with an executive president elected directly to govern, and a discrete legislature (e.g. the USA,) or some hybrid of those two systems (e.g. France.) These systems aim to avoid, insofar as possible, the problems which other theoretical models might lead to.
I have taken note downthread of the suggestion by @Pagan2 that one of the aims of their ideas is to loosen the grip of political parties on the decision making process. One can understand the motivation for this: parties are by definition comprised of narrow sects of the most politically motivated individuals, advance platforms and ideologies that are not wholeheartedly embraced by most electors, and mitigate against compromise. But when one considers the likely alternative - an assembly of independents that might take forever to rationally debate every issue without necessarily reaching a consensus - then one is forced to contemplate whether the party political system is to forms of democratic governance what democracy is to forms of government itself: the worst form, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.
I think sortition could play a small part in parliament, perhaps 10% of independents in the Commons, or 20% in the Lords. That would also remove some of the frustrations of FPTP and weaken the power of the whips and parties whilst still leaving them in charge.
As I recall it, people didn't like much the parliament of 17-19, with its independents, defections and ignoring of the whips. Indeed people voted for executive dictatorship to replace it. One way for democracies to fall is when they abolish themselves.
What do we all reckon to the 27 dead in one swoop care home incident in France. Virus endgame mutation ?
Unless we know the denominator of residents and time period, it is a meaningless number. There were similar stories from Spanish, American and British care homes in this epidemic.
Yes, Madrid had entire care homes wiped out, in the first wave, to the extent that the army had to go in to retrieve forgotten corpses.
It is worrying, but then, this is a plague. They are worrisome. No need for hysterical panic, as some PBers like to do
It is quite absurd how long this scheme is taking to realise. Over the past 12 months, has the government not thought to perhaps have a few civil servants come up with such a plan , you know just in case....
My suggestion was about 2k combined tax and ni circa 18k income....or volunteer work and yes you can mix and match so 1k combined plus 100 hours a year....didnt think it that onerous....if I had said 10k or 2000 hours yes and its more the principle something not earned is not valued
As a very high earner in the additional tax band I'd be one of the people to benefit from such a system but I find the idea quite disturbing. Money shouldn't be able to buy more of a say in who governs the country. The donation system is already a mess of influence buying, this directly links wealth to having more of a say.
One of the great things about this country is that I have exactly the same amount of votes (1) as someone who has a billion pounds in a bank or someone who is on the dole (1).
I can see merit in some of the other ideas and I think a more direct democracy like Switzerland can be beneficial, I don't see any merit in restrictions on the franchise for citizens.
You might have the same number of votes but the relationship between the wealthy and the governing parties of all flavours shows that is irrelevant, money buys policy already.
Firstly influence buying is completely different to receiving more votes by virtue of income, secondly a person would need to choose to buy influence with large donations to parties, this would be automatic and reward higher earners and very high earners with much more of a say over public life than lower income earners.
It would completely break the current social contract this country maintains between the wealthy and less wealthy. It's already at breaking point with tax evasion and avoidance by billionaires which the government turns a blind eye to.
Come on, pagan is suggesting earning £18k or volunteering or retired or disabilities or other things. It is hardly about restricting voting to the wealthy.
And also increased votes for people who have higher contributions. A sort of incentive to earn more money I guess.
Even the idea of a threshold is completely unpalatable to me. How could I look someone in the eye knowing that I have a say on our government and they don't. It's completely wrong.
I never said anything about increased votes for people with higher contribution. I did suggest an alternative scheme where all citizens get 1 vote they could then get an extra vote for crossing the low threshold or an extra vote for volunteering. I havent suggested the more you pay over the threshold the more votes you get
How about votes based on IQ, one vote per IQ point? The intelligent vote!
Or age related, one vote for every year under 125 you are. Thus the young have more influence than the old, which seems only fair as they are generally paying most into the coffers and have most time on average to endure the consequences of decisions made.
(For the avoidance of doubt these are not serious suggestions.)
I like option 2 but the limit is retirement age. Once you are drawing a pension your vote is now worth zero.
It's one of the things that disturbs me about matters such as Brexit that the most vehement on one side have the least involvement in the consequences of their actions, as a matter of wealth or, especially, of age. Why shoiuld people within a few years of death (on actuarial averages) have the same sayayin Brexit and Scottish independence as those who are 17 or 18?
It's a very slippery slope. Parliaments can institute changes which will have ripple effects for decades to come, should we deny the vote to people who are predicted to live less than a full parliamentary term?
It's just too complicated to decide which issues have which effect the longest and so deny some people people the vote as it won't affect them. It's disproportionate.
Many older and wealthy people did not support Brexit or do support Sindy - better to try to persuade them of the correct course, whatever that is, than just decide they'll be dead soon so why even ask them.
We've come a long way from the idea that age brings wisdom, these days, haven't we?
Is it too late to propose a moderate oligarchy of 5000? Thucydides considered its brief span during 411-410 BC to have been the best Athenian government of his lifetime.
How about votes based on IQ, one vote per IQ point? The intelligent vote!
Or age related, one vote for every year under 125 you are. Thus the young have more influence than the old, which seems only fair as they are generally paying most into the coffers and have most time on average to endure the consequences of decisions made.
(For the avoidance of doubt these are not serious suggestions.)
I like option 2 but the limit is retirement age. Once you are drawing a pension your vote is now worth zero.
It's one of the things that disturbs me about matters such as Brexit that the most vehement on one side have the least involvement in the consequences of their actions, as a matter of wealth or, especially, of age. Why shoiuld people within a few years of death (on actuarial averages) have the same sayayin Brexit and Scottish independence as those who are 17 or 18?
It's a very slippery slope. Parliaments can institute changes which will have ripple effects for decades to come, should we deny the vote to people who are predicted to live less than a full parliamentary term?
It's just too complicated to decide which issues have which effect the longest and so deny some people people the vote as it won't affect them. It's disproportionate.
Many older and wealthy people did not support Brexit or do support Sindy - better to try to persuade them of the correct course, whatever that is, than just decide they'll be dead soon so why even ask them.
We've come a long way from the idea that age brings wisdom, these days, haven't we?
Indeed another way of looking at the brexit referendum is The less experience of the eu you had the more likely to vote for remain and the more experience the more likely to vote to leave
How about votes based on IQ, one vote per IQ point? The intelligent vote!
Or age related, one vote for every year under 125 you are. Thus the young have more influence than the old, which seems only fair as they are generally paying most into the coffers and have most time on average to endure the consequences of decisions made.
(For the avoidance of doubt these are not serious suggestions.)
I like option 2 but the limit is retirement age. Once you are drawing a pension your vote is now worth zero.
It's one of the things that disturbs me about matters such as Brexit that the most vehement on one side have the least involvement in the consequences of their actions, as a matter of wealth or, especially, of age. Why shoiuld people within a few years of death (on actuarial averages) have the same sayayin Brexit and Scottish independence as those who are 17 or 18?
It's a very slippery slope. Parliaments can institute changes which will have ripple effects for decades to come, should we deny the vote to people who are predicted to live less than a full parliamentary term?
It's just too complicated to decide which issues have which effect the longest and so deny some people people the vote as it won't affect them. It's disproportionate.
Many older and wealthy people did not support Brexit or do support Sindy - better to try to persuade them of the correct course, whatever that is, than just decide they'll be dead soon so why even ask them.
We've come a long way from the idea that age brings wisdom, these days, haven't we?
oh my it got published....ah well I expect I raised a few hackles but I was asked to submit it
Well done Pagan. I'm really chuffed you posted it. It deserved a bigger audience than just me. As I said when you sent it to me I don't agree with it all, but it deserved discussion and it attempted to address the issues I raised which is more than I did.
How about votes based on IQ, one vote per IQ point? The intelligent vote!
Or age related, one vote for every year under 125 you are. Thus the young have more influence than the old, which seems only fair as they are generally paying most into the coffers and have most time on average to endure the consequences of decisions made.
(For the avoidance of doubt these are not serious suggestions.)
I'd restrict the vote to white male house-owners, over 40. Who are able to bring women aged 20-25 to orgasms so intense it requires plastic sheeting beforehand
I may pitch this idea to TSE, when I have finished my new oolitic butt plug
Wasn't that the pre-1832 franchise?
The Representation of the People Act 1832 removed the orgasm requirement IIRC.
If the directly elected executive positions are elected separately, it isn’t obvious how a coherent government with a programme emerges.
That's one of the major issues with @Pagan2's proposals. One can easily imagine that a collection of magistrates rather than a single presidency would lead to both irreconcilable conflict and inevitable cakeism. People would in all likelihood vote for socialist public services and libertarian economics. And how on Earth do you create discrete jurisdictions in policy either? It's a recipe for fragmented Government and turf wars. You can only resolve that by electing an adjudicator - i.e. a president - with the power to break up arguments and knock heads together, which only results in a collection of cabinet ministers that are at once impotent and immovable. It's entirely impractical.
These thought experiments do, however, help one to understand why the hierarchies of power in the nations of the world tend to conform to a narrow range of established patterns in most cases. Nearly all states have a head of government drawn from and answerable to the legislature, and a largely or entirely ceremonial head of state (e.g. the UK,) a full separation of powers with an executive president elected directly to govern, and a discrete legislature (e.g. the USA,) or some hybrid of those two systems (e.g. France.) These systems aim to avoid, insofar as possible, the problems which other theoretical models might lead to.
I have taken note downthread of the suggestion by @Pagan2 that one of the aims of their ideas is to loosen the grip of political parties on the decision making process. One can understand the motivation for this: parties are by definition comprised of narrow sects of the most politically motivated individuals, advance platforms and ideologies that are not wholeheartedly embraced by most electors, and mitigate against compromise. But when one considers the likely alternative - an assembly of independents that might take forever to rationally debate every issue without necessarily reaching a consensus - then one is forced to contemplate whether the party political system is to forms of democratic governance what democracy is to forms of government itself: the worst form, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.
Which is why I said before election each proposal had to be costed and that people should be able to see how it would effect tax. People cannot select give everyone 20k up front because that will be costed and they will have to pay the tax. Policy and cost are linked. Select the policy, pay the tax for it
But goverment is crap at estimating the costs of things. And what if it was right to start with, but things change - a plebsicite to see if they want to continue with it?
My suggestion was about 2k combined tax and ni circa 18k income....or volunteer work and yes you can mix and match so 1k combined plus 100 hours a year....didnt think it that onerous....if I had said 10k or 2000 hours yes and its more the principle something not earned is not valued
As a very high earner in the additional tax band I'd be one of the people to benefit from such a system but I find the idea quite disturbing. Money shouldn't be able to buy more of a say in who governs the country. The donation system is already a mess of influence buying, this directly links wealth to having more of a say.
One of the great things about this country is that I have exactly the same amount of votes (1) as someone who has a billion pounds in a bank or someone who is on the dole (1).
I can see merit in some of the other ideas and I think a more direct democracy like Switzerland can be beneficial, I don't see any merit in restrictions on the franchise for citizens.
You might have the same number of votes but the relationship between the wealthy and the governing parties of all flavours shows that is irrelevant, money buys policy already.
Firstly influence buying is completely different to receiving more votes by virtue of income, secondly a person would need to choose to buy influence with large donations to parties, this would be automatic and reward higher earners and very high earners with much more of a say over public life than lower income earners.
It would completely break the current social contract this country maintains between the wealthy and less wealthy. It's already at breaking point with tax evasion and avoidance by billionaires which the government turns a blind eye to.
Come on, pagan is suggesting earning £18k or volunteering or retired or disabilities or other things. It is hardly about restricting voting to the wealthy.
And also increased votes for people who have higher contributions. A sort of incentive to earn more money I guess.
Even the idea of a threshold is completely unpalatable to me. How could I look someone in the eye knowing that I have a say on our government and they don't. It's completely wrong.
I wouldnt support increased votes for higher contributions, I didnt see that in the article itself, guess it must be in the comments?
I find the system of giving a vote to an expat who has neither been in the country or paid taxes for 15 years but not to the resident non nationals who may have lived here for 15 years paying taxes unpalatable.
This very week at PMQ the PM defended the policy of requiring British born people eligible for citizenship to pay over £1k to get citizenship and therefore the vote, so paying for a vote already happens to some.
My suggestion was about 2k combined tax and ni circa 18k income....or volunteer work and yes you can mix and match so 1k combined plus 100 hours a year....didnt think it that onerous....if I had said 10k or 2000 hours yes and its more the principle something not earned is not valued
As a very high earner in the additional tax band I'd be one of the people to benefit from such a system but I find the idea quite disturbing. Money shouldn't be able to buy more of a say in who governs the country. The donation system is already a mess of influence buying, this directly links wealth to having more of a say.
One of the great things about this country is that I have exactly the same amount of votes (1) as someone who has a billion pounds in a bank or someone who is on the dole (1).
I can see merit in some of the other ideas and I think a more direct democracy like Switzerland can be beneficial, I don't see any merit in restrictions on the franchise for citizens.
You might have the same number of votes but the relationship between the wealthy and the governing parties of all flavours shows that is irrelevant, money buys policy already.
Firstly influence buying is completely different to receiving more votes by virtue of income, secondly a person would need to choose to buy influence with large donations to parties, this would be automatic and reward higher earners and very high earners with much more of a say over public life than lower income earners.
It would completely break the current social contract this country maintains between the wealthy and less wealthy. It's already at breaking point with tax evasion and avoidance by billionaires which the government turns a blind eye to.
Come on, pagan is suggesting earning £18k or volunteering or retired or disabilities or other things. It is hardly about restricting voting to the wealthy.
And also increased votes for people who have higher contributions. A sort of incentive to earn more money I guess.
Even the idea of a threshold is completely unpalatable to me. How could I look someone in the eye knowing that I have a say on our government and they don't. It's completely wrong.
Have you ever been canvassing with a candidate, in a less than rich area? I have.
It is pretty sobering. About every 3rd house you think, OMFG these people are deciding the future of the nation. They haven't got a clue. They can barely boil an egg.
I love the idea of democracy but I wonder if it has peaked. I'm serious. First, we have the success of China, clearly out-performing the USA, in almost every way now (including pandemic-management, despite starting a pandemic). In China, the technocratic Party decides. but as the Party can take a longer view than any individual, the Party is wiser. This model becomes increasingly seductive to many, as America declines and China ascends. Cf Singapore. Basically a one party state which has beautifully married English Common Law to Chinese autocracy.
Second, AI. How far away is the moment when a computer will make a better political choice than any average human? About 10 minutes, I reckon.
The future will be special, neutral, bespoke voting robots, deciding our elections.
I am serious. I think democracy, as we know it, is nearly done. The machines know better, that's why they fly our planes and will soon drive our cars. After that, they select our government
How about votes based on IQ, one vote per IQ point? The intelligent vote!
Or age related, one vote for every year under 125 you are. Thus the young have more influence than the old, which seems only fair as they are generally paying most into the coffers and have most time on average to endure the consequences of decisions made.
(For the avoidance of doubt these are not serious suggestions.)
I like option 2 but the limit is retirement age. Once you are drawing a pension your vote is now worth zero.
It's one of the things that disturbs me about matters such as Brexit that the most vehement on one side have the least involvement in the consequences of their actions, as a matter of wealth or, especially, of age. Why shoiuld people within a few years of death (on actuarial averages) have the same sayayin Brexit and Scottish independence as those who are 17 or 18?
It's a very slippery slope. Parliaments can institute changes which will have ripple effects for decades to come, should we deny the vote to people who are predicted to live less than a full parliamentary term?
It's just too complicated to decide which issues have which effect the longest and so deny some people people the vote as it won't affect them. It's disproportionate.
Many older and wealthy people did not support Brexit or do support Sindy - better to try to persuade them of the correct course, whatever that is, than just decide they'll be dead soon so why even ask them.
We've come a long way from the idea that age brings wisdom, these days, haven't we?
Indeed another way of looking at the brexit referendum is The less experience of the eu you had the more likely to vote for remain and the more experience the more likely to vote to leave
Or the less likely it was to affect your income, the more likely to vote Brexit...
(Or the perception of such, hence shellfish fishermen)
If the directly elected executive positions are elected separately, it isn’t obvious how a coherent government with a programme emerges.
That's one of the major issues with @Pagan2's proposals. One can easily imagine that a collection of magistrates rather than a single presidency would lead to both irreconcilable conflict and inevitable cakeism. People would in all likelihood vote for socialist public services and libertarian economics. And how on Earth do you create discrete jurisdictions in policy either? It's a recipe for fragmented Government and turf wars. You can only resolve that by electing an adjudicator - i.e. a president - with the power to break up arguments and knock heads together, which only results in a collection of cabinet ministers that are at once impotent and immovable. It's entirely impractical.
These thought experiments do, however, help one to understand why the hierarchies of power in the nations of the world tend to conform to a narrow range of established patterns in most cases. Nearly all states have a head of government drawn from and answerable to the legislature, and a largely or entirely ceremonial head of state (e.g. the UK,) a full separation of powers with an executive president elected directly to govern, and a discrete legislature (e.g. the USA,) or some hybrid of those two systems (e.g. France.) These systems aim to avoid, insofar as possible, the problems which other theoretical models might lead to.
I have taken note downthread of the suggestion by @Pagan2 that one of the aims of their ideas is to loosen the grip of political parties on the decision making process. One can understand the motivation for this: parties are by definition comprised of narrow sects of the most politically motivated individuals, advance platforms and ideologies that are not wholeheartedly embraced by most electors, and mitigate against compromise. But when one considers the likely alternative - an assembly of independents that might take forever to rationally debate every issue without necessarily reaching a consensus - then one is forced to contemplate whether the party political system is to forms of democratic governance what democracy is to forms of government itself: the worst form, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.
Which is why I said before election each proposal had to be costed and that people should be able to see how it would effect tax. People cannot select give everyone 20k up front because that will be costed and they will have to pay the tax. Policy and cost are linked. Select the policy, pay the tax for it
But goverment is crap at estimating the costs of things. And what if it was right to start with, but things change - a plebsicite to see if they want to continue with it?
I mentioned they had to have concrete measures to show it was working, I would suggest if they were missing targets there could be a recall style referendum on that minister
The article was great fun. Here are a couple of objections.
1) Events dear boy events. Politics requires a government and parliament that deals with the unforeseen, sometimes within days of being elected. No amount of advance funding and policy evaluation helps.
2) There is no such thing as an independent evaluation.
3) How do you winnow down to three.
4) Fiscal disciplines are common, here is another. Events mean they don't work.
5) The principle that 'everyone counts as one and no-one counts as more than one (or less)' is too precious to lose, despite the temptation. Anyway, there is no such thing as an independent evaluation of qualification to vote once it has values attached to it.
6) Laws still have to be placed by someone in a precise and accountable language to be interpreted by courts, and someone has to take democratic accountability for the consequences. This doesn't solve the problem.
7) I worry that Plato would like this system better than the status quo, and Karl Popper would like it less.
My suggestion was about 2k combined tax and ni circa 18k income....or volunteer work and yes you can mix and match so 1k combined plus 100 hours a year....didnt think it that onerous....if I had said 10k or 2000 hours yes and its more the principle something not earned is not valued
As a very high earner in the additional tax band I'd be one of the people to benefit from such a system but I find the idea quite disturbing. Money shouldn't be able to buy more of a say in who governs the country. The donation system is already a mess of influence buying, this directly links wealth to having more of a say.
One of the great things about this country is that I have exactly the same amount of votes (1) as someone who has a billion pounds in a bank or someone who is on the dole (1).
I can see merit in some of the other ideas and I think a more direct democracy like Switzerland can be beneficial, I don't see any merit in restrictions on the franchise for citizens.
You might have the same number of votes but the relationship between the wealthy and the governing parties of all flavours shows that is irrelevant, money buys policy already.
Firstly influence buying is completely different to receiving more votes by virtue of income, secondly a person would need to choose to buy influence with large donations to parties, this would be automatic and reward higher earners and very high earners with much more of a say over public life than lower income earners.
It would completely break the current social contract this country maintains between the wealthy and less wealthy. It's already at breaking point with tax evasion and avoidance by billionaires which the government turns a blind eye to.
Come on, pagan is suggesting earning £18k or volunteering or retired or disabilities or other things. It is hardly about restricting voting to the wealthy.
And also increased votes for people who have higher contributions. A sort of incentive to earn more money I guess.
Even the idea of a threshold is completely unpalatable to me. How could I look someone in the eye knowing that I have a say on our government and they don't. It's completely wrong.
I wouldnt support increased votes for higher contributions, I didnt see that in the article itself, guess it must be in the comments?
I find the system of giving a vote to an expat who has neither been in the country or paid taxes for 15 years but not to the resident non nationals who may have lived here for 15 years paying taxes unpalatable.
This very week at PMQ the PM defended the policy of requiring British born people eligible for citizenship to pay over £1k to get citizenship and therefore the vote, so paying for a vote already happens to some.
There was no proposal for higher contribitions giving increased votes and I would prefer that the contribution was a low bar, I also said non nationals crossing the bar should get a vote on non constitutional matters
I'd like to see 1) implemented for roles such as police commissioners. Not sure if I entirely get 2) - sorry 3) would probably be messed up probably by the lawyers playing precisely the lawyerball it seeks to abolish. 4) is a good idea 5) lol won't happen with Covid finances ;D 6) Perhaps the most controversial part of the header - and good headers spark debate. In practice I think the least engaged in society simply never vote anyway - GE2019, an important one had 67% turnout which meant a third of people just didn't bother. I don't think you can go so far as to excluding natural citizens the vote. A year of national service, or alternatively citizen's national service for all young men and women at say 19 - 20 might be a good idea though... And could we extend the franchise to taxpaying immigrant residents, perhaps with the £18,000 qualification - perhaps. They are contributing to our society so maybe deserve a say.
If the directly elected executive positions are elected separately, it isn’t obvious how a coherent government with a programme emerges.
That's one of the major issues with @Pagan2's proposals. One can easily imagine that a collection of magistrates rather than a single presidency would lead to both irreconcilable conflict and inevitable cakeism. People would in all likelihood vote for socialist public services and libertarian economics. And how on Earth do you create discrete jurisdictions in policy either? It's a recipe for fragmented Government and turf wars. You can only resolve that by electing an adjudicator - i.e. a president - with the power to break up arguments and knock heads together, which only results in a collection of cabinet ministers that are at once impotent and immovable. It's entirely impractical.
These thought experiments do, however, help one to understand why the hierarchies of power in the nations of the world tend to conform to a narrow range of established patterns in most cases. Nearly all states have a head of government drawn from and answerable to the legislature, and a largely or entirely ceremonial head of state (e.g. the UK,) a full separation of powers with an executive president elected directly to govern, and a discrete legislature (e.g. the USA,) or some hybrid of those two systems (e.g. France.) These systems aim to avoid, insofar as possible, the problems which other theoretical models might lead to.
I have taken note downthread of the suggestion by @Pagan2 that one of the aims of their ideas is to loosen the grip of political parties on the decision making process. One can understand the motivation for this: parties are by definition comprised of narrow sects of the most politically motivated individuals, advance platforms and ideologies that are not wholeheartedly embraced by most electors, and mitigate against compromise. But when one considers the likely alternative - an assembly of independents that might take forever to rationally debate every issue without necessarily reaching a consensus - then one is forced to contemplate whether the party political system is to forms of democratic governance what democracy is to forms of government itself: the worst form, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.
I think sortition could play a small part in parliament, perhaps 10% of independents in the Commons, or 20% in the Lords. That would also remove some of the frustrations of FPTP and weaken the power of the whips and parties whilst still leaving them in charge.
As I recall it, people didn't like much the parliament of 17-19, with its independents, defections and ignoring of the whips. Indeed people voted for executive dictatorship to replace it. One way for democracies to fall is when they abolish themselves.
Good point, I know it wont be popular and wont happen but I do think it would lead to better governance. Would that parliament have worked through their problems and ended up at EEA or similar, the median solution for the country, if the culture of negotiation and compromise had been ingrained in the system? I think so, and we would be both better off and more united as a country as a result.
How about votes based on IQ, one vote per IQ point? The intelligent vote!
Or age related, one vote for every year under 125 you are. Thus the young have more influence than the old, which seems only fair as they are generally paying most into the coffers and have most time on average to endure the consequences of decisions made.
(For the avoidance of doubt these are not serious suggestions.)
I like option 2 but the limit is retirement age. Once you are drawing a pension your vote is now worth zero.
It's one of the things that disturbs me about matters such as Brexit that the most vehement on one side have the least involvement in the consequences of their actions, as a matter of wealth or, especially, of age. Why shoiuld people within a few years of death (on actuarial averages) have the same sayayin Brexit and Scottish independence as those who are 17 or 18?
It's a very slippery slope. Parliaments can institute changes which will have ripple effects for decades to come, should we deny the vote to people who are predicted to live less than a full parliamentary term?
It's just too complicated to decide which issues have which effect the longest and so deny some people people the vote as it won't affect them. It's disproportionate.
Many older and wealthy people did not support Brexit or do support Sindy - better to try to persuade them of the correct course, whatever that is, than just decide they'll be dead soon so why even ask them.
We've come a long way from the idea that age brings wisdom, these days, haven't we?
I don't think it entirely absurd to think that experience is more likely to have led someone to an amount of wisdom than those with a lack of experience, but since it is definitely no guarantee, you need to judge the wisdom of everyone all mashed up together.
I've been known to moan about the grey vote and 'electoral bribes' we see at election time since they vote much more than others, but the simplest answer to that is compulsory voting, which I'm ideologically opposed to.
And of course some people overshoot and become Helen Lovejoy and over do the thinking about the childten, hence comments from time to time about why younger people should somehow be given priority for some or all votes.
It is quite absurd how long this scheme is taking to realise. Over the past 12 months, has the government not thought to perhaps have a few civil servants come up with such a plan , you know just in case....
It may be significant that Nicola would not give details of her managed quarantine scheme announced by her yesterday, saying she is hoping to give more details next week
It would be a welcome change if Boris and Nicola could, for once, agree a scheme rather than continual point scoring
My suggestion was about 2k combined tax and ni circa 18k income....or volunteer work and yes you can mix and match so 1k combined plus 100 hours a year....didnt think it that onerous....if I had said 10k or 2000 hours yes and its more the principle something not earned is not valued
As a very high earner in the additional tax band I'd be one of the people to benefit from such a system but I find the idea quite disturbing. Money shouldn't be able to buy more of a say in who governs the country. The donation system is already a mess of influence buying, this directly links wealth to having more of a say.
One of the great things about this country is that I have exactly the same amount of votes (1) as someone who has a billion pounds in a bank or someone who is on the dole (1).
I can see merit in some of the other ideas and I think a more direct democracy like Switzerland can be beneficial, I don't see any merit in restrictions on the franchise for citizens.
You might have the same number of votes but the relationship between the wealthy and the governing parties of all flavours shows that is irrelevant, money buys policy already.
Firstly influence buying is completely different to receiving more votes by virtue of income, secondly a person would need to choose to buy influence with large donations to parties, this would be automatic and reward higher earners and very high earners with much more of a say over public life than lower income earners.
It would completely break the current social contract this country maintains between the wealthy and less wealthy. It's already at breaking point with tax evasion and avoidance by billionaires which the government turns a blind eye to.
Come on, pagan is suggesting earning £18k or volunteering or retired or disabilities or other things. It is hardly about restricting voting to the wealthy.
And also increased votes for people who have higher contributions. A sort of incentive to earn more money I guess.
Even the idea of a threshold is completely unpalatable to me. How could I look someone in the eye knowing that I have a say on our government and they don't. It's completely wrong.
Have you ever been canvassing with a candidate, in a less than rich area? I have.
It is pretty sobering. About every 3rd house you think, OMFG these people are deciding the future of the nation. They haven't got a clue. They can barely boil an egg.
I love the idea of democracy but I wonder if it has peaked. I'm serious. First, we have the success of China, clearly out-performing the USA, in almost every way now (including pandemic-management, despite starting a pandemic). In China, the technocratic Party decides. but as the Party can take a longer view than any individual, the Party is wiser. This model becomes increasingly seductive to many, as America declines and China ascends. Cf Singapore. Basically a one party state which has beautifully married English Common Law to Chinese autocracy.
Second, AI. How far away is the moment when a computer will make a better political choice than any average human? About 10 minutes, I reckon.
The future will be special, neutral, bespoke voting robots, deciding our elections.
I am serious. I think democracy, as we know it, is nearly done. The machines know better, that's why they fly our planes and will soon drive our cars. After that, they select our government
How about votes based on IQ, one vote per IQ point? The intelligent vote!
Or age related, one vote for every year under 125 you are. Thus the young have more influence than the old, which seems only fair as they are generally paying most into the coffers and have most time on average to endure the consequences of decisions made.
(For the avoidance of doubt these are not serious suggestions.)
I like option 2 but the limit is retirement age. Once you are drawing a pension your vote is now worth zero.
It's one of the things that disturbs me about matters such as Brexit that the most vehement on one side have the least involvement in the consequences of their actions, as a matter of wealth or, especially, of age. Why shoiuld people within a few years of death (on actuarial averages) have the same sayayin Brexit and Scottish independence as those who are 17 or 18?
It's a very slippery slope. Parliaments can institute changes which will have ripple effects for decades to come, should we deny the vote to people who are predicted to live less than a full parliamentary term?
It's just too complicated to decide which issues have which effect the longest and so deny some people people the vote as it won't affect them. It's disproportionate.
Many older and wealthy people did not support Brexit or do support Sindy - better to try to persuade them of the correct course, whatever that is, than just decide they'll be dead soon so why even ask them.
We've come a long way from the idea that age brings wisdom, these days, haven't we?
Indeed another way of looking at the brexit referendum is The less experience of the eu you had the more likely to vote for remain and the more experience the more likely to vote to leave
Or the less likely it was to affect your income, the more likely to vote Brexit...
(Or the perception of such, hence shellfish fishermen)
Those shellfish fishermen again? They should really know their plaice.
Interesting ideas except removing the idea of an automatic right to vote.
From the Chartists to the Suffragettes people fought for universal suffrage and it should be preserved
Happy to support you in this, my friend.
The competing Parties put forward programmes of legislation which affect us all and which we are all bound to obey and deal with once enacted.
We should therefore all have the right to decide between these competing visions as we all have a stake in their outcome, successful or otherwise.
Whilst the parties have too much power, and their visions are far from the ideologically coherent positions their tribal supporters pretend, parties are probably important for at least given us some broad coalitions with some idea of what they intend.
I suppose the issue is you have to identify what the problem is you are attempting to solve, and to my mind people will often misdiagnose the cause of that problem (because it is inevitably bloody complicated) and so overshoot with how to fix that problem.
Citizen's Assemblies spring to mind. Examples are sometimes given where they may well have worked on a particular issue, but oftentimes people propose them seemingly on the basis that they don't like what democratically elected people are doing as they think the priorities are wrong. So they problem is not actually the political system it is the people in that example.
I think one of our biggest problems is legislators not really being taught how to legislate well, and being incentivised to play partisan games instead of making good legislation, and not having enough influence on matters of substance.
But how to solve that? I can't see how the public can be made to reward behaviour to address that issue.
A different matter i have pondered is the whole localism issue. I would do away with district councils and have unitaries, beef up their powers (admittedly not sure how specifically) and do so on a way that is consistent across the country (or at least with a limited number of models which are clear and consistent). Then as MPs are always getting bothered by local issues they actually have no say in, if they are to retain a constituency role then maybe there's a way for MPs to have some kind of coordinating role across such an area...no wait, I think I'm talking my way into regional assemblies.
How about votes based on IQ, one vote per IQ point? The intelligent vote!
Or age related, one vote for every year under 125 you are. Thus the young have more influence than the old, which seems only fair as they are generally paying most into the coffers and have most time on average to endure the consequences of decisions made.
(For the avoidance of doubt these are not serious suggestions.)
I like option 2 but the limit is retirement age. Once you are drawing a pension your vote is now worth zero.
It's one of the things that disturbs me about matters such as Brexit that the most vehement on one side have the least involvement in the consequences of their actions, as a matter of wealth or, especially, of age. Why shoiuld people within a few years of death (on actuarial averages) have the same sayayin Brexit and Scottish independence as those who are 17 or 18?
It's a very slippery slope. Parliaments can institute changes which will have ripple effects for decades to come, should we deny the vote to people who are predicted to live less than a full parliamentary term?
It's just too complicated to decide which issues have which effect the longest and so deny some people people the vote as it won't affect them. It's disproportionate.
Many older and wealthy people did not support Brexit or do support Sindy - better to try to persuade them of the correct course, whatever that is, than just decide they'll be dead soon so why even ask them.
We've come a long way from the idea that age brings wisdom, these days, haven't we?
Indeed another way of looking at the brexit referendum is The less experience of the eu you had the more likely to vote for remain and the more experience the more likely to vote to leave
Or the less likely it was to affect your income, the more likely to vote Brexit...
(Or the perception of such, hence shellfish fishermen)
Those shellfish fishermen again? They should really know their plaice.
I think they need to be shown some mussel and told to clam up.
If the directly elected executive positions are elected separately, it isn’t obvious how a coherent government with a programme emerges.
That's one of the major issues with @Pagan2's proposals. One can easily imagine that a collection of magistrates rather than a single presidency would lead to both irreconcilable conflict and inevitable cakeism. People would in all likelihood vote for socialist public services and libertarian economics. And how on Earth do you create discrete jurisdictions in policy either? It's a recipe for fragmented Government and turf wars. You can only resolve that by electing an adjudicator - i.e. a president - with the power to break up arguments and knock heads together, which only results in a collection of cabinet ministers that are at once impotent and immovable. It's entirely impractical.
These thought experiments do, however, help one to understand why the hierarchies of power in the nations of the world tend to conform to a narrow range of established patterns in most cases. Nearly all states have a head of government drawn from and answerable to the legislature, and a largely or entirely ceremonial head of state (e.g. the UK,) a full separation of powers with an executive president elected directly to govern, and a discrete legislature (e.g. the USA,) or some hybrid of those two systems (e.g. France.) These systems aim to avoid, insofar as possible, the problems which other theoretical models might lead to.
I have taken note downthread of the suggestion by @Pagan2 that one of the aims of their ideas is to loosen the grip of political parties on the decision making process. One can understand the motivation for this: parties are by definition comprised of narrow sects of the most politically motivated individuals, advance platforms and ideologies that are not wholeheartedly embraced by most electors, and mitigate against compromise. But when one considers the likely alternative - an assembly of independents that might take forever to rationally debate every issue without necessarily reaching a consensus - then one is forced to contemplate whether the party political system is to forms of democratic governance what democracy is to forms of government itself: the worst form, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.
Which is why I said before election each proposal had to be costed and that people should be able to see how it would effect tax. People cannot select give everyone 20k up front because that will be costed and they will have to pay the tax. Policy and cost are linked. Select the policy, pay the tax for it
But goverment is crap at estimating the costs of things. And what if it was right to start with, but things change - a plebsicite to see if they want to continue with it?
I mentioned they had to have concrete measures to show it was working, I would suggest if they were missing targets there could be a recall style referendum on that minister
But if they lose the recall what then is the plan for what to do? Does the second place person take up the position? But they will have had a different policy proposal.
My suggestion was about 2k combined tax and ni circa 18k income....or volunteer work and yes you can mix and match so 1k combined plus 100 hours a year....didnt think it that onerous....if I had said 10k or 2000 hours yes and its more the principle something not earned is not valued
As a very high earner in the additional tax band I'd be one of the people to benefit from such a system but I find the idea quite disturbing. Money shouldn't be able to buy more of a say in who governs the country. The donation system is already a mess of influence buying, this directly links wealth to having more of a say.
One of the great things about this country is that I have exactly the same amount of votes (1) as someone who has a billion pounds in a bank or someone who is on the dole (1).
I can see merit in some of the other ideas and I think a more direct democracy like Switzerland can be beneficial, I don't see any merit in restrictions on the franchise for citizens.
You might have the same number of votes but the relationship between the wealthy and the governing parties of all flavours shows that is irrelevant, money buys policy already.
Firstly influence buying is completely different to receiving more votes by virtue of income, secondly a person would need to choose to buy influence with large donations to parties, this would be automatic and reward higher earners and very high earners with much more of a say over public life than lower income earners.
It would completely break the current social contract this country maintains between the wealthy and less wealthy. It's already at breaking point with tax evasion and avoidance by billionaires which the government turns a blind eye to.
Come on, pagan is suggesting earning £18k or volunteering or retired or disabilities or other things. It is hardly about restricting voting to the wealthy.
And also increased votes for people who have higher contributions. A sort of incentive to earn more money I guess.
Even the idea of a threshold is completely unpalatable to me. How could I look someone in the eye knowing that I have a say on our government and they don't. It's completely wrong.
Have you ever been canvassing with a candidate, in a less than rich area? I have.
It is pretty sobering. About every 3rd house you think, OMFG these people are deciding the future of the nation. They haven't got a clue. They can barely boil an egg.
I love the idea of democracy but I wonder if it has peaked. I'm serious. First, we have the success of China, clearly out-performing the USA, in almost every way now (including pandemic-management, despite starting a pandemic). In China, the technocratic Party decides. but as the Party can take a longer view than any individual, the Party is wiser. This model becomes increasingly seductive to many, as America declines and China ascends. Cf Singapore. Basically a one party state which has beautifully married English Common Law to Chinese autocracy.
Second, AI. How far away is the moment when a computer will make a better political choice than any average human? About 10 minutes, I reckon.
The future will be special, neutral, bespoke voting robots, deciding our elections.
I am serious. I think democracy, as we know it, is nearly done. The machines know better, that's why they fly our planes and will soon drive our cars. After that, they select our government
Isn't China basically just forming a new Imperial bureucracy under Emperor Xi?
Edit: As for machines running us, it's about 50/50 on sci-fi writers who are positive about that outcome with those who are not. The Polity didn't seem that bad.
My suggestion was about 2k combined tax and ni circa 18k income....or volunteer work and yes you can mix and match so 1k combined plus 100 hours a year....didnt think it that onerous....if I had said 10k or 2000 hours yes and its more the principle something not earned is not valued
As a very high earner in the additional tax band I'd be one of the people to benefit from such a system but I find the idea quite disturbing. Money shouldn't be able to buy more of a say in who governs the country. The donation system is already a mess of influence buying, this directly links wealth to having more of a say.
One of the great things about this country is that I have exactly the same amount of votes (1) as someone who has a billion pounds in a bank or someone who is on the dole (1).
I can see merit in some of the other ideas and I think a more direct democracy like Switzerland can be beneficial, I don't see any merit in restrictions on the franchise for citizens.
You might have the same number of votes but the relationship between the wealthy and the governing parties of all flavours shows that is irrelevant, money buys policy already.
Firstly influence buying is completely different to receiving more votes by virtue of income, secondly a person would need to choose to buy influence with large donations to parties, this would be automatic and reward higher earners and very high earners with much more of a say over public life than lower income earners.
It would completely break the current social contract this country maintains between the wealthy and less wealthy. It's already at breaking point with tax evasion and avoidance by billionaires which the government turns a blind eye to.
Come on, pagan is suggesting earning £18k or volunteering or retired or disabilities or other things. It is hardly about restricting voting to the wealthy.
And also increased votes for people who have higher contributions. A sort of incentive to earn more money I guess.
Even the idea of a threshold is completely unpalatable to me. How could I look someone in the eye knowing that I have a say on our government and they don't. It's completely wrong.
Have you ever been canvassing with a candidate, in a less than rich area? I have.
It is pretty sobering. About every 3rd house you think, OMFG these people are deciding the future of the nation. They haven't got a clue. They can barely boil an egg.
I love the idea of democracy but I wonder if it has peaked. I'm serious. First, we have the success of China, clearly out-performing the USA, in almost every way now (including pandemic-management, despite starting a pandemic). In China, the technocratic Party decides. but as the Party can take a longer view than any individual, the Party is wiser. This model becomes increasingly seductive to many, as America declines and China ascends. Cf Singapore. Basically a one party state which has beautifully married English Common Law to Chinese autocracy.
Second, AI. How far away is the moment when a computer will make a better political choice than any average human? About 10 minutes, I reckon.
The future will be special, neutral, bespoke voting robots, deciding our elections.
I am serious. I think democracy, as we know it, is nearly done. The machines know better, that's why they fly our planes and will soon drive our cars. After that, they select our government
I for one welcome our new robot overlords.
I am quite serious. An evolution like this, is, in the end, inevitable. If computers are better at saving us from plane crashes, or correcting stock market wildness, or diagnosing illness -
- then they will be better at deciding elections. They are Home sapiens, We are the neanderthals. We are the beta, they are the alpha. Let's just accept it, and enjoy the cybersex
How about votes based on IQ, one vote per IQ point? The intelligent vote!
Or age related, one vote for every year under 125 you are. Thus the young have more influence than the old, which seems only fair as they are generally paying most into the coffers and have most time on average to endure the consequences of decisions made.
(For the avoidance of doubt these are not serious suggestions.)
I like option 2 but the limit is retirement age. Once you are drawing a pension your vote is now worth zero.
It's one of the things that disturbs me about matters such as Brexit that the most vehement on one side have the least involvement in the consequences of their actions, as a matter of wealth or, especially, of age. Why shoiuld people within a few years of death (on actuarial averages) have the same sayayin Brexit and Scottish independence as those who are 17 or 18?
It's a very slippery slope. Parliaments can institute changes which will have ripple effects for decades to come, should we deny the vote to people who are predicted to live less than a full parliamentary term?
It's just too complicated to decide which issues have which effect the longest and so deny some people people the vote as it won't affect them. It's disproportionate.
Many older and wealthy people did not support Brexit or do support Sindy - better to try to persuade them of the correct course, whatever that is, than just decide they'll be dead soon so why even ask them.
We've come a long way from the idea that age brings wisdom, these days, haven't we?
Indeed another way of looking at the brexit referendum is The less experience of the eu you had the more likely to vote for remain and the more experience the more likely to vote to leave
Or the less likely it was to affect your income, the more likely to vote Brexit...
(Or the perception of such, hence shellfish fishermen)
Those shellfish fishermen again? They should really know their plaice.
My suggestion was about 2k combined tax and ni circa 18k income....or volunteer work and yes you can mix and match so 1k combined plus 100 hours a year....didnt think it that onerous....if I had said 10k or 2000 hours yes and its more the principle something not earned is not valued
As a very high earner in the additional tax band I'd be one of the people to benefit from such a system but I find the idea quite disturbing. Money shouldn't be able to buy more of a say in who governs the country. The donation system is already a mess of influence buying, this directly links wealth to having more of a say.
One of the great things about this country is that I have exactly the same amount of votes (1) as someone who has a billion pounds in a bank or someone who is on the dole (1).
I can see merit in some of the other ideas and I think a more direct democracy like Switzerland can be beneficial, I don't see any merit in restrictions on the franchise for citizens.
You might have the same number of votes but the relationship between the wealthy and the governing parties of all flavours shows that is irrelevant, money buys policy already.
Firstly influence buying is completely different to receiving more votes by virtue of income, secondly a person would need to choose to buy influence with large donations to parties, this would be automatic and reward higher earners and very high earners with much more of a say over public life than lower income earners.
It would completely break the current social contract this country maintains between the wealthy and less wealthy. It's already at breaking point with tax evasion and avoidance by billionaires which the government turns a blind eye to.
Come on, pagan is suggesting earning £18k or volunteering or retired or disabilities or other things. It is hardly about restricting voting to the wealthy.
And also increased votes for people who have higher contributions. A sort of incentive to earn more money I guess.
Even the idea of a threshold is completely unpalatable to me. How could I look someone in the eye knowing that I have a say on our government and they don't. It's completely wrong.
Have you ever been canvassing with a candidate, in a less than rich area? I have.
It is pretty sobering. About every 3rd house you think, OMFG these people are deciding the future of the nation. They haven't got a clue. They can barely boil an egg.
I love the idea of democracy but I wonder if it has peaked. I'm serious. First, we have the success of China, clearly out-performing the USA, in almost every way now (including pandemic-management, despite starting a pandemic). In China, the technocratic Party decides. but as the Party can take a longer view than any individual, the Party is wiser. This model becomes increasingly seductive to many, as America declines and China ascends. Cf Singapore. Basically a one party state which has beautifully married English Common Law to Chinese autocracy.
Second, AI. How far away is the moment when a computer will make a better political choice than any average human? About 10 minutes, I reckon.
The future will be special, neutral, bespoke voting robots, deciding our elections.
I am serious. I think democracy, as we know it, is nearly done. The machines know better, that's why they fly our planes and will soon drive our cars. After that, they select our government
Singapore is a democracy, everyone can vote there and different parties compete, even if one tends to win. It is also much wealthier per head than China and has greater respect for the rule of law than the Communist Party of China. India too is advancing and is already the largest democracy in the world and will soon overtake China as the largest population in the world.
Machines rely on the programmes inputted into them, in terms of issues like immigration control, the level of tax and spend, civil liberties etc there can also never be one exact right answer as different ideologies will have a different view
It is quite absurd how long this scheme is taking to realise. Over the past 12 months, has the government not thought to perhaps have a few civil servants come up with such a plan , you know just in case....
It may be significant that Nicola would not give details of her managed quarantine scheme announced by her yesterday, saying she is hoping to give more details next week
It would be a welcome change if Boris and Nicola could, for once, agree a scheme rather than continual point scoring
Hoiw do you know it's point scoring on Ms Sturgeon's side? SHe did a much better job of Christmas.
The article was great fun. Here are a couple of objections.
1) Events dear boy events. Politics requires a government and parliament that deals with the unforeseen, sometimes within days of being elected. No amount of advance funding and policy evaluation helps.
2) There is no such thing as an independent evaluation.
3) How do you winnow down to three.
4) Fiscal disciplines are common, here is another. Events mean they don't work.
5) The principle that 'everyone counts as one and no-one counts as more than one (or less)' is too precious to lose, despite the temptation. Anyway, there is no such thing as an independent evaluation of qualification to vote once it has values attached to it.
6) Laws still have to be placed by someone in a precise and accountable language to be interpreted by courts, and someone has to take democratic accountability for the consequences. This doesn't solve the problem.
7) I worry that Plato would like this system better than the status quo, and Karl Popper would like it less.
8) Is it is platform for populism?
1) As I have said previously, for those events the ministers can still act as the cabinet currently does then put it before the house
2) true but someone has to cost the thing and we are probably not going to get better than the civil service
3) Already addressed, a year before the election all who want to be considered post their proposals, the public can debate forum like the most popular 3 for each post move forward
4) Events will always happen and I didnt say we couldnt borrow if something like covid comes along. Merely we shouldnt assume borrowing for normal expenditure
5) As I already said its more a discussion point. I think a vote earned somehow is more valuable and used more thoughtfully which is what I would like rather than "I have always voted party x"
6) The laws are still drafted as currently. The two houses instead of drafting the letter of the law are instead determining the spirit of the law and then professionals drafting the letter.
Great header. I like the idea of getting more rigour and less bullshit into the political process. Also like the idea having to prove yourself worthy of getting to vote. Not by tax paid though. There's no link between tax paid and merit imo.
My suggestion was about 2k combined tax and ni circa 18k income....or volunteer work and yes you can mix and match so 1k combined plus 100 hours a year....didnt think it that onerous....if I had said 10k or 2000 hours yes and its more the principle something not earned is not valued
As a very high earner in the additional tax band I'd be one of the people to benefit from such a system but I find the idea quite disturbing. Money shouldn't be able to buy more of a say in who governs the country. The donation system is already a mess of influence buying, this directly links wealth to having more of a say.
One of the great things about this country is that I have exactly the same amount of votes (1) as someone who has a billion pounds in a bank or someone who is on the dole (1).
I can see merit in some of the other ideas and I think a more direct democracy like Switzerland can be beneficial, I don't see any merit in restrictions on the franchise for citizens.
You might have the same number of votes but the relationship between the wealthy and the governing parties of all flavours shows that is irrelevant, money buys policy already.
Firstly influence buying is completely different to receiving more votes by virtue of income, secondly a person would need to choose to buy influence with large donations to parties, this would be automatic and reward higher earners and very high earners with much more of a say over public life than lower income earners.
It would completely break the current social contract this country maintains between the wealthy and less wealthy. It's already at breaking point with tax evasion and avoidance by billionaires which the government turns a blind eye to.
Come on, pagan is suggesting earning £18k or volunteering or retired or disabilities or other things. It is hardly about restricting voting to the wealthy.
And also increased votes for people who have higher contributions. A sort of incentive to earn more money I guess.
Even the idea of a threshold is completely unpalatable to me. How could I look someone in the eye knowing that I have a say on our government and they don't. It's completely wrong.
Have you ever been canvassing with a candidate, in a less than rich area? I have.
It is pretty sobering. About every 3rd house you think, OMFG these people are deciding the future of the nation. They haven't got a clue. They can barely boil an egg.
I love the idea of democracy but I wonder if it has peaked. I'm serious. First, we have the success of China, clearly out-performing the USA, in almost every way now (including pandemic-management, despite starting a pandemic). In China, the technocratic Party decides. but as the Party can take a longer view than any individual, the Party is wiser. This model becomes increasingly seductive to many, as America declines and China ascends. Cf Singapore. Basically a one party state which has beautifully married English Common Law to Chinese autocracy.
Second, AI. How far away is the moment when a computer will make a better political choice than any average human? About 10 minutes, I reckon.
The future will be special, neutral, bespoke voting robots, deciding our elections.
I am serious. I think democracy, as we know it, is nearly done. The machines know better, that's why they fly our planes and will soon drive our cars. After that, they select our government
If that last point arrives, they will be our government.
I'd like to see 1) implemented for roles such as police commissioners. Not sure if I entirely get 2) - sorry 3) would probably be messed up probably by the lawyers playing precisely the lawyerball it seeks to abolish. 4) is a good idea 5) lol won't happen with Covid finances ;D 6) Perhaps the most controversial part of the header - and good headers spark debate. In practice I think the least engaged in society simply never vote anyway - GE2019, an important one had 67% turnout which meant a third of people just didn't bother. I don't think you can go so far as to excluding natural citizens the vote. A year of national service, or alternatively citizen's national service for all young men and women at say 19 - 20 might be a good idea though... And could we extend the franchise to taxpaying immigrant residents, perhaps with the £18,000 qualification - perhaps. They are contributing to our society so maybe deserve a say.
I did say foreign nationals crossing either the tax or volunteering would get a vote apart from on constitutional matters
OT - Quick comments re: Pagan2's interesting & original (at least on PB) argument, by the numbers as above:
1 - Elected multi-member executive with specific areas of responsibility This is somewhat similar to elected executive offices in most US states, for example in WA we elected nine state executive officers every four years: Governor, Lt Gov (and pres of state senate), Attorney General, Secretary of State (elections), Treasurer, Auditor, Commissioner of Public Lands, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Insurance Commissioner. Governor is WAY more powerful than rest combined; one trend of the 20th century and so far for 21st is increasing gubernatorial authority & responsibility viz-a-viz the other eight.
Setup suggested by P2 also reminds me of city commission form of municipal government used by a choice minority of US cities.
2. By "sortition" do you mean a lot drawing, or such-like? Reminds me of what a guy told me years ago, he was a long-time state legislative staffer (and a very excellent one) in Olympia. In WA State, each of 40 legislative districts elects two state reps (2 year terms) and one state senator (4-year). His suggestion was to avoid the fuss, mess & expense of elections, by simply going to 49 taverns, one from each LD, and selecting the three loudest loudmouths to serve in the legislature.
3. Interested in what lawyers have to say on this point. Personally doubt that logical simplification and clarification is apt to work as well in practice as it perhaps should. Some real-world examples might be helpful here.
4. Very interesting, though have two concerns: 1) focusing entirely (or at least mostly) on taxes = costs, as opposed to benefits. Esp. in circumstances where some SHOULD pay more - or less - than others; and 2) ensuring that assessments are (to coin a phrase) "fair & balanced. In this respect, note that WA state law mandates "fiscal notes" prepared to assess the fiscal impact (to state government) of all proposed bills submitted by state reps & senators during legislative sessions.
5. What tends to happen (certainly in WA State, which has no state income tax) is that spending AND revenues rise during good economic times, and contract during recessions or other economic crises (like pandemics). SO need to factor this into the equation. AND again, taxes are NOT the sole measure of public good or otherwise.
6. Most problematic section for yours truly. IF voting rights are based on personal skin in the game, then (and again) taxes are NOT the best baseline, certainly not any regime that credits taxes mostly paid by the rich & well off, with those mostly paid by the other side of the coin. Personally would prefer NOT to base voting on taxes or service. But IF those were the options, would rather base it ENTIRELY on service.
My suggestion was about 2k combined tax and ni circa 18k income....or volunteer work and yes you can mix and match so 1k combined plus 100 hours a year....didnt think it that onerous....if I had said 10k or 2000 hours yes and its more the principle something not earned is not valued
As a very high earner in the additional tax band I'd be one of the people to benefit from such a system but I find the idea quite disturbing. Money shouldn't be able to buy more of a say in who governs the country. The donation system is already a mess of influence buying, this directly links wealth to having more of a say.
One of the great things about this country is that I have exactly the same amount of votes (1) as someone who has a billion pounds in a bank or someone who is on the dole (1).
I can see merit in some of the other ideas and I think a more direct democracy like Switzerland can be beneficial, I don't see any merit in restrictions on the franchise for citizens.
You might have the same number of votes but the relationship between the wealthy and the governing parties of all flavours shows that is irrelevant, money buys policy already.
Firstly influence buying is completely different to receiving more votes by virtue of income, secondly a person would need to choose to buy influence with large donations to parties, this would be automatic and reward higher earners and very high earners with much more of a say over public life than lower income earners.
It would completely break the current social contract this country maintains between the wealthy and less wealthy. It's already at breaking point with tax evasion and avoidance by billionaires which the government turns a blind eye to.
Come on, pagan is suggesting earning £18k or volunteering or retired or disabilities or other things. It is hardly about restricting voting to the wealthy.
And also increased votes for people who have higher contributions. A sort of incentive to earn more money I guess.
Even the idea of a threshold is completely unpalatable to me. How could I look someone in the eye knowing that I have a say on our government and they don't. It's completely wrong.
Have you ever been canvassing with a candidate, in a less than rich area? I have.
It is pretty sobering. About every 3rd house you think, OMFG these people are deciding the future of the nation. They haven't got a clue. They can barely boil an egg.
I love the idea of democracy but I wonder if it has peaked. I'm serious. First, we have the success of China, clearly out-performing the USA, in almost every way now (including pandemic-management, despite starting a pandemic). In China, the technocratic Party decides. but as the Party can take a longer view than any individual, the Party is wiser. This model becomes increasingly seductive to many, as America declines and China ascends. Cf Singapore. Basically a one party state which has beautifully married English Common Law to Chinese autocracy.
Second, AI. How far away is the moment when a computer will make a better political choice than any average human? About 10 minutes, I reckon.
The future will be special, neutral, bespoke voting robots, deciding our elections.
I am serious. I think democracy, as we know it, is nearly done. The machines know better, that's why they fly our planes and will soon drive our cars. After that, they select our government
If that last point arrives, they will be our government.
I always loved the multiple endings of the original Deus Ex game, and in one of them (if I remember correctly) the main character JC Denton basically merges with some nascent AI to become some new super-entity that becomes the world government to ensure it is run more efficiently.
If the directly elected executive positions are elected separately, it isn’t obvious how a coherent government with a programme emerges.
That's one of the major issues with @Pagan2's proposals. One can easily imagine that a collection of magistrates rather than a single presidency would lead to both irreconcilable conflict and inevitable cakeism. People would in all likelihood vote for socialist public services and libertarian economics. And how on Earth do you create discrete jurisdictions in policy either? It's a recipe for fragmented Government and turf wars. You can only resolve that by electing an adjudicator - i.e. a president - with the power to break up arguments and knock heads together, which only results in a collection of cabinet ministers that are at once impotent and immovable. It's entirely impractical.
These thought experiments do, however, help one to understand why the hierarchies of power in the nations of the world tend to conform to a narrow range of established patterns in most cases. Nearly all states have a head of government drawn from and answerable to the legislature, and a largely or entirely ceremonial head of state (e.g. the UK,) a full separation of powers with an executive president elected directly to govern, and a discrete legislature (e.g. the USA,) or some hybrid of those two systems (e.g. France.) These systems aim to avoid, insofar as possible, the problems which other theoretical models might lead to.
I have taken note downthread of the suggestion by @Pagan2 that one of the aims of their ideas is to loosen the grip of political parties on the decision making process. One can understand the motivation for this: parties are by definition comprised of narrow sects of the most politically motivated individuals, advance platforms and ideologies that are not wholeheartedly embraced by most electors, and mitigate against compromise. But when one considers the likely alternative - an assembly of independents that might take forever to rationally debate every issue without necessarily reaching a consensus - then one is forced to contemplate whether the party political system is to forms of democratic governance what democracy is to forms of government itself: the worst form, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.
Which is why I said before election each proposal had to be costed and that people should be able to see how it would effect tax. People cannot select give everyone 20k up front because that will be costed and they will have to pay the tax. Policy and cost are linked. Select the policy, pay the tax for it
But goverment is crap at estimating the costs of things. And what if it was right to start with, but things change - a plebsicite to see if they want to continue with it?
I mentioned they had to have concrete measures to show it was working, I would suggest if they were missing targets there could be a recall style referendum on that minister
But if they lose the recall what then is the plan for what to do? Does the second place person take up the position? But they will have had a different policy proposal.
They will only have a recall if their proposal isn't delivering what they claimed which lets face it a lot of policies dont. Losing the recall means that we get an election for a new minister in which case for example the ministry in question say education can carry on dotting along until it happens
It is quite absurd how long this scheme is taking to realise. Over the past 12 months, has the government not thought to perhaps have a few civil servants come up with such a plan , you know just in case....
It may be significant that Nicola would not give details of her managed quarantine scheme announced by her yesterday, saying she is hoping to give more details next week
It would be a welcome change if Boris and Nicola could, for once, agree a scheme rather than continual point scoring
Hoiw do you know it's point scoring on Ms Sturgeon's side? SHe did a much better job of Christmas.
I said it is better than point scoring, and as for Christmas all four nations had the same regulations, just allowing mixing on Christmas day only
Damn, I was silently applauding myself for a sweet Yes Minister reference by calling these ideas innovative and imaginative, but I got the quote wrong. It was 'original and imaginative' that Sir Humphrey used as criticisms. And I used to think I was a political nerd.
If the directly elected executive positions are elected separately, it isn’t obvious how a coherent government with a programme emerges.
That's one of the major issues with @Pagan2's proposals. One can easily imagine that a collection of magistrates rather than a single presidency would lead to both irreconcilable conflict and inevitable cakeism. People would in all likelihood vote for socialist public services and libertarian economics. And how on Earth do you create discrete jurisdictions in policy either? It's a recipe for fragmented Government and turf wars. You can only resolve that by electing an adjudicator - i.e. a president - with the power to break up arguments and knock heads together, which only results in a collection of cabinet ministers that are at once impotent and immovable. It's entirely impractical.
These thought experiments do, however, help one to understand why the hierarchies of power in the nations of the world tend to conform to a narrow range of established patterns in most cases. Nearly all states have a head of government drawn from and answerable to the legislature, and a largely or entirely ceremonial head of state (e.g. the UK,) a full separation of powers with an executive president elected directly to govern, and a discrete legislature (e.g. the USA,) or some hybrid of those two systems (e.g. France.) These systems aim to avoid, insofar as possible, the problems which other theoretical models might lead to.
I have taken note downthread of the suggestion by @Pagan2 that one of the aims of their ideas is to loosen the grip of political parties on the decision making process. One can understand the motivation for this: parties are by definition comprised of narrow sects of the most politically motivated individuals, advance platforms and ideologies that are not wholeheartedly embraced by most electors, and mitigate against compromise. But when one considers the likely alternative - an assembly of independents that might take forever to rationally debate every issue without necessarily reaching a consensus - then one is forced to contemplate whether the party political system is to forms of democratic governance what democracy is to forms of government itself: the worst form, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.
Which is why I said before election each proposal had to be costed and that people should be able to see how it would effect tax. People cannot select give everyone 20k up front because that will be costed and they will have to pay the tax. Policy and cost are linked. Select the policy, pay the tax for it
But goverment is crap at estimating the costs of things. And what if it was right to start with, but things change - a plebsicite to see if they want to continue with it?
I mentioned they had to have concrete measures to show it was working, I would suggest if they were missing targets there could be a recall style referendum on that minister
But if they lose the recall what then is the plan for what to do? Does the second place person take up the position? But they will have had a different policy proposal.
They will only have a recall if their proposal isn't delivering what they claimed which lets face it a lot of policies dont. Losing the recall means that we get an election for a new minister in which case for example the ministry in question say education can carry on dotting along until it happens
So constant reversal of policies. Doesn't sound like an improvement on now.
My suggestion was about 2k combined tax and ni circa 18k income....or volunteer work and yes you can mix and match so 1k combined plus 100 hours a year....didnt think it that onerous....if I had said 10k or 2000 hours yes and its more the principle something not earned is not valued
As a very high earner in the additional tax band I'd be one of the people to benefit from such a system but I find the idea quite disturbing. Money shouldn't be able to buy more of a say in who governs the country. The donation system is already a mess of influence buying, this directly links wealth to having more of a say.
One of the great things about this country is that I have exactly the same amount of votes (1) as someone who has a billion pounds in a bank or someone who is on the dole (1).
I can see merit in some of the other ideas and I think a more direct democracy like Switzerland can be beneficial, I don't see any merit in restrictions on the franchise for citizens.
You might have the same number of votes but the relationship between the wealthy and the governing parties of all flavours shows that is irrelevant, money buys policy already.
Firstly influence buying is completely different to receiving more votes by virtue of income, secondly a person would need to choose to buy influence with large donations to parties, this would be automatic and reward higher earners and very high earners with much more of a say over public life than lower income earners.
It would completely break the current social contract this country maintains between the wealthy and less wealthy. It's already at breaking point with tax evasion and avoidance by billionaires which the government turns a blind eye to.
Come on, pagan is suggesting earning £18k or volunteering or retired or disabilities or other things. It is hardly about restricting voting to the wealthy.
And also increased votes for people who have higher contributions. A sort of incentive to earn more money I guess.
Even the idea of a threshold is completely unpalatable to me. How could I look someone in the eye knowing that I have a say on our government and they don't. It's completely wrong.
Have you ever been canvassing with a candidate, in a less than rich area? I have.
It is pretty sobering. About every 3rd house you think, OMFG these people are deciding the future of the nation. They haven't got a clue. They can barely boil an egg.
I love the idea of democracy but I wonder if it has peaked. I'm serious. First, we have the success of China, clearly out-performing the USA, in almost every way now (including pandemic-management, despite starting a pandemic). In China, the technocratic Party decides. but as the Party can take a longer view than any individual, the Party is wiser. This model becomes increasingly seductive to many, as America declines and China ascends. Cf Singapore. Basically a one party state which has beautifully married English Common Law to Chinese autocracy.
Second, AI. How far away is the moment when a computer will make a better political choice than any average human? About 10 minutes, I reckon.
The future will be special, neutral, bespoke voting robots, deciding our elections.
I am serious. I think democracy, as we know it, is nearly done. The machines know better, that's why they fly our planes and will soon drive our cars. After that, they select our government
Without these people we wouldnt have had Brexit (or Trump). The biggest factor on whether people voted Remain or Leave, for instance, was educational qualifications.
I'm considering adding Democracy to the list of things which when I was young I thought would last forever but as I get older look set to disappear. Democracy nearly got wiped out in the US last month, it seems pretty moribund here and across much of the west.
Other items on my 'list' (most but not all of which I mourn) include: - The United Kingdom - Printed newspapers - The BBC - The Iron Curtain - Yellow Pages - Village pubs - Cinemas
... there are lots of others. It must have been the same for many previous generations.
I'd like to see 1) implemented for roles such as police commissioners. Not sure if I entirely get 2) - sorry 3) would probably be messed up probably by the lawyers playing precisely the lawyerball it seeks to abolish. 4) is a good idea 5) lol won't happen with Covid finances ;D 6) Perhaps the most controversial part of the header - and good headers spark debate. In practice I think the least engaged in society simply never vote anyway - GE2019, an important one had 67% turnout which meant a third of people just didn't bother. I don't think you can go so far as to excluding natural citizens the vote. A year of national service, or alternatively citizen's national service for all young men and women at say 19 - 20 might be a good idea though... And could we extend the franchise to taxpaying immigrant residents, perhaps with the £18,000 qualification - perhaps. They are contributing to our society so maybe deserve a say.
I did say foreign nationals crossing either the tax or volunteering would get a vote apart from on constitutional matters
OT - Quick comments re: Pagan2's interesting & original (at least on PB) argument, by the numbers as above:
1 - Elected multi-member executive with specific areas of responsibility This is somewhat similar to elected executive offices in most US states, for example in WA we elected nine state executive officers every four years: Governor, Lt Gov (and pres of state senate), Attorney General, Secretary of State (elections), Treasurer, Auditor, Commissioner of Public Lands, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Insurance Commissioner. Governor is WAY more powerful than rest combined; one trend of the 20th century and so far for 21st is increasing gubernatorial authority & responsibility viz-a-viz the other eight.
Setup suggested by P2 also reminds me of city commission form of municipal government used by a choice minority of US cities.
2. By "sortition" do you mean a lot drawing, or such-like? Reminds me of what a guy told me years ago, he was a long-time state legislative staffer (and a very excellent one) in Olympia. In WA State, each of 40 legislative districts elects two state reps (2 year terms) and one state senator (4-year). His suggestion was to avoid the fuss, mess & expense of elections, by simply going to 49 taverns, one from each LD, and selecting the three loudest loudmouths to serve in the legislature.
3. Interested in what lawyers have to say on this point. Personally doubt that logical simplification and clarification is apt to work as well in practice as it perhaps should. Some real-world examples might be helpful here.
4. Very interesting, though have two concerns: 1) focusing entirely (or at least mostly) on taxes = costs, as opposed to benefits. Esp. in circumstances where some SHOULD pay more - or less - than others; and 2) ensuring that assessments are (to coin a phrase) "fair & balanced. In this respect, note that WA state law mandates "fiscal notes" prepared to assess the fiscal impact (to state government) of all proposed bills submitted by state reps & senators during legislative sessions.
5. What tends to happen (certainly in WA State, which has no state income tax) is that spending AND revenues rise during good economic times, and contract during recessions or other economic crises (like pandemics). SO need to factor this into the equation. AND again, taxes are NOT the sole measure of public good or otherwise.
6. Most problematic section for yours truly. IF voting rights are based on personal skin in the game, then (and again) taxes are NOT the best baseline, certainly not any regime that credits taxes mostly paid by the rich & well off, with those mostly paid by the other side of the coin. Personally would prefer NOT to base voting on taxes or service. But IF those were the options, would rather base it ENTIRELY on service.
Point 6 I knew was contentious and put it in mainly because I think a vote is valued more and used better if in someway earned rather than as just given at 18. I am fairly open on how people earn that vote as long as all have equal opportunity to earn a vote
99.1% visited, so the number vaccinated is probably as high as it is going to get.
But only 80% of residents vaccinated.
If the Scottish figure is indeed correct (and I truly find it hard to believe it true) that is an astonishing difference.
You are going off the total number, rather than the number eligible?
Yes because that is what Sturgeon is claiming has been achieved in Scotland.
And I find that fairly unbelievable.
Absolutely.
I'd be extremely surprised if the sum of all Care residents who (A) refused the vaccine, (B) currently have [or are suspected to have] Covid so can't receive the vaccine yet and (C) are allergic to or otherwise incapable of receiving the vaccine . . . are all combined less than 2%.
Yes, it's not plausible.
They (https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-daily-data-for-scotland/ ) say 29,482 older person care home residents have been given the first dose. That would imply a population of 30,083 care home residents which initially seems low by a couple of thousand until you factor in how many of residents would have died over the last year.
My suggestion was about 2k combined tax and ni circa 18k income....or volunteer work and yes you can mix and match so 1k combined plus 100 hours a year....didnt think it that onerous....if I had said 10k or 2000 hours yes and its more the principle something not earned is not valued
As a very high earner in the additional tax band I'd be one of the people to benefit from such a system but I find the idea quite disturbing. Money shouldn't be able to buy more of a say in who governs the country. The donation system is already a mess of influence buying, this directly links wealth to having more of a say.
One of the great things about this country is that I have exactly the same amount of votes (1) as someone who has a billion pounds in a bank or someone who is on the dole (1).
I can see merit in some of the other ideas and I think a more direct democracy like Switzerland can be beneficial, I don't see any merit in restrictions on the franchise for citizens.
You might have the same number of votes but the relationship between the wealthy and the governing parties of all flavours shows that is irrelevant, money buys policy already.
Firstly influence buying is completely different to receiving more votes by virtue of income, secondly a person would need to choose to buy influence with large donations to parties, this would be automatic and reward higher earners and very high earners with much more of a say over public life than lower income earners.
It would completely break the current social contract this country maintains between the wealthy and less wealthy. It's already at breaking point with tax evasion and avoidance by billionaires which the government turns a blind eye to.
Come on, pagan is suggesting earning £18k or volunteering or retired or disabilities or other things. It is hardly about restricting voting to the wealthy.
And also increased votes for people who have higher contributions. A sort of incentive to earn more money I guess.
Even the idea of a threshold is completely unpalatable to me. How could I look someone in the eye knowing that I have a say on our government and they don't. It's completely wrong.
Have you ever been canvassing with a candidate, in a less than rich area? I have.
It is pretty sobering. About every 3rd house you think, OMFG these people are deciding the future of the nation. They haven't got a clue. They can barely boil an egg.
I love the idea of democracy but I wonder if it has peaked. I'm serious. First, we have the success of China, clearly out-performing the USA, in almost every way now (including pandemic-management, despite starting a pandemic). In China, the technocratic Party decides. but as the Party can take a longer view than any individual, the Party is wiser. This model becomes increasingly seductive to many, as America declines and China ascends. Cf Singapore. Basically a one party state which has beautifully married English Common Law to Chinese autocracy.
Second, AI. How far away is the moment when a computer will make a better political choice than any average human? About 10 minutes, I reckon.
The future will be special, neutral, bespoke voting robots, deciding our elections.
I am serious. I think democracy, as we know it, is nearly done. The machines know better, that's why they fly our planes and will soon drive our cars. After that, they select our government
Hum. "China outperforming USA in almost every way". Except perhaps a crucial one of how many people would choose to live there if they could, where USA (and UK) come pretty high. And how many people would flee from it if they could. Perhaps we should ask the people of Hong Kong and the Uighurs before coming to conclusions.
My suggestion was about 2k combined tax and ni circa 18k income....or volunteer work and yes you can mix and match so 1k combined plus 100 hours a year....didnt think it that onerous....if I had said 10k or 2000 hours yes and its more the principle something not earned is not valued
As a very high earner in the additional tax band I'd be one of the people to benefit from such a system but I find the idea quite disturbing. Money shouldn't be able to buy more of a say in who governs the country. The donation system is already a mess of influence buying, this directly links wealth to having more of a say.
One of the great things about this country is that I have exactly the same amount of votes (1) as someone who has a billion pounds in a bank or someone who is on the dole (1).
I can see merit in some of the other ideas and I think a more direct democracy like Switzerland can be beneficial, I don't see any merit in restrictions on the franchise for citizens.
You might have the same number of votes but the relationship between the wealthy and the governing parties of all flavours shows that is irrelevant, money buys policy already.
Firstly influence buying is completely different to receiving more votes by virtue of income, secondly a person would need to choose to buy influence with large donations to parties, this would be automatic and reward higher earners and very high earners with much more of a say over public life than lower income earners.
It would completely break the current social contract this country maintains between the wealthy and less wealthy. It's already at breaking point with tax evasion and avoidance by billionaires which the government turns a blind eye to.
Come on, pagan is suggesting earning £18k or volunteering or retired or disabilities or other things. It is hardly about restricting voting to the wealthy.
And also increased votes for people who have higher contributions. A sort of incentive to earn more money I guess.
Even the idea of a threshold is completely unpalatable to me. How could I look someone in the eye knowing that I have a say on our government and they don't. It's completely wrong.
Have you ever been canvassing with a candidate, in a less than rich area? I have.
It is pretty sobering. About every 3rd house you think, OMFG these people are deciding the future of the nation. They haven't got a clue. They can barely boil an egg.
I love the idea of democracy but I wonder if it has peaked. I'm serious. First, we have the success of China, clearly out-performing the USA, in almost every way now (including pandemic-management, despite starting a pandemic). In China, the technocratic Party decides. but as the Party can take a longer view than any individual, the Party is wiser. This model becomes increasingly seductive to many, as America declines and China ascends. Cf Singapore. Basically a one party state which has beautifully married English Common Law to Chinese autocracy.
Second, AI. How far away is the moment when a computer will make a better political choice than any average human? About 10 minutes, I reckon.
The future will be special, neutral, bespoke voting robots, deciding our elections.
I am serious. I think democracy, as we know it, is nearly done. The machines know better, that's why they fly our planes and will soon drive our cars. After that, they select our government
If that last point arrives, they will be our government.
Yep. It will arrive, and quite soon, but I don't think these computers will be some gloatng alien overlordship, they will be like autopilots on planes or self driving cars or the chess-playing computers than can beat any human. They will be able to compute vast amounts of political-economic information, far in advance of even the smartest voter, and make a better judgement call thereby.
And we will accept it, because the governance will be palpably superior, and it will take the human bitterness out of the equation. We will become hedonistic gourmets who like art, as our computers get on with the boring jobs. Or budgies in a cage marvelling at our regular feed of millet and the shiny tiny mirror.
If the directly elected executive positions are elected separately, it isn’t obvious how a coherent government with a programme emerges.
That's one of the major issues with @Pagan2's proposals. One can easily imagine that a collection of magistrates rather than a single presidency would lead to both irreconcilable conflict and inevitable cakeism. People would in all likelihood vote for socialist public services and libertarian economics. And how on Earth do you create discrete jurisdictions in policy either? It's a recipe for fragmented Government and turf wars. You can only resolve that by electing an adjudicator - i.e. a president - with the power to break up arguments and knock heads together, which only results in a collection of cabinet ministers that are at once impotent and immovable. It's entirely impractical.
These thought experiments do, however, help one to understand why the hierarchies of power in the nations of the world tend to conform to a narrow range of established patterns in most cases. Nearly all states have a head of government drawn from and answerable to the legislature, and a largely or entirely ceremonial head of state (e.g. the UK,) a full separation of powers with an executive president elected directly to govern, and a discrete legislature (e.g. the USA,) or some hybrid of those two systems (e.g. France.) These systems aim to avoid, insofar as possible, the problems which other theoretical models might lead to.
I have taken note downthread of the suggestion by @Pagan2 that one of the aims of their ideas is to loosen the grip of political parties on the decision making process. One can understand the motivation for this: parties are by definition comprised of narrow sects of the most politically motivated individuals, advance platforms and ideologies that are not wholeheartedly embraced by most electors, and mitigate against compromise. But when one considers the likely alternative - an assembly of independents that might take forever to rationally debate every issue without necessarily reaching a consensus - then one is forced to contemplate whether the party political system is to forms of democratic governance what democracy is to forms of government itself: the worst form, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.
Which is why I said before election each proposal had to be costed and that people should be able to see how it would effect tax. People cannot select give everyone 20k up front because that will be costed and they will have to pay the tax. Policy and cost are linked. Select the policy, pay the tax for it
But goverment is crap at estimating the costs of things. And what if it was right to start with, but things change - a plebsicite to see if they want to continue with it?
I mentioned they had to have concrete measures to show it was working, I would suggest if they were missing targets there could be a recall style referendum on that minister
But if they lose the recall what then is the plan for what to do? Does the second place person take up the position? But they will have had a different policy proposal.
They will only have a recall if their proposal isn't delivering what they claimed which lets face it a lot of policies dont. Losing the recall means that we get an election for a new minister in which case for example the ministry in question say education can carry on dotting along until it happens
So constant reversal of policies. Doesn't sound like an improvement on now.
It is only a reversal of policies that are not working....you think it better to keep going with them?
OT - Quick comments re: Pagan2's interesting & original (at least on PB) argument, by the numbers as above:
1 - Elected multi-member executive with specific areas of responsibility This is somewhat similar to elected executive offices in most US states, for example in WA we elected nine state executive officers every four years: Governor, Lt Gov (and pres of state senate), Attorney General, Secretary of State (elections), Treasurer, Auditor, Commissioner of Public Lands, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Insurance Commissioner. Governor is WAY more powerful than rest combined; one trend of the 20th century and so far for 21st is increasing gubernatorial authority & responsibility viz-a-viz the other eight.
Setup suggested by P2 also reminds me of city commission form of municipal government used by a choice minority of US cities.
2. By "sortition" do you mean a lot drawing, or such-like? Reminds me of what a guy told me years ago, he was a long-time state legislative staffer (and a very excellent one) in Olympia. In WA State, each of 40 legislative districts elects two state reps (2 year terms) and one state senator (4-year). His suggestion was to avoid the fuss, mess & expense of elections, by simply going to 49 taverns, one from each LD, and selecting the three loudest loudmouths to serve in the legislature.
3. Interested in what lawyers have to say on this point. Personally doubt that logical simplification and clarification is apt to work as well in practice as it perhaps should. Some real-world examples might be helpful here.
4. Very interesting, though have two concerns: 1) focusing entirely (or at least mostly) on taxes = costs, as opposed to benefits. Esp. in circumstances where some SHOULD pay more - or less - than others; and 2) ensuring that assessments are (to coin a phrase) "fair & balanced. In this respect, note that WA state law mandates "fiscal notes" prepared to assess the fiscal impact (to state government) of all proposed bills submitted by state reps & senators during legislative sessions.
5. What tends to happen (certainly in WA State, which has no state income tax) is that spending AND revenues rise during good economic times, and contract during recessions or other economic crises (like pandemics). SO need to factor this into the equation. AND again, taxes are NOT the sole measure of public good or otherwise.
6. Most problematic section for yours truly. IF voting rights are based on personal skin in the game, then (and again) taxes are NOT the best baseline, certainly not any regime that credits taxes mostly paid by the rich & well off, with those mostly paid by the other side of the coin. Personally would prefer NOT to base voting on taxes or service. But IF those were the options, would rather base it ENTIRELY on service.
Point 6 I knew was contentious and put it in mainly because I think a vote is valued more and used better if in someway earned rather than as just given at 18. I am fairly open on how people earn that vote as long as all have equal opportunity to earn a vote
Fair enough. What about plural voting, by those who qualify in more than one jurisdiction?
BTW, there are 49 leg districts in WA sorry for typo!
99.1% visited, so the number vaccinated is probably as high as it is going to get.
But only 80% of residents vaccinated.
If the Scottish figure is indeed correct (and I truly find it hard to believe it true) that is an astonishing difference.
You are going off the total number, rather than the number eligible?
Yes because that is what Sturgeon is claiming has been achieved in Scotland.
And I find that fairly unbelievable.
Absolutely.
I'd be extremely surprised if the sum of all Care residents who (A) refused the vaccine, (B) currently have [or are suspected to have] Covid so can't receive the vaccine yet and (C) are allergic to or otherwise incapable of receiving the vaccine . . . are all combined less than 2%.
Yes, it's not plausible.
They (https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-daily-data-for-scotland/ ) say 29,482 older person care home residents have been given the first dose. That would imply a population of 30,083 care home residents which initially seems low by a couple of thousand until you factor in how many of residents would have died over the last year.
Here it seems to be based on an estimated population of exactly 30,000. Is it down to the precision of the population estimate? The NHS England one looks to be precise.
Great header. I like the idea of getting more rigour and less bullshit into the political process. Also like the idea having to prove yourself worthy of getting to vote. Not by tax paid though. There's no link between tax paid and merit imo.
Really, about voting rights depending on merit? It looks like anti-democratic dystopianism to me. Even if operated in perfect faith it would be unacceptably undemocratic, and it wouldn't be operated in good faith for five minutes. Democracy really is the worst possible system *except for all the others.* If the test is financial you have a recipe for a benefit-cutting tory government in power for ever, and if it's anything else there is no limit to the extent to which the rules can be perverted.
I'd like to see 1) implemented for roles such as police commissioners. Not sure if I entirely get 2) - sorry 3) would probably be messed up probably by the lawyers playing precisely the lawyerball it seeks to abolish. 4) is a good idea 5) lol won't happen with Covid finances ;D 6) Perhaps the most controversial part of the header - and good headers spark debate. In practice I think the least engaged in society simply never vote anyway - GE2019, an important one had 67% turnout which meant a third of people just didn't bother. I don't think you can go so far as to excluding natural citizens the vote. A year of national service, or alternatively citizen's national service for all young men and women at say 19 - 20 might be a good idea though... And could we extend the franchise to taxpaying immigrant residents, perhaps with the £18,000 qualification - perhaps. They are contributing to our society so maybe deserve a say.
I did say foreign nationals crossing either the tax or volunteering would get a vote apart from on constitutional matters
Your keyboard must be getting red hot by now!
smiles my header so I should try and answer questions and defend it
If the directly elected executive positions are elected separately, it isn’t obvious how a coherent government with a programme emerges.
That's one of the major issues with @Pagan2's proposals. One can easily imagine that a collection of magistrates rather than a single presidency would lead to both irreconcilable conflict and inevitable cakeism. People would in all likelihood vote for socialist public services and libertarian economics. And how on Earth do you create discrete jurisdictions in policy either? It's a recipe for fragmented Government and turf wars. You can only resolve that by electing an adjudicator - i.e. a president - with the power to break up arguments and knock heads together, which only results in a collection of cabinet ministers that are at once impotent and immovable. It's entirely impractical.
These thought experiments do, however, help one to understand why the hierarchies of power in the nations of the world tend to conform to a narrow range of established patterns in most cases. Nearly all states have a head of government drawn from and answerable to the legislature, and a largely or entirely ceremonial head of state (e.g. the UK,) a full separation of powers with an executive president elected directly to govern, and a discrete legislature (e.g. the USA,) or some hybrid of those two systems (e.g. France.) These systems aim to avoid, insofar as possible, the problems which other theoretical models might lead to.
I have taken note downthread of the suggestion by @Pagan2 that one of the aims of their ideas is to loosen the grip of political parties on the decision making process. One can understand the motivation for this: parties are by definition comprised of narrow sects of the most politically motivated individuals, advance platforms and ideologies that are not wholeheartedly embraced by most electors, and mitigate against compromise. But when one considers the likely alternative - an assembly of independents that might take forever to rationally debate every issue without necessarily reaching a consensus - then one is forced to contemplate whether the party political system is to forms of democratic governance what democracy is to forms of government itself: the worst form, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.
Which is why I said before election each proposal had to be costed and that people should be able to see how it would effect tax. People cannot select give everyone 20k up front because that will be costed and they will have to pay the tax. Policy and cost are linked. Select the policy, pay the tax for it
But goverment is crap at estimating the costs of things. And what if it was right to start with, but things change - a plebsicite to see if they want to continue with it?
I mentioned they had to have concrete measures to show it was working, I would suggest if they were missing targets there could be a recall style referendum on that minister
But if they lose the recall what then is the plan for what to do? Does the second place person take up the position? But they will have had a different policy proposal.
They will only have a recall if their proposal isn't delivering what they claimed which lets face it a lot of policies dont. Losing the recall means that we get an election for a new minister in which case for example the ministry in question say education can carry on dotting along until it happens
So constant reversal of policies. Doesn't sound like an improvement on now.
It is only a reversal of policies that are not working....you think it better to keep going with them?
I think sometimes proceeding on is a mistake, sunk costs can be a fallacy, but sometimes things take time to come to fruition or hit bumps in the road but are worth pushing on with for longer term gains.
Under this your policy is not going perfectly, you get recalled, and the opposite idea might then be tried, which will probably fail as major resources need to be redirected, and then you recall that person and so on.
OT - Quick comments re: Pagan2's interesting & original (at least on PB) argument, by the numbers as above:
1 - Elected multi-member executive with specific areas of responsibility This is somewhat similar to elected executive offices in most US states, for example in WA we elected nine state executive officers every four years: Governor, Lt Gov (and pres of state senate), Attorney General, Secretary of State (elections), Treasurer, Auditor, Commissioner of Public Lands, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Insurance Commissioner. Governor is WAY more powerful than rest combined; one trend of the 20th century and so far for 21st is increasing gubernatorial authority & responsibility viz-a-viz the other eight.
Setup suggested by P2 also reminds me of city commission form of municipal government used by a choice minority of US cities.
2. By "sortition" do you mean a lot drawing, or such-like? Reminds me of what a guy told me years ago, he was a long-time state legislative staffer (and a very excellent one) in Olympia. In WA State, each of 40 legislative districts elects two state reps (2 year terms) and one state senator (4-year). His suggestion was to avoid the fuss, mess & expense of elections, by simply going to 49 taverns, one from each LD, and selecting the three loudest loudmouths to serve in the legislature.
3. Interested in what lawyers have to say on this point. Personally doubt that logical simplification and clarification is apt to work as well in practice as it perhaps should. Some real-world examples might be helpful here.
4. Very interesting, though have two concerns: 1) focusing entirely (or at least mostly) on taxes = costs, as opposed to benefits. Esp. in circumstances where some SHOULD pay more - or less - than others; and 2) ensuring that assessments are (to coin a phrase) "fair & balanced. In this respect, note that WA state law mandates "fiscal notes" prepared to assess the fiscal impact (to state government) of all proposed bills submitted by state reps & senators during legislative sessions.
5. What tends to happen (certainly in WA State, which has no state income tax) is that spending AND revenues rise during good economic times, and contract during recessions or other economic crises (like pandemics). SO need to factor this into the equation. AND again, taxes are NOT the sole measure of public good or otherwise.
6. Most problematic section for yours truly. IF voting rights are based on personal skin in the game, then (and again) taxes are NOT the best baseline, certainly not any regime that credits taxes mostly paid by the rich & well off, with those mostly paid by the other side of the coin. Personally would prefer NOT to base voting on taxes or service. But IF those were the options, would rather base it ENTIRELY on service.
Point 6 I knew was contentious and put it in mainly because I think a vote is valued more and used better if in someway earned rather than as just given at 18. I am fairly open on how people earn that vote as long as all have equal opportunity to earn a vote
Fair enough. What about plural voting, by those who qualify in more than one jurisdiction?
That was my alternative suggestion, each citizen gets a vote at 18, you can earn an extra vote by passing a low tax contribution bar, you can gain an extra vote by passing the volunteer bar. Giving a national up to 3 votes and a non national up to 2
First, congratulations on @Pagan2 for his debut piece. It's always good to see new thinking on this forum and this should serve as an encouragement for more of the regular contributors to put up a thread.
Some thoughts on the ideas: - one or two of them are certainly interesting 4) - the notion of a wholly independent evaluation of each party's manifesto proposals is an excellent idea. The IFS has offered something similar in the past.
As for 5), I'm not convinced we should outlaw non-infrastructure borrowing. There have been times of late when it's been quite useful to borrow with rates historically low and obviously unforeseeable events such as global pandemics stretch financial resources.
I need to think more about 2) and 3) as they aren't without merit but I question their practicality.
As for 1) it cuts right across the "party" system and weakens the power of the Prime Minister (as well as his/her patronage) so I can see some pros and cons.
I'm wholly opposed to 6).
On the point about 4 - the IFS used to offer good insight on the offering's of both parties. Now with Paul Johnstone it's a joke. His comments on Labour's bankrupt the nation plan as "ambitious" were completely ridiculous. The IFS used to be about sound money and good economics now it seems to think it's remit is to call for more spending all the time in any situation. The whole leadership needs to be upended.
Absolutely. There is nothing "ambitious" about bankrupting the country.
Plus then the ridiculous notion with the Tories spending plans of comparing the proposals made against a baseline of 2010 (after a period of massive overspending and the government was spending £4 for every £3 of tax raised) rather than the baseline of the position at the time of the election.
I'd like to see 1) implemented for roles such as police commissioners. Not sure if I entirely get 2) - sorry 3) would probably be messed up probably by the lawyers playing precisely the lawyerball it seeks to abolish. 4) is a good idea 5) lol won't happen with Covid finances ;D 6) Perhaps the most controversial part of the header - and good headers spark debate. In practice I think the least engaged in society simply never vote anyway - GE2019, an important one had 67% turnout which meant a third of people just didn't bother. I don't think you can go so far as to excluding natural citizens the vote. A year of national service, or alternatively citizen's national service for all young men and women at say 19 - 20 might be a good idea though... And could we extend the franchise to taxpaying immigrant residents, perhaps with the £18,000 qualification - perhaps. They are contributing to our society so maybe deserve a say.
I did say foreign nationals crossing either the tax or volunteering would get a vote apart from on constitutional matters
Your keyboard must be getting red hot by now!
smiles my header so I should try and answer questions and defend it
If the directly elected executive positions are elected separately, it isn’t obvious how a coherent government with a programme emerges.
That's one of the major issues with @Pagan2's proposals. One can easily imagine that a collection of magistrates rather than a single presidency would lead to both irreconcilable conflict and inevitable cakeism. People would in all likelihood vote for socialist public services and libertarian economics. And how on Earth do you create discrete jurisdictions in policy either? It's a recipe for fragmented Government and turf wars. You can only resolve that by electing an adjudicator - i.e. a president - with the power to break up arguments and knock heads together, which only results in a collection of cabinet ministers that are at once impotent and immovable. It's entirely impractical.
These thought experiments do, however, help one to understand why the hierarchies of power in the nations of the world tend to conform to a narrow range of established patterns in most cases. Nearly all states have a head of government drawn from and answerable to the legislature, and a largely or entirely ceremonial head of state (e.g. the UK,) a full separation of powers with an executive president elected directly to govern, and a discrete legislature (e.g. the USA,) or some hybrid of those two systems (e.g. France.) These systems aim to avoid, insofar as possible, the problems which other theoretical models might lead to.
I have taken note downthread of the suggestion by @Pagan2 that one of the aims of their ideas is to loosen the grip of political parties on the decision making process. One can understand the motivation for this: parties are by definition comprised of narrow sects of the most politically motivated individuals, advance platforms and ideologies that are not wholeheartedly embraced by most electors, and mitigate against compromise. But when one considers the likely alternative - an assembly of independents that might take forever to rationally debate every issue without necessarily reaching a consensus - then one is forced to contemplate whether the party political system is to forms of democratic governance what democracy is to forms of government itself: the worst form, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.
Which is why I said before election each proposal had to be costed and that people should be able to see how it would effect tax. People cannot select give everyone 20k up front because that will be costed and they will have to pay the tax. Policy and cost are linked. Select the policy, pay the tax for it
But goverment is crap at estimating the costs of things. And what if it was right to start with, but things change - a plebsicite to see if they want to continue with it?
I mentioned they had to have concrete measures to show it was working, I would suggest if they were missing targets there could be a recall style referendum on that minister
But if they lose the recall what then is the plan for what to do? Does the second place person take up the position? But they will have had a different policy proposal.
They will only have a recall if their proposal isn't delivering what they claimed which lets face it a lot of policies dont. Losing the recall means that we get an election for a new minister in which case for example the ministry in question say education can carry on dotting along until it happens
So constant reversal of policies. Doesn't sound like an improvement on now.
It is only a reversal of policies that are not working....you think it better to keep going with them?
I think sometimes proceeding on is a mistake, sunk costs can be a fallacy, but sometimes things take time to come to fruition or hit bumps in the road but are worth pushing on with for longer term gains.
Under this your policy is not going perfectly, you get recalled, and the opposite idea might then be tried, which will probably fail as major resources need to be redirected, and then you recall that person and so on.
I wasn't suggesting it was a "had to be going perfectly" bar but for example if the policy was
If we give free school meals to all school children they will get better exam results. Within 2.5 years I expect a 20% increase in exam grades from it then they look after 2.5 years and find there is a 2% increase then they put out a recall....if the increase is say 12% probably reasonable to think the policy needs more time to work
I'd like to see 1) implemented for roles such as police commissioners. Not sure if I entirely get 2) - sorry 3) would probably be messed up probably by the lawyers playing precisely the lawyerball it seeks to abolish. 4) is a good idea 5) lol won't happen with Covid finances ;D 6) Perhaps the most controversial part of the header - and good headers spark debate. In practice I think the least engaged in society simply never vote anyway - GE2019, an important one had 67% turnout which meant a third of people just didn't bother. I don't think you can go so far as to excluding natural citizens the vote. A year of national service, or alternatively citizen's national service for all young men and women at say 19 - 20 might be a good idea though... And could we extend the franchise to taxpaying immigrant residents, perhaps with the £18,000 qualification - perhaps. They are contributing to our society so maybe deserve a say.
I did say foreign nationals crossing either the tax or volunteering would get a vote apart from on constitutional matters
Your keyboard must be getting red hot by now!
smiles my header so I should try and answer questions and defend it
Well it's got a world record of posts on topic.
I suspect that is because I made more people splutter, I am told it is a little radical compared to suggesting av
What I don't get is if that roundabout works, why don't we see them everywhere?
It does take up a lot of space, and is rather hairy for the novice, but yes, it works.
We used to regularly use it years ago travelling between Oxford and Somerset. For while we tried to find a different route through it every time - there were lots!
I'm considering adding Democracy to the list of things which when I was young I thought would last forever but as I get older look set to disappear. Democracy nearly got wiped out in the US last month, it seems pretty moribund here and across much of the west.
Other items on my 'list' (most but not all of which I mourn) include: - The United Kingdom - Printed newspapers - The BBC - The Iron Curtain - Yellow Pages - Village pubs - Cinemas
... there are lots of others. It must have been the same for many previous generations.
Ooh, good game
I'd take pubs off the list, I reckon they will be much treasured after this plague, and I think the UK is more resilient than you assume, but otherwise, yes. Haven't Yellow Pages already gone?
What else would I add? What else would PB-ers add?
I would add, to the List of the Doomed
Personally owned cars (obvs) Therefore all car parks and parking (a much bigger deal than people realise) Most average shops (they just can't compete with amazon, and never will) Therefore: the High Street as we know it - which will become mostly cafes, hairdressers, pubs etc Human deliveries and postmen etc (drones will do it) Human driven taxis, planes, trains, trucks Summer holidays in the southern Med (just too hot)
Gainers
anything that has an irreducible human element: higher forms of art, craft, cooking, writing, architecture, hairdressing, bartending, nursing, vicars and being the Pope, or the holy anointed Sovereign of Great Britain. I predict a surge in religious faith, as the robots take over
99.1% visited, so the number vaccinated is probably as high as it is going to get.
But only 80% of residents vaccinated.
If the Scottish figure is indeed correct (and I truly find it hard to believe it true) that is an astonishing difference.
You are going off the total number, rather than the number eligible?
Yes because that is what Sturgeon is claiming has been achieved in Scotland.
And I find that fairly unbelievable.
Absolutely.
I'd be extremely surprised if the sum of all Care residents who (A) refused the vaccine, (B) currently have [or are suspected to have] Covid so can't receive the vaccine yet and (C) are allergic to or otherwise incapable of receiving the vaccine . . . are all combined less than 2%.
Yes, it's not plausible.
They (https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-daily-data-for-scotland/ ) say 29,482 older person care home residents have been given the first dose. That would imply a population of 30,083 care home residents which initially seems low by a couple of thousand until you factor in how many of residents would have died over the last year.
Here it seems to be based on an estimated population of exactly 30,000. Is it down to the precision of the population estimate? The NHS England one looks to be precise.
Comments
From the Chartists to the Suffragettes people fought for universal suffrage and it should be preserved
This time? He's in a panic. He's scared
Even the idea of a threshold is completely unpalatable to me. How could I look someone in the eye knowing that I have a say on our government and they don't. It's completely wrong.
Downside: pay no tax, you get no votes.
Upside: forget about safe seats!
It is worrying, but then, this is a plague. They are worrisome. No need for hysterical panic, as some PBers like to do
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55935875
It is quite absurd how long this scheme is taking to realise. Over the past 12 months, has the government not thought to perhaps have a few civil servants come up with such a plan , you know just in case....
The less experience of the eu you had the more likely to vote for remain and the more experience the more likely to vote to leave
Bravo.
https://twitter.com/paulblu/status/1357412335825125383?s=21
The Representation of the People Act 1832 removed the orgasm requirement IIRC.
The competing Parties put forward programmes of legislation which affect us all and which we are all bound to obey and deal with once enacted.
We should therefore all have the right to decide between these competing visions as we all have a stake in their outcome, successful or otherwise.
I find the system of giving a vote to an expat who has neither been in the country or paid taxes for 15 years but not to the resident non nationals who may have lived here for 15 years paying taxes unpalatable.
This very week at PMQ the PM defended the policy of requiring British born people eligible for citizenship to pay over £1k to get citizenship and therefore the vote, so paying for a vote already happens to some.
It is pretty sobering. About every 3rd house you think, OMFG these people are deciding the future of the nation. They haven't got a clue. They can barely boil an egg.
I love the idea of democracy but I wonder if it has peaked. I'm serious. First, we have the success of China, clearly out-performing the USA, in almost every way now (including pandemic-management, despite starting a pandemic). In China, the technocratic Party decides. but as the Party can take a longer view than any individual, the Party is wiser. This model becomes increasingly seductive to many, as America declines and China ascends. Cf Singapore. Basically a one party state which has beautifully married English Common Law to Chinese autocracy.
Second, AI. How far away is the moment when a computer will make a better political choice than any average human? About 10 minutes, I reckon.
The future will be special, neutral, bespoke voting robots, deciding our elections.
I am serious. I think democracy, as we know it, is nearly done. The machines know better, that's why they fly our planes and will soon drive our cars. After that, they select our government
(Or the perception of such, hence shellfish fishermen)
1) Events dear boy events. Politics requires a government and parliament that deals with the unforeseen, sometimes within days of being elected. No amount of advance funding and policy evaluation helps.
2) There is no such thing as an independent evaluation.
3) How do you winnow down to three.
4) Fiscal disciplines are common, here is another. Events mean they don't work.
5) The principle that 'everyone counts as one and no-one counts as more than one (or less)' is too precious to lose, despite the temptation. Anyway, there is no such thing as an independent evaluation of qualification to vote once it has values attached to it.
6) Laws still have to be placed by someone in a precise and accountable language to be interpreted by courts, and someone has to take democratic accountability for the consequences. This doesn't solve the problem.
7) I worry that Plato would like this system better than the status quo, and Karl Popper would like it less.
8) Is it is platform for populism?
Obviously not a letter composed by Trump.
Not sure if I entirely get 2) - sorry
3) would probably be messed up probably by the lawyers playing precisely the lawyerball it seeks to abolish.
4) is a good idea
5) lol won't happen with Covid finances ;D
6) Perhaps the most controversial part of the header - and good headers spark debate. In practice I think the least engaged in society simply never vote anyway - GE2019, an important one had 67% turnout which meant a third of people just didn't bother. I don't think you can go so far as to excluding natural citizens the vote.
A year of national service, or alternatively citizen's national service for all young men and women at say 19 - 20 might be a good idea though... And could we extend the franchise to taxpaying immigrant residents, perhaps with the £18,000 qualification - perhaps. They are contributing to our society so maybe deserve a say.
I've been known to moan about the grey vote and 'electoral bribes' we see at election time since they vote much more than others, but the simplest answer to that is compulsory voting, which I'm ideologically opposed to.
And of course some people overshoot and become Helen Lovejoy and over do the thinking about the childten, hence comments from time to time about why younger people should somehow be given priority for some or all votes.
It would be a welcome change if Boris and Nicola could, for once, agree a scheme rather than continual point scoring
Citizen's Assemblies spring to mind. Examples are sometimes given where they may well have worked on a particular issue, but oftentimes people propose them seemingly on the basis that they don't like what democratically elected people are doing as they think the priorities are wrong. So they problem is not actually the political system it is the people in that example.
I think one of our biggest problems is legislators not really being taught how to legislate well, and being incentivised to play partisan games instead of making good legislation, and not having enough influence on matters of substance.
But how to solve that? I can't see how the public can be made to reward behaviour to address that issue.
A different matter i have pondered is the whole localism issue. I would do away with district councils and have unitaries, beef up their powers (admittedly not sure how specifically) and do so on a way that is consistent across the country (or at least with a limited number of models which are clear and consistent). Then as MPs are always getting bothered by local issues they actually have no say in, if they are to retain a constituency role then maybe there's a way for MPs to have some kind of coordinating role across such an area...no wait, I think I'm talking my way into regional assemblies.
Edit: As for machines running us, it's about 50/50 on sci-fi writers who are positive about that outcome with those who are not. The Polity didn't seem that bad.
https://www.marsdd.com/magazine/computers-are-already-better-than-doctors-at-diagnosing-some-diseases/#:~:text=Computers already outperform medical professionals,scanning lesions for skin cancer.
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/landig/PIIS2589-7500(19)30011-1.pdf
- then they will be better at deciding elections. They are Home sapiens, We are the neanderthals. We are the beta, they are the alpha. Let's just accept it, and enjoy the cybersex
Machines rely on the programmes inputted into them, in terms of issues like immigration control, the level of tax and spend, civil liberties etc there can also never be one exact right answer as different ideologies will have a different view
http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/44-the-powerball-revolution
https://twitter.com/swindonadver/status/1357418652514017286?s=21
2) true but someone has to cost the thing and we are probably not going to get better than the civil service
3) Already addressed, a year before the election all who want to be considered post their proposals, the public can debate forum like the most popular 3 for each post move forward
4) Events will always happen and I didnt say we couldnt borrow if something like covid comes along. Merely we shouldnt assume borrowing for normal expenditure
5) As I already said its more a discussion point. I think a vote earned somehow is more valuable and used more thoughtfully which is what I would like rather than "I have always voted party x"
6) The laws are still drafted as currently. The two houses instead of drafting the letter of the law are instead determining the spirit of the law and then professionals drafting the letter.
not adressing 7 or 8
Great header. I like the idea of getting more rigour and less bullshit into the political process. Also like the idea having to prove yourself worthy of getting to vote. Not by tax paid though. There's no link between tax paid and merit imo.
1 - Elected multi-member executive with specific areas of responsibility
This is somewhat similar to elected executive offices in most US states, for example in WA we elected nine state executive officers every four years: Governor, Lt Gov (and pres of state senate), Attorney General, Secretary of State (elections), Treasurer, Auditor, Commissioner of Public Lands, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Insurance Commissioner. Governor is WAY more powerful than rest combined; one trend of the 20th century and so far for 21st is increasing gubernatorial authority & responsibility viz-a-viz the other eight.
Setup suggested by P2 also reminds me of city commission form of municipal government used by a choice minority of US cities.
2. By "sortition" do you mean a lot drawing, or such-like? Reminds me of what a guy told me years ago, he was a long-time state legislative staffer (and a very excellent one) in Olympia. In WA State, each of 40 legislative districts elects two state reps (2 year terms) and one state senator (4-year). His suggestion was to avoid the fuss, mess & expense of elections, by simply going to 49 taverns, one from each LD, and selecting the three loudest loudmouths to serve in the legislature.
3. Interested in what lawyers have to say on this point. Personally doubt that logical simplification and clarification is apt to work as well in practice as it perhaps should. Some real-world examples might be helpful here.
4. Very interesting, though have two concerns: 1) focusing entirely (or at least mostly) on taxes = costs, as opposed to benefits. Esp. in circumstances where some SHOULD pay more - or less - than others; and 2) ensuring that assessments are (to coin a phrase) "fair & balanced. In this respect, note that WA state law mandates "fiscal notes" prepared to assess the fiscal impact (to state government) of all proposed bills submitted by state reps & senators during legislative sessions.
5. What tends to happen (certainly in WA State, which has no state income tax) is that spending AND revenues rise during good economic times, and contract during recessions or other economic crises (like pandemics). SO need to factor this into the equation. AND again, taxes are NOT the sole measure of public good or otherwise.
6. Most problematic section for yours truly. IF voting rights are based on personal skin in the game, then (and again) taxes are NOT the best baseline, certainly not any regime that credits taxes mostly paid by the rich & well off, with those mostly paid by the other side of the coin. Personally would prefer NOT to base voting on taxes or service. But IF those were the options, would rather base it ENTIRELY on service.
And that magic roundabout is something else!
https://youtu.be/6OGvj7GZSIo
Other items on my 'list' (most but not all of which I mourn) include:
- The United Kingdom
- Printed newspapers
- The BBC
- The Iron Curtain
- Yellow Pages
- Village pubs
- Cinemas
... there are lots of others. It must have been the same for many previous generations.
And we will accept it, because the governance will be palpably superior, and it will take the human bitterness out of the equation. We will become hedonistic gourmets who like art, as our computers get on with the boring jobs. Or budgies in a cage marvelling at our regular feed of millet and the shiny tiny mirror.
Just a question of perception.
But it is coming.
BTW, there are 49 leg districts in WA sorry for typo!
https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccinations-data---technical-note/
Under this your policy is not going perfectly, you get recalled, and the opposite idea might then be tried, which will probably fail as major resources need to be redirected, and then you recall that person and so on.
Plus then the ridiculous notion with the Tories spending plans of comparing the proposals made against a baseline of 2010 (after a period of massive overspending and the government was spending £4 for every £3 of tax raised) rather than the baseline of the position at the time of the election.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9224975/Coronavirus-France-rejects-lockdown-justify-economic-social-human-costs.html
If we give free school meals to all school children they will get better exam results. Within 2.5 years I expect a 20% increase in exam grades from it then they look after 2.5 years and find there is a 2% increase then they put out a recall....if the increase is say 12% probably reasonable to think the policy needs more time to work
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk
I'd take pubs off the list, I reckon they will be much treasured after this plague, and I think the UK is more resilient than you assume, but otherwise, yes. Haven't Yellow Pages already gone?
What else would I add? What else would PB-ers add?
I would add, to the List of the Doomed
Personally owned cars (obvs)
Therefore all car parks and parking (a much bigger deal than people realise)
Most average shops (they just can't compete with amazon, and never will)
Therefore: the High Street as we know it - which will become mostly cafes, hairdressers, pubs etc
Human deliveries and postmen etc (drones will do it)
Human driven taxis, planes, trains, trucks
Summer holidays in the southern Med (just too hot)
Gainers
anything that has an irreducible human element: higher forms of art, craft, cooking, writing, architecture, hairdressing, bartending, nursing, vicars and being the Pope, or the holy anointed Sovereign of Great Britain. I predict a surge in religious faith, as the robots take over
(a) They get away with it - because the UK couldn't, but we are uniquely cursed
(b) Massacre
[Won't post a tweet from him again because it's getting boring].
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1357437203232784391