Categories
Options
A Suggestion on Political Reform – politicalbetting.com
A Suggestion on Political Reform – politicalbetting.com
1) An elected executive based on defined positions such as Education, Health, Police, Immigration etc. where each position is directly elected after:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I've often thought the executive should be split from the legislature.
There is a reason why even corrupt dictatorships like China and Iran have theoretical democracies and elections,
One of the few times I entirely agree with you. I've been amazed at how much Lockdown some of my most freedom-loving friends are willing to tolerate. A lot of people want the government to go full on Wuhan. No more flights. Sealed off neighbourhoods. Staple the doors of the obstinate. Use giant nets to catch quarantine-dodgers.
It's made me realise just how much Most People don't want to die, or even risk dying. And fair enough.
That's why I believe Covid vaccination will become compulsory, in fact or in practice. The large majority will demand it, some government will therefore enact it
Some interesting concepts otherwise, a directly elected mutli-executive body is something I think I like the sound of but wouldn't work well in practice as the health president may have ideas that conflict with the education president but both win their respective elections.
I would reject them all, but good for you for putting them forward.
Your franchise idea makes me think of Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
I'm not sure about the conclusion for 1) though. Why could you not still end up with some rabble rousing idiot with no thought out proposals? Who is winnowing the candidates down?
On 2), that would be quite the change - in my experience people hate performing the role of scrutineer.
Agreed most law is gibberish, but making everything guidelines seems extreme.
On 4) what about proposals between elections? - Things will happen that need addressing presumably
Tax rises?! Hahahaha
Earning the right to vote is an interesting one, though I'm in favour of every yahoo voting.
But really, I suppose its easy to comment, and harder to speculate, and everyone should come up with their own ideas here.
This will take time.
On the the tax threshold for voting, have you considered that anyone who spends on anything beyond food and clothes pays taxes (VAT and other duties)?
The idea that people need to be clear on the tax makes sense because it will hopefully balance the 'government, do something' approach with the reality of paying for it. This, perhaps, fits it very well about how it may go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chMCU5VSuqw
As I say, I understand where you're coming from that voting is something that should be earned by contributing to society either by tax or other means, it just starts to get dicey when you have to actually implement such a system because what is and isn't included in "other means".
The big practical problem with your proposal is that there isn’t nearly enough ‘scrutiny’ work in Parliament to keep 600 plus MPs gainfully occupied, yet there is more than enough casework coming up from constituencies to justify that number of representatives.
This circle is squared currently by creating ranks of junior ministers and bag carrying roles to co-opt large numbers of MPs into supporting the executive. It isn’t clear from your proposal how the executive side, below the directly elected leads, is to be staffed.
If the directly elected executive positions are elected separately, it isn’t obvious how a coherent government with a programme emerges.
If the local representatives are elected from constituencies using the current crooked voting system, you would perpetuate the current failure to adequately represent large swathes of public opinion.
https://youtu.be/4w7SKrHL8Bw
2) yes people hate being scrutineers and maybe I didnt explain it well you arent setting guidelines. The legislature would be settiing test cases and how the proposed law is meant to cope.
An example is the firearms legislation currently it is a statutory offence to possess a gun with a 5 year sentence. That takes no account of someone dumping a shotgun in your garden....it is now in your possession.
4) Most things carry on as before, they only have a mandate to do what they proposed. In case of emergency they act as our current cabinet does
Good evening, everyone.
I’m amazed more posters aren’t outraged by that.
The Universal franchise is a right, not a privilege
I love Verhoeven films. Every one of them gets better with repeat viewing, even Showgirls.
Certain things do & should come with societal contribution and I think as a concept that needs more focus in politics & society. But the basic franchise is a bit too much of a pillar to remove.
I thought lawyers were supposed to be sticklers for detail.
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.)
Surely Jose is next in the sack race? The stadium would be toxic if there were fans in.
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.
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).
How to ensure they different people don't clash? The people will select contradictory people for different roles, things cross cut too much.
I may pitch this idea to TSE, when I have finished my new oolitic butt plug
The problem of democracy in this country is that too many feel disenfranchised, whether Purple Wall Brexiteer, or youthful Corbynite. Such a system adds more to the toxic mix, to the point that revolution rolls out the tumbrils.
Universal adult suffrage should not be up for debate, even if that lets capricious voters with the attention span of goldfish decide things.
I would also say that we need less dictatorship of the executive rather than more.
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.
It's a view you are fully entitled to hold of course but my view is very different.
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/PeoplesAS30/status/1357360089674440710