Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Is it time for Parliamentary Reform?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Is it time for Parliamentary Reform?

Old 7th Oct 2019, 12:05
  #41 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: England
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by PC767 View Post


The purpose of parliament is to legislate, i.e. create law. The government has more managerial functions.
I hope you are not suggesting that engineers cannot be involved in creating laws
Grayfly is online now  
Old 7th Oct 2019, 12:58
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 450
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
MP's if they are voted in by a majority of their constituents on a subject such as Brexit and go against their constituents wishes should be deselected and a by election held.
This raises the point that MPs are delegates, not representatives - in other words they are elected to be sent to parliament as members of the House of Commons to speak and vote as they see fit. That's why, for example, a MP can change party allegiance without having to be re-elected as we vote for people, not parties, however it may look.


Allan Lupton is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2019, 13:34
  #43 (permalink)  
Cunning Artificer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 74
Posts: 3,125
Aristotle reviewed several different forms of government and came to the conclusion that democracy is the worst of systems, arguing that it inevitably descends into tyranny. Perhaps we are seeing the effects right now? His assessment that the best system is Aristocracy may be worth looking into - the word Aristocracy not meaning those who inherit wealth and lord it over the peasants but, being derived from Aristos - the best, Aristotle referred to government by those best qualified to govern. How we decide the means to determine who those best qualified might be is another matter. Maybe we could have a referendum on the subject?
Blacksheep is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2019, 14:29
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,943
I would make it a requirement for any MP being questioned on TV to give a concise and correct answer to the question asked and not go off on a tangent as if we are a bunch of fools and evade the question, I would give them one attempt at answering the question and then would subject them to a mild electrical shock before asking it again, intensity increasing after each failed response.
It might not be legal, but it would be good viewing.... Miss Abbott, what is two hundred divided by four, times by seven and add 46... zzzzzzzttttttttttttt....
NutLoose is online now  
Old 7th Oct 2019, 14:57
  #45 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: England
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Blacksheep View Post
How we decide the means to determine who those best qualified might be is another matter
Maybe as in the real world, a job description, qualifications required and match to a potential candidates CV. The job description and qualifications is the interesting bit. Also a Code of Conduct which has legal teeth with a list of instant dismissal criteria. As I say, as in the real world in which the shareholders (voters) live and work.
Grayfly is online now  
Old 7th Oct 2019, 15:50
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by 419 View Post
But surely in that case you must also raise the minimum age requirements for many jobs to 21 as well.
After all, would you want 17/18/19/20 year old joining up to the armed forces where they may well be sent off to war during which time any decisions may be governed by their hearts and not their heads?
How about driving on the roads? If people under 21 years old can't be trusted to make sensible decisions based on logic rather then on their hearts, should they be allowed to take control of a vehicle?

if we are raising the age due to the supposed immaturity of todayís youth, should we not also then place an upper age limit on votes.. say state retirement age? As we all know once you start getting up there in age the mental faculties start to degrade, and to be fair the governance of the country albeit good, bad or any direction starts to mean less and less.
highflyer40 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2019, 15:58
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,943
Originally Posted by highflyer40 View Post



if we are raising the age due to the supposed immaturity of todayís youth, should we not also then place an upper age limit on votes.. say state retirement age? As we all know once you start getting up there in age the mental faculties start to degrade, and to be fair the governance of the country albeit good, bad or any direction starts to mean less and less.
Including MP's and the House of Lords?..... ohh and don't forget dear old Betty...
NutLoose is online now  
Old 7th Oct 2019, 16:00
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
Including MP's and the House of Lords?..... ohh and don't forget dear old Betty...

Especially them! They must stand down at state retirement age.

edit - Just thought again about that. All they would do is raise the retirement age to 100!!
highflyer40 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2019, 17:19
  #49 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,084
I'd make the benchmark an Engineer with business experience. Logical and no BS, problem solver and solutions provider.
I'd like to take that one step further, medical matters will be decided by medical professionals, military matter, military professionals and so forth. When the various trades and professions were all properly represented I would then build a very big pub where all these groups could meet and discuss the countries affairs before being invited to vote on the issues. May even include two years compulsory National Service for any prospective representative to see if we can't find a bit a of backbone here and there. This particular parliamentary model can be refined and fellow PPRuNers are invited to add their suggestions.
parabellum is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2019, 18:30
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kelowna Wine Country
Posts: 461
The idea that laws pertaining to a particular area should be governed by relevant professionals is a terrible one. As a lay school trustee it very soon became apparent to me that education was far too important to be governed by teachers or ex teachers.

While I appreciate that the Lords have their political views and are reccomended by the PM if they are not hereditary (I thought that was being done away with) they can not be sacked for political reasons and therefore are a counterbalance to the Commons. Frankly, looking at the USA Senate and ours the Lords look positively brilliant.

Yeah, sure, have a written constitution like the USA and have every decision of government take to court. Bad, bad idea.

Someone should have found a way to put Bercow on the street the first time he admitted to a partisan decision.
ChrisVJ is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2019, 20:10
  #51 (permalink)  
419
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by ChrisVJ View Post
The idea that laws pertaining to a particular area should be governed by relevant professionals is a terrible one. As a lay school trustee it very soon became apparent to me that education was far too important to be governed by teachers or ex teachers.
I agree that there is no need for laws pertaining to a certain field to be governed by MP's with expertise in that field as the formation of laws are generally overseen by many people.

I do however think that when making organisational changes within a certain field, it would make sense for those changes to be made by someone who has at least worked in that field and who has a reasonable idea of what actually goes on.
Should a Secretary of State for Defence, someone whose job includes defence planning and manpower allocation and military communications really be able to make decisions which could easily affect the safety and security of the country if they have never served in the armed forces and if they don't really have much of a clue about what really goes on?

419 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2019, 21:53
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,478
I note that Blacksheep quotes Aristotle's assessment of Democracy, without ANY indication of what Aristotle understood by the term. Given that it has been used by every man and his dog to justify/disparage entirely opposed concepts and decisions, is there any chance that he (Blacksheep) could enlighten us as to the definition?
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2019, 08:57
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 152
There have been several comments on here that there should be 'qualifications' for voters or prospective political candidates. Who sets those qualifications? That would be wide, wide open to corruption!

16-year-olds voting? I'm not convinced. (I think I agree with treadigraph.) As they are still minors, should they get their parents consent on which way they vote?

Democracy in Aristotle's time was very much 'referendum based'. That appears to be an unpopular concept on this Thread.

The huge problem with a PR system is that you have those 'party lists' and your MPs will be absolutely under the 'party thumb' with no chance of individual thought.

The constituency based system, with all its obvious faults, has the huge advantage that you can vote for an individual. It allows for Independent MPs and allows for a substantial 'kick' against a party attempting to 'parachute' candidates into 'safe' seats. That example that I gave earlier of the 'orange' MP winning in a 'solidly blue' area was exactly because the 'blues' attempted to 'parachute in' a candidate. As I said, the 'orange' MP was a very, very good constituency MP and was returned in the next coupe of elections, until he retired. The 'blue party', having learnt their lesson about not 'parachuting in' an outsider, put forward a local who has been voted in in the last two elections (and I have seen evidence in the past few days how he is also being very, very much involved in sorting out problems in his constituency).

In a constituency-based system there is a direct link between MPs and voters, i.e. MPs have a large number of the electorate in their constituency who can look them in the eye and say "You are only in your seat because I, and people like me, voted for you." In a PR system every single MP can hide away from voters as not one of them has ever voted for any one of them as an individual.

(That situation that i mentioned earlier where I did not have the opportunity to vote for an individual that I agreed with because he was member of a party that I didn't agree with, was that questionable EU Parliament voting system. Who is your MEP? Anyone who gives one name is wrong as you have several and each one can 'hide away' from you to 'pass the buck' onto one of the others in your EU Parliament 'constituency'. In our constituency-based system there is one person who represents you, full stop.)

The biggest 'Parliamentary Reform' that we could do with right now is the removal of the 'gravy train' stalemate mob that we have now by having a General Election as soon as possible.
NoelEvans is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2019, 09:07
  #54 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: England
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by NoelEvans View Post

The biggest 'Parliamentary Reform' that we could do with right now is the removal of the 'gravy train' stalemate mob that we have now by having a General Election as soon as possible.
Likely to be replaced by yet another 'gravy train' stalemate mob unless you make some reforms.
Grayfly is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2019, 09:44
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,943
I wuld also scrap the political honour system such as promoting xyz on leaving Parliament to the House of Lords
NutLoose is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2019, 18:33
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,320
So the FT headline today is no deal brexit to cost business 15Bn , GDP is to shrink, huge huge increase in borrowing which will have to be paid back by increased taxes -for the many not the few when it comes to taxes , National Union Farmers state Govt has betrayed them over Brexit promises as the realise US poor quality mass produced products will crush UK agriculture .

Never mind we can take back control and give it to a PM who
1 is a serial liar
2 Misled the Queen-i just as bad if it was ignorance or deceit
3 Is extremely lazy according to his friends
4 Is untrustworthy according to his friends and his brother and sister
5 a bully. might have worked at Eton but not with the people he has tried it on with in Europe, probably because they are a Union , Angela Merkel grew up in East Germany she would just laugh at him trying to bully her and apparently she just has done.
6 Has no concept of responsibility or integrity and is under investigation for misconduct in public office
7 brought the Government of Uk into disrespect and distrust world wide
8 Sought to undermine the very integrity of our legal system used in innumerable contracts and agreements world wide which do not involve the UK at all
7 Would you trust his finger on the red button , really?

So just what are the massive advantages of Brexit again?
pax britanica is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2019, 18:51
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,478
I won't quote from post #57 because I had hoped that I would never again hear or read such disgusting sentiments expressed in a public forum.
I don't doubt for one minute that such people exist and in considerable numbers. Having lived through the era when 57 poster and his/her ilk would gather at the prison gates to 'enjoy' the news of one of their kind quite deliberately putting another to death and considering that "Justice had been served", I can only bring to mind Timothy Evans, The Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and so many others who 'enjoyed' the unfailing reliability of British 'Justice'.. That apart, the view expressed is so atavistic as to make one wonder whether Darwin's theories have any place in some sections of Society! If that particular contributor is serious I can only point him/her to a recent and ongoing Middle East conflict where he/she could satisfy the foul lust expressed and find sufficient like-minded outcasts from the world of decency!
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2019, 19:04
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 55
Posts: 864
Originally Posted by akindofmagic View Post
A lot of Brits are in favour of bringing back hanging and increasing the severity of prison sentences, both in terms of length and the conditions that those sentences are served under. Why then shouldn't our elected representatives give effect to the will of the people?

I actually wouldn't be surprised to see a vote on the restoration of the death penalty at some time in the next five years. About time too.
Every time this comes up I ask whether those in favour would be prepared to be executed in a miscarriage of justice - despite DNA etc etc ultimately justice has a human component, and so 100% accuracy cannot be guaranteed. I donít recall anyone being prepared to answer.....
Curious Pax is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2019, 19:27
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Curious Pax View Post


Every time this comes up I ask whether those in favour would be prepared to be executed in a miscarriage of justice - despite DNA etc etc ultimately justice has a human component, and so 100% accuracy cannot be guaranteed. I donít recall anyone being prepared to answer.....
Iíve always said I am in favour of the death penalty where it can be 100% proven that they are guilty, but you canít ever be so. Therefore I couldnít endorse the death penalty as I would always be of the belief that 10 guilty should go free rather than one innocent executed.

That said I am in favour of harsher sentences for violent crimes and much harsher conditions. Hard labour, work gangs for public projects. Make them pay.for their custody.
highflyer40 is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2019, 19:27
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunnydale
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by Curious Pax View Post


Every time this comes up I ask whether those in favour would be prepared to be executed in a miscarriage of justice - despite DNA etc etc ultimately justice has a human component, and so 100% accuracy cannot be guaranteed. I donít recall anyone being prepared to answer.....
Probably a large number of people that support the re-introduction of the death penalty are also people that are incensed at a recent decision of the U.K. Supreme Court.
back to Boeing is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.