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 9th Oct 2019, 11:08
  #81 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,271

Certainly a start, then I would suggest having an election to the newly constituted Lords every 4 or 5 years, on a PR basis using the party list system, and as the Lords (Senate or whatever else is chosen for it's new name) is then a democratically elected chamber make sure it has real power, not just the power to review legislation that comes from the lower house.

Taking churchmen, landed gentry and former PM's favourites out of the equation would be a really useful start in bringing our democracy into the 20th (not a typo!) century.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 11:28
  #82 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2010
Age: 69
Posts: 817
Originally Posted by TURIN View Post

The current HofL is made up of nearly 800 members which is ridiculous. A cap of 600 200 or less would be more appropriate.

20 geographic regions - 10 reps from each region (nominal - some other mix might be more appropriate. 5 counties per region, for instance)
New legislation to require an overall majority vote but also with a majority (6/10) from a majority of the regions (11/20).
WingNut60 is online now  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 11:49
  #83 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 578
Originally Posted by Nervous SLF View Post
I wish I was as optimistic as your good self as it seems to me that in some constituencies the so called major parties could
enter a monkey and the party sheep would still vote for it.

Undoubtedly true in the past, but one wonders what would happen to those MPs who have demonstrated a view that is the polar opposite of their constituents? If the referendum was a chance to give the main parties a kicking, I could really see the boot going in at the forthcoming election in those constituencies.
Harley Quinn is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 11:58
  #84 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,271
Originally Posted by Harley Quinn View Post
Undoubtedly true in the past, but one wonders what would happen to those MPs who have demonstrated a view that is the polar opposite of their constituents? If the referendum was a chance to give the main parties a kicking, I could really see the boot going in at the forthcoming election in those constituencies.
I'm afraid very little. Labour and Tory tribal loyalties run very deep. As for Northern Ireland. If people were to vote along the lines of remain and leave, most of the DUP would be wiped out at Westminster level. Sadly the decision on who to vote for is pretty well based on which church you pile through the doors of, not on a rational decision based upon which party / candidate best represents you, or what is best for the province.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2019, 11:19
  #85 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: England
Posts: 33
Several days now into the election campaign and its like a scene from Beechers Brook at the Grand National. Senior figures and potential candidates falling everywhere and riderless horses (or donkeys) heading for the finishing line.

Non aggression packs etc being suggested. Can we really carry on without reform?
Grayfly is online now  
Old 10th Nov 2019, 14:52
  #86 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,481
Can we really carry on without reform?
The answer ought to be NO. Unfortunately we are up against vested interests who have long since realised that the present system suits them well!
The main obstacle is the Party system itself. Party organisation serves the members AND makes those who wish to influence large groups much better placed to do so. If there were NO Parties, how would the big donors use that money to gain influence?
The voting system is so obviously distorted as to need no further amplification.
MPs should NOT be allowed to make a career of it! A maximum of two terms only and then its's back to 'real life' and the same problems as the rest of the country.
After those have been acted on, we can start considering some drastic measures!
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2019, 14:52
  #87 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England - Now
Posts: 64
This statement, or something similar, keeps cropping up on this site and most recently at post 43 in this thread -

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.

Utter Tosh if I may say.
Whether you like it or not most people in this country vote for a party. All parties party publish a manifesto outlining what they will attempt to do when in power. The voter then looks at party policies and decides he likes the policies of party XX, or due to ingrained beliefs has always voted for party XX, and he sees candidate YY is a member of that party and so in the voting booth puts a cross against that candidates name so those policies can be carried out. The would be MP has stood up at various public meetings, took money from party XX for expenses and had the party publicity machine, possibly including visits by senior party members backing him at election meetings, and put himself forward to the electorate himself as someone who will carry out the policies of that party..

It would be logical for the voter to assume that when YY becomes an MP he would deliver on the promises made by party XX and himself at the hustings. Otherwise why would he have stood as a candidate of party XX if he doesn't believe in or agree with what party XX promised? Even if he is not a member of a party he will say in election material or at meetings what he is going to be campaigning for in parliament.
I would not vote for, and I can't believe anyone would, someone who will go to parliament to vote "As he sees fit" as I have no idea what he sees as fit.
Should a serving MP have a road to Damascus moment and decide he has got it wrong for all his life and wants to change his views he should do the only honourable and moral thing and resign. The ex-MP can then face the constituents, explain why as their MP he has changed his mind and stand in the by-election either for a different party that more reflects his views or indeed if he thinks the local electorate agree with him can stand as an independent. Should he still believe in the majority of the policies of party YY he could of course stand as an independent YY party candidate and not have the Whip, or take election expenses so at least the voters have a "soft" YY party MP.

When I look at the choices for my MP I look at what he/his party says he will do and would expect him to carry out those promises. I'm not going to vote for a representative and just say - Vote how you feel on any topic old chap and that is perfectly OK with me.

By the way - by writing "He" in the text does not mean I expect all MPs to be male because as far as I am concerned an MP can define themselves in any way they wish. As long as they do what they promised!
Headstone is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 11:37
  #88 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South Gloucestershire
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by treadigraph View Post
We have it here, Grayfly. PPRuNe.

People's Parliament for Rules and National Executive.
Well said treadigraph.

This discussion reminds me of the Billy Connolly observation that during the 1940's, the British recording industry was one of the most innovative organisations in the world; who else would have engineered WWII just to push Vera Lynn's new single.

Similarly, I am convinced that politicians with "low public esteem", referendums and "causes-of-the-day" are tools used by media controlling entities to ensure that those of us who are retired, "in-between-jobs" or just "compulsive communicators" (who also happen to be readers of the Guardian, Daily Mail et al as well as contributors to forums such as this) have a means of "venting our spleen".

We are providing a conduit for said "controllers" but on the bright side, keeping a lot of media personnel in their jobs. A self-perpetuating "gravy train" in itself?

Last edited by frampton; 11th Nov 2019 at 11:38. Reason: spelling
frampton is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2019, 21:27
  #89 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 100
Its not Parliament that needs reform its the brain dead vacuous morons who work there

Had they all recognised day 2 after the referendum that the whole country is split, each party is split, they wouldn't have allowed one party to take ownership of the negotiations, lead by a remainer who was a trained barrister.not a hard nosed business negotiator

They should have all got round the table, formed an interparty Brexit Committee, spent a year deciding what we all wanted and reached a decision then employed hard nosed business negotiators to do their bidding for them, with a hard bottom line

f*****g shambles the lot of em most of whom couldn't run their own noses
Burnt Fishtrousers is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

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.