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

UK Politics Hamsterwheel Mk III

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

UK Politics Hamsterwheel Mk III

Old 12th Oct 2020, 13:11
  #4601 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by ATNotts View Post
Won't happen, but I would propose a Royal Commission made up of non party appointees to look at how UK democracy works with the findings to be binding on the government.

Otherwise the main parties would simply ignore them. No requirement to put them to referendum, as with Brexit the majority simply aren't knowledgeable enough to make an informed judgement.
I agree. The choices that were available in the referendum on the alternative vote were so heavily neutered by those with a vested interest in nothing changing, as to make the process pointless. No democratic system is flawless, but other countries have shown that systems that allow, or even encourage, government by coalition can work very well. Germany, for example, has been governed by a coalition for long periods, and prospered under that arrangement. Proper coalitions force politicians to work with each other, instead of against each other, as seems to happen in our system. How much parliamentary time is wasted here by politicians just trying to score points against their opposite number, rather than working to actually improve the way the country is run?

Our present system pretty much forces all politicians to waste large amounts of time defending they party political policies, and shift the focus away from their core task of governing the country, and representing the views of those who elected them. No government, either Conservative or Labour, is going to allow electoral reform that risks a move away from the two party system, so having the case made by an independent Royal Commission would seem to be the only way of hoping to get any change. I don't believe that we can continue to allow parliament to be split down party lines, with that split becoming ever wider, as each side becomes more polarised, for much longer.
VP959 is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2020, 13:23
  #4602 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 2,886
Originally Posted by ATNotts View Post
A decent sales person can earn that, and get a company car, private healthcare, and a reasonable pension for that. And that's before you start on performance bonusses. £80k isn't that great a figure, albeit a deal more than I am raking in at present.
Which suggests that sales staff are overpaid, not that politicians are underpaid.

£80,000 is, according to the IFS...With a household after tax income of £1507 per week, you have a higher income than around 98% of the population - equivalent to about 64.3 million individuals.

Nice work if you can get it.
TURIN is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2020, 13:48
  #4603 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: England
Posts: 31
Doesn't the Government actually have to propose and set up a Royal Commission? (why would they?) Or is there someone else who could do this, apart from the Queen?
Grayfly is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2020, 14:46
  #4604 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,999
Originally Posted by Grayfly View Post
Doesn't the Government actually have to propose and set up a Royal Commission? (why would they?) Or is there someone else who could do this, apart from the Queen?
Haven't a clue, but I rather expect that the government would have to be instrumental in setting the ball rolling, and the terms of reference. That's exactly why I prefaced my proposal with the words "Won't happen"!!
ATNotts is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2020, 18:25
  #4605 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by Grayfly View Post
Doesn't the Government actually have to propose and set up a Royal Commission? (why would they?) Or is there someone else who could do this, apart from the Queen?
" Dear Vlad ( see above ) Love Boris"

Last edited by Krystal n chips; 12th Oct 2020 at 18:47.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2020, 18:37
  #4606 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 60
Posts: 821
Originally Posted by TURIN View Post
Which suggests that sales staff are overpaid, not that politicians are underpaid.

£80,000 is, according to the IFS...With a household after tax income of £1507 per week, you have a higher income than around 98% of the population - equivalent to about 64.3 million individuals.

Nice work if you can get it.
Turin
A typical none exec for say a FTSE 200 UK company (so not premier division !) is circa £60-70k for around 14-16 days per year. Most chief execs may have two companies as well as their own business depending if they are still active in it, so could realistically look at an income circa £300- 350k for FTSE 200 depending on location. Sales staff are always over paid in USA and UK not so in Europe, in fact the UK are known for having good sales people but delv is usually poor with an odd honourable exception. My own Sales people earn the same as the Project Managers (£100K) and their bonus is based on the out turn of the project not the margin that they sold it at as are the PM,S. We find it makes them more honest re marjins, and reflect that they work as a team.
Kind regards
Mr Mac
Mr Mac is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2020, 19:11
  #4607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kelowna Wine Country
Posts: 443
Some will remember that before the sixties/seventies salesmen in the UK were mostly considered as spivs. Perhaps it was a hangover from the days of the door to door guy selling vacuums etc, (which later became a stereotype for comic sketches.)

Sometime around then the UK government decided that while our products and innovation were good we lacked the ability to sell them abroad and there was a big hype about how important salesmen were and how they should be given same status as executives etc.
ChrisVJ is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2020, 22:14
  #4608 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,390
How do you propose we do that? Its already been voted down once.
With an electorate having that level of knowledge of the electoral process and the distinction between PR and Alternative Vote systems, it's hardly surprising that we are governed by fools. If you are going to comment, at least understand the subject!
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2020, 23:18
  #4609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: The Pits
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by TURIN View Post
£80,000 is, according to the IFS...With a household after tax income of £1507 per week, you have a higher income than around 98% of the population - equivalent to about 64.3 million individuals.
Can you explain how £80,000 per annum gives £1507 per week after tax? I think I might be paying too much tax.
Cole Burner is online now  
Old 12th Oct 2020, 23:36
  #4610 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 161
As much as I dislike how first past the post makes my vote meaningless, it does at least give some sort of stability, with each successive government getting at least five years to Fck up the country, unlike PR where we would be changing governments every six months.
WB627 is online now  
Old 13th Oct 2020, 08:16
  #4611 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,999
Originally Posted by WB627 View Post
As much as I dislike how first past the post makes my vote meaningless, it does at least give some sort of stability, with each successive government getting at least five years to Fck up the country, unlike PR where we would be changing governments every six months.
Not necessarily. To equate the consequences of a PR electoral system with the worst excesses of, say, Italy is rather like suggesting that the only alternative to the NHS is an "American style" health care system. There are plenty of examples where PR produces stability, notably in central Europe. Germany, for example has a threshold of 5% of the popular vote to get a party seats in the Bundestag. That ensures some of the loony tunes that could create instability are not in play.

Surely the FPTP system provides stability, but it can, and often is a pretty lower quality stability, and there have been several instances where it has produced pretty extreme policies being implemented. A well functioning PR system produces governments that are by necessity more moderate in character. One of the best periods of government the UK has had in the last 50 years was the 2010 - 2015 ConLib coalition.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2020, 08:35
  #4612 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 390
Probably the best example of stability under a proportional representation system is Germany. Angela Merkel is in her fourth term, and three of those have been leading coalition governments (2005 - 2009, 2013 - 2018, 2018 - present).

FPTP tends to result in periods of a more extreme single party government, often getting more self-serving by the day, followed by a sudden switch (usually when there's a national crisis) to a government of the opposite polarity. Given that the majority of people probably have political views somewhere closer to the centre than the extremes of either party, means that they rarely get a government that aligns with many of their views. One illustration of this was the popularity, initially, of Tony Blair. He'd shifted the Labour party towards the centre of the left/right divide, and gained a lot of support. Another example might be the 2010 - 2015 coalition, which came about because there wasn't enough support for Cameron and his Conservative party in the 2010 election.

I agree wholeheartedly with ATNotts words above, in that a well-functioning PR system can produce governments that are more moderate, and in general, a moderate government tends to be better for society.
VP959 is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2020, 08:38
  #4613 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 1,265
I agree that this country has been ill-served by its combatative politiical system and the polarity it generates and supports. It has acted to separate and disunite us.
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2020, 08:40
  #4614 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,390
As much as I dislike how first past the post makes my vote meaningless, it does at least give some sort of stability
I've read and re-read that again and again and I still cannot find even a trace of logic involved!! The theory (undelivered!) of universal suffrage was to allow choice of a State's governance according to individual wishes. What we have been saddled with is a modified version of 'Hobson's Choice', the modification being in the hands of an unelected 'elite'. Look for a representative parallel to that and what do we find ? - PRC, Russia, North Korea ! ... and you think that is a good idea ?
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2020, 08:55
  #4615 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by TURIN View Post
Which suggests that sales staff are overpaid, not that politicians are underpaid.

£80,000 is, according to the IFS...With a household after tax income of £1507 per week, you have a higher income than around 98% of the population - equivalent to about 64.3 million individuals.

Nice work if you can get it.
Are you sure about that? £1507 per week is £78,364 per year. Even knowing MPs appear to have a unique ability to be 'creative' with the taxes they pay, deductions of just £1,636 per year in tax and NI is over-creative even for them! It just doesn't add up.

The reality is a £80,000 income comes to around £1,056 take home per week at standard allowance / rates.
pilotmike is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2020, 09:12
  #4616 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,999
Originally Posted by Cornish Jack View Post
As much as I dislike how first past the post makes my vote meaningless, it does at least give some sort of stability
I've read and re-read that again and again and I still cannot find even a trace of logic involved!! The theory (undelivered!) of universal suffrage was to allow choice of a State's governance according to individual wishes. What we have been saddled with is a modified version of 'Hobson's Choice', the modification being in the hands of an unelected 'elite'. Look for a representative parallel to that and what do we find ? - PRC, Russia, North Korea ! ... and you think that is a good idea ?
Perhaps not even Russia. I seem to recall that in the (unlikely!) event of Putin not achieving 50%+1 of the popular vote in a presidential election there would be a run off between the top two candidates, much as in France, and I am pretty sure that this does apply to elections to the Russian parliament.

If people really want to retain FPTP, then sure a fairer way to operate the system would be for the first general election vote to take place, and all those candidates achieving 50%+1 of the vote getting elected on that ballot, then a second vote 2 weeks later just involving the two front runners in each constituency where the 50%+1 threshold wasn't reached - al la France. Not perfect, but it retains constituency accountability and ensures that electors get what the majority voted for, even if for some they only got their second choice.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2020, 09:39
  #4617 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,011
Alternatively you could double the size of the constituencies. Each one would have two candidates and they would be elected individually on FPTP and the other on a second preference choice. Should one win both then he/she/it would have two votes in the house which would be the same as if two of the same party won the seats under the old system.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2020, 09:54
  #4618 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canberra
Posts: 168
Just some food for thought.

A friend was one of Australia’s most knowledgeable on electoral systems (was regularly engaged by the Australian Electoral Commission for advice).

Among the few crumbs of knowledge I picked up from him were that the simpler the voting system, the less ‘fair’ the result.

Complex voting systems e.g. preferential voting for proportional representation in multi-member electorates would more likely produce a result better reflecting the electors wishes.

It was also more difficult for voters to comprehend and sometimes took weeks to finalise results.
layman is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2020, 09:55
  #4619 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 437
Originally Posted by ATNotts View Post
One of the best periods of government the UK has had in the last 50 years was the 2010 - 2015 ConLib coalition.
You mean THAT coalition in which the LibDems sold their soul to be in power and acquiesced on swinging austerity measures driving many citizens into greater relative and absolute poverty? The coalition that, for example, cancelled the savings scheme for new borns, which helped to assure a saving ethic and a little modest capital for the future? Or the one in which that junior partner was almost extinguished at the ballot box in the following election because they represented, er, no one?
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2020, 10:07
  #4620 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 547
Torque : C'mon. Big D e e p breath. What a cross little chap you come over as on most of your trolling efforts. Er, on other threads too. C'mon, you can do this; Big, d e e p breath. Good boy.
Landflap 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 © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.