The State We're In

[threegee]

We have an electoral system which owes more of its being to the 18th & 19th centuries than anything resembling the 21st we find ourselves in, the party system being a principle part. ... The whole thing stinks of nepotism and backslapping and may well be the reason why the electorate are only given certain choices from time to time.

Rant over!

Many decades back I asked why we only had an election every five years, and it was explained to me that it was impractical for everyone to express an opinion more often than that. A lot has changed since then, so I'd like the opportunity of asking the leaders of the main parties that question again. I figure the answer now will be along the lines of policy needs to be given a chance to have an affect - it takes a long while to turn around a big ship etc. Quite the reverse of what you'll be required to believe about this or that change having an early affect, and that this or that was due to them and not to a previous administration.

But the fact is that there's no need for a General Election as such these days. A much more responsive system would be if MPs had to stand for re-election every other year on a fixed date. This could be staggered so some part of the country got a chance to vote every three or six months. No need for opinion polls then, we'd know for sure what people felt.

Of course it's not going to fly because there is no incentive for the people in power to introduce this. But in some other countries the head of state might put this to a plebiscite. If this was the only thing Charlie did in his entire lifetime he'd go down as a great monarch.

This would provide the needed wake-up call for failing governments like this one and prevent the PM from keeping the country in limbo until it had a chance to seal his fate.

.

Was it not Cromwell that changed the system and we are still living in that system although we get a vote and your right they do have short lists for constituencies.

Cromwell changed the system, saw what an eternal talking-shop, and morass of self-interest he had created, and then tried to roll the clock back. So did lots of other people - who then tried to make him king. Great man that he was he refused. Sad fact is that incapable people still grab at power and capable ones - realising the real problems - shun it!

.

It is good to see Ken Clark getting involved again as I do have the greatest respect for him as an MP. I felt ha was a good chancellor of the Exchequer when the Conservatives were in government. Cable well your right he will never become a minister and no chance of forming a government.

Both Clark and Cable are very capable people, but both likely in the wrong parties! They could change places and wouldn't have to make any compromises. On paper Osborn should be a very good chancellor, he's a great academic, but so far doesn't have what it takes to lead. I think he listens too much to spin doctors and is too frightened to make a boob than to assert what he believes in, a few years on he might just be leadership material. Someone say something about qualifications?

Cromwell killed off the idea that the monarch had 'divine' right to govern a country and so initiated government by elected representatives; although in those days I guess that meant his mates, as has been ever the case!

Any political evolution seems to have stopped about a century ago. Apart, that is, for the slowly rolling grab at power by the PMs office. It wasn't too long ago that governments outvoted in parliament felt morally bound to call an election. Or anything which touched on civil rights and liberties required a specific mandate from the electorate. And, even joining a non-political, non-federal, "trading block" required a referrendum. Now when you are in, you are in, and no one can budge you. Not a scandal, not even being caught-out in a blatant lie to the electorate (you were wrongly advised). Only one small step to calling an emergency and postponing the next general election until (you say) the emergency is over. Has Gordon considered this yet? There's plenty to call a state of emergency about!

Yes Pete Blair did appoint from outside his party but maybe we should look hard at the people he appointed!

No one I noticed from outside the Tony Blair party!

I would have been glad to have lived under my wood side, and to have kept a flock of sheep, rather than to have undertaken this government.

The way things are going we'll all be keeping sheep, and goats, and pigs. With a government permit and under CCTV surveillance of course!

[Monsta®]

The way things are going we'll all be keeping sheep, and goats, and pigs. With a government permit and under CCTV surveillance of course!

as long as there not illegal immigrant live stock with there own scannable passport you'll be fine and googles always watching!

[Pete]

But the fact is that there's no need for a General Election as such these days. A much more responsive system would be if MPs had to stand for re-election every other year on a fixed date. This could be staggered so some part of the country got a chance to vote every three or six months. No need for opinion polls then, we'd know for sure what people felt.

Of course it's not going to fly because there is no incentive for the people in power to introduce this. But in some other countries the head of state might put this to a plebiscite. If this was the only thing Charlie did in his entire lifetime he'd go down as a great monarch.

This would provide the needed wake-up call for failing governments like this one and prevent the PM from keeping the country in limbo until it had a chance to seal his fate.

The idea of re election for MPs every other year is an excellent one as this might just stop them saying one thing before the election and another thing two day after they have been elected but what about the party leader if he fails to get re elected do we then have another Prime Minister or are you advocating a government made up of elected MPs of all parties? Or have I misunderstood your comments?

No one I noticed from outside the Tony Blair party

Well again you are correct, they were part of the Blair party because Blair's New labor was a continuation of conservatism, the only difference was he looked the better salesman on the podium as opposed to the latter.

[Malcolm Robinson]

We seem to be able to hold elections, and pretty popular ones at that, every other week, be it Dancing on ice, BB, Get me out of here I’m’ a twit, sorry wrong vowel, et al!

Pity people weren’t as interested in their political leadership.

[Monsta®]

We seem to be able to hold elections, and pretty popular ones at that, every other week, be it Dancing on ice, BB, Get me out of here I'm' a twit, sorry wrong vowel, et al!

Pity people weren't as interested in their political leadership.

you have got to weigh up the two sides.

1 brain dead i watch sh*te on the telly and vote cause am sad!

or 2 stressed out and angry with the elected parties politics and have no life.

which one are you closer to?

[Pete]

you have got to weigh up the two sides.

1 brain dead i watch sh*te on the telly and vote cause am sad!

or 2 stressed out and angry with the elected parties politics and have no life.

which one are you closer to?

It would have to be the second one for me Monsta with one amendment I have got a life.

[threegee]

...but what about the party leader if he fails to get re elected do we then have another Prime Minister or are you advocating a government made up of elected MPs of all parties? Or have I misunderstood your comments?

Well, yes, that thought had crossed my mind, and it would surely focus his/hers! If we kept the existing system of the party in power selecting the PM then what would happen is that they'd ensure that their leader had one of the safest seats - just as now.

But, as Malcolm has raised before, the present system is a sham in that people generally vote for the person and this people's choice often gets subverted. Just look at Tony's recent promise to "serve a full term". I think that the real problem is that we don't have a proper head of state like other countries. The monarch dare not interfere in politics unless things are really desperate, and even then she/he holds back. The result is that the PM becomes far too powerful, and it's up to his own party to remove him/her when they are not up to the job. These are often the very people who are in his/her power of hire and fire, so the result is secret plots and public pretence. All-in-all a shockingly bad system that no sane person could have invented!

[Malcolm Robinson]

you have got to weigh up the two sides.

1 brain dead i watch sh*te on the telly and vote cause am sad!

or 2 stressed out and angry with the elected parties politics and have no life.

which one are you closer to?

Why not use part of the former to change the way you feel about the later, it’s called a vote!

All-in-all a shockingly bad system that no sane person could have invented!

I just don’t understand why we put up with it?

[Pete]

Well, yes, that thought had crossed my mind, and it would surely focus his/hers! If we kept the existing system of the party in power selecting the PM then what would happen is that they'd ensure that their leader had one of the safest seats - just as now.

But, as Malcolm has raised before, the present system is a sham in that people generally vote for the person and this people's choice often gets subverted. Just look at Tony's recent promise to "serve a full term". I think that the real problem is that we don't have a proper head of state like other countries. The monarch dare not interfere in politics unless things are really desperate, and even then she/he holds back. The result is that the PM becomes far too powerful, and it's up to his own party to remove him/her when they are not up to the job. These are often the very people who are in his/her power of hire and fire, so the result is secret plots and public pretence. All-in-all a shockingly bad system that no sane person could have invented!

I fully agree that we vote for the person, gone are the days when we listened to our local MPs and voted for them. the World has changed, we see the front man constantly on the TV and never really get a chance to see or hear the local prospective MP, the only thing I get is a bit of paper pushed thought the door telling me to vote for so and so but I never see them and I don't know them.

I also think that seeing them on the telly never really lets you know what they are really like until it is to late.

The Blair situation still riles me because I would not have voted Labor in the last election if I thought that Gordon would have become Prime Minister and I wonder how many would have voted for them if they had been honest and said Tony was quiting and Gordon would be taking over.

I remember Malcolm saying in another post that it would not change until someone stood up and said enough is enough and thats the real problem, until we get a real political party thats prepared to tell the truth and not be afraid to say wrong is wrong nothing is going to change.

[Pete]

Why not use part of the former to change the way you feel about the later, it’s called a vote!

All-in-all a shockingly bad system that no sane person could have invented

I just don’t understand why we put up with it?

We put up with it Malcolm because nobody wants to take that step and call for change and for it to happen it would take a large collective.

[Malcolm Robinson]

We put up with it Malcolm because nobody wants to take that step and call for change and for it to happen it would take a large collective.

Don’t think it would really Pete as we are usually governed by a set of people who a minority of the country vote for. If 30 odd percent of the possible national vote produces a landslide for a party then there is maybe 70% who didn’t vote for them and that’s our democracy!

I do think you are right about personalities and that has become a large part of the voting patterns. Maybe we will see a Presidency election by the back door as that is what it is in all but name. Course there are the checks and balances beheld by national executives at the moment which will not be there in a straight presidential election, as we know them.

There are other things to factor in as well such as people being tired of the same people, corruption allegations, ministers at odds with public opinions and maybe even a lesser of two evils, but that is not a positive vote.

I think if we saw someone stand up on the national stage and tell it how it is, i.e. not weighed down by party baggage, we might start and see a way forward. I think Obama is trying to do just that across the water.