[Closed] Constitutional reform

There would need to be some balancing mechanism so that england with 90% of the population cannot control the senate.

Sorry to point out the flaw here but why should the minority populations hold more power?

Having lived in a federal system competing and contrasting local government leads to much more incompatibility on health and education along with laws and standards. I'm not a fan

It makes no sense to have a single English "parliament" as it wouldn't actually be that much different to Westminster.  A better idea would be to have assemblies that would serve broadly similar population levels.

gonefishing - Why not?  Westminster acts as both the english and UK parliaments.  Thats a huge issue and Westminster is profoundly undemocratic

Mike - not that the minority nations hold more power but that with such imbalanced populations there needs to be some balancing mechanism.

Id be happy with England split up into sections of 10 million or so.  IMO 5 - 10 million people is a good size for governance

But you are proposing to not have a UK parliament if I'm reading that right?

Who will be making the high level decisions and leading the country then?

Mike – not that the minority nations hold more power but that with such imbalanced populations there needs to be some balancing mechanism.

Perhaps getting away from out tribalism would be a better direction to head in?

Id be happy with England split up into sections of 10 million or so.  IMO 5 – 10 million people is a good size for governance

Is it? What is that based on? More competing levels of government is a bad thing in my experience, the US is a complete mess with inconsistencies all over the place.

Based on my musings as a political geek for decades.  5 - 10 million people is small enough that elected reps are not to remote from the electors and allows nible governments.

In the case of splitting england up I am not talking about an extra tier of government.  We would have a Uk senate as envisaged above and the regional / national parliaments - around a dozen of them.  Just the two levels.

So anyone with positive ideas to solve the messy situation we are in?

Coalition.

More power to the regional assemblies, and an English one

reduced number of Westminster mps who are elected by AV or PR

Lords replaced by an elected senate, PR. Longer terms for the senators than the lower house and assemblies to give longer term perspective.

I'm with mikewsmith, less tribalism, less layers of bureaucracy, less division. I think it was a huge mistake to create the regional assemblies / parliaments in the first place giving a vocal minority of the population a disproportionate amount of air time due to some quirks of geography and history. It's got very little to do with differing needs across the country and lot to do with pack mentality and dislike of others. We've now got differing levels of services dependent on your post code.

Proper proportional representation is required with coalition governments, it would reduce the knee jerk political decision making of the Tories and maybe curb some of the more extreme elements of Corbyns ideological rampage.

Either way it might encourage more people to vote as their vote might mean something if they're not in one of the swing constituencies.

The current mess, including Brexit all stemmed from the divide and conquer politics of Tony Blair when he kicked this all off and was unfortunately continued with Cameron and his personal political crusade to reunite the Tory party and stay in power by reducing the Labour vote bystoking the swivel eyed Nationalists north of Hadrain's wall.

All petty party politics rather than improving the country through  enhanced services and strong economy.

My positive suggestion would be compulsory voting, you don't have to vote for anybody but you do need to engage.

A proportional system would be better than FPTP but it needs to remain local so there is a link between the representative and the area that elects them as that personal connection should exist.

Long terms for upper house is normal and works better but we would have to get used to having a working upper chamber and more interaction between the 2.

You've basically almost described Germany.

Unicameral elected parliament for each Land

Unicameral elected federal parliament

Federal Senate whose senators are representatives of each Land's Parliaments, who are obliged to vote as a block. "N" Senators per Land, where N is between (iirc) 3 and 7, based on population but weighted a bit towards the smaller, lower population Lands.

Some laws are federal, others are directives to each Land to ensure they have a law compatible with a common cause (eg smoking laws).

And there's a Constitutional Court (in Karlsruhe).

How each parliament (regional or federal) selects its MPs is of course debateable.

The "upper" house is of course unelected, but they are told what to do by a parliament.

Or Scotland and NI could just go and thus remove the main problem, seeing as most English people are happy with their govt and Brexit.

Makes a lot of sense, better to have them as good neighbours than boils on England's arse.

interesting Andy - I knew Germany was a federal system

A proportional system would be better than FPTP but it needs to remain local so there is a link between the representative and the area that elects them as that personal connection should exist.

Doesnt somehwre in oz have a mad system of PR in zones? I.e. conglomerates of 4-5 seats and PR in each zone meaning for argumet’s sake you get 2 cons, 2 labs and a lib.  Rings a bell.

More technocratic autocracy and less democracy please, Brexit proved the plebs shouldn't have it.

Votes ONLY for women!

More technocratic autocracy and less democracy please, Brexit proved the plebs shouldn’t have it.

Brexit proved how many lies can be told by politicians and press.

fifo - there are a number of PR systems that retain the local link.  Scotland has two - one for holyrood where you have constituency MSPs elected by FPTP and then a regional list that is used to top up to create proportionality.  It means I have several MSPs - one for my constituency and a number on the list

Also there is what I think you are decribing for local elections - multi member constituency where you vote for multiple candidates ranked in order and each costituency returns 3 or 4 councillors.  Its disadvantage is a high threshold

probably pretty similar in other confederations? (switzerland perhaps?)

Would need to split England in to "arbitrary" regions, though, to make something similar. Some might make sense (Yorkshire?, West Country?), others might not (some arbitrary blocking together of bits of the South East).

NI, Wales, might gain. London as a City State might lose out. City of London has rights that pre-date Magna Carta, so that might have to be a unique city state (with an unrepresentatively large number of senators), and then the rest of London be another (with an unrepresentatively low number).

What I don't like is Party Lists. That's how you get nobbers elected just by having enough party popularity.

Brexit proved how many lies can be told by politicians and press.

"The truth seems to be that propaganda on its own cannot force its way into unwilling minds; neither can it inculcate something wholly new; nor can it keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe. It penetrates only into minds already open, and rather than instill opinion it articulates and justifies opinions already present in the minds of its recipients. The gifted propagandist brings to a boil ideas and passions already simmering in the minds of his hearers. he echoes their innermost feelings. Where opinion is not coerced, people can be made to believe only in what they already "know."" - Eric Hoffer

Independence for the South East of England.

Tow it out into the mid-atlantic, and I reckon the rest of us would get on just fine

Not a fan of PR or similar systems. At least with FPTP you do get the odd result where an independant gets elected, not seen a PR system which makes this more likely. Not saying the current system is perfect by any means but we need more independants and fewer party yes-men, or indeed yes-women.

.

Heard a good suggestion for replacing House of Lords. Hereditory is quite unfair, appointments are open to abuse, elections leaves it vying with HOC. How about pick, say, 2-300 orgainsations which actually run the country, maybe British Medical Council, Police Officr's Association, CBI, some trades unions, the bar council, couple of charities, veterans groups, groups like that, and they all get to send a representive. you get a house full of people of who are experts in their area, no party interferance, less short-termism as they don't need to worry about the next election, and the ability of these orgainsations to remove and replace said person at a moment's notice if they make a horlicks of it.

Independence for the South East of England.
Tow it out into the mid-atlantic, and I reckon the rest of us would get on just fine

London Zones 1-5 is the only part of the country keeping you lot sane. If London left, the place would be a backward anti-capitalist mess - with far left and far right lunatics fighting over the scraps - it would rapidly descend into 1930's Spain.

Mike – not that the minority nations hold more power but that with such imbalanced populations there needs to be some balancing mechanism.

Does there? Why? 90% of the voting populous is English so their vote so be no less powerful than the other 10%, whoever they are.

Positive ideas anyway:

Ban the name of the party from all election material. You put your top 5 policies on it and in effect force people to vote on policy and not on traditional party beliefs.

Related, make manifesto's legally binding. This would take some work and need some controls but basically, if you've campaigned on it and won as you said you'd do it then you have to do it.

No career politicians. You have to have worked in the real world, be that as a banker or a builder, for 10 years before you can enter parliament.

Double the pay of all politicians...but ban all external forms of income. Make it very well paid but make sure that parliament is their only source of income.

Greater press control. Nothing nasty, but something simple like if you print something in big letters on the front page and it turns out to be untrue then you have to print the apology in the same place in the same size text.

Remove the whip, force party members to vote on their beliefs and/or what's right for their constituency.

Related, all MP's must live in their constituency.

Mostly completely unworkable but it'll do for a start.

Start off with less snouts in the trough.

Get rid of Scottish parliament, Welsh assembly, northern Irish assembly, the lords, paid councillors, mayors and all but 200 mps.

I think it's less to do with a malfunctioning democracy and more to do with a lack of personal, corporate and government transparency.

The harder it becomes to have "secrets",the easier it is to understand the motivation.

I really do think piddling around with micro states is just re-arranging the deckchairs - consider the £415 million for the Scottish parliament-how much did it actually cost and how much was bribes, backhanders and nepotism? (A lot).

Professional politicians, influencers and corporates will always game the system. The personal "black" economy will always resist "fairness" regardless of the political system.

Edit: ...And reduce the voting age to 16 and cap it at 50. Got no skin in the "progress" game when you're over 40 - all you want is Status Quo. Literally and metaphorically.

the place would be a backward anti-capitalist mess – with far left and far right lunatics fighting over the scraps – it would rapidly descend into 1930’s Spain.

On the present course were on, you've just described the country in 12 months time anyway 😉

Doesnt somehwre in oz have a mad system of PR in zones?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare-Clark_electoral_system

Tassie System?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_systems_of_the_Australian_states_and_territories

At a federal level you get a list for your constituency you rank them 1-5 and then optionally to the end of the list, if you don't number all of them then the candidate can transfer his block when knocked out as last then count again

Senate I think you get x from a pool based on vote spread. It's not perfect but works.

Make the House of Lords elected by PR.

Regional Assemblies and the like are all very well but the money for them is likely to come out of the pot for existing services.

Greater press control. Hmm, I've often thought that the best punishment for the Daily Hate would be to have to publish an admittance that they are just as bad as the common thief/criminal.

No career politicians. I give you the Trump "administration".

Also there is what I think you are decribing for local elections – multi member constituency where you vote for multiple candidates ranked in order and each costituency returns 3 or 4 councillors.

Aye, that’s what I was thinking of. Doubtless has its downsides, but seems to give a level of proportionality without losing a local link.

...backward anti capitalist mess....

what was it again about only a lunatic expected infinite growth on a finite resource? Blithely supporting capitalism is frankly certifiable..

andrewh - independents / mavericks can be elected under the scottish system.  We have green representation, we have had socialist representation and there have been some independents / single issue folk elected but not in the current parli8ament

I  quite like the idea of a second chamber appointed from outside politics apart from the fact I want single chamber parliaments

what was it again about only a lunatic expected infinite growth on a finite resource? Blithely supporting capitalism is frankly certifiable..

The solar system can provide us, to all intents and purposes, with infinite resources.

I  quite like the idea of a second chamber appointed from outside politics apart from the fact I want single chamber parliaments

Sounds like a recipe for disaster there with a level of power given to a single chamber, the idea of longer term upper chambers is to provide a less reactionary check and balance to the lower chamber. It's well established around the world there.

Get rid of separate countries for a start. Absolutely no need for them. Then you just need a single UK Parliament.

Votes ONLY for women!

Yay! Tories forever! No, I mean Tories forever.

mike - lots of unicameral ones as well - and with PR the second chamber is not needed as a check and balance as its very hard for an extreme view to take over the  parliament

Get rid of separate countries for a start. Absolutely no need for them. Then you just need a single world Parliament.

ftfy

The solar system can provide us, to all intents and purposes, with infinite resources.

No, in practical terms it cannot. Like I said, certifiable.

Different Parliaments and regions leads to more tribalism.

the wealthy south east will demand their money is ring fenced and not sent to poor areas. Look at the USA richer states can have better services and lower taxes (sometimes). You can end up with federal, state and city taxes even vat changing across different cities.

I would second mandatory voting but would like to see a none of the above or new election box. That might got the elected to engage with the people.

No, in practical terms it cannot. Like I said, certifiable.

Pffft, flight was impractical once - we'll just go through a period of stagnation until our next technological breakthrough. Which will happen, with the way AI is going.

and with PR the second chamber is not needed as a check and balance as its very hard for an extreme view to take over the  parliament

I wouldnt be quite so sure. Proportionally didn’t a combination of UKIP and Tories actually accrue the most votes in the GE prior to Brexit? (The pig lover’s last one in charge)

Which will happen, with the way AI is going.

AI is going to magic matter and energy out of thin air, is it? Einstein would be proud...

Yep that is the problem with all these governments, not to mention funding them all and dealing with the interactions.

https://www.budget.gov.au/2007-08/bp3/html/bp3_main-03.htm

The distribution of revenue between states in Australia is a complete minefield as you literally have to take from one to give to the other.

AI is going to magic matter and energy out of thin air, is it? Einstein would be proud…

Heard of helium-3? How much energy have we yet to tap from the sun as well?

AI will be doing the R&D to get to that point. As I said, given the right R&D and time we don't need magic energy for the next billion or so years.

AI is going to magic matter and energy out of thin air, is it? Einstein would be proud…

I think somebody have read too much into the paperclip game...

Yes with a regional / federal UK you would need a redistribution method of riches and also of spending.  London gets 100X the spending on public transport of Scotland at the moment for 3x the population for an example

But we already have this issue both with the devolved parliaments and with councils

The solar system will not be able to provide us with infinite resources ever.  simple thermodynamics.  The amount of energy needed to get stuff off earth accounts for that.  Its not plausible.

The solar system will not be able to provide us with infinite resources ever. simple thermodynamics. The amount of energy needed to get stuff off earth accounts for that. Its not plausible.

And by then TJ when the universe goes dark,  we'll all be ****ing dead anyway.

The amount of energy needed to get stuff off earth accounts for that. Its not plausible.

Again, that all depends on how much energy the stuff you are mining releases - or whether you actually need to use rockets to bring that energy directly down to earth as opposed to keeping it in orbit and cabling it in.

etc etc etc

Heard of helium-3? How much energy have we yet to tap from the sun as well?

AI will be doing the R&D to get to that point. As I said, given the right R&D and time we don’t need magic energy.

As as I said, certifiable. We don’t eat energy, we dont physically occupy energy. All the AI in the solar system isn’t going to resolve land shortages nor finite nutrients from which our food grows. It might at a pinch help resolve land degradation, but the fact remains that there is only so much land, and infinite growth means that we will one day run out of it.

Woosh - point missed again.  Its about the amount of energy needed to get stuff off planet earth into the asteroid belt ( or wherever you want to get energy and material from) and the amount of energy required to get it back to earth safely means this is not a plausible way of getting more resources to earth.

As as I said, certifiable. We don’t eat energy, we dont physically occupy energy. All the AI in the solar system isn’t going to resolve land shortages nor finite nutrients from which our food grows. It might at a pinch help resolve land degradation, but the fact remains that there is only so much land, and infinite growth means that we will one day run out of it.

And yet capitalism isn't leading to run away population growth is it, it will peak at 11 billion because as soon as a country becomes affluent they stop having kids - and then we have NASA studies that predict past that - we may end up with such plummeting birth rates that we end up extinct.

Woosh – point missed again. Its about the amount of energy needed to get stuff off planet earth into the asteroid belt ( or wherever you want to get energy and material from) and the amount of energy required to get it back to earth safely means this is not a plausible way of getting more resources to earth.

Again, entirely depends on the amount of energy that can be released by the resource.

The status quo is in massively in the interests of both major parties. There is no way they would move for change.

I agree that politics or at least political representation in the UK is broken and has been for some time.

Right - can we get back on track?  I do wish the killfile still worked.

But we already have this issue both with the devolved parliaments and with councils

Yep and you want to make it worse, it takes a brave federal level decision maker to give one area a cause to vote you out on in the name of equality.

And yet capitalism isn’t leading to run away population growth is it, it will peak at 11 billion because as soon as a country becomes affluent they stop having kids – and then we have NASA studies that predict past that – we may end up with such plummeting birth rates that we end up extinct.

Sounds great. So why do we want this again?

I'll be honest, if the last 2 years has taught me anything, I'd be happy for Wales (where I live) to quietly leave the UK when no one is looking and become a small country within the EU. Seems very unlikely, mostly because as a Country we voted leave, but we've done really well being part of the EU after a long time of being almost completely forgotten as part of the UK (well, at least unless our coal or water is needed, but we rarely actually get paid for them).

We don't have the wealth here to create much of a political elite, our politicians are generally so-so to okay, well, the ones who aren't laying trail traps whilst looking for badgers.

Sounds great. So why do we want this again?

Because all systems are self regulating and a natural population balance found through better living standards for all and better rights for women, is preferable to the lunacy that hard left and hard right nut****s who claim that humanity is sick and then operate on it with an axe, bring on.

Elected by a similar system to Holyrood ie constituencies plus top up list.

This is the only thing in this thread that's caught my eye…

The top up system ensures :

- Everyone still has a local MP.

- All votes in "safe seats" count.

Bring it in for the UK parliament please. Local representatives AND a semblance of PR. Yes, coalition is more likely… but it's 'bout time politicians heads were knocked together… and what they do in office becomes as important as which tribe they're from.

Bring it in for the UK parliament please. Local representatives AND a semblance of PR. Yes, coalition is more likely… but it’s ’bout time politicians heads were knocked together… and what they do in office becomes as important as which tribe they’re from.

Also add a banner reminding that past performance is no indication of future gains...

The next time somebody gets upset about lib dems and tuition fees then get slapped and pointed out how many broken promises the big 2 have managed

I would get rid of political parties.  Each area would have a representative chosen by the electorate based on what they are 'selling' as ideas, how they would vote on things etc,.  Parliament would then discuss topics and bills and agreed stuff would go through based purely on the merit of the proposal

Each area could then closely monitor what their representative is up to, how they are voting, are they doing a good job etc,. and vote again based on that each year with max of 3 years for each representative.

This removes the "I vote tory because I always have" and gets people to actually think a bit more.

I would look at devolving more to local governments and forming a national government made up from local government representatives with a healthy core of civil servants thrown in on long term permanent roles. Certain key cabinet roles should be filled from outwith political parties with some policy decisions made and fixed for at least a decade. Health, education, defence and social security should require cross party support to get policies through. There should be an efficient way to sack an elected representative and trigger a by-election for another. We need to move away from the party first politics and towards constituency first. Second jobs and incomes need to be looked at for representatives, too many are taking the piss. Should be an easy to look up online register of all elected representatives and see their net worth, incomes, business interests etc. Radically change the way political parties are funded. Maximum donations per individual or business should be set fairly low, no more tax payer money going to political parties. If they want in, they need to work at it and come up with good policies worth voting for, not rely on big money donations to buy their way there.

Maximum donations per individual or business should be set fairly low, no more tax payer money going to political parties

I would rather that they were not able to take donations but had a set amount for party operations and campaigning provided by the tax payers

the idea being you cannot be swayed by donations if they are not allowed to raise revenue.

Right.

Westminster is profoundly undemocratic

Profound is stretching it, rather a lot.  There might be democratic deficiencies, but banging on about 'democracy' like it's one thing is silly.  It's a very loose high level term.  The idea taken to extremes would be to have everyone vote on every single decision, which is clearly absurd, so you have to have a system.  The system can be more or less democratic, and if you think it's insufficiently democratic then you can claim a democratic deficit - but not UN democratic.

So the question then is how much democracy is the right amount?  Clearly asking people to vote on things they know bugger all about and haven't got time to properly research is a disaster as we've seen.  Anyone whose position depends on the public vote is going to lie and cheat and expend a considerable amount of effort just to get people to vote for them.  And the people who do well at this are the dishonest Machiavellian types.  So we end up with a government full of scumbags - this has always been the issue.

So I'm going to propose two chambers.  The House of Lords can stay, but no life peerages.  You can be elected to it, but you are NOT allowed party affiliation.  Close party involvement or a previous political career disqualifies you. And you get elected for 15 year periods.  Minimum representation from geographical areas - so major cities over a certain size and then rural areas - and only hundred or so.  And attendance compulsory.

Nah, it's all fine mate.

Many of the posts on this thread make Teresa and the robbing, lying,  incompetent egotists that constitute the current UK cabinet look good.

As an extra level to look at the US are currently doing their Primaries,to go on the ballot you need to be chosen, seems to get people involved earlier in the process but does end up limiting smaller parties and independents more

Some very different ideas there but a long term length, healthy elected second chamber with proper review and scrutiny power would be the more important and quickest change to make

Kerley and Rene seem to be thinking of this.

Edit: …And reduce the voting age to 16 and cap it at 50. Got no skin in the “progress” game when you’re over 40 – all you want is Status Quo. Literally and metaphorically.

Maybe, in the forlorn, backward neck of the woods you call home. And while some 16yo’s have their heads screwed on, there are plenty I wouldn’t trust to tie their shoelaces up properly at 21, let alone 16!

Maybe, in the forlorn, backward neck of the woods you call home. And while some 16yo’s have their heads screwed on, there are plenty I wouldn’t trust to tie their shoelaces up properly at 21, let alone 16!

If you can reproduce and die for your country you can vote. The older generation don't always come out that well

I suspect it's quite a hard problem to solve, with many different intermingled factors.

As always, for any complicated problem, there's a simple, obvious, straightforward answer that is wrong.

As an extra level to look at the US are currently doing their Primaries,to go on the ballot you need to be chosen,

Primaries seem fairly complicated and cover a wide range of different options depending on what elected position is being voted on and which state it is. For those positions closest to MPs I believe most of them end up being registered voters for that party only.

Most of the variants dont directly block smaller parties and independents as far as I am aware. Although there is the problem that it encourages more extreme candidates in those cases where it is registered voters only.

London gets 100X the spending on public transport of Scotland at the moment for 3x the population for an example

I've seen this sort of thing quoted and I'm curious- what population/area of London is that based on? London transport infrastructure supports a commuter belt that can stretch out as far as Brighton, Southampton (which is mad, but anyway). Does that population figure allow for all the families supported by people who use that infrastructure?

Also, comparing London with Scotland is surely not apples to apples? If you make the same comparison between London and Edinburgh, what sort of ratio do you get? Or if you compare an equivalent area of the southeast+London with Scotland?

Town and parish councils seem to have high number of incompetent people there. Parish being worst. (Note not all but a higher level of offciousness and incompetents to be found) a I like the idea of more devolved government I feel when the administration is below some threshold the people left doing the jobs tend to be a bit rubbish as all the good people have gone to other levels of government or different companies.

swanny - compare edinburgh to london you get the same sort of ratio and IIRC its within the M25

Regionalise England by restoring all the Kingdoms eg Wessex, Cumbria, Mercia etc etc.

England loves its royals and aristocrats, this gives you so many more, so instead of having to worry about political issues, it can be "...look, a new royal baby!". "...a royal wedding!", and to keep it up to date "...a royal divorce!" etc.

There's bound to be one of those events every few months to keep the proles from noticing their empty food bowls.

Another advantage is that with so many local royals, there won't be a need to import foreigners as brides for the princes. That's bound to go down well with the anti-immigration lower classes.

Also what with every kingdom needing an upper class full of lords, knights and so on, there's plenty of opportunity for social advancement, and politics will hardly get a mention in the media. And think of the increased opportunity for the professional sycophants.

And imagine the media frenzy when the ceremonial disposal of the existing royals takes place. Sadly we have to do that, but they could be disruptive if allowed to continue to exist in their present form. It's a proven fact that shortening a royal prevents any further disruption from them. It's bound to be good for tourism too, special tickets for front seats, tv rights etc, what a boost for the economy!

And no parliament needed because under the kindly rule of all those monarchs, it won't be necessary.

I's amazed no one has thought of this before.

We'll be watching with interest from the republic of Scotland. 🙂