Forum menu
Discussion piece and I really am interested in others opinions
Its pretty obvious to me that our "democracy" clearly is not functioning well. Majority governments on minorities of the vote and huge tensions between the constituent parts of the UK plus an unelected and non representative chamber
So what would you do to repair this democratic deficit?
My take - 4 parliaments for each of the constituent nations, each with the same powers and those powers being everything bar macro economics, foreign policy and defence. Elected by a similar system to Holyrood ie constituencies plus top up list. Cedrtainly must be proportionatly elected. All unicameral parliaments and big reductions in the numbers of representatives overall ( currently we have over 2000 mps, peers, MSPs and so on)
A senate that is UK wide but crucially is a representative chamber ie the 4 parliaments each send representatives that they instruct to the senate so the Senators are representatives of each parliament not the master.
There would need to be some balancing mechanism so that england with 90% of the population cannot control the senate.
there would need to be a written constitution and a constitutional court to adjudicate arguments.
Advantages. removes the tensions and democratic deficit between the constituent nations. Retains the link to local mps representing a constituency. Much more democratic.
So thoughts chaps and feel free to rip my suggestions to pieces.
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)