[Closed] Our bent political system. What can we change for the better then?

I thought you lived in Chorlton.

How about everyone who has an opinion actually gets off their Arris and goes to the polling station!
I run a pub, all I hear is how bad MP's are and when asked "did you vote?" answer is almost invariably " no, it's not worth it!" Duh! If you use your vote it will count!

On a worthwhile change, put at the bottom of the voting form a box entitled " NONE OF THE ABOVE" just so you can say "I care, I voted, but you lot are worthless!"

No multiple use of exclamation marks. You're an imposter. What have you done with the real Binners?

I do Dave. We've not quite got our independent nation status just yet. Mores the pity

Acknowledge that we've already got enough rules and laws, so move to a system where its one law in one law out. Preferably more out.

Overall a move away from jobsworthiness to more personal responsibility.

All new legislation to work on the basis that if the public find it complicated to understand then it probably is too complicated.

One set of rules to appply to [u]all[/u]

Justice needs to be proportionate, effective, cheap and quick. Without any one of these things its not just.

Tax cuts for cyclists

Get shot of the old order (including the Royals), who just happen to be at the pinnicle of the pyramid of money grubbing bastards in our current system of government.

and breathe......

Right to roam legislation, with specific reference to cyclist's being given more access to offroad routes.

All new legislation to work on the basis that if the public find it complicated to understand then it probably is too complicated.

Not sure I agree with this. Just because its difficult to explain doesn't mean its a bad thing.

(I dispute that our system is bent, or that there is a "constitutional crisis". But anyway.)

For starters, in my perfect world, practically all people of voting age would go out and learn some basics about the constitution and elections. It is abundantly cleatr that a huge proportion of people have simply no clue. Which is a bad position from which to create an agenda for reform. They should familiarise themselves with what their MP actually does, with as much as they can stomach about policy. That would inevitably involve learning quite a lot about quite a lot of stuff.

They would vote in all elections. They would join a local party, or if none were to their taste they would establish one. They would take part in the selection of parliamentary candidates. They would write, frequently, to their MP on whatever issues they were engaged with.

We would see how that went, for quite a while, before deciding that we were going to change what is for the most part a fairly well-adjusted system.

We are (hopefully) coming to the end of a long period of ignorant political cynicism and disengagement. The ordering of politics and government is not a set of rules made up to govern other people's behaviour. It is an agreement that we have [i]amongst ourselves[/i] about how [i]we[/i] choose [i]our own[/i] government.
🙂

A return to a but of hand from teachers and the rozzers would be a good start. Ban anyone in public office from working for someone else at the same time, ban them from receiving gifts, ban their expenses and pay them all a flat rate. Let all the MP's live in a block of flats in Southwark, it's good enough for voters its good enough for them right?

An increase in independent/fringe/minority parties in parliament.

That could never work.

It is an agreement that we have amongst ourselves about how we choose our own government.

Oh how I wish this were true.

Not sure I agree with this. Just because its difficult to explain doesn't mean its a bad thing.

If the people its aimed at don't understand it how does that work? I didn't say it was necessarily bad per se, just that if people don't get it thats bad.

How about a limiot on the length of time anyone can be in Parliament? And how about an elected senior house to oversee Parliament, you know the sort of thing, somewhere where the Martin Bells and Ester Rantzens can oversee the ****ers.

bigdummy i think you are suffering from the same problem some mps are

while most of the time most mps work bloody hard and arent ripping off the system

democracy is you placing your [b]trust[/b] in someone to govern you
because mps are seen to have a bizare and overly generous way of paying themselves people do not trust them
adding this to pr, spin and never answering a question directly on newsnight, question time etc
has led to a broken system where people either vote for the bnp or in almost the MAJORITY of cases dont vote at all!!
[img] [/img]

[i]Oh how I wish this were true.[/i]

I'm calling you on this, because it's important. Unlike a significant proportion of the world, we have universal suffrage, free and fair elections, a free and diverse press, transparent legal apparatus for the conduct of elections and an independent judiciary. It is almost as near to true here and today as it has been anywhere ever.

If you don't feel that it's true, it's possible that that's because British government doesn't give you what you want (a bizarre ragtag of cyclists' rights and constitutional upheaval), but that isn't quite the same point. 🙂

On a very simple note, can we just ask them to answer questions that we ask, rather than questions they want to answer.

Straight answers, with the odd "I don't know" thrown in would be a good start on the way to trust.

On a very simple note, can we just ask them to answer questions that we ask, rather than questions they want to answer.

Straight answers, with the odd "I don't know" thrown in would be a good start on the way to trust.

In theory I agree but to some extent we get what we deserve. The media dissects every delay, hesitation and re-interprets almost every permutation of what politicians say. They are then questioned on a hundred intepretations of what they said, another hundred on what they didnt say.
I am not defending the evading of questions just that in some circumstances I can understand why it appears simple but often is not.

Kimbers - I presume your graph shows general elections in the UK along the horizontal axis and percentage turnout of eligible voters along the vertical it doesn't show on my screen). If that is correct then it doesn't seem to show a majority of people not voting.

I agree that there is a trust difficulty at present. However, you accept yourself that a huge proportion of members work ahrd and don't fiddle. So in this case, clearly, [b]trust[/b] can be increased by knowledge. And if we combined knowledge with participation and taking responsibility for the election of a representative of the constituency, and then engaging with that representative, then that could only improve matters.

Don't get me wrong, I do not think our government or democracy is perfect. But a huge number of people are now howling to overthrow it who have never bothered themselves with the business of keeping it functioning well. I do not trust these people's judgement, instincts or bona fides and I'd much rather they calmed down and applied themselves to the business of holding their represenatives to account by the simple expedient of interesting themselves in the process. 🙂

It is an agreement that we have amongst ourselves about how we choose our own government.
I'm calling you on this, because it's important. Unlike a significant proportion of the world, we have universal suffrage, free and fair elections, a free and diverse press, transparent legal apparatus for the conduct of elections and an independent judiciary. It is almost as near to true here and today as it has been anywhere ever.

My point is in the most general sense of the term government we don't have the right to choose our system of government. Firstly at every election the majority of people don't vote for the government in power. Secondly, the whole system operates around the old boy network. That is why the majority of MP's are ex Oxbridge. That's at the root of the whole scandal that we are going through at the moment, a system of priviliges based on a corrupt and discredited system, you know the one? The one where one couldn't possibly challenge a gentlemans honour and his word is his bond etc etc. Thus my point that one set of rules applies to all. i.e. if an MP or anyones elses is word is his bond, why should that not equally apply to the chav on the street corner??? The evidence is clearly on the chav's side of that equation as things stand!! However, lets all gorw up and acknowledge that we're all human and it is human to err. So lets have a set of rules that encompasses that simple fact.

I really do hope that real and genuine change does come about through the publics anger at this. I do have my doubts though, if the status quo doesn't get a right kicking first.

yeah i got carried away with the whole majority thing, still 40% not voting is pretty sad...
heres the webpage 1st one i googled but i assume its reasonably accurate [url= http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/turnout.htm ]link[/url]

the fiddling thing isnt the main cause of voter apathy/anger, id say that the evading the question thing has probably contributed massively and im pretty sure its because the media scrutinize to death any answer given

i also know that questions about large complex issues cant necessarily be answered with simple yes or nos or even that there may be a correct answer
when mps are primed with trite newspaper friendly soundbites, toeing the party line rather than offering a realistic, earnest response or godforbid a heartfelt opinion it stinks of gamesmanship and the desperate desire to hold on to/ gain power

But a huge number of people are now howling to overthrow it who have never bothered themselves with the business of keeping it functioning well.

Hear Hear!

We sat back for decades (I suppose while times were "good", at least financially) and let them be. They constantly voted themselves nice little payrises and changed the rules to suit themselve wrt expenses and allowances. Now, when there's a freedom of information request that finally drags it all out, we sit back, horrified that it got this bad. Yet, all along, most of us couldn't be bothered ever engaging in the process. So what did we think was going to happen. As it happens, I've never written to my MP as I've never felt that exercised about anything in my constituency to do so. I have had e-mail conversations with Charles Kennedy when he was leader of the LibDems and I'm telling you, when you write to one of these people and they take time to reply (and a bloody good reply it was too...shut me up which is a feat) you feel engaged.

We just love sleaze in this country. We try to blame the media but in all honesty, it would have been a huge disappointment if all the MP's had been shown to be claiming honest and fair expenses and allowances. If only real politik got us going so much - because that's what matters. Look at the queues of frightened voters in Zimbabwe - literally risking their asses to go out and vote when they were given a chance. There are countless examples of countries where the same thing happens.

We should be bloody thankful for what we have here - don't blame the system for disengaging the public, blame the public for just not bloody bothering any more.

The only major change I'd like to see is PR being brought in...I'm just not sure a significant enough proportion of the electorate would understand it though.

[i]That is why the majority of MP's are ex Oxbridge[/i]

G, while there is some truth in what you say, it isn't the accurate sort of truth. [url= http://www.suttontrust.com/reports/PoliticiansBackgrounds_09-Dec-05.pdf ]27% of MPs went to Oxbridge, 23% of the members of the government (in 2005)[/url]

Of course, it remains the case that Oxford and Cambridge are exceedingly good universities. It might be seen as a good thing that our government is drawn from alumni of such places. 🙂

With regard to changes in expenses, would it be too simplistic to pay MPs a salary commensurate with the importance with their positions in the first place and also provide some type of halls of residence where they can stay in London whilst they attend the commons ?

If the people its aimed at don't understand it how does that work? I didn't say it was necessarily bad per se, just that if people don't get it thats bad.

But is that realistic? Governments all over the world are full of highly-trained, intelligent, and hardworking (*) experts in their field, people who spend all their working days thinking about crime, the economy, the environment, etc. etc. And they still get it wrong. What makes you think that more information would make us any more able to cast an "informed" vote?

Like lunge says, honestly admitting "I don't know" every now and then might be a good start - although that would need to be accompanied by the press and the public not crying "U-turn" every time a politician changed his or her mind.

* And yes, there are also lots of lazy, stupid and workshy civil servants too.

On a worthwhile change, put at the bottom of the voting form a box entitled " NONE OF THE ABOVE" just so you can say "I care, I voted, but you lot are worthless!"

This is a bloody stupid idea, quite simply because what do you do when 'None of the above' wins? who is going to run the country? or are you suggesting that we should move to an anarchic system?

I prefer to live by the adage that one shouldn't discuss politics, religion and hardtail vs full-sus in polite company. Meanwhile, the sun's still shining and the world is still turning so all appears to be well in the glass-half-full world of mountain biking.

I recall Bush junior got into office partly due to his "man in the street" persona. Recall the "who would you rather have a beer with campaign"
In essense Bush won this competition with the voters as a "down to earth guy"

This concerned me. When Doctors operate on our loved ones we want them to be qualified, intelligent and highly skilled. When we get on a plane we expect the same characteristics from the pilot.
The ability to joke whilst drinking beer is not high on my list of requirements from either of these people (although good on them if they can manage it)
Its funny that we see it as a necessary criteria for the most powerful man in the world with his finger on the button!

Thats related to the point I was making (badly) about the understanding of laws earlier.
Whilst I dont think they should be made overly esoteric I dont think we should pander to the man in the street who makes no effort to understand anything complex.

I'd like people to be able to vote on laws and policies. The people decided if they go through or not. A lot of people will not vote, but people who feel strongly for or against generally know about the laws or policies.

Let the British people decide on Iraq, ID cards and Euthanasia. I feel this will never happen as the MPs are way to scared to give power to the public.

Bring Thatcher back. Seriously. Someone with BALLS. None of the leftwing light0-fingered idiots.

I agree with Alwyn the general population get f all say in what is 'good' for us.

I have written to my MEP regarding something that was of interest to me and I received a well-written reply.

BUT

My local MP is a 100% 'Blairite'. I checked her up on the web and she rarely if ever goes against the party line and never on anything that could be considered in any way important. I know that if I write to her regarding things which I definitely am against (or for), e.g. National ID cards, I [b]know[/b] I will receive an identikit letter talking party b*llocks and avoiding the question. There is no point. For all she's worth on national issues you may as well take her job away and give it to whosoever is the party leader at the time.

Hora - butt out if you can't be bothered, this thread doesn't need infantilism. 🙂

Adam - isn't the point that you are logging with them what you feel strongly about? We complain when government "governs by opinion poll". Ideally, we would tell them where we stood, so they could guage what was important to the people who elect them. The 10p tax rate was a case in point. The government was forced down on that one because too many MPs were worried about losing their seats over it. Apply that to ID cards, write to them, tell them that you will not be voting for anyone who supports ID cards. They will write bollocks back, but they will note a sufficient volume of correspondence on particular issues.

🙂

{quote]G, while there is some truth in what you say, it isn't the accurate sort of truth. 27% of MPs went to Oxbridge, 23% of the members of the government (in 2005)

Fair one.

However, the MMC determine a monopoly to be 25% of any given market, so it can still be reasonably argued that the old boy network has a monopoly and a strangle hold, so please excuse me my slip and lets try to stick with the main thrust.

Allied to that if you check it out you will find that Oxbridge do not operate open access policies, and accordingly you can very easily level the accusation that it is another throw back to our colonial past and the class system which excludes the "man on the clapham omnibus" getting a fair shake, which is my underlying point.

In essense Bush won this competition with the voters as a "down to earth guy"

To be fair I think you will find it had more to do with vote rigging and the fact his brother was the returning officer for Florida or something very similar.

Assuming we accept that, Oxford and Cambridge are still first rate universities. Their graduates are smart people. Is there really a problem in principle with a system in which a significant number of the people running the country come from the best universities?

Do you believe that the purpose of our system should be for you to be represented in parliament by people [i]like you[/i] or by people who are able to govern in your interests (or of course both)? 🙂

Of course, what has really changed is the composition of the modern parliamentary Labour party, which used to contain a significant number of actual former labourers, and now contains very few (Prescott being the obvious exception).

Right.

Praps the single biggest problem this country suffers from is the Class System. Which needs dismantling. We simply cant have a society divided along class lines, if it is to be truly progressive. People choose to identify with a particular class, based on their economic circumstances, rather than see themselves as part of a 'Society'.

So.

Monarchy- get rid. Serves no real benefit to our society; socially, economically or politically. All the arguments in favour of retaining the monarchy are unfounded- plenty of other nations exist perfectly ok without one. Some even better. The notion of someone with a 'divine right' to rule over others is both archaic and undemocratic. Time to dissolve the monarchy. No arguments. As for 'but then we'd need a President', well, we've more or less already got one, in all but name, really.

Class system- too many institutions which are divisive and perpetuate social stratification. Time to break apart the old Oxbridge elitism, and deliver a standard of excellence in education which is open to all. This must start at infant school level. No more badly run, under-resourced inner city slum schools, postcode lotteries and parents driving 20 miles to get their kids in the best schools. If children are born into a divided society, divided they will remain. No more private schools; all schools must offer the same excellent standards.

We must find ways to end the 'glass ceilings' that exist in our class-driven society. No more Old School Tie brigades. No more Jobs For the Boys.

Businesses to employ the majority of their workforce from the local area, wherever possible. No more of this bussing workers in, because the local scum aren't good enough. You're based in an area, you provide jobs to those that live their. Canary Wharf is a prime example of where class prejudice and a lack of belief in the abilities of all people exacerbates social and even cultural segregation.

Basically, an end to being able to have the best, simply because you earn more money. Each Human Being should be treated equally. A poor person is as deserving of a decent education, diet, home and healthcare, as a wealthy one.

Let's level the playing fields, and then see if the 'Chavs' are any less deserving of opportunity than the Toffs. Our current system is so heavily weighted towards those with money, there is often little chance for others to get on level terms.

As for industry itself, well, much more regulation is needed, as we've seen. Banks should be seen as providing a service, not simply lining the pockets of shareholders. Who are mostly already minted, quite often.

Re-nationalisation of all essential services. Water, Gas, Leccy, telecoms, transport, the bloody lot. any profit made to be ploughed straight back into maintaining and improving the services, not into the pockets of shareholders (see above).

But how will we pay for all this? I hear you scream.

Not an easy task, I'll admit, but not impossible. First, stop these bloody MPs leeching off the taxpayers, might be a start. And the revenue from lands formerly owned by the monarchy would bring in a few quid, as well as that saved from not having one.

Businesses to pay an 'education tax', which will help fund the education system, leading to better educated and more productive workers. You want people with IT skills? You pay towards their training, then; not let the individual taxpayers foot the bill all the time. And this does not mean having business-led 'academies', either. No sponsorship, just give us the ****ing cash.

Banning of (c)Rap music; it's causing too much youth delinquency.

Enormous reduction of defence spending; other countries don't have enormous armies, and so have more money to spend on their people. We don't need such a large military force, for home defence. And most of our military spending goes on funding various spurious foreign resource-grabbing conflicts. Time that stopped. That would save billions of pounds a year.

A form of National Service for all young people. Not military based, but stuff like learning construction skills, team-building, helping support local services like street cleaning, recycling, care for the vulnerable and environmental projects. Too many yutes are bored, with nowt to do. Well, give 'em something to do, instead of having them sitting around playing Ecks Bocks, or terrorising neighbourhoods. Offer a system of rewards, for endeavour, like Go-Karting, Paint balling, foreign trips, mountain biking, laptops. ATM, the only kids getting this sort of stuff, other than the wealthier ones, are the bloody little ASBO bastards. We need to teach our kids that bad behaviour does not bring rewards like respect and iPods.

Ah, a Rude Britain. I can see it now; the envy of the World.

A vote for the Rude Party is a vote for [i]all[/i] of our futures.

I am aware this manifesto may need a little more thought applied to it.
I'm going to have a little lie down, now.

Ah, a Rude Britain. I can see it now; the envy of the World.

An answer I can give for that is written in the Bible, Gospel of John, Chapter 11, Verse 35.

Rudeboy. I disagree with almost every point of your manifesto, either because I don't recognise the world that you live in, or because you are clearly a raging commie struggling against the temptations of totalitarianism who is determined to bring civilisation as we know it to the edge of madness and ruin. 😉

But I admire the effort and commitment that has gone into producing it and am glad that you have a vote. 🙂

BigDummy; 'cos of course, the current system is working so wonderfully...

Radical, I know. But needs must. Feel free to explain, point for point, why you don't agree, and put forward your own theories/ideas. I'd be inertested to see what you think.

As for the 'raging commie' bit; surely you can work a bit harder on that one?

See, thing is, if you actually think about it, you'll see that I am right. On every single point.

And if you don't, you're a greedy capitalist fascist. Simple, really. 😀

And El-Bent (good to see you paid attention in Sunday School); Jesus did indeed weep; for he saw the beautiful and incontrovertible truth, in RudeBoy's Meisterplan...

LOL at El Bent

I haven't read any of this thread and sadly/thankfully don't intend to.

But for some inexplicable reason, this caught my eye :

"[i] Canary Wharf is a prime example of where class prejudice and a lack of belief in the abilities of all people exacerbates social and even cultural segregation.[/i]"

What the **** you on about RudeBoy ? 😯

Canary Wharf is actually a prime example of just what the working-class can achieve.

It is indeed a stunning 'monument' to what the proletariat can accomplish through it's sacrifices of blood, sweat, and tears.

How [i]dare you[/i] denigrate the achievements of the toiling classes ?

Sorry, Ernie. (hangs head in shame..)

I was down there the other day. I was not impressed with the quality of Waitrose' Granny Smith apples, I have to say.

Sorry, Ernie.

Oh ...well that's alright then. But careful what you say - my mate worked on that. And right stropy **** he is ...... although he's well short. Bit like you really.

rap music has got **** all to do with deliquency

and i quite like it anyway

Rudeboy - I do not have time to give your vision of the good society the attention it deserves at present, so I am not going to pick bits out of it to chip at. In essence, I think you are attacking a straw man in the "class system" and the evil that you see flowing from it. Our life experiences are probably different however, which does shape perceptions. At 30, having been to a comprehensive school in a former mining area I do not see that I have run into any glass ceilings. I credit my parents' commitment to making sure I got the best out of school with much of the good fortune I have had, but that's by the by.

We have had, for many years, government more or less committed to equality of opportunity but accepting that outcomes will vary. You, as I read it, are not sympathetic to outcomes varying and consider that when they do something unfair has happened. In my view, actually to achieve the equality of outcomes that you want, the control you would need to take over every aspect of society would be intolerable to all people who value freedom.

Incidentally, I think for consistency, your manifesto could include a commitment to a 100% rate of inheritance tax on all estates valued at more than £750,000, and a very high rate of inheritance tax on pre-death gifts over a similar cumulative amount. 🙂

At 30, having been to a comprehensive school in a former mining area I do not see that I have run into any glass ceilings. I credit my parents' commitment to making sure I got the best out of school with much of the good fortune I have had

Amen to that. Parental responsibilty would be a far more achievable starting point in helping the nation than anything in that Citizen Smith stuff up there.

BD; I went to a Public School, and graduated from a decent Uni. Half my family is Middle Class. What's your point?

Let me ask you a few questions...

How many judges and magistrates hail from a poor working class background?
How many managing directors did too? Senior police officers, health consultants, etc. I'm not saying class divisions are insurmountable, but they are there. You waffle on a bit, but mainly your arguments centre around money. I'm not talking just about money. I'm talking about how individuals are valued in our society, in all areas. Culturally, socially and racially, as well as economically. I think you will agree, there are some pretty big divisions still present. Ones which could be eroded much further, with some changes in the way our society is structured and organised.

Don't worry, I'm not on about taking away your hard-earned lifestyle; I just think more people are entitled to a better deal. You've chosen a career which is financially rewarding, Others choose to care for people, look after the sick, work in clearing up other people's mess. they are too often undervalued and unrewarded in a system that puts money before people. That must change, imo.

And you're only 30? Blimey. Must be all that hard work you do...

Amen to that. Parental responsibilty would be a far more achievable starting point in helping the nation than anything in that Citizen Smith stuff up there.

Care to tell us how we can instill the idea of 'parental responsibility', in people then? Or is it easier to just sit on yer arse and blame others?

BD; I went to a Public School, and graduated from a decent Uni. Half my family is Middle Class

How many judges and magistrates hail from a poor working class background?

I'm talking about how individuals are valued in our society, in all areas. Culturally, socially

Of course portraying us as a section of society that couldn't possibly succeed without massive intervention is valueing us hugely.

Care to tell us how we can instill the idea of 'parental responsibility', in people then? Or is it easier to just sit on yer arse and blame others?

If people can't work out for themselves how to love their children and seek the best for them, then they need educating.

On the subject of sitting on yer arse and blaming others, what are you doing that's any different ?

Of course portraying us as a section of society that couldn't possibly succeed without massive intervention is valueing us hugely.

Then:

If people can't work out for themselves how to love their children and seek the best for them, then they need educating.

[b]If you could see what I could see, when I'm cleanin' windows![/b]

Wilst we're on the subject of 'parental responsibility'; just one name: Mark Thatcher.

what are you doing that's any different ?

Been working for/involved in numerous local youth and community projects most of my adult life. Including drugs, AIDS/HIV and sexual health education, outreach youth work, arts projects, anti-racism education and campaigns, and more recently, adult education. Not a lot, I'll grant you, and I do berate myself often, for not doing more.

Posh Spice does a hell of a lot more than me, I'm sure. As does Princess Anne.

Wilst we're on the subject of 'parental responsibility'; just one name: Mark Thatcher

Excellent example of ****less parenting. Illustrates my point handsomely. Ta.

An answer I can give for that is written in the Bible, Gospel of John, Chapter 11, Verse 35

Erm:

"Don't chuck bricks at cows when on a unicycle."

EH? Sheesh, Or did you mean Space Corps Directive #68250 or even Space Corps Directive #34124?

"Don't chuck bricks at cows when on a unicycle."

I think that would be a tad unfair, if used in response to my Rudifesto!

I think 'Christ on a bike' wooduv been fair enough, though.

Part of the problem with our current socio-economic 'system' is that it encourages people to think only of themselves rather than each other.

Have to say I agree with many points of the 'Rudifesto' (but would draw the line at getting rid of the Queen - Gawd Bless Er).

[i]I'm talking about how individuals are valued in our society, in all areas. Culturally, socially and racially, as well as economically. I think you will agree, there are some pretty big divisions still present. Ones which could be eroded much further, with some changes in the way our society is structured and organised.[/i]

I have, quite literally, no idea what this means. But I am suspicious of the concepts of racial and cultural valuing.

Until you have made at least some effort to translate this out of Rudeboy and into something resembling English I shall not take kindly to being accused of waffling. 😉

I have, quite literally, no idea what this means.

You do talk some bollocks. Course you do.

Our society is geared around the idea of the principle social actor being White, male and more often than not, middle class. Hence, if you do not fit into this extremely narrow bandwidth, then you may find that there are obstacles, in terms of your own social progression and development. Now I'm not saying that being anything other than White, male and Middle Class precludes you from achieving your goals, but it can, and often will, mean that you will face further obstacles. IE, if you're a woman, you may find it harder to penetrate the upper echelons of business; if you are Black or Asian, you may find it harder to climb the ranks within the military or police. To say that there are no such barriers and obstacles is simply not true. Prejudice and fear are just two.

Yorkshire cricket club used to operate a policy of not allowing anyone who was not born in Yorkshire, to play for the county. Eventually, they had to relent, because they were shite, and just needed a bit of talent.

Some argue there are 'too many foreigners' in English football. I say that football, like Capitalism, favours the strongest and best.

Why aren't there more female, Black or Asian Judges, etc? Is this because women, Black and Asian people aren't good enough to hold such high office? Course not. Is it because they don't work hard enough, and therefore don't deserve such lofty positions of power and authority? Course not. Is it because White, Middle Class men are somehow better suited to these roles? Course not.

Starting to make sense now?

Point I'm making, is that a system geared around such a narrow concept of which type of people are best to run the country, is too insular and exclusive. The 'system' favours the White, Middle Class Male, chiefly because it has been engineered by White, Middle Class males. Such a narrow social group cannot possibly have an all round understanding of all other groups within society. Which is why we need to mix things up, a lot more.

So how do we go about doing so?

By breaking down barriers, that's how. And these aren't just economic; people don't believe they can step out of their social class, racial/cultural group, very easily. Do young black men believe they can attain the top office in Law and Order? Do young women from a sink estate believe they can become the head of a Multinational? And by the same token, do White Middle Class men think they can find happiness and fulfillment being a street-sweeper, bricklayer or truck-driver?

I know I'm over-simplifying things. But my point is, it's almost as though the die has been cast, for many people. The notion that you can be and do whatever you want, is nowt more than a myth, to most.

We are seeing some exceptions to the 'rule'. Which is great. And it's testimony to this nation's ability to absorb and integrate other cultures, that being 'British' is far more than a racial, cultural or class thing.

We still have a long way to go. There are still too many hurdles, for too many people. It's not as simple as saying 'everyone has an equal chance', because, let's be honest, they don't.

We have to value people as people, not on their economic worth, or financial status. As long as we live within an archaic, pseudo-feudal system of rule, with all the baggage that goes with it, we will struggle to make progress. Time to cast off the shackles of Class, and value everyone as people.

Vote Rude. You know there's no real alternative...

BTW; I've got nowt against no-one. Some of my best friends are White, Middle Class men....

Right person for the job. Be they Male, Female, Gay, Straight, Black, White, Brown, or a combination of all of the above.

I really deep down hate to admit this, but I can't help myself in agreeing with some of what Rude Boy says.

My overall point is that our system of government is clearly not representative and clearly does discriminate in many ways.

There was an extremely interesting statistic quoted at the end of the 1066 Middle Earth, last night which said :- Post the Battle of Hastings William the Conquerer took 50% of the country for himself, gave 25% to the Church and gave the remainder to 190 of his nobles. Today 20% of the country is still owned by their descendants.

In essence our political system is still based on outdated premises and needs to be given a thorough shake.

In respect of the Oxbridge thing, my point there is I am very happy to have the best brains being funneled into the best academic institutions, and the best brains to be running the country. However the reality is that that this is patently not the case, and rank and privilige have an excessive say in outcomes. A great example is in fact John Prescott, who, love him or hate him had relatively humble beginnings, but was spotted by an egalitarian system and pushed into the Oxbridge system and rose to the postion that he attained as a result. He is the exception that proves the rule IMHO. Juxtapose this with Baronet Cameron, and his side kick who are a product of the old system, and then think through the chances of real change.

Right now there is a huge opportunity for change for the good, but I wouldn't mind betting you that the "establishment" will be in there doing its level best to stifle it.

PS All of the above is as best I can manage sans party politics

PPS I also find it difficult to understand folks who are disadvanataged by the current system arguing against change here and elsewhere, (in that I am presuming that few if any of the contributers above ever had any realsitic chance of aspiring to Eton, Harrow, Oxford, Cambridge etc etc.,). Obviously I may very well be wrong.

That is a good post, and added a lot of clarity to your thinking. Thankyou.

I spent a happy evening building bikes, listening to the radio and talking to myself, as I often do, and would like to float an idea with you, in the spirit of the Rude programme. It is this:

The key barrier of which you speak is actually the existence of educational qualifications.

More and more people are gaining recognised educational qualifications and spending longer and longer in formal education, and yet social mobility on normal measures shows some signs of going into reverse after several decades of dramatic increases.

An important reason for that is that ever greater numbers of professions, white-collar jobs and indeed further education institutions are selecting, not really on white male-ness but on the basis of qualifications rather than other measures of ability. Meanwhile access to those qualifications is unequal (principally because parental education and affluence are very helpful in getting those qualifications) and once children have lost the opportunity getting qualified in future is disproportionnately hard. We have a system which looks very much as if it is based on ability (no-one knows they're marking a black childs A-level paper) but produces outcomes which perpetuate the inequality, because someone who has got to be a manager as a result of having 5 A-levels will assume that he is promoting on merit if he promotes other people with 5 A-levels.

(This is not necessarily a "class" argument in classical terms or a race one - indian and chinese parents play this game extremely well on average, ****stanis and afro-carrbians play it very badly, the white english are close to but not at the top), although I accept that if you drew diagrams they would have quite a lot of similar features.)

You are never going to get rid of this disparity while leaving the system of educational qualification standing. The state action required to compensate for, say, unsupportive parents who speak little english or a disrupted home environment as against someone with 2 highly literate parents paying for additional tuition is simply too massive, and while it may make good revolutionary politics, crushing Eton doesn't really assist in the big scheme of things.

What you can do is to abolish compulsory education after age 10, allow people of any age to attend schools, abolish the national curriculum completely, and make all examinations optional. You then abolish all educational qualification criteria for all state jobs, replacing them with whatever tests of natural aptitude you think best. Next, you use government's purchasing power and influence to favour suppliers who adopt such policies themselves with a view to shifting the whole thing towards promotion on a form of mwerit which is not qualification-based.

Meanwhile, you use a sufficiency of resources to ensure that anyone who opts to come to a state school (which they should pay a small fee for, incidentally, subject to means testing) is taught to read and write good english, is taught decent numeracy skills, and a grasp of basic computer literacy. No-one should ever be leaving a state school barely literate. After that, the purpose of schooling is not to force people through a series of exams designed to test the school and to sift out the most exam-suited children, but to instil in everyone the importance of knowledge, learning and understanding and to give them the head-tools to go away and do it for themselves. The state probably doesn't even need to provide the mechanisms for them to carry on, although it might usefully do so perhaps. (Hazel Blears' constituency office in Salford is based in a rather splendid pre-war building called the "Library of the Working Class" which was built and stocked by trades union subscription I believe).

Your national service plan probably fits rather well into this framework, incidentally. I regard it as the best piece of actual policy you have proposed.

I don't know. That may be worth putting in your opipe and smoking when you have the time.

(I'm not going to get into an interminable argument over your vision of how society currently is. In the case of judges, for example, I don't think there is racism in judical appointments as such, but they are recruiting from a very small pool of brilliant lawyers, which as yet contains few black people. The time-lag is a long one, given that judges are appointed in their 50s or 60s. Increasing the number of black people in the pool from which you're drawing judges makes sense, demanding quotas of black judges on the basis that they deserve extra credit for being black and whiteness and high levels of education in judges is a bad thing does not, as far as I can see. We could have that sort of argument at every stage, but I am not sure it would add anything very much).

Cheers

Jon

Going back to the beginning of the argument in the current system the majority of people live in constituencies where one party has historically had a huge majority meaning that anyone with differing opinions votes seem to count for nothing (our local MP has made not differing from the current party line and keeping his head down an art form). Until some form of PR can be found that combines a degree of local representation with a House of Commons that reflects more accurately the overall spread of votes cast there isn't any incentive for people in 'safe seats' to cast their votes.

The Oxford and Cambridge issue is more a symptom of people seeing politics as a career going into the system with little if any life experience outside politics. People chose Universities for different reasons, some of them even related to the courses they undertake (I chose mine because it was five miles from Stanage Edge). Choosing Oxford or Cambridge can to be seen to a certain degree as a badge that I'm very serious about my future career & am considerably cleverer than you (it can also be seen as a lack of imagination or interest outside the academic if your of a cynical disposition).

Hopefully the present crisis will give a boost to the parties like the green party who are full of principled people who all have their own opinions but struggle to come to a consensus (you never know after the major parties clear out the current crop of yes men (and women) they may have the courage to select candidates on their abilities rather than just their ability to follow a party line).

We need to get rid of the girly-men in power.

I see where you are going with the education thing BD. Not far behind you on that one. Personally I would do away with years and go for a grade system, whereby you have to pass Grade 1 to go to Grade 2 etc. That I think falls in with your general point.

I also tend to favour the old Grammer and Secondary Modern system, where people were funneled into their approrpriate level. Albeit I would like to see more freedom of movement between levels and for longer, and I would like to see it extended so that there were direct equivalencies and crossovers from academic to technical and vice versa.

Basically all through to recognise that a plum in the mouth accent or wearing a hoody and eating chips too much, does not automatically equate to an indication of latent potential.

That apart I really would ride rough shod through the whole tradition in Government thing and shake the cobwebs out.

Simply put, a reasonable definition of insanity is to do something that doesn't work, and then to constantly repeat it expecting a different outcome. I suspect most of todays burning issues would be covered by that statement.

...... and now I must work.

Bye

Richie_B - couldn't agree more. Hopefully we'll se and end to the production line of career politicians. A lad who i went school with is now a (particularly smug, self-satisfied) government minister.

He was clearly being groomed for it from day one. His 'career' path went

Cambridge > Labour Press Office under Alastair Campbell > Private Secretary to Tessa Jowell then David Bluncket > parachuted into second safest labour seat in the country > Junior Minister > Minister

So thats the grand total of **** all life experience outside Westminster then

He was voted Top Toady in the Guardian for towing the party line on every single occassion since being elected. And... yes.... he was caught with his snout well and truly in the trof in the expenses scandal.

If we see an end to these careerist yes men, who troop through the lobbies like sheep, doing exactly what they're told, then that has to be a good thing.

Right on Binners couldn't agree more.

Another good plan IMHO, is to pass legislation to the effect that to represent a constiuency you should, except in exceptional circumstances be resident in it and have been so for a minimum period of say 5 years or 5 out of the last ten or something of that ilk.

Not unresonable that we have a local parliament for local people so to speak IMHO, and I think that satisfactorily bypasses the 2nd homes issue.

Now I really am going to do some work, honest!

Of course, in the great era of parliamentary independence, living in your constituency was entirely optional. Churchill, one of the greatest parliamentary men of the last century, who crossed the floor repeatedly on principle, simply shopped around for constituencies in which he would be allowed to stand and could win.

The idea of MPs having much to do with their constituency is a very modern one, and is the result of [i]local[/i] government having so little autonomy.

Labour seriously messed up reform of the House of Lords. I believe that the House of Lords should be fully elected (perhaps on a rolling basis of say 20% of the seats each year to hopefully avoid one party or interest group being swept to a huge majority by on a populist wave generated at election time). Rather than having region constituencies it may be possible for each voter to nominate their own constituency loosely based on personal interests (sports hobbies, ecological, professional, religion etc) The main problem with this is that the SE would be in serious danger of being represented by the Man U party. I know none of this approaching thought through but some way needs to be found to engage people with the process.

The key problem you're going to crash into there Richie is racial and religious identity politics isn't it? (Not saying you can't create a workable model, but that's the main challenge to it).

Lords reform annoys me hugely too. It was utterly unjustifiable before they started messing around, but it was not particularly corrupt, worked OK in its way (if you accept that ownership of much of the country gives you an interest in governing it properly, which is a sane idea in some ways) and had a certain legitimacy coming from that which allowed it to function within the conventional post-war contraints placed on it.

What Labour appear to have done is to demolish its historic legitimacy without replacing it with any other claim to be legitimate, thus largely destroying its ability to act.

This is why I dislike peace-time constitutional reform. It is either revolutionary, or a terrible fudge which favours those doing the reforming.

Our system of Government has steadily evolved over the years and I think we've just reached a point where we need to speed up that pace of evolution.

The whole system is rotten, awkward and full of quirks that are great for tradition but serve no useful purpose.

Personally I'd like to see fewer MP's in the Commons, greater devolution of power to a local level and an elected Upper House with teeth to slap down the lower house.

The concept of parties needs a big shake up, because no one party should be the official Opposition and I definitely agree about a cap on the term of a Government.

A lot of the system works, it just needs to be modernised and no one working in the system probably wants that modernisation because it might cost them their job.

Ultimately though, if anything does happen it'll happen slowly because so many people can't be bothered to vote and many that do give no thought to it and just vote for the same old Party, time and time again.....

I like the idea of a senior house, and I like the honours system. Personally I see no reason whatsoever, why someone awarded a kighthood or whatever shouldn't qualify to stand for the senior house.

The democratic process from there is harder to suss out though.

but it was not particularly corrupt, worked OK in its way (if you accept that ownership of much of the country gives you an interest in governing it properly, which is a sane idea in some ways)

That was the whole problem they had an interest in preserving the status quo and blocking reform or change not in their own favour

Racial, religious and class identity has always been a major element in politics (just look at the current and historic names of the current main political parties (thats without getting into Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish parties). With any system that incorporates an element of PR you are always going to get a limited number of extremists/nutters elected in most systems this tends to expose the limitations of people who campaign on single issues (OK the disproportionate influence some of Israel's more out there parties have is a bad example but to a lesser extent the DUP have often played the game in a similar way in our system). I would hope that a rolling system of elections would limit the chances of an extremist or fundamentalist party of what ever be swept to power (Relying heavily on the 'We are British' factor and the reasonable behaviour of the press 🙄 ).

To go back to the original question, I'd hope (though I'm not sure it'll happen) that an eventual upshot of all of this will be a stronger house of commons and a weaker executive. The system recently has got to the point where Downing St has too much power - often people say we've become something like a presidential system rather than cabinet government, but this is wrong, presidents have nowhere near as much power as British Prime Ministers have, they are more like elected Kings with everyone in the court desperate to please because of the power of patronage.

PR would be a big improvement also.

PR would be a big improvement also.

What? Consensus rather than adversarial, whatever next..... you'll be giving women the vote next! 😉

even david simon knows whos fault it is.....

[i]If a policy failed this unequivocally in any other part of US life you would cashier the generals. But the drug problem oppresses the poor. If rich kids were wandering the streets stealing car radios we would not be so complacent. But it is easier to brutalise the poor and discard them. We are not a manufacturing economy any more and we don't need our least educated people, so we marginalise them. The cynicism of Reagan and Thatcher still applies.[/i]

[url] http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/20/wire-creator-allegorical-hurricane-katrina [/url]

Hmmmmm,

Is there a rule that we can introduce that refers to the incessant attempts by Thatcherite's to head off what she is blatantly responsible for, when they illicit the rather repetative mantra which generally goes along the lines of "someone'll be along in a minute to blame Thatcher", or "spose it'll all be Thatchers fault". In the forlorn hope that this eradite use of language will ensure that every other thinking person will ignore the ample evidence and simply agree that she did nothing but good, and skipped through the meadows picking buttercups and making daisy chains throughout her premiership. That nothing whatsoever in her remarkable period in office had any impact beyone her resignation, and that no party ever has deliberately or otherwise left a time bomb for their successors and so on and so forth.

Whaderyerreckon Huh huh??? Plan or what????

(No offence Kimbers, yours was actually better than most and could be interpreted either way. I chose the realistic option myself.)

PS found this definition of conservative that kind of sums them up :

a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas

fatcha gets it in the neck coz she embraced the globalisation/ computer-telecoms revolution that was sweeping the 1st world at the time

like the agricultural and industrial revolutions it was a profound change for the way people live their lives

but have things really changed??
did anyone see 1066 last night... by 1067 all landowners in england were of Norman descent

today the direct descendants of those nobles still own 20% of all land in the country!!!

Yep, I saw that too. Bloody foreigners.
Good programme though.

did anyone see 1066 last night... by 1067 all landowners in england were of Norman descent

today the direct descendants of those nobles still own 20% of all land in the country!!!

I think it's even worse than that. As I understood it. William took most of the country, then divided the rest between the church and 167(?) Norman nobles. The 20% mentioned was the land owned by the nobles excluding William. Assuming that William's land has been passed through to our current Royals, I'd assume that far more than 20% of our land is owned as a result of the Norman invasion.

Great programme BTW.

The Crown owns [u]all[/u] land in Britain. If you own land "freehold" that simply means that you hold it from the Crown, free of any obligation to provide troops. 🙂

was excellent, especially as one of the team leaders at my work was a stunt double

he volunteers at the village used in the show and as he can ride a horse and joust he played soldiers on both sides

was very brutal though especially the bit where they captured the women and boys

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8062205.stm ]mp claims we are just jealous[/url]
its surely time to sort out the entire system, some good ideas on this week and question time
proportional representation- would it end the dominance of the party line the whips, the soundbites trotted out to avoid awkward questions
do we have too many mps
the lords has to be completely changed