Comrade Brown promises us a code of conduct for MPs.

Home Forum Chat Forum Comrade Brown promises us a code of conduct for MPs.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 44 total)
  • Comrade Brown promises us a code of conduct for MPs.
  • Junkyard
    Member

    So my contract of employment and Terms and Conditions mean I cant have my job either as I am not suitable?

    Smee
    Member

    Depends if your contract and ts & cs include not committing fraud or stealing from taxpayers.

    David Mitchell came up with a good analogy the other night: The swimming pool is full of piss, their response would be “swimming pool is full of piss, lets ban swimming pools” not “lets stop pissing in the swimming pool”.

    Spongebob
    Member

    It comes down to interpretation of the rules and how morally vacuous the said MP might be.

    Who are we to judge whether someone has the right set of moral standards? Afterall, don’t we live in a PC society?

    I’m for a complete reform of our electoral system.

    Make quangos unlawful – democracy not dictatorship please!
    Proportional representaion.
    Fixed term parliaments.
    If the PM steps down – an automatic general election.
    Fewer MP’s.
    A presentation about the European parliament and a referendum on our membership of the EU.
    More opportunities to vote on important issues – we have modern technology, so why not?

    PR is a dangerous thing, as it allows the extreme minorities a chance at power. Austria, I believe, is an example, where what are effectively Nazis gained some form of representative power. Not a good thing at all.

    Otherwise,
    Reform of Quangos – Hell yes. Too much money wasted.
    Fixed term? Again, yes.
    If the PM steps down? Not sure on this one, as there’s precedent to allow a change of party leader and I think that’s a strong part of British democracy.
    Fewer MPs? But of course. Has to happen.
    Referendum on the EU? Now. Right now. I’m fed up of wasting money on that load of corrput shysters. Again, too much money wasted.
    More opportunities to vote? Not so sure. We have “representatives” in the House of Commons to represent the commoners. This is a good thing, as I’m not sure you really want the full opinion of the public. For example, if it went to a public vote, hanging would be straight back on the books. Not too sure that’s a good idea.

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    PR is, IMO, an excellent thing, regardless of the risk of giving voice to cretins.

    At it’s best, PR would give us an impotent parliament reliant upon hardfought and infrequent agreement and compromise. Ultimately then parliament would dramatically slow the pace at which it could produce new law and when it managed too it was by consensus. Frankly a breath of fresh air and the best thing that could happen to the country would be for government to wind it’s neck in a not govern so much.

    duckers
    Member

    Too little too late Mr Brown, my local labour MP has disgusted me now as well, he made a donation at a battle of britain memorial then tried to claim it back on expenses. The expenses office turned that one down thankfully.

    the best thing that could happen to the country would be for government to wind it’s neck in a not govern so much.

    Now that’s something I agree with. Still very much uncertain about PR, but less government interference is a massive belief for me.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    PR is a dangerous thing, as it allows the extreme minorities a chance at power.

    Only proportionate to the support which they enjoy. If you’ve got a problem that, then allowing them participate in elections is a charade. You can’t say, “you can stand, but we will make certain that any support you enjoy will be completely meaningless”. You might as well just ban them from the whole process and not pretend that elections are fair.

    Fixed term? Again, yes.

    So you wouldn’t allow votes of ‘no confidence in the government’ (as in 1979) then ?

    Smee – obviously you would be happy if the government ignored the problem and did nothing ?

    Smee
    Member

    ernie_lynch – no, not at all. I would be happy if the people that represented us were honest and not simply out to line their pockets as a significant number of them clearly are. It’ll be interesting when the details of MP’s second jobs are published.

    Gus, a fixed term should, and would, allow for a vote of no confidence. Again, that’s a key part of our politics.

    The PR issue is a much harder thing, in my opinion. There are advantages, but often it leads to an unsatisfactory alliance of minority groups. Perhaps the French approach could be better. The eventual winner of the election needs to have over 50% of the vote, even if that takes several rounds to get through.

    El-bent
    Member

    the best thing that could happen to the country would be for government to wind it’s neck in a not govern so much.

    We’ve had too much of that already. I want a Government to govern.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    It’ll be interesting when the details of MP’s second jobs are published.

    Don’t forget who thank for that.

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    We’ve had too much of that already.

    since 1997, an average of 270 laws a year passed. Over 98% of them by statutory instrument: undebated!

    and that doesnt include any laws enacted in the European parliament by which the UK must also abide.

    Stoner – Member

    We’ve had too much of that already.

    since 1997, an average of 270 laws a year passed. Over 98% of them by statutory instrument: undebated!

    and that doesnt include any laws enacted in the European parliament by which the UK must also abide.

    Amen.

    Smee
    Member

    Maybe I am wrong here, but surely if prospective MPs need to be told how to behave then they aren’t really suited to such a position.

    G
    Member

    Stoner – Member

    We’ve had too much of that already.

    since 1997, an average of 270 laws a year passed. Over 98% of them by statutory instrument: undebated!

    and that doesnt include any laws enacted in the European parliament by which the UK must also abide.

    If you don’t mind me saying so that a completely pointless and misleading statement without something to compare it to, say from 1979 to 1988 for example.

    Regarding this business with Europe, am I the only person that is sick to the back teeth of people whining about what is for us a fact of life? Not happy? Well do something about changing it, like taking an active part in the democratic process for example. Of all the Ukip’s and what have you’s to date, not one has been able to answer satisfactorily the question, “and when you’ve got us excluded from the European market what are you going to subsitutue for that trade?”

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    “and when you’ve got us excluded from the European market what are you going to subsitutue for that trade?”

    Actually, Lafarge (UKIP) was on the Today programme yesterday saying that following pulling out of the European Union, his administration would then go about negotiating a free trade agreement like the Swiss.

    So they do have an answer to your question.

    Personally I dont agree with it. Im a European first, and a Brit second.
    I think the EU is one of the best things to happen to us.
    It doesnt mean I like the European Legislative programme.
    But I wouldnt throw the baby out with the bath water.
    All politics is inevitably compromise.

    deadlydarcy
    Member

    PR is a dangerous thing

    Spoken like a true Tory…a party that could never grasp the benefits of proportional representation (then again, looking at most of them, I suspect they might struggle to understand how it works). Ooooh, it might let dodgy minority groups in…again, true toryism…yes, you little people can participate but don’t go thinking you’ll be sitting your arses on the green seats.

    Premier Icon Sandwich
    Subscriber

    I doubt the free trade agreement would protect us from the chill wind of American or Chinese protectionism like the EU would. That is the truly great advantage of the EU.
    As a country we need to engage with Europe not see it as a sinecure for failed Westminster politicians (Mandy). Our ablest politicians should be appointed to this crucial part of the the legislature to make it work for us and rein in the excesses.

    Spongebob
    Member

    Well I know little about what is going on in Brussels. It’s not exactly at the forefront of our news as far as I can tell. Or perhaps I have a “Brussels EU Politics” blocking filter so I miss it all! ๐Ÿ˜†

    since 1997, an average of 270 laws a year passed. Over 98% of them by statutory instrument: undebated!

    and that doesnt include any laws enacted in the European parliament by which the UK must also abide.

    Add all the quangos and the Brussels directives and this leaves me wondering whether we really have a democratic society!

    Well June the 5th is your chance to vote on Brussels. What are we voting for exactly? I’ve heard a lot of party political broadcasts, but i really am not clear as to what they all stand for when it comes to the EU Parliament, who is representing us etc. Seems to me like a big issue swept under the carpet! (like the referendum issue). Maybe I should be reading the broadsheets more often.

    But have you seen how they vote in the EU Parliament? It’s farcical. I saw a video of a session where politicians should vote electronically, but they were having difficulty hearing what they were voting for. There was so much to vote on that it was difficult to keep tabs on what was what.

    PR is fundamental to a fair democratic system. Why should we worry whether or not it produces a result which is satisfactory to any one political party? If this means other parties other than the big three getting a look in, this can only be good for democracy can’t it?

    It’s about what the people want, not politicians, this is my idea of democracy. However, we have to consider that a large number of people are never going to be floating voters and have their eyes and ears permanently shut off to what is going on. With people like this, politicians of the main parties get an easy ride.

    On my suggestion of fixed terms – Of course a vote of no confidence would override a fixed term.

    Politics, don’t you just love it? ๐Ÿ˜†

    Just as well our Glorious Leader is dealing with the important, nay vital issues of the day….

    Prime Minister Gordon Brown told GMTV that he had spoken to Simon Cowell and Piers Morgan to check on Boyle’s progress.

    “I hope Susan Boyle is OK because she is a really, really nice person and I think she will do well,” he added.

    mogrim
    Member

    Spoken like a true Tory…a party that could never grasp the benefits of proportional representation (then again, looking at most of them, I suspect they might struggle to understand how it works). Ooooh, it might let dodgy minority groups in…again, true toryism…yes, you little people can participate but don’t go thinking you’ll be sitting your arses on the green seats.

    We have PR here, the end result is you vote for a list of candidates – I read the papers fairly reguarly, watch the news on TV, and only recognise the major parties top two or three candidates. The rest are fully paid-up members of the party apparatus, exactly the type of candidates most people object to.

    Given the choice I’d much rather have an MP. Although a PR elected second chamber might be a good idea.

    And please, UK, don’t pull out of the EU. Getting the papers together for Spanish citizenship would be such a pain…

    G
    Member

    Stoner – Member

    We’ve had too much of that already.

    since 1997, an average of 270 laws a year passed. Over 98% of them by statutory instrument: undebated!

    and that doesnt include any laws enacted in the European parliament by which the UK must also abide.

    If you don’t mind me saying so that a completely pointless and misleading statement without something to compare it to, say from 1979 to 1988 for example.

    Stoner: Did you not spot this? I’d like to see comparative stats if you wouldn’t mind. Interesting to compare I reckon.

    El-bent
    Member

    since 1997, an average of 270 laws a year passed. Over 98% of them by statutory instrument: undebated!

    Being a bit selective there Stoner. While I can agree that this particular Government has tried wrongly to micro manage certain aspects, it has devolved some power to Scotalnd/Wales and London, where Mrs T and co abolished the likes of the GLC in her own attempt at micro management and this Government certainly hasn’t done that with the economy leaving it in the hands of supposed experts.

    I do believe we are also the only “western” country whose Government does not have an Industrial strategy. Apart from the strategy of sending all our manufacturing to China of course.

    Personally I dont agree with it. Im a European first, and a Brit second.
    I think the EU is one of the best things to happen to us.
    It doesnt mean I like the European Legislative programme.
    But I wouldnt throw the baby out with the bath water.
    All politics is inevitably compromise.

    I’ve found something I can agree with you completely on.

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    G – did spot it but didnt have the comparative data.

    Since I couldnt find the appropriate analysis online, Ive had to do it myself from source data.
    Source: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts
    Using data for Statutory Instruments issued 1988-2008 and Acts of the UK Parliament 1988-2008

    Very approximately, during the last Tory government Statutory Instruments averaged c.3000 pa and rose to an average of 3500 under the following Labour government: a rise of 16%, with an extaordfinary spike of 4200 undebated pieces of legislation passed in 2001 alone.

    clicky if you need to

    Over the same period, the number of substantive Acts debated by the house was reduced. From an average of 54, a reduction of 24% to 41 from ’97-’08. This is the crux of the allegation that the Labour government have done away with the primacy and fundamental function of the House in favour of implementing greater volumes un-debated dictat than ever before.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    But my graph shows something completely different :

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    that’s coz you’re using a hammer.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    CFH
    brown commenting on some reality tv show twaddle is a result of moronic gmtv presenters asking questions like that coz quite frankly your average gmtv viewer couldnt care less about the actual details of government.
    It is a vicious circle as the joke of a media/news like gmtv or bbc breakfast only pump out that kind of mind numbing garbage partly to advertise their own tv channels and partly to keep the great unwashed stuck to their sofas watching that crap

    and spouting the ukip party line that 100s of laws are passed without our knowing it by unaccountable brussles eurocrats may have an element of truth but someone show me one of these laws that actually affects me in some way……. (unless you are talking about the suns stories of eu regulation shaped bananas

    european parliament does seem innefcient and wasteful but the only way we will fix it is by joining up and sorting it out from the inside isolationism and rejecting the lisbon treaty(despite its many many flaws) will leave us out in the cold and we really dont need that.

    and dont even start with the torries plans to cosy up to the racist and homophobic nutjobs from poland and austria!

    mogrim
    Member

    an extaordfinary spike of 4200 undebated pieces of legislation passed in 2001 alone

    Hardly extraordinary, starting the War on Terror required firm and decisive action, not the sort of thing you want to debate with a group of wishy-washy liberals!

    G
    Member

    Ditto what el-bent, kimbers and mogrim said.

    Fraid you have to look behind the headlines to get a true picture.

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    Fraid you have to look behind the headlines to get a true picture

    you mean like assessing the raw data at first hand?

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    that’s coz you’re using a hammer.

    That’s not very nice. Now I’m going to have a go at you on the other thread.

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    bring your toolbox.

    G
    Member

    I’ll think you’ll find that the raw data, along with the detail behind it don’t actually support your original premise.
    I fully understand the issue with the data, but you are firstly not comparing like with like, I understand why you haven’t done it, but it would be more approrpiate to consider the 1st 12 years under thatcher with the first 12 under labour, to make a reasonable comparision. Having done that you would also need to take a detailed look at the legislation for reasons as stated by mogrim above. There are circumstances where legislation is of necessity reactive to circumstances rather than any desire on the part of the party in charge. 9/11 etc being just one such example.

    Regarding the twunt at UKIP, I watched him too. I don’t have the time to highlight the flaws in his argument, but suffice to say if we are thinking of taking the Swiss model, I suspect we need to sharpen up our Banking act a tad, wouldn’t you say?

    Zulu-Eleven
    Member

    The problem with PR is who selects the candidates…

    If it could be made to work with open primaries, then great, but if its the central party selecting the list then it would be a huge mistake.

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    I have no time for UKIP.
    I was just pointing out you were wrong to assume that they had no policy for a post-EU world. Even they’re not that politically naive.

    Obviously Im limited by the data available but Id bet money that the historic trend is upwards since 1979.

    As for your argument about anti-terrorism and war laws, you’re missing the nature of the SIs. Go and have a look at them. The thousands of SIs are generally petty interferring bits of legislation. There are alledgedly some more substantive un-debated laws hidden amongs the tide of SIs too. Anti Terror laws were debated. War wasnt. The post 9/11 world didnt lead to a need for lots of new bits of legislation, it was approached with just one or two large Acts. It didnt lead to an unavoidable increase in the number of laws – the “socialist” love of centrist dictat did that.

    G
    Member

    I had two points one re Europe and our membership, and the other re UKip et al.

    Firstly re Ukip etc. The point is their policies are entirely negative, ie say No to Europe, not say YES to a Swiss free trade zone style economy.

    Secondly re Europe generally, I just get sick to the back teeth of the naysayers, and feel that its about time that we just got on board and tried to adress issues as a europeans rather than Le Beouf Roti and frankly making ourselves look stupid.

    Regarding Brown and his Stalinist tendancies, I hear what you’re saying and actually am interested to take a look and think it through, but it needs to be on a like for like basis, otherwise it is invalid.

    In a broader context, my issue with the current political arrangement are that any analyst will tell you that the vast majority of the people sit in the middle of the road politically, seeing valid points on both sides of the argument. Regretably our current system generates a pendualum swing from one extreme to the other, and as a result we wobble through life neither being one way or t’other. That is a throwback to balancing the demands of the aristocracy and the commoners when it all started off. If nothing else the current sceanrio just emphasises the extraordinary need that we have for real change.

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    G – managed to find this research
    http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snsg-02911.pdf

    graph at bottom of page 2 shows No. SIs going back to 1950.

    Original source is this interesting commentary on the use of SIs by the Labour government by a Guardian writer.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/jan/14/statutory-instruments-parliament

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    Unfortunately the European argument is always going to be fought in the language of extremes. Thats what happens when “people” (the masses of emancipated proles you understand ๐Ÿ™‚ ) dont take the time to inform themselves properly rather than absorb the partisan interests published as “fact” in the red-tops et al.

    I dont think UKIP are worried about being seen as a negative party. They know they shall never form a government, they simply want to increase the pressure on a new Tory administration to reduce European participation by threatening to absorb valuable Europsceptic tory voters.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    Blimey, a good humoured, rational, and well thought out political debate on STW.

    Thought I’d stumbled onto Grown Up World. for a moment…

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 44 total)

The topic ‘Comrade Brown promises us a code of conduct for MPs.’ is closed to new replies.