Campaign for Democracy: Have your say
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
In the wake of the expenses scandal, we are living in potentially revolutionary times. After decades of growing disenchantment with our political system, many voters are restless and seeking genuine change to the way in which this nation is governed.
For the past two decades, The Independent has led the debate for a more progressive and equitable form of politics, campaigning hard for a modernised parliament and monarchy, a fairer voting system and a less centralised system of government. Today, as the demand for genuine reform grows daily stronger, all three party leaders have joined forces to set out their visions for the future - while our political team examine some options available for reform (see the links below).
But this must not just be a debate held in Westminster and Whitehall. In the comments form below let us know what you think needs to be done to repair our politics - and over the next few days, we will continue to lead this debate that is so vital to our future.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
- Presidential prime minister - PPM - (not MP) accountable to the people.
- A Leader of Parliament.
- Fixed term parliament, with still abilty to be dissolved by Queen or PPM
- Proportional Representation that allows more representation of the people's choice.
- Roll back many of the privacy laws (not because they are unpopular, but because they contravene
people's rights to have a choice in what is done to and/or for them)
- Rethink the FoI Act (which many got caught by ;-) ), there is a right balance to be struck before getting information becomes real intrusion, which has now proved the case, this FoI Act was not well thought out and with a huge majority New Labour pushed it, and got bitten by it, it serves them right, some would say...
- A written constitution, so as to stop the fudge and the blur of parlemantarians, technocrats, bureaucrats, and other pseudo-crats...
- Make a pledge to consult the people on important issues that affect them and not to renege on promises such as referendums (on the Lisbon Treaty comes to mind).
- Deal effectively with the expenses issue so that in future the system is clear and unambiguous.
- Lay down a sound platform for good governance, free of lobbying from outside influence, especially those benefitting from policy changes.
- Tackle the real problems plaguing British Society and do what it needs to be done so as to solve them.
The above points come from the grievances I happen to hear and read around...
and you might benefit from reading this:
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/2009
Have a good day...
Yes, good idea. I've been told we actually have a written constitution made up of Magna Carta and various other documents, but it's not been codified into a single document so governments ignore it.
Nabil2000 wrote "Make a pledge to consult the people on important issues that affect them and not to renege on promises such as referendums (on the Lisbon Treaty comes to mind)."
I agree. We should have referendums on all major policy decisions - especially whether to go to war or not, but also policies like PFI/PPP.
All the votes for other candidates in each constituency still end up effectively uncounted.
We need straight proportional representation with no thresh-hold. Yes it'll result in a few BNP MPs in parliament but also far more candidates independent of any party and from green and socialist parties.
Having a decent government that really represents the full range of views and everyone's interests equally is the only way to prevent the rise of extremists anyway - and we've had more than a few extreme policies from the supposedly 'centrist' big parties anyway - from PFIs to invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
The reason for my not voting is because I see a bunch of people in parliment and polotics that are always trying to out do the next man be it elected or citizen.
As a nation, we have suffered tremendously in the hands of our government for as many years as I can remember. Cuts in services, prietization, scrappage of esential services,& taxes beyond belief.
It has become a nation that has no respect nor confidence in our ruling members including potential ones who procrastinate about how they will change everything when elected.
I am sick of the attitude of the political system, its spin and all it represents. As a country of proud people we are being subbtly lead into a third world by our parlimentary elect and wannabee's.
There has always only ever been arguments and battles between them, They claim to have the populatons interests at the fore, yet each concecutive elected party(of which mostly there are only two ever elected) Cannot wait to get their hands on our purse strings only to find that the previous party has done things that would shame Arthur Dailey.Any hope of recovering from the monumental snafu any previous party has made is therefore a hmoungous task, yet all claim to be able to promise the world when elected. Done I might add to currie the favour of potential votes. Thisis on public display for aproximately two or three weeks, this infamouse smile and baby holding excercise, What a sham. I have learnt that people will say anything when motivated by GREED!
The public fall for it aswell. The reasons why the Labour govenment is now under attack and previously the Lib Dems or Conservatives at anyone point is because we do remember the things they hit us with so hard that we almost starved through Taxes and cuts to our lifestyle and living standards.
There is talk of decent and radical change, For the most part this is comming from the smaller less well known parties. If indeed this wave of change is now gathering pace, If indeed we are as a nation now questioning our rulling parties, then I put it to you,.Isn't it time we had a written constitution? Is it not time we ousted the current system totally, Is it not time to make not just individual transgressors accountable and prosecute them for fraud. Let's face it, if you or I had done such things as clearly demonstrated by party members then we would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law! No one is above the law, yet parliment and its clan in enirety seems to evade it.
When was the last time you had your local councillor ask your oppinion? When indeed did the 71 members of parliment ask the nation who WE would like to sit in the big chair at No 10?
If we are a democracy, and in many senses the PROCESS only is in place to say we are, then why have I not been personnally asked about policy? I pay tax, I live hear, I was borne English/BRITTISH, my heritage for many generations is Brittish. So I believe I should have more of a say.
A repeat of a blog I sent in yesterday. With additions.
I am against one idea from Cameron yesterday, but at least he tried. The idea of a fixed term of 4 or 5 years before an election is called. This will mean you could not have a No Confidence vote. There must be a way of removing a bad government before its time. This Cameron idea would mean we would not have got PM Churchill for World War Two and Germany may have won.
SOLUTIONS
Lords. An elected chamber culled in size. Elections every 4 years. No member can serve more than 2 or 3 terms to stop career politicians.
We must not have a none elected PM and imposed on us like Brown. If the PM falls ill or goes. The deputy PM takes over like in the USA. An election must be called in 6 months. We vote for a PM and a duty PM essentially. Not some substitute.
The PM must be more accountable for the selection of Ministerial posts.
Election manifesto promises must be obeyed. Any change in policy with respect to election promises require a public referendum. New Labour ignored their election promises. Referendum on Europe and no privatisation of the Post Office were ignored. The Labour 1997 promise of electoral reform was also nicely forgotten about. Manifesto promises are what we vote on.
Either a PR system or a top up like the London Assembly system to give minority parties a representation. New Labour look like being a minority soon anyway so it will interest them. The voters will then value the individual vote more, unlike the first-past-the-post where only say 35 percent of votes gives a win and your vote is irrelevant.
When it comes to voting you have two votes.
One for your main candidate and one for the top up candidate. You can not vote for the same party.
I find my political views never perfectly fit into one political party anyway. This will ensure minority representation. Left or right is irrelevant since they will naturally counter balance.
Voting on Commons issues. Commons only have say 70 percent of vote on issues. 30 percent goes to ordinary people. Peoples body of a few thousand, either elected or selected randomly from electoral list like Jury Service and serve 2 years if they wish. People votes are averaged. They vote via phone or internet.
Reduce parliamentary term before an election must be called term from 5 to 4 years.
The ruling cabinet executive more accountable to the main body of parliament. This could be done by giving more power to select committees or Ministers meeting regularly with select committees. Ministers have to ask for parliamentary to vote on more issues rather than suddenly declaring policy like some dictator.
Help for Independent candidates wanting to stand. Say an annual free information and learning conference for prospective independent candidates. They could attend and be helped and briefed.
There could be options for standing for Parliament, local council, Europe or Assembles.
Some brain storming on how the internet can be used to transfer political power to the public.
I will try to put more thought into this subject and refine my ideas.
There should and has always been some detachment of the executive from the populous.
I personally don't think we as people are stupid but when we congregate in a crowd our wisdom can be severely compromised.
Listening to every foible and complaint from the general public will lead to instability and chaos and the populous will soon appoint another executive to iron things out and things will return to 'normal'.
Just wait and see ? :-)
First past the post Parliament, proportional representation 'Lords'
Publication of all MP and MEP expenses, and listing of second jobs etc
Fixed term Parliament
Possibility of No Confidence in local MP, MEP and local councillors
Regrettably it would appear the UK electorate love it right up 'em and until the everyday man & woman in the street takes a more active interest in what our elected dignitaries are about on a daily basis; we as a nation will be doomed to stay where we now are and that is up shit creek without a paddle!!!!
And free hats and party poppers and whistles for everyone who votes.
Recently on Sky News;
May 26, 2009
'Newspaper Landscape Is Set To Change'
The editor of The Independent newspaper, Roger Alton, has told Sky's Jeff Randall that he believes pay-per-view news websites will become the norm for the industry - as soon as the first newspaper decides it is the only way to make money on line.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/vi
And a tax surcharge of 100 pounds on all those who do not vote !
I do believe people have the choice not to vote, for whatever reason. But in this case we need to all get up off our backsides and register our complaint. Numbers are important.
If the Independent wants to vet input it should do so before it puts it up, not after the event. If you want to be like the Guardian, where anything goes and there are hundreds of silly posts then at least that's consistent. If you want to be irritating like the Times, where only 250 characters is allowed (not enough to express more than one idea properly) well you know waht the rules are.
The Telegraph gets it about right, so my advice is don't post here - go and join the debate elsewhere. Your hard won thoughts will be scrapped when your back is turned.
http://www.geocities.com/cronyblatc
for example, was repeatedly censored because overstepping the line in terms of political incorrectide and incitement of conformist thinking of naughty thoughts. Undeservedly flattering really, 'specially when you take the dreadfultyping into account.
A fixed parliament time limit. The PM should be elected by everyone.
I am already drawn into the issues and ideas being generated by this and the comments posted. And therein lies the problem of a debate "over the next few days", as you put it.
I'm off to work, and hope to find time to consider my views, post, discuss other views, etc, as best I can, when I get back (in about 11 hours). I dare say I am not the only one to be busy, which means that some of these opinions may end up as unfinished, repetitious or erroneous.
This is also bound to generate huge response (which is great!), but needs more time to sift and interact with. Or were you just hoping for a one-off twitterish kind of straw poll?
Can I ask that we can all have this debate returned to regularly over the next few months, to enable people to learn, develop ideas, discuss and assimilate, and react to outside events as well? That way, we keep the debate live, grow in understanding and depth of debate, and thereby show that people CAN become more effective in the democratic process!
Thank you, The Independent.
It's difficult to find time to properly digest and contemplate issues such as these.
Most of us are on the corporate treadmill, and so I believe this debate should be an ongoing thing.
it would transform the degree of representation in the UK.
it would also be the simplest way forward and possibly the cheapest as the only changes would be necessary at the ballot itself.
For more detail visit http://www.iniref.org/learn.html
finances/expense accounts- let alone a broad restructuring of the UK's Parliamentary systems- would be tantamount to enabling known-embezzler-employees of a bank-company to lead bank-company workshops about how to improve the bank-company's internal security systems...
In order to be successful, participating in whatever processes are used in the future to clean up the very evident wide-spread rot within the UK's Parliament- both the Houses of Commons and Lords- ought to be restricted to persons with 'clean hands', IE persons who have at the least been shown to have successfully made it through the cleansing-process of a general election...
For many decades, both the House of Commons & House of Lords have been, in function, vastly over-sized echo-chambers, with both levels of govt's standing, ad-hoc & special committees being severely deficient in terms of actual powers & authoritative roles...
This resulting from these committees lacking (clearly defined/perceivable) terms of references consistent with '20th & 21st century democratic standards'...
Commons' & Lords' committees without any Constitutionally established powers to override &/or change contentious decisions/objectives/appointments of govt/Ministers, will understandably have members who become less than committed in their duties & will as a result, invariably become inclined towards self-interest objectives (IE self enrichment/expenses fraud) as opposed to their legislative/law-making roles...
For comparison, the United States, with a 310 million population (roughly 5 times the UK's 60 Million population) has 435 elected 'Representatives' in its equivalent to the UK's House of Commons- the US's 'House of Representatives'.
The UK's House of Commons- with 646 elected members- has 50% more.
The US's 'Senate'- that country's equivalent to the UK's House of Lords- has only 100 elected members. The UK's Lords has close to 8 times that many, at 760 voting members.
Both of the UK's upper & lower Houses of Parliament need to be significantly downsized with new, impartial civil-service-type bodies established whose roles would be to oversee & facilitate both levels of govt's functions & their uses/applications of public money.
A House of Lords consisting of even numbers of 'sitting' hereditary and life peer members- perhaps 75 of each + no more than a dozen each of 'sitting' Law & Bishops Lords for a total of about 225 including the Lords' speaker surely could function more capably than the present model..
The many hundreds of life peer and hereditary Lords in the UK could take turns being impartially rotated into and out of the Lords' to serve 10-year or longer terms as paid 'sitting' (IE 'active') Lords... while retaining their titles as un-paid ('inactive') non-sitting Lords...
This House of Lords' restructuring option would retain this intergral part of the UK Parliamentary system's centuries-old connections to the Monarchy- something that would be forever destroyed by the creation of an elected House of Lords...
A house of Commons of no more than 350 or 400 members would at least be small enough that a semblance of 'legitimate' discussion and debate could occur...
After- or as part of campaigning leading up to- the next general election, all national UK political parties ought to commit to supporting legislation mandating the commencement of a several-month or year-long, extensively advertised & promoted "national dialogue on UK governance"... to be facilitated/overseen by an impartial body/Royal Commission or at least a joint-committee comprised of both
- members of the national govt,
as well as
- members of ALL national political parties.
A priority-objective of any "national dialog on UK governance" could be a written constitution.
But on what platforms would they be elected?
We could be seeing a cack-handed attempt going on right now, with the wares being laid out by the parties to tempt us to go for the reforms we like most, rather than the people we trust most... which would distract us from the essence of the reforms.
Cameron, for example, has not promised to *do* anything he claims to support, just "seriously consider" - if he gets into power.... That in my book means diddly-squat, given the loss of trust issues right now!
It reminds me of what Richard II did to the peasants' revolt after Wat Tyler was killed: he said he was their leader now, and he promised the leaders that their freedoms were safe, and
the peasants that their demands would be met. Of course, once he was safe again, he broke his promises and had all the leaders of the revolt killed.
I think we should be VERY CAREFUL right now of politicians bearing gifts!!
Why can't this simple change be enacted within days? It could be in place in time for an Autumn 2009 election.
No matter what internal reorganisation you implement inside Parliament it has no bearing on how the electorate perceives things in relation to how their disparate views may get a hearing in the House. I see the proposals put forward so far as mere tinkering since they do not have a fundemental effect on the relationship between the Electorate and the Elected. Until that relationship has been reshaped by proportional representation everything else is just window dressing.
You start with the installation of PR (details etc...) That to be done as a prerequisite of any election process! Failure to agree to this will institute immediate dissolving of parliament.
Then you institute a means of removing any politicians/parties that welch on their election manifestos. For refusal to agree, see point one.
Then you go to election...
Then you elect the politicians you vote for, using PR.
Then - based on the accountable promises made at their elections - the implementation of further reforms can be made...
E.G. reform of administrative functions of power, such as how the cabinet, PM, Commons and Lords Houses operate, terms of office, referenda systems, and so on.
Then you run a second election, and begin an era of accountable government.
However if reforms were to be made the one key one would be the creation of a 'Third House' sitting above the Lords and the Commons which has the power to force the Commons to reconsider and in some cases change its decisions.
This Third House would be made up of us, the people, who would be given the ability to vote on parliamentary business in real time via the internet. If this had been in place there would have never been a war in Iraq, we would not be being monitored to death, we would have had a referendum on Europe, and MP expenses would have been released straight away under the FOI.
We have the technology for TRUE democracy now but MPs will not use it for the simple reason that they do not believe in the spirit of democracy in any true sense but rather prefer to continue the current pretence of a five yearly popularity contest followed by a dictatorship that ignores the will of the people for five years while pretending to do the opposite.
We need to sweep away the dust that has gathered in the corridors of this mother of all parliaments as it is clear that Alzheimer's has set in...
Unfortunately our party leaders seem unaware of the real danger; Gordon Brown and Harriet Harman are still bumbling around wondering if MPs have broken the ludicrously lax rules they wrote for themselves while David Cameron has set off on his own, transparently selecting reforms which he believes will benefit his own party and calling for a general election, which is the last thing we need until the mess is sorted out.
Let us have all parties commited to genuinely independent control of MPs salaries and expenses, a ban on anyone who has acted improperly from running for any major party, fixed term parliaments and electoral reform - preferance voting in single member seats for the Commons and all the Lords elected by PR in multi member seats. Most of all, we need a written constitution which defines the role of each layer of the legislature.
I think they are becoming only TOO AWARE of the dangers they have got us all into! I think they are losing much body-weight out of various orifices, just panicking about who could control that nasty little system they have lavished so much of their time and our money in setting up!
This has been beyond foolish, and I hope they are really "getting" that too, though I still see Jacqui Schmidt trying to squeeze stuff out without due process. But I bet they hope we are lured by their blandishments to "maybe do something you folks want", so that we don't kiss them off for a *really* hungry pack of dogs out there!
They had be the real deal now, or its going to get fugly here.
1 Written Constitution
2 A Republic
3 Bill of Rights for 21st cent. life.
4 Independent Judiciary (Free from parliamentary selection)
5 Less MPs (in proportion for a small Island)
6 Referendum or plebicite before going to foreign wars and establishing public surveillance systems.
7 All Lobby Groups, which solicit Parliamentarians must be made known very publicly
8 Representative Candidates of Work experience from essential occupations (limited legal professionals).
9 Ability to remove Parliamentarians immediately by statute, for malpractice and lying to Parliament.
10 The power to impeach leaders for serious breaches of confidence (Blair as example).
11 Freedom from Religious Groups.
12 Commissions of Investigations to be independent and confined to a limited statutery period.
1/ reversal of the extreme attacks on our civil liberties imposed by this authoritarian government, starting with ID Cards, NIR and the storage of all our communications;
2/ proportionally elected MPs (elected by 50% or more votes);
3/ proportionally elected (from a list) Second Chamber;
4/ fixed-term parliaments (4 years);
5/ fewer MPs (about 400);
6/ MPs allowed a free vote on all issues (no bullying or bribing by whips);
7/ Second Chamber to sanction / reject Commons' bills;
8/ Second Chamber committees to scrutinise government actions;
9/ Second Chamber able to dissolve parliament;
10/ peerages to lose all political power;
11/ directly-elected Prime Minister;
12/ guaranteed, binding referenda on key sovereignty issues (eg. EU membership changes);
13/ clear separation of politics from judiciary (top judge not a politician).
anyway, that apart, as Frank Field has said, we need fully open primaries, and, as Helena Kennedy said last night on Ch 4 news, we need a genuine system of PR that doesn't involve party lists. We need, in short, for real people to be involved in politics, and for them to have some kind of qualification other than a blood or cash connection to a corrupt party system (when the 22 year old daughter of a spin doctor can be put up as PPC in a safe seat, you have to wonder what qualifications they think they need...)
we also must, must, must have a limit on donations and patronage, otherwise we'll find the fundamentalists of both sides of the Ibrahimic divide putting their nutjobs in parliament by sheer force of numbers and cash. I don't want to live under Sharia law or biblical edict, thank you, the current system would be better than that - and that's setting the bar pretty low.
1. All House of Commons appointments to be decided on secret free votes
2. A return to governments making announcements to Parliament first
3. All taxpayer spending to be freely available online (including spending from taxes in kind such as the BBC licence fee), with only a very limited list of exemptions (e.g. national security)
4. Rights of recall for local by-elections to be held
B. Governance Structures
1. The principle of subsiduarity to be applied to the national UK government, English county government, and to parish councils as well as to the EU
2. Negotiated application of British standards of transparency and accountability - as well as proper application of the subsiduarity principle - to the EU and all of its institutions.
3. Apply the same British principles on the EU to all other international organisations which the UK taxpayer government funds - e.g. UN
C. Responsibility
1. Remove the state from the provision of all services apart from those which employ people to use the power of the state (e.g. police, armed forces)
2. Empower voluntary organisations to help cater for the well-being of the nations people
3. Use the taxation system to address inequalities within the nation, with voluntary organisations gaining access to state money
D. The Costs of Living
1. All goods to be costed at their true cost - e.g. pollution, and land use too to be factored into transport mode costs
2. Remove the strait jacked on planning laws to allow property prices to fall; planning power to be at the parish council level. Laws and regulations no longer to discriminate against communal modes of residence.
3. Education to be reformed to place power with parents. The state no longer to discriminate against homeschooling or boarding education.
Considerations of voting reform and reform of the Lords would come later. Let us address the things that matter to Britain in terms of practicalities.