By meaningful manifestos. None are worth the paper they are written on, but ones that have integrity and a party committed to them. Pipe dream I know
Non starter practically speaking. Look at the way Theresa May had to give the Unionists about a billion quid to keep them onside because she had a tiny majority. Coalition governments would be the result and they never go well, though in theory they shouldNot really mate, it's the least we should expect isn't it? What would happen if we removed political parties and had a chaotic Parliament?
Would having a house of independents be a start or would that be a non starter?
Non starter practically speaking. Look at the way Theresa May had to give the Unionists about a billion quid to keep them onside because she had a tiny majority. Coalition governments would be the result and they never go well, though in theory they should
I’m glad you put that out which confirms that it’s not only the PM who has fucked everything up, it’s the Conservative Party as a whole.We don't vote for Prime Ministers or leaders of political parties unless you are a member of said party.
When a Government is elected to govern, IT is the one that delegates policy, and amongst their number they choose who to lead the party/Government. They then become the representative minister of said party or the 'prime' minister, if in Government and Leader of the Opposition if they lead the party with the second highest number of representatives. Parliament is Sovereign, not the Prime Minister, which is why we vote on Members of Parliament.
TL:DR: We don't vote for One Leader, we elect representatives for our constituency to Parliament. People seriously need to get over themselves and this 'I dIdN'T VoTe FoR ThEm! OuR DeMoCrAcY iS cOrRuPt' nonsense attitude.
The monarch chooses the prime minister.We don't vote for Prime Ministers or leaders of political parties unless you are a member of said party.
When a Government is elected to govern, IT is the one that delegates policy, and amongst their number they choose who to lead the party/Government. They then become the representative minister of said party or the 'prime' minister, if in Government and Leader of the Opposition if they lead the party with the second highest number of representatives. Parliament is Sovereign, not the Prime Minister, which is why we vote on Members of Parliament.
TL:DR: We don't vote for One Leader, we elect representatives for our constituency to Parliament. People seriously need to get over themselves and this 'I dIdN'T VoTe FoR ThEm! OuR DeMoCrAcY iS cOrRuPt' nonsense attitude.
There will always be an excuse for not doing something in a manifesto though. Especially as the opposition party. "We wanted to do this, but now we've had a proper look at the finances..." Or the classic "Circumstances have changed."By meaningful manifestos. None are worth the paper they are written on, but ones that have integrity and a party committed to them. Pipe dream I know
You say coalitions never go well but the government we had from 2010 to 2015 was far better and less reactionary than this shit show. They work elsewhere. Germany bring a case in point. In fact opponents of coalition governments always used to point to Italy as an example of the coalition system being ineffectual- oh how we once laughed at the unstable political basket-case of Italy.Non starter practically speaking. Look at the way Theresa May had to give the Unionists about a billion quid to keep them onside because she had a tiny majority. Coalition governments would be the result and they never go well, though in theory they should
If I was making the decision I would require all MP’s to be independent. The current system is a complete lie. MPs are supposed to represent the best interests of their constituents, but they don’t. This is absolute bullshit. They almost exclusively vote along party lines, irrespective of the best interests of their constituents. This new system would lead to a dramatic increase in the standard and character of MPs who would be elected to represent their constituents based on those qualities, not which party they were affiliated to - and would mean that MP’s would have a much greater sense of public duty than is presently the case.Not really mate, it's the least we should expect isn't it? What would happen if we removed political parties and had a chaotic Parliament?
Would having a house of independents be a start or would that be a non starter?
You say coalitions never go well but the government we had from 2010 to 2015 was far better and less reactionary than this shit show. They work elsewhere. Germany bring a case in point. In fact opponents of coalition governments always used to point to Italy as an example of the coalition system being ineffectual- oh how we once laughed at the unstable political basket-case of Italy.
We certainly have absolutely no right to pontificate to any other democratic nation about the way they organise their politics any more. We are probably on a par with the US and Israel for having fundamentally flawed political systems.The Fragile States Index (which has its flaws but is broadly useful) is dominated at the good end (most stable) by countries that use PR and often have coalitions running the country. I'm sure after a bit of practice we could join significant swathes of the world in behaving like grown ups when it comes to our politics.
The way the Conservative Party allowed the PM to be appointed via the process indicates that extremists within that Party have taken control of said process.I’m glad you put that out which confirms that it’s not only the PM who has fucked everything up, it’s the Conservative Party as a whole.
Time for the electorate to put that right and get rid of these grubby cunts.
If I was making the decision I would require all MP’s to be independent. The current system is a complete lie. MPs are supposed to represent the best interests of their constituents, but they don’t. This is absolute bullshit. They almost exclusively vote along party lines, irrespective of the best interests of their constituents. This new system would lead to a dramatic increase in the standard and character of MPs who would be elected to represent their constituents based on those qualities, not which party they were affiliated to - and would mean that MP’s would have a much greater sense of public duty than is presently the case.
There is absolutely no point in tinkering around the edges with our political system. It is fucked and plainly unfit for purpose. It requires huge, decisive and structural reform to start working again. It requires a revolutionary approach if it it to start serving the people of this country, which it plainly presently is not.
How can anyone watch the fucking farce that is PMQs and not think that the whole thing needs breaking down and rebuilding?
There are many coalition governments aroud Europe and the world, they all seem to run better than ours.Non starter practically speaking. Look at the way Theresa May had to give the Unionists about a billion quid to keep them onside because she had a tiny majority. Coalition governments would be the result and they never go well, though in theory they should
The Fragile States Index (which has its flaws but is broadly useful) is dominated at the good end (most stable) by countries that use PR and often have coalitions running the country. I'm sure after a bit of practice we could join significant swathes of the world in behaving like grown ups when it comes to our politics.
That NIMBY-ism would only (and arguably quite properly) be restricted to those particular constituencies though, so the overall vote would reflect the nation’s best interests.I agree it’s totally broken. The only problem I foresee with your proposed model is that it would likely result in a lot of NIMBY-style protectionism. I can’t imagine national infrastructure projects ever getting off the ground if they need the tacit agreement of a bunch of independents who don’t want new train lines ruining their constituencies. Who would design a national strategy if everybody were independent?
As much as I’m all for syndication and decentralisation of power, some centralised power is required to actually build the country towards a greater “vision”.
I think we need parties, but we need PR and we also need a second chamber of unelected technocrats who are in the top fraction of a percent of their field. No hereditary Lords. We also need to find ways at every turn to remove private interests and lobbying from politics. I’d start there. That’s already a lot to achieve, but if you manage it we’re in a far better place than we are now.
If most areas are affluent, why wouldn't their MPs vote to keep it that way?If I was making the decision I would require all MP’s to be independent. The current system is a complete lie. MPs are supposed to represent the best interests of their constituents, but they don’t. This is absolute bullshit. They almost exclusively vote along party lines, irrespective of the best interests of their constituents. This new system would lead to a dramatic increase in the standard and character of MPs who would be elected to represent their constituents based on those qualities, not which party they were affiliated to - and would mean that MP’s would have a much greater sense of public duty than is presently the case.
There is absolutely no point in tinkering around the edges with our political system. It is fucked and plainly unfit for purpose. It requires huge, decisive and structural reform to start working again. It requires a revolutionary approach if it it to start serving the people of this country, which it plainly presently is not.
How can anyone watch the fucking farce that is PMQs and not think that the whole thing needs breaking down and rebuilding?
Wasn’t that how Corbyn seized control of Labour? Through the unions.The way the Conservative Party allowed the PM to be appointed via the process indicates that extremists within that Party have taken control of said process.
Was Liz Truss really the best material for the top post?
We are probably on a par with the US and Israel for having fundamentally flawed political systems.
Wasn’t that how Corbyn seized control of Labour? Through the unions.
Don’t go down the name calling route. It shows how woefully out of your depth you really are.Obsessed?
Corbyn wasn't PM. He was also elected by an overwhelming majority of voters both times.
He won because ran on an anti austerity ticket you fruitloop.