Just watched a repeat of this - my god we have got an antiquated, eccentric, backslapping, pathetic parliament that is all rehearsed, stage managed with lots of bullying of people.
It really does show how the whole Saville / "alleged MP rentboy abuse" could happen and be easily covered up.
|
|
100% agree Bobby, I found it rather depressing, antiquated belongs in a museum, not the engine of government which one would hope was modern, efficient and accountable.
|
Even the bit about voting by leaving and going into a yes or no room!
Its like being back at school when you all had to run to one side or another of the gym hall!
|
>> 100% agree Bobby, I found it rather depressing, antiquated belongs in a museum, not the
>> engine of government which one would hope was modern, efficient and accountable.
The commons has got nothing to do with the engine of government. When a party has a majority it doesn't need the commons to govern, you could shut it down - its superfluous.
The commons is the place for posturing and trying to get elected next time.
I can also tell you that if UKIP get any seats, they wont behave any differently to the others in there.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 7 Feb 15 at 22:43
|
|
Indeed - it is such a closed group that I don't think anyone could try and change any of the processes.
|
>>The commons has got nothing to do with the engine of government. When a party has a majority it doesn't need the commons to govern, you could shut it down - its superfluous.<<
They wouldnt have whips if a majority guaranteed winning a vote, majority party governments have lost votes in the past, even during the Blair years with a huge Labour majority.
Parliament is far more than just the Commons anyway, much of it not seen by the public so not sure what the point of posturing is.
|
>> 100% agree Bobby, I found it rather depressing, antiquated belongs in a museum, not the
>> engine of government which one would hope was modern, efficient and accountable.
>>
Ah, like the European Parliament?
|
>>Ah, like the European Parliament?<<
You think it is accountable? Gosh, you must be the only one, remind me when they last got the accounts signed off again?
|
No I don't. I was simply making the point that modern organisations are not without fault either. Tampering with machinery that has stood us in good stead for centuries is not something to be entered upon lightly.
You might end up with something very similar to the European Parliament
|
>>Tampering with machinery that has stood us in good stead for centuries is not something to be entered upon lightly
So as a starter for ten, is there not a better way of registering votes? Like a little button by their seat to get instant votes? Happens in plenty of tv studios?
|
And Cameron et al went on about how nervous PMQs were when in actual fact it then showed how rigged it was with easy questions from their own side?
Why should members of the same party as the PM be allowed to take up public time by asking him/her questions when they have internal procedures to facilitate this?
|
How about we have a national govt in charge of defence, security, trade policy, then we elect local representives like north west, south etc who have the power to raise reduce taxes, collect taxes, spend what needed on nhs, welfare and budget.
This way there is no need for party politics, they are irrelevant, does not fit in 21st century.
Its about decentralisation, getting the local people to vote, and contribute.
Also a monthly update on how things are progressing with majority of people voting on measures they feel is appropriate for the situation.
This alternative method will more likely reduce the communication gap and get people to contribute for their benefit.
scrap the house of lords, just have one house that is of the commons, to debate on new laws and amendment of laws
|
"So as a starter for ten, is there not a better way of registering votes? Like a little button by their seat to get instant votes? Happens in plenty of tv studios?"
Sounds simple but;
"You have to remember there are more MPS than seats. Where do standing MPS vote?"
Seats can be occupied by any MP. MPs would have to have an electronic identity and password to prevent fraudulent voting and to log on to the system
MPs can currently see how others are voting - how would you replicate this? Is it desirable that you do replicate it.
MPs not present for a debate can still vote but currently have to return to the chamber to do so. If voting electronically they presumably would not have to. Is this a good thing?
The lobbies are informal discussion areas where MPs meet and chat when voting. Would removing this forum have adverse affects on the political process?
Now these are just a few issues that occur to me that would need to be resolved for your, on the face of it, simple idea to be implemented. No doubt there are a lots more and 640 MPS would surely think of a few! At the end of the day the current system works and it is probably simpler just to leave alone, even if does appear old fashioned to an outside observer.
|
>>Tampering with machinery that has stood us in good stead for centuries is not something to be entered upon lightly <<
Agreed, but being afraid to tamper at all can lead us down an equally unwise path. I dont know what the solution is, but there are plenty of alternatives around the world that we can observe to see what they may do better. There are also democratic models used outside of government that can be looked at too.
|
I agree with everyone here.
What this country needs is to revert to the primal horde. Chaps in skins with flint axes throwing stones. That would show these jumped-up politicians, businessmen, intellectuals, officials and so on what's what.
Who needs an organised society? Wimps, women and children, that's who. Real men like you prats are better off without. Stands to reason dunnit?
I can't begin to say how disgusted I am with some of you. You really make a chap want to puke. Come on. Call me names, and squeal pathetically when I retaliate.
Yuck.
|
|
I wouldnt worry Bobby, change and the exchange of ideas terrifies some people so they attempt backhanded insults. Others do it to your face. As a member of a party alleged to be stuck in the 1950's, it amuses me that the ones insulting appear to be stuck in the 1750's when it comes down to it. Eh? Indeed.
|
>> As a member of a party
>> alleged to be stuck in the 1950's, it amuses me that the ones insulting appear
>> to be stuck in the 1750's when it comes down to it. Eh? Indeed.
It amuses me that the leader of the party you support exhibits the same behaviour* you decry and wish to change, albeit in the EU parliament.
*even to the extent of fiddling expenses
Eh? yes - same old same old.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 8 Feb 15 at 10:24
|
>> change and the exchange of ideas terrifies some people so they attempt backhanded insults. >> Others do it to your face.
Now that's what I would call a (feeble) attempt at a backhanded insult.
My own insults are fairly clear and direct:
'I can't begin to say how disgusted I am with some of you. You really make a chap want to puke.'
Perhaps you want usernames? You won't get them from me. Why get into personal squabbles over damn all?
|
I agree it usually seems like a schoolboy's rowdy debating society.
But just once in a generation it really comes into its own and holds a government to account. Read the accounts of the "Speak for England" debate in 1939.
|
>> I agree it usually seems like a schoolboy's rowdy debating society.
>> But just once in a generation it really comes into its own and holds a
>> government to account. Read the accounts of the "Speak for England" debate in 1939.
I was reminded of how useless parliament was in providing checks and balances after we went to war in Iraq on the back of the WOMD debate.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 8 Feb 15 at 15:59
|
In fact Parliament overwhelmingly fails to hold the executive to account. Z points to the Iraq war, a particularly egregious example in terms of its ongoing and still unknown consequences. There are plenty of examples in legislation too. The Community Charge and the first iteration of Child Support Legislation c 1992 are cases in point.
More useful work is done away from the floor of the house on the select committees. These were actually a Thatcher era innovation but it took some time for them to evolve into their current state. In the current parliament the Public Accounts Committee under Margaret Hodge, Justice under Alan Beith and Public Administration led by Bernard Jenkin (and in last Parliament Tony Wright) have done excellent work. Hodge has focussed on public expenditure. Justice and Public while the other two have ruthlessly pointed out deficiencies in ill thought out and under evidenced legislation.
Home affairs, in spite of the handicap of its Chair (Vaz) has done some impressive stuff too.
But while the Commons comprises, with a few honourable exceptions, whipped footsoldiers of whom far, far too many are on the payroll there's no chance of Ministers being held properly to account. Even now, in the dog days of the session with Liberals flexing their muscles and a resurgent tory right looking to life after Dave, the Elective Dictatorship functions largely as it ever did.
Only the Lords and the Judiciary, with the assistance of the Human Rights Act as a proxy constitution, provide some semblance of accountability.
|
Seems to me ministers can't be held very strictly to account. The job of governing is complicated - very - and constantly shifting about, so inevitably it is done in a rough, piecemeal, approximate fashion that can't be examined too closely by us punters.
It would be quite inconvenient if ministers were always being shot down in flames for ordinary trivial peculation and 'approximate' decisions. It would damage continuity, so-called, which means in effect ministers having some sort of idea of what they are supposed to be doing. Any minister who is especially venal and corrupt, or widely despised by colleagues, won't have a long career in government.
Of course mistakes (e.g. Iraq) and bad actions by governments are not unusual. Sometimes they're even 'necessary': Mrs Thatcher was helped a bit during the Falklands war by the hideous Chilean murderer Pinochet, whom she treated thereafter as a friend. She didn't give a damn what happened to foreigners, basically.
|
Commons programme - Stuu
