If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
No Party system
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I think that MP's should all be independent, representing the views of their constituants only. Scrap all the political parties and you can have fair votes on key issues without the use of the whips and purely on the consience of the MP and/or what their constituants want.
Prime Minister/Presidential elections can take place seperatly. Parliament nominates the candidates amongst themselves (maybe a minimum of 20 signatures in favour of their candidacy) and they vote this list down to 5 or 6, who then go canvassing to win the publics vote.
To avoid despots a unchangeble written constitution will ensure and guarentee the powers of all the different layers of government and ensure the Prime Minister/President does not abuse the powers he/she is given.
The Cabinet will be hand picked by the Prime Minister as now.
I think this will open up clear and honest debates, more cooperation between elected representitives to provide the best deal for the people of Britain not ideologies. The Prime Minister will be completly accountable to the public who voted them in and any member of parliament can question the decisions of the cabinet or Prime Minister directly without fear of concequences.
I can always dream.
Prime Minister/Presidential elections can take place seperatly. Parliament nominates the candidates amongst themselves (maybe a minimum of 20 signatures in favour of their candidacy) and they vote this list down to 5 or 6, who then go canvassing to win the publics vote.
To avoid despots a unchangeble written constitution will ensure and guarentee the powers of all the different layers of government and ensure the Prime Minister/President does not abuse the powers he/she is given.
The Cabinet will be hand picked by the Prime Minister as now.
I think this will open up clear and honest debates, more cooperation between elected representitives to provide the best deal for the people of Britain not ideologies. The Prime Minister will be completly accountable to the public who voted them in and any member of parliament can question the decisions of the cabinet or Prime Minister directly without fear of concequences.
I can always dream.
0
Comments
My dad once suggested removing party names from ballot papers. That way, people are voting for an MP, not for a party.
Unfortunately that is what my country is supposed to be founded upon and anyone can see how often its been reinterpreted by our Supreme Court and also how it has failed to prevent authoritarian powermongers from undermining its guarantees in order to fraudulently remove voting rights from thousands of decent Americans and to set up a stazi-styled police state.
With or without a written constitution, without constant public scrutiny any democratic system can fall to tyranny.
good dream mate but ...in order to dream you gotta still be asleep.
lol, I have to concede that you have a point.
I fully agree with the original poster that the party political system is a failure in the sense that the whips encourge people to forget the issue in favour of party loyalty and strength.
Every party MP must feel that their own success is linked to that of the party. I don't think the party system needs to be scrapped but revolutionised with whips abolished, the parties more a guide to individual ideology, a cabinet formed from all MPs in the commons and the votes of individual MPs publicised to the their constituents so that the voters can decide if they are suitably represented.
The issue is more prominant currently as a result of the huge labour parliamentary majority. We as voters need to listen to our own words, voting on issues instead of old 'family' allegiances, as so many do. All Governments become unpopular by governing. Give it time.
With no whips in the parties, how would legislation be passed?? Would ALL votes be 'free votes'?
As for an 'unchangeable' written constitution, what the fuck?? Times change. Ergo, the constitution should be altered to adapt to changing times and circumstances. I agree that maybe it should be DIFFICULT to alter, but to be unalterable is folly in my opinion.
Legislation would be passed on its merits. Each individual would consider the proposal and decide if they were for or against it. Failed proposals would be adjusted and resubmitted if necessary as now.
A minimum turn out of say 50% would be required by all elected MPs for a result to be valid. If a legislation reading failed to achieve such a turn out the whips would require every MP to vote on the issue or be punished, though they would still be free to vote either way on the issue.
I don't see a problem with this. What's yours?
I think the presidential comparison comes from the need under a new system for an individual to chosen through parliamentary and democratic methods to be in a position to make major spur of the moment or agenda decisions rather than a party being responsible.
Tony does it already, so yeah, pretty much the same.
I think the public should also get an input into the cabinet members with a shortlist being put to public vote for each cabinet post. I'm not sure how well this particular part of the proposal would work. I'm willing to look at options.
Blair is called presidential because of his prime-ministerial style; he doesn't properly consult with the Cabinet which by convention he is supposed to.
Suggestion accepted.
I sometimes wish I'd taken a degree in Politics instead of this science crap I'll never use.
No it isn't, perhaps you should look into why the bureaucratic approach was adopted by business... I think Fayol is the man you need to research, but my memory isn't what it was.
The two aspects yourefer to are not sybiotic relationships...
Fayol and Taylor are different aspects of Management Theory, although interesting they don't offer much to this debate...
The main block to people voting for minority parties is that the vote is "wasted"- a minority party cannot exert influence if only 3% of each constituency votes for it, but a 3% vote nationally could be quitye significant in tight Parliamentary votes.
I'd think that too if I had to study on the Science Site