Electoral Reform – bring it on big time!
Streamline Voting Systems
I have one of each (more as the council is multimember).
- Councillor – elected by STV
- MSP (Scottish MP) – first past the post and party list combined
- MP – first past the post
- Lords – unelected, unrepresentative, why do we need the Lords Temporal this century.
All these should be on a form of PR, lists should be avoided – no one except the party activists chose them. STV seems fairest – we get to rank the order of people we would employ.
All constituencies should be multimember – see below for turnover of say one third every 2 years.
Fixed term for each layer – no date selection by politicians. Efficiency – with a number run on same date when possible.
Abolish the Lords – no more gifts of peerages or honours from politicians patting ecah other on the back, or those in the wider club.
We should be able to take a temperature check within the term of the administration – some councils have this; i.e. with say a third of seats elected, whilst another third is elected in two years. This then gives as clear ability for the people – it a government of the people for the people – not as you all tell 'a government for business' as all this actually means is that most politicians lose sight and profit from it; setting aside the principles and the real needs of the people they SERVE. In essence the 'parties' you form will have to keep an eye on their employer (us) or shareolders if that suits you better in UK Plc – with say a thirsd up for election in say c. 730 days. Like in the US representatives that we have delegated to members would effectively lose the party tag to some extent, and I hope the 'Whipping' would dissipate as it serves ONLY the parties' not the PEOPLE.
Some one needs to lead the nation – form the Executive, suggest an individual limited to 3 terms at the helm. Though they may lose members of the executive as people reject them mid-term as they are up in their third for re-election.
Reduce the number of MPs – our 60 million denizens of the oldest democracy do not need more than the 545 the worlds largets democracy with over a billion population. Larger constituencies with say 3 MPs in each – it will also gel broader communities this way (e.g. metropolitian as well as rural voters to balance in MP's mind).
As I understand the Indians also used electronic voting last time – our arrogance that British is always best and rarely needs to learn from around the world does not serve the people; negligence, the lack of dilligence, and disdain of their masters (that is us not the politicians) is the UK's key feature in the 21st century Wetsminister club.
Bicarmel system that is elected is still in my view best – but a small upper house, notably giving each of the UK's countries an equal weight (15 seats each for Scotalnd, N Ireland, Wales, and England). Providing a check – but with equal clout for each Home country.
Why does this idea matter?
We emphasise that we are the oldest democracy, yet those who should be dynamic in evolving it have shown over a prolonged period they do not want to trust the people or listen to them – economy with the truth and plausible deniability of the politicians have seen us lose interest; we think our vote and voice cannot change any thing.
US was denied democracy, women the vote, Indians democractic rights – no real proactive approach from Parliament, each had to assert its undeniable right. Elsewhere they have a will and step up to get the just structure that can work toward a better society for them – e.g S Africa, Burma, N Korea. Last century so did we for ourselves and others – 'the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there'. So must we in the UK now – as we all have a relatively comfortable cradle to grave existence we put up with the status quo and let them get away with it – unlike the previous experiences and those of US, WWII, Burma et al we do not risk our lives for the change we need.
The politicians all promise and fail to deliver – remember government's priorities are the ones we set it, there is no such thing as governement money its ours. Once in a while we kick them but then we let them back to their self serving, self regulating ways – why? we can't be bothered. ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP this must be an ongoing ethos we instil and maintain in ourselves.
These changes brings them back into the people's control, rebuilds faith, limits their lording it over their masters. They are offering us less – a pretence that they have changed, they will argue too much change is not good, the people will get confused and will not understand. WELL WE ALL UNDERSTOOD THE EXPENSES – THOUGH MPs OF ALL HUES WERE CONFUSED BY THIS SIMPLE PROCESS, THE ETHICS – AND PRETTY MUCH ALL HAVE GOT AWAY WITH IT. Don't let them get away with insubordination – we must grab the opportunity for us to claim back our rights as their management.
The hardest thing is to keep an eye and interest in things that will affect us. But day to day as we make a living, bring up families etc. we ignore the IMPACT of what they do / can do for us in the things that are important in our lives (and we need not all agree on everything) if we remain ACTIVE CITIZENS. These changes allow us to keep things front of mind without getting too involved and electing the dog catcher.