MP’s should be forced to attend Parliament

I find it disgraceful that MP's, paid by the taxpayers – for the people, leave the House of Commons whenever they feel like it and attend the House of Commons for hearings that they choose to – rather than required to.

It should take a school like feature, where MP's have to attend (unless impossible, through illness etc) or punishment will result.

Why is this idea important?

I find it disgraceful that MP's, paid by the taxpayers – for the people, leave the House of Commons whenever they feel like it and attend the House of Commons for hearings that they choose to – rather than required to.

It should take a school like feature, where MP's have to attend (unless impossible, through illness etc) or punishment will result.

Freedom to opt out

The actual idea of voting implies a transfer of power to the politicians.

 

democracy or this collectivist sham transfers power to one set of CAREER politicians or another and the INDIVIDUAL is left powerless.

While we have freedom to choose certain vital courses of action, like where or how we work, whom we choose to marry etc, the most important liberty of all is the right to opt out – not to be forced to finance a certain policy, not to subscribe to a certain policy.

 

It is this right or liberty which the current party system takes away.  See my website www.camrecon.demon.co.uk .  Liberty is also threatened because party politicians are not free to protect our liberties, which, as Lord Hailsham says on my website was their traditional role, and as they are part of the Executive and looking for promotion do as they are told too often.

The party system comprises a "package" of policies which you accept or reject ENTIRELY. It is this which destroys individual liberty, which is not just about money it is about social choices which are forced upon ius by anti-discriminatory legislation.  some freedom

Unless we separate the Executive from the Commons once again pretence at freedom is just a whitewash. 

Why is this idea important?

The actual idea of voting implies a transfer of power to the politicians.

 

democracy or this collectivist sham transfers power to one set of CAREER politicians or another and the INDIVIDUAL is left powerless.

While we have freedom to choose certain vital courses of action, like where or how we work, whom we choose to marry etc, the most important liberty of all is the right to opt out – not to be forced to finance a certain policy, not to subscribe to a certain policy.

 

It is this right or liberty which the current party system takes away.  See my website www.camrecon.demon.co.uk .  Liberty is also threatened because party politicians are not free to protect our liberties, which, as Lord Hailsham says on my website was their traditional role, and as they are part of the Executive and looking for promotion do as they are told too often.

The party system comprises a "package" of policies which you accept or reject ENTIRELY. It is this which destroys individual liberty, which is not just about money it is about social choices which are forced upon ius by anti-discriminatory legislation.  some freedom

Unless we separate the Executive from the Commons once again pretence at freedom is just a whitewash. 

The Midlothian Question

Either give English MPs the right to vote on purely Scottish matters or remove the right of Scottish MPs to vote on purely English matters

This needs to be addressed at once

Why is this idea important?

Either give English MPs the right to vote on purely Scottish matters or remove the right of Scottish MPs to vote on purely English matters

This needs to be addressed at once

Stop all laws where MPs/politicians are treated less restrictively

There are numerous laws created in Parliament in which MPs are treated more favourably than ordinary people.

 

An example is that which set a maximum cap on a pension fund – EXCEPT for MPs.

 

Another is the EU law which scrapped duty free on items within the EU unless you are an MEP or one of the EU staff.

 

All laws must apply to people equally.   In some cases there are situations whereby the politicians must be treated more harshly but NEVER less.

Why is this idea important?

There are numerous laws created in Parliament in which MPs are treated more favourably than ordinary people.

 

An example is that which set a maximum cap on a pension fund – EXCEPT for MPs.

 

Another is the EU law which scrapped duty free on items within the EU unless you are an MEP or one of the EU staff.

 

All laws must apply to people equally.   In some cases there are situations whereby the politicians must be treated more harshly but NEVER less.

Vote for prime minister.

A general election should consist of two votes, the first as it stands at the present to elect a local representative to the house of commons and a second to vote for the prime minister who should be standing seperaty from the constituency seats.

Why is this idea important?

A general election should consist of two votes, the first as it stands at the present to elect a local representative to the house of commons and a second to vote for the prime minister who should be standing seperaty from the constituency seats.

Abolish Elections !

Seriously, abolish Elections.

General Elections that is. I want freedom from short-term top-go management of the economy and politicians who support leaders and policies well past their sell-by dates because they know that if The Leader falls there will be a General Election, and thy too will fall.

Abolish crude system where an MP elected with a majority of 1 in a constituency where the vote was split 3 ways and turnout was low, has exactly the same weight as one with a clear absolute majority of the registered electorate.

Make votes cast against a guaranteed winner count for something.

Give supporters of a surefire winning party motivation to turn out or stay at home.

Here's how it works.

An MP elected with over 50% of the Registered Electorate is elected for 5 years.

An MP elected with 50% of the Votes Cast, but less than 50% of the Registered Electorate, is elected for 4 years.

An MP elected with less than 50% of the Votes Cast, for example where the vote is a Split Vote, is elected for 3 years,

In each calendar year there is a set Planned Election Day when MPs whose number of years is up see their constituents get another vote.  Usuallt this will be about the same time of year, but circumstances may make it sensible to change the date – floods, storms, volcanic ash, Olympics.

This way MPs who barely scape into Parliament can only claim a mandate for 3 years, ones who clearly represent their constituents can carry on for a full 5 years.  After each Mini-Election it would be clear if the previous Government still had a working majority.

Governments would change gradually, rather than do damaging full 180-degree turns every few years.

Voters would longer be afraid of voting the way they really want to. They might support a Party but loathe the local Candidate – today they vote for a candidate they loath because they don't want the other party to run the Country. In future they might be confident that whatever the result, the Government will not change in the next 12 months, allowing Local Voters to apply pressure to their Local Party to choose a candidate with Local Support rather than have a narrow clique of activists and Head Office impose a swivel-eyed idealogue.

In a typical year about 200 seats would be up for grabs, rather than the full 600-650. Poorly performing MPs and unpopular ones would soon get the message and work harder to represent their public. A strength of this idea is simplicity – apart from length of tenure, all MPs are equal – there are no fractional or weighted votes.

And if a Government totally fouled up and was unable to govern, there is nothing to stop a General Election being called, it just would not be routine and automatic. 3 years later gradualism would re-assert itself.

Make MPs more responive, stop abrupt policy reversals every 4 or 5 years. Elect MPs for variable terms.

Why is this idea important?

Seriously, abolish Elections.

General Elections that is. I want freedom from short-term top-go management of the economy and politicians who support leaders and policies well past their sell-by dates because they know that if The Leader falls there will be a General Election, and thy too will fall.

Abolish crude system where an MP elected with a majority of 1 in a constituency where the vote was split 3 ways and turnout was low, has exactly the same weight as one with a clear absolute majority of the registered electorate.

Make votes cast against a guaranteed winner count for something.

Give supporters of a surefire winning party motivation to turn out or stay at home.

Here's how it works.

An MP elected with over 50% of the Registered Electorate is elected for 5 years.

An MP elected with 50% of the Votes Cast, but less than 50% of the Registered Electorate, is elected for 4 years.

An MP elected with less than 50% of the Votes Cast, for example where the vote is a Split Vote, is elected for 3 years,

In each calendar year there is a set Planned Election Day when MPs whose number of years is up see their constituents get another vote.  Usuallt this will be about the same time of year, but circumstances may make it sensible to change the date – floods, storms, volcanic ash, Olympics.

This way MPs who barely scape into Parliament can only claim a mandate for 3 years, ones who clearly represent their constituents can carry on for a full 5 years.  After each Mini-Election it would be clear if the previous Government still had a working majority.

Governments would change gradually, rather than do damaging full 180-degree turns every few years.

Voters would longer be afraid of voting the way they really want to. They might support a Party but loathe the local Candidate – today they vote for a candidate they loath because they don't want the other party to run the Country. In future they might be confident that whatever the result, the Government will not change in the next 12 months, allowing Local Voters to apply pressure to their Local Party to choose a candidate with Local Support rather than have a narrow clique of activists and Head Office impose a swivel-eyed idealogue.

In a typical year about 200 seats would be up for grabs, rather than the full 600-650. Poorly performing MPs and unpopular ones would soon get the message and work harder to represent their public. A strength of this idea is simplicity – apart from length of tenure, all MPs are equal – there are no fractional or weighted votes.

And if a Government totally fouled up and was unable to govern, there is nothing to stop a General Election being called, it just would not be routine and automatic. 3 years later gradualism would re-assert itself.

Make MPs more responive, stop abrupt policy reversals every 4 or 5 years. Elect MPs for variable terms.

Lobby Groups With Power Are Killing Democracy

SOURCE:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-demand-an-increase-in-the-minimum-price-of-alcohol-1861401.html

The drinks industry depends for its profits on people drinking harmfully or hazardously who between them consume three-quarters of all the alcohol sold in Britain, a committee of MPs will say today. Accusing ministers of a "failure of will" over controlling the industry, they will point out that if people drank responsibly, within the limits advised by medical organisations, sales of alcohol would plummet by 40 per cent.

But health warnings about the dangers of excessive drinking are drowned out by an industry that peddles myths to promote its sales, according to the MPs. In a scathing analysis of the stranglehold which the drinks industry has over the Government and the nation, the all-party Commons health select committee will accuse ministers of cosying up to the firms that dominate the market.

It calls for tough measures to curb alcohol consumption, including a minimum price of at least 40p per unit compared with supermarket prices that are as low as 10p a unit, a rise in duty, independent regulation of alcohol promotion and mandatory labelling.

The idea of a minimum price, aimed principally at supermarket promotions where beer can cost less than water, was first raised by the Government's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson last year but was immediately rejected by Gordon Brown because, he claimed, it would penalise moderate drinkers.

The health committee will flatly reject this argument as a myth fostered by the alcohol lobby, saying that at 40p a unit it would cost a moderate drinker consuming the average six units weekly (three pints of ordinary bitter) 11p more a week than at present. A woman drinking 15 units a week, equivalent to one and a quarter bottles of wine, could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6.

Kevin Barron, chairman of the committee said: "The facts about alcohol are shocking. Successive governments have failed to tackle the problem and it is now time for bold government. Even small reductions in the number of people using alcohol could save the NHS millions. What is required is fundamental cultural change. Only this way are we likely to reduce the dangerous numbers of young people drinking their lives away."

One in 10 of the population consumes almost half (44 per cent) of all the alcohol drunk. Consumption has soared in recent decades and three times as much is now drunk per head as in the middle of the last century. Alcohol is estimated to cause 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year.

 

It is calculated that a minimum price of 50p a unit would save more than 3,000 lives a year. But the response of successive governments had "ranged from the non-existent to the ineffectual", the committee will say.

Simon Litherland, managing director of Diageo GB, the world's largest beer, wine and spirits firm, said: "This report represents yet another attempt by aggressive sections of the health lobby to hijack alcohol policy-making."

Public health minister Gillian Merron said: "Alcohol is an increasing challenge to people's health – we are working hard to reverse the trend and are constantly seeking better ways to tackle it."

Why is this idea important?

SOURCE:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-demand-an-increase-in-the-minimum-price-of-alcohol-1861401.html

The drinks industry depends for its profits on people drinking harmfully or hazardously who between them consume three-quarters of all the alcohol sold in Britain, a committee of MPs will say today. Accusing ministers of a "failure of will" over controlling the industry, they will point out that if people drank responsibly, within the limits advised by medical organisations, sales of alcohol would plummet by 40 per cent.

But health warnings about the dangers of excessive drinking are drowned out by an industry that peddles myths to promote its sales, according to the MPs. In a scathing analysis of the stranglehold which the drinks industry has over the Government and the nation, the all-party Commons health select committee will accuse ministers of cosying up to the firms that dominate the market.

It calls for tough measures to curb alcohol consumption, including a minimum price of at least 40p per unit compared with supermarket prices that are as low as 10p a unit, a rise in duty, independent regulation of alcohol promotion and mandatory labelling.

The idea of a minimum price, aimed principally at supermarket promotions where beer can cost less than water, was first raised by the Government's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson last year but was immediately rejected by Gordon Brown because, he claimed, it would penalise moderate drinkers.

The health committee will flatly reject this argument as a myth fostered by the alcohol lobby, saying that at 40p a unit it would cost a moderate drinker consuming the average six units weekly (three pints of ordinary bitter) 11p more a week than at present. A woman drinking 15 units a week, equivalent to one and a quarter bottles of wine, could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6.

Kevin Barron, chairman of the committee said: "The facts about alcohol are shocking. Successive governments have failed to tackle the problem and it is now time for bold government. Even small reductions in the number of people using alcohol could save the NHS millions. What is required is fundamental cultural change. Only this way are we likely to reduce the dangerous numbers of young people drinking their lives away."

One in 10 of the population consumes almost half (44 per cent) of all the alcohol drunk. Consumption has soared in recent decades and three times as much is now drunk per head as in the middle of the last century. Alcohol is estimated to cause 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year.

 

It is calculated that a minimum price of 50p a unit would save more than 3,000 lives a year. But the response of successive governments had "ranged from the non-existent to the ineffectual", the committee will say.

Simon Litherland, managing director of Diageo GB, the world's largest beer, wine and spirits firm, said: "This report represents yet another attempt by aggressive sections of the health lobby to hijack alcohol policy-making."

Public health minister Gillian Merron said: "Alcohol is an increasing challenge to people's health – we are working hard to reverse the trend and are constantly seeking better ways to tackle it."

Repeal all funding to ‘charities’ who lobby (ASH in particular)

Before it's suggested that this idea would be better placed on the spending challenge website, I believe it's essential that it's debated openly on this site – as it relates specifically to democracy and freedom.

 

To quote the website: Rules in society create good law and order. But too many nannying, unnecessary rules restrict freedom and make criminals out of ordinary people.

 

I'd therefore suggest that this idea sits best on this forum, as funding groups with public money, who then lobby politicians is restricting freedoms and making criminals of ordinary people.

Both areas that this site is specifically set up to combat.

 

Additionally, providing funding to these kind of groups is undemocratic – they aren't elected, and serve their own mandate. (ASH receives funding from the Department of Health).

 

To quote from an article written by them: It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we "knew" we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side.

 

The full article can be read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

 

Not content with admitted confidence tricks, they also try to create the impression that any suggestion of compromise with the current smoking ban is being orchestrated by the tobacco industry – thus trying to undermine the legitimate debate and voice of smokers everywhere. See http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820 and another idea on this site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/time-to-review-the-libel-laws

 

I therefore submit that this idea fits perfectly with 'freedom' in a democratic country, as any unelected group having political sway should be closely examined.

Why is this idea important?

Before it's suggested that this idea would be better placed on the spending challenge website, I believe it's essential that it's debated openly on this site – as it relates specifically to democracy and freedom.

 

To quote the website: Rules in society create good law and order. But too many nannying, unnecessary rules restrict freedom and make criminals out of ordinary people.

 

I'd therefore suggest that this idea sits best on this forum, as funding groups with public money, who then lobby politicians is restricting freedoms and making criminals of ordinary people.

Both areas that this site is specifically set up to combat.

 

Additionally, providing funding to these kind of groups is undemocratic – they aren't elected, and serve their own mandate. (ASH receives funding from the Department of Health).

 

To quote from an article written by them: It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we "knew" we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side.

 

The full article can be read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

 

Not content with admitted confidence tricks, they also try to create the impression that any suggestion of compromise with the current smoking ban is being orchestrated by the tobacco industry – thus trying to undermine the legitimate debate and voice of smokers everywhere. See http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820 and another idea on this site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/time-to-review-the-libel-laws

 

I therefore submit that this idea fits perfectly with 'freedom' in a democratic country, as any unelected group having political sway should be closely examined.

No more MPs changing parties

MPs should not be allowed to change party midterm without having to face another election within a short period of time. It should not be possible for an MP to switch from say Labour to Conservative whip without having to win local election on the new arrangement first. This seems to happen a couple of time in each four year parliament and is an afront to democracy. 

Whilst purists will argue that you elect the MP, and they are free to choose their party, and the party is free to choose the Prime minister. The reality is few know or care who the MP actually is, they vote for their party of choice and who they want to be Prime Minister, not the person themselves.

Why is this idea important?

MPs should not be allowed to change party midterm without having to face another election within a short period of time. It should not be possible for an MP to switch from say Labour to Conservative whip without having to win local election on the new arrangement first. This seems to happen a couple of time in each four year parliament and is an afront to democracy. 

Whilst purists will argue that you elect the MP, and they are free to choose their party, and the party is free to choose the Prime minister. The reality is few know or care who the MP actually is, they vote for their party of choice and who they want to be Prime Minister, not the person themselves.

MPs Pay and expenses

MPs should have a basic pay with minimum expenses i.e: only second rail fares (any first or special travel is paid for by themselves, as ordinary folk do)  All food and decorating expenses are paid by the MP as ours are.  Only official duties may be claimed for and all expenses must be scrutinised.

Why is this idea important?

MPs should have a basic pay with minimum expenses i.e: only second rail fares (any first or special travel is paid for by themselves, as ordinary folk do)  All food and decorating expenses are paid by the MP as ours are.  Only official duties may be claimed for and all expenses must be scrutinised.

End party politics.

Due to the advent of coalition politics there has been some concern in the house oc commons that any new bill presented would not be made law due to the fragmentation of opinion across the house. I would assert that this should bethe new democracy where there is an end to party politics and each bill is presented as a result of prevailing public opinion and would reach a majority according too the overwhelming individual opinions of members of the house. The closer we get to proportional representation, the closer we get to MP's becoming people rather than parties and the closer we get to real public opinion being replicated in our politics. 

Why is this idea important?

Due to the advent of coalition politics there has been some concern in the house oc commons that any new bill presented would not be made law due to the fragmentation of opinion across the house. I would assert that this should bethe new democracy where there is an end to party politics and each bill is presented as a result of prevailing public opinion and would reach a majority according too the overwhelming individual opinions of members of the house. The closer we get to proportional representation, the closer we get to MP's becoming people rather than parties and the closer we get to real public opinion being replicated in our politics. 

Get a more representitive House of Commons

There are efforts to get more women, ethnic minority and disabled MPs. All of these things are beyond the control of the person involved. i.e. you do not choose your gender, ethnicity or physical ability. So why is there no push to get more people from disadvantaged backgrounds?

Why is this idea important?

There are efforts to get more women, ethnic minority and disabled MPs. All of these things are beyond the control of the person involved. i.e. you do not choose your gender, ethnicity or physical ability. So why is there no push to get more people from disadvantaged backgrounds?

Abolish the Parliamentary Whip

The Parliamentary Whip should be abolished. If people belong to a part, it should be because they are ideologically in tune with the other members. This should guide their vote, not the threat of sanctions.

Why is this idea important?

The Parliamentary Whip should be abolished. If people belong to a part, it should be because they are ideologically in tune with the other members. This should guide their vote, not the threat of sanctions.

MPs Pay

MPs should be paid the previous years average income of the people they represent. It is critical that the unemployed, incapacitated and retired are also included in the calculations.

Why is this idea important?

MPs should be paid the previous years average income of the people they represent. It is critical that the unemployed, incapacitated and retired are also included in the calculations.

Give parliamentary representation to those people in constituencies where their MP does not take the oath of allegiance

Representation should be given in parliament to people who are in constituencies where the winning candidate does not stand in parliament. Even though they may have won with a majority and constituents may know they will not stand in the commons, those people who did not vote for the winner will not be represented.

Perhaps representation could be given by MPs from neighbouring constituencies in the form of surgeries and questions to be asked. Either way, representation is the important issue here.

Why is this idea important?

Representation should be given in parliament to people who are in constituencies where the winning candidate does not stand in parliament. Even though they may have won with a majority and constituents may know they will not stand in the commons, those people who did not vote for the winner will not be represented.

Perhaps representation could be given by MPs from neighbouring constituencies in the form of surgeries and questions to be asked. Either way, representation is the important issue here.

pension ideas

I think the govnment should scrap the NEST pension system as it is a bad idea to pay for your own pension also increasing the retirenment age to 70 from 65 how stupid who wants a 70 year old brick layer to build there house ? lets get real heer.

Why is this idea important?

I think the govnment should scrap the NEST pension system as it is a bad idea to pay for your own pension also increasing the retirenment age to 70 from 65 how stupid who wants a 70 year old brick layer to build there house ? lets get real heer.

Prostitution within Parliament

Being in Parliament members must disclose second jobs and earnings, therefore how is it the Liberal Democrats have not disclosed  this to Parliament.  They are taking monies for services they are selling and profiteering by doing so.  The  Conservatives are buying their services to satisfy their demands whilst the Liberal Democrats are taking payment with enhanced positions within Parliamentary framework, THIS IS PROSTITUTION and IS AGAINST THE LAW, I would like to see the police and CPS now getting involved and charges brought  against all those involved.

Why is this idea important?

Being in Parliament members must disclose second jobs and earnings, therefore how is it the Liberal Democrats have not disclosed  this to Parliament.  They are taking monies for services they are selling and profiteering by doing so.  The  Conservatives are buying their services to satisfy their demands whilst the Liberal Democrats are taking payment with enhanced positions within Parliamentary framework, THIS IS PROSTITUTION and IS AGAINST THE LAW, I would like to see the police and CPS now getting involved and charges brought  against all those involved.

Removal of Subsidised Food and Drink in public sector

As we are all in this together in this age of austerity and suffering, I see it as obvious that the subsidies offered to MP's, Local Representatives and all attached parties in the area of food and drink should be immediately removed. this is an unnecessary expense and can save National and Local Government significant money.

Why is this idea important?

As we are all in this together in this age of austerity and suffering, I see it as obvious that the subsidies offered to MP's, Local Representatives and all attached parties in the area of food and drink should be immediately removed. this is an unnecessary expense and can save National and Local Government significant money.

Slimming down!

Thirty years ago, all British legislation was generated by Westminster and constructed and approved by 650 Members of Parliament, with about 200 active Lords to check.

Now, 70% of British legislation originates in EU bureaucracy, only to be checked through by 650 MPs and about as many Lords, many of them placemen by the government of the day.

The imperative of reducing the burden of government could be achieved by:

1.  Contracting with the people of Britain that, for every new law passed in the next 20 years, TWO existing laws of equal weight and effect will be revised, assimilated or abolished, with the intention of making the laws of Britain fewer, clearer, more concise, fairer and less oppressive.

2.  Recognising the diminishing role of Westminster, MP numbers will be progressively reduced over 20 years until one elected MP represents 200,000 people (whether on a constituency or regional basis doesn't matter too much).   Lords should all be elected from regional lists on the same numerical basis from amongst life, purchased and hereditary peers, but offering 'expertise' and 'local interest', not party affiliation, to justify election. 

Why is this idea important?

Thirty years ago, all British legislation was generated by Westminster and constructed and approved by 650 Members of Parliament, with about 200 active Lords to check.

Now, 70% of British legislation originates in EU bureaucracy, only to be checked through by 650 MPs and about as many Lords, many of them placemen by the government of the day.

The imperative of reducing the burden of government could be achieved by:

1.  Contracting with the people of Britain that, for every new law passed in the next 20 years, TWO existing laws of equal weight and effect will be revised, assimilated or abolished, with the intention of making the laws of Britain fewer, clearer, more concise, fairer and less oppressive.

2.  Recognising the diminishing role of Westminster, MP numbers will be progressively reduced over 20 years until one elected MP represents 200,000 people (whether on a constituency or regional basis doesn't matter too much).   Lords should all be elected from regional lists on the same numerical basis from amongst life, purchased and hereditary peers, but offering 'expertise' and 'local interest', not party affiliation, to justify election.