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.

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.

house of lords: allocate peerages like jury service

The current system: http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/

My repeal would not be to the system but to its workload, by trialling another system.

Allocate one jurer in a million a life peerage, or some variation on this theme:

  • the oldest child of one jurer in a million
     
  • the elected top 50% of a group of randomly chosen jurers, if 50% stand for life peerage in a mainly online and TV hustings system.
     
  • the system that arrises after a few trials of different ideas as above and popular comment. It could be that some of these new lords, like pools winners, wish they never had the chance to make fools of themselves and have suggestions for changing the system more.
     
  • hereditary peers who have been refused their former membership, and have below average income or have an unusual career, possibly with a change to old laws to make peerages unisex. This last idea is coming from a different direction but you get the gist of the first few.

Why is this idea important?

The current system: http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/

My repeal would not be to the system but to its workload, by trialling another system.

Allocate one jurer in a million a life peerage, or some variation on this theme:

  • the oldest child of one jurer in a million
     
  • the elected top 50% of a group of randomly chosen jurers, if 50% stand for life peerage in a mainly online and TV hustings system.
     
  • the system that arrises after a few trials of different ideas as above and popular comment. It could be that some of these new lords, like pools winners, wish they never had the chance to make fools of themselves and have suggestions for changing the system more.
     
  • hereditary peers who have been refused their former membership, and have below average income or have an unusual career, possibly with a change to old laws to make peerages unisex. This last idea is coming from a different direction but you get the gist of the first few.

The PM and should lead by example

It has always amazed me why we need so many MPs we have more MPs than the USA has senators. Why does city need more than one MP?

Make the first cuts to the public sector by cutting MPs. He says they will cut 50 MPs we have yet to see this. Also I feel MPs should be cut by at least 50%

Why is this idea important?

It has always amazed me why we need so many MPs we have more MPs than the USA has senators. Why does city need more than one MP?

Make the first cuts to the public sector by cutting MPs. He says they will cut 50 MPs we have yet to see this. Also I feel MPs should be cut by at least 50%

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."

A House Of Lords Reform Proposal

The chief aim of my proposals is to make a transition to a different form of second chamber, on the threefold principle that:

a) Such a transition needs to be a reasonably painless, evolutionary process.

b) Such a transition needs to produce a more effective, 'slim-line' revising chamber.

c) Such a transition needs to produce a chamber which contains a more interesting and varied mix of members.

Taking these three principles together, we need to take steps which will, so to speak, throw out the bath-water, but not the baby … and, to stretch the analogy a little, create space for some fresh water, too:

Step One:

Retain current arrangements for Hereditaries and Bishops. Automatically grant a life-peerage to all members of the supreme court ; who become entitled to sit in the Lords (as Law Lords) upon their retirement from the court.

Step Two:

A Bill placing a limit on the total number of peers there can be (whether sitting in the Lords or not), at any one time. I suggest 1750 people.

Step Three:

The Life Peers to select 25% of their numbers to sit in the Lords (the remaining 'pool' of Life Peers could, like the pool of Hereditaries, be voted back into the chamber, upon the death of a sitting Life Peer).

Step Four:

100 New Category Peers, selected entirely at random, maybe by a form of national lottery, phased in 20 per year. Replaced one at a time, on the death of one of their number.

Democracy is good, but so also is a link with our history as a nation (which the already much-depleted 'Lords Spiritual' help to provide). Our main focus should be on the house continuing to do what it does best, and strengthening and improving upon those things. There is no public clamour now for the complete removal of the Hereditaries. It is the number of Life Peers which is becoming unwieldy. Meanwhile, the introduction of Random 'Jury' Peers would be a simple and direct way of engaging the general public in parliamentary business.

It would be good to get a bit more 'randomism' in public life. What a delightful thing it would be, and what a boost to public interest in politics, if, say, the local bin-man was suddenly ennobled, under my system. Certainly, the presence of these 'Jury Peers' would go a long way to making the 'feel' of the second chamber much less elitist.

For clarity, a Lords 'Lottery Winner' would have so many days (I'm open to suggestions on how many) to accept, in writing, the offer of a seat. Obviously, those who were going to find it too disruptive to their lives would most likely not bother to respond, which would be taken as declining the offer ~ with the offer passed on to the next on the list.


New entrants of this sort could well be over-awed to begin with, but I think they would soon get into the swing of things … and before long, they would find themselves mentoring the next batch of entrants.


The possibility of dangerous/criminal/extreme types getting in there should be covered by clear proceedural rules in the house, and the law of the land, as and when any problems arise. I wouldn't want there to be any pre-vetting as such, because the virtue of the random intake is it's potential to bring forward some real free thinkers. This free thinking is enshrined by life-long occupation of the seat.


The opt-out that I mentioned earlier assumes that those who take their seats will want to participate. However, it does not ask anyone in advance about whether they would want to get involved, due to the old adage of 'those who seek power shouldn't be given it'. Thus random allocation comes as more of a pleasant surprise.

A sufficient (though not extravagant) salary would also need to be agreed upon, so that poorer people are not immediately put off … but this again is a detail to be discussed. My hope is that the 'Jury Peers' would come into their own, over time, as guardians of the constitution, of basic liberties, and of common standards of decency … They would begin as absolute beginners, and end their lives as national treasures.

Why is this idea important?

The chief aim of my proposals is to make a transition to a different form of second chamber, on the threefold principle that:

a) Such a transition needs to be a reasonably painless, evolutionary process.

b) Such a transition needs to produce a more effective, 'slim-line' revising chamber.

c) Such a transition needs to produce a chamber which contains a more interesting and varied mix of members.

Taking these three principles together, we need to take steps which will, so to speak, throw out the bath-water, but not the baby … and, to stretch the analogy a little, create space for some fresh water, too:

Step One:

Retain current arrangements for Hereditaries and Bishops. Automatically grant a life-peerage to all members of the supreme court ; who become entitled to sit in the Lords (as Law Lords) upon their retirement from the court.

Step Two:

A Bill placing a limit on the total number of peers there can be (whether sitting in the Lords or not), at any one time. I suggest 1750 people.

Step Three:

The Life Peers to select 25% of their numbers to sit in the Lords (the remaining 'pool' of Life Peers could, like the pool of Hereditaries, be voted back into the chamber, upon the death of a sitting Life Peer).

Step Four:

100 New Category Peers, selected entirely at random, maybe by a form of national lottery, phased in 20 per year. Replaced one at a time, on the death of one of their number.

Democracy is good, but so also is a link with our history as a nation (which the already much-depleted 'Lords Spiritual' help to provide). Our main focus should be on the house continuing to do what it does best, and strengthening and improving upon those things. There is no public clamour now for the complete removal of the Hereditaries. It is the number of Life Peers which is becoming unwieldy. Meanwhile, the introduction of Random 'Jury' Peers would be a simple and direct way of engaging the general public in parliamentary business.

It would be good to get a bit more 'randomism' in public life. What a delightful thing it would be, and what a boost to public interest in politics, if, say, the local bin-man was suddenly ennobled, under my system. Certainly, the presence of these 'Jury Peers' would go a long way to making the 'feel' of the second chamber much less elitist.

For clarity, a Lords 'Lottery Winner' would have so many days (I'm open to suggestions on how many) to accept, in writing, the offer of a seat. Obviously, those who were going to find it too disruptive to their lives would most likely not bother to respond, which would be taken as declining the offer ~ with the offer passed on to the next on the list.


New entrants of this sort could well be over-awed to begin with, but I think they would soon get into the swing of things … and before long, they would find themselves mentoring the next batch of entrants.


The possibility of dangerous/criminal/extreme types getting in there should be covered by clear proceedural rules in the house, and the law of the land, as and when any problems arise. I wouldn't want there to be any pre-vetting as such, because the virtue of the random intake is it's potential to bring forward some real free thinkers. This free thinking is enshrined by life-long occupation of the seat.


The opt-out that I mentioned earlier assumes that those who take their seats will want to participate. However, it does not ask anyone in advance about whether they would want to get involved, due to the old adage of 'those who seek power shouldn't be given it'. Thus random allocation comes as more of a pleasant surprise.

A sufficient (though not extravagant) salary would also need to be agreed upon, so that poorer people are not immediately put off … but this again is a detail to be discussed. My hope is that the 'Jury Peers' would come into their own, over time, as guardians of the constitution, of basic liberties, and of common standards of decency … They would begin as absolute beginners, and end their lives as national treasures.

Repeal Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.

Due to the manner in which some local authorities interpret the legislation Part 8 of the Act needs to be repealed in the interests of justice. Alternatively it should be central government and not the local authority or council with the responsibility to enforce the regulations. Currently some local authorities and councils are ignoring what it actually states in the body of the statute and forcing law abiding citizens to destroy kill and remove alleged hedges and conifers even where vexatious complaints have been received from others with a complant. The statute expressly forbids any remedial action that will result in the death of an alleged hedge or conifers and yet remedial notices are being used to criminalise law abiding citizens who refuse to obey the orders of a local authority or council even where this goes against what is actually required by statute. It is as if the planning departments of some local authorities and councils can act in a way that is above the law. It is for Parliament and not the local authority or council to enact statutory legislation and all MP's need to be made aware of just how some local authorities seem to be acting ultra vires and with maladministration.

Why is this idea important?

Due to the manner in which some local authorities interpret the legislation Part 8 of the Act needs to be repealed in the interests of justice. Alternatively it should be central government and not the local authority or council with the responsibility to enforce the regulations. Currently some local authorities and councils are ignoring what it actually states in the body of the statute and forcing law abiding citizens to destroy kill and remove alleged hedges and conifers even where vexatious complaints have been received from others with a complant. The statute expressly forbids any remedial action that will result in the death of an alleged hedge or conifers and yet remedial notices are being used to criminalise law abiding citizens who refuse to obey the orders of a local authority or council even where this goes against what is actually required by statute. It is as if the planning departments of some local authorities and councils can act in a way that is above the law. It is for Parliament and not the local authority or council to enact statutory legislation and all MP's need to be made aware of just how some local authorities seem to be acting ultra vires and with maladministration.

Changes to the way Parliament is Elected (RPA)

Participation in our democratic processes has been declining for decades.  The most obvious sign of this is the low turnout at elections, but the low participation in the whole process, from attendances at public meetings to membership of politicval organisations to people standing as candidates, is also a cause for concern.

The question is why are people not engaged when clearly they have concerns.  I think the answer is two-fold.

1.  People do not thinking they can change anything (i.e. their vote does not count).

2. People think that it does not matter to them who represents them as 'they are all the same',.

I seek to address the first point.

Most of us live in safe seats where the result of an election is known in advance.  Here the argument that an individual vote does not matter is valid.  The way to get round this is through a form of proportional representation where each vote really matters.

I would suggest that the next Parliament is elected using the d'Hondt method currently used for the Eurpean elections as people as familiar with it. However I would like to see one small change to this system.

At the moment the parties list their candidates in order.  What I would like to see is a seperate ballot paper where the electors can also vote for up to the number of candidates that there are seats available.  The order within the parties will therefore be determined by the voters.

This would enable a voter to express their disapproval of the behaviour or views of a candidate without having to vote against the party they support.  It would also enable all voters to express their views on who should be the representatives of all parties.

Why is this idea important?

Participation in our democratic processes has been declining for decades.  The most obvious sign of this is the low turnout at elections, but the low participation in the whole process, from attendances at public meetings to membership of politicval organisations to people standing as candidates, is also a cause for concern.

The question is why are people not engaged when clearly they have concerns.  I think the answer is two-fold.

1.  People do not thinking they can change anything (i.e. their vote does not count).

2. People think that it does not matter to them who represents them as 'they are all the same',.

I seek to address the first point.

Most of us live in safe seats where the result of an election is known in advance.  Here the argument that an individual vote does not matter is valid.  The way to get round this is through a form of proportional representation where each vote really matters.

I would suggest that the next Parliament is elected using the d'Hondt method currently used for the Eurpean elections as people as familiar with it. However I would like to see one small change to this system.

At the moment the parties list their candidates in order.  What I would like to see is a seperate ballot paper where the electors can also vote for up to the number of candidates that there are seats available.  The order within the parties will therefore be determined by the voters.

This would enable a voter to express their disapproval of the behaviour or views of a candidate without having to vote against the party they support.  It would also enable all voters to express their views on who should be the representatives of all parties.

Repeal all laws and dissolve Parliament

Put the entire constitution and statute book through the shredder, dissolve Parliament permanently and sell off the land to orphanages, abolish the monarchy, stop collecting taxes, put the entire public sector out of a job, dismantle the bank of england and stop forcing people to accept Sterling as legal tender so voluntarist banks can provide services, sack the entire police force, withdraw from Afghan and then disband the military, sell off our navy to the highest bidder so that private self defense companies can make a living, disband the entire public education system and allow the voluntarist private sector to improve it, and finally

 

Put up a big sign outside Parliament saying "We have no authority whatsoever. Go and do your own thing."

Why is this idea important?

Put the entire constitution and statute book through the shredder, dissolve Parliament permanently and sell off the land to orphanages, abolish the monarchy, stop collecting taxes, put the entire public sector out of a job, dismantle the bank of england and stop forcing people to accept Sterling as legal tender so voluntarist banks can provide services, sack the entire police force, withdraw from Afghan and then disband the military, sell off our navy to the highest bidder so that private self defense companies can make a living, disband the entire public education system and allow the voluntarist private sector to improve it, and finally

 

Put up a big sign outside Parliament saying "We have no authority whatsoever. Go and do your own thing."

Home Voting on Laws.

All debating in parliment to be written up and made available on internet, before it becomes Law.

No matter how trivial it may seem.

We have to find a way the general public can have direct input into laws of the land.

Find a secure safe system via the internet, that allows all voting adults a choice to vote a simple Yes or No on all proposed Laws.

Also the MP's are our vote. Not there to vote what they like or dislike.

Why is this idea important?

All debating in parliment to be written up and made available on internet, before it becomes Law.

No matter how trivial it may seem.

We have to find a way the general public can have direct input into laws of the land.

Find a secure safe system via the internet, that allows all voting adults a choice to vote a simple Yes or No on all proposed Laws.

Also the MP's are our vote. Not there to vote what they like or dislike.

Reform of the structure of Parliament

To create a "cyber parliament" enabling MPs to attend parliament digitally from their constituencies, using the existing internet technology. On election, Civil Servants can ensure that all MPs have the appropriate technology and passwords to access the system. The system can also be accessed and viewed in a non-contributory way by members of the public, and screened on TV. Parliamentary buildings can be retained for the State Opening  if desired – the rest of the time they can be used as a tourist attraction.

Why is this idea important?

To create a "cyber parliament" enabling MPs to attend parliament digitally from their constituencies, using the existing internet technology. On election, Civil Servants can ensure that all MPs have the appropriate technology and passwords to access the system. The system can also be accessed and viewed in a non-contributory way by members of the public, and screened on TV. Parliamentary buildings can be retained for the State Opening  if desired – the rest of the time they can be used as a tourist attraction.

The ultimate civil lberty: Public to debate and vote on all legislation

Eliminate the verbal parliamentary bedate and replace it with a system which is to prepare legislation for public review and approval via an interent format such as " Your Freedom". 

Why is this idea important?

Eliminate the verbal parliamentary bedate and replace it with a system which is to prepare legislation for public review and approval via an interent format such as " Your Freedom". 

Each piece of legislation should have an expiry date

Each new piece of legislation should automatically expire 25 years after it is adopted.  This provision should also be added to each existing piece of legislation, with the expiry dates distributed at random over the next 25 years.

When a piece of legislation is due to expire within the next year, the enacting body (Parliament, Local Authority, etc.) will be reminded.  If it takes no action, the legislation will expire.  However, it can renew the legislation (as is or amended), or replace it.

Why is this idea important?

Each new piece of legislation should automatically expire 25 years after it is adopted.  This provision should also be added to each existing piece of legislation, with the expiry dates distributed at random over the next 25 years.

When a piece of legislation is due to expire within the next year, the enacting body (Parliament, Local Authority, etc.) will be reminded.  If it takes no action, the legislation will expire.  However, it can renew the legislation (as is or amended), or replace it.

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. 

Restore Freedom

Repeal sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. This is the section which prohibits spontaneous demonstrations within 1km of parliament.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. This is the section which prohibits spontaneous demonstrations within 1km of parliament.

No Assumption That Politics Has A Monoploy On Drafting Laws.

Legislation in its formative stages should be capable of being initiated by bodies other than political parties with political agendas and biases. It is perverse to assume that only one set of standards and rights are to be allowed to initiate laws and regulations that affect everyone.

Why is this idea important?

Legislation in its formative stages should be capable of being initiated by bodies other than political parties with political agendas and biases. It is perverse to assume that only one set of standards and rights are to be allowed to initiate laws and regulations that affect everyone.

Raise taxes to fight wars or don’t fight them

If a government decides to war, and that war comes to a vote in Parliament, that vote would have to include a measure to increase taxes to fund the war. Perhaps add a penny to the basic rate of income tax if they wanted war.

Why is this idea important?

If a government decides to war, and that war comes to a vote in Parliament, that vote would have to include a measure to increase taxes to fund the war. Perhaps add a penny to the basic rate of income tax if they wanted war.

Separate the executive from the legislature

Currently, the Cabinet sits in Parliament. This means that they can vote on what the laws are, and then put them into force, a gross violation of the separation of powers principle. The executive seems to dominate Parliament, and forces through laws we don't want, and appoints people only one constituency (if that) chose.

 

I am not proposing that the Prime Minister shouldn't come from the House of Commons. He can stay. But the rest, the ones that form his Cabinet – they should not be MPs or Peers.

 

Instead, we could emulate the American system. The Prime Minister would nominate someone to take up a role in Cabinet. Then that person should be vetted and approved by Parliament. The vetting would be a thorough Q&A session (or plural)  to assess the nominee's ability to do the job. Then a vote would be taken, and if the vote was lost, then the Prime Minister would have to find someone else to nominate.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, the Cabinet sits in Parliament. This means that they can vote on what the laws are, and then put them into force, a gross violation of the separation of powers principle. The executive seems to dominate Parliament, and forces through laws we don't want, and appoints people only one constituency (if that) chose.

 

I am not proposing that the Prime Minister shouldn't come from the House of Commons. He can stay. But the rest, the ones that form his Cabinet – they should not be MPs or Peers.

 

Instead, we could emulate the American system. The Prime Minister would nominate someone to take up a role in Cabinet. Then that person should be vetted and approved by Parliament. The vetting would be a thorough Q&A session (or plural)  to assess the nominee's ability to do the job. Then a vote would be taken, and if the vote was lost, then the Prime Minister would have to find someone else to nominate.