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. 

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.

No more unelected Prime Ministers

Parties should not be allowed to change leaders midterm without seeking a new mandate from the public for that the new leader within a very short period of time. Whilst we don't have a presendential system, it is obvious given the prominent position of the leaders in the election campaigns e.g. their role in the leaders debates on TV, that people are still voting the national leader as much as the party they wish to govern.  If we are not changing to a presendential system then the next best thing is to remove the power of small cliques of MPs to change who the Prime Minister is. The democratic contempt of small groups of MPs and cabinet minister shown recently with their plots and vested interests deciding who the PM is a huge insult to the electorate. The PM sets the course of the nation and can take this country to war, the post should not be the whim of a few party insiders to decide.

In recent years we have had two unelected PMs (Major and Brown), both imposed on the nation by coupe d'etat. In the last parliament the man who won the mandate (Blaire) said in plain english he would stay for the whole term, i.e. no "vote Blair get Brown". What happened ? The exact opposite. During the recent election we were only a few seats away from having three mandateless PMs back to back  –  Brown (steps down to enable LibLab pact), Harmen then as stands in a temporary leader (as she is doing now) then finally a new Labour leader (Milliband, etc) emerges as PM months after the general election once Labour's internal political process had played out. How can we talk to the world about democracy with a system like that ?

Why is this idea important?

Parties should not be allowed to change leaders midterm without seeking a new mandate from the public for that the new leader within a very short period of time. Whilst we don't have a presendential system, it is obvious given the prominent position of the leaders in the election campaigns e.g. their role in the leaders debates on TV, that people are still voting the national leader as much as the party they wish to govern.  If we are not changing to a presendential system then the next best thing is to remove the power of small cliques of MPs to change who the Prime Minister is. The democratic contempt of small groups of MPs and cabinet minister shown recently with their plots and vested interests deciding who the PM is a huge insult to the electorate. The PM sets the course of the nation and can take this country to war, the post should not be the whim of a few party insiders to decide.

In recent years we have had two unelected PMs (Major and Brown), both imposed on the nation by coupe d'etat. In the last parliament the man who won the mandate (Blaire) said in plain english he would stay for the whole term, i.e. no "vote Blair get Brown". What happened ? The exact opposite. During the recent election we were only a few seats away from having three mandateless PMs back to back  –  Brown (steps down to enable LibLab pact), Harmen then as stands in a temporary leader (as she is doing now) then finally a new Labour leader (Milliband, etc) emerges as PM months after the general election once Labour's internal political process had played out. How can we talk to the world about democracy with a system like that ?