Address Government’s limited power to block or repeal EU Regulations

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to block new EU Regulations.

Protect and Restore our Sovereign Rights. 

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to repeal existing EU Regulations.

More time and attention should be given to negotiate and release our nation from the Red Tape that the EU has imposed, so that our elected government has more room to manoeuvre in introducing new domestic regulations.

Why is this idea important?

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to block new EU Regulations.

Protect and Restore our Sovereign Rights. 

Address the problem of the Government's limited power to repeal existing EU Regulations.

More time and attention should be given to negotiate and release our nation from the Red Tape that the EU has imposed, so that our elected government has more room to manoeuvre in introducing new domestic regulations.

Ban Party Lists at Elections

For some types of election votes get to choose between Party LIsts. This is profoundly undemocratic. Voters who are, say, left-leaning, cannot diffrentiate between a hard left idealist and a compromising pragmatist, whatever their preference.

Instead of decisions about which person is elected being made by 30,000 voters (or whatever), the decision is made by a selection committee of perhaps 12. Worst case the reality is that the Selection Committee Organiser effectively puts the list together on his or her own. The top candidate is guaranteed to be elected. The 20th placed is guaranteed not to.

If a prospective candidate upsets the wrong person a jumped up Party Discipline rule is invoked to get them suspended, and Hey Presto, they don't get on the list. Party machines have favourites and will do anything to displace who is at the top of the list and gettheir candidate there. Thatcher and Blair were outsiders would never have been high on a List (OK, bad example). Churchill was seen as a troublemaker past his prime – a List system would have put Chaimberlain clones above him.

It's a scheme that Danton would have loved during The Terror period of the French Revolution. Or Stalin.

Why is this idea important?

For some types of election votes get to choose between Party LIsts. This is profoundly undemocratic. Voters who are, say, left-leaning, cannot diffrentiate between a hard left idealist and a compromising pragmatist, whatever their preference.

Instead of decisions about which person is elected being made by 30,000 voters (or whatever), the decision is made by a selection committee of perhaps 12. Worst case the reality is that the Selection Committee Organiser effectively puts the list together on his or her own. The top candidate is guaranteed to be elected. The 20th placed is guaranteed not to.

If a prospective candidate upsets the wrong person a jumped up Party Discipline rule is invoked to get them suspended, and Hey Presto, they don't get on the list. Party machines have favourites and will do anything to displace who is at the top of the list and gettheir candidate there. Thatcher and Blair were outsiders would never have been high on a List (OK, bad example). Churchill was seen as a troublemaker past his prime – a List system would have put Chaimberlain clones above him.

It's a scheme that Danton would have loved during The Terror period of the French Revolution. Or Stalin.

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.

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.

Allow electronic voting in trade union executive ballots

The idea

Allow all trade union members who wish the ability to vote for members of their executive bodies by means of an electronic vote. Currently all votes must be postal.

 

The blocking legislation

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Tradeunionsintheworkplace/DG_179274

Balloting trade union members

When it comes to determining the method of selecting individuals to to fill the most senior positions in trade unions, the law requires a postal election to be held.

With few exceptions, there must be elections by ballot for the following senior positions in a trade union:

  • member of the executive
  • other positions where the person holding the position is automatically a member of the executive
  • president
  • general secretary

If you go to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidated) Act 1992 at:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920052_en_1

and scroll down to chapter 51 paragraph 4 you will read:

4)So far as is reasonably practicable, every person who is entitled to vote at the election must—

(a)have sent to him by post, at his home address or another address which he has requested the trade union in writing to treat as his postal address, a voting paper which either lists the candidates at the election or is accompanied by a separate list of those candidates; and

(b)be given a convenient opportunity to vote by post

Why is this idea important?

The idea

Allow all trade union members who wish the ability to vote for members of their executive bodies by means of an electronic vote. Currently all votes must be postal.

 

The blocking legislation

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Tradeunionsintheworkplace/DG_179274

Balloting trade union members

When it comes to determining the method of selecting individuals to to fill the most senior positions in trade unions, the law requires a postal election to be held.

With few exceptions, there must be elections by ballot for the following senior positions in a trade union:

  • member of the executive
  • other positions where the person holding the position is automatically a member of the executive
  • president
  • general secretary

If you go to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidated) Act 1992 at:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920052_en_1

and scroll down to chapter 51 paragraph 4 you will read:

4)So far as is reasonably practicable, every person who is entitled to vote at the election must—

(a)have sent to him by post, at his home address or another address which he has requested the trade union in writing to treat as his postal address, a voting paper which either lists the candidates at the election or is accompanied by a separate list of those candidates; and

(b)be given a convenient opportunity to vote by post

change the way we vote

To undo the whole registering to vote process, and in doing so, enhance democracy and save several million pounds.

To replace it with a system that uses a combination of passports and driving licenses, and an online database on polling day (admittedly, one that wouldn't crash… ahem hmg's web server!)

every passport / driving license has a unique number. Admittedly, not every person has a driving license or a passport… passport ownership stands at about 70% at the moment….

he solution is that I think it is a human right that at birth in this country everyone is given a passport. It should be the inalieable and free right of any honest individual to travel out of the country if they wish to do so. So, if you are scrapping ID cards, how about giving passports to the 30% rest of the population… and then… you won't have to do that ridiculous register to vote paperwork come the next election.

 

and I estimate it would increase voter turnout by 10 – 20 %

 

The other option is the inky finger option (or hand dying stamp?), which isn't actually too bad… ok, so you'd have a 1 – 3% error rating for cheeky tourists / non-nationals who try and vote…. but a turnout more like 90%….

 

and for a further point, STV (single transferable vote) is much more representational of voters than AV (alternative vote) or FPTP (first past the post, our current system, modelled on horse racing…)

Why is this idea important?

To undo the whole registering to vote process, and in doing so, enhance democracy and save several million pounds.

To replace it with a system that uses a combination of passports and driving licenses, and an online database on polling day (admittedly, one that wouldn't crash… ahem hmg's web server!)

every passport / driving license has a unique number. Admittedly, not every person has a driving license or a passport… passport ownership stands at about 70% at the moment….

he solution is that I think it is a human right that at birth in this country everyone is given a passport. It should be the inalieable and free right of any honest individual to travel out of the country if they wish to do so. So, if you are scrapping ID cards, how about giving passports to the 30% rest of the population… and then… you won't have to do that ridiculous register to vote paperwork come the next election.

 

and I estimate it would increase voter turnout by 10 – 20 %

 

The other option is the inky finger option (or hand dying stamp?), which isn't actually too bad… ok, so you'd have a 1 – 3% error rating for cheeky tourists / non-nationals who try and vote…. but a turnout more like 90%….

 

and for a further point, STV (single transferable vote) is much more representational of voters than AV (alternative vote) or FPTP (first past the post, our current system, modelled on horse racing…)

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.

The Protection of Data : Electoral Register / Roll

The Electoral Register / Roll should be completely and universally removed from access by any third party ( none government offices ) trying to acquire information of an individual for profit related reasons. ie, market research, private research, etc

Why is this idea important?

The Electoral Register / Roll should be completely and universally removed from access by any third party ( none government offices ) trying to acquire information of an individual for profit related reasons. ie, market research, private research, etc