After Brexit, The Future Of Our Political System
Discussion
I've just listened to the following Spiked discussion with Dr. David Starkey.
It raises issues of our Parliament losing its way in respect of Brexit and in general terms.
https://youtu.be/jUxV6SvQHc0
I believe that Brexit has shone a strong light on our political classes and has exposed many of them in ways that have either reinforced our opinion of them or have surprised us with a nature that we might not have seen.
It has awoken an interest amongst the populace in politics and governance that I have not seen before. I feel that once we've left the E. U our MPs will face much more scrutiny than they have been used to.
Will this be a 'draining of the swamp' moment? Will we see MPs voted out wholesale, MPs suddenly finding that they have 'family commitments' and resign from their roles? Will we see the breakdown of some of the political parties? Will we see a new breed of parliamentarians, with different motivations, who will be more connected to reality and greater accountability? Or will it be more of the same?!!!
It raises issues of our Parliament losing its way in respect of Brexit and in general terms.
https://youtu.be/jUxV6SvQHc0
I believe that Brexit has shone a strong light on our political classes and has exposed many of them in ways that have either reinforced our opinion of them or have surprised us with a nature that we might not have seen.
It has awoken an interest amongst the populace in politics and governance that I have not seen before. I feel that once we've left the E. U our MPs will face much more scrutiny than they have been used to.
Will this be a 'draining of the swamp' moment? Will we see MPs voted out wholesale, MPs suddenly finding that they have 'family commitments' and resign from their roles? Will we see the breakdown of some of the political parties? Will we see a new breed of parliamentarians, with different motivations, who will be more connected to reality and greater accountability? Or will it be more of the same?!!!
We have finally, undoubtedly seen how poor our system is and what a shower of s
te our politicians are.
The system should be changed and the numbers of politicians should be severely cut. Their powers should be restricted and the system of voting should be reviewed.
But it won’t happen; too many vested interests.
If we can’t get them to implement the result of a quite straightforward result of a referendum, how could we get them to scrap the gravy train?
te our politicians are. The system should be changed and the numbers of politicians should be severely cut. Their powers should be restricted and the system of voting should be reviewed.
But it won’t happen; too many vested interests.
If we can’t get them to implement the result of a quite straightforward result of a referendum, how could we get them to scrap the gravy train?
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Plus..as has been said many times...
...the ultimate irony of brexit is we've swappedreasonably less right minded muppets in Europe the EU for less right minded muppets in London.
With one saving grace, we can get rid of (some) of the ones in London at Elections, whereas we could do absolutely sod all about the ones in the EU.
FTFY...the ultimate irony of brexit is we've swapped
With one saving grace, we can get rid of (some) of the ones in London at Elections, whereas we could do absolutely sod all about the ones in the EU.
dandarez said:
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Plus..as has been said many times...
...the ultimate irony of brexit is we've swappedreasonably less right minded muppets in Europe the EU for less right minded muppets in London.
With one saving grace, we can get rid of (some) of the ones in London at Elections, whereas we could do absolutely sod all about the ones in the EU.
FTFY...the ultimate irony of brexit is we've swapped
With one saving grace, we can get rid of (some) of the ones in London at Elections, whereas we could do absolutely sod all about the ones in the EU.
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Plus..as has been said many times...
...the ultimate irony of brexit is we've swapped reasonably right minded muppets in Europe for less right minded muppets in London.
Not really .. if we leave we will elect our very own muppets not EU muppets who are rewarded for failing the peoples of certain European countries !! And we don't even get a chance to pick up dog s...the ultimate irony of brexit is we've swapped reasonably right minded muppets in Europe for less right minded muppets in London.
t from the clean end sorry I mean vote for them...these come with a gold plated gravy train for added piss boiling and make lots of one size fits all rules , with our muppets we can visit and write to them get plattudes and condescension or standard stock answers on fancy note paper but atleast we get to elect fresh muppets every 5 years or so!! hurrah !!!
Vast majority of MPs are publicly-spirited, competent, decent people. Some will hold views that we strongly disagree with, but that's hardly surprising; people's opinions vary wildly. Mindless cynicism about our politicians is widespread, egged on by the gutter press, but it fundamentally misunderstands how the world actually works. And if you don't understand how something really works then you're in no position to improve it.
It's entirely normal in a liberal democracy that the outcome of a decision that doesn't command a clear majority is dead lock. That doesn't represent a failure of the system. It indicates that it is functioning to discourage the tyranny of the majority. Parliament's checks and balances have been working rather well. Parliament lends its authority to a government and generally gives it a free hand to get on with governing because that is practical and efficient. But when a government clearly does not have overwhelming support amongst MPs it is entirely right that Parliament starts withdrawing power from the government and shoulders more responsibility itself. If a government tries to frustrate that democratic process it is entirely right that Parliament resists and changes its traditional processes as it feels fit in order to do so. Parliament is sovereign. These are matters of principle. It has been rather heartening to see them working rather well and the moral courage being shown by many MPs.
We may well see big shake ups in the major parties with new groups forming and alliances being struck. But I rather doubt we'll see much constitutional innovation. If anything we're more likely to see a recent innovation being abandoned; no more bloody referendums. If you win a referendum by a big majority, you didn't need it in the first place. If you lose one by a large margin, you shouldn't have called it. If it is only won or lost by a slim margin then it has failed to settle the argument decisively, so it's achieved nothing but highlight division.
If voters feel let down by the outcome of the referendum then they should be blaming their fellow voters, not MPs. If people feel disenfranchised, you do have to wonder what they think Westminster has been doing for the last few years apart from wrestling with the outcome 34 million people's votes.
It's entirely normal in a liberal democracy that the outcome of a decision that doesn't command a clear majority is dead lock. That doesn't represent a failure of the system. It indicates that it is functioning to discourage the tyranny of the majority. Parliament's checks and balances have been working rather well. Parliament lends its authority to a government and generally gives it a free hand to get on with governing because that is practical and efficient. But when a government clearly does not have overwhelming support amongst MPs it is entirely right that Parliament starts withdrawing power from the government and shoulders more responsibility itself. If a government tries to frustrate that democratic process it is entirely right that Parliament resists and changes its traditional processes as it feels fit in order to do so. Parliament is sovereign. These are matters of principle. It has been rather heartening to see them working rather well and the moral courage being shown by many MPs.
We may well see big shake ups in the major parties with new groups forming and alliances being struck. But I rather doubt we'll see much constitutional innovation. If anything we're more likely to see a recent innovation being abandoned; no more bloody referendums. If you win a referendum by a big majority, you didn't need it in the first place. If you lose one by a large margin, you shouldn't have called it. If it is only won or lost by a slim margin then it has failed to settle the argument decisively, so it's achieved nothing but highlight division.
If voters feel let down by the outcome of the referendum then they should be blaming their fellow voters, not MPs. If people feel disenfranchised, you do have to wonder what they think Westminster has been doing for the last few years apart from wrestling with the outcome 34 million people's votes.
powerstroke said:
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Plus..as has been said many times...
...the ultimate irony of brexit is we've swapped reasonably right minded muppets in Europe for less right minded muppets in London.
Not really .. if we leave we will elect our very own muppets not EU muppets who are rewarded for failing the peoples of certain European countries !! And we don't even get a chance to pick up dog s...the ultimate irony of brexit is we've swapped reasonably right minded muppets in Europe for less right minded muppets in London.
t from the clean end sorry I mean vote for them...these come with a gold plated gravy train for added piss boiling and make lots of one size fits all rules , with our muppets we can visit and write to them get plattudes and condescension or standard stock answers on fancy note paper but atleast we get to elect fresh muppets every 5 years or so!! hurrah !!!
ATG said:
powerstroke said:
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Plus..as has been said many times...
...the ultimate irony of brexit is we've swapped reasonably right minded muppets in Europe for less right minded muppets in London.
Not really .. if we leave we will elect our very own muppets not EU muppets who are rewarded for failing the peoples of certain European countries !! And we don't even get a chance to pick up dog s...the ultimate irony of brexit is we've swapped reasonably right minded muppets in Europe for less right minded muppets in London.
t from the clean end sorry I mean vote for them...these come with a gold plated gravy train for added piss boiling and make lots of one size fits all rules , with our muppets we can visit and write to them get plattudes and condescension or standard stock answers on fancy note paper but atleast we get to elect fresh muppets every 5 years or so!! hurrah !!!
Pray tell whats wrong with my comments ??
powerstroke said:
powerstroke said:
Pray tell whats wrong with my comments ?? When did Junker et all appear on a uk ballot paper ???
ATG said:
Vast majority of MPs are publicly-spirited, competent, decent people. Some will hold views that we strongly disagree with, but that's hardly surprising; people's opinions vary wildly. Mindless cynicism about our politicians is widespread, egged on by the gutter press, but it fundamentally misunderstands how the world actually works. And if you don't understand how something really works then you're in no position to improve it.
It's entirely normal in a liberal democracy that the outcome of a decision that doesn't command a clear majority is dead lock. That doesn't represent a failure of the system. It indicates that it is functioning to discourage the tyranny of the majority. Parliament's checks and balances have been working rather well. Parliament lends its authority to a government and generally gives it a free hand to get on with governing because that is practical and efficient. But when a government clearly does not have overwhelming support amongst MPs it is entirely right that Parliament starts withdrawing power from the government and shoulders more responsibility itself. If a government tries to frustrate that democratic process it is entirely right that Parliament resists and changes its traditional processes as it feels fit in order to do so. Parliament is sovereign. These are matters of principle. It has been rather heartening to see them working rather well and the moral courage being shown by many MPs.
We may well see big shake ups in the major parties with new groups forming and alliances being struck. But I rather doubt we'll see much constitutional innovation. If anything we're more likely to see a recent innovation being abandoned; no more bloody referendums. If you win a referendum by a big majority, you didn't need it in the first place. If you lose one by a large margin, you shouldn't have called it. If it is only won or lost by a slim margin then it has failed to settle the argument decisively, so it's achieved nothing but highlight division.
If voters feel let down by the outcome of the referendum then they should be blaming their fellow voters, not MPs. If people feel disenfranchised, you do have to wonder what they think Westminster has been doing for the last few years apart from wrestling with the outcome 34 million people's votes.
Your post appears to absolve Parliament of any responsibility in the situation we are in today. The people voted and that vote was split two ways. One side won, one side lost. Decision made. Now over to government to enact it and Parliament to check that. The government set off down a path that was not true to the command we had given them. Parliament's role in that should have been to nudge the government towards doing a better job of doing what we asked. I believe that May's plan was denied both through MPs sincerely looking for a better, purer exit and also through a good number of MPs whose motivation was to keep us tied to the E. U, breaking the commitment they had made to honouring article 50.It's entirely normal in a liberal democracy that the outcome of a decision that doesn't command a clear majority is dead lock. That doesn't represent a failure of the system. It indicates that it is functioning to discourage the tyranny of the majority. Parliament's checks and balances have been working rather well. Parliament lends its authority to a government and generally gives it a free hand to get on with governing because that is practical and efficient. But when a government clearly does not have overwhelming support amongst MPs it is entirely right that Parliament starts withdrawing power from the government and shoulders more responsibility itself. If a government tries to frustrate that democratic process it is entirely right that Parliament resists and changes its traditional processes as it feels fit in order to do so. Parliament is sovereign. These are matters of principle. It has been rather heartening to see them working rather well and the moral courage being shown by many MPs.
We may well see big shake ups in the major parties with new groups forming and alliances being struck. But I rather doubt we'll see much constitutional innovation. If anything we're more likely to see a recent innovation being abandoned; no more bloody referendums. If you win a referendum by a big majority, you didn't need it in the first place. If you lose one by a large margin, you shouldn't have called it. If it is only won or lost by a slim margin then it has failed to settle the argument decisively, so it's achieved nothing but highlight division.
If voters feel let down by the outcome of the referendum then they should be blaming their fellow voters, not MPs. If people feel disenfranchised, you do have to wonder what they think Westminster has been doing for the last few years apart from wrestling with the outcome 34 million people's votes.
Now BJ is proroging parliament and that is a direct result of the 'blocker' element, the type that wanted 'no deal' to be removed as an option through legislation. That blocking of no deal was either massively un-democratic or very, very retarded as it would be obvious to anyone that hadn't even been following the developments that, with an opponent (the E. U) who benefits in many ways from a painful and humiliating (to the British) Brexit, the threat of them feeling some of that pain absolutely had to be on the table.
I feel we need better than that from our MPs. More honesty, better listeners, greater integrity, better strategists, more love for and belief in the concept of our nation.
After all, if the concept of Britain disappears then so does the British Parliament so if they do not believe in Britain and its people then they must also believe their own role should be redundant.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 23 September 00:11
ATG said:
I think the idea that the people gave a clear command to the government is naive, verging on bonkers. Democracy is not a "winner takes all game" and democratic decisions are always provisional.
If you applied that thinking to every democratic vote, or chose to pick and choose which votes to apply it to, then you'd render democracy useless and pointless. There has to be a clear-cut definition to these things, no matter how you may feel it seems. It is a winner takes all system and especially so in this case where anything other than a true break is tantamount to remaining and is in direct contradiction of democratic will. I believe in compromise but not if compromise is a betrayal and a capitulation. I feel there should be no room for your way of thinking in our governmental system. REALIST123 said:
We have finally, undoubtedly seen how poor our system is and what a shower of ste our politicians are.
The system should be changed and the numbers of politicians should be severely cut. Their powers should be restricted and the system of voting should be reviewed.
But it won’t happen; too many vested interests.
If we can’t get them to implement the result of a quite straightforward result of a referendum, how could we get them to scrap the gravy train?
So you’re saying we should relinquish control instead of taking back control?te our politicians are. The system should be changed and the numbers of politicians should be severely cut. Their powers should be restricted and the system of voting should be reviewed.
But it won’t happen; too many vested interests.
If we can’t get them to implement the result of a quite straightforward result of a referendum, how could we get them to scrap the gravy train?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No, they're your words, as if they were my words you'd have them in quotation marks. Citizens exercise power by voting, that is democracy. If you give a vote, say it will be honoured and do not respect it then that is not democracy, as the citizens' vote is meaningless.
My words - there is no room in a democracy for those that do not respect and honour democracy. Clean cut. No ifs, no buts!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
However our electoral system which we've had for a few years now and people seem to think is democratic operates on exactly the same principles as the referendum did. A single vote in your constituency will return a Labour/Conservative/Liberal/Monster Raving Loony Party candidate. And whichever one gets elected to Parliament will (usually) vote in accordance with their parties manifesto with no consideration of the failed candidates views. There's nothing "provisional" about our voting systems. Do you think that if by some miracle Corbyn gets elected, he'll be taking into consideration what the Conservative voters wanted and implementing a few of their policies ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff