New kinds of governments.
Discussion
We need accountability.
The fact that Brown & Blair can swan about after systematically ruining the country for their own good is criminal. The fact that Brown can walk free after the gold sell off fiasco is beyond me. He's personaly responisible for the country losing Billions of Pounds, it wasn't an accident or even an unforseen consequence, he actively told everyone what he was going to do with full knowledge of what would happen - Blair, nuff said - neither held to account. Cameron decided to give the Big I Am and then did a runner at the earliest possible moment, the lily livered coward.
Make people accountable at all levels of Government and where public money is spent and I bet you things would change sharpish.
Problem is, the future generation of leaders are going through an education system now where it's even worse, no one is accountable and everything is someone elses fault.
The fact that Brown & Blair can swan about after systematically ruining the country for their own good is criminal. The fact that Brown can walk free after the gold sell off fiasco is beyond me. He's personaly responisible for the country losing Billions of Pounds, it wasn't an accident or even an unforseen consequence, he actively told everyone what he was going to do with full knowledge of what would happen - Blair, nuff said - neither held to account. Cameron decided to give the Big I Am and then did a runner at the earliest possible moment, the lily livered coward.
Make people accountable at all levels of Government and where public money is spent and I bet you things would change sharpish.
Problem is, the future generation of leaders are going through an education system now where it's even worse, no one is accountable and everything is someone elses fault.
The political system is linked to so many questions it's difficult to know where to start. Philosophically Plato [Republic] is a good primer, prescient as it was and I'd say more relevant to modern society than for example the Abrahamic texts which have had far more influence (I like Nietzsche's 'sklavenmoral' take on that whole thing...). Democracy is where we are at the moment though, and it's obvious imperfections [one man, one vote - even if the man is good or bad, wise or stupid] for me are outweighed by the poorer alternatives of tyranny or oligarchy. Plato subscribed to the model of Aristocracy being the better form of rule - not as we now think of Aristocracy but a caste society of philosopher-kings, guardians and people; unappealing on the surface but there are several caveats; the philosopher-kings had authority but could not have property or wealth, would be selfless, wise and reasoned and even their children would be taken from them to prevent nepotism or favour - sacrifices were to be made to hold this position. Similarly the guardians/civil servants/soldiers had to sacrifice what ordinary people enjoyed and also had to be worthy of the position. Ordinary people could exist as normal people with wealth and property etc but had to undertake to sustain the leadership. It's almost meritocratic/technocratic.
In today's context we're not going to change the system too radically ourselves - it may be changed radically by us sleeping and letting the monster of tyranny take charge - to paraphrase Goya -as happens time and again elsewhere [and despite our past, could equally be in our future...], but there are several obvious flaws that I think can be improved without touching on the principles of democracy and our system today I think.
First of all the flaw of competence. One day MP Smith is in charge of Fisheries and expounds with expertise, the next day there is a reshuffle and MP Smith is in charge of Health - and perhaps that very same day will stand behind a rostrum and deliver a fine treatise on the benefits of doing this that or the other with an experts weight. This is clearly nonsense despite the underpinning of the civil service advisors.
Secondly the flaw of continuity. Each opposing party has 5 years to make a stab at tinkering with the economy or improving crime figures, but there is no incentive to project further than the next election even though such fundamental aspects may take 10 or even 20 years to properly mature. The opposing party has, by it's nature, different ideas to the incumbents - why do they exist if not? - but this means a constant see-sawing of policy and strategy where things remain fundamentally unchanged / unimproved in the long term. If we had long term vision, would we be asking the Japanese to build our nuclear plants today despite our leading the field 50 years ago...? The baton isn't passed.
Third the flaw of antagonistic duality. Increasingly relevant in todays world of instant opinion and hyperpolarisation between the two great constructs of socialism and conservatism, and intrinsically wrapped up with the perceptions they portray to their 'fans' - there is very little critical analysis of information - there is too much and it's too slanted and people are too invested in what they think is 'their' team's ideology. No one party will hold all the good ideas, and nor will the other party be replete with nothing but bad ideas. But rather than think about this, the dopamine hit of finding, hating and spreading the 'nonsense' of the opposite team fogs all reason. [The 'radical-centrist', pointed out by an earlier poster, striving to maintain the status quo is perhaps not necessarily a bad thing...]
Finally the flaw of self interest. Politicians are generally psychopathic in nature; [if you don't believe me take a look at the Hare Psychopathy Scale...] and predominant quality is egotism, they yearn for power and success as a primary motivator, will say and do anything to advance their career, even over and above the good of the citizenry. They tinker to get their name in the paper, they happily weaken party resolve to advance themselves in it or to position themselves for the next advancement. They happily lie to the nation without shame, and unfortunately, even if we know better, we accept this poor governance with a shrug as the alternative is just as bad.
Solutions? Apart from a Platonic Aristocracy?
Those solutions lie in the reasoning of the populace unfortunately, so don't hold out too much hope, but perhaps a few ideas:-
i. Expertise: Ministerial candidates should be experts in their field by dint of both qualification and experience. At the moment you don't need any or either to even rule the country - contrast that with what it takes to sit on top of a rocket and you'll see the problem.
ii. Continuity: From this expertise may come some better continuity; there is more than one way to skin a cat, granted, but at least we should be able to agree that the cat needs skinned.
iii. Antagonism: A difficult one to crack but ultimately we should better judge that someone who perpetually shouts down and derides the opposition has nothing constructive to say about the future of the country.
ii. Status: Politicians are given far too much credit where it is not due and enjoy a high societal status; I think it should be a far more humble occupation in terms of perceived importance; the Prime Minister of the day is, in some ways, of lesser importance than the Nurse in the A&E department and societally we should examine that; furthermore, all outside interests should be barred and any money coming in to the individual should be solely from the public purse rather than from anywhere outside the citizenry; no relation should be advanced or employed by the politician or party outside merit nor should there be any perceived corrupt practise - i.e. lobbying - these are fairly basic accepted rules in most parts of commercial life, yet almost completely ignored by those that made those rules. Accountability is mixed in with both expertise and status here; if you don't perform you're out and if you leave after a mess you should pay for any negligence.
All wishful thinking perhaps...
In today's context we're not going to change the system too radically ourselves - it may be changed radically by us sleeping and letting the monster of tyranny take charge - to paraphrase Goya -as happens time and again elsewhere [and despite our past, could equally be in our future...], but there are several obvious flaws that I think can be improved without touching on the principles of democracy and our system today I think.
First of all the flaw of competence. One day MP Smith is in charge of Fisheries and expounds with expertise, the next day there is a reshuffle and MP Smith is in charge of Health - and perhaps that very same day will stand behind a rostrum and deliver a fine treatise on the benefits of doing this that or the other with an experts weight. This is clearly nonsense despite the underpinning of the civil service advisors.
Secondly the flaw of continuity. Each opposing party has 5 years to make a stab at tinkering with the economy or improving crime figures, but there is no incentive to project further than the next election even though such fundamental aspects may take 10 or even 20 years to properly mature. The opposing party has, by it's nature, different ideas to the incumbents - why do they exist if not? - but this means a constant see-sawing of policy and strategy where things remain fundamentally unchanged / unimproved in the long term. If we had long term vision, would we be asking the Japanese to build our nuclear plants today despite our leading the field 50 years ago...? The baton isn't passed.
Third the flaw of antagonistic duality. Increasingly relevant in todays world of instant opinion and hyperpolarisation between the two great constructs of socialism and conservatism, and intrinsically wrapped up with the perceptions they portray to their 'fans' - there is very little critical analysis of information - there is too much and it's too slanted and people are too invested in what they think is 'their' team's ideology. No one party will hold all the good ideas, and nor will the other party be replete with nothing but bad ideas. But rather than think about this, the dopamine hit of finding, hating and spreading the 'nonsense' of the opposite team fogs all reason. [The 'radical-centrist', pointed out by an earlier poster, striving to maintain the status quo is perhaps not necessarily a bad thing...]
Finally the flaw of self interest. Politicians are generally psychopathic in nature; [if you don't believe me take a look at the Hare Psychopathy Scale...] and predominant quality is egotism, they yearn for power and success as a primary motivator, will say and do anything to advance their career, even over and above the good of the citizenry. They tinker to get their name in the paper, they happily weaken party resolve to advance themselves in it or to position themselves for the next advancement. They happily lie to the nation without shame, and unfortunately, even if we know better, we accept this poor governance with a shrug as the alternative is just as bad.
Solutions? Apart from a Platonic Aristocracy?
Those solutions lie in the reasoning of the populace unfortunately, so don't hold out too much hope, but perhaps a few ideas:-i. Expertise: Ministerial candidates should be experts in their field by dint of both qualification and experience. At the moment you don't need any or either to even rule the country - contrast that with what it takes to sit on top of a rocket and you'll see the problem.
ii. Continuity: From this expertise may come some better continuity; there is more than one way to skin a cat, granted, but at least we should be able to agree that the cat needs skinned.
iii. Antagonism: A difficult one to crack but ultimately we should better judge that someone who perpetually shouts down and derides the opposition has nothing constructive to say about the future of the country.
ii. Status: Politicians are given far too much credit where it is not due and enjoy a high societal status; I think it should be a far more humble occupation in terms of perceived importance; the Prime Minister of the day is, in some ways, of lesser importance than the Nurse in the A&E department and societally we should examine that; furthermore, all outside interests should be barred and any money coming in to the individual should be solely from the public purse rather than from anywhere outside the citizenry; no relation should be advanced or employed by the politician or party outside merit nor should there be any perceived corrupt practise - i.e. lobbying - these are fairly basic accepted rules in most parts of commercial life, yet almost completely ignored by those that made those rules. Accountability is mixed in with both expertise and status here; if you don't perform you're out and if you leave after a mess you should pay for any negligence.
All wishful thinking perhaps...
Edited by andy_s on Monday 11th June 16:47
durbster said:
I have an idea for a modern twist on democracy.
We have the technology now to create a national rating system for politicians that runs constantly (not just during an election). And it's driven by the public.
Each voter has a binary vote per politician, either positive or negative. You can change it at any time, so if you see a good stint on Question Time, you can give them an instant boost.
Then we could track our politicians on a sort of stock market. The BBC graphics department would love it.
You could even define a minimum "value" required for them to be considered for a cabinet/shadow cabinet post.
So that's it. I've fixed democracy. Any questions?
Not sure that's a good idea, we might end up like some Premier League teams who sack their thoroughly decent manager when they display less than total dominance.We have the technology now to create a national rating system for politicians that runs constantly (not just during an election). And it's driven by the public.
Each voter has a binary vote per politician, either positive or negative. You can change it at any time, so if you see a good stint on Question Time, you can give them an instant boost.
Then we could track our politicians on a sort of stock market. The BBC graphics department would love it.
You could even define a minimum "value" required for them to be considered for a cabinet/shadow cabinet post.
So that's it. I've fixed democracy. Any questions?
The NHS, or education already suffer from a "revolution" every five years or so. I don't think anything long term would get done before it was un-done.
A Lib Dems policy that never survived the coalition was a plan where a local re-election could be enacted if enough signatures were found, or similar I think.
We already have websites which let you choose partys blind based on policies you like, perhaps a modification of that could work.
My problem with the fptp system is that you get slim majorities enforcing a whole political outlook on the rest. Thus giving one party the ability to introduce things you don't like because of things you do.
There are career choice tests where you have to pick how strongly you care between money and pride in your work, pride vs professional renown, etc.
Something similar to balance out the "I want the full-fat socialist state paid for with no taxation at all" tendency would be an idea.
Mothersruin said:
We need accountability.
Make people accountable at all levels of Government and where public money is spent and I bet you things would change sharpish.
Problem is, the future generation of leaders are going through an education system now where it's even worse, no one is accountable and everything is someone elses fault.
What you suggest is that we punish every PM 'til Major (who was wiped out by a VERY popular Blair govt which introduced V popular policies.Make people accountable at all levels of Government and where public money is spent and I bet you things would change sharpish.
Problem is, the future generation of leaders are going through an education system now where it's even worse, no one is accountable and everything is someone elses fault.
Blair won after GW2 and was the most popular MP to leave office since polls began, I believe Major lost to Blair. Brown didn't last a single election cycle. Cameron won an unexpected majority.
All of their names are all mud, but if failure was punished, who in their right mind would take May's job now? If May bailed on Brexit the people would crucify her even if the economy roared back into life as a result. Regardless of what she actually delivers, the future will always look at her actions and facepalm.
In Kauffman's Thinking Fast and Slow he shows how we overestimate our confidence of past events working out that way- the '08 crash was obvious, for instance, despite almost noone seeing it.
Rumsfelds Unknown Unknowns would also be hung round the neck of any leader and the mob don't take personal responsibility.
2xChevrons said:
Atomic12C said:
JagLover said:
What we need therefore is to improve representative democracy. A starting point would be legally binding manifestos. As long as a party is elected with a majority if it breaks a manifesto commitment it has to seek re-election. Manifestos are a contract with the people and must be honoured.
Fully agree with that.This would then bring an end to the bullshyte politics that takes place in the UK, promising everything to everyone to win votes and then delivering nothing.
It would lead to the most wishy-washy, broad, Edstone-type 'policies' that would be incredibly timid and (at best) incremental so they could be achieved or, at least, easily defended. The continual cycle of denial of facts and different sides substituting their own facts, statistics, definitions and interpretations is bad enough now, let alone when there's £millions in legal cases and the potential collapse of the government at stake.
It would just lead to a redefinition of what a manifesto was. The official manifesto would be crammed with generalisations that won't come back to bite anyone
People are disengaged from politics and there is also a disconnect between a "professional" political class and the populace. If instead you have referendums then you may have a situation of the people voting for more NHS funding and then against the tax rises needed to pay for it.
The reason why we have representative democracy is the need to balance one thing against another in a coherent governing program.
Perhaps the electoral commission could approve manifestos to say they are sufficiently detailed under this system?, or maybe something else but we need to do something to improve the current system.
The five star movement in Italy I think puts all of its policies to a vote by the members.
Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 12th June 08:05
On a lighter note a local referendum on an issue that really matters
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44441444
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44441444
El stovey said:
Various thought provoking stuff...Should people be more involved in descisions like in a jury or are people stupid and we should just have political parties making decisions on our behalf?
That was pretty good until your final non-sentence.What do you actually suggest to replace the House of Lords?
JagLover said:
As an idea it needs refinement, but what is the alternative?
People are disengaged from politics and there is also a disconnect between a "professional" political class and the populace. If instead you have referendums then you may have a situation of the people voting for more NHS funding and then against the tax rises needed to pay for it.
The reason why we have representative democracy is the need to balance one thing against another in a coherent governing program.
Perhaps the electoral commission could approve manifestos to say they are sufficiently detailed under this system?, or maybe something else but we need to do something to improve the current system.
The five star movement in Italy I think puts all of its policies to a vote by the members.
That's a strawman; if the debate/question asked is facile the answer received will be similarly facile. The question needs to be couched in holistic terms, to use your example the question would be;People are disengaged from politics and there is also a disconnect between a "professional" political class and the populace. If instead you have referendums then you may have a situation of the people voting for more NHS funding and then against the tax rises needed to pay for it.
The reason why we have representative democracy is the need to balance one thing against another in a coherent governing program.
Perhaps the electoral commission could approve manifestos to say they are sufficiently detailed under this system?, or maybe something else but we need to do something to improve the current system.
The five star movement in Italy I think puts all of its policies to a vote by the members.
Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 12th June 08:05
referenda said:
The NHS requires increased funding to maintain current service levels/offer new treatments/open a new hospital in Fullchester; this increased funding would mean basic rate income tax rising to 21%/the personal allowance dropping by £1000/a levy on sugar of 3.5%;
1. I agree with this tax increase being introduced to increase NHS funding.
2. I do not agree with this tax increase being introduced to increase NHS funding.
The carrot and the stick are not available except as a package deal.1. I agree with this tax increase being introduced to increase NHS funding.
2. I do not agree with this tax increase being introduced to increase NHS funding.
andy_s said:
Solutions? Apart from a Platonic Aristocracy? Those solutions lie in the reasoning of the populace unfortunately, so don't hold out too much hope, but perhaps a few ideas:-
i. Expertise: Ministerial candidates should be experts in their field by dint of both qualification and experience. At the moment you don't need any or either to even rule the country - contrast that with what it takes to sit on top of a rocket and you'll see the problem.
ii. Continuity: From this expertise may come some better continuity; there is more than one way to skin a cat, granted, but at least we should be able to agree that the cat needs skinned.
iii. Antagonism: A difficult one to crack but ultimately we should better judge that someone who perpetually shouts down and derides the opposition has nothing constructive to say about the future of the country.
ii. Status: Politicians are given far too much credit where it is not due and enjoy a high societal status; I think it should be a far more humble occupation in terms of perceived importance; the Prime Minister of the day is, in some ways, of lesser importance than the Nurse in the A&E department and societally we should examine that; furthermore, all outside interests should be barred and any money coming in to the individual should be solely from the public purse rather than from anywhere outside the citizenry; no relation should be advanced or employed by the politician or party outside merit nor should there be any perceived corrupt practise - i.e. lobbying - these are fairly basic accepted rules in most parts of commercial life, yet almost completely ignored by those that made those rules. Accountability is mixed in with both expertise and status here; if you don't perform you're out and if you leave after a mess you should pay for any negligence.
All wishful thinking perhaps...
i would agree with all of that although that in itself might be an indicator some or all is not a good idea Those solutions lie in the reasoning of the populace unfortunately, so don't hold out too much hope, but perhaps a few ideas:-i. Expertise: Ministerial candidates should be experts in their field by dint of both qualification and experience. At the moment you don't need any or either to even rule the country - contrast that with what it takes to sit on top of a rocket and you'll see the problem.
ii. Continuity: From this expertise may come some better continuity; there is more than one way to skin a cat, granted, but at least we should be able to agree that the cat needs skinned.
iii. Antagonism: A difficult one to crack but ultimately we should better judge that someone who perpetually shouts down and derides the opposition has nothing constructive to say about the future of the country.
ii. Status: Politicians are given far too much credit where it is not due and enjoy a high societal status; I think it should be a far more humble occupation in terms of perceived importance; the Prime Minister of the day is, in some ways, of lesser importance than the Nurse in the A&E department and societally we should examine that; furthermore, all outside interests should be barred and any money coming in to the individual should be solely from the public purse rather than from anywhere outside the citizenry; no relation should be advanced or employed by the politician or party outside merit nor should there be any perceived corrupt practise - i.e. lobbying - these are fairly basic accepted rules in most parts of commercial life, yet almost completely ignored by those that made those rules. Accountability is mixed in with both expertise and status here; if you don't perform you're out and if you leave after a mess you should pay for any negligence.
All wishful thinking perhaps...
Edited by andy_s on Monday 11th June 16:47
bit disappointed this topic had so few replies, given the current situation in uk politics.
Pothole said:
El stovey said:
Various thought provoking stuff...Should people be more involved in descisions like in a jury or are people stupid and we should just have political parties making decisions on our behalf?
That was pretty good until your final non-sentence.What do you actually suggest to replace the House of Lords?
Foliage said:
Icelands system is interesting but of course the goings on with icelands politics was supressed by the media due to them being too scary for UK politicians to read.
I suspect systems designed to govern 350k people need plenty of revision to cover 65m.Not suggesting what we have is correct as at present I don't think that. But we need to be careful what we gun for. Another thing the Lib Dems didn't do well when in coalition was allow AV to be put forward as the only alternative in the voting system referendum. They were sunk with that.
Part of the problem with changing democracy is that people actually like to identify with political parties and political ideologies.
Following a party is like following a football team or a religion etc, it gives people a tribal sense of belonging and feeling part of something, like when we were part of a tribe in Africa hunting together and cooperating in order to survive.
The problem now is that people ideologically attached to parties are feeling let down as their party adopts positions they disagree with over brexit or trump or whatever and how they view the parties traditional ideology.
Threads on here are full of disgruntled people saying “I’ve always voted x but now I’m not going to vote for them over brexit (or whatever) but I can’t ever vote Y”
It seems crazy really. Why not just look at each party as the election approaches and decide then? Parties are always floating around and adopting different positions if you’re slavishly attached to one, you’re bound to get let down at some point.
Following a party is like following a football team or a religion etc, it gives people a tribal sense of belonging and feeling part of something, like when we were part of a tribe in Africa hunting together and cooperating in order to survive.
The problem now is that people ideologically attached to parties are feeling let down as their party adopts positions they disagree with over brexit or trump or whatever and how they view the parties traditional ideology.
Threads on here are full of disgruntled people saying “I’ve always voted x but now I’m not going to vote for them over brexit (or whatever) but I can’t ever vote Y”
It seems crazy really. Why not just look at each party as the election approaches and decide then? Parties are always floating around and adopting different positions if you’re slavishly attached to one, you’re bound to get let down at some point.
El stovey said:
Part of the problem with changing democracy is that people actually like to identify with political parties and political ideologies.
Following a party is like following a football team or a religion etc, it gives people a tribal sense of belonging and feeling part of something, like when we were part of a tribe in Africa hunting together and cooperating in order to survive.
The problem now is that people ideologically attached to parties are feeling let down as their party adopts positions they disagree with over brexit or trump or whatever and how they view the parties traditional ideology.
Threads on here are full of disgruntled people saying “I’ve always voted x but now I’m not going to vote for them over brexit (or whatever) but I can’t ever vote Y”
It seems crazy really. Why not just look at each party as the election approaches and decide then? Parties are always floating around and adopting different positions if you’re slavishly attached to one, you’re bound to get let down at some point.
i think that was more the case in the past,and maybe not so prevalent today ? i have voted for different parties on a few occasions and would not hesitate to do so in the future, though given current options it looks like it will probably be a local independent at the next election.Following a party is like following a football team or a religion etc, it gives people a tribal sense of belonging and feeling part of something, like when we were part of a tribe in Africa hunting together and cooperating in order to survive.
The problem now is that people ideologically attached to parties are feeling let down as their party adopts positions they disagree with over brexit or trump or whatever and how they view the parties traditional ideology.
Threads on here are full of disgruntled people saying “I’ve always voted x but now I’m not going to vote for them over brexit (or whatever) but I can’t ever vote Y”
It seems crazy really. Why not just look at each party as the election approaches and decide then? Parties are always floating around and adopting different positions if you’re slavishly attached to one, you’re bound to get let down at some point.
Part of 'problem' is that of ideloogy over pragmatism.
Ideology is over yonder hill where everything is ideal and for just that little bit more..
And when all hills have been climbed, walked, tunneled, there still has to be something?
Pragmatism works 'though - once eating each other stopped.
Ideology is over yonder hill where everything is ideal and for just that little bit more..
And when all hills have been climbed, walked, tunneled, there still has to be something?
Pragmatism works 'though - once eating each other stopped.
Ali G said:
And when all hills have been climbed, walked, tunneled, there still has to be something?
That's the problem with the so called developed first world - There are times when everything is actually ticking over quite nicely, the poor are getting as good as they've ever had, the middle classes are aspirational and the rich are keeping their money yet creating wealth through business etc...Problem is, everyone then starts to focus on stuff that has little to do with the running of the country but to do with the personalities doing so and get bored with the staus quo for the sake of getting bored. Also, election manifestos sound rubbish when the best thing to say would be, 'We're not going to change very much as it might upset things as they are'.
It's pretty much what happened at the end of the John Major tenure and it needed a top salesman to appear and promise stuff that was radical enough to grab people's attention. They got away with it too, while they followed the dull and boring economics of the previous lot - it was only when Brown decided to do his own thing, as he knew far better.., that it really went tits up and they started to get found out.
Edited by Mothersruin on Saturday 21st July 11:11
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff