MP's who get RIGHT on your nips

[spacein_vader]

Germany has PR though, right? That's why they didn't have a government for a few months and only just made a coalition? Because you can't please everyone, and just trying to get a majority on a lot of things is going to be almost impossible.

As stupid as it sounds, I think we, the public, are just as much the problem as politicians. We are like kids; if we don't like what Mummy says, we'll go to Daddy. And the parents role is to be the most popular, by almost any means necessary. Neither will make us have our medicine/bad news/whatever until the very last moment when there's no choice. Sometimes, the right thing will be unpopular and whilst politicians are looking out for themselves rather than the country, they will try and bypass it as much as possible. I learnt about the issues with the baby-boomers retiring when I was at school over 20 years' ago, but politicians would be reluctant to do anything about it because old people vote more. Likewise with the future social care and health problems that is coming; there needs to be cross-party collaboration rather than just mud slinging at each other. Democracy would be much more effective if the choices were all plausible rather than just trying please as many people as possible. Like each party had to submit a full budget on how they plan to fund everything (obviously it can't be 100% accurate, but at least something sensible) that had to be certified by an independant agency. I lost track on how many times over Labour were going to use the extra £6bil (or whatever it was) they planned on getting raising the highest tax rate; seemed to change each week.

Problem is politics is so vast and so varied, that trying to say whether a single person, or even party, is doing a good job would be vary person-to-person, e.g. opinions on Thatcher. So whilst I would love to hold every politician completely accoutable for their actions, with life imprisonment for failing their promise and being incompetent, I just don't think it is feasible.

Germany had a government, the old one keeps going until the new one is in place. You'll notice their political system didn't grind to a halt.

Your 2nd point is a great example of why PR would be helpful. At present as you say both parties with a realistic chance of election only tell us what we want to hear. Under PR you can have an unabashed communist party, or the BNP, or Greens and still get seats.

It'd also break up the too broad major parties. The Tories should be at least 2 parties: right wing pro Europe and right wing anti Europe. That way they'd have avoided 40 years of infighting on the subject and if you vote right wing you'd have a choice on if you liked the EU at the ballot too.

[Phage]

I'll just leave this here.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/explaine...rential-voting

Also compulsory to turn up at polling station. You can spoil your vote - but you must engage

Pro/Cons here)
https://votingsystemspreferentialand...-and-cons.html

[Gerrard]

It'd also break up the too broad major parties. The Tories should be at least 2 parties: right wing pro Europe and right wing anti Europe. That way they'd have avoided 40 years of infighting on the subject and if you vote right wing you'd have a choice on if you liked the EU at the ballot too.

That's a fair point and something that annoys me with MP's is that it appears the opposition just oppose everything for the sake of being the opposition. Brexit is a good example and as you mention, there is split within both parties. But it seems Labour MP's will just oppose anything the Tories put forward even if they actually belief in it (or even their constituents!). That's why Brexit is going basically going to be a mess because nothing is going to pass. It would be stupid, but I would like to see the Tories just give up and give power to Labour, who then had to do everything they said or suffer from dire consequences (life imprisonment for them and direct descendants or something like that), i.e. put up or shut up. Obviously goes both ways with that with the election manifestos in the first place.

However incompetent you view MP's, they still know more about how politics work than I (and I am going to say most of us really) do and are probably doing it better than we could.

[spacein_vader]

That's a fair point and something that annoys me with MP's is that it appears the opposition just oppose everything for the sake of being the opposition. Brexit is a good example and as you mention, there is split within both parties. But it seems Labour MP's will just oppose anything the Tories put forward even if they actually belief in it (or even their constituents!). That's why Brexit is going basically going to be a mess because nothing is going to pass. It would be stupid, but I would like to see the Tories just give up and give power to Labour, who then had to do everything they said or suffer from dire consequences (life imprisonment for them and direct descendants or something like that), i.e. put up or shut up. Obviously goes both ways with that with the election manifestos in the first place.

However incompetent you view MP's, they still know more about how politics work than I (and I am going to say most of us really) do and are probably doing it better than we could.

Opposition for the sake of it is endemic in our system sadly, but I'm not sure how any voting system would alter that. I don't believe that any party should be legally forced to enact their entire manifesto though. For a start it makes parliament redundant, surely you just have an election, enact the manifesto and then all clock off for five years? Secondly, just because people voted for a party doesn't mean (especially under our system of only 2 major parties,) you agree with ALL their policies. I tend to lean Tory on economic policy but on social issues I'm Lib Dem so if a party wanted run the economy in a way I favour AND ban same-sex marriage (for example,) I wouldn't want both to happen by default.

Politicians doubtless understand the system better than most and are doing a better job than we could. The problem is they tend to do a great job for politicians rather than a great job for the electorate.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Germany had a government, the old one keeps going until the new one is in place. You'll notice their political system didn't grind to a halt.

Your 2nd point is a great example of why PR would be helpful. At present as you say both parties with a realistic chance of election only tell us what we want to hear. Under PR you can have an unabashed communist party, or the BNP, or Greens and still get seats.

It'd also break up the too broad major parties. The Tories should be at least 2 parties: right wing pro Europe and right wing anti Europe. That way they'd have avoided 40 years of infighting on the subject and if you vote right wing you'd have a choice on if you liked the EU at the ballot too.

Labour needs the same too - one which has the more centrist Blairites and one the more left leaning lot. At least that might also mean the centrists might consider joining the Lib Dems or vice versa and we actually have a proper centrist party as a third choice.

That's a fair point and something that annoys me with MP's is that it appears the opposition just oppose everything for the sake of being the opposition. Brexit is a good example and as you mention, there is split within both parties. But it seems Labour MP's will just oppose anything the Tories put forward even if they actually belief in it (or even their constituents!). That's why Brexit is going basically going to be a mess because nothing is going to pass. It would be stupid, but I would like to see the Tories just give up and give power to Labour, who then had to do everything they said or suffer from dire consequences (life imprisonment for them and direct descendants or something like that), i.e. put up or shut up. Obviously goes both ways with that with the election manifestos in the first place.

However incompetent you view MP's, they still know more about how politics work than I (and I am going to say most of us really) do and are probably doing it better than we could.

The split in the Tories has more effect than the Lib Dems and Labour opposing what the Tories want. The Tories first fell apart after the result,as Johnson,Gove etc stabbed Cameron in the back to try and get control of the party,and when they didn't get the result they expected,ran away and May had to stand up and take the difficult job nobody wanted. People criticise her,but she had the gumption to go and take the job which nobody apparently wanted.

We lost criticial time because of that and then May feeling she needed to do a general election to legitimise her premiership,which ended up with less seats for them.

Then after that there is still more infighting - May now has to balance what the pro-Europe and anti-Europe people in her party want who criticise stuff in public making her negotiations more complex,and most of the time its those people sabotaging any real progress since she is scared the party will either split apart or she will be replaced in another leadership battle.

This is why Brexit is going to be a mess,since the party IN CHARGE,is not unified.

Now she is at the helm,she is now fighting against two different parts of her own party who want to go both ways,ie,they are the ones sabotaging Brexit - trying to blame Labour is a bit of a false equivalence,as they also fell apart after the Blairites tried to remove Corbyn from power and are still rather shaky.

The opposition can only have any power if the final deal comes to vote,and there is more than one opposition party in the UK. They can say what they want - its not going to mean the government has to listen,and one could argue governments tend to dismiss what the opposition says just because they can too.

Opposition for the sake of it is endemic in our system sadly, but I'm not sure how any voting system would alter that. I don't believe that any party should be legally forced to enact their entire manifesto though. For a start it makes parliament redundant, surely you just have an election, enact the manifesto and then all clock off for five years? Secondly, just because people voted for a party doesn't mean (especially under our system of only 2 major parties,) you agree with ALL their policies. I tend to lean Tory on economic policy but on social issues I'm Lib Dem so if a party wanted run the economy in a way I favour AND ban same-sex marriage (for example,) I wouldn't want both to happen by default.

Politicians doubtless understand the system better than most and are doing a better job than we could. The problem is they tend to do a great job for politicians rather than a great job for the electorate.

If they make certain major promises and they don't happen,then they should investigated to see why this did not happen,to ascertain whether it was fair that the major promise was not adhered to. If not any party can lie through their teeth to win an election and stay in power until the next one.

In the realworld if a company makes false claims when they sell a product they can be fined - so why isn't it the same for political parties??

[Smudger]

That's a fair point and something that annoys me with MP's is that it appears the opposition just oppose everything for the sake of being the opposition. Brexit is a good example and as you mention, there is split within both parties. But it seems Labour MP's will just oppose anything the Tories put forward even if they actually belief in it (or even their constituents!). That's why Brexit is going basically going to be a mess because nothing is going to pass. It would be stupid, but I would like to see the Tories just give up and give power to Labour, who then had to do everything they said or suffer from dire consequences (life imprisonment for them and direct descendants or something like that), i.e. put up or shut up. Obviously goes both ways with that with the election manifestos in the first place.

However incompetent you view MP's, they still know more about how politics work than I (and I am going to say most of us really) do and are probably doing it better than we could.

I believe most Brexit votes that have been pushed back because they are anti-democratic (whatever that word means now). The simplest method for transfer of laws would be to take everything in Euro law now and put it into UK law, then repeal those that are not necessary. The major vote I remember was the one where the government said 'right, we'll put in the laws we like, and some extra ones, but we're not going to tell you what the extra ones are, and we're not going to give parliament a chance to vote on them'. So yes, those sorts of things absolutely should be passed back. Considering the claim is that BRexit was voted for because 'we want to take back control', and or our parliament to 'have sovereignty', they were taking away control and ignoring parliament.

[Saracen]

I believe most Brexit votes that have been pushed back because they are anti-democratic (whatever that word means now). The simplest method for transfer of laws would be to take everything in Euro law now and put it into UK law, then repeal those that are not necessary. The major vote I remember was the one where the government said 'right, we'll put in the laws we like, and some extra ones, but we're not going to tell you what the extra ones are, and we're not going to give parliament a chance to vote on them'. So yes, those sorts of things absolutely should be passed back. Considering the claim is that BRexit was voted for because 'we want to take back control', and or our parliament to 'have sovereignty', they were taking away control and ignoring parliament.

Actually, the process was and is to take the vast bulk of EU law and make it UK law. That's what the "Great Repeal Bill" does.

But it's not as simple as taking an EU regulation, making an equivalent UK regulation, and then moving on to the next one. For a start, there are some 12,000 of them. A one by one approach where Parliament votes on each would take years, during which the legal status of, well, everything would be a confused morass.

Secondly, those 12,000 regulations don't work in a vacuum. They're part of a franework defined by galf a dozen or more treaties, which also cease to apply wgen we leave. Then, the effect of many of those 12,000 has been refined, altered or adapted by years of historic CJEU rulings without which the effect of the regs eould be different, and our intent is to apply the effect of the regs, not just the basic letter.

Next, many regs relate to the operation of EU institutions. And, unless negotiated as part of the exit process, we will no longer be part of them, so the UK version needs to be adapted to UK relevance.

Then, next, is the fact that we already don't apply all EU laws and treaty obligations. For instance, we aren't part of monetary union, so EU laws on the Euro, and much of the role of the ECB don't apply, and we have the BofE. Another example is the border obligations of the EU as we have a Schengen opt-out.

So there will need to be a LOT of adaptations to the wording of EU regs in order to ensure that the effect on post-Brexit UK will be the same, or as close as possible to the effect of EU law on pre-Brexit UK.


And bear in mind, there will come a moment when, this second we're in the EU and subject to EU law, and the next second, we're out and not subject. The legal situation in thst subsequent second needs to be nailed down, and despite the huge complexity of the Repeal Bill process, there simply isn't anything remotely resembling enough Parliamentary time to have a vote on everything. We'd be bogged down in it for years and years.

So, the Repeal Bill uses a procedure that is absolutely standard, and has been for hundreds of years, for such primary legislation to embed specific powers for the relevant Secretary of State to amend, implement or suspend effects by means if secondary legislation known as Statutory Instruments (SI's) which use a curtailed, short-form system not a full Parliamentary vote.

This is NOT about putting in "extra" laws we're not told about. It's about implementing a hugely complex changeover so that it operates a full system the immediate second we leave the old one. Don't believe me? Read the Bill for yourself.

[badass]

That's a fair point and something that annoys me with MP's is that it appears the opposition just oppose everything for the sake of being the opposition.

The punch and judy rubbish that is parliament is just to keep the great unwashed distracted. There's a lot of reasonable debate and negotiation that goes on in private meetings with reasonable individuals from all major parties. Usually the ultra nutters like Jacob Rees-mog and John Mcdonnel are not invited to these kind of things. A good example is select committees. However they still spout rubbish to the public. Got to keep the average thicko on the street happy.

[cptwhite_uk]

Just wanted to say I heard the interview Zak33 was referring too. It was an absolute train wreck and Diane, as always it seems, came out looking uninformed, unprepared, and out of her depth. I dare say she's not a bad person, but there's no way she should be in politics, never mind a senior position.

You can listen to the interview here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09tc4js

2 hr 41 min 10 secs is where it starts