Reasons to hate theTories

[JAMC]

The Conservatives would never create it, I accept that. However, they wouldn't remove it.

Because it would be electoral suicide. This speaks volumes about modern politics and the tory party. I would not trust someone to properly administer anything that they didn't believe should exist in the first place. The very best you could hope for is a grudging caretaker, the worst a smoke-n-mirrors zealot who reforms through deception. As the Labour party have signed up to the same ideology, this applies to them also.

Sorry, I didn't explain this well.

I meant a balance between radicalism and traditionalism.
In other words, traditional: I would never change the law lords, house of lords, parliament sovereignty, parliamentary government, constitutional monarchy etc

I would radically reform the NHS, Education, Law and Order, Foreign Affairs etc

I haven't explained this brilliantly, but hopefully you get my meaning.
Keep tradition where possible, radically reform what needs reforming.

What you've said can be condensed into this:

You wouldn't change anything that you consider traditional, but 'radically' undo the changes implemented by previous govts for more traditional alternatives or arrangements.

Ultimately there is only tradition - or rather tradition under a radical banner - at the heart of this proposal. Like I said, tradition applied radically.

[Opinionated]

In other words, traditional: I would never change the law lords, house of lords, parliament sovereignty, parliamentary government, constitutional monarchy etc

I would radically reform the NHS, Education, Law and Order, Foreign Affairs etc

Right, so basically reform everything that effects the common person, turn their lives upside down , but protect the status quo in the interest of the lucky few in the name of tradition. You can guess what I think of that!

[LA]

Because it would be electoral suicide. This speaks volumes about modern politics and the tory party. I would not trust someone to properly administer anything that they didn't believe should exist in the first place. The very best you could hope for is a grudging caretaker, the worst a smoke-n-mirrors zealot who reforms through deception. As the Labour party have signed up to the same ideology, this applies to them also.

What you've said can be condensed into this:

You wouldn't change anything that you consider traditional, but 'radically' undo the changes implemented by previous govts for more traditional alternatives or arrangements.

Ultimately there is only tradition - or rather tradition under a radical banner - at the heart of this proposal. Like I said, tradition applied radically.

You assume I would reform them back to how they once were? You are mistaken. My ideas for education are very unique and to my knowledge have never been implemented anywhere

I will keep the grass roots of British (English) tradition, where grass root tradition has been removed I would (if practical) aim to restore. On other matters I would reform to increase efficiency, productivity and cost effectiveness - not necessarily traditional.

[Marxist Nutter]

I would reform to increase efficiency, productivity and cost effectiveness - not necessarily traditional.

Public policy has been banging on about this for years; but have now realised that the issue is far more complex that just the three 'E's

[Expounder]

This ultimately is the problem. What do you do when both choices are rotten?

I am sick of being told that I should effectively vote for the least-worst option.

You may not be able to see what the Labour party has become, but the penny will drop eventually. My 80 year old nan, a life-long Labour voter, responded with "Never again" when I asked her about voting at the local elections. She voted for a party that contained politicians even I can respect - Bevan, Attlee, Benn, even Michael Foot (we need more party leaders that look like crackpot amoral scientists). The current bunch of centerist, cheshire-grinning clones no-longer inspire a sense of belief because politics has now become a science of vote winning.

I'm not telling you to vote for any party but I also have a right to explain my opinion. I'm the same age as your Nan knocking on 81, I agree momentous changes were made after WW2. I lobbied Bevan in the commons in the 50s as a member of the YCL on the Tory threat to at that time to socialist policies introduced by Labour. This was a different age a different climate.


The Tories were always in the ascendance siting the threat that "nationalisation equates to communism" argument. This was a potent argument because of the cold war and remained so as the Tories argued Labour was in thrall to Soviet communism.

It was frustrating, while Clause 4 remained in Labour's constitution The Tories had a stick to beat us with and the climate of left wing hope that brought Attlee's government to power after WW2 was never going to be repeated because of the changed political situation in Europe.


I longed for a Labour government with an ample working majority but all that happened was Neil Kinnock and Michael Foot both brutally lampooned and destroyed in personal attacks by the slick Tory dirty tricks machine. How was a Labour government ever to be elected? Along came Blair and Brown, with Clause 4 dropped from the constitution they were the answer so it seemed.

Labour under brown and Blair, in thrall to America, squandered the good will of the electorate with policies tied in with Bush and Cheney and the continuance of the Big Bang policies of Thatcher.

However I can still see the nucleus of salvation within the Labour party if you can't and am not prepared to throw the lot into the melting pot and start from zero to see what might come out of the shambles as a result, resulting in Tory administration for years to come.

If you are thinking of Google Page Ranking, Cameron is totally opposed to the idea. We must wait for the Kelly report to see what they come up with, the reformation of parliament[which I know is sorely needed]must not be rushed. The best idea as I said to MN, if you have strong feelings and ideas on the subject send them to the Kelly enquiry.

.
While I agree the prime object of a party is to get elected, principles however well intentioned have never in the history of any party been fully achieved. And I'm afraid even after the political kaleidoscope settles promises made will never be fully fullfilled.

The only guaranteed certainty, is the Tories, with all of Camerons hot air and fresh broom aproach, will continue with Thatcher's policies. words cost nothing as you say the object is to get elected, and whatever you may disagree with about with Labour and I also have many points of disagreement, the answer in my opinion for the ordinary person is not a Conservative government.

[JAMC]

I'm not telling you to vote for any party but I also have a right to explain my opinion. I'm the same age as your Nan knocking on 81, I agree momentous changes were made after WW2. I lobbied Bevan in the commons in the 50s as a member of the YCL on the Tory threat to at that time to socialist policies introduced by Labour. This was a different age a different climate.


The Tories were always in the ascendance siting the threat that "nationalisation equates to communism" argument. This was a potent argument because of the cold war and remained so as the Tories argued Labour was in thrall to Soviet communism.

It was frustrating, while Clause 4 remained in Labour's constitution The Tories had a stick to beat us with and the climate of left wing hope that brought Attlee's government to power after WW2 was never going to be repeated because of the changed political situation in Europe.


I longed for a Labour government with an ample working majority but all that happened was Neil Kinnock and Michael Foot both brutally lampooned and destroyed in personal attacks by the slick Tory dirty tricks machine. How was a Labour government ever to be elected? Along came Blair and Brown, with Clause 4 dropped from the constitution they were the answer so it seemed.

Labour under brown and Blair, in thrall to America, squandered the good will of the electorate with policies tied in with Bush and Cheney and the continuance of the Big Bang policies of Thatcher.

However I can still see the nucleus of salvation within the Labour party if you can't and am not prepared to throw the lot into the melting pot and start from zero to see what might come out of the shambles as a result, resulting in Tory administration for years to come.

If you are thinking of Google Page Ranking, Cameron is totally opposed to the idea. We must wait for the Kelly report to see what they come up with, the reformation of parliament[which I know is sorely needed]must not be rushed. The best idea as I said to MN, if you have strong feelings and ideas on the subject send them to the Kelly enquiry.

.
While I agree the prime object of a party is to get elected, principles however well intentioned have never in the history of any party been fully achieved. And I'm afraid even after the political kaleidoscope settles promises made will never be fully fullfilled.

The only guaranteed certainty, is the Tories, with all of Camerons hot air and fresh broom aproach, will continue with Thatcher's policies. words cost nothing as you say the object is to get elected, and whatever you may disagree with about with Labour and I also have many points of disagreement, the answer in my opinion for the ordinary person is not a Conservative government.

The bottom line exp, is that a political party is, or rather should be, a means to a greater end - not an end in itself.

For the conservatives, the end goal is and always has been the introduction of a fully market-orientated society. Before clause 4 went, the raison d'être of the Labour party (and movement) was to transform Britain into a socialist society. Post clause 4, both parties advocate the same end goal - elections are no longer a question of which direction the country should move, but rather who's earned the privilidge of being in the driver's seat for the next leg of the journey to a destination that can't be altered.

Yes the labour party were out in the cold for a large part of the late 20th century. But by abandoning their core beliefs for the sake of electability, they've undermined the reason for their own existence. As insane as it sounds, my belief is that a political party should be prepared to wait 20, 30 40, 100 years until their views are those that resonate most profoundly with society and place them in a strong position electorally.

I know how crazy that sounds when placed in the context of the current political system - some parties and MPs may never hold office, or participate in the parliamentary system their entire lives. However, I think the sluggish, feet-dragging nature of our first-past-the-post system hasn't helped political parties maintain their integrity. Given alternative systems, I wonder whether, for example, the tories would have lasted 1979 - 1997. I don't think they would have.

I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with governments being put at real risk of collapse mid-term as a result of poor performance. It may serve to encourage them to buck their ideas up.

[Expounder]

Expounder, I am sorry but your anti-Conservative crap is exactly that. Crap.

The Conservatives would not dismantle the NHS rather they would reform it (in other words, unlike Gordon Brown, they won't throw money at it, they will make sure the money is being spent efficiently)

For reform read: dismantle, a death by a thousand cuts to damage and discredit it and sell it off piece by piece for a song to the private sector which has been the policy of the Tories since Thatcher encouraged the setting up of private medicine. The only problem is private medicine organisations are lacking investment for purchase of state of the art equipment.

I would guess that the privateer Tories have their eye on solving this problem with a "fire sale" of NHS equipment at give away prices once they have undermined it.

What makes the Green Party annoying is they cling to Environmental myths about climate change.

The Greens have a role to play in trying to save the planet, at least they have no devious intentions as does Camerons Tories.

[LA]

The Greens have a role to play in trying to save the planet, at least they have no devious intentions as does Camerons Tories.

Pure speculation.
The Greens have a role saving the planet against an imaginary threat.

[Expounder]

There is a big difference between being fully aware of the options available but deeming all of them to be unsuitable, and simply being too disinterested to participate at all. Why would someone with ~ 1900 posts on a politics forum be considered apathetic?

Everyone on this forum will tell you that change is needed - myself included. But we will never agree on what that change should be.

It is not the day-to-day running of the commons that agitates me. It is the mechanism we use to deliver the participants into that system, a mechanism which artificially limits the choice of candidates and warps the result to amplify government majorities, that is the root cause of the problems now being dragged through the Independent.

If the posibility of a Tory-UKIP-BNP governing coalition is the price to be paid to ensure that my vote is cast on a level playing field, then I am more than willing to accept it.

I can't think of any worse solution to the to the problem to include the BNP in your coalition. Millions of people died and were murdered fighting against the Nazis from whom they have morphed. I don't think you fully understand the implications if this were to happen.

The only sure thing about History is that very few people learn from it.

[JAMC]

I can't think of any worse to the solution to the problem to include the BNP in your coalition.

What do you mean "my" coalition? I lumped those three together for arguments' sake because it was the worst combination I could think of. My rationale is that we should not attempt to warp or sanitise the will of the electorate (even if it's not "mainstream") by sticking with a biased voting system that simply allows extremist pressure to build up with no outlet.

Millions of people died and were murdered fighting against the Nazis from whom they have morphed. I don't think you fully understand the implications if this were to happen.

We should not attempt to "stop extremist parties at any cost" - there are deep seated flaws in the current setup that permit extremist views to take hold and thrive amongst those segments of society that are disengaged from the political process.

The only sure thing about History is that very few people learn from it.

As you said above, the ideology that the BNP evolved from is thoroughly abhorrent. However much we would like to be able to take the lessons of history on board (most of us on the forum try harder than average), sometimes to be truly educated a textbook isn't enough - people must experience first hand the consequences of their poor decision-making.

[Midas]

I can't think of any worse solution to the to the problem to include the BNP in your coalition. Millions of people died and were murdered fighting against the Nazis from whom they have morphed. I don't think you fully understand the implications if this were to happen.

The only sure thing about History is that very few people learn from it.

In a democratic society don't you think it important that all views are represented, especially if those views are expressed by a significant number, albeit a minority, of people? To exclude certain groups simply because you don't like them is a significant step on the road to totalitarianism, whether it be to the left or right.

I agree that we should learn from history, however in a true democracy the majority should use that knowledge to be selective about what they take from the minority to avoid repeating past mistakes.

[Expounder]

In a democratic society don't you think it important that all views are represented, especially if those views are expressed by a significant number, albeit a minority, of people? To exclude certain groups simply because you don't like them is a significant step on the road to totalitarianism, whether it be to the left or right.

I agree that we should learn from history, however in a true democracy the majority should use that knowledge to be selective about what they take from the minority to avoid repeating past mistakes.

You have the wrong end of the stick Midas, I wasn't suggesting banning the BNP or any exreme right groups [unless laws are broken]. My meaning in reply to JAMC avoid comparing them to the mainstream parties which gives a veneer of respectablity.

[Midas]

You have the wrong end of the stick Midas, I wasn't suggesting banning the BNP or any exreme right groups [unless laws are broken]. My meaning in reply to JAMC avoid comparing them to the mainstream parties which gives the a veneer of respectablity.

OK, my misunderstanding; I did think it strange that you'd be expounding, pun intended, quite such a move!

[Midas]

I've moved and merged all the global warming posts in this thread to http://www.politic.co.uk/environment...ing-begun.html.

[Baldilocks]

A couple of quick comments while I'm passing this way ...

I see the old 'Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher' attempt at demonisation has been resurrected .. again ??? Well .. would anyone like to learn the TRUTH about that ?

I daresay I can dig up other links .. but this will serve ..

http://www.blurtit.com/q547160.html

Quote ..

Margaret Thatcher has had a political career with a variety of controversial and difficult issues that needed to be resolved. When the conservatives won the 1970 general election, Thatcher became Secretary of State for Education and Science. Within the first few months of her taking office, she was called upon to handle a cut in the education budget. She was responsible for the abolition of universal free milk for school children aged 7 to 11. This had already been done for secondary schools. This resulted in her being referred to by some as Thatcher Thatcher, Milk Snatcher. Recently, cabinet papers have been released showing that she spoke against this move, but was forced to enact it, due to collective responsibility. She was bound to implement the will of her fellow ministers.

Mrs Thatcher simply did what she was MANDATED to do, by OTHERS. So to blame her for this action is - but of course - unfair.

My one other point is to remind people that it was Mrs Thatcher - who won her first victory, like the others that followed, by a landslide - who SAVED our country, its economy, its reputation across the world in the eyes of all other countries we traded with, from meltdown !! We'd just suffered WAVES of strikes, courtesy of Socialist Union militancy, and our economy was suffering. Jobs were being lost. Contracts entered into were not being fulfilled. Under Mrs Thatcher's remedial Premiership, her crackdown on the Unions saved us from more of the same.

So our economy, over time, was saved. Our reputation abroad became a respectable one again.

.. and in fact, thanks to Margaret Thatcher, we knew a taste of international greatness and pride in ourselves once more.

Not for nothing is she likely to get a State funeral. Not for nothing is her every mishap, injury, whatever ... made a mainstream media story, this DECADES after she ceased to be our Prime Minister !!

And not for nothing is she granted an audience with the Pope, even today. See ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/margaret-thatcher/5395464/Margaret-Thatcher-meets-Pope-Benedict-XVI-in-the-Vatican.html

Quote ..

The meeting took place after the Pope's weekly audience in St Peter's Square. Lady Thatcher, was dressed in black as she had been on her first visit in 1977, with a dark handbag and star shaped brooch.

They talked for several minutes and Lady Thatcher encouraged the Pope to accept the invitation from Gordon Brown to visit Britain. The first Pope to visit Britain was John Paul II who came in 1982 at the time of the Falklands War.

Before she met the Pope Lady Thatcher laid a wreath of white roses on the tomb in the Vatican of John Paul II with a card which said: " To a man of faith and courage." Lady Thatcher's relationship with the former Polish cardinal was politically close.

The reference to the Pope meeting Gordon Brown, refers to THIS ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4698608/Pope-Benedict-XVI-snubs-Gordon-Browns-invitation-to-visit-Britain.html

Quote ..

Gordon Brown suffered an apparent public embarrassment after inviting Pope Benedict XVI to visit Britain only to be rebuffed hours later.

Such is Lady Thatcher's greatness that she used her meeting with the Pope to put in a good word for Gordon Brown !! Not bad for a Prime Minister who was supposedly a 'bad' one, who left Office nearly twenty years ago !!!

Greatness is acknowledged, you see. And Lady Thatcher's greatness is recognised the world over.

[JacquesMagique]

Pure speculation.
The Greens have a role saving the planet against an imaginary threat.

Even if global warming isn't as much of a problem as the general consensus suggests, unless we swtiched to the use of more sutainable resources, the problems of over-consumption and over-reliance on fossil fuels are a very real threat.

[Baldilocks]

Expounder, I am sorry but your anti-Conservative crap is exactly that. Crap.

The Conservatives would not dismantle the NHS rather they would reform it (in other words, unlike Gordon Brown, they won't throw money at it, they will make sure the money is being spent efficiently)

Yes, exactly.

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that this 'Conservatives are the enemy of the NHS' line is one which the Left dust down for occasional airings just to come up with a sound byte when their arguments are getting a pasting.

Since the NHS was created back in 1948, how many Conservative Governments have we had ? How many years - DECADES, even - have the Conservatives been in Government ? Yet, the NHS exists to this day .. and still as the dominant source of healthcare in our Society.

You'd think that the Conservatives would've found a way of 'doing the dirty' on the NHS some time during ALL of the chances they've had in those years .. wouldn't you ?

But it HASN'T HAPPENED.

The Left does enjoy its demonisations.

[LA]

Even if global warming isn't as much of a problem as the general consensus suggests, unless we swtiched to the use of more sutainable resources, the problems of over-consumption and over-reliance on fossil fuels are a very real threat.

Yes.
This is why my arguing against great human involvement in climate change is kinda foolish, because the end result is the same.

I think we need alternative fuel sources, we must get off fossil fuels.
But unlike Environmentalists, I do it for the common sense reason of Fossil Fuels don't last.

[JacquesMagique]

Yes.
This is why my arguing against great human involvement in climate change is kinda foolish, because the end result is the same.

I think we need alternative fuel sources, we must get off fossil fuels.
But unlike Environmentalists, I do it for the common sense reason of Fossil Fuels don't last.

But it's not just fuel though. economic growth is essentially increasing the capacity to use up all resources, and the current system is entirely unsustainable. The environmental and susatinability ideas of most of the major parties do no really tackle this problem.
Even if you think that climate change is a myth, surely you have a problem with the increase in phenomena like acid rain, water pollution etc?

Anyway we are in a thread about the tories, so we should probably shut up before the mods get ruffled feathers

[Citizen Smith]

Anyone seen the new EDF energy green Britain day" advert?
Awful.

[123]

The only reason many people vote for the Conseravtives is when they want to get rid of labour, not because they have any good ideas. In an ideal world there would be four or five "main" parties.

At the moment there are only really two choices Labour or Tory. That is not a democracy, I would love nothing more than to see another party win a general election in the next 10 years or so.

[Major Sinic]

The only reason many people vote for the Conseravtives is when they want to get rid of labour, not because they have any good ideas. In an ideal world there would be four or five "main" parties.

At the moment there are only really two choices Labour or Tory. That is not a democracy, I would love nothing more than to see another party win a general election in the next 10 years or so.

Four or five main parties and you would end up with the type of wholly ineffectual government enjoyed by Italy. Incidentally many people have noticed that New Labour don't seem to have a great deal of good ideas either!!

[Midas]

Four or five main parties and you would end up with the type of wholly ineffectual government enjoyed by Italy. Incidentally many people have noticed that New Labour don't seem to have a great deal of good ideas either!!

Under the current first past the post electoral system I would agree with you, however if we do ever make the move to proportional representation and the effective removal of party politics from government, a greater diversity of views and opinions would certainly be a good thing. With just two, or perhaps three, significant parties, the views of the often substantial minority can get forgotten or ignored simply because they're not seen as vote winners regardless of how beneficial they might be for the country and its people as a whole.

[123]

Under the current first past the post electoral system I would agree with you, however if we do ever make the move to proportional representation and the effective removal of party politics from government, a greater diversity of views and opinions would certainly be a good thing. With just two, or perhaps three, significant parties, the views of the often substantial minority can get forgotten or ignored simply because they're not seen as vote winners regardless of how beneficial they might be for the country and its people as a whole.

Well said. Infact there is now less and less difference between the Tories and Labour. Eventually we will just have a choice between two identical parties with different leaders.

[Major Sinic]

Under the current first past the post electoral system I would agree with you, however if we do ever make the move to proportional representation and the effective removal of party politics from government, a greater diversity of views and opinions would certainly be a good thing. With just two, or perhaps three, significant parties, the views of the often substantial minority can get forgotten or ignored simply because they're not seen as vote winners regardless of how beneficial they might be for the country and its people as a whole.

I do find it hard as a democrat to argue against one or other method of proportional representation as an overall principle. However from a pragmatic viewpoint, the resulting confusion and compromise could, and probably would, result in even weaker government than we currently have, which is the last thing we need at the moment. Also small political minorities can become disproportionately powerful by offering a balance of power in exchange for the granting of minority aims and interests.

However, I abhor the power of the party over the individual Member of Parliament, and the whip system is wholly undemocratic, reminding me of nothing other than bullying sixth formers and fagging at public school, long now discarded I am glad to say, as the party whip should be. Uneven electoral constituencies are another undemocratic bone of contention. These aspects should first be addressed in any parliamentary reformation, along with local deselection mechanisms to oust an unsatisfactory sitting Member, and greater accountability to the electorate by the individual MP.

It should be remembered that the 'first past the post system' has generally served the nations interests over the centuries, and I would prefer to see evolution of the parliamentary system rather than revolution.

[DougieG]

I do find it hard as a democrat to argue against one or other method of proportional representation as an overall principle. However from a pragmatic viewpoint, the resulting confusion and compromise could, and probably would, result in even weaker government than we currently have, which is the last thing we need at the moment. Also small political minorities can become disproportionately powerful by offering a balance of power in exchange for the granting of minority aims and interests.

However, I abhor the power of the party over the individual Member of Parliament, and the whip system is wholly undemocratic, reminding me of nothing other than bullying sixth formers and fagging at public school, long now discarded I am glad to say, as the party whip should be. Uneven electoral constituencies are another undemocratic bone of contention. These aspects should first be addressed in any parliamentary reformation, along with local deselection mechanisms to oust an unsatisfactory sitting Member, and greater accountability to the electorate by the individual MP.

It should be remembered that the 'first past the post system' has generally served the nations interests over the centuries, and I would prefer to see evolution of the parliamentary system rather than revolution.

The political system of Germany involves Google Page Ranking and the country enjoys political stability. I know I keep trumpeting their system's success everywhere, but I'd seriously advise looking at it as a model of a strong democracy where party politics takes a back seat to voter representation.

[Major Sinic]

The political system of Germany involves Google Page Ranking and the country enjoys political stability. I know I keep trumpeting their system's success everywhere, but I'd seriously advise looking at it as a model of a strong democracy where party politics takes a back seat to voter representation.

I shall get busy 'googling' German Parliamentary System. Being conservative in my views, I would still prefer to see our parliamentary system reform through evolution.

[JAMC]

However from a pragmatic viewpoint, the resulting confusion and compromise could, and probably would, result in even weaker government than we currently have, which is the last thing we need at the moment.....
It should be remembered that the 'first past the post system' has generally served the nations interests over the centuries, and I would prefer to see evolution of the parliamentary system rather than revolution.

Firstly I would refute the suggestion that first past the post has 'helped' in any way whatsoever - In reality I think many of the advances we've enjoyed throughout the last 100 years have come in spite of the current system, not because of it.

The other thing I would question is the reasoning for thinking that making it more difficult for governments to be removed, or coalitions to fall apart (i.e. weakness) is a bad thing? How so? One of the biggest flaws of the current system is how stale it has allowed Labour to become without ejecting them from government. Our concept of governments changing once in a generation must itself be got rid of if we're ever to enjoy responsive government that actually reflects the wishes of the electorate - wishes that will inevitably change over the course of 4+ years.

[Major Sinic]

Firstly I would refute the suggestion that first past the post has 'helped' in any way whatsoever - In reality I think many of the advances we've enjoyed throughout the last 100 years have come in spite of the current system, not because of it.

The other thing I would question is the reasoning for thinking that making it more difficult for governments to be removed, or coalitions to fall apart (i.e. weakness) is a bad thing? How so? One of the biggest flaws of the current system is how stale it has allowed Labour to become without ejecting them from government. Our concept of governments changing once in a generation must itself be got rid of if we're ever to enjoy responsive government that actually reflects the wishes of the electorate - wishes that will inevitably change over the course of 4+ years.

In response to your first para it is really a matter of individual opinion and judgment. Assess it on todays standards, and at times it seems almost totalitarian, but judge it on the standards of the time and I believe it measures up. It was in most ways easier, because the nation was generally wealthier and the 'people' knew their place.

You make a valid point in your second para. Irrespective of anyone's political stance, most would agree that this government is past it's sell by date, as was Major's in 1997. But in both cases each has/had held power for over twelve years, and the electorate had two or three (in the case of the Tories) intermediate opportunities to change the party of government, but chose not do so. I therefore feel the lack of flexibility over four or five years is a bit of a red herring. A shorter period would surely not provide any government with the opportunity to really make a difference, and would encourage the sort of short termism practiced by bankers and regulators, which led to the present economic situation.

Surely to encourage responsive government, we should make our individual MPs more accountable to their constituents, and less accountable to their party. To do this we need to remove the whip system, encourage an ethos where in each constituency, the voter is encouraged to vote for an individual, rather than a political colour, and we need to create a legitimate mechanism whereby unsatisfactory MPs can be got rid of, without a golden parachute.

I also believe referendums (referenda when I was at school!) should form a far more prominent part in government.

[JAMC]

In response to your first para it is really a matter of individual opinion and judgment. Assess it on todays standards, and at times it seems almost totalitarian, but judge it on the standards of the time and I believe it measures up. It was in most ways easier, because the nation was generally wealthier and the 'people' knew their place.

The concept of people happy to be ruled by their 'social betters' is long, long gone - and good riddance. I cannot abide by any justification for retaining the current system based on how effective (or not) it once was. What is required is a system that is effective now.

You make a valid point in your second para. Irrespective of anyone's political stance, most would agree that this government is past it's sell by date, as was Major's in 1997. But in both cases each has/had held power for over twelve years, and the electorate had two or three (in the case of the Tories) intermediate opportunities to change the party of government, but chose not do so. I therefore feel the lack of flexibility over four or five years is a bit of a red herring. A shorter period would surely not provide any government with the opportunity to really make a difference, and would encourage the sort of short termism practiced by bankers and regulators, which led to the present economic situation.

Surely to encourage responsive government, we should make our individual MPs more accountable to their constituents, and less accountable to their party. To do this we need to remove the whip system, encourage an ethos where in each constituency, the voter is encouraged to vote for an individual, rather than a political colour, and we need to create a legitimate mechanism whereby unsatisfactory MPs can be got rid of, without a golden parachute.

I also believe referendums (referenda when I was at school!) should form a far more prominent part in government.

One of the ideas floated around this forum, and also included in Brown's ramblings the other day, is the concept of un-electing an MP. Assuming we're stuck with first-past-the-post it would work thusly.... Should enough constituents (typically figures like 25% have been banded about) express their will by petition, they would be able to trigger a by-election, effectively un-seating the current MP.

Potentially should enough MPs from the governing party be un-seated in constituencies across the country, this could be employed as a mechanism for forcing a change in government by altering the balance of MPs in the commons.

[Major Sinic]

The concept of people happy to be ruled by their 'social betters' is long, long gone - and good riddance. I cannot abide by any justification for retaining the current system based on how effective (or not) it once was. What is required is a system that is effective now.

I am not attempting to justify the system because it worked well in the past, I am attempting to justify it because it would still work well with some overdue reform

One of the ideas floated around this forum, and also included in Brown's ramblings the other day, is the concept of un-electing an MP. Assuming we're stuck with first-past-the-post it would work thusly.... Should enough constituents (typically figures like 25% have been banded about) express their will by petition, they would be able to trigger a by-election, effectively un-seating the current MP.

Potentially should enough MPs from the governing party be un-seated in constituencies across the country, this could be employed as a mechanism for forcing a change in government by altering the balance of MPs in the commons.

I would agree with any workable system which encourages a higher quality of MP, and a greater degree of individual accountability by the MP to the electorate. Such a system as you outline above would seem to go a considerable way toward achieving that.

[LA]

I am pleased to see JAMC agreeing with me on citizens initiatives to remove MP's.

[JAMC]

I am pleased to see JAMC agreeing with me on citizens initiatives to remove MP's.

Currently the number of ways an MP can lose their seat between elections is relatively few;

• Die
• Spend more than 1 year in prison (I think...?)
• There are probably a couple more that escape me

I find it hard to believe that a job in which the employee isn't subject to the normal conditions of employment experienced by the rest of us - i.e. poor performance, misconduct etc... are legitimate grounds for dismissal - would result in sufficient performance from the postholder.

Virtually the only task an MP has to fulfill is to represent their constituent's views - a situation whereby an MP votes in favour of an act of parliament to which > 80% of their constituents are opposed (i.e. war in Iraq) would more than likely result in their de-selection in a system similar to that proposed. Potentially no bad thing.

[LA]

Currently the number of ways an MP can lose their seat between elections is relatively few;

• Die
• Spend more than 1 year in prison (I think...?)
• There are probably a couple more that escape me

I find it hard to believe that a job in which the employee isn't subject to the normal conditions of employment experienced by the rest of us - i.e. poor performance, misconduct etc... are legitimate grounds for dismissal - would result in sufficient performance from the postholder.

Virtually the only task an MP has to fulfill is to represent their constituent's views - a situation whereby an MP votes in favour of an act of parliament to which > 80% of their constituents are opposed (i.e. war in Iraq) would more than likely result in their de-selection in a system similar to that proposed. Potentially no bad thing.

I quite agree.

However, there does need to be a balance. You cannot just have MP's removed because they are not popular (even if they make the right choices)...
It is finding the balance that is difficult - Unless you use the courts.

In short, the people collect a petition with so many votes made up only of constituents. Then this is given to a court to deliberate over. The court then makes a decision.

[JAMC]

You cannot just have MP's removed because they are not popular (even if they make the right choices)...

Isn't this exactly what happens at elections anyway?

It is finding the balance that is difficult - Unless you use the courts.

In short, the people collect a petition with so many votes made up only of constituents. Then this is given to a court to deliberate over. The court then makes a decision.

I would not advocate using the courts. For a start the courts are there to deal with civil and criminal prosecutions. Being a rubbish MP isn't a 'crime' as such - if we trust the population to select the individuals to represent them, why would we also not trust them to unselect them?

I would also have concern about granting more power in the electoral system to a branch of the state that is not directly accountable to the populace.