My earlier piece on the right’s jihad on the imaginary scourge of quangos will be the first of a series of posts dismantling the mantras of the slop right.
Some really good ideas. Regarding voting. I like some of the ideas of Robert A. Heinlein. I think we give the vote to people far too easily. One should not be able to choose the control of a country simply by existing. A kind of voluntary service to the state should be required in order to be a citizen and able to vote. It could be either in the military or in other domains. Also a test should be applied as to knowledge of basic economics, geography, history and civics before the vote is given. People should be at least 21 years of age before being able to apply for the vote, because the brain is not fully formed in most people until that age, and the emotional trauma of the teenage years should be behind you. Of course, education must include the aforementioned subjects. Block or tribal voting should be abolished. Being a Muslim should result in automatic disqualification from voting. This is because the whole basis of Islamic ideology is antithetical to western civilisation. I see nothing wrong in this, because if Islam ever takes over in western countries, we westerners would become second class citizens known as “dhimmis”, subject to a special tax.
'Separation of Powers' with an elected PM is of course demand three of The Harrogate Agenda which I know you support. There are a further five demands with all six designed to improve our governance and democracy to turn our politicians into our servants instead of being our masters by giving the 'People' real power.
Our demands do need updating since its conception in 2012 and that is scheduled to be done this year by a certain Dr Richard North!
I agree with moving out of the House of Commons. As I've written several times, give the building to Tim Martin and set up a parliament in a building in the centre of England, in one of the many disused warehouses, furnished from Ikea.
I think the scrutiny bit is the nub of it. We have a government and administrative system (any delivery arm of the state) which has little or no respect for parliamentary scrutiny. Due to parliament essentially being toothless.
Some thought-provoking stuff here but would like to understand how these proposals impact the relationship between Church and State e.g bishops in HoL, role of the monarchy.
Pete has completely overlooked our history in this piece. It would be very difficult, nay almost impossible, to change our constitution in the way he suggests if only because of the fact that we are actually a real 'sovereign' state.
From what I've seen scrutiny seems too much agenda-driven point scoring.
I've also come around to the idea of elected leaders - of government and councils.
I would also like to widen the area of candidates put before people.
MP candidates are chosen by a very small number of people in back room deals. It would be nice to have some kind of primaries - can't we have 10 possible candidates for each party and supporters/members/residents given a choice of whom they would prefer as the candidates to go forward?
You're not wrong about this, Pete, but I take issue with you on the conflict of interest point: currently an MP is elected by his/her constituents and answers to them (they don't get re-elected). They are also answerable to Parliament, and more so if they are a minister. On the basis you suggest, I'm not sure who an MP would be accountable to.
Also PMs already appoint ministers who have not been elected (see Attorney General Hermer) and others similarly under this and previous governments.
What you area advocating is the American system of government. Do you really think they do things better from a democratic and accountability point of view?
> Any MP who defects shall automatically trigger a by-election.
What if an MP doesn't leave their party, but their party leaves them? For example, a party may renege on a manifesto commitment, and one of their MPs resigns from the party in protest.
In that instance, should it not be the MPs who stayed with the party who be required to face the voters and give an account of themselves?
Who's the Swindon man-baby? Why do substackers want to be paid for their opinions? I'm always ready to hear why Lowe's a loser but I'm not paying for something that'll be in the Express next week.
I have always been an insistent voice in the wilderness crying for none of the above, but I always added the caveat that if none of the above wins an election, everyone who stood for that post or seat should be barred from all politics forever.
have a like from me, just for advocating none of the above on ballot papers.
Always been a hobby horse of mine - kudos...
Yes, but how does it help?
becuase it puts the burden back on candidates to win your vote, not on the electorate to endorse the process.
Some really good ideas. Regarding voting. I like some of the ideas of Robert A. Heinlein. I think we give the vote to people far too easily. One should not be able to choose the control of a country simply by existing. A kind of voluntary service to the state should be required in order to be a citizen and able to vote. It could be either in the military or in other domains. Also a test should be applied as to knowledge of basic economics, geography, history and civics before the vote is given. People should be at least 21 years of age before being able to apply for the vote, because the brain is not fully formed in most people until that age, and the emotional trauma of the teenage years should be behind you. Of course, education must include the aforementioned subjects. Block or tribal voting should be abolished. Being a Muslim should result in automatic disqualification from voting. This is because the whole basis of Islamic ideology is antithetical to western civilisation. I see nothing wrong in this, because if Islam ever takes over in western countries, we westerners would become second class citizens known as “dhimmis”, subject to a special tax.
I fear you have a frustrating and depressing future ahead.
Do you think the ideas are good though?
'Separation of Powers' with an elected PM is of course demand three of The Harrogate Agenda which I know you support. There are a further five demands with all six designed to improve our governance and democracy to turn our politicians into our servants instead of being our masters by giving the 'People' real power.
Our demands do need updating since its conception in 2012 and that is scheduled to be done this year by a certain Dr Richard North!
https://harrogateagenda.org.uk/
The problem being, Niall, is that there are an increasing number of people in this country who believe that we are not a 'people'.
True but there are far more of us then them.
In my opinion the only way for this to happen is via a dictator or a military coup.
Parliament will never agree to it's dissolution.
Where is our ambitious Colonel?
We don't have one and we don't do dictatorships in this country.
Correction: apart from Cromwell, we have not done dictatorships in this country. But never say never!
Careful what you wish for.
You might think your dictator will fix all the problems...the thing is the dictator eventually turns on you. What makes you think you'll survive?
Yes the political system In the UK EU USA and most of the rest of the world is buggered.
Trump missed out in 2020 due to fraud and might have lost at the last election but for the absolute paucity of democrats (and republicans).
But until we remove the threat to our very existence in the UK , talking about a modified democratic process is putting the cart before the horse.
I agree with moving out of the House of Commons. As I've written several times, give the building to Tim Martin and set up a parliament in a building in the centre of England, in one of the many disused warehouses, furnished from Ikea.
I think the scrutiny bit is the nub of it. We have a government and administrative system (any delivery arm of the state) which has little or no respect for parliamentary scrutiny. Due to parliament essentially being toothless.
Corrupt, indeed
Some thought-provoking stuff here but would like to understand how these proposals impact the relationship between Church and State e.g bishops in HoL, role of the monarchy.
Pete has completely overlooked our history in this piece. It would be very difficult, nay almost impossible, to change our constitution in the way he suggests if only because of the fact that we are actually a real 'sovereign' state.
I agree with a lot of points here.
From what I've seen scrutiny seems too much agenda-driven point scoring.
I've also come around to the idea of elected leaders - of government and councils.
I would also like to widen the area of candidates put before people.
MP candidates are chosen by a very small number of people in back room deals. It would be nice to have some kind of primaries - can't we have 10 possible candidates for each party and supporters/members/residents given a choice of whom they would prefer as the candidates to go forward?
As for manifesto promises..
At last we are getting somewhere
I said to a mate earlier;
I predict he (North) will now continue to work hard against the current British right, especially Restore.
Although I admit I wasn't expecting another salvo this evening.
LOL. He's a force of nature
You're not wrong about this, Pete, but I take issue with you on the conflict of interest point: currently an MP is elected by his/her constituents and answers to them (they don't get re-elected). They are also answerable to Parliament, and more so if they are a minister. On the basis you suggest, I'm not sure who an MP would be accountable to.
Also PMs already appoint ministers who have not been elected (see Attorney General Hermer) and others similarly under this and previous governments.
What you area advocating is the American system of government. Do you really think they do things better from a democratic and accountability point of view?
This sounds like something Zia Yusuf was advocating for. No thank you. Got to disagree with you on this one. No American style government over here.
> Any MP who defects shall automatically trigger a by-election.
What if an MP doesn't leave their party, but their party leaves them? For example, a party may renege on a manifesto commitment, and one of their MPs resigns from the party in protest.
In that instance, should it not be the MPs who stayed with the party who be required to face the voters and give an account of themselves?
Who's the Swindon man-baby? Why do substackers want to be paid for their opinions? I'm always ready to hear why Lowe's a loser but I'm not paying for something that'll be in the Express next week.
I have always been an insistent voice in the wilderness crying for none of the above, but I always added the caveat that if none of the above wins an election, everyone who stood for that post or seat should be barred from all politics forever.