|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 31, 2019 12:23:48 GMT
I think that there are brief eras that contain rather good sections of MPs Eras when there are very few good sections of MPs Most of the time most of them are poor average and nothing special It it only ever seen to be good in hindsight The perception varies according to mood of the perceivers Much of the time it doesn't matter as not much happens. In the 90s and 00s the right were despondent and taking on a bit about it all. We were moaning, resigning and flirting with Referendum and UKIP and other matters. Party drifted centre left wet, then cenre left dry. We were forming threads like this. Now we have seen a period of Conservative ascendency, Referendum win, Trump, BP and Johnson. We have suvived Major, Cameron and May and come out into a Johnson sunshine. Leaving soon on No Deal looks likely. Steaming the dross out of our party looks very likely. A move to centre right has happened. All of the above paragraph must be dispiriting for those who are centrists and Remainers and thus their mood causes this thread. The MPs are as good, indifferent and bad as they have always been. It is the plethora of big events and big decisions that show them up to be indecisive, pig-ignorant plonkers. They always were but you never had cause to notice! Ah, the OvertoCarlton window is established |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2019 12:35:45 GMT
Paul Goodman said he felt liberated when he announced he was stepping down as MP for Aylesbury. When stupid or obnoxious people came to his surgeries for the remainder of his term he let them have it with both barrels. Probably just as well that he didn't follow his original career intention ( he intended to become a monk) Quite right- it's terrible to be going gaga. Paul was from a secular Jewish family who were not delighted by his conversion to Catholicism. They were at least spared him becoming a monk, though he did spend some time as a novice. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Aug 31, 2019 13:05:17 GMT
Relevant to this thread, I see at Channel 5 at 9pm on Monday- Paxman, Why our Politicians are so c*** Because the journalists and broadcasters who should hold them to account are equally (or perhaps more) c*** themselves ? |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,437
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 31, 2019 13:25:41 GMT
Wycombe, not Aylesbury Probably just as well that he didn't follow his original career intention ( he intended to become a monk) Quite right- it's terrible to be going gaga. Paul was from a secular Jewish family who were not delighted by his conversion to Catholicism. They were at least spared him becoming a monk, though he did spend some time as a novice. Reminds me of the Woody Allen film Hannah and her Sisters where perennially dissatisfied Allen decides to change religion from Judaism to Catholicism. To the wails of his mother's shrieks his father said something on the lines of: "I like religion. Religions a good thing. It's good to have a religion. But what's wrong with your own religion?" |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473 
|
Post by peterl on Aug 31, 2019 20:19:08 GMT
It's all very well to blame it on the party system. But if we look elsewhere having weaker parties doesn't necessarily improve matters. Parties in France and Italy change names and boundaries almost between elections. Has that improved them? The catch-all party isn't much to write home about - Fuanna Fail, the Peronists... Then there is the US system where the parties hardly exist as separate entities from being electoral machines. And in recent years they have become more like our parties in terms of clearly oposing beliefs. There are few east coast fiscal republicans or Blue Dog Democrats left. If we didn't have our current parties, we would have others instead and I don't see why they would be any better? Honestly I'm increasingly coming round to the idea of politicians being relegated to an oversight role, Parliament being just basically an Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and letting a committee of experts who know what they are talking about make the policy decisions. Each member of this committee ("the Board of Commissioners for Public Administration" perhaps?) could face a non-partisan election with an electorate of people educated or experienced in the field in question, with more stringesnt requirements for would-be candidates. Coupled with a reduced role for central government in favour of stronger local authorities, run on the committee system, I think far more effective government could be achieved. When did I come to favour this quasi-democratic technocracy? Its been a long time coming, but I became convinced following events over the last few months and seeing increasingly how out-of-touch and spineless so many MPs really are. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Aug 31, 2019 20:22:58 GMT
It's all very well to blame it on the party system. But if we look elsewhere having weaker parties doesn't necessarily improve matters. Parties in France and Italy change names and boundaries almost between elections. Has that improved them? The catch-all party isn't much to write home about - Fuanna Fail, the Peronists... Then there is the US system where the parties hardly exist as separate entities from being electoral machines. And in recent years they have become more like our parties in terms of clearly oposing beliefs. There are few east coast fiscal republicans or Blue Dog Democrats left. If we didn't have our current parties, we would have others instead and I don't see why they would be any better? Honestly I'm increasingly coming round to the idea of politicians being relegated to an oversight role, Parliament being just basically an Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and letting a committee of experts who know what they are talking about make the policy decisions. Each member of this committee ("the Board of Commissioners for Public Administration" perhaps?) could face a non-partisan election with an electorate of people educated or experienced in the field in question, with more stringesnt requirements for would-be candidates. Coupled with a reduced role for central government in favour of stronger local authorities, run on the committee system, I think far more effective government could be achieved. When did I come to favour this quasi-democratic technocracy? Its been a long time coming, but I became convinced following events over the last few months and seeing increasingly how out-of-touch and spineless so many MPs really are. So the expert board is elected by an expert electorate ... selected by whom ? |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Aug 31, 2019 20:29:33 GMT
Statutory criteria. I will give you an example.
Let's say we want to elect a Commissioner for Justice. The statute might say you qualify to be part of the electorate if you have a law degree or a degree in criminology or forensic psychology (possibly other subjects). You can then register to vote. But maybe to stand for election you must be a practicising solicitor, barrister, forensic psychologist, prison or probation officer (for instance). You either meet the criteria or you don't. An independent returning officer (a civil servant) decides on this. I suppose the nearest analogy I can think of would be an election for offices within a professional body.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Aug 31, 2019 21:10:32 GMT
Statutory criteria. I will give you an example. Let's say we want to elect a Commissioner for Justice. The statute might say you qualify to be part of the electorate if you have a law degree or a degree in criminology or forensic psychology (possibly other subjects). You can then register to vote. But maybe to stand for election you must be a practicising solicitor, barrister, forensic psychologist, prison or probation officer (for instance). You either meet the criteria or you don't. An independent returning officer (a civil servant) decides on this. I suppose the nearest analogy I can think of would be an election for offices within a professional body. Who represents victims in this scenario? Who represents defendants? Who represents the wider community (who will be paying for this)? Would you extend this to putting health policy in the hands of medics? And transport policy in the hands of train drivers? Putting policy in the hands of producer interests would be a disaster. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,772
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 31, 2019 21:26:00 GMT
It's all very well to blame it on the party system. But if we look elsewhere having weaker parties doesn't necessarily improve matters. Parties in France and Italy change names and boundaries almost between elections. Has that improved them? The catch-all party isn't much to write home about - Fuanna Fail, the Peronists... Then there is the US system where the parties hardly exist as separate entities from being electoral machines. And in recent years they have become more like our parties in terms of clearly oposing beliefs. There are few east coast fiscal republicans or Blue Dog Democrats left. If we didn't have our current parties, we would have others instead and I don't see why they would be any better? Honestly I'm increasingly coming round to the idea of politicians being relegated to an oversight role, Parliament being just basically an Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and letting a committee of experts who know what they are talking about make the policy decisions. Each member of this committee ("the Board of Commissioners for Public Administration" perhaps?) could face a non-partisan election with an electorate of people educated or experienced in the field in question, with more stringesnt requirements for would-be candidates. Coupled with a reduced role for central government in favour of stronger local authorities, run on the committee system, I think far more effective government could be achieved. When did I come to favour this quasi-democratic technocracy? Its been a long time coming, but I became convinced following events over the last few months and seeing increasingly how out-of-touch and spineless so many MPs really are. We spent most of the 19th century fighting to overthrow the system of being governed by a self-selected governing class brought up and educated to enter the governing class, and selected by people brought up and educated to select those who entered the governing class.
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Aug 31, 2019 21:30:45 GMT
Statutory criteria. I will give you an example. Let's say we want to elect a Commissioner for Justice. The statute might say you qualify to be part of the electorate if you have a law degree or a degree in criminology or forensic psychology (possibly other subjects). You can then register to vote. But maybe to stand for election you must be a practicising solicitor, barrister, forensic psychologist, prison or probation officer (for instance). You either meet the criteria or you don't. An independent returning officer (a civil servant) decides on this. I suppose the nearest analogy I can think of would be an election for offices within a professional body. Who represents victims in this scenario? Who represents defendants? Who represents the wider community (who will be paying for this)? Would you extend this to putting health policy in the hands of medics? And transport policy in the hands of train drivers? Putting policy in the hands of producer interests would be a disaster. You simpify it slightly, since anypne professionally involved with the discipline in question could be a candidate. Train drivers for Transport yes, but bus and lorry drivers too. The idea is not so much to represent anyone, as to ensure the commissioner for a particular area of policy has some knowledge of the field in question. Parliament is still there to represent people, and they do this by holding the Board to account. The Board essentially replaces the Cabinet. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,772
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 31, 2019 21:32:32 GMT
Statutory criteria. I will give you an example. Let's say we want to elect a Commissioner for Justice. The statute might say you qualify to be part of the electorate if you have a law degree or a degree in criminology or forensic psychology (possibly other subjects). You can then register to vote. But maybe to stand for election you must be a practicising solicitor, barrister, forensic psychologist, prison or probation officer (for instance). You either meet the criteria or you don't. An independent returning officer (a civil servant) decides on this. I suppose the nearest analogy I can think of would be an election for offices within a professional body. That's the system for half the seats in the Hong Kong legislative assembly, and it is acknowledged as an interim system only suitable for transitional systems on the way to full democracy; similar to US state assemblies initially selecting the state's senators. (edit: ie, that state's federal senators)
I suppose if you see progressing to full democracy as a destination you don't want to get to, then functional representaion is the system to use. However, it's attractive as a system for selecting functional positions. Some US states that elect judges have made moves towards requiring the candidates to actually be legal professionals.
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Aug 31, 2019 21:34:41 GMT
Yes exactly, its a system built on getting the job done and done well, not on being representative. After all, its your MPs job to represent you, not a commissioner/minister. Their job is to make policy. Effective policies require subject knowledge and expertise.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Aug 31, 2019 21:48:48 GMT
Yes exactly, its a system built on getting the job done and done well, not on being representative. After all, its your MPs job to represent you, not a commissioner/minister. Their job is to make policy. Effective policies require subject knowledge and expertise. But producer interests will frame policy to suit their own purposes, not those of the wider community. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Aug 31, 2019 22:07:57 GMT
I've never had very high expectations of politicians and politics to begin with, so I rarely get disillusioned with them.
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Aug 31, 2019 22:50:30 GMT
Yes exactly, its a system built on getting the job done and done well, not on being representative. After all, its your MPs job to represent you, not a commissioner/minister. Their job is to make policy. Effective policies require subject knowledge and expertise. But producer interests will frame policy to suit their own purposes, not those of the wider community. Not so, because within each policy area there would be a wider electorate of people with qualifications allied to the field in question. An informed skilled electorate keeping in check a professional expert commissioner. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Aug 31, 2019 22:53:35 GMT
I've never had very high expectations of politicians and politics to begin with, so I rarely get disillusioned with them. Quote of the week there, Andy! |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,437
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 31, 2019 23:55:09 GMT
While I wouldn't look to dispose of elected politicians, because any replacement would provide us with exactly the same deficiencies, I have thought for a long time that we should have a unicameral parliament with far more power at committee level. There should be room there to bring in expertise not to sit on a permanent chamber but to make specific contributions on things they have knowledge of and experience in without concern about upsetting the voter.
|
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Sept 1, 2019 0:12:23 GMT
If Britain were to turn away from the disastrous electoral system that it currently has that promotes a winner take all system and towards a proper electoral system in which coaltion government was the norm politicians of all parties would learn to work together and compromise more rather than having the them and us situation where decisions are looked at what will get them elected at the next election rather than having a proper long term strategy to solve problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Sept 1, 2019 0:17:05 GMT
If Britain were to turn away from the disastrous electoral system that it currently has that promotes a winner take all system and towards a proper electoral system in which coaltion government was the norm politicians of all parties would learn to work together and compromise more rather than having the them and us situation where decisions are looked at what will get them elected at the next election rather than having a proper long term strategy to solve problems. No. Let's keep to traditional adversarial. It is much more fun. And you lost the Referendum on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 1, 2019 0:33:53 GMT
Some Garbage coming out from the party faithful on this thread. Only in my opinion of course. The thing that certain party political faithful can never seem to get is that, politicians, and especially leaders of all parties over the last 20 years have lied on every major promise they've made. They are no longer trusted, believed, respected because they have proven themselves not to be worth any of those things. Labour: Tony Blair, Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction Labour:Gordon Brown, to balance the budget. Labour: Jeremy Corbyn, I want to leave the EU, stay in the EU both at the same time, no, actually I don't want to do either of those, or maybe I do, but I'm not telling you. Liberal Democrats: Nick Clegg, students fees. Conservative: David Cameron, I will not resign. Conservative: Theresa May, Windrush Conservative: Boris Johnson, consistent lies, so it is now expected and accepted from him. All parties: Expences scandal. Northern Irish parties: They want peace, whilst re-enforcing sectarianism. Most politicians: The EU referendum messages. Most politicians: The post EU referendum agendas and lies. The EU: Unlistening and uncaring. And these are just the tip of the iceberg God, it makes the Thatcher / Major years look like a bastion of honesty. Unfortunately for some local politicians, national politicians set the tone. Though some local secrets and lies like the tree saga, by Labour, in Sheffield re-enforce it. Maybe part of the problem is that information is much to easily accessible and we can see the lies more but it's not just that there is more to it, we are in a very low ebb for policians of any quality at all. Brexit is just the blister that burst and let the rotten stinking puss out for all to see. Well that is very cynical but I think, in the specific examples you give, fair enough. And I think you are right in saying there is a general distrust, with the very toxic result that, as with your Boris example, people may hear a lie, know it's a lie, but not care. What you don't acknowledge is the extent to which politicians are responding to the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the public. For a generation the electorate (a) voted for lower taxes and punished any party suggesting an increase in tax (b) demanded better and more lavish public services. A sector of the electorate will vote for higher taxes but only if paid by the rich, defined as "people richer than me." Another sector will vote for reducing public services, but only wasteful services or those offered to the undeserving, defined respectively as "services I never use" and "people from a different class/race/gender to me" God knows I can't say much for Theresa May but she tried telling the public that if we want decent social care for an rising elderly population at time when capital is increasingly monopolised by the elderly, then the obvious thing would be to pay for the social care from the capital of the elderly. And look where it got her. H L Mencken: |
|
