Totally turned off by Politicians

[dundas]

State Age Pension should remain what it is when you attend school gor reasons of principle, so yes addressing it 50 years before a spike is important.

[matureleft]

"No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.", said Churchill.

It is inherently near impossible for democracy properly to address seemingly very long term issues. The classic current example is climate change (made still more difficult by being a global issue). Politicians must invite current electors to make personal sacrifices to address the bad, but still not readily and personally definable, consequences for future generations. Generational transfers of economic harm and problems are things that inevitably happen where politicians have to seek votes reasonably frequently.

There have been examples of attempts to manage this. The establishment of sovereign wealth funds (properly managed, and that's another issue!) are partly about spreading the benefits of current prosperity to future generations. The comparison of how the UK and Norway handled North Sea oil revenues is informative.

I've noted that the word "lies" is used fairly freely. That is knowingly telling a falsehood. It isn't the same as saying something that turns out to be wrong. Nor is it the same as presenting a case using only evidence that supports that case (almost inevitably used heavily in adversarial political and legal systems).

[lbarnes]

Sept 1, 2019 0:17:05 GMT carlton43 said:

Sept 1, 2019 0:12:23 GMT markgoodair said:

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.

Let's keep electoral corruption too, seeing as that helped win a Referendum.

[carlton43]

Sept 1, 2019 7:48:09 GMT matureleft said:

"No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.", said Churchill.

It is inherently near impossible for democracy properly to address seemingly very long term issues. The classic current example is climate change (made still more difficult by being a global issue). Politicians must invite current electors to make personal sacrifices to address the bad, but still not readily and personally definable, consequences for future generations. Generational transfers of economic harm and problems are things that inevitably happen where politicians have to seek votes reasonably frequently.

There have been examples of attempts to manage this. The establishment of sovereign wealth funds (properly managed, and that's another issue!) are partly about spreading the benefits of current prosperity to future generations. The comparison of how the UK and Norway handled North Sea oil revenues is informative.

I've noted that the word "lies" is used fairly freely. That is knowingly telling a falsehood. It isn't the same as saying something that turns out to be wrong. Nor is it the same as presenting a case using only evidence that supports that case (almost inevitably used heavily in adversarial political and legal systems).

Democracy might be a solution but very few nations have tried it.  Here we have an Elective Oligarchy that most certainly does not work very well and that oligarchy is often out of step with what most of the electorate want. That results in a sour response from the electorate and demands for treats and a reluctance to want to pay for treats.

The reluctance has been bred into the electorate by socialists who have bred up generations of client voters to expect treats paid for by 'other people', so the Other People decided that they would get in on the act and demand treats paid for by 'other people' as well, and that has led to rancour and unpleasantness all round.

Socialism doesn't work and can never work in even a semi-free society and thus we have a never-ending struggle to suppress socialism by one group, and to suppress a free society by another group.  This is in an acute phase just at the moment.

[matureleft]

Sept 1, 2019 8:37:21 GMT carlton43 said:

Sept 1, 2019 7:48:09 GMT matureleft said:

"No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.", said Churchill.

It is inherently near impossible for democracy properly to address seemingly very long term issues. The classic current example is climate change (made still more difficult by being a global issue). Politicians must invite current electors to make personal sacrifices to address the bad, but still not readily and personally definable, consequences for future generations. Generational transfers of economic harm and problems are things that inevitably happen where politicians have to seek votes reasonably frequently.

There have been examples of attempts to manage this. The establishment of sovereign wealth funds (properly managed, and that's another issue!) are partly about spreading the benefits of current prosperity to future generations. The comparison of how the UK and Norway handled North Sea oil revenues is informative.

I've noted that the word "lies" is used fairly freely. That is knowingly telling a falsehood. It isn't the same as saying something that turns out to be wrong. Nor is it the same as presenting a case using only evidence that supports that case (almost inevitably used heavily in adversarial political and legal systems).

Democracy might be a solution but very few nations have tried it.  Here we have an Elective Oligarchy that most certainly does not work very well and that oligarchy is often out of step with what most of the electorate want. That results in a sour response from the electorate and demands for treats and a reluctance to want to pay for treats.

The reluctance has been bred into the electorate by socialists who have bred up generations of client voters to expect treats paid for by 'other people', so the Other People decided that they would get in on the act and demand treats paid for by 'other people' as well, and that has led to rancour and unpleasantness all round.

Socialism doesn't work and can never work in even a semi-free society and thus we have a never-ending struggle to suppress socialism by one group, and to suppress a free society by another group.  This is in an acute phase just at the moment.

Setting aside the more tendentious points (!), I'd be interested in your examples of what you see as genuine democracy. Switzerland?

[andrew111]

Aug 31, 2019 21:34:41 GMT peterl said:

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.

Your model is actually quite similar to the EU, and is quite suitable for a supranational body. In the EU the decisive body is actually the Council, but the ideas are brought forward by an executive. Parliament has a scrutiny role and also the power of dismissal of the executive if they wish.

In our system, we should start with having a representative Parliament rather than the current undemocratic one. Then you might have a strong representstive select committee system with the power to co-opt experts nominated by all the Parties (hence representing different points of view). Proposing and drafting legislation would be the job of these select committees, while other committees (perhaps in a second house) would scrutinise. Solutions to difficult issues like adult social care would then have multipartisan support to a much greater degree than now

[carlton43]

For matureleft (to save space)

I think Switzerland has a 'more' democratic system and is more reflective of public desires and much more responsive to movement in public opinion, but far from a democracy.

Democracy demands involvement, awareness, engagement, education, reflection and giving up time. Most communities are far too selfish and lazy to do most of that, and more than happy to give over the heavy lifting to a group anxious to do it 'for them' but actually 'for their interest group'.

It is 'our fault' that we don't have democracy because we are generally a venal, lazy, unthinking electorate, quick to demand, blame and complain, but short on thinking, helping and paying. Most can't be bothered even to vote in the occasional votes we are offered.

Small communities like American Town Meetings, Swiss Cantons and Greek City States manage a higher level of involvement and thus a better reflection of public will and a breed of more participatory electors.

We have an unhealthy collusion here of the unthinking mass who want 'it all provided to them without effort, involvement or payment' with a political class who don't want any 'involvement' because they know the electorate agree with them on very little.

Thus we have a severely abused system that we foolishly think is a 'good' one where both sides can get an element of what they want but only at the expense of mutual dislike and distrust and more and more distance from the system that only works up to a point, that point diminishing year-on-year.

[andrew111]

Sept 1, 2019 5:39:18 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

The majority of the public is consistently selfish, yes I agree, except after world wars really. Rich and poor alike.

Major reform has never been driven by the public though. They may support it, as the least worst option, but has to come from politicians.

So are we here today because of public selfishness, yes in part, but also because politicians avoid hard decisions by evasion.

Raising the state pension age is a great example, it should have been addressed 50 years ago, but politicians are still avoiding it.

Social Care, yes, again no foresight, problem left until people will say no.

The job of politicians is to get elected, but it is also to take the big decisions in the nations long term interest, nowadays they don't, they avoid them.

Instead, increasingly, they lie for their own good, long term of the country be damned.

The adversarial nature of our political life doesn't help, it needs reform.

My synacism comes from watching politicians and society. As a country Britain has great strengths and awful weaknesses.

Politicians are currently acting at the negative end of the scale. Politicians of left and right have done better in the past and will probably do better in the future than they are now, they are currently failing in their responsibilities.

I agree with you that trust is a necessity for good government but a commodity that is all too easily lost by politicians.
I resigned from the Lib Dems because Nick Clegg (formerly of your neighbourhood) broke trust so catastrophically over the tuition fees pledge. No coalition agreement should have been allowed to supercede that pledge, which was made directly with the electorate. The feeble attempts at justification and Clegg apologising for making the pledge not breaking it just made things worse. I rejoined the day after Clegg resigned as leader and voted for Farron rather than Lamb as Leader because he kept the pledge. Swinson broke the pledge but has said enough to reassure me she has learnt her lesson.

So yes, i believe that the way you do politics is as important as what you do. Politicians have to make unpopular decisions if they get into government and need people to trust them. In my experience people respect an honourable politician even if they don't agree with them.
However, we have to get rid of this feeding frenzy by the press and docial media which seeks to discredit politicians by exaggeration and fake news. Websites like Guido Fawkes and the Canary (not quite as bad) are at the heart of this, along with MSM like the Daily Express (there is no MSM as bad as the Express on the left of politics IMO). The media make politicians look so much worse than they actually are.

[andrew111]

Sept 1, 2019 9:00:28 GMT carlton43 said:

For matureleft (to save space)

I think Switzerland has a 'more' democratic system and is more reflective of public desires and much more responsive to movement in public opinion, but far from a democracy.

Democracy demands involvement, awareness, engagement, education, reflection and giving up time. Most communities are far too selfish and lazy to do most of that, and more than happy to give over the heavy lifting to a group anxious to do it 'for them' but actually 'for their interest group'.

It is 'our fault' that we don't have democracy because we are generally a venal, lazy, unthinking electorate, quick to demand, blame and complain, but short on thinking, helping and paying. Most can't be bothered even to vote in the occasional votes we are offered.

Small communities like American Town Meetings, Swiss Cantons and Greek City States manage a higher level of involvement and thus a better reflection of public will and a breed of more participatory electors.

We have an unhealthy collusion here of the unthinking mass who want 'it all provided to them without effort, involvement or payment' with a political class who don't want any 'involvement' because they know the electorate agree with them on very little.

Thus we have a severely abused system that we foolishly think is a 'good' one where both sides can get an element of what they want but only at the expense of mutual dislike and distrust and more and more distance from the system that only works up to a point, that point diminishing year-on-year.

Sensible stuff there Carlton. "Community politics" the traditional Liberals in the Lib Dems call it at local govt. level, but it has often been used as a slogan rather than put into practice effectively.

[Adam in Stroud]

Sept 1, 2019 9:00:28 GMT carlton43 said:

For matureleft (to save space)

I think Switzerland has a 'more' democratic system and is more reflective of public desires and much more responsive to movement in public opinion, but far from a democracy.

Democracy demands involvement, awareness, engagement, education, reflection and giving up time. Most communities are far too selfish and lazy to do most of that, and more than happy to give over the heavy lifting to a group anxious to do it 'for them' but actually 'for their interest group'.

It is 'our fault' that we don't have democracy because we are generally a venal, lazy, unthinking electorate, quick to demand, blame and complain, but short on thinking, helping and paying. Most can't be bothered even to vote in the occasional votes we are offered.

Small communities like American Town Meetings, Swiss Cantons and Greek City States manage a higher level of involvement and thus a better reflection of public will and a breed of more participatory electors.

We have an unhealthy collusion here of the unthinking mass who want 'it all provided to them without effort, involvement or payment' with a political class who don't want any 'involvement' because they know the electorate agree with them on very little.

Thus we have a severely abused system that we foolishly think is a 'good' one where both sides can get an element of what they want but only at the expense of mutual dislike and distrust and more and more distance from the system that only works up to a point, that point diminishing year-on-year.

Quoted to like again. I have perhaps more sympathy for the "lazy" electorate in that I think a lot of them have better things to do with their time, but yes, this is the problem.

[No Offence Alan]

Sept 1, 2019 5:39:18 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

The majority of the public is consistently selfish, yes I agree, except after world wars really. Rich and poor alike.

Major reform has never been driven by the public though. They may support it, as the least worst option, but has to come from politicians.

So are we here today because of public selfishness, yes in part, but also because politicians avoid hard decisions by evasion.

Raising the state pension age is a great example, it should have been addressed 50 years ago, but politicians are still avoiding it.

Social Care, yes, again no foresight, problem left until people will say no.

The job of politicians is to get elected, but it is also to take the big decisions in the nations long term interest, nowadays they don't, they avoid them.

Instead, increasingly, they lie for their own good, long term of the country be damned.

The adversarial nature of our political life doesn't help, it needs reform.

My synacism comes from watching politicians and society. As a country Britain has great strengths and awful weaknesses.

Politicians are currently acting at the negative end of the scale. Politicians of left and right have done better in the past and will probably do better in the future than they are now, they are currently failing in their responsibilities.

Of course, fixed term parliaments are part of the solution to the lack of long-term thinking on e.g. social care, or HS2.
Five years gives time for politicians to actually solve problems rather than chase sound-bites.
But the politicians, egged on by the media and political pundits, called an unnecessary election in 2017 to no obvious benefit.
And we could be having another one soon. At least the ghosts of the Chartists will be happy.

[matureleft]

Sept 1, 2019 9:00:28 GMT carlton43 said:

For matureleft (to save space)

I think Switzerland has a 'more' democratic system and is more reflective of public desires and much more responsive to movement in public opinion, but far from a democracy.

Democracy demands involvement, awareness, engagement, education, reflection and giving up time. Most communities are far too selfish and lazy to do most of that, and more than happy to give over the heavy lifting to a group anxious to do it 'for them' but actually 'for their interest group'.

It is 'our fault' that we don't have democracy because we are generally a venal, lazy, unthinking electorate, quick to demand, blame and complain, but short on thinking, helping and paying. Most can't be bothered even to vote in the occasional votes we are offered.

Small communities like American Town Meetings, Swiss Cantons and Greek City States manage a higher level of involvement and thus a better reflection of public will and a breed of more participatory electors.

We have an unhealthy collusion here of the unthinking mass who want 'it all provided to them without effort, involvement or payment' with a political class who don't want any 'involvement' because they know the electorate agree with them on very little.

Thus we have a severely abused system that we foolishly think is a 'good' one where both sides can get an element of what they want but only at the expense of mutual dislike and distrust and more and more distance from the system that only works up to a point, that point diminishing year-on-year.

I don't dissent from parts of this. The purest democracy can only work in very small, homogenous communities. And they are very rare!

As we live in more complex and populous communities compromises with purity inevitably arise. And national experience shapes those compromises.

As is our habit we have attempted to adapt institutions and systems designed for a very different age to our current purpose without much deconstruction of what we now seek and the suitability of those models to our purpose. Of course this is often argued as being our strength - continuity, lack of revolutionary change.

To pick one example: Burke defined his relationship to his electorate - as a representative not an attempted delegate. We still maintain that distinction. And pursuing that distinction inevitably brings some separation between the judgement of MPs and the sentiment (of course not always easy to define) of electors. Of course Burke operated in a different world with a tiny, bribable electorate on whom his high-minded words were probably lost! And the deference that acted as a glue allowing systems to operate has largely disappeared and can't be rebuilt.

There's space for populists offering "simple" solutions (indulging those who don't want to think hard or listen to more nuanced ideas, or, sadly, people who are desperately unhappy). There's also space (optimistically!) for those trying to rethink our institutions and system of governance. There are some MPs who show signs of that interest but the drive really needs to come from elsewhere.

[Adam in Stroud]

Sept 1, 2019 9:13:49 GMT andrew111 said:

Sept 1, 2019 5:39:18 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

The majority of the public is consistently selfish, yes I agree, except after world wars really. Rich and poor alike.

Major reform has never been driven by the public though. They may support it, as the least worst option, but has to come from politicians.

So are we here today because of public selfishness, yes in part, but also because politicians avoid hard decisions by evasion.

Raising the state pension age is a great example, it should have been addressed 50 years ago, but politicians are still avoiding it.

Social Care, yes, again no foresight, problem left until people will say no.

The job of politicians is to get elected, but it is also to take the big decisions in the nations long term interest, nowadays they don't, they avoid them.

Instead, increasingly, they lie for their own good, long term of the country be damned.

The adversarial nature of our political life doesn't help, it needs reform.

My synacism comes from watching politicians and society. As a country Britain has great strengths and awful weaknesses.

Politicians are currently acting at the negative end of the scale. Politicians of left and right have done better in the past and will probably do better in the future than they are now, they are currently failing in their responsibilities.

I agree with you that trust is a necessity for good government but a commodity that is all too easily lost by politicians.
I resigned from the Lib Dems because Nick Clegg (formerly of your neighbourhood) broke trust so catastrophically over the tuition fees pledge. No coalition agreement should have been allowed to supercede that pledge, which was made directly with the electorate. The feeble attempts at justification and Clegg apologising for making the pledge not breaking it just made things worse. I rejoined the day after Clegg resigned as leader and voted for Farron rather than Lamb as Leader because he kept the pledge. Swinson broke the pledge but has said enough to reassure me she has learnt her lesson.

So yes, i believe that the way you do politics is as important as what you do. Politicians have to make unpopular decisions if they get into government and need people to trust them. In my experience people respect an honourable politician even if they don't agree with them.
However, we have to get rid of this feeding frenzy by the press and docial media which seeks to discredit politicians by exaggeration and fake news. Websites like Guido Fawkes and the Canary (not quite as bad) are at the heart of this, along with MSM like the Daily Express (there is no MSM as bad as the Express on the left of politics IMO). The media make politicians look so much worse than they actually are.

I wasn't active in politics at the time so couldn't resign, but was certainly "away" from the party. There were many things in coalition I was OK with and I supported there being a coalition, but Clegg's failure to understand that straight after the expenses scandal you simply couldn't afford to break an explicit and very specific promise like that, and that all other aspects of the coalition needed to be made subject to it, was awful.

I don't hold it against Swinson who was relatively junior so unable to influence policy at that level and I think merely followed party discipline, (which is easy to criticise but necessary to getting anything done at all) but I'm glad she has made the right noises on it since.

[The Bishop]

Yes, the overall quality of our political class is not great (though it can actually be argued things have got *slightly* less bad recently)

But the solution of that is not getting rid of them (or even minimising their influence) It is getting better ones.

It is hard to see how that happens, though, without the electorate playing its part.

[Merseymike]

The electorate do have to recognise that you can't have Danish level services on American level taxes.

At least Labour have made some attempt to cost their programme. The same can't be said for Johnson

[The Bishop]

Sept 1, 2019 8:52:07 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

A lot of truth in what Carlton is saying here in the sense of client voters. The problem has been / is both left and right do it to the exclusion of the best for society. It is not just a socialist triat. The economic right are just as bad.

Tony Blair got in because he seemed to not do this, he promised change for societies better for all.

Maybe this was true, maybe it was not. Whichever there was no long term follow through on what seemed to be promised.

To me the reality was that he didn't have the bottle to do what he seemed to promise, and then he got enamoured with himself and what seemed promise was totally lost.

This seeming promise and lack of follow through is what has turned of lots of people from belief in politics and Blair is greatly to blame, but so are his inept successor politicians.

Those are actually very perceptive comments on Blair IMO.

[🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️]

Sept 1, 2019 9:40:12 GMT matureleft said:

I'd say they were very common. The only large and complex places in Wales are Cardiff and Swansea. They can have tightly drawn boundaries to free Mumbles from the blob, and then the rest of Wales can succeed in brogarwch. 

[carlton43]

Sept 1, 2019 9:33:14 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

Sept 1, 2019 9:00:28 GMT carlton43 said:

For matureleft (to save space)

I think Switzerland has a 'more' democratic system and is more reflective of public desires and much more responsive to movement in public opinion, but far from a democracy.

Democracy demands involvement, awareness, engagement, education, reflection and giving up time. Most communities are far too selfish and lazy to do most of that, and more than happy to give over the heavy lifting to a group anxious to do it 'for them' but actually 'for their interest group'.

It is 'our fault' that we don't have democracy because we are generally a venal, lazy, unthinking electorate, quick to demand, blame and complain, but short on thinking, helping and paying. Most can't be bothered even to vote in the occasional votes we are offered.

Small communities like American Town Meetings, Swiss Cantons and Greek City States manage a higher level of involvement and thus a better reflection of public will and a breed of more participatory electors.

We have an unhealthy collusion here of the unthinking mass who want 'it all provided to them without effort, involvement or payment' with a political class who don't want any 'involvement' because they know the electorate agree with them on very little.

Thus we have a severely abused system that we foolishly think is a 'good' one where both sides can get an element of what they want but only at the expense of mutual dislike and distrust and more and more distance from the system that only works up to a point, that point diminishing year-on-year.

Quoted to like again. I have perhaps more sympathy for the "lazy" electorate in that I think a lot of them have better things to do with their time, but yes, this is the problem.

That is generous of you Adam, both to 'Them' and to me.

"...a lot of them have 'better things to do with their time'..."   Really?   You know that is an excuse don't you?  Kindly meant but an excuse.  If we want a better society, better governance, more competence, a more effective use of resources,etc., etc. we must be prepared to be involved a bit more to a lot more than most people are.

The 'Brenda of Bristol' attitude is appalling in that many think even turning out for an election with the inconvenient frequency of every year is far too much for them and an actual imposition by these awful unthinking politicians placing onerous duties on them.  That is just not good enough as a national attitude.

We ought to care more, know more, follow more and do more.  But many politicians are quite ambivalent in saying them want more involvement but actually not wishing for it at all.  The truth is that some politicians want a mass electorate to ratify, endorse and authenticate their actions, but otherwise prefer no input because populist interests are often inimical to their own desires and to their sensibilities.  That too is part of the problem.

I have never made any secret of liking and wanting low polls from an electorate that have to put in a bit of work to even get on the register.  My theory is the opposite to all current thinking.  I don't want easier registration and easier voting but for both to be far more difficult.  Voting is a right but it should be an earned and informed right by people will some knowledge and care.  We tend to make far too much far too easy in modern life.  I believe one only appreciates things that are worked for and indeed paid for.  

[matureleft]

Sept 1, 2019 11:31:40 GMT 🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️ said:

Sept 1, 2019 9:40:12 GMT matureleft said:

I'd say they were very common. The only large and complex places in Wales are Cardiff and Swansea. They can have tightly drawn boundaries to free Mumbles from the blob, and then the rest of Wales can succeed in brogarwch. 

That depends. If one is looking for a pure democracy in which direct participation is both possible and likely then a community must be fairly homogenous - with essentially similar interests - and small enough for easy assembly. There certainly are places like that, but they'd encompass only a small minority of the UK population.

[carlton43]

Sept 1, 2019 9:39:19 GMT No Offence Alan said:

Sept 1, 2019 5:39:18 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

The majority of the public is consistently selfish, yes I agree, except after world wars really. Rich and poor alike.

Major reform has never been driven by the public though. They may support it, as the least worst option, but has to come from politicians.

So are we here today because of public selfishness, yes in part, but also because politicians avoid hard decisions by evasion.

Raising the state pension age is a great example, it should have been addressed 50 years ago, but politicians are still avoiding it.

Social Care, yes, again no foresight, problem left until people will say no.

The job of politicians is to get elected, but it is also to take the big decisions in the nations long term interest, nowadays they don't, they avoid them.

Instead, increasingly, they lie for their own good, long term of the country be damned.

The adversarial nature of our political life doesn't help, it needs reform.

My synacism comes from watching politicians and society. As a country Britain has great strengths and awful weaknesses.

Politicians are currently acting at the negative end of the scale. Politicians of left and right have done better in the past and will probably do better in the future than they are now, they are currently failing in their responsibilities.

Of course, fixed term parliaments are part of the solution to the lack of long-term thinking on e.g. social care, or HS2.
Five years gives time for politicians to actually solve problems rather than chase sound-bites.
But the politicians, egged on by the media and political pundits, called an unnecessary election in 2017 to no obvious benefit.
And we could be having another one soon. At least the ghosts of the Chartists will be happy.

To develope your theme how would you react to having a 10-year parliament with 100-seats contested every year following the 2nd year of a new parliament?  This is an off the cuff suggestion so don't try to pick holes in the detail just consider the concept.

We elect a complete new say 800-seat parliament and bed it in for two years and then on the 3rd-anniversary (and in each of the next 5-years) we contest 100-seats drawn by lot (once drawn a seat cannot be drawn in any subsequent year in that parliament) resulting in 600 of the 800 being contested once in that parliament).

Then at the end of 10-years there are fresh elections on the new bounds set by the Boundary Commission.  And the process starts again.  The benefit is a fixed-term 10-year administration with all the stability that affords for longer term planning. But the electorate are involved every year, in part, for the core middle 6-years by re-electing one eighth of the house, leaving a period of complete stability in the first and last few years of each administration. 


Thus we achieve stability, continuity and the possibility for an element of longer termism, yet with a mid-term ability to flex the opinions of the electorate and to change the arithmetic of the parliament, if desired?  It would deny the PM an ability to massage elections to suit his party advantage. It might cause problems if the mid-term move against government caused too much churn?