tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post4520636383517991883..comments2023-10-26T00:08:26.205+01:00Comments on The Boiling Frog: HarrogateTheBoilingFroghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00791961503315586243noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-11836226647850522982012-07-16T10:59:09.646+01:002012-07-16T10:59:09.646+01:00An end to party affiliation should be the result o...An end to party affiliation should be the result of real changes not an end in itself. Political parties are a consequence of our system and therefore a symptom of the disease, not the underlying problem.<br /><br />Linked to your point about presidential nature of the PM, Parliament was designed at a time each candidate could in principle take to the hustings (obviously even then the system was abused through rotten boroughs) and win his seat. Today all the modern powers of marketing and propaganda are used by national parties against which independents stand no chance. So it is the political landscape/relative power of the various political parties which determines whether Basildon or Bradford are red, blue or yellow. And it is then the party leader who chooses the individual candidate. In short, he has power of patronage.<br /><br />If candidates could be thrown out by power of recall, they would immediately behave differently. Instead of blindly obeying whips they would have to consider that voting for war with Iraq or for the Lisbon Treaty would result in them being slung out of Parliament by their constituents within three months. Sometimes if you change just one ingredient the entire flavour is transformed.blingmunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-9818456472852538962012-07-10T16:19:15.688+01:002012-07-10T16:19:15.688+01:00@TBF
" . . . referism purely in terms of con...@TBF<br /><br />" . . . referism purely in terms of controlling the budget has a lot of appeal to me".<br /><br />Controlling the budget DEFINITELY appeals to me also however, in my humble opinion, even an annual referendum is flawed by virtue of the fact that factional interests are still likely to prevail. In addition, I would hazard a guess that not one in twenty of the eligible voters in this country would sufficiently understand something as large and complex as our national budget at a level of detail to make their vote truly meaningful.<br /><br />More important still, in my eyes, is the need to control the budget of every public body (local and district councils; NGOs; regulators, schools, police stations, etc.) that is funded from our hard-earned and potentially has jurisdiction over our activities.<br /><br />My personal view, in preference to an annual referendum on the national budget, would be to have a clear and tightly defined framework for the appropriation and use of public funds at ALL levels. All public bodies could be compelled to publish online the manner in which their funds where appropriated and exactly how those funds were being spent. This would provide for a level of scrutiny and challenge, based purely on procedural probity, that would allow budgets to be rejected and 'fraudulent' spending to be dealt with accordingly.Letmethinknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-1757775458574677032012-07-10T15:47:20.447+01:002012-07-10T15:47:20.447+01:00@WfW Ahhh there's always a drink involved... :...@WfW Ahhh there's always a drink involved... :-)TheBoilingFroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00791961503315586243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-10663738561918556602012-07-10T15:44:54.865+01:002012-07-10T15:44:54.865+01:00"am now worried you'll chuck me out of yo..."am now worried you'll chuck me out of your car half way up if discussion gets heated ;-)"<br /><br />Fear not - at least not before you have bought me a drink..... :)WitteringsfromWitneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16026875251366365154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-74758209029428362462012-07-10T13:53:58.305+01:002012-07-10T13:53:58.305+01:00@letmethink Thanks for your very thoughtful posts....@letmethink Thanks for your very thoughtful posts. I can assure you you're not the only one to have reservations about Direct Democracy. <br /><br />That's not to say it doesn't have a place in what we're trying to do, but in my view Richard North's 'restrictions' on a annual referendum on the budget (i.e the same wording and time every year) is an acknowledgement at least of some of the flaws.<br /><br />That said, referism purely in terms of controlling the budget has a lot of appeal to me.TheBoilingFroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00791961503315586243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-83801932957517039132012-07-10T13:24:42.636+01:002012-07-10T13:24:42.636+01:00@BulloPill Thank you. See, partly my comment above...@BulloPill Thank you. See, partly my comment above. I'm also trying to eliminate the other flaw - voters' tribalism which also infects our politics. As an example; "I vote Labour 'cos my Dad did and my Grandad did..."<br /><br />I think Bercow as Speaker is a good example of potential. We know what his politics are (and indeed his wife's) but he had to campaign on an independent ticket and stay neutral in the Commons. Maybe this can apply to all members of the legislative? <br /><br />So yes be a member of Greenpeace, Didcot Bowls Club or a Tory but you have to campaign on a neutral ticket.TheBoilingFroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00791961503315586243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-43004410747278419932012-07-10T13:10:09.606+01:002012-07-10T13:10:09.606+01:00@Paul Coombes, I do agree to an extent. I'm un...@Paul Coombes, I do agree to an extent. I'm uncomfortable with 'banning political parties' it looks somewhat undemocratic - however the alternative though is little better. <br /><br />Loyalty to one's party, sometimes with the threat of physical violence by whips - tactics used during various EU treaty debates - is something that needs to curbed or ideally eradicated.<br /><br />Perhaps the idea of being a member of a party shouldn't bar a candidate but campaigning as one should be prohibited, may be a useful compromise?TheBoilingFroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00791961503315586243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-14556474441384659652012-07-10T13:04:36.952+01:002012-07-10T13:04:36.952+01:00@JiC Thanks, I suspect the set up of the USA will ...@JiC Thanks, I suspect the set up of the USA will come into the debate<br /><br />@WfW Have seen and partially commented - am now worried you'll chuck me out of your car half way up if discussion gets heated ;-)<br /><br />@BJ Fully agree about the Whip system - it's one of the worst aspects and yes transparency - expenses row would have been prevented largely by full disclosure from the outset. Simple and effectiveTheBoilingFroghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00791961503315586243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-10016855981057182432012-07-10T10:51:27.695+01:002012-07-10T10:51:27.695+01:00PT2
The US is not a democracy but a constitutiona...PT2<br /><br />The US is not a democracy but a constitutional republic but in the sense that democracy is being discussed in terms of people power, the US is (in my opinion) the greatest democracy the world has ever seen. It also has the greatest vitality in its political debates. Even so, the US form of governance still requires 'good men' to hold public office without which no democratic system will succeed. Equally, if all people appointed to public office are 'good men' then almost any form of governance will be successful. The key to me seems to be, how to hold public officials accountable for their actions because (again) the US constitution attempts to find a way round the fact that you can't expect public officials to behave in any way other than their own self-interest.<br /><br />The TeaParty movement in the US attemts to hold all candidates for public office accountable by getting them (before the election) to sign up to three rather modest principles of fiscal probity, the free market and adherence to the constitution.<br /><br />With regard to 'referism'. Again, I see this as a subset of 'direct democracy' and as such has exactly the same failings of the overall system, namely that factions will prevail. In fact having a popular referendum on the annual government budget is a surefire way to demonstrate in microcosm how 'direct democracy' will undermine the greater good. Imagine a scenario where the 'government' proposes to cut disability benefits within the budget. The vast majority of recipients of this benefit are likely to vote the budget down. Ditto child benefit; housing benefit; income support; tax credits; penion credits, etc., etc., etc.<br />Conversely, suppose the budget proposed increasing these benefits and also increasing pensions and other forms of largesse to be paid for by borrowing which will only need to be paid back in years to come when the economy is expected to grow blah, blah blah.<br />It would take a very determined individual who would be personally disadvantaged by a particular measure to vot against that measure and vice versa.<br /><br />There. I've said it :-)letmethinknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-14875449291889727692012-07-10T10:49:12.756+01:002012-07-10T10:49:12.756+01:00PT1
before I comment let me preface what I have t...PT1<br /><br />before I comment let me preface what I have to say.<br /><br />Firstly, I bow to nobody in my desire for individual freedom and, in the context of this post (and the H/gate meeting), particularly with regard to freedom from the behaviour of our 'leaders' through the non-democratic process which allows them to introduce rules and regulations within a system where the democratic nexus between the general population and those creating those rules and regulations is now almost non-existent. They can pursue their grandiose schemes because they know that they have legal authority to print/borrow as much money as they please and then harvest our hard-earned in the form of taxation in order to pay for it.<br /><br />Secondly, I am likely to be in a minority of one when I say what I have to say and therefore expect the normal brickbats to follow when I step out of line with what seems to be the general consensus on the matters of 'direct democracy' and 'referism'. The thing is, I know what I think about this and if I don't say what I think then I won't have said what I think . . .<br /><br />So. I don't agree that either 'direct democracy' as it seems to be suggested nor 'referism' (which itself seems to be a class within direct democracy) will provide anything positive in the pursuit of public officals being held accountable for their actions by private individuals or financial probity.<br /><br />Since the dawning of the digital age I have often said that everyone should 'have a button' and that everyone should vote on everything. Having researched what this means and the impact of such a form of democracy I no longer feel this is right. I refer to great thinkers of the past who have considered this and, in my opinion, none greater (on this particular subject) than James Madison who believed that 'pure' democracy (as he called it would create 'factions' as he called them.<br /><br />Madison defined a 'faction' as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." <br /><br />To quote Wikipedia on this "He [Madison] saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within society. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. ".<br /><br />This is a slight misrepresentation of Madison from Federalist 10 but strikes at the heart of the matter. It is precisely the two wolves and a lamb syndrome touched on by TBF.letmethinknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-62584469602294198452012-07-10T09:56:01.293+01:002012-07-10T09:56:01.293+01:00I wish the Harrogate Meeting all possible success....I wish the Harrogate Meeting all possible success. If the imperative of keeping a small business, employing 12, going, I'd have wished to be there too. I will certainly be there "in spirit", and I'm truly grateful to all those who are able to make the time to attend.<br /><br />I'm not sure if you can remove party affiliations from those wishing to stand for parliamentary election - would that not be a horrible restriction on personal freedom of association and also mean that only the wealthy could promote themselves in the campaign before an election?<br /><br />I think there should be MUCH more open-ness in the area of candidate selection - open primaries might be a place to start. And the malign influence of the whips should be curtailed - an end to party bloc voting enforced by whips, perhaps? <br />And to make MPs work hard for their constituents' interests, how about linking MP salary to, say the top 10%ile income in their constituency - no MP to earn more than, say, 10% more than the average of the top 10% of constituents. The more prosperous a constituency becomes, the more the MP earns, but not wildly so.<br />The central tenet of Referism, the citizen vote on proposed government spending, could well be the "magic bullet" (if such exists) that could put politics and democracy on a true and confident footing for the future of this nation.BulloPillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-44716005191432027812012-07-09T20:54:26.952+01:002012-07-09T20:54:26.952+01:00The idea of no party affiliation has an immediate ...The idea of no party affiliation has an immediate appeal but I find myself opposing it because it prohibits something. I think we should prohibit as little as possible. Perhaps it would be enough to say that only the candidates name appears on the ballot slip.Paul Coombeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143484729379464693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-88183186267668652502012-07-09T20:11:16.350+01:002012-07-09T20:11:16.350+01:00BJ, I wonder why???? I am in the process of respon...BJ, I wonder why???? I am in the process of responding to TBF and his proposals - be patient, its taking a bit of time.........WitteringsfromWitneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16026875251366365154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-9349215852916142572012-07-09T20:09:31.700+01:002012-07-09T20:09:31.700+01:00Reading the blogs of the 'opposition' &quo...Reading the blogs of the 'opposition' "direct democracy" is what they are terrified of WfW.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-62071815902764869742012-07-09T19:59:36.908+01:002012-07-09T19:59:36.908+01:00BJ, thanks. You have just made the case for direct...BJ, thanks. You have just made the case for direct democracy!WitteringsfromWitneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16026875251366365154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-12587931763369464502012-07-09T19:56:36.350+01:002012-07-09T19:56:36.350+01:00I'm looking forward to the outcome of your Har...I'm looking forward to the outcome of your Harrogate shindig BF.<br /><br />There are some good points in this piece that need 'bullet pointing' - as it were.<br /><br />For what it's worth:<br /><br />I believe in broad-base politics at local level - I don't like power being concentrated in the hands of cabinets or mayors, where the electorate are excluded.<br /><br />I also like the idea of doing away with 'the party or Buggins turn scenario'<br /><br />The Whip system has no place in democracy. <br /><br />Transparency - at all levels, every committee, every council meeting.....<br /><br />Good LuckAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-50675667363951830122012-07-09T19:41:24.635+01:002012-07-09T19:41:24.635+01:00Thanks for the link, TBF. I shall blog my response...Thanks for the link, TBF. I shall blog my response to you - and boy, do we have much to discuss while I sit back while you drive me to Harrogate....... Oh, hang on.......WitteringsfromWitneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16026875251366365154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6693950082152211516.post-61604941736386566732012-07-09T19:12:21.229+01:002012-07-09T19:12:21.229+01:00TBF, as I've posted on other blogs, best wishe...TBF, as I've posted on other blogs, best wishes to all of you who are attending the Harrogate meeting; I wish you every success.<br />If there's a place for suggestions, then I'd ask that the USA set up be considered as a starting point for changes to how we govern ourselves.john in cheshirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00179825507377423624noreply@blogger.com