Bram

Looking at Westminster and how it operates and how it is elected. Are we witnessing the death throws of a unrepresentive system that fails to deliver true democracy or represent the electorate wishes.

Is the term the first past the post winners too long so they cannot be ousted when they run out of steam or fail to deliver.

Does having a clear defined winner true democratic in principle when it stifles debate as parties retort only there spin when elected, so causing above.

Is it better to proportional representitive of the population, so true debate occurs and no one party can put change in place without support of others or through consensus vote of the parliement. Problems are fixed that happen due to market/finance/economics as they occur for the benifit of country not point scoring, stop rail roading just voting on each matter and not on party lines. Am sick of listening to MPs or party leaders not answering a damn quaestion straightly put. Everyone has good ideas its a pity in politics they seem to be before elected or when they have retired or ousted.

Has the political parties of Labour/Tory or Liberal seen their day. Blair started it blurring the definition of Labour making them more appelaing to middle class voters or middle managers/small busnesses, Cameron is now keeping down his own right wing thoughts to appeal to middle ground, a man who it seems has no solution to anything but is negative about others attempts. So I do not see any difference between any of them. So apathy is created look at 42 detention, Tory voted against it on party line but most members like the public poll and even some cabinet members liked the idea.

So to get public voting and taking an interest I think it would be best to split all UK into independant parliements dealing with their own issues, shame about England the South of the country will rule that one but thats what stifled politics in Westminster so Big Ben tolls the death nel on it I say

GC8

Proportional representation isnt true democracy though, dont be fooled. It may offer a representitive party representation in parliament, but it leaves us without locally elected representitives and thats what its all about.

Championed chiefly by the liberal democrats, when they realised that theyd be in government with it and b*llocks to everything else.....

Bubba po

I didn't understand hardly one sentence of the opening post, I'm afraid.

bugeyeandy

Have you been hibernating somewhere , Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already have their own governments or hadn't you noticed?

bugeyeandy

Try these sites

The Scottish Parliament - Homepage

Llywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru | The Welsh Assembly Government

Welcome to the Northern Ireland Assembly

Oh and I wonder who pays for all these politicians to live like lords and escape the difficulties of the normal working man/womans lives???

In my opinion we need less politicians not more

Bram

I was not asking for more politicians, it would actually save some, lots even.

The Scots, Welsh and N/Irish would not send any members as it will be closed as a national parliement. We would have regional parliements only, only concern I have does England need two parliements due to North/South divide.

Only Ministers from regions to attend the UK National Exec so to speak to discuss undevolved issues like joint foreign policy, etc. May require a president who would be selected from the region representatives attending. The Lords can go its not required under this structure.

The Civil Service can be easily fractured to individual regions and devolve tax raising to local parliements and they can decide rate and how they spend it etc, may need pruning but the infrastructure is already their just need deploying around the regions to be locally controlled. What is taken in the region is spent in region.

Local regional parliements to debate on local issues and needs and deploy the revenue generated from their region. A type of Federalism may keep UK together and answer the Lothian question once and for all.

Leslie

The system has always been to have each party tell us what they intend to do to run the country and then leave it to us to decide which seems best as far as we are concerned.

In the past that worked pretty well, we knew what we were likely to get from the ruling party or coalition even if that was necessary and we were told what they were going to do in the Queen's Speech before each session of government.

That has always been a good system on the whole but that was in the days of "honourable" people as MP's and we always felt that we could trust what they told us and also Parliament.

Well what a difference we have now! The opposition feels it cannot list their policies or solutions because they know that the present bunch of pikers will just steal those ideas for their own-as they have alrready demonstrated.

The incumbents just tell us anything that they think we want to hear and make solemn promises which they then break using specious excuses that a child can see through. They produce great sounding initiatives which never actually come to anything and promise future actions which sound good but are so far ahead in time that they feel later they don't need to put them in place either! When they get caught out as happens regularly they remain in complete denial.

All the time this is going on they are busily feathering their nests and ensuring large pensions at our costs having already got us to pay for their mortgages and living expenses! How can a husband and wife who are both ministers claim two lots of additional costs for one house which is only 15 miles from their original house anyway?

We are desperately in need of a bunch of politicians who are in the job for the sake of the country and are prepared to actually tell us the truth for once. Until we get a government that we can not only trust and which is made up of competent people for a change, I see little change for the good ahead.

Les

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I think you may be right, but that the death knell is sounding because the parties are all the same now in the eyes of the voters.

Also, MOST MP's, councillors etc do not appeal to younger voters since the kids look at them and think, "How the hell can that old guy/old gal represent, or even KNOW what I want?"

Last local elections my eldest(20), was the ONLY one of his crowd that voted, NONE of the youngest's(18), crowd voted for that exact reason.

Alcazar