Bush looks upon Blair in awe

[Zulu Elephant]

Ah, sorry. I understand what you meant now

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Agathon
Britain needs proportional representation.

No way. It's a stupid idea in any case because it allows popular opinion to have a greater say in politics, particularly through right-wing parties. The British culture of stiff upper-lip **** change attitude would prejudice it against the left while people like Blair would end up making more stupid decisions.

More power to the House of Lords I think.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Starchild

Besides, a written constitution wouldn't be binding in anyway similar to the way the American one is. Anything passed by the current parliament (including a constitution) could just be repealed or nullified by a future parliament.

1. Require a 60% or 66% majority referendum to amend said constitution

2. Have a Supreme Court that can overturn unconstitutional laws.

Problem solved.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

More power to the House of Lords I think.

If you guys had a constitution and a Supreme Court to enforce the constitution you wouldn't need the Lords.


Aristocracy:
Monarchy:

Getting rid of said institutions:


The Republic:

[Whaleboy]

I'm not sure... I might go for a Supreme Court, but as it stands all legistlation passed by the Commons must go through the Lords too (iirc). The Lords isn't perfect, it's role now would be better performed by self-appointing panel of learned individuals, with regulators independent of government so that it won't fight for it's own interests. I don't like the idea of aristocrats with power by right, but the Lords as it is, is better than no Lords.

[Zulu Elephant]

No way. It's a stupid idea in any case because it allows popular opinion to have a greater say in politics, particularly through right-wing parties. The British culture of stiff upper-lip **** change attitude would prejudice it against the left while people like Blair would end up making more stupid decisions.

There is a left wing majority in the UK (Labour and the Lib Dems have had a total vote of well over 50% ever since the Lib Dem's inception as the SDP)

And I dont think it would be a major problem having a few BNP members in parliament - it would do nothing except expose them for what they are. As long as they are not represented they can go on telling the uninformed that they a a moderate "pro-Britain" party shut out of power by the "politically correct" establishment. The same goes for UKIP - The public wised up to them after Kilroy revealed that UKIP wanted to "wreck" the EU.

1. Require a 60% or 66% majority referendum to amend said constitution

Under a proportional representation system (which would be the first thing I'd change in the UK constitution) most governments would probably have a majority of around these numbers

2. Have a Supreme Court that can overturn unconstitutional laws.

Im not convinced that I want an unelected court deciding what laws elected officials can pass. It makes the system too rigid.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Odin


1. Require a 60% or 66% majority referendum to amend said constitution

2. Have a Supreme Court that can overturn unconstitutional laws.

Problem solved.

In the UK, the centuries old concept of parliamentary sovereignty basically means that no Parliament can be bound by nor bind any other Parliament. Ie, the current Parliament (2001-2005) cannot restrict the powers of a future Parliament (say, 2009-2013) To the extent that any Parliament is limited, it is limited by its own sufferance. For example, while the UK accepts that European law overrides UK law, we still have ultimate control by continuing to stay a member of the EU. If so wished, Parliament could pass a law nullifying our membership of the EU's treaties and withdraw us from their influence.

I mean, the Parliament in London has made and unmade entire countries before. Parliamentary sovereignty doesn't make it an unaccountable or all powerful beast but does make binding constitutions a bit of a foreign concept.

[Starchild]

The more I see the Lords in action, the more I like aspects of it. The UK isn't really big enough or decentralised enough to support a second house made of regional representatives and an elected house would just be another Commons. Though the peers and the aristocrats have to go and the Law Lords separated (but why in hell call it a Supreme Court? Can't it just stay The Law Lords?) having a house independent of political pressures does allow for a way of stopping or slowing short term political scare mongering.

Ideally I'd like to see the Lords be composed of people who have made improvements or contributions to society selected by an independent organisation (Oflord? ) for five to ten year periods, with input from the Commons and the public.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Agathon
It basically ensures a two party system, and when both parties care nothing for regular people protest votes do almost nothing (since people won't vote against Labour for fear of the Tories).

Yet we have three parties with a large proportion of the vote. The Lib Dems get around 20% of the vote, which compared with mid thirties and forties for Conservatives and Labour it makes it a definate three party system.

People who would rather have Labour than the Tories wouldn't vote against Labour for fear of a Tory government, however there are many people who are indifferent between the two, as they are pretty close to each other and differ quite a lot from the Lib Dems.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
There is a left wing majority in the UK (Labour and the Lib Dems have had a total vote of well over 50% ever since the Lib Dem's inception as the SDP)

We don't have left and right with that. Labour and the Tories are very close, and while the Lib Dems want to increase taxes, they also want to decrease regulation, so hardly firmly left-wing. We don't have a left-wing majority, we have a centrist and slightly reactionary majority (with regards to security), which is exactly what Labour panders too and what the Tories are trying to capture.

Populism would mean more power in the hands of elected officials, who, with the media, can quite effectively manipulate the opinion of the people to grant them more and more anti-terrorism measures.

More importantly to me, with proportional representation, you can't have independant candidates purely representing one area, and you may find yourself with areas represented by parties that had fewer votes in that area than others.

[Whaleboy]

And I dont think it would be a major problem having a few BNP members in parliament - it would do nothing except expose them for what they are. As long as they are not represented they can go on telling the uninformed that they a a moderate "pro-Britain" party shut out of power by the "politically correct" establishment. The same goes for UKIP - The public wised up to them after Kilroy revealed that UKIP wanted to "wreck" the EU.

There's not really all that much difference between Labour and the Tories... both being centre-right. The Lib Dems are more centrists. True with regards to the BNP, but it's too dangerous should the kind of situation develop where people's idiocy causes the BNP's fortunes to increase. PR is relatively safe when things go well, but when the **** hits the fan it's not pretty, as shown by the Weimar Republic.

The danger is populism, and that's exactly what the Lords are good at countering, because the line between populism and totalitarianism is a thin one as I said in my thread a while back.

[Zulu Elephant]

We don't have left and right with that. Labour and the Tories are very close, and while the Lib Dems want to increase taxes, they also want to decrease regulation, so hardly firmly left-wing. We don't have a left-wing majority, we have a centrist and slightly reactionary majority (with regards to security), which is exactly what Labour panders too and what the Tories are trying to captur

Blair's Labour are more left wing than they let on - its just they dont talk about it much for fear of losing votes at the centre. Sure they are right wing on crime and terrorism. But tax credits, new deal, increased international aid, civil unions, minimum wage and a host of other policies that they dont talk about much are certainly Social Democrat policies.

Also, you have to bear in mind that Blair is probably the most right wing member of the party - the majority of the party is made up of Social Democrats. The collective memory of the 80s currently stops the party's top brass from implementing more center-left policy that would probably be acceptable to the public. When Blair goes (it might even have to wait until Brown goes) a new generation including David Miliband and Ruth Kelly will guide the party to the acceptable centre-left.

More importantly to me, with proportional representation, you can't have independant candidates purely representing one area, and you may find yourself with areas represented by parties that had fewer votes in that area than others.

It a fair point but (as i mentioned above) a person's personal politics are dependent on a mulititude of of factors, not just their geographical area. Its not right to think that a single mother, a black family, a business executive and a minimum wage shelf stacker can have all their interests represented by a single constituency MP
in parliament just because they all live in the same area.

True with regards to the BNP, but it's too dangerous should the kind of situation develop where people's idiocy causes the BNP's fortunes to increase. PR is relatively safe when things go well, but when the **** hits the fan it's not pretty, as shown by the Weimar Republic.

The same could be said for first past the post - In a PR system, at least the moderate partys can keep the BNP in check. It stops the unlikely hypothetical of a BNP with a total majority in parliament.

[Whaleboy]

But it's still too subject to marketting. For context, I am opposed to democracy itself, but I can understand that if you agree with argument ad populum, then PR is the way to go. IMO a successful democratic government has as little democracy as possible, while as much liberty as possible, hence the House of Lords or the like, is required, which would pretty much preclude PR anyway.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
When Blair goes (it might even have to wait until Brown goes) a new generation including David Miliband and Ruth Kelly will guide the party to the acceptable centre-left.

Ruth Kelly as centre-left? I always thought Opus Dei were relatively right wing.

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
It a fair point but (as i mentioned above) a person's personal politics are dependent on a mulititude of of factors, not just their geographical area. Its not right to think that a single mother, a black family, a business executive and a minimum wage shelf stacker can have all their interests represented by a single constituency MP
in parliament just because they all live in the same area.

If you stop having a constituency for an MP, then you have two problems:

Who does a citizen go to if they wish to make a comment?

Voting is then done on the party, not the person. IMHO it's important to vote for the person you think is best to represent you, not the party that is closest to yourself. For instance I vote Labour in Northampton because our local MP, inept though he is, sits on the select committee for international aid and I largely agree with his position on it, whereas the Lib Dem candidate wants that money spent on hospitals and education. Yet I agree with the Lib Dems more as a party. The idea of representative democracy is that a group of people vote for someone to represent them as a group. Whether that's geographical area, socio-economic group of anything doesn't change that. Proportional representation would, and would mean there is no MP representing *you*, just a party representing your opinion.

Plus, currently the role of an MP is twofold - to represent that area in the commons and to be a member of the community to deal with the communities problems. That would disappear with proportional representation.

[Odin]

Whaleboy, You sound like some of the writters of the US Constitution, are sure you're not the reincarnation of James Madison?


My ideal government would include features of both presidential and parlimentary systems, mainly because I think presidential systems have too much seperation of power (too much gridlock, which the US is famous for) and too powerful special intrests) and parlimentary systems have too litttle (too much populism and Tyranny by Majority).