When will the Lib Dems sweep to power?

[Donna Ferentes]

Incidentally, it's worth mentioning that there's currently and Liberal Democrat sitting the the European Parliament despite actually having failed to get elected. The Lib Dem who was elected, Chris Huhne, later won a set in the UK Parliament and as you cannot hold both posts, the gap was filled by the next Lib Dem on the list. Fair enough, them's the rules, but I'm entitled to wonder how democratic a system is where somebody doesn't get elected - and still gets in.

(Declaration of interest - I do actually know and dislike the individual concerned, but I think the point stands.)

 

[Azrael]

What is this garbage doublethink?

Every dictator has had a 'workable majority' too.

Please explain how my post was "doublethink", and drop the straw man talk of dictators.

There is an assumption that PR is fairer than FPTP. This is based on idealism -- it must be better if it's statistically pure -- and ignores the reality of mass-coalitions, closed lists, and kingmakers. You can design PR systems that are more representative, but why bother when we have a workable and proven system.

Energy would be better spent on getting MPs independent of the whips, and stopping parties from packing seats with ideologically correct placemen and women.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Fair enough, them's the rules, but I'm entitled to wonder how democratic a system is where somebody doesn't get elected - and still gets in.

Because people vote for the party, not the individual?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Because people vote for the party, not the individual?

In which case you get the corporation rather than the person.

 

[Wolveryeti]

In which case you get the corporation rather than the person.

Well it happens with FPTP too. Most people round my way would vote a pot plant into office if it had a Labour sticker on it. It's depressing when if you hate your local MP but hate the Tories more, you are reduced to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I'm sure it's not escaped your attention that Brown has not had to go to the polls, either.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Well it happens with FPTP too

It does, but it's not the rule. With party lists it's literally the rule - you get no option.

I'm sure it's not escaped your attention that Brown has not had to go to the polls, either.

That's nothing to do with FPTP v PR, though, is it? And it's not really relevant - it's not somebody losing an election and then getting the post anyway. (His is not an elective office, which is an interesting point but a rather different one.)

 

[Wolveryeti]

Please explain how my post was "doublethink", and drop the straw man talk of dictators.

You seem to be saying that a couple of people in the cabinet plus special advisers dictating policy (which is what we have now) is representative government. Your entire post was like some steaming fresh copy from the Ministry of Truth.

Your ridiculous straw man is assuming that PR always leads to hung parliaments and small parties calling the shots. I think this is complete bollocks anyway, but what surprises me more is how you seem to believe that compromise is some kind of dirty word - as if it's the end of the world that the majority party can't have it's way with the awful recalcitrant bastards that disagree with it. It's reminiscent of some awful paternalistic approach straight out of Dictatorship 101.

You can design PR systems that are more representative, but why bother when we have a workable and proven system.

It's workable in the sense that that a clapped out 1975 escort is still workable, and proven in the sense that it has been in motion down the steep gradient of declining voter participation.

Energy would be better spent on getting MPs independent of the whips, and stopping parties from packing seats with ideologically correct placemen and women.

How do you propose to do this when the balance of power in the party/MP relationship is still massively skewed towards the party. How many MPs have ever managed to get re-elected after leaving the party? How many rebels do you generally see on the front benches?

The party cronyism that you rightly remark upon is a product of the leadership resting on the laurels that the gerrymandering and a distorted electoral system have delivered unto them. Electoral systems should reward the ideological approach that people most agree with, not the least bad option in a three horse race of knackered old nags.

 

[Wolveryeti]

It does, but it's not the rule. With party lists it's literally the rule - you get no option.

It's not the rule with PR either - unless you introduce a closed list system (which I would be against).

Incidentally, I wonder what you think of the level of corruption in one of the other famous FPTP systems- the US, where it has become so entrenched that it is actually legal and called lobbying.

 

[Azrael]

You seem to be saying that a couple of people in the cabinet plus special advisers dictating policy [...] is representative government.

Erm, no. Don't see how you figured that. I believe hundreds of MPs elected by FPTB and free to vote the way they choose is representative government.

MiniTrue my foot.

Compromise has its place. Perpetual government by compromise is another thing altogether. We're supposed to have an adversarial system, where ideas are tested by debate. This is undermined by having parties who share a social democratic consensus. Just think how much worse it would be if they were in endless coalitions. The "compromise" would in reality be a sell-out to achieve power. Just witness the Lib Dems in Scotland.

I'd make MPs independent by abolishing salaries and banning whips. Party lists would be harder to counter, but I'm sure a way could be found.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It's not the rule with PR either - unless you introduce a closed list system (which I would be against).

Incidentally, I wonder what you think of the level of corruption in one of the other famous FPTP systems- the US, where it has become so entrenched that it is actually legal and called lobbying.

I tend to think it's not much to do with FPTP itself. Notoriously, in the US practically all incumbents are re-elected. (They also have much more power and influence individually than European representative, which again is a different question.)

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I'd make MPs independent by abolishing salaries

Thus taking us bravely forward into the nineteenth century.

 

[Azrael]

1911, actually. Before which there were quite a few Labour MPs.

How would you make MPs financially independent? I suggested salaries for life in another thread on the subject, which could get awfully expensive, but is feasible.

 

[belboid]

there were 29, paid for by the unions. it was the liberals' banning of unions from making such payments that led to the introduction of the mp's salary. and quite right too, the need for mp's to be financially 'independent' is non-existent

 

[Azrael]

and quite right too, the need for mp's to be financially 'independent' is non-existent

Financial independence is political independence.

So instead of several unions, with their own agendas, we have lobby fodder, unqualified for anything else, who must do the behest of the leadership or lose their livelihood.

Like all important issues, it goes uncommented on in the press.

 

[Wolveryeti]

So instead of several unions, with their own agendas, we have lobby fodder, unqualified for anything else, who must do the behest of the leadership or lose their livelihood.

You seriously think that by making the position of MP unsalaried that it would not lead to the grossest kind of corruption?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I think that MPs should be made to live in converted Portakabin offices stacked 4 high in the grounds of Parliament. They should be issued with vouchers worth about £15,000 a year with which to buy essential food and clothes. They would need no other income as they would have a roof over their head and food to keep them from going too hungry. They should not be allowed to have any other income while they serve their term in Parliament and should be monitored for 5 years after they serve so as to check for delayed bribes and bonuses 'earned' by their activities while in power.

MPs who vote against the Party Whip but who are supported in doing so by their constituents should receive a bonus of £1,000 of vouchers for each such vote.

Lib Dem MPs should be made to take a History of Politics test to establish that they have at least some political awareness. As this would be unfair, the other partys' MPs will also have to take the test and this might help to clear the Labour Party of some of its careerist non-thinkers.

 

[belboid]

Financial independence is political independence.

but as there isn't really any such thing as 'financial independence' then there's no such thing as political independence??

 

[Shevek]

surely if MPs had to be 'financially independent' in order to serve in parliament only the independently wealthy or those backed by big business/unions could consider going into parliament. I think the same would apply if you abolished the second home allowance. If second home allowance was abolished only those who could afford to buy a London home from their own pocket would be able to become MP's thus restricting politics to the indepdently wealthy. Ordinary people would be ruled out of the equation!

 

[Azrael]

but as there isn't really any such thing as 'financial independence' then there's no such thing as political independence??

If you're rich enough then you're effectively independent. Obviously the plan is flawed, but the current situation is more so, and salery for life has its own problems. (An ever-growing bill for useless non-entities, for one thing.) Since the latter option is going to take taxpayers' money, I'd take some convicing to believe it's the way to go.

What alternatives are there? You could, I suppose, require that MPs be over 30-35 and qualified for something else before they take their seats.

It comes down to the purpose of an MP. I don't believe it's a full time job, but a duty. Right now many MPs act as unofficial social workers, others as professional glad-handers. That isn't their place. If MPs have to hold down proper jobs as well as turning out to vote, we could cut down on worthless, ill-considered law, which could only be a good thing.

 

[kabbes]

My most favoured system would indeed be first past the post -- but one in which political parties are outlawed. Then you really would be voting for an individual to represent you. As it is, we get the worst of both worlds -- you are told that you are voting for an individual, which means that your franchise is nerfed beyond all reasonable recognition, and yet what you actually get is a career politician party liner. It's utterly broken, which is why the % of people voting is decreasing in every election.

 

[belboid]

If you're rich enough then you're effectively independent. Obviously the plan is flawed, but the current situation is more so,

what, paying a salary is 'more flawed' than a system whereby only the rich could be MP's? That is probably the daftest thing I've ever seen anyone say on here, and that takes some doing.

 

[Azrael]

what, paying a salary is 'more flawed' than a system whereby only the rich could be MP's? That is probably the daftest thing I've ever seen anyone say on here, and that takes some doing.

Not "only the rich", as those Labour MPs show.

Right now MPs rely on government approval for their livelihood. Whatever their background, they have to vote the way they're told. Instead of hundreds of independent agendas, you have one agenda, and a few serial rebels. So in real terms, power is more restricted.

If anything's daft, it's the claim that making MPs wageslaves increases the representation of the common man and woman.

 

[frogwoman]

I think that MPs should be made to live in converted Portakabin offices stacked 4 high in the grounds of Parliament. They should be issued with vouchers worth about £15,000 a year with which to buy essential food and clothes. They would need no other income as they would have a roof over their head and food to keep them from going too hungry. They should not be allowed to have any other income while they serve their term in Parliament and should be monitored for 5 years after they serve so as to check for delayed bribes and bonuses 'earned' by their activities while in power.

MPs who vote against the Party Whip but who are supported in doing so by their constituents should receive a bonus of £1,000 of vouchers for each such vote.

Lib Dem MPs should be made to take a History of Politics test to establish that they have at least some political awareness. As this would be unfair, the other partys' MPs will also have to take the test and this might help to clear the Labour Party of some of its careerist non-thinkers.

 

[belboid]

Not "only the rich", as those Labour MPs show.

which labour mp's? the first 29? the noes that you saaid wren't 'independently' wealthy?

Right now MPs rely on government approval for their livelihood. Whatever their background, they have to vote the way they're told. Instead of hundreds of independent agendas, you have one agenda, and a few serial rebels. So in real terms, power is more restricted.

well, that's just wrong. Plain and simply wrong. You don't even have to turn up to claim your salary!

If anything's daft, it's the claim that making MPs wageslaves increases the representation of the common man and woman.

whereas restricting it to the rich would be better? most people are wage slaves, so so should there representatives be.

 

[Azrael]

whereas restricting it to the rich would be better? most people are wage slaves, so so should there representatives be.

Most people don't write the laws of the land.

Which MPs have license to abscond? George Galloway has an abysmal record in this regard, but he was booted out the Labour Party.

It boils down to this: for most people, whoever controls your wage controls you. If MPs are rely on their leadership for a wage, they're compelled to vote how they're told. A few rebels with unusually strong ties in the constituency might escape, but not most of the lobby fodder, and it'll only get worse if you have PR, with its party-lists.

Those 29 Labour MPs pre-1911 had as many different agendas as they had paymasters.

And the question remains, why can't MPs hold down a job of some kind outside Parliament? Voting needn't be a 9-5 occupation. This country would be better off without a professional political class who know little of life outside Westminster. A job would give them contact with actual people.

 

[Wolveryeti]

It boils down to this: for most people, whoever controls your wage controls you.

Haven't you just shafted your own argument? If the taxpayer (i.e. everyone) pays MPs' wages (like now), we are where we want to be with taxpayers controlling MPs.

Yes? No?

 

[Azrael]

No.

That's theory. In reality, "the taxpayer" is "represented" by the government and the whips. We don't control them at all.

 

[belboid]

a sorry mess of contradictions and semi-thought through gibberish really is all you're offering. you're confused about what you mean by 'financial independence', inconsistent re parliamentary process, tho i guess your elitism is quite straightforward.

 

[Azrael]

Show, don't tell.

Right now MPs are controlled by a narrow elite. My suggestion would widen the elite, replacing a few voices with hundreds.

What's your suggestion to make MPs independent?

 

[belboid]

What rubbish, widening the elite by restricting it to the rich? And you still ignore the fact that the government doesn't control what MP's do as individual MP's. What they control is the power to become part of the government, MP's may be acquiescent the their will because of that, but that would be true whether they were salaried or financially 'independent' (whatever you mean by that this time).

Being rich enough to work without pay for five years, doesn't make anyone 'independent', it just means they come from a much narrower range of society, one that overwhelmingly shares the same values, and general opinions on most matters. To say it would broaden representation is not just wrong, it is an outright lie.

MP's 'independence' would be far better guaranteed by them being accountable to a mass party.