Jump to content

Recommended Posts

To follow comments made by David Carnell, Hugenot and Brendan on the Jacqui Smith thread Jaqui Smith thread - political restructuring


DC - I agree your points. There is a difficult balance to be struck.


This is worth a wider debate - hence new thread - on how Parliament (both houses) could be restructured to improve calibre of occupants, quality of their work (scrutiny of legislation / representation of constituents / representation of ills to be righted ect).


As a starter for 10 propose:


1. Reduce the number of MPs

2. Make constituencies more "recognisable" as a community rather than a manipulated sector. (A particularly poor example is South Hertfordshire (I think that's it's tile) - over 20 miles long it is, in parts, just 1 milw wide and can hardly be a genuine community.

3. Change the salary structure so that work is rewarded - so a committee chairman /member receives additional pay.

The most useful peculiarity of the British Parliament is the House of Lords. One that isn?t used for that public good as it could be. Mostly because the MPs from both Labour and the Conservatives do not have the public good on their agenda and have therefore been trying to destroy the House of Lords for years.


Here?s what I would do with regards the House of Lords:


? Get rid of all appointed and heredity peers

? Install a system whereby peers are first nominated on merit by, industry bodies, the judiciary, academia, and such and then elected by their industries.

? Make it illegal for peers to be politically affiliated in any way.

? Make any attempt to influence the House of Lords politically an act of high treason.

? Fully reinstate all powers for the Lords to reject legislation.


Then I would address the House of Commons thusly and in the words of Queenie of Blackadder fame: First I am going to have a little drinky and then I?m going to execute the whole bally lot of you.


I will then implement your suggestions for proper political representation.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Am I being thick? Point 2. seems to contradict

> point 1.



No - fewer MP's means fewer constituencies, but I want the constituencies that are represented to be more meaningful. Why not just Southwark rather than having H Harman & T JOwell representing us.

Fewer MPs with better support to handle constituency matters will, I believe, attract a higher calibre of representative who would be able to achieve more and crucially should make for better debate. Far too many of the current house are simply drones and lobby fodder.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Eh? That wasn't "my quote"! If you look at your post above,it is clearly a quote by Rockets! None of us have any  idea what a Corbyn led government during Covid would have been like. But do you seriously think it would have been worse than Johnson's self-serving performance? What you say about the swing of seats away from Labour in 2019 is true. But you have missed my point completely. The fact that Labour under Corbyn got more than ten million votes does not mean that Corbyn was "unelectable", does it? The present electoral system is bonkers, which is why a change is apparently on the cards. Anyway, it is pointless discussing this, because we are going round in circles. As for McCluskey, whatever the truth of that report, I can't see what it has to do with Corbyn?
    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...