"Peoples Jury" to restore faith in democracy

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by rockape34, Jan 22, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  2. Your point being?
  3. Peoples Jury? Sounds very DDR!
  4. Peoples Jury sounds like a bunch of sh1t. A far better idea is if our representatives want to put something through parliament for a vote, they should do it online instead. This way, WE all get to vote on it, not the politicians.

    The great unwashed could be the House of Lords and the Parliamentarians instead.

    For example, if they want to increase taxes, they have to publish their intent online, explain why, show the accounts and then WE decide whether they can or not.

    Want to provide devolution for Scotland? Put the question online and allow the People of Scotland to have the final say.

    Want to go to war in Iraq . . .

    Want to cut spending on the Armed forces . . .
  5. Giblets

    That seems to sum it up quite well and that's the way I read it. Is somebody preparing for AM 1 APR?

    This looks like a recipe for allowing Democracy to destroy itself. Forgive me for any implied arrogance but the great mass of people out there don't really want responsibility for their daily lives, let alone the affairs of the Country! It would certainly increase the power of the Media to mould unformed (and largely, uninformed) minds.

    Just when the World starts looking unsafe!
  6. A small point,

    Isn't every MP supposed to be our "peoples Jury". They are there because we voted them there. Tony sits because those nice people in sedgefield voted for him and we voted in the rest of the party.

    Surely the way to sort it out is to Stand for MP yourself (Where every you are) and then start shouting where you can be heard!

    rather simplistic view, granted, but it is (supposidly) our country!
  7. What a load of sh1t.

    I always thought that the greatest advantage of the hereditary Lords was that it was a 'randomly-selected group of ordinary people' their only common characteristic - that they had successful ancestors. Yet neu-labour got rid of them because they were unelected and occasionally disagreed with his Tonyship.
  8. PassingBells

    Interfering with the House of Lords also appealed to old Labour as it, allegedly, progressed the People's cause for a classless society. I think many of us call it petty sour grapes and peevishness. A great strength of the Lords is the very fact that they are unelected. They were selected either by birthright (thus having an interest in stability and heritage) or proven merit and expertise. They could act in the National interest and not risk being voted out by aggrieved self interest. Of course a Peer could act out of self interest but it would be totally blatant and probably not worth the risk.

    Why does this Government seem Hell bent on tinkering with and breaking things that work? Of course institutions evolve but cautiously and over time.
  9. You sir, are preaching to the converted.
  10. "I have only one word to say to you Benjamin...Diebold."
  11. Why the hell do people like this and Bliar keep feeling the need to adding the word people's in front of every idiotic scheme they dream up? It's not as though it fools anyone any more about it being more democratic or representative. Personally it just puts my teeth on edge and and makes me highly sceptical of whatever it is right from the get go.
  12. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    And just who would select this "people's jury"?
  13. This country has never been a democracy but it had at least the merits of being a fairly open ended oligarchy. Now it seems to be turning into something less meritocratic and far less worthy.
  14. Agreed.

    A solution that occurred to me was that seats in the House of Lords be filled by picking people in the same way that they are picked for Jury service. Granted you'd get some idiots but that doesn't stop the commons. People who were picked would get a decent salary and have to serve for say, 7 years. It would need to be a period different in length to the commons so that there was crossover at general elections.
  15. [quote="EX_STAB] It would need to be a period different in length to the commons so that there was crossover at general elections.[/quote]
    There is one of the most critical points about Lords reform - the cycle of elections. All of the alternatives voted on by the Commons over recent years have combined elections to the Lord with General Elections.

    I would suspect that this would give skewed results in favour of the largest part in the lower House, thus enably them to get their legislation through the upper House. Of course, this would suit both parties so they are in favour of it.

    The downside of differing cycls is that there might be legislative deadlock between the Houses with the government of the day being unable to pass legislation. However, given that much of the new law passed us such interfering shite this is prabably a good thing.

    For myself the Lords full of hereditories was like so much of our unwritten constitution. It might not have been entirely logical, but it worked. I can't see that the half-baked "reform" has improved thing