so do we have enough mps left to form a national goverment?

#1
So are there enough MP's left who haven't had there nose so far in the trough to form a national government
 
W

wevers

Guest
#4
can't we seize power in the name of the people (Gladiator style) and sack all the corrupt self indulged politicians who are only in it for themselves and not the people they are supposed to represent... :twisted:
 
#5
We used to have national service for the Armed Forces - can we not have the same thing for politics?

Choose however many MP's we need at random from the general public. They have to serve a three year tour as an MP. The ones from outside Londona are housed in "barracks". They are paid a decent wage; enough to live comfortably on but no more.

Come on - could they do any worse than the cnuts we have already?!
 
#6
always thought a bit of random jury style selection wouldn't hurt in the houses of parliament.
not every idea the party in power comes up with is brilliant or toss for that matter so having to win people over by the merits of the idea rather than party discipline or voting no just cause Blair came up with the idea.
chances some of the people who are picked are total tools but might also get the odd brain box.
have to frame the law so that people can't get out of it and that people have there careers protected
 
#8
makes more sense than any of the other partys
will look into it
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
What can Her Majesty do about this?

Surely it is time for use of the Monarch's constitutional powers to rescue British democracy from total corruption, clean it all up and start again.
 
#10
Personally think that the number of people who didn't vote should be counted.

Why should someone get elected with 20% of a constituency vote? With 35% turnout that can occur. It ain't democracy.

In reality that's 65% of the people not using their voice, which should equate to no MP. How many MP's would we loose that way. How much money would that save to spend on something worth while?
 
#11
Caradoc said:
Personally think that the number of people who didn't vote should be counted.

Why should someone get elected with 20% of a constituency vote? With 35% turnout that can occur. It ain't democracy.

In reality that's 65% of the people not using their voice, which should equate to no MP. How many MP's would we loose that way. How much money would that save to spend on something worth while?
Or make voting COMPULSORY like some European Countries (I'm NOT a EUROPHILE BTW). Hold elections on a Sunday. Can't be arsed ? Pay the small fine...but the money goes to charity.

Now think about it. The main parties will sh*t themselves because they're held in such low regard, the forced electorate will put that cross on any party but Tory or Liarblur. So, Ravin' Looney's etc would be in a chance and that, my friends, would make for an interesting 4 years.

Failing that, sack the lot, call in Her Majesty, dole out Ministerial Responsiblities to the Royal Family and tell the land that this situation will remain until someone has a better idea.
 
#12
Scabbers, kinda agree people should vote - but forcing someone to vote I don't like. It is just as much a choice not to vote - and we are free to make that choice. It is something I think should continue.

But... rather than the Ravin' Looney's (who'd probably do a better job) we'd get probably between 1/2 and a 1/4 of the mongs we presently have gracing our first house.

By not having an MP people would see what they were worth or not worth.

You could of course have the same system by compulsory voting but adding a box "none of the above".
 
T

trowel

Guest
#14
Biped said:
What can Her Majesty do about this?

Surely it is time for use of the Monarch's constitutional powers to rescue British democracy from total corruption, clean it all up and start again.
Don't forget we had to get rid of the monarchy, just to get a vague semblance of democracy. Do not expect the Royals to come to the aid of any sort of politicos. The Royals are experts "par excelance" in fence sitting, and have been for over three hundred years, they are certainly not going rock their boat just because you want to go chasing after the Holy Grail of democracy.
 
#15
Scabbers said:
Caradoc said:
Personally think that the number of people who didn't vote should be counted.

Why should someone get elected with 20% of a constituency vote? With 35% turnout that can occur. It ain't democracy.

In reality that's 65% of the people not using their voice, which should equate to no MP. How many MP's would we loose that way. How much money would that save to spend on something worth while?
Or make voting COMPULSORY like some European Countries (I'm NOT a EUROPHILE BTW). Hold elections on a Sunday. Can't be arsed ? Pay the small fine...but the money goes to charity.

Now think about it. The main parties will sh*t themselves because they're held in such low regard, the forced electorate will put that cross on any party but Tory or Liarblur. So, Ravin' Looney's etc would be in a chance and that, my friends, would make for an interesting 4 years.

Failing that, sack the lot, call in Her Majesty, dole out Ministerial Responsiblities to the Royal Family and tell the land that this situation will remain until someone has a better idea.
You say that as if it was some sort of disease or mental problem :? ....sometimes the continentals have the odd good idea.



The odd bloody revolution now and then also might not go amiss.....clean out the shite.
 
#16
I bet Dennis Skinner would be in.
While I do not agree with his politics, I think he is honest enough on the "trough" front
 
#17
Won't matter for much longer if the New World Order mob get their way-there won't be national governments,just a global one.What price democracy then?....
 
#18
bring in Pr so every vote counts at the moment I read somewhere its about 50000 votes that actually count in the entire country :(
limit donations by individuals to a £1000 per party. same with instutions
and unions.
make the scumbags have to go out and recruit members.
lots of union members would agree with this why give cash to a party that hates you anyway :?
so no cash cow from unions for labor and no cash from lord Columbia marching powder of Belize for the torys. plus all the other dodgy donations labor as the party in power got in the last 10 years

if you can't persuade people your party is worth supporting surprise surprise it dies.
political party's would have to engage seriously with the general populence rather than the odd rich weirdo or spiv
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#19
brighton hippy said:
bring in Pr so every vote counts at the moment I read somewhere its about 50000 votes that actually count in the entire country :(
limit donations by individuals to a £1000 per party. same with instutions
and unions.
make the scumbags have to go out and recruit members.
lots of union members would agree with this why give cash to a party that hates you anyway :?
so no cash cow from unions for labor and no cash from lord Columbia marching powder of Belize for the torys. plus all the other dodgy donations labor as the party in power got in the last 10 years

if you can't persuade people your party is worth supporting surprise surprise it dies.
political party's would have to engage seriously with the general populence rather than the odd rich weirdo or spiv
BH

Where an individual has given £1000 or so it is because they support the policies of that party. The big donators generally don't give a toss about the policies, they see the next group in power who will help them get what they want and therefore more money. It is an investment not a donation.

Even worse when it is done Bernie Ecclestone style !!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
#20
trowel said:
Biped said:
What can Her Majesty do about this?

Surely it is time for use of the Monarch's constitutional powers to rescue British democracy from total corruption, clean it all up and start again.
Don't forget we had to get rid of the monarchy, just to get a vague semblance of democracy. Do not expect the Royals to come to the aid of any sort of politicos. The Royals are experts "par excelance" in fence sitting, and have been for over three hundred years, they are certainly not going rock their boat just because you want to go chasing after the Holy Grail of democracy.
With respect, the royals are experts in not allowing their opinions to appear on the pages of the press. Nonetheless, there is sufficient evidence out there to illustrate that HMQ has, on more than one occasion, quietly suggested that a PM might wish to rethink his/her intended course of action because it would be constitutionally improper. Peter Hennessey's work is good on this sort of thing.

A more distant example of royal non fence sitting was in WW1. Lloyd George wanted to place the BEF completely under French command in what was to become known as the Nivelle Offensive. George V was unimpressed and the plan was altered - which given that Nivelle's generalship made Haig's leadership appear to be a combination of the best bits of Wellington, Monty and Bill Slim was no bad thing.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads