Dilemma with political loyalties

[Halibut]

 

If you think I look silly your even more deluded than I thought

 

Behave - everyone knows only weird white supremacist types go around claiming that black people can't be British!

[janie48]

 

Whilst I'm not suggesting that any of them would provide a perfect utopia and I tend to opt for a mix and match approach (similar to how we have a capitalist economy alongside a (diminishing) socialist state in the UK) that isn't so rigid that it can't be constantly tinkered with and adapted or altered to suit a changing society, I do think they speak of a fairer system, a system based on the idea of personal freedom alongside social responsibility, of equality and opportunity, of complete freedom of movement and association, overall a more natural way for humans living in complex societies to cooperate with each other.

 

If an alternative system was going to be for the better i'm all for it,but i'm inclined to be one of the many with a rather cautious approach when it comes to change,with a "better the devil you know then the devil you don't "attitude.

 

I do accept that if everyone took that same position we would be stuck in the past all the time,so its always encouraging to hear from people who are prepared to study new ideas for reform,though finding the right platform where people can voice their views and be listened to by the people in power seems to be in short supply these days.

[esme]

It would still better than the present system. At the moment, candidates for Parliament are attentive (or pretend to be attentive) to the needs and wishes of the electorate until they are elected.

 

After that, the electorate can get lost. The MPs (and remember, they are Members of Parliament, not Elected Representatives of the People) usually pay attention to the Party Whips but the electorate are irrelevant.

As far as I'm aware from my dealings with my own MP

 

The party whip takes priority over everything, they say 'jump' then the MP jumps or they are in danger of being replaced by a more compliant party member being parachuted in.

 

Then comes the MP's own conscience and how this fits with the party policy.

 

Then comes the wishes of the MP's constituents, which may or may not affect their decisions, the number of constituents expressing a similar view won't affect an MP's decisions however, once an MP has made their mind up you'll have a job and a half trying to change it.

 

Or more cynically and briefly the order goes

 

1. Party whip beats all
2. Then the most generous lobbyists
3. Then their own conscience
4. Then their family and friends
5. Then, if there's an election coming up and votes are needed and this may garner a bit of goodwill, and none of the lower numbered influences said anything, and it's not too much bother, and if there's time, or there's a photo op being offered, maybe the wishes of one or two of the less troublesome constituents on some minor issue will be considered

[andygardener]

And how is that different to what we have now, in a recent election around 80% of the country didn't want the party that came to power - it didn't stop them claiming a mandate, these things need work but if we stay with the present system that will never happen.Fair enough on those issues where there's no strong opinion from the constituency they are free to vote how they choose, they can form alliances or even vote with a party if they want

 

If the people don't exercise the voice they are given then an MP can do what they like and the people can't complain.

 

But at the moment the people can scream and shout as much as they like and the party whip will win the day with a quiet word.

 

We elect these people, they should be accountable to us.

 

That would be doable by keeping the present system but introducing some kind of additional referendum trigger like the Swiss have, so that certain issues would be put direct to the people.

 

Sent from my woodlot using a banjo

[esme]

That would be doable by keeping the present system but introducing some kind of additional referendum trigger like the Swiss have, so that certain issues would be put direct to the people.

 

Sent from my woodlot using a banjo

Fair enough, but that would require MP's to legislate and vote for it, they haven't had a good history of bringing in political reforms that allow the electorate to affect decisions.

 

My idea doesn't require any change to the system.

 

Just the setting up of a party which represents a single constituency, where that party has the ability to remove their candidate from their seat for not obeying the wishes of the party, which is exactly what we have now.

 

The legally binding contract bit, formalises the grounds for such a removal.

 

I believe the current parties can boot someone out of office for any reason they like.

 

People would still vote in the election and the constituency based candidate would still have to beat the other party based candidates in order to gain a seat.

 

It's really not that different to what we already have, but the constituency would have a elected a representative instead of voting for a party that may or may not represent them

 

--EDIT--

 

But as I say it's academic as very few people want a voice in parliament, most want their voice and only their voice in parliament on just a few key issues and they don't care about what anyone else wants or any other issue.