Happy with the Government?

[Mr Clowning]

I voted for reform but not sure what exactly, I just know that we can't go on with this lot and I wouldn't advocate the revolution idea.

[Mecky]

Not read any posts on this thread, but no matter what you'll always get people happy, or not so with any government.

 

percentages

[Hairyloon]

First past the post was not my idea.

no, but refusing people the right to stand for election was.

I fear you have misunderstood. They have the right to stand, they just wouldn't have the right to enter the final when they've lost the semi-final.

 

I wouldn't advocate the revolution idea.

Does that not depend upon how the revolt is staged?

I suggest a civilised one: call a referendum of the people and (assuming the vote goes that way) give the government notice to quit.

The new government can be built at a sensible pace whilst the old government is dismantled.

[esme]

Does that not depend upon how the revolt is staged?

I suggest a civilised one:

You can suggest a civilised one all you like, guaranteeing it remains civilised is another matter and any bloodshed will be laid firmly at the feet of the organisers of such a revolt.

call a referendum of the people and (assuming the vote goes that way) give the government notice to quit.

The new government can be built at a sensible pace whilst the old government is dismantled.

Last time I checked the only people who could call a referendum were the Government, I may be wrong on that but I don't think so, so we're back to asking the monkeys for the plantation keys again.

 

The only way you will achieve a peaceful change is if you are the one in authority or you have influence with the people who are in authority, which means you either have to stand for office yourself or support someone who is and use the system to change the system.

 

You can ask politicians for anything you like, if they don't want to give it to you then you won't get it, your only option is to elect politicians who will listen and give you what you want.

 

And if you can't find politicians who will do that then do the blue peter thing and make one, register a party, find someone who will stand for it and vote for them.

[Scabbydog]

 

 

Does that not depend upon how the revolt is staged?

I suggest a civilised one: call a referendum of the people and (assuming the vote goes that way) give the government notice to quit.

The new government can be built at a sensible pace whilst the old government is dismantled.

 

We already have that. We call it an election.

[Hairyloon]

Last time I checked the only people who could call a referendum were the Government, I may be wrong on that but I don't think so...

Think again.

Ok, so we only have the power to call a referendum at a parish level, but the nation is made up of parishes: call a referendum in each, or even in a representative sample, and you have a national vote.

 

The only way you will achieve a peaceful change is if you are the one in authority or you have influence with the people who are in authority, which means you either have to stand for office yourself or support someone who is and use the system to change the system.

This is the biggest barrier to effecting change: the rock solid belief you all have that it cannot be done any way other than what we are used to.

 

And if you can't find politicians who will do that then do the blue peter thing and make one, register a party, find someone who will stand for it and vote for them.

That is an idea I could get behind, but I don't think I could front it.

 

---------- Post added 06-12-2013 at 16:23 ----------

 

Incidentally, the Electoral Commission are having a Consultation: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/162659/Standing-for-election-consultation-paper.pdf

[esme]

Yes it's a rock solid belief.

 

If you have a means of getting a NOTA option on a ballot paper that does not involve the following

 

1 - Revolution which will be violent no matter the initial intent

2 - Asking politicians to legislate for it

3 - Becoming a politician and trying to pass a bill which provides an NOTA option

 

Then please do it, I'd love an NOTA option

 

Parish referendums carry no weight in the house, petitions only guarantee a debate not a result, courts interpret existing law created by politicians they don't make new laws.

 

But if you think you can change this based on an EC law, then don't talk about it just go for it, because time is running out before the next election and then you're stuck for five more years.

 

---------- Post added 07-12-2013 at 01:10 ----------

 

Also I believe that even if the government do hold a national referendum, they are not bound by the result, they see the result as advice and not as a legally binding instruction.

 

Ignoring a referendum would cause a huge row which would drag on for ages, which is why we only get them when the result is pretty much guaranteed to be what the government want, such as asking us if we want the AV system which no one wanted, rather than asking if we wanted the PR system which there was a strong danger we'd have said yes to.

 

But huge rows in the house are daily routine and eventually it would be forgotten.

 

If anyone knows better on the referendum thing, please correct me.

[Hairyloon]

But if you think you can change this based on an EC law, then don't talk about it just go for it, because time is running out before the next election and then you're stuck for five more years.

Why should I seek to impose my opinion upon the nation when so few people seem at all bothered?

 

I believe that even if the government do hold a national referendum, they are not bound by the result, they see the result as advice and not as a legally binding instruction.

The first point, which you did touch upon, is that if the government hold a referendum, then they will choose the question such that they would probably get the result they want: for a meaningful vote, we would have to call the vote, as discussed earlier.

If you are right, then a national referendum called by the government holds no more or less weight than one made up of multiple parishes called by us, but I believe this nation is still a monarchy, and the government only run it because they have a mandate from the people.

If a proper democratic vote showed that they had lost that mandate then the queen could should, and probably would instruct that they be replaced.

 

If anyone knows better on the referendum thing, please correct me.

"It might not work, so best not to try." Is that what you are saying?

[esme]

Why should I seek to impose my opinion upon the nation when so few people seem at all bothered?

Then why bother continuing with this discussion ?

 

I support an NOTA option on ballot papers, however I am not prepared to hold a revolution to get it because innocent people will get hurt, that leaves working within the system we have to effect a change and that means either asking politicians or becoming politicians.

The first point, which you did touch upon, is that if the government hold a referendum, then they will choose the question such that they would probably get the result they want: for a meaningful vote, we would have to call the vote, as discussed earlier.

If you are right, then a national referendum called by the government holds no more or less weight than one made up of multiple parishes called by us, but I believe this nation is still a monarchy, and the government only run it because they have a mandate from the people.

If a proper democratic vote showed that they had lost that mandate then the queen could should, and probably would instruct that they be replaced.

Yes, if a proper democratic vote showed no confidence in the government then government would be dissolved and an election held, this procedure exists now.

 

The only problem is that the only people who can call for such a vote of no confidence are the MP's forming the party currently in office and the only people who can take part are the MP's in the house.

"It might not work, so best not to try." Is that what you are saying?

Absolutely not, I've even provided an idea that I believe could actually work and get you what you want, you said you could get behind the idea but didn't want to front it, which is fine, take an existing party politician and use them as a figurehead on the understanding that legally they are standing for your party and if they fail to follow your party instructions when they have any they are immediately out of office, a new election will be held for their seat and you will find someone else to represent you. If your party doesn't express an opinion they can follow their original party line or conscience or toss a coin if they want.

 

That might not work and there are probaby problems with it but I think it's worth trying.

 

The bit you quoted where I was asking if anyone knew better than me on the referendum thing, I'm pretty sure I'm right about referendums not being binding on government but if anyone knows better please point me at the information.

 

You still need a national referendum and the only people who can call for that are the MP's in government, in fact it may only be the PM.

[Hairyloon]

Then why bother continuing with this discussion ?

It helps to pass the time.

But how are people supposed to agree with me if I don't give them the opportunity?

I support an NOTA option on ballot papers, however I am not prepared to hold a revolution to get it because innocent people will get hurt...

Innocent people are getting hurt anyway...

But how are we defining "revolution"?

You seem to hold it as synonymous with violent insurrection. I've checked a few dictionaries, they seem agreed that it is the overthrow of a government; some have it as "forcible", but none mention violence.

But it would be a little pointless to hold a revolution only to institute a NoTA option: if we're revolting, then we should be aiming for a fundamental Parliamentary reform.

 

Yes, if a proper democratic vote showed no confidence in the government then government would be dissolved and an election held, this procedure exists now.

Except that I was talking about no confidence in Parliament, not just the current government.

The only problem is that the only people who can call for such a vote of no confidence are the MP's forming the party currently in office and the only people who can take part are the MP's in the house.

Let me check I understand you correctly.

A proper democratic vote called nationally by the people, parish by parish is not necessary because we already have a procedure which can only be called by, and participated in by the MP's in the house.

 

Seems to me there is a teeny tiny flaw in your argument.