Our elected representatives were not the most popular of people with our meeting, and there was much discussion about controlling them and limiting their powers. The meeting also considered ways of making MPs more responsive to the wishes of their constituents.

As before, I will explore these issues online, setting up a short essay in order to trigger the discussion.


Read here... http://www.eureferendum....ogview.aspx?blogno=82944

Edited by user 19 July 2012 18:58:56(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I agree with Anoneumouse on point a) but would add that they must have at least been living and/or working in said constituency for a minimum of 5 years. This would mean that they would have been settled in the community and have a personal vested interest in the community. ie family, friends and/or business. No last minute candidate parachuted into some bedsit eh!

Point b) I have honestly never thought about, but it seems reasonable.

point c) yes, most defiantly. Although I would like see a list of criteria.

I would like to add, if I may, one of my own.

In every professional walk of life one must be able to show that one has reached a certain level competency to do the task for which they may be employed.

For example, Civil Servants must sit an entrance exam before they can be accepted.

I believe that if you desire to be a member of Parliament then you should have good knowledge of the job involved, the constitution (new & old) the history our nation and the rule of law. If one wishes to take a Ministerial Post (Senior or Junior) then one must be able to demonstrate that they are suitable for said post (are you reading Ms. C. Smith MP & Mr. G Osborne MP). To explain. If you wish to be a Treasury Minister or Chancellor one must be able to prove that they have a history of working in banking, finance, accounting or such like, or at least have a very good understanding of economics.

Remember dear reader, these people have control over 'our' billions. We have every right to demand better of them.

I find this really quite curious. Our MP's have no power (or at least refuse to use it) and they do very little. Chiefly because they are appointed and are party loyalists. I think the problem lies somewhere in the party system.

About what I, and seemingly many others, had in mind. But additionally, IMHO:




... and have done so for a minimum period before the current election. Say 5 or 10 years. Their main residence should also be in the constituency and this MUST be their main residence for all taxable purposes! MPs expenses policy MUST align with HMRC policies (though expenses is a whole subject on its own after the recent/continuing sagas! Suffice it to say that expense policy should mirror, say, the average private company expense policy).




I think contributions should only be possible from registered voters in each constituency, NO business contributions, and only up to a maximum (say £25) per year. With c. 100K people per constituency that should be ample. It'd get prospective MPs back to the doorsteps arguing their points and really finding out what their constituents want from them.



Agreed. And their would have to be some way to force them to honour their manifesto commitments, though maybe the recall sanction would be enough.

Also, make it that ALL votes in the HoC are votes of conscience and not whipped, though with the above I believe that there would be many more independent MPs so this would be less of a problem. And no bill to be voted on if it can't be explained in simple terms to the 'man in the street'. So no way of even voting for, say, an EU treaty that you haven't even read .... not that I'd mention any names there ......

But above all MPs need to understand that they represent US in the HoC so the 'recall' option should sharpen their minds considerably as would the 'referism' approach.

So, if they are allowed a maximum of eight years tenure, how do we get experienced MPs?

Many reasonable points and many other equally reasonable points not yet stated - IF it is required to address the symptoms of the corroded system but not if the goal is to address the cause which is the system itself.

I don't really care where MPs live or how much money they can raise from whatever sources, etc., provided those we elect/employ effectively carry out the work we elect/employ them to do (whatever that is) and that we can unelect/fire them if they don't.

A typical example is expenses. In my opinion MPs have full employment and their permanent place of work is in one place (probably Westminster) just like everyone else. We should pay these MPs whatever it takes to attract the right people to do the job we want from them and then if WE require them to carry out work away from their normal place of work they will receive legitimate, HMRC approved, expenses for so doing - just like everyone else.

I am of the opinion that the vast majority of prospective MPs regard the role as a career path to power and personal agrandisment. Rather than representing their electors opinions they represent their political party's policies to their electorate.
Prospective Parliamentary candidates should be selected using "an open primary system". This would negate, for example, the 'A list used by Cameron to try to control who is nominated.

For what it is worth, my input:

http://witteringsfromwitney.com/harrogate-iii/

From comments so far on this forum it would seem some are somewhat 'off track'.

Just saying.......

I agree, and had posted along these lines, but it got lost in the forum IT issues.

I was thinking more in terms of the executive (if we are splitting it from the legislature) having to drive the civil service on behalf of the electorate. We directly elect the head, we constrain them via the referism budget. What else is needed ? I would say one electorate operated emergency stop button, if they clearly go off-piste, and that's it, IMO. If we want them to deliver - both in dismantling the bits of the state (quango, etc., etc.) that no-one wants and no-one asked for, and in managing the core functions of government that are needed and agreed with the electorate , then our system cannot dis-empower them.

Transparency matters, maybe MPs have a key role there. But if you're splitting the legislature and executive, I can't see how the legislature's role is to 'hold the executive to account'. I was thinking the reverse, that the legislature should be constitutionally constrained so it could not pass laws - e.g. the welfare class's 'rights' to x, y and z, that pre-empted the executive

Edited by user 20 July 2012 14:19:54(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Just out of interest and off topic slightly .. was there any discussion at Harrogate about cutting the Whitehall Mandarins down to size? Seems to me, they're the ones holding the real power.
Jo