I am not sure if I am making the same (or similar) point to you, re. direct democracy, or not. Our complaints about the present system are 1) politicians are knowingly not doing what the people want and 2) They're a useless shower.

So for 1) we strengthen the democratic control mechanism. I agree that it has to be forms of direct democracy - separation of powers and checks and balances administered by other "above the liners" don't work. ( BTW, the civil servants love the check'and'balances - there is always something to scupper things they don't want )

for 2) we have to elect competent people. That's up to us - no system can force the electorate not to elect idiots. But if you want someone to do a good job, you don't give them 2 bosses. Do we want the executive to "report to" the people directly, or indirectly via MPs ? (In the latter case, why directly elect them ?)

I'm sure I'm not alone in assuming I have a working knowledge of MPs but in fact only know a few of them from having been a constituent. As for education via the the media all you get there is the media savvy few strutting their stuff as light relief from the expenses scandal. There has to be more.

On the other hand when Richard wrote of the MPs, 'controlling them and limiting their powers', I'm tempted to go the other way. I'd be happy to give them more powers if I could be certain these powers came with responsibility. At the moment that's not the case, all manner of things go wrong but there's never a reckoning.

However, on the point that a 'parliament wholly separate from government, its character changes and we get a different breed of parliamentarian. Some of the problems may disappear', I would agree. Even so this position trusts the existing party system to go along with the change. Will it?

And such are my thoughts about the party system I take issue with the comment 'Politics is not for amateurs. The scrutiny of government, the vetting and approval of legislation, and other activities in a properly functioning parliament, require considerable skill and aptitude'. My present MP was chosen because of their party loyalty and ethnic background. They don't have any visible skills, I doubt if they could do a 'normal' job.

So how to raise the calibre AND keep the rouges out? I'm not sure the residency restrictions would help, but I feel the party funding system is a problem as this works against independent individuals who would like to stand. The idea of open primaries also levels the playing field giving the gifted individual a better chance, hence the established parties don't like it.

As the idea the PM can only do two terms is popular perhaps the same thing should apply to the MP. The suggestion that getting out of one job to become an MP makes it difficult to get back is a non-starter. Women are always saying that a break to raise children ruins their working life. So if the MP did a short stint it would seem so normal society would become more accommodating.


As for the idea of experience I have to say that so often 20 years experience is just ones years experience and 19 years bad habits set like concrete. Remember Chloe Smith and THAT interview? The problem there was not inexperience but stupidity and pliability despite her youth she had acquired an impressive level of both. No doubt the reason her party selected her!

Under Direct Democracy because of the need for politicians to consult with their constituents and the public in general when formulating their policies/plans it means that they are in effect reporting to the people. It also means that they have to spend much more time consulting in order to achieve a majority consensus before attempting to get their proposals passed, otherwise they also know that it would get stopped in its tracks by means of a referendum being called.

If we take the Swiss as an example, national politicians are only concerned with national defence, immigration, economic development, national transport and communications. This means that Swiss politicians are part-time - they are expected to have outside jobs - only receiving expenses. It also means that as their areas of responsibility are limited it is only necessary for them to 'sit' for part of the year.

As to having 2 bosses, under direct democracy the executive and the legislature only have one boss - the people. They are there to carry out that which the people want and permit in decisions that are passed and which do not incur a referendum.

If you haven't already, you may care to read this and this

MPs represent their consituents for the 5 year term,but I feel once elected they basically just get a free ticket to go off to Westminster and do as they please until they need releecting when they come grovelling round for our votes again.There does seem some disconnection after being elected.Representing the consituencies wishes then gets pushed down the list of an MPs priorities.I know MPs have surgeries where individuals can come in and petition their MP on any subject,can we not have some sort of annual(or weekly in my view ) constituency review committee that would be able to put questions in a public meeting to an MP , a bit like the Commons committee inquiries we get now.

The MPs could be grilled on a variety of issues and some sort of report could be drawn up awarding him stars or a light system( red, amber green),if he gets a red he is on a warning, 2 reds and there is an automatic bye election.The line up of the comittee would be a moot point,it would have to be apolitical but should allow any consituent to ask questions and could award points for how well the MP responded or how well he or she was doing their job generally,i.e hours worked ,expenses claimed,voting patterns as per mainfesto promises.

Edited by user 20 July 2012 21:51:46(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

David, Just like Euroland, Switzerland is a federal construct which is based on 26 constitutions (EUland 27).

Swiss style direct democracy would work on a Euroland basis but I doubt if it would work in a nation with a single constitution who have a proper ‘separation of powers’.

In summery, I believe that it is the system of party politics that is to blame. Through the party system, Parliament and Government have become one and the same. It is a system that has allowed government to bribe MP's with the carrot of ministerial office, or threaten deselection, which ensures total obedience from our supposedly elected representatives.

Edited by user 20 July 2012 20:52:32(UTC)  | Reason: ooops, (spelling) tipsy fingers

Most of this "Harrogate" business is beyond me, and at times I struggle to separate "how to implement democracy" and daydreaming about "what policies I would enact if I were King (or Prime Minister)". But, as far as I can manage to stay "on topic"...

I dis-agree with limited/fixed terms for MP's (and parliaments for that matter).

Fragmented elections (say 1/3 of MP's every year/18 months) seems a thoroughly good idea to me.

Perhaps Manifestos should be legally binding, or Parties'/MP's running for election be required to publish a (legally binging) "declaration of intent", about what they WILL or WILL NOT do if elected.

How about something along the lines of "Parliamentary Jury Service", whereby the 12 good men and true are to sit in judgement on how Government words and Government actions are related (or not). This might work like a Select Committee, could involve "the jury" seeing "sensitive information" (under usual contempt-of-court conditions), and needn't be absolute or final to do some good, ie the "jury" could simply express an opinion on whatever issue/subject/accusation, leaving the Government to argue that this genuinely public inquiry is somehow not representative of public opinion. (As a test, the first "jury(ies)" could judge how the current Parties have lived up to their last manifestoes).

Some form of regular sessions where members of the public (one constituency at a time?) put questions to the Prime Minister or his whole cabinet would be a regular nightmare for the cabinet, and so is almost certainly a good idea. (Public "Prime Ministers Questions" or "Cabinet's Answers" ?)

The Public or Parliament should set the (a?) Parliamentary calendar, and probably the division/titles of Ministries and Departments.

Sorry, I will try to be more brief in the future

I do not know the number and types of topics that came up for discussion at Harrogate. But on the subject Parliament, are we not forgeting the Upper House, ie The House of Lords.

Do not Former Judges, Civil Servants and Parliamentarians not sit on those benches and check through proposed legislation from the lower house?

I think that the two houses are quite distinct in more way than we see. The HoL should also come up for considered discusion, as too the Civil Services, or am I getting ahead of myself?

I put this on the thread only to broaden this current topic and to examing the process by which our laws are made and implemented. We seem to want to discuss the relationship between: The People, Parlimentarians, Executive and the State. This is all fine, but I do not believe you can so easily leave out the HoL and think, "job done."

We seem to have a pyramid form of democracy in this country. The Head of State sits at the top and we the People are at the bottom. We 'hope' that through our Parliamentarians, we the people get the laws we want by which we wish to be governed. Under the current system this is like asking water to flow up hill.

If we are to accept Referism as a prefered means of governance, then we must also accept that the pyramind must be inverted. What we have had in the distant past with regard to sovereignty is: Monarch > HoL > HoC > People. What I believe we have now is PM (executive) > HoC > HoL > People. The PM has become sovereign and has too much control over the HoC. This I think we can all agree on. But he also has control (read your history) over the HoL. In effect, the whole political system. When you think about it, this is way too much power !!!! No wonder they go all Caligula and/or Nero when they get the keys to No.10.

So, if we are to limit the powers of the PM and the executive, we must also limit their powers over the HoL and create new ways for the People to control this august body.

What I tend to see is something like this, where the People are at the top of the inverted pyramid (I accept others may see it differently):

People > HoC > PM (exec.) > HoL > Constitutional Court > Head of State

Like I say, I could be ahead of myself here, but I do believe it would help if we thought about structure as a whole and not just on a point by point basis. It would, I believe, help us to better formulate not only the relationship with the People but also the relationship with all the other bodies as well.

*******

As some of you may have noticed, I have inserted a Constitutional Court in the power structure. I have done this because, like some, I have fallen in love with the idea of having our own 'Karlsruhe' and the fact that once a bill has been passed by the Budestag the People then have the right to challenge it !

I spy an interesting article in the Telegraph about Louise Casey, she's the coalitions problem families tsar. It's worth a read to get the full flavour but a one line précis might be 'more state intervention from a more muscular government'.

So here we are seeking a separation of powers but to then go on creating ever larger segments is, to me, illogical. Separation or not the scale and nature of what the state does has to be defined. Much as the EU wants an ever closer union I DON'T want an ever larger state.

However, what Casey is proposing will be popular. We are all sick of the irresponsible, be they MPs or families, but will it be successful? Anyway perhaps the debate goes beyond the separation of powers and the scale of the state.

If you follow the debate all the way it becomes almost philosophical, how to bring efficiency, honesty and a human scale to our way of life. This feeds into the nature and structure of the way we interact with the state, and it with us. A paradigm shift, are we ready for that?

Tradition is a great thing ... too much change is not always a good thing, especially if it makes no functional difference - it just builds opposition.

This sort of thinking motivated me to post this video by Ben Drew AKA Plan B a day or two ago. He's not stupid and you may not like either what he's saying or the way he says it. Fact is, he understands the way the commoners have been disenfranchised. Like us, he doesn't seem to understand quite how we got here but in the following interview, he acknowledges that the riots were the worst possible reaction. He sees that the system isn't working the way it's formulated. I think we need people like him on our side because he has the kids attention.

He may not even agree with us but it's worth trying. Can we really afford to have the kids feel they have no hope?