The state of parliamentary democracy in the UK.

[InsaneApache]

Where to begin? It's a right old mess isn't it? What happened? How did we get here? What can we, the voters do, if anything, about it?

I've just read a resonable opinion on how we might get our country back.

Conventional politicians love referring to unconventional ones as "swivel-eyed". They mean anyone who breaks ranks or appears to take a stand on a point of principle. The adjective is particularly applied to any MP who takes a persistent interest in a single subject – Europe, say, or tax reform or the poverty trap. Such interest, after all, gets in the way of self-advancement.

Douglas Carswell, the Conservative Member for Harwich, is a classic example of the genre. Although his eyes do not, in fact, swivel, he does look slightly odd. He is tall and thin and gangly, with a very powerful jaw. He is uncomfortable and serious, rather like the sort of crank who stalks the streets carrying plastic bags bursting with documents which prove that UFOs are beaming radiation into the water supply. His weird idea is that voters should be able to make MPs genuinely answerable to them. For this reason, many of his colleagues regard him as a lunatic.

MPs' expenses: Now we can start again - with a clean House
MPs' expenses: We've been paying too much for Labour's morality for too long

But these are strange times. In the expenses scandal, conventional politicians are made to look fools or knaves. Jacqui Smith, the former Home Secretary, is a purely conventional politician, of the Blair Babe variety. This week, she made a half-apology to the House of Commons for having designated what was clearly her second home (a lodging with her sister in south London) as her first – in unparliamentary English, she cheated. She is finished, although the conventions established by the conventional politicians will ensure her an undeservedly long political afterlife.

Mr Carswell, on the other hand, is just getting started. It was he, to much tut-tutting from his seniors, who put down the motion of no-confidence in Mr Speaker Martin this summer. He set something in train. Eventually, Mr Martin had to go.

This week, on the same day, by piquant chance, that one Baron Martin of Springburn was being elevated to the Lords, Mr Carswell rose in the Commons to introduce his Ten-Minute Rule Bill. He began by asking MPs to remember when they were first elected, the moment "…when we heard the returning officer read out our names". "Most Hon. Members felt in their bones," he went on, "that entering the House was one of the greatest and most exalted moments in their lives, yet today we find ourselves scorned". The loss of public respect is so great that "In a reversal of 300 years of democratic development, the very fact of being elected to public office is sometimes… regarded as a disqualification".

The Carswell solution is not to submit MPs to ever greater tortures at the hands of unelected people like Sir Thomas Legg, but to send them back to face the electors. He wants candidates to be chosen by open primaries of all constituents, rather than by party caucuses. MPs found guilty of serious wrongdoing would be subject to "recall" (in effect, a by-election) by their constituents if a decent percentage of them petitioned for it. Under our current system, Mr Carswell points out, roughly 70 per cent of seats are safe for the party holding them, so the Member, once elected, can relax. Under the Carswell rules, there will be no such a thing as a safe seat.

If this is "swivel-eyed", it is preferable to the conventional blindness. Mr Carswell sees clearly a point which is missed both by most of those who excoriate our MPs and most of those struggling to defend them. Attempts to regulate MPs by an external authority will prove an utter disaster, because they set that authority above the people we ourselves choose to make our laws. It therefore replaces parliamentary democracy by the rule of minister, judge or bureaucrat.

Every recent scheme – state funding for political parties, control of "second jobs" for MPs, Gordon Brown's invention of an Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, even the establishment of a Supreme Court separate from the House of Lords – is guilty of the same error. We entrench more and more "scrutiny", but what we are creating is a quango state.

On the other hand, no voter, at present, will listen to another word from MPs about their right to supply their own pay and rations, because they have collectively, blatantly abused that right. The only items that we, the public, are now prepared to permit under the Additional Costs Allowance are sackcloth and ashes. So something like what Mr Carswell wants is the only way forward.

I keep asking myself how all this has come about. How is it that a Parliamentary system which really was the envy of the world even only a generation ago is now the butt of its jokes? I think I have a possible explanation.

For a hundred years, the great issue which Parliament debated most often was the franchise. Who should be allowed to elect MPs? From the Great Reform Bill of 1832 until the final admission of all women as voters in 1928, this argument raged. It made MPs super-conscious of the people who put them into Parliament, since they kept on debating who those people should be. And it made the public feel that the right to vote really mattered.

With these battles won, people felt satisfied, for the time being. But after the Second World War, politicians began to take advantage. With their legitimacy uncontested, they made things more comfortable for themselves. MPs forgot that their House was esteemed because it genuinely made the laws for the people it represented, and so they transferred much of that right to Europe.

Having handed over their birthright, MPs then focused on their mess of pottage. Individual offices, more paid advisers, bigger pensions, shorter hours, second homes, free ginger-crinkle biscuits! It is not a coincidence that Tony Blair, the first prime minister in our history ever to show consistent contempt for the House of Commons, was also the first to make the hand-outs really gargantuan.

In the party conference season which has just finished, little bits of this subject came up. David Cameron, in particular, was specific about one or two tough things which he wanted to apply in the next Parliament, such as an end to the MPs' pension scandal. But the mood in all the leaderships was that they wanted to "move on". They are avoiding plans for real reform. They should be reverting to Prime Minister's Questions twice a week, relinquishing government control of parliamentary business, providing for referendums. But of course they do not want to strengthen Parliament against the executive which they themselves hope to lead.

All the parties are fighting the next election on the old assumption that whoever wins will have the necessary mandate to govern from the British people. It is true that a fresh Parliament will automatically be less shameful than this one. But will that be enough? Isn't public disillusionment more radical? Conventional politics has been failing for 40 years: time for something more swivel-eyed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/6351334/Theres-nothing-swivel-eyed-about-rebuilding-Britains-democracy.html

I'm of the opinion that we do need open primaries and a method of recall to make the bastards politicians accountable. After all, if they've got nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. [TM Tony Blair]

[Fragony]

Just pull the plug and sink it

[Fisherking]

The only way that you will end government corruption is getting rid of government...it just isn’t going to happen.:laugh4:

Of all the bad choices maybe the Queen and common law are your best bet in the short run...in the long run?:inquisitive:


Maybe government by lottery is a way to accidentally get an honest representative...

[tibilicus]

on a slightly unrelated note, Alex Salmond appears confused about how devolution is meant to work.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8311801.stm

Anyway right back on topic, I like this last line, it sums up my view nicely.

"Conventional politics has been failing for 40 years: time for something more swivel-eyed. "

[Louis VI the Fat]

I just read an interesting article in the Guardian about an MP asking questions about Trafigura - an oil trading corporation suspected of massive fraud, pollution, and murder.

No wait. I didn't read it. For the first time in centuries, the ancient British liberty of the press being allowed to report on the dealings of parliament has been revoked.


So I'm sorry. I can not comment on the state of parliamentary democracy in the UK - because their dealings are now secret and may not be reoprted upon.

[rory_20_uk]

That was quickly overturned - although not thanks to the laws that have existed for centuries, but thanks to Twitter...

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

That was quickly overturned - although not thanks to the laws that have existed for centuries, but thanks to Twitter...

~:smoking:Indeed. But the UK is not supposed to be Iran, where Twitter is the last refuge of democracy.

[Fragony]

'
lol http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/669521/76c2a9da/haatbaarden_in_engeland_tegen_wilders.html

Thank you very much for your lack of self control

[rory_20_uk]

Indeed. But the UK is not supposed to be Iran, where Twitter is the last refuge of democracy.

Democracy in the UK is a thin veneer that ensures that the masses feel that they have a say. This has been debased into a popularity contest every 5 years or so between 2 or 3 people based on a list of pledges that can be binned without compunction.

The police might not routinely come to people's houses and drag off dissenters, but little if any changes would be need to happen to the laws for this to occur. The police already have recently killed members of the general public which only came to light due to video phones - the only time the police realised that blanket denial was not going to help.

Of course, now the law has changed so photographing the police is itself illegal...

~:smoking:

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

The best solution, naturally, would be to erase it and proclaim a Dictatorship held by prominent members of the BNP.

lol

[Fragony]

The best solution, naturally, would be to erase it and proclaim a Dictatorship held by prominent, all silly the BNP.

lol

Well you could as well wonder why you have such a thing as the BNP. We don't have a party like that. Must be something on the other side,it works like that.

[Subotan]

Ugh, not the expenses scandal again :wall:
It's probably the most disproportionate reaction to such a small amount of money stolen in the history of mankind. Considering the total amount of money abused probably hovers in the one/two million pounds category, the total cost of all the expenses could probably be recovered if the people who owned the newspaper which broke the story (The Daily Torygraph), the Barclay Brothers, had enough decency to pay income tax like the rest of the population of the UK, instead of hiding away on Sark. :stop:

[InsaneApache]

So you see no problem with corrupt, self-serving bastards politicians passing laws that affect you? (Not them BTW, as they are above such trivia)

Since when did the Barclay twins pass any laws? When they did stick their oar in, it came back to bite them on the bum. Big time. :laugh4:

[Beskar]

If you are upset about the expenses scandel and other things, why not just vote for the Liberal democrats, or Greens, or UKIP as alternative parties? That would really shut the government up and get things working. However, the British people in this thread would probably be either voting Labour or Conservative, yet again.

Also, we should really install Alternative Voting system, like they have in Ireland (or is it North Ireland?)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Also, we should really install Alternative Voting system, like they have in Ireland (or is it North Ireland?)

I thought Australia was the only country that uses an Alternative Voting system (although they call it preferential vote or something)? Northern Ireland uses the Single Transferable Vote.

Alternative Vote is a really bad system though. The idea is that the regional party lists allow for a propertional element, but because the candidates elected through this are only given a small number of the total seats (usually 10-20%), this means the smaller parties never take enough of the vote to actually win one of these seats.

So in the end, you have a large number seats granted on a regional FPTP basis, in which the small parties would struggle to win any single seat. Then you introduce a PR bit in which they would normally win some representation; however so few seats are given away in this manner that they don't get enough share of the votes to take one.

It's an awful and non-sensical way of doing things, just make it full PR.

[Subotan]

So you see no problem with corrupt, self-serving bastards politicians passing laws that affect you? (Not them BTW, as they are above such trivia)

No. I'm saying it's totally out of proportion, and potentially damaging in the long term to our democracy.



Since when did the Barclay twins pass any laws?

Again, I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's incredibly hypocritical and downright insulting for those two fatcats to endlessly milk this story for all it's worth, whilst basically stealing from the taxpayer.


When they did stick their oar in, it came back to bite them on the bum. Big time. :laugh4:

I think the entire world breathed a sigh of relief when they failed :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

If you are upset about the expenses scandel and other things, why not just vote for the Liberal democrats, or Greens, or UKIP as alternative parties? That would really shut the government up and get things working. However, the British people in this thread would probably be either voting Labour or Conservative, yet again.

'Fraid so. Will probably assist one candidate with organising the campaign.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

It's an awful and non-sensical way of doing things, just make it full PR.

PR is a very bad system.

You have to remember that in Britain, general elections you vote for the MP for your area. Hypothetically speaking, you are meant to vote for the best person for the job, not what party they belong too.

Having a system like Single Transferable Vote will actually increase the number of minority parties getting seats because many people would other vote labour to stop the conservatives and vice-versus, so having STV, they can vote for a minority party then for the 2nd choice, have labour/conservative if they desired.

[naut]

Simple solution. Emigrate. :wink2:

[Furunculus]

awesome article, charles moore is usually a good read.

i have a LOT of sympathy for the view of hannan and carswell that the twin facts of poor MP conduct and reduced MP responsibility are directly linked.

As MP's have given away their authority to act and power to govern to quangoes and the EU they traduced their own self worth as a class.

the MP's expenses rules introduced by labour were nothing more than a symptom of a far greater malignancy; governance had become so quango'ised and EU-harmonised that MP's have little responsibility, and thus little incentive to act responsibly, so the expense rules became nothing more than an opt-out for self responsibility in the place of good judgement.

"i obeyed the rules" would not have been seen by politicians as an acceptable excuse in previous eras, and they failed to appreciate that voters would not accept it as an acceptable excuse today.

the solution:
The Plan.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PR is a very bad system.

You have to remember that in Britain, general elections you vote for the MP for your area. Hypothetically speaking, you are meant to vote for the best person for the job, not what party they belong too.

Having a system like Single Transferable Vote will actually increase the number of minority parties getting seats because many people would other vote labour to stop the conservatives and vice-versus, so having STV, they can vote for a minority party then for the 2nd choice, have labour/conservative if they desired.

Quite, the problem is the boundaries of seats traditionally held by different parties giving Labour an edge. This could easily be solved by passing a Law so that all seats had to be a certain size, and not just what the boundaries commision wrote on the back of an envelope.


Simple solution. Emigrate. :wink2:

If they want, my children can emmigrate my ashes.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, PR and FPTP both have their strengths/weaknesses. But the way AV is designed ends up defeating what it is supposed to achieve.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Amongst all the politician bashing, I think there's room for examining what the role of the electorate - yes, us - might be in all this. After all, in a representative democracy, they represent our demands all too well.

This article by the comedian David Mitchell (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/18/david-mitchell-politics-hypocrisy) sums it up rather well.


I completely agree that this sort of cynicism is immoral. What I don't like is people claiming it's all the work of a few malevolent patricians – a self-serving ruling class getting off on their own acquisitive misanthropy – rather than a political community responding obediently to our loudly expressed democratic will.

Oil, trade, employment and money are important to us – and, by us, I mean we the people, not just they the politicians or business interests. What are the issues over which we citizens of a great liberal democracy have become really, seriously, exercised in the last decade? The environment? Zimbabwe? North Korea? No, the price of petrol, the recession, the money in our pockets, our jobs. That's what we care about and the politicians know it. When there's a controversial war, some nice, middle-class people go on an organised weekend stroll. When petrol is too expensive, lorry drivers blockade the major roads and the country grinds to a halt. Our leaders would have to be fools to take the former more seriously than the latter.

But they're so craven, so much the creatures of our favour, that they'll let us hide from our own self-interest. They've become the sin-eaters of the global village, the despised receptacle of wrongs with which we are all complicit. They'll screen us from the deals they do on our behalf, pretend to be overturning despots, looking for illegal nuclear arsenals or spreading democracy and allow us, to paraphrase the words of Colonel Jessep in A Few Good Men, to sleep under the blanket of the prosperity that they provide and then question the manner in which they provide it.

Not them. Us. And isn't it about time we did something about us?

[CountArach]

I thought Australia was the only country that uses an Alternative Voting system (although they call it preferential vote or something)?
There are others who use Preferential Voting. I believe that New Zealand has a very strange system that mixes Pref Voting with PR and I have heard really good things about it from those who support electoral reform in Australia. Preferential Voting, whilst far from being perfect, does help to increase the minor party vote, though rarely to the point where they will win any seats. However, that's pretty much because the number of voters in every one of our electorates is second highest in the world (Only behind America).

[Louis VI the Fat]

Amongst all the politician bashing, I think there's room for examining what the role of the electorate - yes, us - might be in all this. After all, in a representative democracy, they represent our demands all too well.

This article by the comedian David Mitchell (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/18/david-mitchell-politics-hypocrisy) sums it up rather well.Gah! Is it not telling that it should be a comedian to speak the truth!?

Court Jesters - forever the people who name the obvious truth that all the quarrelsome others fail or refuse to see.

[Beskar]

Well, PR and FPTP both have their strengths/weaknesses. But the way AV is designed ends up defeating what it is supposed to achieve.

PR is fundamentally flawed because it is done on a party basis, not an individual basis. Also, anyone could just get the seat.

Doing it by area means the MP for your area, the one you choose, gets to carry your weight into government.

Also, you have to remember that in a way, MP's also play a part in administrating in your area. Thus, they are elected administrators for that area by the people in that area.

There are many many reasons that this is superior to PR, both in practise and in principle.

[KukriKhan]

Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. (http://www.extempprep.org/directdemocracy.html) Plus term-limits.

We need 'em too.

I think many politicians start out with good intentions. Something about human behavior makes us more and more susceptible to corruption over time. We keep proving that to ourselves over and over. So, if we accept that we must have a government of some kind (and I do), then build in automatic safeguards, to keep honest people honest, and governments accountable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. (http://www.extempprep.org/directdemocracy.html) Plus term-limits.

We need 'em too.

I think many politicians start out with good intentions. Something about human behavior makes us more and more susceptible to corruption over time. We keep proving that to ourselves over and over. So, if we accept that we must have a government of some kind (and I do), then build in automatic safeguards, to keep honest people honest, and governments accountable.

Link doesn't work, also NO term limits, ever.

An electorate has to be responsible, if they keep voting in the same idiot they should suffer.

[KukriKhan]

Link doesn't work, also NO term limits, ever.

An electorate has to be responsible, if they keep voting in the same idiot they should suffer.

Sorry for the link (still works for me); let's try wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative_and_referendum) then.

I have a lot of sympathy for an electorate getting the idiot they deserve, but only philosophically. On a practical level, a duped citizenry should have a way of reducing the damage done by a rep who doesn't rep, once elected.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry for the link (still works for me); let's try wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative_and_referendum) then.

I have a lot of sympathy for an electorate getting the idiot they deserve, but only philosophically. On a practical level, a duped citizenry should have a way of reducing the damage done by a rep who doesn't rep, once elected.

This is not a foundational principle of Parliamentary Democracy. We need to be able to elect the same idiot, not least to prevent us being forced to elect a worse idiot.

That is, after all, how you guys got Bush.

[KukriKhan]

This is not a foundational principle of Parliamentary Democracy. We need to be able to elect the same idiot, not least to prevent us being forced to elect a worse idiot.

That is, after all, how you guys got Bush.

Touche', LOL.

If we'd had a recall mechanism, we might have been able to do something about that, after the fact.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Touche', LOL.

If we'd had a recall mechanism, we might have been able to do something about that, after the fact.

Recall is an interesting idea, but it has significant downsides. Specifically, those associated with a 24-hour news cycle and an electorate with the attention span of an amnesiac goldfish.

Recall for members of parliament - even presidents, perchance - would eventually be manipulated by the media to threaten on every little policy dispute. One of the problems emasculating your Congress, for example, strikes me that representatives have to face re-election so often. All politicians tend to be working towards their re-election the day after they get elected, but facing recall would remove what vestiges are left of political courage. Whilst term limits have some effect, mostly we see people these days thinking of their "legacy' or more usually, their pension and board positions.

Too much democracy can be a curse - as we have seen in the great state of California. Which suffered a gubernatorial recall and got an actor for her pains - though I concede this is a minor part of the problem.

No, my view is that at the parliamentary level term limits and recall militate against individualism and encourage party power and fashion politics. The link to the constituency is the safeguard for British politics. What is required to fix most Western democracies is an informed, responsible electorate that knows politics is not held once every four years. For Parliament, I would also advocate removing the whipping system to reduce party power, and the removal of the royal prerogative from Prime Ministers (which gives them monarchial powers) and the imposition of real Cabinet government again under pain of several years in the Tower contemplating a close shave. Oh, and re-introduction of the radical idea that public service is a noble, and selfless vocation.

[Pannonian]

Recall is an interesting idea, but it has significant downsides. Specifically, those associated with a 24-hour news cycle and an electorate with the attention span of an amnesiac goldfish.

Recall for members of parliament - even presidents, perchance - would eventually be manipulated by the media to threaten on every little policy dispute. One of the problems emasculating your Congress, for example, strikes me that representatives have to face re-election so often. All politicians tend to be working towards their re-election the day after they get elected, but facing recall would remove what vestiges are left of political courage. Whilst term limits have some effect, mostly we see people these days thinking of their "legacy' or more usually, their pension and board positions.

Too much democracy can be a curse - as we have seen in the great state of California. Which suffered a gubernatorial recall and got an actor for her pains - though I concede this is a minor part of the problem.

No, my view is that at the parliamentary level term limits and recall militate against individualism and encourage party power and fashion politics. The link to the constituency is the safeguard for British politics. What is required to fix most Western democracies is an informed, responsible electorate that knows politics is not held once every four years. For Parliament, I would also advocate removing the whipping system to reduce party power, and the removal of the royal prerogative from Prime Ministers (which gives them monarchial powers) and the imposition of real Cabinet government again under pain of several years in the Tower contemplating a close shave. Oh, and re-introduction of the radical idea that public service is a noble, and selfless vocation.
Lack of executive courage isn't exactly a problem we've faced so far, although that situation may change. The balance is probably between an executive that isn't afraid to act, albeit sometimes wrongly, versus an executive that can't act at all, although that may stop them from acting wrongly. We've tended to favour a strong executive, in the knowledge that we can always vote them out next time round, and if they're bad enough, for a lengthy period. Watch the next general election, and see if any party promotes their leader's "weakness" as a plus point.

[Subotan]

Why initiatives suck. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978))

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, my view is that at the parliamentary level term limits and recall militate against individualism and encourage party power and fashion politics. The link to the constituency is the safeguard for British politics. What is required to fix most Western democracies is an informed, responsible electorate that knows politics is not held once every four years. For Parliament, I would also advocate removing the whipping system to reduce party power, and the removal of the royal prerogative from Prime Ministers (which gives them monarchial powers) and the imposition of real Cabinet government again under pain of several years in the Tower contemplating a close shave. Oh, and re-introduction of the radical idea that public service is a noble, and selfless vocation.

This is very much my view, the problem is not in the system, but in the people operating within it. No amount of new laws will make crooks honest men; by and large the country gets what it deserves.

However, lowering of MP's salaries, and the complete removal of pensions (why on earth does an MP need a pension?) would attract an entirely different class of politician.

Certainly something needs to be done with the Lords as well (not election, thank you very much) as well. I would suggest an appointed Upper House composed of members of the Honours List and people who had served in particular State Offices. Since coming to power Labour has abolished ther hereditary (Tory) wing and year-on-year stuffed in twice as many Labour as Conservative or LibDem members. It is to the credit of the Peers that they have become a greater obstruction tyranny and not a lesser one.

[rory_20_uk]

This is very much my view, the problem is not in the system, but in the people operating within it. No amount of new laws will make crooks honest men; by and large the country gets what it deserves.

However, lowering of MP's salaries, and the complete removal of pensions (why on earth does an MP need a pension?) would attract an entirely different class of politician.

Certainly something needs to be done with the Lords as well (not election, thank you very much) as well. I would suggest an appointed Upper House composed of members of the Honours List and people who had served in particular State Offices. Since coming to power Labour has abolished ther hereditary (Tory) wing and year-on-year stuffed in twice as many Labour as Conservative or LibDem members. It is to the credit of the Peers that they have become a greater obstruction tyranny and not a lesser one.

I agree. The salary should be significantly lowered. This would mean that either you've got to be an idealist or have had a successful career doing something else before politics and either aren't interested in money or have made money previously.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

I think the salery should be in-line with the work. The thing is, lower incomes could lead to higher chances of suspectibility to bribes as well. So underpaying people might be a very bad idea.

[Subotan]

I agree. The salary should be significantly lowered. This would mean that either you've got to be an idealist or have had a successful career doing something else before politics and either aren't interested in money or have made money previously.

~:smoking:
Not a good idea. Salaries are already very low by international standards, as it is around £60,000 per year, and low salaries encourage the exploitataion of loopholes, a la expenses scandal.

[Furunculus]

Not a good idea. Salaries are already very low by international standards, as it is around £60,000 per year, and low salaries encourage the exploitataion of loopholes, a la expenses scandal.
agreed with Subotan, the expenses debacle arose out of the need to 'compensate' politicians in spite of the inability to jack up pay because of the embarrassment it would cause.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

agreed with Subotan, the expenses debacle arose out of the need to 'compensate' politicians in spite of the inability to jack up pay because of the embarrassment it would cause.

Lowering sallaries would demonstrate that UK politics isn't about money. It would show that UK politicians are not meant to compete with American fat cats, etc. Sallaries are lower here for a reason, it's about time people were reminded why.

Pride and honour.

[Vladimir]

Lowering sallaries would demonstrate that UK politics isn't about money. It would show that UK politicians are not meant to compete with American fat cats, etc. Sallaries are lower here for a reason, it's about time people were reminded why.

Pride and honour.

It would show the world that the UK is a poor country. While the Americans, Russians, and French dine together the UK would eat cabbage with Slovakia.

[CountArach]

Lowering politician salaries is a bad idea (http://www.smh.com.au/national/higher-pay-leads-to-better-politicians-20090428-am32.html).

A paper published by the US National Bureau of Economic Research found higher remuneration for politicians in Brazil led to the election of legislators with higher levels of education and greater professional and political experience.

And once politicians were elected, the research found, higher pay rates improved their performance as measured by numbers of bills and public works programs sponsored by better-rewarded legislators.
[...]
The issue has been getting attention from economists recently as part of a burgeoning research literature on government quality. Some theories have suggested higher pay attracts more talented people into politics, while other models predict that increasing salaries will decrease the quality of politicians because of difficulties monitoring performance of incumbent MPs.

These theories have been difficult to test empirically.

But in the economic research paper, two economists, Claudio Ferraz and Frederico Finan, take advantage of a "natural experiment" in Brazil after a shake-up to pay arrangements for politicians across the country's municipal governments in 2000.

"Our findings indicate that increases in the salary of legislators not only attract more individuals to run for political office, but also attracts more educated ones," they write.

Higher pay was also associated with more bills being passed and a greater provision of health clinics and schools.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It would show the world that the UK is a poor country. While the Americans, Russians, and French dine together the UK would eat cabbage with Slovakia.

When we ruled the greatest Empire in the world, we didn't pay any of our politicians a single groat. The thinking is wrong here.

A British politicians should get rich off hard graft or Daddy's money, not off the taxpayer. The pensions are most offensive, because they imply that a politicians should expect to be one all their working lives.

The "political class" should include the whole electorate and the Lords, and the Royal family; not a bunch of crooks in suits.

[CountArach]

When we ruled the greatest Empire in the world, we didn't pay any of our politicians a single groat. The thinking is wrong here.

A British politicians should get rich off hard graft or Daddy's money, not off the taxpayer. The pensions are most offensive, because they imply that a politicians should expect to be one all their working lives.

The "political class" should include the whole electorate and the Lords, and the Royal family; not a bunch of crooks in suits.
So how exactly would your plan include the working class who need to work their entire life to ensure they can retire at all AND don't have daddy's money? That's precisely the reason they were paid in the first place.

[Subotan]

Lowering politician salaries is a bad idea (http://www.smh.com.au/national/higher-pay-leads-to-better-politicians-20090428-am32.html).

A paper published by the US National Bureau of Economic Research found higher remuneration for politicians in Brazil led to the election of legislators with higher levels of education and greater professional and political experience.

And once politicians were elected, the research found, higher pay rates improved their performance as measured by numbers of bills and public works programs sponsored by better-rewarded legislators.
[...]
The issue has been getting attention from economists recently as part of a burgeoning research literature on government quality. Some theories have suggested higher pay attracts more talented people into politics, while other models predict that increasing salaries will decrease the quality of politicians because of difficulties monitoring performance of incumbent MPs.

These theories have been difficult to test empirically.

But in the economic research paper, two economists, Claudio Ferraz and Frederico Finan, take advantage of a "natural experiment" in Brazil after a shake-up to pay arrangements for politicians across the country's municipal governments in 2000.

"Our findings indicate that increases in the salary of legislators not only attract more individuals to run for political office, but also attracts more educated ones," they write.

Higher pay was also associated with more bills being passed and a greater provision of health clinics and schools.
I'm guessing that that effect declines after a time though, and that the outcome is more pronounced in developing countries.


When we ruled the greatest Empire in the world, we didn't pay any of our politicians a single groat. The thinking is wrong here.

...And look what happened. Our cabinet government in the 19th Century, although good at coming up with grandoise master plans in diplomacy, was totally incompetent when it came down to the nitty gritty business of managing the largest Empire the world had ever seen.



A British politicians should get rich off hard graft or Daddy's money, not off the taxpayer. The pensions are most offensive, because they imply that a politicians should expect to be one all their working lives.

I honestly cannot believe people still hold views like this. This is preposterous.



The "political class" should include the whole electorate and the Lords, and the Royal family; not a bunch of crooks in suits.
So, representative democracy, without the representatives? That sounds fun, just for the sheer chaos it would cause.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So how exactly would your plan include the working class who need to work their entire life to ensure they can retire at all AND don't have daddy's money? That's precisely the reason they were paid in the first place.

I'm not arguing they not be paid, but there is huge difference between a living wage and the fat sum they get now.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

...And look what happened. Our cabinet government in the 19th Century, although good at coming up with grandoise master plans in diplomacy, was totally incompetent when it came down to the nitty gritty business of managing the largest Empire the world had ever seen.

I think you'll find that was more the early 20th. In any case, the current cabinet is totally incompetant at everthing.


I honestly cannot believe people still hold views like this. This is preposterous.

Why? because I uttered the works that make al socialists cringe, or because I think politics should a temporary vocation, not a job.


So, representative democracy, without the representatives? That sounds fun, just for the sheer chaos it would cause.

Without a seperate "political" class, not "without MP's".

Still, you must be right, God forbid MP's were actually remotely normal people, local to the constituancy they represent.

[Louis VI the Fat]

When we ruled the greatest Empire in the world, we didn't pay any of our politicians a single groat. The thinking is wrong here.

The "political class" should include the whole electorate and the Lords, and the Royal family; not a bunch of crooks in suits.I think the first and last sentence are at odds. The Empire WAS run by a bunch of crooks in suits, catering to their private interest.

60.000 a year is far too little. That pittance won't get you professionals in parliament. It means you get incompetent backbenchers, wealthy hobbyists and crooks leading them, and politicians seeing to their own needs.

200.000 would be good.

[Pannonian]

I think you'll find that was more the early 20th. In any case, the current cabinet is totally incompetant at everthing.

Why? because I uttered the works that make al socialists cringe, or because I think politics should a temporary vocation, not a job.

Without a seperate "political" class, not "without MP's".

Still, you must be right, God forbid MP's were actually remotely normal people, local to the constituancy they represent.
Any rise in corruption would probably be due more to the rise of the PM-led government and the death of cabinet government, than anything else. That began with the cult of Thatcher, and the perception that a party cannot have dissension in order to be palatable to the voter. Once that set in, all party politics is geared to pleasing the party leader and toeing the party line, which leads to cronyism and coverups. I don't think any decrease or increase in salaries will do anything to affect the level of corruption, as long as we voters continue to see strong leadership as a prequisite to electability.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think the first and last sentence are at odds. The Empire WAS run by a bunch of crooks in suits, catering to their private interest.

60.000 a year is far too little. That pittance won't get you professionals in parliament. It means you get incompetent backbenchers, wealthy hobbyists and crooks leading them, and politicians seeing to their own needs.

200.000 would be good.

As opposed to the crooks you have? More money hasn't produced better politicians in America, either. At least the crooks in the 19th Century managed to get away with it without getting tarred and feathered by the electorate.

How many of the 19th Century crooked speakers were forced out for being incompetant at being crooks?

[KukriKhan]

I think the first and last sentence are at odds. The Empire WAS run by a bunch of crooks in suits, catering to their private interest.

60.000 a year is far too little. That pittance won't get you professionals in parliament. It means you get incompetent backbenchers, wealthy hobbyists and crooks leading them, and politicians seeing to their own needs.

200.000 would be good.

heh.


"Is it your position that it's wrong to have sex for money?"

"Certainly," she said.

"You wouldn't sleep with me in exchange for funds?"

"Of course not!"

"How about for a million dollars?"

That shut her up for a second. The lady pondered and said that, for a million dollars, she'd consider it.

"How about for a quarter?"

She raised her voice high above the din of the party: "Sir, just what sort of a woman do you take me for?!"

"Madam," said the wag, "we've already established that. Now we're quibbling over price."

Attributed to Sir Winston by some.

What I've been getting at is trying to match up ability and inclination, not any kind of denigration of the Parliamentary System. The US "way" is not superior to any other way. It works here (more or less; given its revolutionary origins and paradoxically conservative bent) - with occasional spikes in Federal giveaways that encourage immigration from - we hope- the "best and brightest" of other lands.

[Tribesman]

A paper published by the US National Bureau of Economic Research found higher remuneration for politicians in Brazil led to the election of legislators with higher levels of education and greater professional and political experience.

And once politicians were elected, the research found, higher pay rates improved their performance as measured by numbers of bills and public works programs sponsored by better-rewarded legislators.

They should do a study of our TDs.
Their pay has gone through the roof and we have an even worse bunch of idiots and crooks than we used to get.

[Subotan]

I think you'll find that was more the early 20th..

So you're saying that Lord Hoity-Toity of Bigglesworth the Fourth made a better Chancellor than an actual economist? :inquisitive:


In any case, the current cabinet is totally incompetant at everthing.

Ignoring the fact that Cabinets tend to be generally incompetent at anything, as they usually are inexperienced amateurs heading departments manned by professionals.


Why? because I uttered the works that make al socialists cringe, or because I think politics should a temporary vocation, not a job.
Because your ideas would reserve politics for thoise born with a silver ladle in their mouth, ignoring the needs of the majority of people, whilst letting it remain a hobby, a petty diversion whilst one is too old to be in the cavalry and too young to join the diplomatic corps.


Without a seperate "political" class, not "without MP's".

Still, you must be right, God forbid MP's were actually remotely normal people, local to the constituancy they represent.
Despite the fact that your proposals would reverse exactly what we tried for hundreds of years to do; to stop the upper class being the exclusive political class.

[Boohugh]

What is required to fix most Western democracies is an informed, responsible electorate that knows politics is not held once every four years.

I think Banquo's Ghost hit the nail on the head here. The problem is a significant proportion of people, ultimately, just don't seem to care about politics. On a personal level, take my sister for example, she doesn't care about politics one jot and actually gets annoyed and frustrated when I try to explain why it matters and how it affects her. When an election comes round, she can't possibly be making an informed decision but this doesn't stop her going to vote.

On a general level, looking at the expenses scandal, the media has clearly made a very big deal of it and people around the country are probably complaining about it at the hairdressers/down the pub or wherever, but are they actually doing anything about it? No, because they don't really care about it that much.

When the general electorate shows such disinterest in the political process, electing people without knowing why and then not holding those people to account for their actions, is it really any surprise that the politicians start to take advantage? I think the problem with Parliamentary democracy in the UK is clear for all to see: the electorate just don't care what happens to them anymore and I think it is a societal problem that has been developing over time. It isn't a problem that can be fixed by changing the voting system or changing the salary of politicians and such, what good will that do? People still won't care about it.

The cure will, eventually, be the result of a shock to the system that causes a societal shift, such as those that occurred after the First and Second World Wars. My bet would be the effect of something like global warming causing a serious shift in climate or China starting to flex her muscles or similar but we won't know for sure until it has happened.

[Vladimir]

I think Banquo's Ghost hit the nail on the head here. The problem is a significant proportion of people, ultimately, just don't seem to care about politics. On a personal level, take my sister for example, she doesn't care about politics one jot and actually gets annoyed and frustrated when I try to explain why it matters and how it affects her. When an election comes round, she can't possibly be making an informed decision but this doesn't stop her going to vote.

On a general level, looking at the expenses scandal, the media has clearly made a very big deal of it and people around the country are probably complaining about it at the hairdressers/down the pub or wherever, but are they actually doing anything about it? No, because they don't really care about it that much.

When the general electorate shows such disinterest in the political process, electing people without knowing why and then not holding those people to account for their actions, is it really any surprise that the politicians start to take advantage? I think the problem with Parliamentary democracy in the UK is clear for all to see: the electorate just don't care what happens to them anymore and I think it is a societal problem that has been developing over time. It isn't a problem that can be fixed by changing the voting system or changing the salary of politicians and such, what good will that do? People still won't care about it.

The cure will, eventually, be the result of a shock to the system that causes a societal shift, such as those that occurred after the First and Second World Wars. My bet would be the effect of something like global warming causing a serious shift in climate or China starting to flex her muscles or similar but we won't know for sure until it has happened.

:inquisitive: Hello, have we met? My name is Vladimir.

(I smell fresh meat boys!)

But, seriously, you don't look familiar so welcome. I take it from your well-reasoned post that you don't visit often. Drink up! :barrel:

[Subotan]

On a general level, looking at the expenses scandal, the media has clearly made a very big deal of it and people around the country are probably complaining about it at the hairdressers/down the pub or wherever, but are they actually doing anything about it? No, because they don't really care about it that much.
.

Man, you should visit here more often. A refreshing piece of well reasoned thought, after listening to a racist on Question Time for an hour. :skull:

[rory_20_uk]

I think Banquo's GhostOn a general level, looking at the expenses scandal, the media has clearly made a very big deal of it and people around the country are probably complaining about it at the hairdressers/down the pub or wherever, but are they actually doing anything about it? No, because they don't really care about it that much.

I await the next election to see whether this is the case. After all, protesting in the UK now gets policed to the point people close to the protesters are killed. That's assuming the rally is allowed.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

Well, well, well, who would have thought it. The New Nasty Party is shaping up to rig the next election.


Thousands of polling stations would be closed and voting hours reduced under a plan to cut the cost of elections.

Other proposals include cutting staff, replacing polling cards with e-mail requests, increasing candidates’ deposits, fixed-term parliaments and reducing security at election counts.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6896218.ece

I'm not surprised. After the shinnanigans down at the Thamesmead selection fiasco, how could I be?