A New Political System for the UK

Upd: 25 Feb 2007

More Democracy, Party Funding and The House Of Lords - Solved in ONE Policy!

This is what happens when you design a system, properly, from scratch - you solve multiple problems in one fell swoop...

The design of this system was prompted by the ongoing cash for honours scandal and hence the latest demand for taxpayer funding of political parties.

Everyone knows it is deeply wrong for the tax payer to fund these organisations, yet they are so strapped for cash that they're obliged to try it on. They are broke mostly because they spent more money than they had on stupid negative advertising campaigns against each other. They are morons, and they're running this country into the ground...

I've been thinking about this for years, but it's all fitting into place now...

My New & Improved Political System - Now with added Democracy!

• Allow any voluntary membership organisation (with more than a x active members) to propose up to 6 policies (for example).
• These policies are then listed on your voting card.
• Each voter can tick all the policies they would like to see enacted.
• Each voter can cross all the policies they disagree with. (Votes against are simply subtracted from the votes in favour.)
• Each policy receiving greater than 50% of the vote gives the organisation the mandate to enact that policy.
• The successful parties are given the mandate to enact the policies they were voted in on.
• The representative of the organisation with the highest total votes (for all it's policies) becomes your local MP.
• The remaining successful candidates (i.e. their policies recieved over 50% of the vote) are given a place in the House Of Lords for the term of the government.
• Each winning organisation has the ability to suggest new policy and legislation while in office.
• As presently happens, ALL new legislation must be put to a popular vote in both the Commons and Lords.
• Hold elections every 3-5 years depending on electorate statisfaction polls.

Your voting card might look something like this:

Background...

Back To Basics...

Why do we need Political Parties?

We do need (some) government, but what exactly is the role of political parties in all this?

Political parties, presumably, are there to represent the views of their members, present policies based on them, then if elected, enact those policies into legislation.

Working Assumption: The role of political parties is to represent the views of their members.

Political parties can be an effective voice for their members, but the whole world of politics has become too polarised for it to be effective... As an illustration - note that no-one is a member of more than one political party!

If the point is to represent the views of your membership, then why restrict access to the political process to political parties? There are quite a few organisations with a lot of members who perhaps ought to be represented in our electoral system...

Single-Issue Parties

Presently, single-issue parties have little or no say in our democracy. This is often despite the fact that their policies are agreed with by a large proportion of the electorate.

Even if people strongly agree with the policy presented, they feel they can't vote for a single-issue party, because they know, if elected, that party will have to deal with a whole range of issues other than the one they have any competance at.

It would be useful, and more democratic, if we could find a way to let organisations with specific expertise or focus, suggest individual policies for our mandate...

The Problem Is The System, As Usual...

One of the biggest problems with our democracy, is that the party with a majority gets total control over all aspects of the government rather than on specific issues.

A party in opposition can say almost whatever it likes in order to 'get into power'. If enough people believe them, (or more accurately, if enough people are fed-up with the current government and the opposition aren't really bad), then the parties change places...

Once in power, however, the government can pass any law it likes - no matter how banal - because it has a majority.

We elect a government based on one set of policies, but this effectively gives them a 5-year mandate to do whatever thay want - with no reference to democracy - or even the manifesto they got voted in on.

The Pros and Cons...

The pros and cons of this system...

Pros (+)...

• People will be voting for policy rather than personality.
• Parties will have to specify in convincing detail, the policies they propose and they will be duty-bound to do what they said once in office.
• The level of involvement of the electorate in government increases dramatically, hopefully increasing the feeling of being represented, and turnout.
• No single party will have total control of our legislature and be able to push through bad legislation (by using party whips) - i.e. The Poll Tax, Road Pricing, Iraq, Constant NHS reorganisations...
• The system is far more representative & democratic.
• It solves the problems of party funding and the House Of Lords too.

Cons (-)...

• No single party-majority in the Commons may cause a delay in acting in response to world events. The only arguable benefit of the 'party-line' system is that it does allow the cabinet to assume absolute control of the government to repond to wars etc...
• One might argue that the argument that the voting form is too complex. I'd disagree - after all, most exams these days are multiple-choice - I think most people can handle that...
• Can't think of any others...

Implementation...

This system would have to tried out. It'd be relatively easy to build a test voting form, get a few thousand people to try it out and give their opinion... Ultimately, a nationwide trial and a referendum on it would probably be necessary...

Comments

This is a sporadically moderated blog. I am not responsible for anything below!

Con? sez who?!

\"The only arguable benefit of the \'party-line\' system is that it does allow the cabinet to assume absolute control of the government to repond to wars etc...\" Judging by the fucking disgrace Iraq and Afghanistan have become, perhaps a little delay with time for \"FACTS\" to be tabled is exectly what is called for. Better to be a few days late for a carpet bombing of a defenceless nation than just jumping every time El Presidente Bush cries havoc and lets slip the Dumbasses of war! (cheating a bit, not drunk coz I\'m at work but I\'m baked if that helps!)

By Robbie Smith on 28 February 2007

To add your own comments, click here to login or register