Activate.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
nickgusset  Shizzlehurst 13 Oct 17 2.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Their Twitter is so funny. I recommend a follow. [Tweet Link]
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Oct 17 4.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Why am I hearing 'I was a teenage granddad' by Pop Will Eat Itself....
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Oct 17 4.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Nothing that you have to state is cool to other people, is ever cool And politics has never been cool, that's why young people turn to terrorism. Baader-Meinhof chic.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Stirlingsays 13 Oct 17 5.09pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Jimenez
Cunds, Champagne socialists, Tories who think they are working class, Labour MPs (Who are Middle class). You have over 600 Mps most of them Useless the whole system needs over hauling top to bottom. You could do as well with half the amount of MPs IMO. Definitely.....I'd say abandon the MP system. Make it about the parties standing in their areas. Party representatives can stay in their areas and do video conference meetings where necessary. Votes on legislation to be carried out by no more than say one to two hundred of those reps....chosen by their parties to graduate to their ministerial or shadow teams. Again, they can vote via video conference on debates. Far more of the important decisions to have a voter say via referendum vote that gets an advisory say rather than a casting one to the Prime minister...who would still exist with their ministers and shadow. Essentially I'm doing away with the MP gravy train but keeping the core parts. The civil service are far more important. The second chamber still to exist, but chosen by an independent panel tasked with appointing experts in different fields with no one party able to have a majority.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Oct 17 5.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Definitely.....I'd say abandon the MP system. Make it about the parties standing in their areas. Party representatives can stay in their areas and do video conference meetings where necessary. Votes on legislation to be carried out by no more than say one to two hundred of those reps....chosen by their parties to graduate to their ministerial or shadow teams. Again, they can vote via video conference on debates. Far more of the important decisions to have a voter say via referendum vote that gets an advisory say rather than a casting one to the Prime minister...who would still exist with their ministers and shadow. Essentially I'm doing away with the MP gravy train but keeping the core parts. The civil service are far more important. The second chamber still to exist, but chosen by an independent panel tasked with appointing experts in different fields with no one party able to have a majority.
The technology exists so that we could all effectively vote on proposed legislation, as individuals, without a really excessive outlay in technology costs. If I can operate my bank account safely online, pay the government safely on line, why can I not vote securely on line. Lets do away with the idea of MPs and establish political parties that can propose legislation for and actually go democratic. Not sure how you'd restrict the number of parties - Maybe by having a vote every four years and any party that gets more than 5% of the vote, gets to propose legislative measures to the public based on their share of the vote (so if the Greens get 5%, 5% of legislative proposals go to the green Party. If Labour get 30% they get 30% of proposals and so on). Seems fairer and simple to me.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 13 Oct 17 5.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
The technology exists so that we could all effectively vote on proposed legislation, as individuals, without a really excessive outlay in technology costs. If I can operate my bank account safely online, pay the government safely on line, why can I not vote securely on line. Lets do away with the idea of MPs and establish political parties that can propose legislation for and actually go democratic. Not sure how you'd restrict the number of parties - Maybe by having a vote every four years and any party that gets more than 5% of the vote, gets to propose legislative measures to the public based on their share of the vote (so if the Greens get 5%, 5% of legislative proposals go to the green Party. If Labour get 30% they get 30% of proposals and so on). Seems fairer and simple to me. Yep, it's a better system I think......I'm sure any flaws would be ironed out and the most successful variations adopted. But this idea must have been thought of countless times....Turkeys don't vote for christmas but that doesn't mean that we're deluded and have to accept that this lot aren't creaming us....all of them because essentially it's a political class protecting their power and nice lifestyles on the public purse. They are bloated and they must know it. All industries have to adapt and change with technological advancements. But weirdly few people seem to realise that these loafers never get touched.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.