If you were creating a government...

[jambutty]

A Parliament would run for FOUR YEARS.

Party politics has no place in a modern democratic government so each MP would be voted into office on his own personal manifesto. In office the MP would HAVE to vote according to his/her manifesto under pain of permanent expulsion. If a subject being debated in Parliament were not included in a MP’s manifesto that MP would be free to vote as his/her conscience dictates or if the will is there, as his/her constituents decree.

The country would be divided into 300 constituencies of approximately the same number of adult inhabitants.

Any bona fide resident of a constituency would be eligible to put him/herself forward as a candidate providing that s/he met the requirement for being able to vote. That being, residents of a constituency eligible to vote would be 18 years of age or older and a citizen of this country. A citizen of this country is a person who has been born in this country or if born abroad of British parents where one of the parents was a British citizen and the birth was registered at the British Consulate in the country of birth. Immigrants to this country would not be able to vote until they attained British citizenship. Inmates of a prison or those out on licence/parole would not be eligible to vote until the full sentence has expired. Inmates of mental health institutions would not be eligible to vote.

A prospective candidate standing in a general election would in addition to being eligible to vote in that constituency have to be over 21 years of age, without a criminal record and a full time resident in the constituency for a minimum of 3 years.

Each constituency candidate would have to lodge a £5,000 deposit that will be forfeited if that candidate does not gain at least half the number of votes that the runner up receives. The candidate would have to prove that the £5,000 is made up from his/her own money and individual donations. Any donations cannot be more than £100 per person. Donations cannot be from businesses.

Each candidate would be required to fund his/her own election campaign with $5,000 to be deposited in an Election Campaign Fund bank account. The candidate would have to prove that the £5,000 is made up of his/her own money and individual donations. Any donations cannot be more than £100 per person. Donations cannot be from businesses. This £5,000 would be matched three fold (£15,000) from state funds. Any remaining funds after the election would be returned to where they came from pro rata.

Government funds (i.e. taxpayer’s cash) would meet the cost of printing a booklet detailing the candidate’s profile and manifesto and the posting of the booklet to every household in the constituency. Government funds would also meet the cost of each candidate campaigning on local TV, radio and press twice during the election campaign. Government funds would also meet the cost of a candidate hiring a public hall for campaign debates with the constituents on two occasions.

All other campaign expenses, which would be basically travelling expenses and maybe the odd overnight accommodation expense, would have to be met from the Election Campaign Fund.

The election campaign would last 42 days.

After the elections the 300 MP’s would meet in Westminster to elect the Cabinet and Ministers. MP’s would be able to put themselves forward for a specific office including PM and deputy PM and present their case in open session after which all 300 MP’s would vote for their choices.

Government business would be conducted Tuesday to Friday inclusive between 9:00am and 6:00pm or later if the occasion demands leaving the weekends and Mondays free for MP’s constituency matters and a weekend break.

MP’s would NOT BE ALLOWED to have second jobs, consultancies, directorships etc. even for charities. A person cannot serve two masters. As a serving MP, s/he has only one master – his/her constituents.
Overnight accommodation expenses whilst Parliament is sitting (Tues to Fri) would be met from government funds and would be capped.
The cost of running a constituency office would be met from government funds with a limit on staff numbers and staff salaries.
Constituency office staff could not be a direct relative of the MP. That is father, mother, wife or husband, son or daughter, brother or sister.
MP’s holiday entitlement would be the same as hospital medical staff.
MP’s pay would be capped at £290 per day (about £75,000 pa) 5/7 including bank holidays and the days of the holiday entitlement.
The PM’s salary would be £500 per day (about £130,000 pa)
Deputy PM $400 per day (about £104,000 pa)
Cabinet Ministers £350 per day (about £91,000 pa)
Annual salary increases would be tied to the CASH VALUE of a pensioners’ increase. That is if the pension is increased by £5 per week the MP’s increase would be the same – i.e. £1 per day.
MP’s would be obliged to attend Parliament each day that it is in session with certifiable illness or death or on a bona fide holiday as the only excuses for not attending. None attendance without just cause will attract a deduction for that/those day/s.
MP’s would get free rail travel between their constituency and Westminster and overnight accommodation and Parliament.

A second chamber or Upper House would be elected in a similar fashion to MP’s with these differences.
The 120 successful candidates with the most votes after the elected MP from the 300 constituencies would form the Upper Chamber plus 30 Law Lords nominated by the MP’s.

On polling day constituents would be asked to vote for an MP and a representative in the Upper House.

Local government elections would follow a similar pattern to that of electing MP’s.

[SPUGGIE J]

Now that would be one ell of a way to run the country Jambutty.

The question is could/would it work?

[WillowTheWhisp]

It looks like you've really thought that out Jambutty. I'm very impressed. Not too sure about the £5,000 requirement though.

[shillelagh]

Originally Posted by SPUGGIE J

Now that would be one ell of a way to run the country Jambutty.

The question is could/would it work?

Probably not.

Constituencies would be too large - at the minute we have over 600 MP's covering all of England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland. That would mean at the least doubling the size of the constituencies. That would mean Rossendale & Darwen Constituency joining with Hyndburn. Some of the items Jambutty mentioned are already in practice - http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...ment.cfm/11604
That gives you the rough outline to see if you qualify for standing as an MP.

[SPUGGIE J]

To think I qualify to stand as a money making bucket.

Might have to give it a go.

[bullseyebarb]

[quote=shillelagh;354847]Probably not.

Constituencies would be too large - at the minute we have over 600 MP's covering all of England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland. quote)


Holy cow! No wonder you have problems. We have 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators in the U.S.....with a population far greater than the U.K. And still we have a hard time taming those rascals. Once the citizenry discovers that it can vote itself goodies from the public purse, it's pretty much the beginning of the end. Bankruptcy is on the horizon.

I don't see anybody on this thread longing for FREEDOM! There is way too much government in my opinion.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by jambutty

A Parliament would run for FOUR YEARS.

Party politics has no place in a modern democratic government so each MP would be voted into office on his own personal manifesto. In office the MP would HAVE to vote according to his/her manifesto under pain of permanent expulsion. If a subject being debated in Parliament were not included in a MP’s manifesto that MP would be free to vote as his/her conscience dictates or if the will is there, as his/her constituents decree.

The country would be divided into 300 constituencies of approximately the same number of adult inhabitants.

Any bona fide resident of a constituency would be eligible to put him/herself forward as a candidate providing that s/he met the requirement for being able to vote. That being, residents of a constituency eligible to vote would be 18 years of age or older and a citizen of this country. A citizen of this country is a person who has been born in this country or if born abroad of British parents where one of the parents was a British citizen and the birth was registered at the British Consulate in the country of birth. Immigrants to this country would not be able to vote until they attained British citizenship. Inmates of a prison or those out on licence/parole would not be eligible to vote until the full sentence has expired. Inmates of mental health institutions would not be eligible to vote.

A prospective candidate standing in a general election would in addition to being eligible to vote in that constituency have to be over 21 years of age, without a criminal record and a full time resident in the constituency for a minimum of 3 years.

Each constituency candidate would have to lodge a £5,000 deposit that will be forfeited if that candidate does not gain at least half the number of votes that the runner up receives. The candidate would have to prove that the £5,000 is made up from his/her own money and individual donations. Any donations cannot be more than £100 per person. Donations cannot be from businesses.

Each candidate would be required to fund his/her own election campaign with $5,000 to be deposited in an Election Campaign Fund bank account. The candidate would have to prove that the £5,000 is made up of his/her own money and individual donations. Any donations cannot be more than £100 per person. Donations cannot be from businesses. This £5,000 would be matched three fold (£15,000) from state funds. Any remaining funds after the election would be returned to where they came from pro rata.

Government funds (i.e. taxpayer’s cash) would meet the cost of printing a booklet detailing the candidate’s profile and manifesto and the posting of the booklet to every household in the constituency. Government funds would also meet the cost of each candidate campaigning on local TV, radio and press twice during the election campaign. Government funds would also meet the cost of a candidate hiring a public hall for campaign debates with the constituents on two occasions.

All other campaign expenses, which would be basically travelling expenses and maybe the odd overnight accommodation expense, would have to be met from the Election Campaign Fund.

The election campaign would last 42 days.

After the elections the 300 MP’s would meet in Westminster to elect the Cabinet and Ministers. MP’s would be able to put themselves forward for a specific office including PM and deputy PM and present their case in open session after which all 300 MP’s would vote for their choices.

Government business would be conducted Tuesday to Friday inclusive between 9:00am and 6:00pm or later if the occasion demands leaving the weekends and Mondays free for MP’s constituency matters and a weekend break.

MP’s would NOT BE ALLOWED to have second jobs, consultancies, directorships etc. even for charities. A person cannot serve two masters. As a serving MP, s/he has only one master – his/her constituents.
Overnight accommodation expenses whilst Parliament is sitting (Tues to Fri) would be met from government funds and would be capped.
The cost of running a constituency office would be met from government funds with a limit on staff numbers and staff salaries.
Constituency office staff could not be a direct relative of the MP. That is father, mother, wife or husband, son or daughter, brother or sister.
MP’s holiday entitlement would be the same as hospital medical staff.
MP’s pay would be capped at £290 per day (about £75,000 pa) 5/7 including bank holidays and the days of the holiday entitlement.
The PM’s salary would be £500 per day (about £130,000 pa)
Deputy PM $400 per day (about £104,000 pa)
Cabinet Ministers £350 per day (about £91,000 pa)
Annual salary increases would be tied to the CASH VALUE of a pensioners’ increase. That is if the pension is increased by £5 per week the MP’s increase would be the same – i.e. £1 per day.
MP’s would be obliged to attend Parliament each day that it is in session with certifiable illness or death or on a bona fide holiday as the only excuses for not attending. None attendance without just cause will attract a deduction for that/those day/s.
MP’s would get free rail travel between their constituency and Westminster and overnight accommodation and Parliament.

A second chamber or Upper House would be elected in a similar fashion to MP’s with these differences.
The 120 successful candidates with the most votes after the elected MP from the 300 constituencies would form the Upper Chamber plus 30 Law Lords nominated by the MP’s.

On polling day constituents would be asked to vote for an MP and a representative in the Upper House.

Local government elections would follow a similar pattern to that of electing MP’s.

How would laws be passed when the upper and lower house are concerned?

I like some of your ideas, but I think the first part where you suggest no political parties, and just straight electing the cabinet will make a government in gridlock that can't decide anything or pass any laws. We have parties for people who think along the same lines and hence vote along the same lines, it helps get legislation passed, this wouldn't be at all easy in a free for all.

[cashman]

i,d start by banning politics.

[SPUGGIE J]

Originally Posted by cashman

i,d start by banning politics.

Before or after you have shot the polititions.

[jambutty]

No SPUGGIE J it would never been given a chance to work because the only people who could make it happen is the Government in office and they would never want that sort of control.

The £5,000 deposit WillowTheWhisp would deter frivolous prospective candidates.

In this day and age Shillelagh, with the advent of the Internet a larger constituency should not be a problem. If every MP had his/her own web site where constituents could register as a member, they could then make their views known to the MP as and when they choose. It would be fairly easy for the MP to seek the views of the constituents by way of a web site poll. It might just encourage people to get more involved in how the country is run. Many, many people complain about Government spending but few make their voices heard where it might do some good. They just moan to each other. Our country is the way it is because of electorate apathy.

With party politics Cyfr, we have to accept the whole manifesto even if there are parts that we do not agree with. We would have to do the same with my suggestion but the MP would have to vote as his/her manifesto decreed and not along party lines. On most occasions MP’s are forced to vote along party lines even if an MP disagrees with the subject being put to the vote. Some democracy that is!

It’s better not to pass a law than to pass one that is not for the benefit of the majority of the people. But you wouldn’t get ‘gridlock’. Look at it this way, if an MP is elected because his/her manifesto stated that s/he was against, say ID cards, when it came to the Parliamentary vote s/he would vote that way. If enough of the other MP’s were also elected because of the same view the ID motion would be defeated, or vice versa. The point is that without party politics an MP would represent his/her constituents views and that is democracy.

But as I said it is nothing more than a pipe dream.

[andrewb]

Your ideas seem to have the same flaws as the current system though. What happens when something is voted on which isn't in the MP's manifesto? They get to choose themselves? Then you shall end up with gridlock. The MP's will start finding people they can vote with in order to get things passed, and then you start the formation of parties again..

Lets face it if it wasn't for the whips then government legislation wouldn't get passed on quite a few occasions, but that isn't a bad thing in my viewpoint, a heck of a lot of what the government pass is on their manifesto which they're elected upon and without whips we would have a weak government that would collapse every few months.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Annual salary increases would be tied to the CASH VALUE of a pensioners’ increase. That is if the pension is increased by £5 per week the MP’s increase would be the same – i.e. £1 per day.

I don't agree that that bit. Increases should be matched as a percentage.

[jambutty]

Your ideas seem to have the same flaws as the current system though.

Nearly all new ideas will be flawed until they are discussed Cyfr. That’s the idea of floating new ideas to see what can become of them. Dismissing a new idea out of hand just because someone thinks it won’t work is crass in the extreme.

What happens when something is voted on which isn't in the MP's manifesto? They get to choose themselves? Then you shall end up with gridlock. The MP's will start finding people they can vote with in order to get things passed, and then you start the formation of parties again..

If an MP has to vote on a subject that is not in his/her manifesto the MP will either vote as his/her conscience dictates or seek guidance from his/her constituents although that may not be practical at times. What the MP won’t have to do is to vote as the party dictates. If your MP continually votes on matters not in his/her manifesto that do not suit you, you know what to do at the next election. Vote for someone else.

No doubt there would be some horse trading between MP’s and temporary coalitions will be formed – “if you vote with me on this issue, I will vote with you on that issue” but each MP will have a CHOICE. They don’t get much of a choice these days – except the independents but they are few. In fact they might as well get rid of MP’s and replace them with rubber stamps.

Lets face it if it wasn't for the whips then government legislation wouldn't get passed on quite a few occasions, but that isn't a bad thing in my viewpoint, a heck of a lot of what the government pass is on their manifesto which they're elected upon and without whips we would have a weak government that would collapse every few months.

Yes let’s face it – if it wasn’t for the whips there would be much less bad legislation and the current PM wouldn’t be acting like a dictator. The whole Parliamentary system is supposed to be a servant of the people not their boss and that would make for a STRONGER Parliament not a weaker one.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Neil

I don't agree that that bit. Increases should be matched as a percentage.

Salary increases based on percentages is the scourge of the west and just widens the divide between the haves and have nots.

Let us assume that the national basket costs £50 and due to inflation it increases by £5 to £55.
Let us also assume that the lowest paid worker or pensioner receives £100 per week and some CEO gets £2,000 per week. The national basket has increased by 10% so if you give each end of the spectrum a 10% increase the lowest end gets £10 and the top end gets £200. The low end gains £5 on the deal but the high end gains £195 on the deal.

Now tell me again how that can be just and fair.

Although inflation is quoted in percentages the reality is an actual cash increase and it is the same for everybody. If I go into a shop to buy something the shopkeeper doesn’t charge me less because I happen to be a pensioner and more to some person earning £500 or more per week. The price of the item is the same for all customers regardless of their income.

[LancYorkYankee]

Hey jambutty, as soon as I saw that you had contributed to this thread, I knew that we'd get a well-thought, thorough analysis of your thoughts on this subject. Well done especially to the specific details.

It would be nice to have honest men (and yeah I guess women)(but tinks and lock-up. . . ) of good character guiding various Governments but can't imagine it ever happening long-term do to many reasons as discussed previously!

In the Bible, it states that in the end times, there will arise a leader that will seemingly bring peace not only to the middle east but throughout the world. The world will worship this man for all the great things he will do . . . Not the end of the story but IMO an interesting addition to the thread.

Brian