Our politics is a marvellous jigsaw put together by generations of brilliant people. But corrupted as they went along by others equally gifted , but seeking advantage. But still far better than anybody else’s.
Its rules by which it seeks to operate for us is called our constitution. And it covers every one of us. And strangely most of the rest of the world. Where most constitutions around the world seem to differ is the Monarch ( President, Ayatollah, Leader, Commission, Politburo, etc ) whose position is usually bolstered by some religion or quasi religion such as communism, or by a declaration or written constitution – whatever’s handy. Ours is probably the only one with its own religion. Makes a difference.
The best thing about ours is its flexibility at the same time as it has its bedrocks, such as Magna Carta etc. Generally speaking, the longer an item is used and accepted, the less changeable it is.
Generally this means the oldest is the best. The warlord (King) must come on top. This is unchangeable. It can be warped by religion or committee. family, or can be developed by a committee which inevitably develops a “King” on top.
If you have done a degree in politics at Oxford, this is baby stuff. It’s like Euclid’s geometry: a proper educational grounding that should be taught in kindergarten and developed. Again, as I see it, it’s a textbook, with the content:
- Constituency, voting, and your representative and Party (HoC)
- Government inc. PM
- HoL
- Executive inc Civil Service and
- Other Heads of Functions eg.. Chief of Armed Services, Head of Religion. Head of Civil Service. Treasury, etc., all answerable to the supreme Monarch – not PM or politicians
- The Monarchy and its own committees (in this position to divide and rule)
- (Tricky one, this) God
- Finally: the People
That is what I think the structure is, more or less. Better shown, I suppose, as a sort of ancestry chart.
And you will note that it has been developed by many clever people, covering every aspect one way or another. The only fly in the ointment is as always: the politicians of all types and jobs, nibbling away at advantage, and corrupting. The most in quantity, corrupt as always, being at the bottom: the MPs. the most successfully corrupt beings among the higher levels. Properly successful and harnessed, this is a useful skill …
It worries me that many politicians, and almost all candidates, and the voting population, have no inkling of any of this. It seems to me to be intentional.
So, for the sake of clarity of my (and what should be your) position:
MPs should all represent roughly equal and cohesive constituencies. The loyalties of all should be to Monarch and constituency. And only vaguely and randomly to anyone else. Certainly never to a committee or party. The corrupt party system provides them with a ready-made position and policy and words. And in a corrupt response insists on loyalty above and beyond proper loyalty to Monarch and constituency. And particularly making him thus an alien to his constituency,
The full loyalty of an MP must be to his Electorate, God and his Monarch. Not – not, I repeat: not Party, not, or only a bit, his PM. And then only if specifically delegated BY the Monarch.
First past the post is simple, obvious, gets the best or most popular – not the most deserving or other self appointed, self serving equals. This is actually understood by the entire universe except a few idiot candidates (and the EU), hoping that by some miracle their ineptitude is not noticed. Changing this is a form of altering things to smooth your path. Another popular misconception by the less well informed.
The House of Lords
Gets a lot of abuse. But serves a useful purpose. It was conceived as another committee to serve as a brake on the mad populism and corruption of the Commons. It was to provide experience, wealth , position, education, consideration, however attractive the suggested Law might be. To look for unintended consequences, foolishnesses etc. The corruptly accumulated power by successive PMs and cronies has destroyed a valuable reservoir of the great and the good which would protect us from the mad Corbyn..
Remedy: Remove all ex-MPs and Civil Servants and replace with those of stature and achievement and respect. As I have said many times before, for example the guy in charge of old bones at the Natural History Museum, or other exceptional people, or the heroes of the hour, for using common sense in the face of the establishment slime: the great, good, exceptional, and deserving and of course Nigel for putting up with it all. It is not a step on a promotion ladder for old and never useful underlings who have betrayed their constituencies.
Ministers and ministries
Mrs May gets a mention here. Her spell everywhere she went presaged disaster and she continues her scarcely credible stagger through politics. The entire ministry (corruption at the expense of the taxpayer) of the Home Office needs an Augean Stable clean out. This was corruption of the idea of “Promotion “, in favour of Cronyism. The care of the treasury run by a politician and cronies to dole out money to the various ministers, for them to do likewise, is just laughable and distortion of seriously important functions. The idea of a King giving the Treasury to a politician, who’s very trade includes corrupting – well ! I know, it’s funny.
In fact the idea of crony politicians in charge of anything is again laughable and only saved by the fact that they will naturally be aware of the actually knowledgeable the Civil Service, who are actually responsible to a separate promotional ladder. It’s all too cosy. No wonder Mad Corbyn wants a go.
I suppose a mention has to be made of Big Business, spending lobby money on MPs, MP votes, MPs providing information … possibly a warped vote. MP gets voted out and is given directorship for further dubious communication etc. for as long as he’s useful. To summarise at the end of this chapter: Parachuting, Lobbying, HoL Rewards, Executive positions (Ministries), all: + + + + +
I trust that I’ve given food for thought. Now read newspapers with a jaundiced eye. As for the BBC: a Marxist echo chamber.
For legal expertise on this subject: ask Sir Bill Cash.
That introduces a couple of new thoughts to me . Good. I’ll have to think about them
A very good article. Corruption is the ever present infection that rots the timbers of the ship of state. Regarding the house of Lords. I think it should be kept because it takes the long view when populated by Nobles with a sense of honorable behavior.
With the Neocon movement from the late 1980s the lords were gradually repopulated by “Nobbles” without honor, purely to serve their corporate masters from around the globe, in exchange for a cushy job with a fat pension. A spring clean is required!!
Glen Spokes. Well he makes some interesting points I suppose – like for instance the British Constitution has developed over many centuries, it is good and has been copied in many other countries.
He seems unaware though that political parties go a long way back. Even before our Civil War there were rival Parties in Parliament, Whigs and Tories. They did not have as much cohesion then. Whigs in particular would break up into factions.
Cromwell did not need Parties. In fact he did not really need Parliament. He ruled by his Model Army and so long as that was loyal to him he was able to be a dictator. To give him his due – that was not his intention and he actually ruled well and as far as possible by rule of law.
At the Restoration Whigs and Tories reappeared in Parliament. Roughly speaking Tories represented landed gentry on the side of the king. Whigs represented the merchant, business and banking class.
We kicked out James 2nd basically for being the wrong sort of Christian and imported William and Mary because they were Protestant. So that deals with the late 17th Century. Political Parties were already a part of our system of doing politics.
They were corrupt. Those who were members of parliament were in no way Representative of ‘The People’. Much later the franchise was gradually extended. There were various popular rebellions etc. Much as now there are Populist Parties seeking to get in to Parliament. We had to import other foreign Monarchs of course, until eventually our king didn’t speak our language. That caused further changes.
Amongst all this change It actually became the case that IT IS ONLY BY HAVING POLITICAL PARTIES elected to the Commons that AFTER AN ELECTION, IT IS CLEAR WHO CAN BE CALLED BY THE MONARCH TO FORM A GOVERNMENT. If we in some way went back to having over 600 MPs with no clear LABELS how on earth would anyone know WHO was in charge?
Elizabeth 1st WAS in charge. The Stuarts gradually were NOT. Cromwell WAS in charge. Stuarts lost it again. After that everything had changed so much that Political Parties had become a necessity.
Of course they are corrupt. Of course they are the way for a would be politician to find ’employment’ on the nice warm benches. It’s a lousy bl**dy system, but oddly enough it is still probably the best in the World.
Pauline, Sorry it took me so long toreply.
I do not object to political parties as such. However I do object to these committees, which is all they are,
gathering power over Individual MPs by finding a candidate his constituency, Threatening By Whip or its removal, or by deselection.. Gaining .more power by offering jobs , a career path and a place in the lords etc. He has been BOUGHT. Step 1. Ban parachuting.Step2 reform whip system.etc step 3 think about manifestos.
The parties produce Manifestos. Think about this. Why.? MPs are there as Representatives and should have their own and their constituency concerns,not those of a party committee. This is how you can impose control.
As I see it the manifesto is merely an advertisement / offered contract without honour.
As I understand it, anybody can propose anything, collect info., Debate, and vote. And collect more info etc etc.Our aparent disagreement here Pauline seems to me suject to deeper thought. I am certainly not totally certain or inflexible.
Finally all the nonsense of voting systems . Didn’t we have a ridiculous referendum about this at some time.
As a teenager my suggestion I argued was an extra vote for Mr Smith if he got hs O levels , another for a degree, another if he was promoted i/c 5 peopli, another if he becams a proffessional something etc etc another if he did something else. … Daft of course but fun.Every system I’ve ever seen has such obvious problems problems that I have concluded that Simple, Universally understood, trumps everything. and the now universally obvious flaws in the EU system do not need thinking about.
I would love to see what your thoughts are on these points… Regards.
Written Constitutions are a bit of a pain. – They are the subject of Amendments, as seen in the USA. – Also from the USA, we see the oft-quoted, and high principled, – ”In God we trust”, and yet their Courts show it as a nonsense, by way of their Abortion Industry allowing some full term births and the sale of body parts, but their Courts agonise over making the right decision ! – Values seem to be subject to amendments as well, and the constitution’s claim of all being equal, seems to by-pass the advanced stages of the foetus, and the unwanted new-born !
Then we have written, but sectioned constitutions like the UK. – Magna Charter is one such, but as a National Constitution, centuries later, further excellent constitution was added. Evolvement is good, so long as it sits easily with prior acceptance ! ….. Our idea of the Crown being the Head of State and permanent but without power, while the impermanent Government has the power, but must bow to the People for continuance, is near to ideal. – The Crown links to our history, while the People vote in or dismiss our Government along the principle of Democracy !
Democracy is the key to good sense. I consider that while we hold to a FPTP system, we only have a poor version of Democratic rule. We need a PR system, but since there are several forms of PR, it would be wise to investigate all of them before taking any quick change on this. The Make Votes Matter group, that is very active at the moment, has my partial support, and I have suggested that PR is given some shape and form as to which system would be best for UK/GB. – So far nothing is received from MVM !
“full term births” /abortion.
AKA postpartum abortion. Carthage and Baal would be proud.
JF
Murder!
‘The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense’.
https://slate.com/technology/2012j-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide.html
We must return this world to sanity.
Mike Maunder, You are right. And far more understandable than the article
How has PR worked out for Sweden? Doesn’t look good from what I’ve seen, maybe it’ll improve as the new demographic they’ve imported grow and get THEIR PR….aka Sharia Law!
PR is as destructive to a Nation as “Diversity Quotas”….
Probably because they amount to the same thing!
Re the House of Lords, why shouldn’t we just abolish it ? The pre-union Scots Parliament was unicameral, the logic being “Wha needs tae hear the same blethers telt twice ?”.
“MPs should all represent roughly equal and cohesive constituencies”
A difficult thing to achieve, even with frequent disruptive change. Far better to get rid of the archaic vote counting in Parliament and replace it with a system which allows an MP’s vote to be factored by number of their GE votes, constituency voter numbers or any similar agreed measure. It could even ensure that the vote of any MP entering the house in the last 5 minutes of the debate, so missing most of it, could be blocked. Another advantage would be the simple recording of every vote by every MP and even their attendance record; essential information for their constituents come the next election.
Tradition might be OK for royalty but it has no place in the efficient running of government. They also need to be reminded that they serve us, not the other way round.
Jack not only is it difficult to achieve, beats me what the word ‘cohesive’ is supposed to mean here. Looking at this constituency roughly half of it is upland farming while the other half is Towns. But towns are not all the same. Nor are all parts of a town the same. So far as I know the people who live in Bakewell have NOTHING in common with those who live in Glossop. Half of Buxton is like a different world to the other half.
Best to just drop the word ‘cohesive’ I think. I seem to remember it being said boundary changes were made when Labour was in power in order to increase their chances at future elections.
And of course those EU regions were added.
Years ago in France, I bought a book called:- Toujours plus by François de Closets. Don’t think it was translated into English.
I got most way through, was busy and loaned it to a French friend, who promptly was posted off to Angola or somewhere equally salubrious.
It talks of ‘un gain’ – yes, a gain, think nibble on the huge financial cake. Everyone in the civil service (functionaires) through to the politicians and on, is looking for a ‘gain’ or ‘an angle’. A bit like bank workers across the World trying to work out how to defraud the bank and not get caught.
He trotted out loads of examples. Today, on it goes. We see French head of the common market bank (criminal), German overall leader of dozens of CM presidents (criminal) both with plastic hair, and many, many others making ‘gains’ = feathering their nests.
Here, a first would be to emasculate the relentless television bias and to relentlessly call out fake news. To rip out the financial tithe to the bbc would be a good start.
Bottom line? After all these years, nothing much has changed. An eye opener and well worth a read.
It just makes me wish we had a Trump to drain the Swamp this side of the Atlantic, and to honour manifesto pledges.
Trump’s ‘top ten fake news stories’ after a year in office to illustrate bias, were not challenged – also worth a read.