With all the goings on in Parliament over the past months, and despite the victory of Boris, it now feels that we are in the Doldrums awaiting the fair wind that will see us in the promised land of democracy or the storm that will see us marooned on the rocks of tyranny. It all depends on whether Boris will stick to the letter of his Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration or is prepared to face down the EU and crash out.
Let’s start on a positive note and take a look what this might look like:
– A Parliament that represents the voters;
– Parties that respect their manifestos;
– MPs that respect their promises;
– A government that respects our sovereignty and independence;
– No subservience to any foreign or global power;
– Foreign ownership of critical UK assets prohibited;
– An independent UK military which acts solely in defence of the UK;
– An education system which teaches our kids to think for themselves;
– Respect for our Christian heritage;
I’m sure that we could collectively add more.
I expect that we have all heard or read of those phrases which threaten our future as an independent democratic nation:
– ‘equality, diversity and inclusion’;
– ‘compulsory LGBT education’;
– ‘global warming’;
…and the failures in government policy whether intended or not:
– Acceptance of the UN Global Compact on Migration promoting out-of-control mass immigration by those of alien cultures;
– Acceptance of the UN’s Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 without due consideration of the intent;
– Continuing control by the EU in some form including so-called cooperation in defence matters and any agreement allowing continued access to our fishing grounds;
– The growing acceptance of Islam with no regard for the likely outcome;
It seems to me that there is much dissatisfaction with our present electoral system. Alternatives are available and some are already in use elsewhere. However, it is important that a voter of normal intelligence is able to understand and critically evaluate the process.
Whatever system of voting and counting is employed it must be, and be seen to be, free from the possibility of fraud. Certainly, the present allowing of a postal vote without a substantive reason needs to change. Having not been able to vote in person from some years I’m not sure how difficult it would be to somehow cheat the system at the polling centre.
Full and proper representation might only be achieved if voting were to be compulsory. Maybe a new system of voting could allow some account to be taken of null votes. The present system fails to take account of constituency population; indeed, it would be impossible to continually adjust constituency boundaries to achieve that. This is a particular issue with Scotland having a greater number of MPs in Parliament than the relative size of its population justifies.
One possibility is to replace the present archaic system in Parliament with an electronic voting system. The EU Parliament uses such a system which was installed in 1980. Surely a far better system could be designed and implemented now. It could even be used to ensure that an MP had actually been present during the debate and not just turned up for the vote. More importantly it could be used to factor an MP’s vote in proportion to some measure of constituency population. Obviously, there are a number of possibilities which need to be evaluated, maybe with voter participation.
One thing that I would personally find unacceptable is the transfer of my vote to a candidate who I opposed; that, for me, is where some of the AV systems fall down.
It might be a moot point, particularly to those of the Labour Party, but should we require MPs to have a minimum standard of education, maybe even a professional qualification? Certainly, we would be rightly concerned if a bridge, motorway or building had been designed by someone without a relevant professional qualification coupled with appropriate experience. Surely the job of an MP is equally important?
Certainly, government ministers should be required to have a relevant professional qualification and appropriate real-world experience as would be necessary for a job outside government. We know that they can rely on advice from civil servants but they should be able to make their own judgment on the veracity of such advice. Even those civil servants would be better able to perform had they had previous real-world experience.
Sir John Redwood made an interesting comment on the job of MPs recently: “The MP needs to get the right balance between listening and leading, between taking the views of the constituents to government to get explanation or change, and explaining the views of government or Opposition to constituents. It does help to live in the local area.”
We all, perhaps aside from tribal voters, choose who to vote for guided by a party manifesto. Too often that manifesto is designed to secure a vote and is often ignored or modified once a party is elected. Perhaps the recall of individual MPs who renege on their manifesto promises without good reason, and certainly those who switch parties, needs to be considered.
It seems to me that our education system is failing, partly because of the diversity agenda, but also because too many are pursuing university courses which have no practical value. No reform in other areas will be possible unless we have people, preferably native Brits, who have the necessary qualifications to satisfy employment needs.
In addition, there is widespread misunderstanding of the policies of various organisations; perhaps because they are not openly declared in a way which would engage everyone. We would be wise to judge them by that which we see, not what they proclaim about their intent. The intent of the EU and the UN in particular has been clearly stated if one is willing to take time to seek it out.
Clearly change is necessary in many areas. If I may paraphrase the words of Lennon / McCartney: “Some day when we’re dreaming, deep in thought not a lot to say, then we will remember things we saw today.”
Let us remember that which has failed / is failing in our society and set our sights on change, which must be carefully considered before implementation. Most of all such change should be subject to voter approval.
References
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1804/1804.02973.pdf
“An independent UK military which acts solely in defence of the UK”
Implementing that policy would result in the UK leaving NATO because NATO requires its members to supply military forces to defend other NATO nations if required.
Harumph!!!!!!!
Furious of Tonbridge Wells
So we should all lie down and give up st the first hutdle
Does nobody realise that to walk on the world stage you have to exhibit peer and capability and silly rules are there to be expunged with big jack boots if necessary
Off you don’t have power and back up they take you to the cleaners it’snot cricket old chap in the global kitchen
Sorry about the typos
For “peer” read power
For “st” read at
For “off” read if
And I think there must be some kind of mixed metaphor in trying to play cricket in a global kitchen.
Again I apologise for not reading my stuff over, but I think you will agree i am entitled to let off steam at a comment which to me exemplifies our whole “wishy washy wet” attitude to our dealings with the “enemy” the EU.
We have become a nation of wheedlers begging for the favour of being allowed to leave.scraps from our master’s table
Can we not understand we will get damn all by playing the supplicant and the weak kneed one at that.
It’s SHAMEFUL and not in our nation’s interest it is time to get rid of the toxicity of all the enemies within together with their poisonous Nostra.
OBSERVATION UPON MYSELF: ….. My Father realised that I did not take school seriously, other than sport, so at about my 15th birthday he arranged for extra tuition and had me made ready to join an HMS Training Ship, with interview and entrance exams. To my surprise I was accepted into the two year course as an Officer Cadet ! ….. Wow ! – Cap and Gown teachers. – Naval Officers. – Discipline like I had never imagined ! – AND I LOVED EVERY MOMENT OF IT ! ….. Rowing, sailing, swimming, rugby union, boxing, rifle shooting and athletics with nothing left out. Also the other Cadets, with an adult take upon future life, which of course I conformed to ! ….. School reports backed by an Executive report each term gave meaning to me, and a strange ‘Self Worth’ with pride in ‘The Ship’ was evident to all ! ….. This was 60 years ago, and I attend Reunions now, but notice that the other attendees are all successful men, either having joined the Services, Business or Professions. – We all shirk fashion, and make up our own minds, cutting our own course in life. Many live in Commonwealth Countries, but share a devotion to Great Britain. ….. AND ALL OF THIS FROM JUST TWO SHORT YEARS OF TRAINING ! – There must be something in Education with Discipline ! ! !
To a man, every ‘Officer Cadet’ from that HMS Training Ship, is total for Brexit. Although not necessarily all Tories, they are most pleased that we now have a Government with a mission in life. ….. Talk about certain Parliamentary individuals happen at our Reunions, with the question of ”How did that dim-wit get elected”? – Again to a man, the opinion is that every subject of Her Majesty that has no mark against him or her, has the right to stand for election. – It is up to the local Party to accept the individual ! ….. Hope springs eternal for real Democracy to have an input for what is truly important to this Nation, and many of the so called p.c. items that are now prevalent, should be done away with for the health of this Nation !
Sounds good Mike. Thanks for sharing it. One interesting point you make is about the Local Party selecting the prospective MP. Every subject of Her Majesty has the right to stand (unless disqualified by criminality for example). It is up to the local Party to accept them as a candidate.
This does not exclude Independents of course. However, the Party System seems to have become entrenched into our Constitution where it originally barely existed. Of course that far back The Commons were only those commoners who were rich. The rest of us had to work.
The sort of questions I’m asking myself are:- How much does it cost to stand a chance of getting elected? Does ‘The Party’ foot the bill? Then once elected into ‘The Commons’ isn’t the MP forced on pain of losing his/her job to obey ‘The Whips’.
I’ve exaggerated of course but it does seem to me that this system more or less forces our political life into a straitjacket of two party, them and us attitudes. At one time I was saying – Ban the Whip system. Then I was so glad it was there, for Boris to use !!
Maybe a good prop. rep. system would help. Maybe there is some other way new parties could get off the ground. Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe not. Surely there must be more than TWO opinions amongst voters of what is the Right Way to run the country and what is the Right destination for the country.
Or may be NOT. May be all that’s needed is for Labour to go back to being a credible alternative so we go back to alternating between Tory and Labour.
Why do we care so much about the future of our country Mike? I mean, I don’t even have kids !
“An independent military that acts solely in the defence of the U.K.”
I’m sorry but I hope that doesn’t imply what I think it does, because if that is so then I must disagree, in that I am not prepared to accept any hint of isolationism.
My expectations of Brexit are that we will regain our Complete Sovereignty and allow us to regain our full Independence and standing in global affairs which have for too long been traduced by our membership of the benighted EU.
I am not talking of a return to Empire or Colonialism, but I am initially referring to our privilege of a permanent seat on the Security Council. I am not in favour of our being some sort of global policeman, but the holding of that office presupposes we have duties, I’ve little idea what those entail,but to have effect we must exhibit “Power” and for that we must have aRoyal Navy of sufficient size to cover most trade routes throughout the globe, we must have an adequate army and Air Force to back up any threats to our overseas interests or trade routes, whether required to be used or not.
It is said the best means of defence is attack, I require our forces at least to be capable of attack.
Very good analysis Roger. It has changed my mind on one point. I was thinking, ‘I’m not interested in being a global power’ but now I realise that is STILL part of Britain being Britain. Particularly the point about keeping open our trade routes. (Some things never change for an Island Nation.)
My mind has now wandered onto Iraq and even Suez and got back to the point of how important it is to have the Right Person/people leading our government.
It’s probably those damn Civil Servants in M.O.D. frittering away defense budgets, spending on pointless schemes and their own cushy lifestyles, that are to blame.
Thanks for the support Pauline, isn’t it significant that we appear to be alone in our conclusions.
Perhaps I guessed correctly that to have a concept of playing a full part on the world stage is too strong meat for some of those on here and certainly for the MSM and our political cliques
Suez I agree with you also Harold McMillan was despicable
Roger, I agree.
I don’t disagree. Perhaps my words should have been “An independent military that acts solely in the INTERESTS of the U.K.”
Parts of Jack Thomas’ post are good. Particularly – an education system that teaches our children to think for themselves. In my youth it did. For far too many years that has been lost.
Independent UK military. Government which respects UK Independence and Sovereignty. No subservience to foreign or global power. Critical UK assets owned by us. All that is quite clearly the sort of stuff BREXIT has been about. Though it is not ONLY EU that threatens us but EU is the main organisation that thinks it knows best for us.
His suggestions for political reform need much more consideration. We’ve said before that Prop Rep systems need careful analysis. A.V. is a particularly bad one. I rather like the quirky way MPs vote in the House. If I have to defend myself on that I’ll say it gives them a chance to confer on the way to the lobby and have second thoughts.
MPs to have minimum standard of education? Oh no – who measures that? and how? Compulsory voting, come off it – that also sounds like a third world dictator speaking. Prevent the postal voting opportunity for fraud, yes. Do NOT reduce the voting age. My impression is that 18yrs is if anything already too low given that no – one now is taught to think for themselves. (And they certainly are NOT taught that at modern Uni.)
I think MPs need to be at least 40 years old and have had a “proper job”. Also, no criminal convictions.
Qualifications? Hmmm that’s a difficult one. Definitely not “Political sciences.
They should definitely be locally selected.
I agree with most of what Jack says, however, history has proven that the idea of having only “suitable” people as MPs does not fly. time was MP’s were drawn from the Landed Gentry, the common man was seen as not being able to grasp the intricacies of government,thereby creating a “them and Us” gulf between our representatives and us.Of course MP’s and senior civil servants need to have the brains to grasp and understand what is going on. It makes sense to have the Minister of Defense (say) being an ex services person, however, just how essential is it. surely, any person from senior management should be able to understand what is going on. They do not need to have the “boots on the ground”, when their own experience may not represent the chalanges today, maybe some 30 years after their service. I have run my own business, and, while I had a great deal of experience, my job was to employ the right people, ensure they had the right gear, and to run the company. I had supervisory staff to sort out rotas etc, so delegation was the name of the game.
Unfortunately, the Party Game. does not ensure we get the best people for the job of representing us. Lets face it, no party offers what most people want, and that, as I have found out when campaigning, is a mix of the Capitalism of the Right and the Socialism of the Left. The very idea of Labour State Control of industry scares the c**p out of me, but to revert to the pre Welfare State days would also be a bad move.
Maybe we should not ask for “qualifications” when selecting our MP’s. but go for instead a type of MENSA test and also a test of Real World awareness. This would then serve to break the cycle of MP’s without real work experience, and of reasonable intelligence. As things are, the Commons are populated with to many who have never done a real days work, outside the political spectrum. This is where National Service did a good job, every young man spent 2 years under military rules, and on leaving had seen something of the world and understood the importance of team work, good preparation for life in the real world, beyond the apron strings of adolesence
Jim Stanley – some interesting suggestions. I particularly like the MENSA test. I took it myself years ago – I mean the real test not the advertising gimmick ones that used to be around. I’ve heard NOTHING about MENSA for years now. Whatever anyone says about ‘other types of intelligence’ ‘I.Q. is not important’ blah blah blah’, MENSA testing has a lot going for it. Bit like the old 11+ really.
“…..but to revert to the pre Welfare State days would also be a bad move” A bad move for who?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNXaTzdsWIo
Sorry Jake. Watched that and think it exaggerates and blames the welfare state for problems which have other causes. I’ve never voted Labour in my whole life but if I’d been voting age in 1945 I would have been proud of what that Labour Government did.
Pauline It is difficult to disagree that what started off as a safety net for lower income people (and that was the objective) morphed into creating a dependency culture which was hugely politicised by the Labour Party. More welfare dependents more votes for Labour. Welfarism has also underpinned mass immigration which has harmed the low income workers far more than middle class and high income groups. Bartholomews forthright views are not by any means universally accepted but I do thing they deserve closer scrutiny.
Yes so, attack the problems, not the Welfare State. Control Immigration. Invest in the depressed areas – by State if necessary, and encourage private investment. (Personally I think we should find ways to break up the Moslem enclaves in some cities e.g. very closely monitor exactly what goes on in their mosques and schools.)
No state funding beyond the second child. (A guy near here recently had 13 children with more than one woman and had NEVER done a day’s work. He was demanding a larger council house, had never paid rent or council tax, they all lived entirely on the welfare state. He was not even a moslem !)
There certainly IS a DEPENDENCY CULTURE. I agree Labour Party has encouraged it and gained votes from it.
We are not really in disagreement Jake.
A sensible immigration policy and rigid enforcement of the proper definition of an “asylum seeker” are necessary. It is unlikely that a person could land here by sea without having passed through one of several safe countries on the way. Coming by air they should be stopped at immigration and returned at the cost of the airline, so an unlikely route.
Rules bent and abused by government to change our country for the worst; now admitted by Blair.
jt. 98 % . Parachuting candidates banned, would have got you the other %. Instead of the carriers and lighteningswe could have thousands of cessnas. I wonder what damage an arrow or a penguin flying into a jet engine would do. On second thoughts , just a glancing blow from a penguin would probably explode the Lightening. What’s the going price for a healthy penguin.
Can you train penguins to be kamikazi pilots ?
I would be vehemently against electronic voting. I would not want to risk an election being subverted by some techno geek hacking into the system and awarding votes where they don’t belong. I trust the existing system even though it has its faults, but I don’t trust electronic geekery. I would also be against minimum qualifications for MPs. I believe that every citizen in good standing should be eligible to stand as an MP, however thick they are. It is for the parties to choose candidates that are capable of doing the job, and if they choose a numpty then the voters should recognise this and cast their votes accordingly.
Very true Phillip. After they have been educated to think for themselves i.e. not brainwashed like now.
In fact that has reminded me of the Green candidate here in the last election. I told him to go back to school where he might learn some basic facts about weather, climate and biology. Like what I did before O level GCEs.
Yet we rely on some much else in this digital age, most of which is properly secured.
Clarification: The electronic voting that I suggested was for Parliament, not general elections, therefore a closed system no different in security from those used by companies worldwide and the EU Parliament for their regular business. Any information for voters would simply be reports generated from that system; no access necessary.
Having said that I believe a properly designed and secured public voting system is possible; it could certainly get rid of the postal voting scam and would obviously require confirmation of identity. I’m sure means could also be provided for those truly unable to leave home to vote.
Restoration of democracy. For going on 50 years now, career structures in public, charitable, academic and corporate bodies were more likely to flourish by embracing the European project rather than exorting the restoration of democracy. To go against the prevailing orthodoxies of the day in any of the aforementioned bodies is career suicide and thus we cannot expect this to change.
Johnson has the mandate to change those orthodoxies – but will he?
Career structures in those bodies depending on embracing the European project says it all really. You are so right there Jake.
Well – lets put it this way – Boris is not a very ‘orthodox’ sort of person and Dominic is recruiting weirdos so there may be hope for us !
I could not agree with you more Jack and a really good article, but as far as defence and much else is concerned I wouldn’t take anything at face value. Last week it was implied that post Brexit we would not be tied into the e.u defence plans or foreign policy , no bi – lateral agreements then, or PESCO ‘opt ins’ or E12.
Then came the Iranian ‘threats’ or call them what you will.
No doubt the doubts caused by this and any Iranian response will be a perfect excuse for Johnson’s forth coming defence review to decide that for all our security needs and to secure the ‘deep and close partnership with the e.u’ he still keeps ‘banging on about’ remember just as May did, we need to work closely together , that is carry on by means of weasel words and obfuscation working closely with the e.u on matters of defence and security, otherwise there would be no point in keeping the two ‘carriers’ that May said she looked forward to seeing e.u personnel flying from.
What other use would they be except perhaps to serve as the biggest most expense targets the U.K had since WW2.
Ben Wallace the latest ‘Defence Secretary’ casts deliberate doubt today on the intentions of the U.S on no less a platform than SKY NEWS. The timing is interesting , no statements from government happen by accident and this certainly didn’t , are we supposed Johnson had no knowledge of it, just before he has further meetings with President Trump or are we to believe this is more ‘fake news’
Odd thing for our Defence Secretary to imply that Britain may have to fight alone and without the help of the U.S in future. Ah ! Well lets works closely with the e.u on defence union seems to me to be the hidden message . The only Brexit these people are planing is a BRINO, make no mistake all the signs are there. Link below.
http://news.sky.com/story/defence-secretary-ben-wallace-fears-us-may-no-longer-be-uks-key-ally-in-conflicts-11906727
I missed the bit ‘it was implied post brexit we would not be tied in to EU defense plans or foreign policy. Which bit of ‘post brexit’ was it talking about? 31st Jan. 2020? 31st Dec. 2020? or was it just waffle. I’ve been suggesting that our government should revoke whatever agreements May signed up to asap – that means 1st. Feb 2020. Am I right? tell me ‘cos I’m no expert.
Ursula Van der Leyden speech at the LSE (8th Jan ) is when she said words to the effect of NATO is a military alliance, ‘We’ must build a new partnership on defence the e.u defence union will not be sovereign nations’ In other words, single policy, single procurement, single command.
Now 3 days later we have the Ben Wallace statement in the press 12/01 implying that there could well be a question of future U.S support in any conflict. My guess is that there is no intention of withdrawing from security/military union and that won’t change , the latest project fear will be, look we can’t rely on the U.S military support in future and we can’t go it alone so we have to be part of the e.u defence union. In my opinion there is little doubt about what is going on as far as UK military and procurement is concerned too many memorandum of understanding and bi-lateral agreements have been agreed or signed already for that. As far as I can tell none of these bi-lateral agreements have been scrutinised in parliament and I can’t see the public standing for it either, hence all the theatre . Another pointer towards the coming BRINO ?
John Redwood has helped clarify it a bit for me. He wishes to leave EU with no ‘tie ins’. He also said ‘the military agreement leaves us free to be in or out of any EU missions’.
I’m now slightly less worried.
Thank you for that information Norman. The handing over of defence to the EU after we have “left” is a great concern. A country that does not take care of its own defence is not an independent country.
”Crash out”, Mr Thomas? Let’s hope you use that term with deliberate irony!
Yep. Let’s hope we do ‘Crash out’ into the middle of a ‘Cod War’. But get us out of all the EU defense projects first.
Of course.