Millennium3

Perhaps - it just depends whether you believe that the Reform Treaty is the final nail in the coffin of any hope of getting out of the EU in our lifetime.

If you agree - it's worth pursuing, however remote the possibility.

Millennium3

I am asking you to be less expansive - just make the points succinctly.

Francis

And I've explained to you my post stands, and had I wanted to say something differently I would have done.

It's as simple as that, but once again you are demonstrating why it's a bad idea.

It will be full of people who don't like that others disagree with them, or undermine their ideas, as you prefer to spin it (what am I meant to do, when I see a bad idea, praise it up? ), and who then fluster, bluster, and waffle, rather than accepting the facts.

Bottom line is it's a bad idea, it's been shown it costs a heap of money, but makes no difference, because you've already explained that opinions will be ignored, unless that match opinions already in existance from other sources, so it makes no one accountable, and is grossly open to abuse.

It isolates vast sections of the community, and really serves no purpose at all, and all this while people witter and argue on a forum, taking up the time of a man who could actually be doing his job instead of reading some petty flame war, started by someone with a short fuse, unhappy that is idea was rejected.

It is meritless, worthless, it further over burdens our legislation, it detracts from work at hand, it costs money, it does nothing, it's a bad idea, one devoid of any purpose, or point.

When pressed on it's merits your only line has been to repeatedly parrot the accountability line, whilst showing quite clearly, yourself, that it not only doesn't make a man accountable, but also that an opinion expressed should be ignored if it doesn't meet existing opinions already expressed, thus meaning we're paying to hear the same thing twice, not only that but paying milions of pounds to hear the same thing twice.

This is Britain, it's not Ebbsfleet football club, it can't be run online by a happy show of hands from a few half cut football supporters on a Saturday afternoon, the real world doesn't work that way, and at some stage ideas have to pass from their picture postcard existance, on the back of an envelope, or even a beer mat, into the shining light of reality, and if it can't stand up under the bright scrutiny of those lights we can safely dismiss it as being bereft of purpose.

In this case we've demonstrated the wasteful costs of it, we've demonstrated it does nothing that can not already be achieved though other means, thus ladening our legislation with even more unwanted rules, and regulations, we've shown it is a poor use of time, money, and manpower, it doesn't achieve anything, and can readily be abused, thus underming democracy.

The light has been shone, and the idea was found wanting.

Anyone of those reasons would be enough to bury the idea, but combined, together, it leaves the notion beyond redemption, it is a bad idea.

Think number tens petitions, as already explained, a futile propaganda act, manipulated, and ignored by virtually everyone, think peoples committees, that serve no purpose, think of a million other ideas, all along the same lines, tried, tested and failed.

Think of the drive to revolutionize the voting system, with electronic voting, and mail voting, tainted by fraud and corruption, as an ill thought out system was abused, and then think do we really want to repeat these errors right at the heart of our democratic process?

The answer is a resounding no, because it's a bad idea.

You may find someone telling the truth a reason to be suspicious, and a reason to not answer questions, you may decide that someone who choses to place before you facts, that show an idea to be bad, is someone you wish to label as underming the idea, but the reality is, no matter what labels you wish to consign to what is said it is proven to be a bad idea, the reasons why it is a bad idea have been laid out for you, and when pushed on the subject of merit we find the idea is completely lacking, and serves no purpose.

You can continue to take it round and round in circles, but that's the bottom line, and whether you accept that now, or in a thousand posts from now it will still be the bottom line.

Millennium3

F you do understand that each MP would have a forum exclusively for their own constituents - with a password [a system similar to the one my bank operates - without my money disappearing]. That for the majority of the time, when there is nothing very controversial going on the forum would be quiet with just the most politically aware posting. If a crazy group did manage to highjack the forum the MP would be aware that the views put forward were not broadly within mainstream concern so could be dismissive.

As I have said the cost would be very low compared to the costs that the government of the day can cause the nation and the underlying problem, which the suggestion was trying to address, is that this government has managed to remove or significantly reduce the controls which previous governments lived by.

Do you have a scheme whereby this problem can be addressed more frequently than once every 4/5 years.

By the way, currently 80% are happy with the simple power to recall the MP.

Francis

Yes, this points been discussed already, and shows therefore the forum would be redundant and just an expensive echo.

No, millions of pounds for nothing is not low cost, it's 100% a waste of money.

But as has been shown repeatedly, in all the points you avoid, it doesn't address these issues, therefore it's £7.5 million flushed down the toilet.

You might want to waste your tax pounds, but I don't want to waste mine.

Why does it need to be addressed more than every four years?

Last thing we need is politicians who are not even given enough time to sneeze before they are effectively forced to dedicate their entire existance to their survival, rather than doing their job.

Look at football.

Longest reigning manager in the Premier League?

Alex Ferguson - Manchester United.

Second?

Arsene Wenger - Arsenal

My point?

It's been firmly established that the ideal scenario is to pick the right manager the first time of asking, because sticking with a successful solution is far more beneficial than chopping and changing every five minutes, in fact it's actually better to stick with a mediocre manager than chop and change every five minutes, which brings with it all sorts of new problems.

Look to America.

Some candidates have already been campaigning for close to a year, for elections that don't take place until next year.

Two years neglecting their proper job, to concentrate on a job that effectively lasts 2 to 3 years, yes, I know the term is four years, but often the midterms severely restrict a Presidents power, and his final year is invariably a lame duck year, where he's either campaigning for re-election, or the public (and more importantly from his perspective, big business, and lobby groups etc.) are more interested in the candidates running to replace him than they are in the outgoing President himself.

Two years campaigning for what can be as little as two years work, it's a highly inefficient system, in that respect.

I don't want my representative going to meet and greet dinners, schmoozing with media moguls, or partaking in publicity stunts for the majority of his term in office, just because of some knee jerk mob reaction to the issue of the day.

I don't want him distracted, I want him to do the job he's paid to do, and then if he fails he can be voted out.

If you're going to judge most politicians fairly you have to give them at least four years, to get a good view of what they are like, and what their abilities are.

If someone is grossly negligent, and I mean grossly, then there are other methods of dealing with the situation, but then again, if you've voted in someone that bad you have to shoulder part of the responsibility yourself.

Badgering a guy, forcing him to jump through expensive new hoops, that don't actually do anything, aren't going to make him more or less effective at his job.

Why do you think we have the system that we have, and have had for hundreds of years, and is copied through out the world?

The basic answer is because, whilst not perfect, it works.

For all the complaints we can have about our government, and our opposition parties, and the list is a mile long, I'm not in anyway seeking to defend them, it is also, beyond reasonable doubt, that you can look around the world and see much, much, much worse, and messing with the system can create such a mess here.

If we are going to mess about with the fundamental basics of our democratic process then we must make sure that any changes make nothing but an improvement to the system, and that none are open for abuse.

What you were suggesting, with the forum, as we could see, failed to meet any of the positive criteria, but indeed met all the negative criteria, hence my comments about it being a bad idea.

It was right up their with the electoral reforms, that we now know to be flawed, and are being returned to the drawing board amidst a slew of corruption and electoral fraud cases.

It is identical to the same sort of fundamental errors being made by the current government.

Beer mat policies serve no one.

Right now the biggest problem with our system are the people we employ, and us, the employers, for employing them.

Let's put that right, rather than tinkering with the system and making even more problems for ourselves.

Millennium3

F - you also understand that the purpose of this thread is to find out what forum members think of the various options in the poll - its not what I think that matters. Since I put up the option I have a responsibility to make sure that the options are understood and defend their inclusion - to a point, when these are challenged. Clearly you do not believe my defence of the 'forum' option was adequate.

We must now see if those who vote are swayed by your arguments.

Millennium3

I wonder if anyone who hasn't voted in this poll would good enough to do so. Although it might not be possible to get all of the anti EU parties to work together at the next GE [it might take a new party or just simply an alliance of the willing]. The results would be helpful to any organisation that emerges.

Lawrie Boxall

I am quite keen on the idea that constituents could force a vote of confidence in a sitting member. Less keen on the idea of an internet forum for each constituency particularly if it was compulsory.

However taken together these ideas do represent quite original thinking. I think they are valuable because we will never improve our system of government and democratic structures by doing the same old same old. Debating them leads to far greater understanding and it will lead to practical solutions if such things exist.

My view is that it is the executive that tends to do the damage, less so the lobby fodder. I can see that the idea of putting additional pressure on individual MPs is designed to counter the toe the line, careerist tendencies of most them. The problem with it is that it offers no real sanction - whereas a vote of confidence which forced a by-election would. Obviously the barriers to flippant challenges would have to be set quite high - e.g. maybe at 75% with penalties applied to petitioners if they failed to pass 50%.

However what we really need to do is coalesce into a party that puts people at the heart of the democratic system not as subjects to be governed by an international ruling class.

Such a party would not be an anti-EU party. The EU as we see it now is one expression of several possible ways to order national and international government in a globalised world. I am sure we can do a lot better and I am sure ideas for change will be popular.

George

Your points one by one.

Absolutely. There should be a law that no fundamental constitutional changes may be passed into law without the express consent of the people.

A very bad idea. Firstly, you would be kicking out a large group of hardworking, taxpaying 20somethings with years of contributing ahead of them and accepting in return hundreds of thousands of pensioners who at present are draining the Spanish health and pension systems. Secondly, huge sectors of the economy would collapse overnight unless welfare payments were slashed as no Brits will do jobs which, thanks to benefits, are 'beneath' them.

You (and most Eurosceptics) really have to get your head around the idea that large numbers of European immigrants are good for the country. It's not the people of Europe who cause problems and it's not the landmass or the businesses of Europe. It's the political system of Europe, the unelected commissioners and the overall unaccountability of even the MEP's.

Definitely, but greatly reduced numbers in the remaining central UK parliament and a new law that no person can be an elected official in more than one body. I find it amazing that MP's who constantly moan about how hard they work find it possible to be councillors, MEP's, MSP's, or AM's at the same time (drawing twice or three times as much in wages and expenses, naturally).

Both of these are excellent ideas which will increase democracy and accountability. Despite Francis' red herrings, it would take only a very little amount of thought to deliver a workable and effective system. It would force MP's to, at the very least, consider their constituents wishes and be able to justify any actions contrary to those wishes.

Around 11,000 years ago temperatures on earth rose by about 10°C. Once it is made clear exactly how this happenned, how it is absolutely impossible that it should be occuring again and that it is impossible that solar activity could be linked in any way. Why this happens with great regularity every around 100,000 years and why every single historical record indicates that we are due for a climate shift which will gradually see temperatures fall by 10°C over the next 30,000 years. Why they are so arrogant and egocentric that they suppose this time around we have caused it.

Why you have linked the ridiculous theory of man made climate change to an otherwise impressive list of ideas on governence is beyond me.

__________________
Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła,
Kiedy my żyjemy.

Millennium3

Thank you G - apart from a couple they weren't particularly policies I wanted - but those that are popular amongst the anti EU parties.