[Hometune]

The elections are happening this week. I just read the policies of most of the parties and came across this one and I quote,
'Fuel tax should be cut, motorway speed limits raised, and hidden speed cameras should be banned.' unquote.

And before anyone says Top Gear or Jeremy Clarkson, it is definitely a political party.

[Rolebama]

I believe that Labour, Conservative and the Lib Dems would announce this as part of their Manifesto. None of them have a particularly good track record of sticking to promises. The magic word in this instance is 'should'. No mention of 'will'.

[wagolynn]

Was it Monster raving loony party or the Greens? I wonder how things are going in the local authority are that stopped using speed cameras, I don’t remember which one but JC made an issue of it in one program.

[Rolebama]

I think it was Swindon where they said they were getting rid of 'safety' cameras. Since his great speech about it on TV, I, for one, haven't heard a word. Neither from him (or his Party) claiming a success, or from the Opposition berating him for his decision. Just Googled 'Swindon Speed Cameras', and found nothing since Oct 2008.

[Hometune]

Its none of the above :p

Its actually the BNP :eek:

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Hometune

Its none of the above :p

Its actually the BNP :eek:

Better get my jackboots out then because it should be vote winner.

[smudger]

Originally Posted by Hometune

Its none of the above :p

Its actually the BNP :eek:

Aye! that's one for the motorists, but I wonder just how much that will effect their other policies;)

[Hometune]

Can anything affect their policies?

With all the MPs held in such low esteem, what would happen if the turnout went down to zero i.e. no one voted? What would happen then? I know it won't happen, but just wondering... :(

[Rolebama]

My local Borough was run by a coalition of Lab/Tory for a number of years. During that time street lights were fixed, potholes filled, pavements were flat, a Borough-run Bus service was introduced, everything was wonderful. Lasted a few years then there was another election and a clear winner. Everything went to pot in five minutes.
A friend in another area is getting fliers for Tomorrow's election from the main three contenders asking that if he does not vote for them, please do not vote for BNP. I think they are getting worried.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Hometune

Can anything affect their policies?

With all the MPs held in such low esteem, what would happen if the turnout went down to zero i.e. no one voted? What would happen then? I know it won't happen, but just wondering... :(

That is what the political class are worried about; their well fed goose would be well and truly cooked.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

My local Borough was run by a coalition of Lab/Tory for a number of years. During that time street lights were fixed, potholes filled, pavements were flat, a Borough-run Bus service was introduced, everything was wonderful. Lasted a few years then there was another election and a clear winner. Everything went to pot in five minutes.
A friend in another area is getting fliers for Tomorrow's election from the main three contenders asking that if he does not vote for them, please do not vote for BNP. I think they are getting worried.

A coalition is what is required now; a general election is pointless until this mess is sorted out.

[Rolebama]

The general comment I seem to hear over the current expenses fiasco is: 'I have done nothing wrong!'. I believe this statement to be incorrect. Maybe they have done nothing illegal, but I believe some of the claims are unethical and immoral. More worrying is that some clown reimbursed them from the public purse. We don't seem to be hearing much from them.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

The general comment I seem to hear over the current expenses fiasco is: 'I have done nothing wrong!'. I believe this statement to be incorrect. Maybe they have done nothing illegal, but I believe some of the claims are unethical and immoral. More worrying is that some clown reimbursed them from the public purse. We don't seem to be hearing much from them.

True though his defence will be; I was employed by the House of Commons to vet House of Commons expenses. Joe public was not in the loop.:D

[Xenomorph]

I think the overriding concern for all of us, regardless what these MPs now say, is that they (the MPs) had fought tooth and nail to prevent us (the people who voted them in) from knowing what went where and how much went to whom. Remember that we only know what we now know through an 'illegal' act by someone giving away government 'secrets'.

That they tried so hard to keep their expenses secret should say enough about what the MPs thought of what they were doing; i.e. they knew it wasn't acceptable.

No one political party is to blame for this but I feel we need to get clear rules written down and get back to the whole point of the democratic system where the people who are elected are elected by the people, for the people and are answerable to the people.

I would like to see a myriad of independent candidates get into power now and for them all to join up and get some proper rules and laws set for the people in power. Then perhaps we can hold another election to get those 'career' politicians back doing the job they have been trained to do.

[Hometune]

Isn't it funny how at the start, an MP is ridiculed for claiming for a mortgage that no longer existed and quite rightly is forced to pay it back. But, some weeks on and still more revelations say more MPs have done the exact same thing. They all claim it was a mistake. Surely, if you were an MP you would have been checking your accounts to make sure you had not done the same thing and if you had, to have corrected it yourself, not when the Telegraph publishes the facts some weeks later?
That seems to me to prove they knew exactly what they were doing and are keeping their heads down in the hope they are not discovered. If you wrongly claimed, say, housing benefit, you would not get away with an apology for a 'mistake' amounting to £13,000. You'd go to court.

[Xenomorph]

Originally Posted by Hometune

Isn't it funny how at the start, an MP is ridiculed for claiming for a mortgage that no longer existed and quite rightly is forced to pay it back. But, some weeks on and still more revelations say more MPs have done the exact same thing. They all claim it was a mistake. Surely, if you were an MP you would have been checking your accounts to make sure you had not done the same thing and if you had, to have corrected it yourself, not when the Telegraph publishes the facts some weeks later?
That seems to me to prove they knew exactly what they were doing and are keeping their heads down in the hope they are not discovered. If you wrongly claimed, say, housing benefit, you would not get away with an apology for a 'mistake' amounting to £13,000. You'd go to court.

I think it is very telling that all these 'mistakes' favour the MPs. Can anyone point to a mistake where the MP lost out?

Isn't it strange that they were so lax in their financial interests when they were to benefit...

[wagolynn]

What if, the state owned flats for out of London MPs to use rent free, leaving MP to pay for food and utilities?
What if MPs had to be resident in their constinuancy?

What if, anyone who got a thousand signatures from their area would eligible for a small pot of money for election expences?

What if, it was illegal to spend any more than the pot, penalty, their votes cancelled, banned from standing for 10 years?

What if, Prime minister and cabinet were elected by all MPs and could be voted out the same way?

[Xenomorph]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

What if, the state owned flats for out of London MPs to use rent free, leaving MP to pay for food and utilities?
What if MPs had to be resident in their constinuancy?

That is exactly what I said when all this came out.

Originally Posted by wagolynn

What if, anyone who got a thousand signatures from their area would eligible for a small pot of money for election expences?

Good idea if twinned with your next idea.

Originally Posted by wagolynn

What if, it was illegal to spend any more than the pot, penalty, their votes cancelled, banned from standing for 10 years?

How much was spent on the last election? It might stop this money for votes nonsense that happens at the moment.

Originally Posted by wagolynn

What if, Prime minister and cabinet were elected by all MPs and could be voted out the same way?

What if they were voted for by us? We have the technology to make this a cheap viable option so let's use it...

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Xenomorph

What if they were voted for by us? We have the technology to make this a cheap viable option so let's use it...

This would raise the issue of what are the others there for.

In my ‘what if world’ I would have destroyed political parties, hence the need to vote in a prime minister and cabinet by the elected politicians. Otherwise, we are back to more wheeling and dealing in the bike shed. Each individual politician becomes much more powerful and primarily concerned with what is best for his constituency. Any policy has to convince the majority of the MPs, because with no party funding allowed just the election expenses from the state, they can vote according to conscience not party orders. A level of discontent (x% of MPs) triggers off a vote for a new prime minister or minister. One other side effect is the prime minister becomes chairman of the ministers. I like the sound of this...:)

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Xenomorph

What if they were voted for by us? We have the technology to make this a cheap viable option so let's use it...

Computerised voting has been tried in America and failed, though some of the problems were due to cutting corners.

[Rolebama]

I thought computer voting failed in the US because there were more votes than voters, which was blamed on computer error by those responsible, and corruption by the Media.
I do think that if/when a Prime Minister resigns, there should automatically be a General Election under the current scheme of things.
Other than that, I think the Prime Minister should be voted in by the public, in the same way that the US do it, as a party can have more MPs because they suit the local constituency, but this is no guarantee they are the best party for the country.

[Hometune]

Agree entirely. Passing on the prime minister position to your mate is hardly the democratic way of things.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

I thought computer voting failed in the US because there were more votes than voters, which was blamed on computer error by those responsible, and corruption by the Media.
I do think that if/when a Prime Minister resigns, there should automatically be a General Election under the current scheme of things.
Other than that, I think the Prime Minister should be voted in by the public, in the same way that the US do it, as a party can have more MPs because they suit the local constituency, but this is no guarantee they are the best party for the country.

From what I have been able to find about the software; there are some big elementary gaps in its security, the writers say that firstly, they met the specification and secondly they were unable to fully test the system because of time constraints, you can read into that what you will...;)

In my ‘what if’ world there would not be any political parties, I think I might even arrange to make them illegal, each politician will stand and fall on what he achieves for his voters.

In political theory, the prime minister should be chairman of the ministers; his only power should be that of any chairman, the casting vote.

The ‘what if’ system forces the ministers, through debate and argument, to convince enough MPs to support his/her ideas, otherwise the idea will be voted down. Say the minister wants to go to war, if I have armament factories in my area I would vote in favour because I am biased. Sufficient other polaticians will take a more balanced view to end up with a reasonable and hopefully a reasoned consensus. I think the effect would be the country would escape the violent swings from one extreme to the other as different parties get into power.

The other thing I would want and I think would come from such a system is figures on the cost of government. Not how much spent on the NHS etc. these are essential costs, but the overhead of government, this would tend to damp down the unelected hangers on, control expenses, resolve issues like how much does it actually cost to run means testing is it actually more than just paying out, etc.

This I think could be called democracy....:)