TV1 min ago
Oldham bi-election
Amongst all the huffing and puffing from members of the various political parties over the bi-election results, nobody seems to give a mention of the actual qualities, or lack of them, of the candidates, it's all seen as a national issue. I am not normally a labour voter, but having seen interviews with the three main contestants last week I would have without doubt voted for Ms. Abrahams. Do you agree that the whole issue seems to have been hi-jacked by Westminster?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Khandro What reform did you have in mind ?
AV and PR doesn't seem to work properly anywhere in the world and unfortunately once introduced it can't be changed because the minor parties can always outvote it.
New Zealand and several of our continental partners wanted to change to our first past the post system but couldn't get it pass their minor parties .
Our system isn't perfect and postal voting is a racket but it is simple we should be very careful with any changes or replacement.
I have voted in many union elections and ballots using different systems and they were all manipulated.
If we were to try a different system it should have a fixed time limit and only be , changed or extended if the electorate says so. You can not leave it to MPs their first priority is looking after their jobs.
For myself I would restrict postal voting to the infirm and the armed services .
AV and PR doesn't seem to work properly anywhere in the world and unfortunately once introduced it can't be changed because the minor parties can always outvote it.
New Zealand and several of our continental partners wanted to change to our first past the post system but couldn't get it pass their minor parties .
Our system isn't perfect and postal voting is a racket but it is simple we should be very careful with any changes or replacement.
I have voted in many union elections and ballots using different systems and they were all manipulated.
If we were to try a different system it should have a fixed time limit and only be , changed or extended if the electorate says so. You can not leave it to MPs their first priority is looking after their jobs.
For myself I would restrict postal voting to the infirm and the armed services .
modeller, I was careful to say political, rather than electoral reform is required. If individual M.P's have no way of being effectual in relation to their constituencies needs, - unless it happens to suit a broader party-political agenda, then Whitehall must relinquish some power 'back to the people' - a policy which Cameron professes to want, but I find it hard to see maturing. Re. postal voting; I have a house in England and pay my dues there, but live most of the time abroad and have often used, and been glad of, this system. It is the abuse which should be eliminated not the practice, I feel.
I take your point Khandro re - postal voting . I should have included those who spend time abroad and are unable to vote in person but I sometimes wonder about ex-pats who live permanently abroad. I have met those who have lived abroad since the 50s and imagine the UK has not changed. How can they vote with any validity on current issues.
As far as political/electoral goes . It would be difficult to change one without the other.
Cameron talks about the big society but as long as he has major control over local finances he still pulls the strings . What it amounts to is those friends of mine who have lost their public sector jobs should now form a charity and work for nothing. Most public service jobs
do not generate wealth so the private sector is not going to take them on .
So what political reform then do you have in mind when you say //then Whitehall must relinquish some power 'back to the people' // ?
As far as political/electoral goes . It would be difficult to change one without the other.
Cameron talks about the big society but as long as he has major control over local finances he still pulls the strings . What it amounts to is those friends of mine who have lost their public sector jobs should now form a charity and work for nothing. Most public service jobs
do not generate wealth so the private sector is not going to take them on .
So what political reform then do you have in mind when you say //then Whitehall must relinquish some power 'back to the people' // ?
Modeller, There is no space for an essay here, but the U.K. is overgoverned, what with Parish,Town,District and County councils Parliament and the European Commission with M.P.s and M.E.P's most of these layers being ineffective. The local councils have to raise huge sums (by European standards) in the form of rates, most of which they can't spend and have to pass on to Central Government to use at it pleases. A new M.P., the son of a close friend, tells me that he is finding, that in reality, that there is little room for achievement for a back-bencher. So most M.P.'s seem to be not meshing in with local government and ineffective in Parliament. All this needs to be addressed wouldn't you say?
Yes I do agree but your term ' political reform ' is meaningless unless you can come up with some positive suggestions. Your friend's son sounds frustrated . I'm not surprised.
The Labour party under Wilson and Callaghan gave councils a free hand to spend whatever they liked and for every pound they spent it was backed by a government grant. The result was chaos we had rampant inflation of 26%. You have to have some government control over council spending which brings us back to where we are today.
Personally I would make local government responsible for most things and they would be accountable to their electorate for all the money they raise and spend. General taxation could then be reduced .
There will always be a role for central government but much more could be devolved to local government. We the electorate would then be able to vote for the local government which served our local needs and get away from the old Party driven politics.
I fear no central government would want to give up so much power.
The Labour party under Wilson and Callaghan gave councils a free hand to spend whatever they liked and for every pound they spent it was backed by a government grant. The result was chaos we had rampant inflation of 26%. You have to have some government control over council spending which brings us back to where we are today.
Personally I would make local government responsible for most things and they would be accountable to their electorate for all the money they raise and spend. General taxation could then be reduced .
There will always be a role for central government but much more could be devolved to local government. We the electorate would then be able to vote for the local government which served our local needs and get away from the old Party driven politics.
I fear no central government would want to give up so much power.
An illustration of social issues dealt with centrally or locally; a young Polish woman comes to the U.K. as an au pair, gets 'knocked-up', has a baby, goes to social services and gets a flat and enough benefits to live on, - I don't make this up, in fact it has happened to 2 au pairs in one family. In Switzerland, an unmarried mother needing support is dealt with entirely by the local commune. She is visited, probably at her parents home, the father is ORDERED to be there, his and her parents incomes are discussed and responsibility is apportioned. Any shortfall is made up by the commune and she is told in no uncertain terms that any public money she receives is being paid for by her neighbors, so a certain amount of stigma is attached. I'm not sure I would want to go quite so far, but some element of reality is required in the U.K. - a county with the highest amount of unmarried "mums", and absent fathers.