Comments on: How should politics be reformed?: Part 1

By: I decided! And I decided to vote « doctorvee

I decided! And I decided to vote « doctorvee — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:00:17 +0000

[...] The decision to voteA series of postsA pathetic situationFive disturbing things about democracyHow should politics be reformed?: Part 1How the new politics might look: part 2European election leaflets: The main partiesEuropean [...]

By: European Parliamentary Election literature: small parties « doctorvee

European Parliamentary Election literature: small parties « doctorvee — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:19:20 +0000

[...] although I am not totally against political parties as I outlined in the previous posts about how to reform politics in the [...]

By: doctorvee

doctorvee — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:57:02 +0000

Buzzard Cock, The point of not displaying someone’s first comments is to prevent spam.

The point of this post was to go through the suggestions made by Guardian columnists in a recent newspaper supplement.

I haven’t backed any MPs’ suggestions. Assuming you are talking about Jackie Ashley, she is not an MP, she is a Guardian columnist.

Better luck next time.

By: Buzzard Cock

Buzzard Cock — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:58:01 +0000

That’s a nasty little self-satisfying system you have there “If you are posting your first comment, I will have to approve it before it is displayed.”
So if you do not approve it, my comment will not be displayed and none of my sunsequent comments will be displayed either?
Prove me wrong and publish this unedited, on your stagnant blog.

Quote
The speaker
I have no firm views on how the role should be reformed, but none of Jackie Ashley’s suggestions sound undesirable.
Unquote

What the heck is the point of making a comment with no comment and then backing an MPs suggestions without quoting them and justifying the argument? Flacid stuff.

By: Richard Shields

Richard Shields — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:14:12 +0000

I agree with you about written constitutions. I would add that they limit democracy in that they often are very difficult to change and therefore rules which are deemed appropriate at one point in time remain in place even when society no longer agrees with them. ie if the US decided to revoke the right to bare arms, the constitution would prevent them from doing so. To me there should be a constant evolution of governance and so a written constitution should not be enacted. Unless is was easily amended or very loose in its interpretation, but that would render it pointless. No doubt thats what will happen and it will be presented as a great leap.

I also agree with limiting the size of the commons, would you allow a PM to bring in ministers from outwith the two chambers? im not sure, but i think with US still committee’s it could be made to work and be accountable.

On the Lords, now i consider myself a strong democrat, however, i like appointed Lords as i think it brings to the table experts who simply wont be there if it becomes fully elected. Perhaps, either half or three quarters elected is the answer? The Lords must retain its ability to hold the govt to account without being able to trump the govt at all times.