Joe & Karerine's Bargain Holidays
Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Parliament -does it work?
following on from "Does prison work?" - does Parliament work - NO - its a load of waffle - does VIRGIN, McALPINE and TESCOs have a board and an anti-board (oppostion) - of course they don't so why should we have a parliamentary system that does just that? MPs should represent their electorate and their personal feelings not a political party view. I feel that MPs - once they have served one parliamentary term - should be voted by their colleagues - to serve in a Cabinet - if they do a good job in the Cabinet - then MPs should elect someone from the Cabinet to be the PM.
To Dr Barnado (the userper) - the above is a statement that questions the structure of Parliament and yes - not a comma to be seen !!!
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Stretts. 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.
You are effectively describing PR, ie paralysis. Ask the Italians 58 governments in 56 years. For a more recent case see Germany.
You see for all it's failings the system we use has taken hundreds of years to evolve and is about as good as it gets.
It is well know that democracy is the worst way to run a business, anything run by a committee is hopeless, it's just as far as running a state goes we are not generally in favour of despots. They work fine in the private sector, can you imagine any major company lasting 5 minutes being run by democracy? Forget it.
I think as Loosehead says in the long run a Democratic pariament does work. Not too left wing, not too right. Gets things wrong sometimes in the short term but can be easily corrected.
There will probably never be a perfect system which suits everybody all the time.
Sometimes I feel this country is going to pot but soon get over it when I consider the alternatives. For such a small country we do bloody well and probably overstretch ourselves sometimes.
Basically I'm proud to be British and English.
The system described and proposed by Stretts in the question has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Proportional Representation, as was so illogically suggested by Loosehead.
I can't be bothered to reply to Stretts's non-question. But in reply to Loosehead:
The area, population and economy of Italy are approximately the same size as those of the UK. After the Second World War, the Italian economy was only a third of the size of the UK's. PR provided an environment of stability and continuity which enabled long-term investment and development so that Italy's economy was able to grow faster than the UK and nearly catch up. PR in Italy (1948 to 1994) provided stability of government (not to be confused with stability of individual governments) and kept the extremist parties (communists and neo-fascists) out of power for the entire period. Now that Italy has moved away from PR, the ex-communists or post-fascists such as Gianfranco Fini have been included in every Italian government since 1994.
The current situations in Germany and New Zealand provide an excellent example of the benefits of PR in preventing too much power being in too few hands. When the two main parties get only about 35% of the votes, then the clear message from the voters is that neither of them should be trusted to govern alone, and they need to negotiate with others in order to build a stable majority in order to make a basis for long-term policies.
The alternative results under First-Past-The-Post would have produced blundering, insensitive governments with fake majorities and without the confidence of the people.
I feel it was rather rude of people to post here. Stretts did not actually ask for anyone else's opinion on the matter, and here you rude people are, trying to start a debate! Tsk! Honestly! ABers today - just don't recognise a rant-not-to-be-questioned when they see one!
:-p :-) <------- yes, I'm being tongue in cheek with my words. However, the point I make is clear I hope! :-)
So you agree then bernardo, paralysis! no one caqn get anything done because they can never get enough people to agree. Stability? (is 58 governements in as many years stable,mmm?) Possibly but only due to the fact that it is impossible to change anything. I know what stretts described isn't classic PR but the outcome would be the same. The Germans are crying out for change for someone to rid them of the socialist millstone getting heavier round their collective necks, our own system for all it's faults would have delivered, instead they are unable to move.
January - I take your point and I did address the original question in my answer and perhaps unwitttingly in the process woke Bernardo, who I know is an ardent PR supporter.
Tescos exists to make money. If they're not making money they sack people. How would that work in running a country? Well, economic growth is down so we're shipping 1.5 million people off to Australia?
The German people aren't crying out to get rid of any millstones. For pretty well everyone who voted to do so, there was someone who voted not to. The government is divided, but so are the voters; so that seems like a democratic outcome to me.
Alternatively, the Westminster way certainly lets the government 'get things done' - like invading Iraq, for instance, which was Tony Blair's idea. The German and New Zealand governments, forced to be more responsive to public opinion, didn't go along.
They're different systems. I'm not convinced one is manifestly better than the other.
Tescos exists to make money. If they don't make money, they fire people. How would that work in running a country? Well economic growth is down so we're shipping a million citizens off to the Falklands?
The German people aren't crying out for millstones to be lifted. For everyone who voted to do so, there was someone who voted not to. The public is divided on the issues, and so the government is too. That seems like a democratic outcome to me.
Alternatively, the Westminster way certainly 'gets things done' - like invading Iraq, which was Tony Blair's idea. The German and New Zealand governments, forced to be more responsive to public opinion, didn't go along.
These are different systems, which produce different results. I'm not convinced that either one is obviously superior to the other.
Loosehead wrote:
So you agree then bernardo, paralysis!
No! I do not agree! I never said that I agree. I am completely at a loss to understand why you are ridiculously claiming that I agree with your views, when I never wrote any such thing. I was arguing, in my usual brilliant and concise way, for the benefits of PR. I can only assume that you did not read my answer properly. When the largest single party gets 35% of the votes, then it does not deserve to govern alone, and should build an agreement with others in order to have the confidence of the people.
no one can get anything done because they can never get enough people to agree
Yes they can - as is demonstrated by the prosperous societies which have been built in many European countries under PR over the last 50 years.
Stability? (is 58 governements in as many years stable,mmm?)
Yes it is - as I said, stability of government and stability of policy is more important than stability of individual governments. The 58 changes of government in Italy are more like what we would refer to as cabinet reshuffles.
I know what stretts described isn't classic PR but the outcome would be the same.
No it wouldn't. The system described by Stretts was a system with no parties and no parliamentary opposition, and is nothing like PR. PR systems rely on a variety of parties, and strong opposition.
The Germans are crying out for change for someone to rid them of the socialist millstone getting heavier round their collective necks
No they aren't. If they really were "crying out for change for someone to rid them of the socialist millstone", then they would have voted for a CDU/CSU/FDP landslide - which they didn't.
our own system for all its faults would have delivered, instead they are unable to move.
As I already said, our own system (FPTP) would have delivered a fake majority for a minority party, with the ability to blunder through four years of government without proper popular legitimacy.
No they aren't. If they really were "crying out for change for someone to rid them of the socialist millstone", then they would have voted for a CDU/CSU/FDP landslide - which they didn't.
our own system for all its faults would have delivered, instead they are unable to move.
As I already said, our own system (FPTP) would have delivered a fake majority for a minority party, with the ability to blunder through four years of government without proper popular legitimacy.
Well Bernardo I can see you are hopelessly wed to PR, there's little I can do to sway you we'll just have to disagree on this one. Just a thought, in the unlikely event that the Libdems get into governemet via the FPTP system, do you think they'll do what they're always bleating about and change the system to PR? No I don't either.
Why is it "hopeless" to have a well informed view about politics, which Bernardo has the strength of character to stick to?
I disagree with him, if he is supporting pure PR, but I feel that a partially PR system would be better than FPTP. Either way, I can see that Bernardo has an intelligent opinion, and I don't see that that is hopeless at all.
1 to 16 of 16
