Napalm rants about British politics
Posted 09-10-2009 at 08:39 AM by Napalmbrain
(I'm not much of a "my everyday life" blogger, so this blog will probably end up being a collection of my various rants on whatever I feel like ranting about.)
If I had to say one thing I admire about the US, it would be the political system. It's not perfect by any means- the country is dominated by only two parties, and the electoral college system means that the only presidential votes that matter are in the swing states- but it is a good model of how to set up and maintain a democracy. The constitution limits the power of the government to make unreasonable laws, and it keeps each branch of government (legislature, executive, and judiciary) in check through a separation of powers.
Here in the UK, the government is held in check by what is basically a mish-mash of various laws and "tradition". Personally I feel that in the 21st century, the British political system is completely ridiculous and in dire need of change.
One problem with the current system is the emphasis on the power of parliament and the Crown rather than the people. There needs to be a clear, written constitution which sets out the rights of the people (e.g. freedom of religion, right to fair trial, right to marriage/civil union, etc.), and what the government should and should not be able to do.
The second issue that needs addressing is the bizarre and unfair system of devolution. The Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Ireland parliaments were set up about a decade ago to decide on regional issues, but they are undermined by the fact that the UK parliament is not obliged to respect their decisions and can dissolve them at any time. On the other hand, England doesn't even have a parliament, leading to the problem of the West Lothian question. Instead of devolution, what the UK needs is a federal system where each of home nations has a parliament with guaranteed powers, similar to the states of the US.
We are also in need of a complete overhaul of the methods for deciding members of parliament. At present, members of the lower house (the House of Commons) are elected by their constituency via the first-past-the-post system. It's an unfair system that does not reflect the electoral vote. For example, in the 2005 general election, 22.1% of people voted for the Liberal Democrats, but they only gained 9.6% of the seats in the House of Commons. On the other hand, Labour got 35.3% of the popular vote, but acquired 55.2% of the seats in the Commons. Clearly, we are not getting what we voted for. I believe we should adopt a proportional representation system, so the popular vote is more accurately reflected in the make-up of parliament, and so that opposition votes in areas dominated by a single party (e.g. the South Wales Valleys) will actually matter.
Also, national elections should take place at fixed dates rather than at the prime minister's whim, and the prime minister should be directly elected rather than simply being the leader of the winning party.
Meanwhile, the upper house (the House of Lords) is not elected at all (members simply inherit or are appointed to their position). It is unacceptable in a modern democracy should be decided by unelected individuals. Some politicians have suggested that a certain proportion of the House of Lords should be elected, but it can only be truly democratic when completely elected. And of course, the name would need changing.
If I had to say one thing I admire about the US, it would be the political system. It's not perfect by any means- the country is dominated by only two parties, and the electoral college system means that the only presidential votes that matter are in the swing states- but it is a good model of how to set up and maintain a democracy. The constitution limits the power of the government to make unreasonable laws, and it keeps each branch of government (legislature, executive, and judiciary) in check through a separation of powers.
Here in the UK, the government is held in check by what is basically a mish-mash of various laws and "tradition". Personally I feel that in the 21st century, the British political system is completely ridiculous and in dire need of change.
One problem with the current system is the emphasis on the power of parliament and the Crown rather than the people. There needs to be a clear, written constitution which sets out the rights of the people (e.g. freedom of religion, right to fair trial, right to marriage/civil union, etc.), and what the government should and should not be able to do.
The second issue that needs addressing is the bizarre and unfair system of devolution. The Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Ireland parliaments were set up about a decade ago to decide on regional issues, but they are undermined by the fact that the UK parliament is not obliged to respect their decisions and can dissolve them at any time. On the other hand, England doesn't even have a parliament, leading to the problem of the West Lothian question. Instead of devolution, what the UK needs is a federal system where each of home nations has a parliament with guaranteed powers, similar to the states of the US.
We are also in need of a complete overhaul of the methods for deciding members of parliament. At present, members of the lower house (the House of Commons) are elected by their constituency via the first-past-the-post system. It's an unfair system that does not reflect the electoral vote. For example, in the 2005 general election, 22.1% of people voted for the Liberal Democrats, but they only gained 9.6% of the seats in the House of Commons. On the other hand, Labour got 35.3% of the popular vote, but acquired 55.2% of the seats in the Commons. Clearly, we are not getting what we voted for. I believe we should adopt a proportional representation system, so the popular vote is more accurately reflected in the make-up of parliament, and so that opposition votes in areas dominated by a single party (e.g. the South Wales Valleys) will actually matter.
Also, national elections should take place at fixed dates rather than at the prime minister's whim, and the prime minister should be directly elected rather than simply being the leader of the winning party.
Meanwhile, the upper house (the House of Lords) is not elected at all (members simply inherit or are appointed to their position). It is unacceptable in a modern democracy should be decided by unelected individuals. Some politicians have suggested that a certain proportion of the House of Lords should be elected, but it can only be truly democratic when completely elected. And of course, the name would need changing.
Total Comments 5
Comments
-
Although I'm an American, I do feel that that is unfair.Quote:Meanwhile, the upper house (the House of Lords) is not elected at all (members simply inherit or are appointed to their position). It is unacceptable in a modern democracy should be decided by unelected individuals.Posted 09-12-2009 at 03:41 PM by RockerJ
-
being able to inherit an upper house position?? that's so unfair to the core! we are living in a democratic world now, at least that is what I know but after reading this I feel sorry for those who deserve the position.
________________________
check out [URL="http://wiichronicles.com"][U]Discount Wii Chronicles[/U][/URL] and [URL="http://cheapxboxgames.org"]New Xbox Games
[/URL]Posted 09-13-2009 at 09:39 PM by kim_jenkin
-
Hereditary Peers were rid of under Tony Blair, I'm sure...
And surely, it's better to vote for (obviously an MP for your area), but the political party solely. See, people vote for a party because of their manifesto, their ideologies..and surely, if you have an ounce of intelligence about you, you should know about the Party Chairman before you vote. I find it only fair that the Chairman automatically assume PM position when they reach power, else, what's the need of a Chairman?
Mind, that's coming from somebody who believes that democracy is a root of a lot of our problems. So each to their own. It's interesting to read others' views.Posted 10-03-2009 at 01:14 PM by DRMARIO
-
There are still hereditary peers (92, to be exact).
Personally I think the person who leads the country should be elected rather than just having the winning party's leader take charge. It's quite possible for someone to support a party but not its current leader (I'm sure a lot of Labour voters feel this way with Brown in charge).Posted 10-05-2009 at 09:13 AM by Napalmbrain
-
I know there's still some hereditary peers, but surely they were kept because they did their job reasonably well. And they can't pass their title onto their children, any more.
Fair enough if that's what you think, but I think that if you support a party then you should support the leader that's been elected in by party officials.Posted 10-06-2009 at 12:14 PM by DRMARIO
Total Trackbacks 0
