.......... has been dropped by his local constituency party. About bloody time too. The man is a disgrace.
Oh come on, he's just a typical Tory MP. So yes, I agree with you. The word "reselected" has an interesting double meaning. In one sense if an MP is "reselected" meaning he is adopted to carry on being the candidate at the next election; but in the other sense, if your MP is "going to be reselected" he is going to be subjected to a reselection process, i.e. he will be dumped.
There was an interesting example of an open primary in California in 1948. Richard Nixon was the sitting Republican congressman and he was unopposed in the Republican primary in his district. So he entered the Democratic primary (sic) and won it, meaning he would be unopposed in the general election and need not campaign in his own district. Therefore he was able to spend his time and money campaigning for various other senate and house Republican candidates, thus placing them in his debt. This was the start of the powerbase Nixon built up, leading eventually to the White House. Presumably this is the sort of political system you are in favour of ...
He didn't go on to be known as Tricky Dickie for nothing, I see a simple solution however. Whilst the concept of Open Primaries lends themselves to false flag operations the reality, I am led to believe, is that they rarely occur. Republican voters tend to vote for the 'best' Democratic candidate and visa versa and more voters have a say in the winning candidate. Doesn't that increase democracy ?
It means there would be no "safe seats" because every seat would have either a hard-fought primary or a hard-fought general election campaign, or in some cases both. So the whole process would be much more long drawn-out, much more contentious, and very much more expensive than the traditional British system. Are we really prepared to spend as much time and money on our elections as the Americans do? And if we did, in what sense would that be "more democratic"? Actually the percentage of the population overall which votes in the US is well below that in the UK - so much for democracy.
Good, there are too many safe seats with sitting MP's, only the best would be reselected. Cap election spending for fewer MP's. It would be "more democratic" in the sense that a greater proportion of the electorate would have had a vote for the winning candidate (when you include the primaries) and make the MP more accountable to the electorate rather than the party machine. Would Jack Dromey (Mr Harriet Harman for those that don't know) have ever been parachuted into a safe seat, that had been earmarked for an all women candidate list, with a system of primaries ? It fits in with my belief in smaller more accountable government.
"Smaller more accountable government"? The topic under discussion - we were talking about the electoral system for MPs - has no connection whatever with the size of the government, or its accountability. Perhaps you would care to explain what you mean.
Surely the electoral system is directly linked to the accountability of the government ? When otherwise do we get the opportunity to change our MP ? Someone who is supposed to represent the interests of their constituents rather than toe the party line. If you are trying to make a distinction between government and MP's then I do take that point but there is a broad overlap between the two.
When you say "smaller government", what do you mean? Reducing the number of cabinet ministers from 24 to 20 or whatever? Reducing the number of junior ministers from 60 to 50? Or perhaps you mean reducing the numbers of soldiers, nurses, civil servants, policemen, etc etc who work in the public sector? Or could you mean cutting transfer payments by the government to pensioners, children, the sick and the unemployed? Or maybe you mean transferring public assets into the hands of private, profit-driven corporations? There are so many things you might mean ...
If I designed a new system of government this afternoon I wouldn't have time for anything else. Do you think we need more government, less government or do you think we have it about right ?
No, of course the government is not MPs. The 650 MPs comprise the House of Commons and the Commons together with the (less powerful) House of Lords comprises parliament which is the ultimate authority. Parliament always includes members who both support and oppose the government of the day. Parliament passes legislation permitting individuals to be appointed to various offices (such as Secretary of State, or Minister) and giving powers to those offices. It is this collection of office-holders (many but not all of whom are in parliament) which comprises the "government" in the narrow sense. The government employs people to carry out its functions, primarily civil servants but also soldiers, nurses and a range of other professions. The government also owns land, buildings, machinery, ships, aircraft, and loads of other stuff. Parliament authorises the government to collect taxes and charges, expend monies, and borrow and repay loans, among other things. Sometimes people use "government" loosely in broad sense to embrace all these people, properties and functions collectively. When there is a change of government, such as after a General Election, the new government takes over the powers and obligations of the old one, but with a different party (or parties) capturing the state.
The interesting thing to discuss is not the structure of government, but what government does, i.e. what functions it performs. The list of functions is long and complex. Any function could be scrapped, but there would be adverse consequences. Defence could be scrapped, but then the UK could be conquered by invaders. Healthcare could be scrapped, but sick people would be left to suffer. Education could be scrapped, but children would be left to grow up ignorant. Pensions could be scrapped, but the elderly would be left to beg or starve. A great leap backwards into the 18th century. If you really want "smaller government", the question is which functions performed now do you want to reduce or scrap? Are you prepared to take the consequences of the cuts? And can the electorate be persuaded to vote for them? Or to put it another way, will the turkeys be voting for Christmas?
Absolutely. Define the requirements before you build the structure. Where I disagree is the statement "Any function could be scrapped, but there would be adverse consequences." Why do you assume that the consequences would be adverse ? Government could take on more roles but would they all be positive ? At which point do you say "No, as an adult I am best placed to decide that" ? Obviously if we got rid of Defence, Healthcare, Education and Pensions then that would be a backward step, but I am sure that they could all do with some reform. I worked for a company in the 80's that was going through a difficult period and was struggling to survive. All of the people working for it did productive work. Jobs were cut, the structure revised and we survived. So I will turn the question back to you and say how do you make any significant inroad on the deficit without cutting spending and by implication the size of the government and what it provides?
I find myself desperately short of money and unable to pay the bills, so of necessity I am forced to make drastic cuts to my expenditure. This is unwelcome, inconvenient and painful, but needs must. You, however, delight in making cuts; you regard reducing expenditure as a desirable end in itself, whether it is necessary or not. So you make drastic cuts regardless of the pain. That, it seems, is the difference between us.
