Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Politics, Covid19 and Brexit
Defectors?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Danllan" data-source="post: 7777073" data-attributes="member: 8735"><p>Yep, I am in favour of PR, it is the only truly democratic electoral system; but I want pure PR, not like the German version where >5% of the poll is needed to secure representation.</p><p></p><p>For me the percentage 'threshold' for representation in Parliament should be, currently, 100 divided by 650, about 0.153%. Secure that percentage and you get a seat in Parliament, no matter who you are; I dislike many 'extreme' views held by e.g. religionists, neo-Nazis, Trot's etc. but, for an irony, in a democracy all have to have the same entitlement to representation.</p><p></p><p>Anyway it's my belief that, in such a genuinely representative democracy, it would be a good thing to have these people in Parliament, where they would be under constant scrutiny and couldn't hide anything. </p><p></p><p></p><p>A second chamber is a good thing providing it can't contest the primacy of the Commons - that being a very good reason for it being of appointees rather than elected members. Because, there needs to be both a facility to review legislation and to recruit necessary expertise into government rapidly at need.</p><p></p><p>I've no problem with them being called 'Lords', even keeping the titles on retirement if that sort of thing appeals to them, but I think their should be a maximum period of sitting there, say twenty years or age 75, whichever comes first. (Special writs could allow finite extensions if certain expertise was absolutely necessary to government).</p><p></p><p>I also think that it should <strong>not</strong> be open to former MPs; nor to any who were involved in organisations that donated to political parties, so business and union 'leaders' wouldn't be foisted on us. </p><p></p><p>Of course, some will argue that a few such individuals will have expertise that may be needed in government from time to time. That is true enough, and we are fortunate in now having the role of SPAD to accommodate them - so there is no need for them to receive peerages.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Danllan, post: 7777073, member: 8735"] Yep, I am in favour of PR, it is the only truly democratic electoral system; but I want pure PR, not like the German version where >5% of the poll is needed to secure representation. For me the percentage 'threshold' for representation in Parliament should be, currently, 100 divided by 650, about 0.153%. Secure that percentage and you get a seat in Parliament, no matter who you are; I dislike many 'extreme' views held by e.g. religionists, neo-Nazis, Trot's etc. but, for an irony, in a democracy all have to have the same entitlement to representation. Anyway it's my belief that, in such a genuinely representative democracy, it would be a good thing to have these people in Parliament, where they would be under constant scrutiny and couldn't hide anything. A second chamber is a good thing providing it can't contest the primacy of the Commons - that being a very good reason for it being of appointees rather than elected members. Because, there needs to be both a facility to review legislation and to recruit necessary expertise into government rapidly at need. I've no problem with them being called 'Lords', even keeping the titles on retirement if that sort of thing appeals to them, but I think their should be a maximum period of sitting there, say twenty years or age 75, whichever comes first. (Special writs could allow finite extensions if certain expertise was absolutely necessary to government). I also think that it should [B]not[/B] be open to former MPs; nor to any who were involved in organisations that donated to political parties, so business and union 'leaders' wouldn't be foisted on us. Of course, some will argue that a few such individuals will have expertise that may be needed in government from time to time. That is true enough, and we are fortunate in now having the role of SPAD to accommodate them - so there is no need for them to receive peerages. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Politics, Covid19 and Brexit
Defectors?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top