Tag Archives: English parliamentary system

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME I HAVE GOT THIS WRONG.

24 Wednesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Democracy, Elections/ Voting, England., Heredity Monarchy., Modern Day Democracy., Political voting systems., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., The common good., The Obvious., The Queen., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

(Three-minute read)

They say that mad dogs and English men come out in the noonday sun. Boris Johnson Shuts Down Donald Trump After Trump Talks ...

With 99 days until October 31, we have just witnessed a most undemocratic act.

THE ELECTION OF A NEW PRIMINISTER BY 0.2 PERCENT OF THE VOTING ELECTORSHIP WITHOUT AN GENERAL ELECTION (who has to ask the Queen for permission to form a Government.)

Never mind Brexit Daddy Trump likes him, so could be prime minister and then US president?

He was born in New York. In theory, he could leave Downing Street and move to the US and 14 years later enter the race for the White House.

However, there are the real Questions Great Brits should be asking themselves.

Is it time for a written constitution?

Is it time to scrap first past the post?

Is it time to revoke articular 50.  Stay in the European union till you have sorted yourselves out?

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

Advertisements

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: EVEN IF ENGLAND IS NOW FORCED INTO A GENERAL ELECTION WITH FIRST PAST THE POST IT WILL BE UNDEMOCRATIC.

23 Sunday Jun 2019

Posted by in Brexit Language., Brexit Party., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

 

(Five-minute read)

 

Here we go again.

The right person to lead the country is being selected without any democratic scrutiny by the people of England.

It is no wonder that Brexit is tearing the country apart when so many are denied a voice.

Millions of voters go without a say in crucial national decisions – excluded not only from government but from holding the government to account.

In 3 of the last 4 general elections IN ENGLAND at least 50% of votes went to losing candidates.

First past the post.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of first past the post system uk"

A seat won by a 40,000 vote majority has the same outcome as a seat won by a single vote: both elect just a single MP.

Parliament in allowing an internal election of a new Conservative leader to become the Priminister is not only failing to reflect the people it is supposed to represent it is a form of Populous Dictatorship.

A minority ruling over the majority goes against our most basic ideas about democracy.

The latest developments to vindicate a New Primister for the country (who will, in fact, represent the choice of hundred thousand or so Conservervate members out of which 60% are over 50 years of age)  isn’t just bad for democracy; it’s bad for politics and society.

First Past the Post is completely undemocratic severing the link between votes and seats.

Bipolar politics is designed to promote argument, not thought.

So it’s not surprising that we are now witnessing the election of a New Priminister with an out of date spluttering system that is unable to represent its citizens or to negotiate England’s withdrawal from the European Union without a mandate that represents the country as a whole.

Its no wonder England has politicians who most of you didn’t vote for and don’t agree with have the power to govern the UK however they like.

Its no wonder we see the construction/ imposition of one ideology for a period, followed by another, quite different ideology.

Its no wonder we see both main parties cling to their roots with extraordinary tenacity, even when confronted with the obvious fact: the conditions in society giving rise to these ideologies have long gone.

But First Past the Post keeps them in business and allows them to continue to indulge their emotion-based policies – with taxation paying for this indulgence.

Unchallenged by a more competitive electoral system, the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ parties remain trapped in their histories and beliefs, seeking differentiation through adopting the opposite of the other.

First Past The Post has many hidden direct and indirect costs. These are unrecorded, unstated and considerable, in taxes, wasted economic capacity, and wealth appropriation. The costs of all of these zigzags are borne by taxation.

First past the post is a non- linear system a dazzlingly stupid way to organize a modern democracy. It provides the bare minimum of democracy, is unrepresentative for the majority, and distorts the allocation of power.

Finally, First Past The Post is the best electoral medium for preferential lobbying.

This scourge of democracy is near universal.

Its elimination can only be achieved through a complete redesign of systems of government.

 

 

It may be simple to write an “X” next to a chosen candidate, but it’s incredibly difficult to know what that vote will mean. Millions of voters are forced to try to vote tactically by anticipating the decisions of other voters.

PR makes sure the share of seats each party gets matches the share of votes they receive. If a party gets 20% of the vote, it wins 20% of the seats. Parliament would accurately represent the people’s range of views and perspectives.

The opposition to PR Says:

We need the strong government that only first past the post can give’ and, by inference, not the namby-pamby government from coalitions and other inadequacies.

Sounds good, does it not?

Flutters the spine?

Makes one stand up straight.

I would say that the voting population of England is intelligent, much more has to change in all of these systems, including the EU.

Systems of government with PR suffer from many of the same failures and poor performance as the UK’s First Past The Post but,

does not allow the lending of votes to one candidate in order to knock out another to become Primisister  

The unseen consequences are about to be seen.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IS IT TIME TO DISMANTLE THE ARCHAIC MONARCHY IN ENGLAND.

14 Tuesday May 2019

Posted by in Democracy, Elections/ Voting, England., First past the post., Heredity Monarchy., Modern Day Democracy., Populism., Post - truth politics., The Obvious., The Queen., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

( A two-minute thought)

In a previous post, I posted this question.

Who are the European Union negotiating with when it comes to Brexit.

Is it England, Britain, the United Kingdom, or is it the Queen?Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the royal family today"

The serious question is this;

How will English Democracy and its institutions be dragged into the 21st century after Brexit while bowing to a feudal system?

The Queen cannot be blamed but she presides over the institutions that symbolise and legitimises the inequalities that have lead to Brexit

The First Past the post-politics, representation infiltrated by Social Media cannot cope with globalisation, migration, or technological changes.

Only when the monarchy is replaced and ordinary people become true citizens not surfs will constitutional reform be possible.

By all means, protect the historical pomp that acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride and tourism; gives a sense of stability and continuity but remove the hereditary privileges with a written constitution.

Only then can England become a sovereign country.

The Crown Estate holds many more assets than those listed above. Here is a snapshot of the sheer scale and volume of its assets, ranging from retail parks to forests to Scottish oyster farms.

Here is a snapshot of the sheer scale and volume of her assets.

The Crown Estate announced in June last year that it returned a

record £328.8 million ($464 million) to the Treasury in 2016 as

the value of the overall estate rose to an astonishing £13.1

billion ($18.5 billion).

Forests:

The Crown Estate holds around 11,000 hectares of forestry in

areas including Berkshire, Somerset, and Cairngorms in

Scotland.

Wind farms:

The Crown Estate owns a £1.1 billion ($1.5 billion) offshore

energy empire which includes 30 wind farms.

The Savoy, London:

The Queen privately owns an 18,433-hectare estate called the

Duchy of Lancaster.

Historic Castles:

The Duchy of Lancaster also holds around a dozen historic

properties, including Lancaster Castle in Lancashire and

Pickering Castle in Yorkshire.

Sandringham House, Norfolk:

The 8,000-hectare estate in Norfolk, England, is privately owned by the Queen.

Balmoral Castle, Aberdeenshire: 20,000-hectare.

Ascot Racecourse in the south of England is part of the Crown

Estate.

Regent Street & St James’s Market, London: The Crown Estate

owns the entirety of Regent Street in London.

The Crown Estate owns around 106,000 hectares (263,000

acres) of farmland across the UK.

The Crown owns the rights to salmon fishing and gold mining in

Scotland.

Windsor Castle & Great Park, Berkshire: 6,400-hectare.

She does not own her official residence, Buckingham Palace.

She merely occupies the 775-room home, which is held in trust

for future generations by the Crown Estates.

So, to sum it all up, the Queen owns 2 homes (Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle), while the rest of her residences are owned by the Crown Estates.

All royals are millionaires.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S WHY IS ENGLAND IN SUCH A MESS.

24 Wednesday Apr 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., England., English parliamentary proceedings., European Union., Heredity Monarchy., The Queen.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

(Six-minute read)

Here is a country with growing numbers of food banks, people sleeping on its streets, trying to negotiating its way out of a market with over 500 million people while renewing its worthless Trident missiles at a cost of anything between 30 and 200 billion.

A country that voted by a small majority to take what it calls sovereignty back from Brussels while giving the green light to letting China Huawei 5G network get involved in domestic infrastructure.

It also beggars belief that on the very same day Donald Trump is threatening to veto a United Nations resolution against the use of rape as a weapon of war, Theresa May is pressing ahead with her plans to honour him with a state visit to the UK.

Mr Donal Dump to visits ( His first visit costs £18 million) this visit will cost the Conservative party a political price with social liberals, ethnic minorities, the young and Remain, voters.

It’s difficult, to put it mildly, to see what the overall benefit of a state visit by Trump is from a British perspective never mind Chinese surveillance.

Readers will have noticed that there is never, these days, the money to properly fund schools and hospitals, and provide the elderly with the care and dignity they deserve.

But, always, billions are available to the military.

HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The two ships have cost more than £14bn to build and equip, double the original budget.

Both might well be floating piece of sovereign territory, but  “gunboat diplomacy” on steroids is not what the world wants.

Then we had the debate in the House of Commons marking the 50th anniversary of the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, Trident. The date for replacing Britain’s nuclear fleet keeps being put back … a missile firing from HMS Vigilant.

 

To use the fabrication of a threat from North Korea as a justification for the renewal of Trident is beyond defence.

It’s no wonder that a General Election is needed not just to give the people a voice on whether to remain in the EU or not but to drag an out of a dated system of governance into the twenty-first century.

Members should be elected to represent their constituencies, their country and not a queen or king who ascends by heredity birthrights. 

According to “The Parliamentary Oath” even if the entire country were to vote in a general election for a party whose manifesto pledge was to remove the monarchy, it would be impossible by reason of the present oath, and current acts of parliament, for such elected MPs to take their seats in the House of Commons.

The oath of allegiance has its origins in Magna Carta, signed on 15 June 1215.

If an MP refuses to take the oath or the affirmation to the Queen they will be unable to take part in parliamentary proceedings and will not be paid any salary and allowances until they’ve done so.

By swearing allegiance to the unelected monarch, her heirs and successors. It is an insult to democratic values, to all voters who participate in any General or other election. 

It has to change.

It’s one of the great ironies of a political system that is in dire need of a written constitution. 

In parliamentary terms, a pledge of loyalty to the state is invalid without a pledge of loyalty to the monarch.

The Queen is responsible for appointing the Prime Minister after a general election or a resignation, in a General Election.

The Queen has the power to prorogue (suspend) and to summon (call back) Parliament – prorogation typically happens at the end of a parliamentary session, and the summoning occurs shortly after when The Queen attends the State Opening of Parliament.

It is The Queen’s right and responsibility to grant assent to bills from Parliament, signing them into law.

The Queen is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and all members swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen when they join; they are Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.

I believe in an elected head of state.

There is no point in pledging loyalty to God or the Queen when elected by the people.

As long as being an MP means pledging loyalty to an unelected

head of state, the English parliamentary system will remain

undemocratic.

Requiring politicians to pledge loyalty to the monarch confers greater power to a symbolic ritual than to the democratic right of MPs to act in the name of the electorate.

As long as parliamentary participation is contingent on pledging allegiance to an unelected royal, the English parliamentary system will remain staunchly undemocratic.

So let me ask this.

When verifying the credentials of the newly elected Members of the
European Parliament, MEPs take no oath when they are elected, but Judges and Commissioners do.

With the Brexit negotiations now extended into the European elections, it throws up potentially uncomfortable scenarios for the New English Commissioner taking the oath of allegiance to the Commission which would require him – like all Commissioners – “to neither seek or take” influence from governments, not hereditary monarchs.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.