Boris's Brain is missing

[Carlton green]

I’m no fan of “fancy” voting systems, because I think the solid and clear, one-to-one link between constituency and MP is a good thing, but I would be jubilant to see a cross-party pact to oust the present party of government.

A pre-election pact to avoid splitting the not-Tory vote in England would fit the bill as far as I’m concerned. I shall certainly vote tactically, even if that means voting for other than the party that I naturally would vote for.

And yes, I share many of the fears expressed above.

It’s simple enough to give an MP a constituency, the two big parties have been flying in candidates for years and folk mostly vote for party before candidate. For many people their MP is not the person that they voted for but the expectation is that their MP will represent them. In practise the perceived link between individual elector and their MP is not really an issue - more of a red herring really - that couldn’t be easily enough managed, and PR would be a move forward from the significantly less perfect first past the post system. A move forward doesn’t always give perfection but it does give improvement and improvement is what we so badly need.

[Stradageek]

I’m no fan of “fancy” voting systems, because I think the solid and clear, one-to-one link between constituency and MP is a good thing,

This link is maintained by the preferred 'single transferable vote' PR system and I for one am prepared to sacrifice a little simplicity for democracy

As an addendum I have encountered the very worst that a local MP can offer by being rebuffed in a complaint by the simple statement 'can't help you, that's not government policy'. Under STV you have more than one MP per constituency.

[Carlton green]

I’ve written to my constituency’s MP twice, the seat has changed hands between the two major parties so an MP from each party answered a letter. On each occasion the answer that I received was useless and the MP’s concerned had no interest in anything other than their own views and their party’s line - so not representing me at all. Are MP’s accountable to their electorate? Of course YMMV but in my experience the answer is that in practise individual MP’s are barely if at all accountable to their constituents, there is only a token link between the two.

[Jdsk]

As an addendum I have encountered the very worst that a local MP can offer by being rebuffed in a complaint by the simple statement 'can't help you, that's not government policy'. Under STV you have more than one MP per constituency.

I’ve written to my constituency’s MP twice, the seat has changed hands between the two major parties so an MP from each party answered a letter. On each occasion the answer that I received was useless and the MP’s concerned had no interest in anything other than their own views and their party’s line - so not representing me at all. Are MP’s accountable to their electorate? Of course YMMV but in my experience the answer is that in practise individual MP’s are barely if at all accountable to their constituents, there is only a token link between the two.

The defects in the system are clear: no specification of performance, no accountability, no review of performance, no transparency, multiple possible conflicts of interest, amateur approaches to staffing and training...

Are there any decent reviews of this anywhere?

I'd much rather have a statutory Ombudsman system.

And that would remove this perceived obstruction to a better system of Parliamentary representation.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

Research under the voting habits of turkeys

[Jdsk]

Research under the voting habits of turkeys

My post wasn't about voting. It was about the work of MPs in handling constituents' complaints and concerns, as in the quoted examples. That wouldn't be hard to study. Has it been?

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

I was trying to say that that there is no motivation for change among those with the power to do so peacefully. The current arrangements suit those they empower.

The opportunities for a modern state to make fundamental changes tend to be rare. IMO a good example is the United States, whose constitution predated - I believe - the rise of political parties there, and has often been slow to make changes.

France has been mentioned in relation to directly elected presidents and an important point about the Fifth Republic was it was just that. The umpteenth attempt to get some form of stability by arranging the new constitution to ensure the election of a populist leader.

Otherwise, changes tend to occur following a military defeat eg Germany or some form of insurrection.

I doubt we will see any of that here.

[Jdsk]

"The civil service needs to act in response to Sue Gray’s Partygate report":
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/sue-gray-report-p ... l-service/

Excellent analysis and recommendations.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

It seems to miss the point that the real significance of partygate is that the prime minister and closest allies seemed to be behaving as though the harsh laws they were enacting and most people were I believe trying to follow, did not apply to them: Do as I say, not as I do. I don't know how many bastions of the civil service have survived contracting-out etc., but I fancy they are few. However, if it was discovered that some forgotten outpost of Jim Hacker's Department of Administrative Affairs (?) had survived and its myriad secretaries with Sir Humphrey Appleby at the pinnacle had been carousing away the lockdown, it would be a serious disciplinary matter but not a Partygate.

I come back to this: the source of power in our society is in the hands of the prime minister and there is no effective check on that.

[Jdsk]

It seems to miss the point that the real significance of partygate is that the prime minister and closest allies seemed to be behaving as though the harsh laws they were enacting and most people were I believe trying to follow, did not apply to them: Do as I say, not as I do.

It doesn't "miss the point". It starts with discussion of the Prime Minister's performance. Six of the first seven paragraphs are about that.

It then goes on to discuss something that hasn't received enough attention: the behaviour of the senior civil servants.

Sometimes there's more than one point.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

... the source of power in our society is in the hands of the prime minister and there is no effective check on that.

Yes. Far too much, and with nowhere near enough checks and balances.

And now being exploited by an unscrupulous post-holder. But the fundamental flaws were there waiting to be exploited.

Jonathan

[simonineaston]

The real point of the whole sad affair is to underscore that we are all powerless. Those in high office (ie no.10) can do as they please, apparently without sanction. While it's easy to get bogged down in the detail of it all (to the exclusion, it seems, of the rest of parliamentary business!), the ramifications of the events know collectively as Partygate may well echo down the corridors of power for decades to come.
They are: One, inspite of Johnson's pointless protestations, the precident has now been set that you can mislead parliament, get caught out and not have to resign. Two, the message for one and all is clear, to wit you don't have to worry about standards anymore - just do as you please. No one can touch you - just lie. Three, the rule of law is for the birds. Four, Partygate is acting as a smokescreen while the two sec.s, home & foreign, get on behind the smoke, with some serious stuff that borders on fascist tendancies...

[Jdsk]

They are: One, inspite of Johnson's pointless protestations, the precident has now been set that you can mislead parliament, get caught out and not have to resign. Two, the message for one and all is clear, to wit you don't have to worry about standards anymore - just do as you please. No one can touch you - just lie. Three, the rule of law is for the birds. Four, Partygate is acting as a smokescreen while the two sec.s, home & foreign, get on behind the smoke, with some serious stuff that borders on fascist tendancies...

One isn't over yet.

Otherwise same concerns.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

... the source of power in our society is in the hands of the prime minister and there is no effective check on that.

Yes. Far too much, and with nowhere near enough checks and balances.

And now being exploited by an unscrupulous post-holder. But the fundamental flaws were there waiting to be exploited.

Jonathan

I agree with that but I'm trying to say that now's not the best time to be decimating the foot soldiers or indeed those a bit higher up. The difference between Downing Street and the rest of government imo is the effect of leadership, including a lack of it. Those working inside Downing Street must surely have taken their lead, to the extent of modelling their conduct on what they saw first hand.

The historic problem with the Civil Service has been that it is the constitutional agent for government - implementing policy within the law, but organisations, or at least those working within them have their own interests, as caricatured in Yes, Minister.

I don't claim to have an answer, but at the moment, there's benefit in concentrating on the big issues, like the conduct of Boris Johnson

[Jdsk]

The real point of the whole sad affair is to underscore that we are all powerless.

There's lots that we can do.

Here's one immediate opportunity: support the application for judicial review of the actions of the Metropolitan Police:
https://goodlawproject.org/news/the-law ... ly-to-all/

This is the same people who forced the initial investigation after the refusal.

Link for donations is on that page.

Jonathan