Accountability often makes people humble

We need to take money out of the system... make it a resignation issue again. In fact, bring back politicians who had the grace not to be bribed, or take money 'to help with campaigning!

@Farhaad-ll3qn

Жыл бұрын

British politics is now far more cleaner and more transparent than it has ever been. For example, the way Boris Johnson was forced out of office was inconceivable before the age of social media. British politics has become dysfunctional for the exact reason that Jonathan Sumption described at the beginning of his speech.

@dianasitek3595

Жыл бұрын

@@Farhaad-ll3qn Cleaner? Really?

@Farhaad-ll3qn

Жыл бұрын

@@dianasitek3595 yes, really. I'm not saying we should be complacent with regards to corruption. I am saying the fact that British politics has become dysfunctional has other reasons.

@tzazosghost8256

Жыл бұрын

​@@Farhaad-ll3qn true, how well would Lloyd George have fared now?

As a Scot living in Wales, I object to Church of England bishops having a say in Scottish, Welsh, or UK wide matters!

@jackbirdie

Жыл бұрын

Why?

What you need is, intelligent honest people and consequences of accountability if found incompetent or corrupt.

@johnwilson5637

Жыл бұрын

Agreed, however all we have are politicians.

@vernonalexis704

Жыл бұрын

Honestly its that simple

@dr.impossibleofcounterpunc1984

Жыл бұрын

Comments like this statement above make my blood boil. We've been told through endless decades that accountability is the core value of the political system. Democracy has always been a joke, and the political paradigm has served only high Priests on the Mount. The public gets the breadcrumbs, and nothing more. The System serves the interests of those principalities at the top, and this will never change. You don't need an ex-Supreme Court Judge to tell you that.

@Muzalam

Жыл бұрын

@@vernonalexis704 Also Integrity

@citizenkent1223

Жыл бұрын

!?!... IN THE USA, only credible charlatans and clowns qualify to be elected and to occupy public offices. God Bless America ..!?!

I love Lord Sumption

In total agreement with Lord Sumption here.

Why cannot the B.B.C. TELEVISE a programme that enables the people to understand our voting and parliamentary system.

"more and smaller parties" would be better. I so agree with Lord Sumption.

Former leading politicians are well aware of the shortcomings of our electoral system but have no inclination or time to do much about it when in office so by the time they go on the often lucrative speakers circuit ,usually after retirement ,it is too late for them to do anything to effect change.The much voiced need for radicalism continues but nothing much happens as yet another generation of young undergraduates become the Vince Cables of the current political system and take their turn on the rostrum

A Sergeant Major needs to walk into that hall and shout "square your bloody shoulders...sit up straight, and show you have a bleedin' spine"!

@geoffreynhill2833

Жыл бұрын

Jawohl, Mein Führer!

@julianshepherd2038

Жыл бұрын

Have the military take over academia?

@sprobablycancr4457

Жыл бұрын

Can Michael Palin play the Sergeant Major please?

This seems like a very interesting video! I've added it to my watch list, so I can finish watching it later.

Sir John Curtice really does like butting in, doesn't he.

I am looking for a video of a(n) (Oxford) professor sharing his or her voting choices and the reasons behind them. Academics conduct research. I thought they might offer valuable insights that could help people make more informed election decisions. I am looking for advocates of reason and seeking reason to have stronger effect on public opinion. Populism is bad, and I hate autocratic people talking about "western leaders" cynically. I hate hearing "the freedom of election in western countries is a lie" from an uneducated Chinese. I am concerned that freedom of thought is in danger and enlightenment is being forgotten. Thank you for the video. And thank you Lord Sumption for pointing out the role of the "revising chamber" and expertise in the parliament.

A quality exercise in dialogue and debate by "adults in the room". The German model has kept both individual electorates and list top up seats (like NZ).

I enjoyed your opening speech.Never heard you speek until now.

1/Government Needs Accountability for the people. 2/ The Job of the second house is to discuss policy into law and reject the ridiculous… over common sense . NOT LAMBAST OPPONENTS FROM A POLITICAL WHIP LEVEL. 3/ Democracy needs the second house for Acceptance of Accountability.. 4/ WE have no common law legal leadership in this country and it’s time we demand to all be jailed until the over entitled idiots at the top are Shaken off the TREE. Reform.

Before asking how government is appointed, one must ask what is teh appropriate scope of government?

The current Conservative party has been trying to force London to become an electoral first past the post instead of the multi vote system, it feels as if they dislike diplomacy. But perhaps it is possible that they do not want democracy in the country at all...

Why can't parliament debates be like this? Civil debates where experts invited to speak on a certain topics (e.g. HS2, Farming,...) and elected representatives can vote.

@charlesmadre5568

Жыл бұрын

English political culture has been adversarial since the Long Parliament

We do hear too much from one speaker and not enough of all speakers.

How is supporting self-government i.e. Brexit an extreme fringe view? Could it be Sumption is the one with extreme views?

@redrev674

5 ай бұрын

Indeed. Agree totally.

The current Governmental system in this country is bloated and failing. The electoral system is a minor point to correct. The introduction of new laws that affect the people and their civil rights get pushed through (at often hours that do not allow debate) with what appears to be little regard for reality or the following consequences. Like any system that is broken, it needs to be evaluated externally (by a non-political) think tank over a set period of time. If the current system does not listen to the citizens of this country then unfortunately there will be increasing social problems.

@Frohicky1

Жыл бұрын

Constitutional changes are for centuries or millenia. I'm not sure any argument should reference something as parochial, as temporary, as insignificant as The Conservatives or, heaven forbid, The Current Government.

@PCDelorian

Жыл бұрын

The electoral system has caused the governmental one.

@catmonarchist8920

Жыл бұрын

The electoral system is why a single party can have all the power in the first place

Sir John Curtis Needs To Learn How To Tuck In His Shirt at The Back Before He Goes Out In Public

I would have thought the Fixed Term Parliaments Act would be enough to disqualify a person from having a view on the constitution, but apparently it has in no way dampened Mr Cable's boundless self belief.

@TheDavidlloydjones

Жыл бұрын

Like fixed, written laundry lists of rights, periodic time-determined elections and the legislatures they bring in are foolishnesses created by people operating under the illusion, "Republics Are Best -- Get Yours Now." I would have thought that people would know by now that the most democratic and wonderful government of all time is that promulgated by Stalin in the Soviet Union in 1936. That marvellous constitutional confection is no doubt still in force wherever Stalin resides today.

@gamingwithslacker

Жыл бұрын

Terribly sorry to be so ignorant, but what is your objection to the Fixed Term Parliament Act? Is it that it further insulates politicians from the public because it prevents a General Election being held until the five-year period has elapsed ?

@johntimbrell

Жыл бұрын

Not one of the speakers or questioners address the real problem. Today's parliament brings in laws that are unconstitutional. This is not some esoteric principle. Why can parliament enact a law taking away the right to free speech which has even been extended by the police to freedom of thought? Worse than that; recent parliaments have taken away the Supreme court rule 54(?) which stated that a writ for habeas corpus must take precedence over all other business. It must be available 24/7/365 and there must always be a judge available and it is free..This is what judges confirmed in stated cases re-enforcing our constitution. The civil Procedure Rule 87 written by appointees of Parliament state that the application for a writ must be in writing. A fee must be paid. Written applications are only available to be heard in court hours which at best are 10am to 3.30 PM Monday to Friday. MPs state, behave and think that parliament is Sovereign. It is not. Betty Boothroyd as speaker ruled on that on 21st July 1993. Guess what folks. That record of her ruling has been removed. So the three clever speakers are as corrupt as all the politicians. Write to them with what I have explained. You will almost certainly be ignored.

@bettytigers

Жыл бұрын

​@@johntimbrell Could you suggest any improvements or alternatives to the C.W.C.voting system I have proposed this morning? Thanks for any response (even if you think the idea is barmy!)

@johntimbrell

Жыл бұрын

@@bettytigers Am I correct in assuming that you agree with the CWC system which is how your sentence reads.? If you do mean that you agree with, If my understaning is correct, that is the system that we have at present, which is where the one with the highest vote is elected. Like Winston Churchill said, all systems have disadvantages but ours is the best of a bad lot. The problem as perceived by the majority of the population is not the voting system but that parliament acts outside our common law and constitution. A lot of people believe the lie promulgated by most MPs that we do not have a constitution. You can put your MP in his place by asking, why there is a permanent constitutional expert who sits alongside the speaker when the house is sitting. All MPs are obeying the Elite by refusing to make a point of order to the speaker requiring him/her to declare if any act of parliament is lawful. Andrew Bridgen could silence all his persecutors by asking such a point of order on the subject of the lockdown laws. Many who were arrested for breaking those laws had their cases dropped because the Crown Prosecution did not want the 'offenders' going into court to prove that the lockdown laws were unlawful.

Your coalition and its memory is what will keep change from happening.

Basically... the EU won't let the UK rejoin if there's a way we could vote to leave again.. so remainers want to change first past the post.

They have been talking about this since I was your age; in that time we have not had a government with the integrity needed to reside over such changes.

i think the English Constitution Party would be a good start. The manifesto in the Constitution

Have any of these panelists ever read constitutional statutes as originally enacted? I don't believe they have. The Act of Settlement 1701 is as important constitutionally as the English Bill of Rights 1689. The Act(s) of Union was a restatement of the rights and laws of England and Scotland. If you read the actual law of the Land instead of listening to marxists panellists you would know that there is a whole set of governing laws contained in every constitutional statute. The Act of Settlement is extremely important (as originally enacted). Government whips are illegal. No one can sit in the commons who has a pension or profit from the crown. The English Constitution is fine, not perfect. The enforcement of the constitution is bad, our Judges are bad, the crowns advisers are bad. Just like it states in the preamble of both the English Bill of Rights 1689 and Act of Settlement. Parliament has acted unlawfully on many occasions, with repeals (1868,1947) of the English Bill of Rights. The English Bill of Rights cannot be repealed or any of its provisions. It came from a convention parliament that clearly stated that fact at chapter 2 as originally enacted. The Law lords should have stepped in. They didn't. The problem is Oxford and Cambridge Universities not teaching the law as written and agreed. Sir William Anson would be ashamed of you all. (And yes I have got his original books on constitutional law, and yes I have read them, and yes he was a law proffessor at Oxford) Shame on you.

Is Vince remembering a very different coalition to the rest of us? As not only did that government have a lot of disfunction and weekly scandals, it also was the most radical right wing government ever, even more than Thatcher. It probably shows how ineffectual coalitions and in particularly the Lib dems are.

I heard no mention of population in the discussion. European countries do, of course, exhibit very large historical internal cultural variations , including countries with a small population (Belgium comes to mind immediately). However, one needs to look at Europe as a whole to achieve a population of the size of the USA and a comparable geographic extent. The USA has ten states of over 10 million and three of over 20 million (and New York at just slightly under 20 million, and dropping) plus an overall population that ranks us as the global #3. My question: is there a population size beyond which the process of governing is unstable long term no matter what the form of government? Certainly, both the USA and India are struggling mightily. India has a relatively weak central government whereas the USA has a central government that is slowly overwhelming the state governments with no sign of reversing the process. Canada has a model that mimics the India model in that the provinces are the main seat of power (e.g. every province does more business outside than inside Canada) but the Canadian model may be in more trouble than the US model and the US model is in deep trouble at present. Is the answer that there is no stable government model beyond a certain size long term or has it simply not been discovered yet?

@charlesmadre5568

Жыл бұрын

In what ways would you say the Canadian model is in "more trouble" than the US model? Canada is rather used to political movements intent on its destruction and has weathered those storms rather well. Québec's existential challenge against Canada appears to be on professional dress code policy which is too trivial to re-ignite the independence movement. Alberta's "nationalists" are unserious. So it's surprising to me that you would describe Canada as in more trouble.

@roberthumphreys7977

Жыл бұрын

@@charlesmadre5568 I suggest that your statement that “Alberta nationalists are unserious” is a statement without support. Canada has always been a loose confederation; all Canadian provinces trade more with the USA that with other provinces, for example. Interprovincial relationships are very weak. Yet you have a government that has had the audacity (and recklessness) to pass the first compelled speech laws in the history of Common Law countries. Alberta is furious at what Ottawa has done to damage the provincial economy. When exactly was the last time Parliament actually met face-to-face in Ottawa? I think the USA is in serious trouble. We are more divided politically than in the past and all trends are in the wrong direction. But I think Canada is in a more precarious position. Compelled speech is a crossing of the Rubicon.

@charlesmadre5568

Жыл бұрын

@@roberthumphreys7977 If you're referring to Bill C-16, I'm sure a Tory government would include in their platform its repeal. Otherwise, any enforcement of the law could head to the Supreme Court where if it is found to be compelled speech, it will be overturned. As for Alberta separatists being unserious, yes they are. Québec has the luxury of having an entirely independent media ecosystem already, where making the case for a Quebec "republic" would look like took place over decades. There is very little discussion as to what an independent Alberta would look like. If you're not discussing hard logistics of independence then you're not serious in my book.

@roberthumphreys7977

Жыл бұрын

@@charlesmadre5568 The fact that Bill C-16 was passed represents a huge change in political attitude. As for separation, that would be extreme. More likely, provinces will simply ignore Ottawa, which already is happening. These processes are never rapid but they do have long term consequences. You can ignore them, but they are operating and Ottawa is greasing the skids. In addition, watch closely what is going on south of the border. States are watching people vote with their feet, so much so that so-called Blue states are implementing punitive measures to discourage emigration. In other words, the opposite of correcting causes of people departing. Who leaves? Those who are financially able; in other words, the citizens who pay the cost of government. What makes you think Canada is immune to this process? You need to think a bit more deeply about what is going on. You are missing the critical details. Much damage has been done already and consequences will be seen only over time. Down south, we are seeing them now. Oh, and what about Parliament?

@charlesmadre5568

Жыл бұрын

@@roberthumphreys7977 Since the situation right now is the federal government allowing provinces to ignore it, all it takes is electing a PM with a backbone like Justin's father. That may or may not happen but it's not like Provinces can rewrite the relationship between them and the Feds unilaterally (Québec excepted). As for internal migration barriers, that hasn't happened to anywhere near the same extent yet and the situation is rather different. A "Blue State" like BC would gladly see people leave for "Red States" like Alberta since that would help with the housing shortage. And even then there are very few "blue states" and "red states" so I don't know what you're on about. BC was run by the centre-right Libs not that long ago. Alberta was run by the NDP just 4 years ago and has a good shot at winning again. Ontario is run by Tories. Québec is run by Nationalists. I don't know what the motivations would be for internal migration barriers.

46:43 He talks about Scotland having hinge status in the HoC. What does that mean?

That closing comment is key (to the survival of democracy), the health of the 'culture' of our politics and politicians is everything, and currently we have allowed I'll health in that system to be promoted. This will burn everything down.

If this was a debate about the constitutional matters of an independent Kingdom Of England, their proposals and ideas would be valid. Sir John Curtice noted that England would not be too happy about equal representation of each of the four countries of the UK. There lies the biggest problem with the constitution of the UK and its representation in Parliament. It isn't just unfair, it is discriminatory and favours by design, the voice of England. The only way to make this fair is to devolve all domestic affairs to each country equally. Make the House of Commons the English Parliament and keep the House of Lords, only that the 'lords' would be the key ministers from the cabinet of each country in equal numbers. The policies for defence, foreign policy and macro economics (much like a G7 style meeting) would be decided there, leaving each country to manage their economies within a broad framework. The role of Prime Minister could either be on a rotational basis of the First Ministers and the foreign minister be appointed as that individual would simply be representing the wishes of the 'Council of British Lords' (meeting of each cabinet). Failure to acknowledge that the United Kingdom is not in the slightest bit constitutionally united and subsequently reform it will see its current path of it breaking up becoming a reality. This situation where 'what England wants, England gets' cannot continue as is. Indeed, we had three Englishmen in an English University discussing the future of not only England, but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland too.

Turkeys voting for Christmas! Proportional stuff

That Cable believes austerity was both 'good government' and not an 'extreme experiment' is perhaps as telling of him as a man as it is extraordinary and out of touch.

@geoffpoole483

Жыл бұрын

Two knights and a peer debating constitutional reform.... you couldn't make it up. Austerity was due to ideology not necessity. Cable should keep his gob shut.

@gillespaling7039

6 ай бұрын

@@geoffpoole483there was no “austerity”.

Brexit had a huge impact on the UK politics. Now that it's kind of over, perhaps the current FPTP system is fine. The main problem with FPTP is that it may cause polarisation, but Tory and Labour are now very similar.

@redrev674

5 ай бұрын

I would argue that since Thatcher Tory and Labour have pretty much followed a consensus view. The only exception/anomaly was the Jeremy Corbyn leadership period of Labour.

I used to support first past the post but ukip got no seats but managed in the EU. Clearly showing they would have seats in the commons. This conservative government has also put me off first past the post. Too many Tory MPs are too liberal and ignore what people want. Same with labour , they don’t represent the working class, especially up north

A conversation from the 1980s or 1990s. Whatever remained of checks and balances collapsed decades ago. Long before even Iraq.

48:52 - 49:15 This premise not accepted in relation to SNP manifesto commitments, where despite winning we are told constitutional change requires a referendum which is entirely within the gift of the UK Government so it can be denied

@zak3744

Жыл бұрын

If the SNP ever won an election, it'd be outrageous if somehow something in the system stopped them from carrying out their mandate. But that's never been the case. It'll never be the case while they don't even stand for enough seats to possibly win an election. The only way in which they could get into government with at most 59 seats is as part of a coalition, in which case that principle of the manifesto mandate no longer holds in the same way, as it's predicated on majority governments (remember the Lib Dems and tuition fees!).

2 Knights of the realm and a lord, debate constitutional reform... is this a joke?

@geoffpoole483

Жыл бұрын

Don't expect anything radical from these three.

First past the post, doesn't guarantee honesty a written constitution would tell government and make the public aware of their rights

We're FnCKed

The reason for having a house of lords is that wealthy land owners are consulted on how the country is run. They are essentially the majority shareholders of the country. And it is desirable that it remain heriditary or semi-heriditary as the heriditary principle removes intrigue and politicking out of the equation.

@charlesmadre5568

Жыл бұрын

Only a tiny fraction of the HoL is hereditary.

@freedomwatch3991

Жыл бұрын

@@charlesmadre5568 it should be completely heriditary or based on tanistry

@charlesmadre5568

Жыл бұрын

@@freedomwatch3991 Just no...

Which government? Who's future? The Oxford students are middle-aged at 20.

What constitutional right does any government of today have to turn England into an open prison run by what ever rules they ( the government) choose to apply ?

@TheDavidlloydjones

Жыл бұрын

You're spluttering, anonymous idjit "Simon-390."

@ammulhare1644

Жыл бұрын

To your rhetorical question - Nope! any house of elected representatives doesn't have that right! The English Constitution is based on the "Bill of Rights" of 1689 AD which protects the people's inalienable rights to: freedom of speech, freedom to elect MPs, the holding of frequent parliaments, trial by jury of one's peers & presumption of innocence, right to petition the Monarch etc.

@ammulhare1644

Жыл бұрын

Use it or lose it people of the UK! The people's rights in all English speaking countries are founded in the English Bill of Rights. God Save America!

@cerdic6305

Жыл бұрын

​@@ammulhare1644 That act doesn't declare any rights to be 'inalienable', it declares that some things are illegal. Parliament retains the authority to write new legislation that supersedes this, and to abolish old laws. Presuming you are an American, how exactly is your country upholding the freedom to elect MPs and the right to petition the Monarch, or holding frequent parliaments, seeing as it has neither a Parliament nor a monarch?

My vote hasn't ever counted once in my life. PR now please.

@julianshepherd2038

Жыл бұрын

We do PR in Scotland

@julianshepherd2038

Жыл бұрын

Bring a coat

@robertheap2911

Жыл бұрын

Fully support you on PR. Instead of the current electoral dictatorship.I have been supporting change for many years . What was refreshing for me was that listening to this discussion , I heard support for my own ideas. Sumptions idea for a PR system, which is a true , all votes count one . And then Vince cables National Peoples Jury. Instead of the House of Lords. I also would say that major changes of policy and law in this country, when it concerns our everyday lives; like getting rid of hard cash and using digital currency, should go to a referendum and not brought in by stealth. As is happening slowly, at the moment

@sumitup8109

Жыл бұрын

@@julianshepherd2038 No you don't- you do AMS. Only around 40% are proportional.

@sumitup8109

Жыл бұрын

@@robertheap2911 It would only mean extremist parties would do better and coalition governments would become a perpetual problem. If you look at the European Elections in the UK, it ended up being UKIP versus the Lib Dems every single time. Coalitions have been a major problem in places like Israel, Belgium (where there wasn't a government for 430 days), and even Italy where there have been 69 governments since ww2; these countries are equally complaining that their system is poor. Sure, I agree, FPTP is not ideal, not even close, but it has enabled 400 years of stability whereas the French has had 5 republics, the Italians had 4 systems and so has Germany (remember how dysfunctional the Weimar Republic was and that was PR). It is a good compromise between what government most people want and the stability of a democracy. In a PR, not all votes count equally; sure on paper it looks like that, but once coalitions form, some parties that have not received the largest number of seats now have greater bargaining power than the leading party and those larger than it. I just think it's not ideal but in the long term, change would cause more chaos than anything else.

let us not do it by constituencies and do it by proportion and divide the seats up by the proportion of the vote nationally

Why is it bad that an elected house of lords 'competes' with the house of commons? If it is elected, why shouldn't it have a greater say in the governance of the county?

What's the issue with full PR and working coalitions? Only one, binary results. Sometimes boring stable politics is what everyone needs.

#6:40 Citizens assembly, a revising upper house, people selected by lottery. Everything Sir Vince Cable said about cronyism and corruption in terms of party politics handing out peerages to political supporters and donors etc doesn't really bode well for the inherent legitimacy and popular functioning of the House of Lords. Probably does really need to change at some point to be more inclusive and reflective of the actual populace.

A Sumption is the mother of all….. I have nothing useful to contribute.

Give me a break. We have here a group of English Aristocrats discussing the future of N.Ireland -- do you want some more bombs?

Stop voting for the same parties, vote Reform

Ironic from Sir Vince discussing Constitutional Reform when his party could have done so much more in that respect whilst in coalition between 2010-2015, most notably, change the voting system to PR!

@catmonarchist8920

Жыл бұрын

They ran on a manifesto for AV rather than PR in 2010.

Lord Sumption sullied what may well have been a perfectly interesting evening. In temperate climes, in the Northern hemisphere, it is simply unacceptable for gentlemen to wear a cream suit, whether of linen or wool, outside the period from Maundy Thursday (early to mid-April) to Holy Cross Day (mid-September). So disappointing. O tempora! O mores!

@martycrow

Жыл бұрын

I thank the one gentleman (he must be one) who appreciated my en passant observation. But, perhaps that is false modesty. If a man cannot get his dress right (and I'm fully aware of the double entendre implications) how can we take more seriously the important things he says? Would I trust a man with ordering claret when he is drinking a fizzy cola in front of me?

@johnjones6601

Жыл бұрын

Hahaha 😂

The only problem we have in this country is the political class. And I make no destination between the parties they are all the same.

@97dnpatil

Жыл бұрын

garbage in, garbage out

@julianshepherd2038

Жыл бұрын

Differentiation not destination. Ffs

@geoffreynhill2833

Жыл бұрын

@@julianshepherd2038 Better still "distinction"...😉

The swedish parliament does not have a communist party. The "Left party" stopped identifying as communist in 1990.

@pmullins1495

Жыл бұрын

Swedish Leftist now Identifies with WHAT righteous Ideology ???

@davidpnewton

Жыл бұрын

Whether they "identify" as Commies or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether they are substantively Commies or not? I don't know the answer to that question.

@lenrman969

Жыл бұрын

Most European countries have large left parties that don't consider themselves communist.

I'm an outsider. This is my first exposure to any effort of reforming an utterly corrupt governance system. God bless earnest Political Reformation !!

@johntimbrell

Жыл бұрын

Not one of the speakers or questioners address the real problem. Today's parliament brings in laws that are unconstitutional. This is not some esoteric principle. Why can parliament enact a law taking away the right to free speech which has even been extended by the police to freedom of thought? Worse than that; recent parliaments have taken away the Supreme court rule 54(?) which stated that a writ for habeas corpus must take precedence over all other business. It must be available 24/7/365 and there must always be a judge available and it is free..This is what judges confirmed in stated cases re-enforcing our constitution. The civil Procedure Rule 87 written by appointees of Parliament state that the application for a writ must be in writing. A fee must be paid. Written applications are only available to be heard in court hours which at best are 10am to 3.30 PM Monday to Friday. MPs state, behave and think that parliament is Sovereign. It is not. Betty Boothroyd as speaker ruled on that on 21st July 1993. Guess what folks. That record of her ruling has been removed. So the three clever speakers are as corrupt as all the politicians. Write to them with what I have explained. You will almost certainly be ignored.

@PCDelorian

Жыл бұрын

​@@johntimbrell No law in any or the UK constitutional nations can be unconstitutional. Parliament is sovereign. In Scots law there is an argument for popular sovereignty but even there it doesn't follow a law is capable of being unconstitutional and this doctrine is disputed and has not been upheld by any court.

@johntimbrell

Жыл бұрын

@@PCDelorian THIS IS THE TYPICAL REPLY OF A TROLL. he does not answer questions and repeats his first comment as if it's a mantra. Others who believe what he writes, Google Supreme Court Jalloh and see how the Supreme court ruled that the police could not use a statute authorising them to impose a condition of bail that someone should stay in their home overnight. The common law and stated cases give us our freedoms which PC Delorian is happy to give away.

Sod democracy, all that offers is a choice as to who your abuser will be. We need extensive and comprehensive rights that the democratically elected tyrants can't override under any circumstances.

First Past the Post /Two party system is a representative system but just delivered in a different way. Each of the two parties contains within them a broad church of political views. Take the conservatives you have the Europhiles and the Brexiteers. Within Labour you have Marxists and pseudo-Tories or Blairites. So the political representation of the electorate is achieved within the two parties rather than in multiple parties in the House of Commons.

Piss poor provincial preeners. No mention at all of Switzerland, which has had a compulsory referendum system since 1874, which forced out Proportional Representation in 1918 against the will of their governing Radical Party, which has been in power since 1848. It has progressively extended its coalition to include other parties. Their position has been defeated half a dozen times only in referenda. But this does include on freedom of movement, forcing changes in its relationship with the EU, fellow EFTA members and the single European market. Prior to 1997, with the backing of the Kirk, aka the Church of Scotland, the Lib Dems and many others, the Scottish Constitutional Convention hammered out devolution demands. Even if it's very small to begin with, and starts online, something like a UK constitutional convention (with English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish as well as crown dependencies, overseas territories and UK citizens resident abroad all being included in its structures) is now needed. For all I know, maybe there are Facebook groups out there and/or other groups already out there already making a start on this. Some participation from the Republic of Ireland is also needed because of the failure to implement the recommendations, since the 1920s to adjust the borders between Northern Ireland and the then Irish Free State (now Irish Republic) (this may include one or more condominium and renewable lease areas). So much for initiatives within a (largely secular?) framework. To find out what's going to happen and to get it right, best to start by looking at who has been most on the money until now. The Anonymous Prophecy of Mount Athos of 1053 is the clear winner here, have a look at the Byzantine prophecy site, with parts 1-12 fulfilled to the letter, including part 12, Revolution in India and the expulsion of the English, for example. Part 13 is "England for the Saxons only", which includes "Brexit", or more accurately, "Guckxit" (Gibraltar and the UK exit from the European Union). The real purpose of this life is eternal salvation, so those of you who have not already done so, please go to www.trueorthodox.eu and study the catechical materials referred to there.

@charlesmadre5568

Жыл бұрын

Switzerland is a unique and highly isolated case. They also have a unique political culture that hasn't been replicated anywhere. Not elsewhere on the continent, or anywhere else on Earth. The point about political culture is a salient one. They probably should have mentioned the ROI and New Zealand more, since they are English-speaking countries born out of centuries of English domination that transitioned to PR.

@adrianwhyatt1425

Жыл бұрын

@@charlesmadre5568 Not so. It's system of compulsory referenda has influenced many countries. They're a fellow predominantly Germanic people. Nowhere should be excluded in terms of sources of ideas for improvement, ab initio.

@charlesmadre5568

Жыл бұрын

@@adrianwhyatt1425 Well British experience with referenda was so traumatic I guarantee you there won't be one for another 15-20 years at least. So there goes any chance at normalizing regular referenda into the political culture. Britain is also culturally adversarial, not so in Switzerland. Similar ethnic origin has little to nothing to do with political culture in this sense.

The culture issue, i.e. the culture of the electorate, has been highlighted by more than one speaker here. What they have not mentioned is that the culture of the people of the UK is now very different due to vast immigration, so people come from many different cultures, and do not in any way share the norms we used to enjoy and take for granted.

@mrso9399

Жыл бұрын

But Welsh culture has always been different to English culture for centuries. In Wales we are a majority of socialists, never voted for Tories but get overruled by toffs we don’t vote for #westministerisnotworking

@catmonarchist8920

Жыл бұрын

​@@mrso9399 Wales has been growing Tory since 2001 and the nationalists got less than 10% in the last election so there's still hope 😘

A coalition between Labour and S.N.P., or Labout and Plaid Cymtu would never be allowed, as the English would never allow it.

@catmonarchist8920

Жыл бұрын

The nationalist SDLP literally take the labour whip already....

The House of Lords should be filled with individuals who are at the top of their professions and nominated by the profession to serve for a fixed period of 5 years only! It could be renamed as the house of representatives, The number of representatives could easily be reduced to less than the no, of MP's! The reason there is not the trust in MP's by the public is purely down to the fact MP's do not stick to their manifesto's and pay very little heed to the voting public & their views! Currently we have a government that is forcing the people to accept their Green agenda, Net Zero and Wind & solar electricity generation, None of which the People had a say on! All because it is part of an ideology that has been proved false time & time again! But the government continue to adhere to like a religion!

@lenrman969

Жыл бұрын

Au contraire, john moncrieff. Whilst the Tories pay fealty to net-zero, in practice they are actively stymieing it. UK is the only country in Europe which actually banned the cheapest (by far) form of electricity - onshore wind farms. The extreme right wing crazies in Poland are now thinking of doing the same. The ERG are closely associated with Global Warming Policy Foundation. (GWPF). Oil exec and investor Lord Lawson of Blaby set up GWPF in 2009, and it is based at 55 Tufton St. along with most of the billionaire funded right wing think tanks that carve out Govt policy in the UK. GWPF is highly effective in distributing climate disinformation supplied to it by the Heartland Institution in the US.(funded by ExxonMobil). Unbelievably, GWPF is a registered charity in the UK. In May last year, GWPF was one again reported to the charity commission as is a lobby group for fossil fuel companies and not a charity. There is an outfit called The American Friends of the GWPF, which funnels fossil fuel money from the Heartland foundation to GWPF in London. For 22 years, Lord Lawson was chairman of the Central Europe Trust Company (CET), an advisory firm which at the time listed oil and gas companies BP Amoco, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Texaco and Total Fina Elf among its clients, and whose Polish offshoot, CET Polska, was working with Belchatow Power Plant, one of the largest coal-fired power stations in the world. Many of us will remember Lord Lawson of Blaby as Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's chancellor. Some members of GWPF: The third Viscount Monckton of Brenchely, who falsely claimed to be a Nobel Peace Laureate and former advisor to M. Thatcher. The UK Parliament published a letter ordering Lord Christopher Monckton to “desist” from claiming to be a member of the House of Lords. www.desmog.com/christopher-monckton/ Lord Nigel Vinson. Donor (£50,000) to GFPF and one of the founders of, and “Life Vice-President” of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), founder of the Centre for Policy Studies, and instrumental to the rise of Margaret Thatcher. It was the IEA that wrote Truss' "mini budget" who in turn gave it to Kwasi Kwarteng to read out loud. In 2021, GWPF spawned 'Net Zero Watch’. Its aim was to cancel COP26. That did not succeed, so next the focus was to sabotage Britain's Net Zero targets, and has been quite successful thus far. In May last year, hard Brexiteer Steve Baker became a trustee at GWPF. With Conservative MP Craig Mackinlay (former UKIP leader), Baker founded the “Net Zero Scrutiny Group” (NZSG)comprising mostly of hard Brexiteers. He said he will use GWPF research for the group. They have managed to recruit many red wall MPs. NetZeroWatch have published 7 demands. www.netzerowatch.com/suspend-climate-policies-and-cancel-cop26-to-save-britain-from-looming-energy-disaster/ Basically a licence to planet kill for the fossil fuel interests. Baker was chair of the ERG European Research group. (originally chaired by Jacob Rees-Mogg). He compares the ERG to NZSG. 9 members of NZSG were also members of the ERG. Steve Baker, Craig Mackinlay, Julian Knight, Andrew Bridgen, David Jones, Damien Moore, Andrew Lewer, Marcus Fysh, and Philip Davies. Net Zero Watch chair Neil Record, who donated £5,000 to Baker last year, also chairs the IEA. And Boris? Boris counts the Drax plant as green energy because it is burning forests that are felled in other countries. Drax is not green - it is the single biggest polluter in the UK - and is taxpayer supported. Not green, Boris - very black. bylinetimes.com/2023/02/24/uks-biggest-polluter-doubles-profits-while-raking-in-hundreds-of-millions-in-government-subsidies/ Outside the EU, water companies are now allowed to pour raw sewage into our rivers and seas. Oil companies allowed to pollute North Sea. bylinetimes.com/2023/01/31/hundreds-of-toxic-north-sea-oil-spills-since-2019/ Instead of taxing oil companies windfall profits, Sunak granted tax breaks to oil companies to do more drilling. www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20168713.chancellor-rishi-sunak-doubles-tax-relief-oil-gas-firms/ Boris' "world beating" gigafactory BritishVolt turned out to be another fraud. Yeah, Boris! - the turd you cannot flush....... So, how does 55 Tufton St. gaslight the British public? 2 videos tell us. kzread.info/dash/bejne/g6R_mKxmlqS1o8Y.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/e4Z4rquIfaiaZ8Y.html

@jakeblair4215

Жыл бұрын

​@P H nothing more than they currently are, and they'll be professionals to boot. Better review and over arching foresight

The image is , socialism/communist laws .

@julianshepherd2038

Жыл бұрын

Learn to spell

@cosminradu7397

Жыл бұрын

@@julianshepherd2038 u can kiss my ...... . None of u dont know proper english , grammar is dead in England.... and the level education is low. You r not first in anything ....when we speak about education.

@julianshepherd2038

Жыл бұрын

@@cosminradu7397 🤣

It is a bit dishonest of Sir Vince to talk about the problems with the system and not mention that the changes he and his party favour would disproportionately favour his party to the extent that they would become perennial kingmakers.

what is the word for ruled by immigrants?

Sir John bases his views on data.

OUR FOUDING FOREFATHERS BETRAYED HIGH TREASON

Patriarchy Must topple for Righteousness sake, Sexism is inexcusable in this dispensation.

lords supporting the corrupt house of lords who would have thought this would have happened.

Rich unelected peeps telling us poor folk how to live life

Replace the House of Lords with a group of people who have contributed to the welfare of the country.

My view is that perhaps British politics has become too democratized. It’s not an outlandish assumption to make, and debates like this would be more fruitful in my opinion if you included people arguing for less democracy on this panel along with these gentlemen, all of whom obviously place great importance on the House of Commons. The more democratic the British institutions became, the more troubles and fraying took place, not less.

@robertheap2911

Жыл бұрын

The actual problem is the opposite, there’s no real democracy anymore. It is becoming covertly fascist. That’s why we’re in the mess we’re in .Authoritarianism only serves the few , the rest of us are subjugated

@aaronfire359

Жыл бұрын

@@robertheap2911 I don’t think so, only because my basic assumptions rest on that I don’t believe in the wisdom of crowds or the majority, I don’t believe that by counting noses you can come to rational conclusions. What is needed in Britain is an actual effective mixed monarchy again. The British have created a pantomime out of the King and Lords, all the while creating a much much stronger monarchy through the parliament itself. Less democracy doesn’t mean less care for the people or the country, it simply means populism, and emotions, and short-termism is limited. No one denies that the British political process is in disarray, but the only active governing body in Britain any longer is the House of Commons, so if politics and government is in disorder the only place to look is there and Downing Street, not the King or the Lords. Britain on the whole did better when the King and Lords were an active force to push policy and agendas, now that’s been left to the fractured commons. Democracies place has always naturally been localized, small areas of a larger whole, the trouble with giving democracy free reign is that the whole is carved up between the small bits with a majority. You don’t have any impartial superintending authority any longer.

@robertheap2911

Жыл бұрын

@@aaronfire359 The trouble is that medieval mentality, is what they are trying to take us back to , only in a modern format of Global Overlords. If humanity is to move forward, and be fair and just to all , not simply to a ruling elite it has to change.Those currently in parliament , speak only for themselves, have no empathy for anybody else, and the chaos and corruption, beggars belief. We need local decentralised government, so local areas can each do best for themselves.And have National representation for things such as national security

@aaronfire359

Жыл бұрын

@@robertheap2911 if you have localized representation sufficient enough to handle their own constituents and provide for their needs and development, you basically make a central parliament redundant. A monarchy in that sense is a perfect idea because why have another elected body that can challenge the local constituencies? You’d need a central authority of some sort still? Or maybe not, why have a unified country at all if the local area is sufficient enough? Well, localization only goes so far because geography is cruel, not everywhere is equal on the map, some areas have a lot more to offer, and some far less, all for natural as well as anthropological reasons. But, Even if you don’t achieve that and keep parliament, but make it completely representative of each constituency, and they truly act on behalf of their own electorate, you still have the issue of majority rule within parliament as well as government leadership. An issue of majority rule when passing motions, in terms of what party is in the opposition or not, and who the PM will be. A majority of the constituencies, a majority of the members, whatever it is, you still have the many ruling the minority, and that could be 51 to 49, or 99 to 1; in terms of justice, that’s not justice to me. Those politicians might claim they have a mandate, I don’t see that, almost an even split is not a mandate, not even 2/3 majority is a mandate; especially not if you are satisfied to simply pass whatever legislation you see fit without negotiation and accommodation of other parties and their own needs, however small they are, they still “speak” for someone. Majority rule is a terrible idea, especially in a new age of ideological conflict and populism, and no one on the political scene is willing to compromise these days. The House of Commons’ proper role is as a chamber of debate and legislation, but they should not be the sole power of the land. However, they basically have the power to make war and peace, draft treaties, create legislation and pass it, legislate crimes and punish them, etc.; parliament is more absolutist than even the Stuart Kings were! Making them accountable to their constituents is only part of the battle, they must also be legally accountable as a body to other institutions as well; and to my mind those other institutions are a re-empowered Monarchy and House of Lords.

@robertheap2911

Жыл бұрын

@@aaronfire359 my point is about taking away the remote, corrupt power of central government, by having more political parties emerge, with fresh ideas. Political parties would have to work together and form a consensus view, as to how to create a better society. I want a True Democracy. Something that could be eventually showcased to the world. The idea of turning the clock back wouldn’t work. The Monarchy only survived because the elites in parliament, put limitations on what the Monarch, could say or do. What I and an increasing number of people want to see, is limitations on that said parliament. The Monarchy will survive, because the people want it.And the idea of a President leaves a lot to be desired.In countries where the monarchy has gone, that has been brought about as a reaction to authoritarian cruelty. That can not be said of our Monarchy.And I do not see any inclination of Charles or indeed William desiring the day to day running of the country .

There's a lot to be said for boring stable and progressive politics

First comment 🤩🥰

Those lads got triggered on their own show lOL

Also the US having a written constitution has led to more problems than it has solved, look at gun ownership as just one example of a failure of having a written constitution that cannot be altered as that is then seen as unconstitutional.

@julianshepherd2038

Жыл бұрын

Your constitution is based on the British bill of rights 1689. We had a right to guns but it didn't work out.

@dambrooks7578

Жыл бұрын

@@julianshepherd2038 the constitution truly begins in the 13th century and is constantly being adapted as it evolved meaning that the most recent version is currently being updated as new laws are written due to the nature of the unwritten constitution that is made up of three-hundred/four-hundred different documents. There is still a law which allows people from Chester can shoot any Welsh person that is considered to be invading England. Welshman are prohibited from entering Chester before the sun rises and have to leave before the sun goes down. Because of this, in Chester, it is technically ok to shoot a Welshman after midnight on Sunday with a crossbow, as long as it’s in the city walls. It is actually illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament wearing a suit of armour, just as it is to die in the Houses of Parliament, despite the lack of purpose of these laws they haven't been removed from the constitutional law. On the plus side it is still perfectly legal to consume unpaid for food inside a shop so long as the package isn't taken outside the shop after eating it. On the plus side it is no longer law to celebrate Guy Fawkes night.

Written consitution, equal union and strong devolved governments and full PR with manditory voting. Plus effective watchdogs on lobbying corruption croynism, and a regulated media! Simple

@sumitup8109

Жыл бұрын

You're ideas are Corbyn's paradise

U r all neglect. the human rights , in you own country(Uk). In the NHS u have a common law(cutuma) that no one speak about the flows of the system.

@julianshepherd2038

Жыл бұрын

Cutuma isn't a word

@cosminradu7397

Жыл бұрын

@@julianshepherd2038 On this planet people speak other lang. and terms ....english is not the only one. I translated it for u .... just in case that u dont know how to do it.

Gosh 3 White Men.

@dariusdoodoo

Жыл бұрын

What’s unusual or remarkable about that?

I really do believe Tommy Robinson was telling the truth too about the state of britain