The UK Political Landscape

Desert Orchid said:
I honestly don't think there are any such politicians out there any more, barjon. We've come through a generation of MPs without honour and they're all tainted.
Click to expand...

The major problem with the system today is being a Politican has become a career as opposed to a calling you would take later in life. Therefore the majority of MP's particularly the younger versions will make decisions based purely on what is best for their career as opposed to what is best for the country and their constituents over the longer term. This leads to short term kicking the can which is progressively getting the country into more and more of a mess.
The solution would be limiting each MP to a two term max therefore their work and decisions are made on very different considerations. It also has the added bonus of fresh blood and new ideas coming through as opposed to the turgid entrenched views that we seem to see from the "lifer".
 
SP Only said:
The major problem with the system today is being a Politican has become a career as opposed to a calling you would take later in life. Therefore the majority of MP's particularly the younger versions will make decisions based purely on what is best for their career as opposed to what is best for the country and their constituents over the longer term. This leads to short term kicking the can which is progressively getting the country into more and more of a mess.
The solution would be limiting each MP to a two term max therefore their work and decisions are made on very different considerations. It also has the added bonus of fresh blood and new ideas coming through as opposed to the turgid entrenched views that we seem to see from the "lifer".
Click to expand...

There’s a huge amount of truth in that, particularly since they vote their own salary. When I started off my salary max was the same as an MP, I was promoted five times yet still finished up way behind what they were being paid when I retired. There’s no doubt that doing it as “a sense of duty” has a very hollow ring to it today.

If I had to re-design the system from scratch I’d make the House of Lords an elected body responsible for setting the long term strategy for our country. The Commons would be for a direct interface with citizens (as now) with Government responsible for administration together with setting and managing policies that were constrained by the long term strategy set by the Lords.
 
Off the top of my head, if I was re-designing it from scratch, I would:

1. Introduce PR.
2. Increase MPs wages to £250K pa
3. Remove all notion of MP expenses. If they want to live in Chelsea, they can fund it from their salary.
4. Absolutely no second-jobs or directorships (exec and non-exec) for MPs.
5. No MPs family members allowed to work for them.
6. Maximum 5-Parliament term for any MP. Twenty years maximum is enough for anyone, in order that fresh ideas are brought through.
7. Four year Parliaments.
8. Minister must spend at least one week per-year working their Portfolio. Health - work an A&E ward, Education - work as a classroom assistant, etc. Attach people in power to the real world.
9. Rigourously police Standards in Public Office. Spot fines for anyone found to have misled Parliament. Misremebering doesn't count as a defence.
10. Automatic recall and by-election for anyone found to have contravened Standards.
11. Maximum donation of £10K to any one political party, to remove malignant influence.
12. Fully independent body to set MP & Ministerial pay awards - which should take into account general level of pay awards in public sector.
13. Disband the Lords. We shouldn't need a second Chamber once PR is established.
 
Last edited:
SP Only said:
The major problem with the system today is being a Politican has become a career as opposed to a calling you would take later in life. Therefore the majority of MP's particularly the younger versions will make decisions based purely on what is best for their career as opposed to what is best for the country and their constituents over the longer term. This leads to short term kicking the can which is progressively getting the country into more and more of a mess.
The solution would be limiting each MP to a two term max therefore their work and decisions are made on very different considerations. It also has the added bonus of fresh blood and new ideas coming through as opposed to the turgid entrenched views that we seem to see from the "lifer".
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/1547507875202875393?s=20&t=C016dCTPWMo3wjMZ81l1Lw

https://twitter.com/Jasanipratik/status/1547801575938084871?s=20&t=C016dCTPWMo3wjMZ81l1Lw
 
Last edited:
barjon said:
There’s a huge amount of truth in that, particularly since they vote their own salary. When I started off my salary max was the same as an MP, I was promoted five times yet still finished up way behind what they were being paid when I retired. There’s no doubt that doing it as “a sense of duty” has a very hollow ring to it today.

If I had to re-design the system from scratch I’d make the House of Lords an elected body responsible for setting the long term strategy for our country. The Commons would be for a direct interface with citizens (as now) with Government responsible for administration together with setting and managing policies that were constrained by the long term strategy set by the Lords.
Click to expand...

Very smart.
 
Grassy. have you borrowed somebody's brain- that's pretty darn good for a basic starting point!
 
“What do we want, Grassy”,
“Who do we want, Grassy”.
“Grassy, Grassy, yeah, yeah, yeah”
 
Barjon
Re House of Lords. Many, many years ago I remember answering an exam question on the role of the HoL and how could it be more effective. The nub of my argument was much in line with your comment and I scored rather well though it was later pointed out that elections half way through a parliamentary term would make dominance of Parliament by any one party less likely.
 
Tout Seul said:
Barjon
Re House of Lords. Many, many years ago I remember answering an exam question on the role of the HoL and how could it be more effective. The nub of my argument was much in line with your comment and I scored rather well though it was later pointed out that elections half way through a parliamentary term would make dominance of Parliament by any one party less likely.
Click to expand...

Even with PR, Ireland has a second house. It serves a purpose of a kind and in specific circumstances, survived a referendum to abolish it a few years back.
Over the last decade, the House of Lords seemed to be the most in touch with the UK.
 
Why do we need political parties at all?
If MP's were focussed on what they're paid for, shouldn't their energies be directed on making the country a better place,rather than scoring points over opposing groups?
MP's might then be elected on merit, rather than political persuasion.
 
One big divide in the current fight for the leadership is the reluctance of Sunak to cut taxes other than relatively small target circumstances in order to be able to meet, at least to some degree, the demands from powerful workers groups looking for inflation catch up rises.
I'm old enough to remember the last time there was a major confrontation and how much that hurt the country.
What would you have the Government do?
 
Last edited:
Tout Seul said:
One big divide in the current fight for the leadership is the reluctance of Sunak to cut taxes other than relatively small target circumstances in order to be able to meet, at least to some degree, the demands from powerful workers groups looking for inflation catch up rises.
I'm old enough to remember the last time there was a major confrontation and how much that hurt the country.
What would you have the Government do?
Click to expand...

The bigger question is why can't taxes be cut? The issue lies in the abundant waste and inefficiencies across the areas where most government spending is done. It is the easiest one to pick on and in no way am I maligning the workers at ground level but the NHS is just a black-hole of waste. It seems the more money that gets pumped in the worse the situation becomes. There needs to be a radical overhaul in how the system is run. The most sensible approach would be to actually put people in charge that have had success in business and try to run them as such. The savings made through a different approach would ultimately lead to more fiscal wiggle room.

Currently the tax burden per individual in this country is the highest in over 50 years yet where does it all go? I do understand the spending from the pandemic has to be paid for but this has been going on much longer than that. The waste on the pandemic and test and trace is just another example of my above point...
 
The NHS is the easiest target going, and the Government love it when people depict it as a "black-hole of waste". The fact is that the NHS is chronically under-funded, and is increasingly dysfunctional as a result. It is merely depicted as "wasteful" by those who are malevolently trying to ensure the Public fall out of love with it, in order that they can introduce a US-style system of health insurance. This accusation of wastefulness is, by the way, from coming from the same people who spunked the best part of £50Bn of our taxes on a useless Track & Trace scheme, and failing to insure against interest rate rises.

Waste, eh? Who is the more guilty party?

The one thing Sunak has right, is that there is always a trade-off when it comes to cutting taxes. Reduce the tax burden, and you have less to spend on public services - most of which are already at breaking-point.

Taxation isn't a bad thing per se - the problem we have in the UK is that the wrong types of taxes are imposed upon the wrong types of people. Any bone the Tories throw at the GP in the shape of tax reductions now, will be consumed in their entirety when Energy prices rise in October and again in January. It is a worthless sop to make the Govt appear like it is doing something.

European countries are capping prices, creating windfall taxes, and in some cases (France) nationalising their Energy companies to ensure profiteering isn't allowed at the expense of the people. In Germany and Spain, public transport price cuts have been introduced, to help reduce the strain on people's pockets.

None of this is happening in the UK, because we have a Government that has neither the imagination nor the will, to try anything like it. Their preference is for idealogical purity (don't interfere in Markets under any circumstances), over actually pulling their fingers out their holes and helping people.
 
Last edited:
Oh! Don’t get me started SP :eek: Firstly, I think the pandemic really exposed how ultra weak was the government. No-one got to grips with proper leadership and the costly measures introduced seemed owe more to a panic response than a well thought out plan.

Now, the NHS :rolleyes:. Black hole, indeed, both in terms of inefficiency and money poured in. I think that the thing has grown into a massive monster that is far too big to be directed centrally and that is responsible for the waste and inefficiency. I would break it up and divest the centre of any management power below the strategic level, giving far more autonomy to regional level and below. Proper accountability measures would be in place. Aside from setting and monitoring the top level aims and associated strategy the centre would be a service provider (purchasing etc) but as a responder rather than director - nothing else.
 
I agree with all of that, GH.

(... which must be a concern for you :lol:)

The NHS's ills go back to the seventies when they introduced several layers of middle-management - in each hospital - in an attempt to 'improve' it. It involved millions of pounds being wasted on incompetents who nothing about health care.

The same model was rolled out in several sectors where public money was involved. All a waste of money.

A similar thing happened during my time in FE. When I started there, the college was part of Strathclyde Regional Council Education Department, so there were people in the offices in Glasgow doing the admin stuff, while we had the Principal, a Deputy Principal and a number of heads of department (Senior Lecturers). The Principal and Deputy shared a secretary (no sniggering at the back) and there were three other office staff.

The college went incorporate in the mid-1990s and by the time I left, there was a Principal, Deputy Principal, five Assistant Principals, an accountant, several Faculty Heads and about 20 office staff.

And there was no money for resources unless you bid into European money for it.

Oh, and the new Principal took over full responsibility for the school's finances.

First thing he did? Gave himself a 20% pay rise and the staff 0%.

And he didn't half share the secretary. (He was caught by a cleaner sharing her on the boardroom table...)
 
It's no coincidence that Tories are on for full force for privatisation of the NHS. And people are persuaded by the plan.

Don't fund NHS for a generation, clap when they save your lives, support them during the pandemic by giving no-bid contracts to buddies, write off Covid fraud of 6bn with no scrutiny, refuse nurses 3% pay claim while saying they were heros, claim that its a black hole, allow donors to prosper in the resulting sell off.

What are the train prices like in the UK at the moment, given how efficiently they are run by businesses these days. Ye deserve everything ye get. You have a choice and you choose the Tories.

What 2008 should have taught people, especially in Ireland (but the principle stands everywhere), is that the money is there if the will is there. If it was banks, financial institutions, war industries or those with lobbying power that needed financial aid, it would be found. NHS or workers, not on that list unfortunately. There isn't the will from governments and the electorate are happy to defend them.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
* Except for viewers in Scotland.
Click to expand...

Scotland got its choice in 2014.
Of course, asking the question again would be too divisive - well that's what the in-no-way-handpicked Edinburgh audience of Question Time seemed to think a few weeks back.
 
Last edited:
barjon said:
Oh! Don’t get me started SP :eek: Firstly, I think the pandemic really exposed how ultra weak was the government. No-one got to grips with proper leadership and the costly measures introduced seemed owe more to a panic response than a well thought out plan.

Now, the NHS :rolleyes:. Black hole, indeed, both in terms of inefficiency and money poured in. I think that the thing has grown into a massive monster that is far too big to be directed centrally and that is responsible for the waste and inefficiency. I would break it up and divest the centre of any management power below the strategic level, giving far more autonomy to regional level and below. Proper accountability measures would be in place. Aside from setting and monitoring the top level aims and associated strategy the centre would be a service provider (purchasing etc) but as a responder rather than director - nothing else.
Click to expand...

I have some sympathy with this view, barjon, but there is definitely a place for centralisation - particularly in the area of an holistic IT capability across the country.

The problem is, the IT systems in the Health Service almost never work properly. Whoever in Government awards these contracts, almost inevitably hands them out to rapacious consultancies like Accenture or Deloitte (likely after several long, 'working' lunches and/or hookers and charlie).

I ran part of a large FS contract for one consultancy, and they basically staffed 90% of it with graduates - most of whom had degrees in Classics, Bio-Engeering, Languages, or Sub-Saharan basket-weaving.

Said grads were eager-beavers, no doubt (churn was high, as the consultancy worked them until they couldn't go on any longer), but they were clueless when it came to the actual subject matter.

The consultancy op model was to get the minimum possible amount of SMEs in place, complement them with an army of relatively-cheap, unquestioning drones, have an absolutely GOLD-PLATED legal contract with the client, and hoover-up as much margin as humanly possible.

A successful outcome was always somewhat of a secondary consideration, and if the client wanted to withhold payment for a given milestone, they would simply wheel out their legal team without hesitation - at which point the client generally backed-down and paid, because who needs the pain in the arse of a legal bun-fight, when your day job is as an IT guy.

This an MO these consultancies carry into all industries, and they're very successful at it too. It's just a shame that their profit margin usually comes at the expense of an incredibly-poorly implemented end-product, which the client then has to patch together to try and make work (or ultimately replace at great additional cost).

This is just one example of how 'waste' develops in the Health system. Track & Trace and PPE provision are two more contemporary examples. Importantly, none of these aspects are in the direct control of the people who work in the NHS.
 
HawkWing said:
Scotland got its choice in 2014.
Of course, asking the question again would be too divisive - well that's what the in-no-way-handpicked Edinburgh audience of Question Time seemed to think a few weeks back.
Click to expand...

Yes.......it's good that I've overcome popping a blood-vessel every time I hear 2014 mentioned, because absolutely nothing has changed in the interim. Thanks for the reminder, HW.
 
Grasshopper said:
The NHS is the easiest target going, and the Government love it when people depict it as a "black-hole of waste". The fact is that the NHS is chronically under-funded, and is increasingly dysfunctional as a result. It is merely depicted as "wasteful" by those who are malevolently trying to ensure the Public fall out of love with it, in order that they can introduce a US-style system of health insurance. This accusation of wastefulness is, by the way, from coming from the same people who spunked the best part of £50Bn of our taxes on a useless Track & Trace scheme, and failing to insure against interest rate rises.

Waste, eh? Who is the more guilty party?

The one thing Sunak has right, is that there is always a trade-off when it comes to cutting taxes. Reduce the tax burden, and you have less to spend on public services - most of which are already at breaking-point.

Taxation isn't a bad thing per se - the problem we have in the UK is that the wrong types of taxes are imposed upon the wrong types of people. Any bone the Tories throw at the GP in the shape of tax reductions now, will be consumed in their entirety when Energy prices rise in October and again in January. It is a worthless sop to make the Govt appear like it is doing something.

European countries are capping prices, creating windfall taxes, and in some cases (France) nationalising their Energy companies to ensure profiteering isn't allowed at the expense of the people. In Germany and Spain, public transport price cuts have been introduced, to help reduce the strain on people's pockets.

None of this is happening in the UK, because we have a Government that has neither the imagination nor the will, to try anything like it. Their preference is for idealogical purity (don't interfere in Markets under any circumstances), over actually pulling their fingers out their holes and helping people.
Click to expand...

The privatisation points made are more than valid however I have to disagree about the blackhole. There are maintenance contracts that were signed for 50 years at a pop that charge £100 for a light bulb change. Go and speak to any leader of a department and they will give you 5 things where money is just wasted and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. Most hospitals major decisions are made by a board of trustees many of whom have no working experience of a hospital.
 
I don't know what you guys think but I know one big issue down here was that the privatisation of the NHS actually accelerated under the last Labour government, e.g the PFI scheme.

Don't get me wrong I think Blair should be commended for what he did to help the Irish Peace Process. He handled the Diana death very well given the circumstances, and I wouldn't fault his competence or work ethic especially after September 11th.

He was relatively young when he became PM which I do take in to account but I am not sure the PFI initiative was New Labours finest hour or policy.

Thankfully I think most of the public view all this as by the by now and are ready to give Labour another chance.
 
Last edited:
Marb said:
I don't know what you guys think but I know one big issue down here was that the privatisation of the NHS actually accelerated under the last Labour government, e.g the PFI scheme.

Don't get me wrong I think Blair should be commended for what he did to help the Irish Peace Process. He handled the Diana death very well given the circumstances, and I wouldn't fault his competence or work ethic especially after September 11th.

He was relatively young when he bacme PM and I am not sure the PFI initiative was New Labours finest hour.
Click to expand...

Thatcher stated that New Labour was her greatest achievement.
 
Back
Top