This is, of course, is why its so opposed by the Tories (and doubtless will be by Labour). It makes party management tougher. When you physically have to walk through a different lobby alongside those who are not from your party its a slightly tougher psychological matter to vote against the Government. Clearly MPs votes must be public after the fact but by making them physically walk through a different lobby it certainly adds an extra layer to make it harder to rebel.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Is tradition holding the UK back?
- Thread starter brad465
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
birchesgreen
Established Member
The problem with the royal family, fine as many of them indeed are, but they underpin the whole aristrocratic and class system which really does hold the country back.
nlogax
Established Member
The Palace of Westminster is a crumbling ruin and needs major, significant work..the same could be said of some of its inhabitants whom cling to its deteriorating fabric but that's another thread entirely.
Seems to me that the increasingly urgent need to get serious with rehabilitating the physical estate would facilitate a travelling parliament. Using existing facilities around the country - including Scotland and NI - and aligning to a pre-determined schedule would be a good start. Giving the public a chance to visit regional parliamentary galleries to review how our democracy does / doesn't work would be a big plus.
Maybe this would become part of the accepted permanent state of affairs. But then again none of what I've suggested above aligns to what is reality in this country and it'll never happen.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Easy! The QEII conference centre is literally across the road from Parliament. Just buy that and convert it. The main conference hall is easily big enough and has roughly the right design for a modern semi-circular legislative chamber to serve as the House of Commons. No need to uproot tens of thousands of Parliamentary workers, ministries or civil servants and make them move across the country. And since you'd be staying in Parliament Square, all the infrastructure around is still there - no need to build what would amount almost to a new city-within-a-city if you want Parliament to be somewhere else.
I don't think most countries with an elected head of state go after ex (failed or otherwise) politicians. The US and France are the only countries I can think of (although I'm sure there are others) where the President actually exerts political power. There are many leading figures in society who could function effectively outside of party politics as a neutral non-executive president.
Don't even need to buy it, it's already Government owned! And yes I agree the logical course of action is to repurpose the conference centre as a new permanent home for Parliament. You might need to find some office space nearby for MPs Parliamentary offices but for the Chambers themselves seems the obvious move.
uglymonkey
Member
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 480
I thought they had ( or some of them had) that office block the other side of the bridge road ( same side of the river) for offices?
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
You mean, Portcullis House? Yes, they do, and some MPs do have their offices and staff there. But it's not big enough for all MPs' offices. The unlucky ones still have to make do with offices in the old Parliament buildings, so would need to be rehoused.
nlogax
Established Member
Problem with Portcullis House is it's just that - a huge office block. There's no way the atrium could accommodate that size of assembly.
Well no, that's why you use the conference centre for the actual chambers and probably the committee rooms as well.
Doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem!
Enthusiast
Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,143
I wasn't actually basing it on that. My point (not properly made) was that 400 or so MPs should be more than an adequate number for an electorate of about 47m (one MP per c.117,000 voters). After all, the US manages with about that number in the HoR with an electorate five times the size.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Trouble, is, MPs already typically report being overwhelmed by the amount of correspondence and requests for help they receive from constituents. Reduce the number of MPs and you make it even harder for MPs to provide that help. The UK has had about 650 or more MPs since 1801 - despite the population being far lower than today for pretty much all of that time. So it would seem strange, now we have such a high population, to want to reduce that number and thereby increase the separation between MPs and constituents.
I'm not sure if the US HoR is a good comparison because (a) the USA has the State assemblies in the individual states too, and (b) I'm not clear whether the USA has the same tradition of representatives being expected to help individual constituents to the same extent that we do?
Though I think there's an argument to be made that the US House of Representatives could do with a few more members. It will always be disproportionate, that's why they have a Senate with a fixed two Senators per state after all, but it does feel a little barmy that they have 435 Representatives for a population of of around 330m. Not saying that they should go crazy and have 1,000 or something. But increasing the total a bit for the next time they re-allocate doesn't seem to unwise. That being said the place is so hyper partisan that no doubt someone would cry foul rightly or wrongly, whilst someone else would try and use it to gain an advantage or disadvantage a rival.
Personally speaking I'm far from convinced that there's a need to reduce the number of MPs, now, the number of Lords on the other hand...
I broadly agree with you here but I would note that in some respects the reason why MPs are increasingly inundated with casework to help constituents is the a mixture of the decline in other services able to help and the problematic disconnect between Local Government and the people it purports to represent.
For instance Citizens Advice should be a logical calling point for people with all sorts of issues that don't necessarily require an MP (or their caseworker). But many have been struggling for funding so have had to reduce their services (in part due to Local Authority cuts as they are often a major funder) when at the same time demand for those services has increased. That assumes that there even is a local Citizens Advice, some areas don't have one at all. Other more local charities are in a similar boat. So now if you need help with some random issue you have rather than getting support from a third party the only person that might be there to listen may well be the MP!
Equally Local Government and Councillors are now so devalued that most people probably don't even think of writing to them anymore. Or even they do many people probably find that the only way to get sense out of their Local Council is to get their MP involved in the case because Local Government is in such a state that it's hard to get sense out of them.
A personal example, we've found where I am that the only way to reliably get an explanation of a Housing Benefit or Council Tax Reduction decision out of local councils around here isn't to send an email or make a phone call to the relevant department, that will take weeks (or you'll be on hold for ages) and the response will be nonsensical, but it's to make a formal complaint. That will get a response quickly from someone who knows what the hell their talking about meaning that the issue is resolved ASAP. Now if you're a random member of the public who doesn't have the benefit of a third party service able to help you, would you go to your MP? You may well do as after all it's all the Government isn't it?
I think, broadly, the issues with MPs getting swamped with casework is a symptom of the wider malaise that is effecting so much of a administrative state. People are going to their MP because it's the only way, it feels, that they can get anyone to actually do something to get their issue fixed. Even when, half the time, it isn't anything to do with the MPs brief!
Not that I really know how to fix it mind you
birchesgreen
Established Member
Other countries do exist, i feel one of the things holding the UK back is that we always seem to have to compare ourselves to the US...
edwin_m
Veteran Member
A lot of US decision making takes place at state or lower levels, which have their own governments, legislatures and elections. Far more significant than local authorities are in the UK. I'm certainly not recommending the US system for the UK though - however bad our system is, at least we don't have political appointees in roles like being judges or setting the boundaries of electoral districts.
So not at all comparable then. The US is a federal country with the states and territories (which don't have voting representatives anyway). There is a clear separation of powers. The feds can't legislate on state matters and vice versa. The District of Columbia is under direct rule by Congress, without an autonomous lower layer of government.
Like I said, if the UK was a federal entity with devolution then maybe there'd be scope for slimming it down. Instead we have to have MPs who can deal with everything from bins to babies to borders. England and its local authorities don't get close.
Last edited:
Fermiboson
Member
From a foreigner’s perspective - tradition is one of UK’s greatest political strengths.
Let’s be honest here, what does the UK have to offer? There are no oilfields like in Texas or the Middle East, no timber like in Finland and Sweden, no uranium like Australia. It’s not the most populous, doesn’t have the highest GDP per capita, doesn’t have the lowest tax, the best social services, the most convenient international connections. It can’t offer the highest wages or the most comfortable living conditions. Why then is what should by all objective measures be a mid-sized European country a proportionally much larger economy with strong global reach?
Fundamentally, there are two reasons:
1. English is the lingua franca;
2. People have been used to congregating here for 200+ years.
Virtually all of Britain’s strongest institutions grew strong because they sat at the centre of a quarter of the world’s population for more than a century, be it educational institutions, tourism, banking, or maritime activities, or even the railways (given how important coal was as a freight profit earner). The City is not rich because London is rich, it is rich because all the rich people are used to going there. The UK has to retain its tradition and a sense of history in order to retain its attractiveness.
Even with regard to domestic politics, tradition is a great stabilising force that is the backbone of British democracy. Unlike most European nations, who have constitutions forged sometimes literally through iron and blood, Britain relies on the “gentle(wo)manness” of her politicians to maintain a stable political system, and as the US has demonstrated, that sense of personal shame (”going against traditions and norms”/“unprecedented in 3 centuries”) can be more effective in preventing malicious actors and their allies from attempting to wield dictatorial powers and damage democracy than a piece of paper, especially as said piece of paper also relies on fallible humans to interpret and enforce it. Despite the inherent unrepresentativeness of many parts of the British system (FPTP and Whitehall being the two prominent examples mentioned here) as well as many unscrupulous characters currently in politics and vying for power (we can make up our own minds as to who these are!) Britain is in no serious danger of democratic backsliding, unlike multiple European countries, and the US, which is quite literally several tens of thousands of voters away from dictatorship.
This is to say nothing, of course, of tourism and immigration that the UK’s sense of tradition and history attracts, which contribute significantly to the UK economy.
Let’s be honest here, what does the UK have to offer? There are no oilfields like in Texas or the Middle East, no timber like in Finland and Sweden, no uranium like Australia. It’s not the most populous, doesn’t have the highest GDP per capita, doesn’t have the lowest tax, the best social services, the most convenient international connections. It can’t offer the highest wages or the most comfortable living conditions. Why then is what should by all objective measures be a mid-sized European country a proportionally much larger economy with strong global reach?
Fundamentally, there are two reasons:
1. English is the lingua franca;
2. People have been used to congregating here for 200+ years.
Virtually all of Britain’s strongest institutions grew strong because they sat at the centre of a quarter of the world’s population for more than a century, be it educational institutions, tourism, banking, or maritime activities, or even the railways (given how important coal was as a freight profit earner). The City is not rich because London is rich, it is rich because all the rich people are used to going there. The UK has to retain its tradition and a sense of history in order to retain its attractiveness.
Even with regard to domestic politics, tradition is a great stabilising force that is the backbone of British democracy. Unlike most European nations, who have constitutions forged sometimes literally through iron and blood, Britain relies on the “gentle(wo)manness” of her politicians to maintain a stable political system, and as the US has demonstrated, that sense of personal shame (”going against traditions and norms”/“unprecedented in 3 centuries”) can be more effective in preventing malicious actors and their allies from attempting to wield dictatorial powers and damage democracy than a piece of paper, especially as said piece of paper also relies on fallible humans to interpret and enforce it. Despite the inherent unrepresentativeness of many parts of the British system (FPTP and Whitehall being the two prominent examples mentioned here) as well as many unscrupulous characters currently in politics and vying for power (we can make up our own minds as to who these are!) Britain is in no serious danger of democratic backsliding, unlike multiple European countries, and the US, which is quite literally several tens of thousands of voters away from dictatorship.
This is to say nothing, of course, of tourism and immigration that the UK’s sense of tradition and history attracts, which contribute significantly to the UK economy.
Well quite! Typically I tend to prefer European comparisons as those are usually more relevant, but some people seem to get upset at that sort of thing. Something about some silly referendum or something a few years ago...
dangie
Established Member
Not the UK but England.
England will never win a World Cup or European Cup if they continue to play ‘home games’ at Wembley Stadium.
England’s home games should be spread between Birmingham, Manchester & Liverpool etc…
England will never win a World Cup or European Cup if they continue to play ‘home games’ at Wembley Stadium.
England’s home games should be spread between Birmingham, Manchester & Liverpool etc…
During the rebuilding of Wembley, that's exactly what happened. Still didn't result in England winning a cup
dangie
Established Member
Fair play. I forgot that. I’ll just have to think of another reason why we won’t win.
Note: Because we’re useless doesn’t count
uglymonkey
Member
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 480
I think we don't win is that the premier league always takes precedence.
Enthusiast
Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,143
Some good points which somewhat demolish my rash plan to castrate the HoC 
But before I roll over completely, what about adding the three devolved assemblies into the mix?
But before I roll over completely, what about adding the three devolved assemblies into the mix?
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Some good points which somewhat demolish my rash plan to castrate the HoC
But before I roll over completely, what about adding the three devolved assemblies into the mix?
Probably depends what powers the devolved assemblies have. But I would think that if they had substantial powers - comparable - say, to the US states or to the Scottish Parliament, and Westminster's authority was confined to ultimate legislative authority, foreign affairs and stuff that really has to be decided on a UK-wide basis, then there would be a very good argument for reducing the numbers of MPs in the Commons. In fact, in that situation, I imagine it would be almost inevitable.
Thanks for this, very insightful and thought provoking.
In the words of Joni Mitchell:
What holds the UK back is not recognising and utilising its strengths some of which are listed here:
Here in the Fens the strength of one of our world leading educational institutions is a huge opportunity, and the UK has to find a way of maximising that opportunity without paving paradise.
It's not even the middle of England! See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_points_of_the_United_Kingdom
birchesgreen
Established Member
The middle of Morecombe Bay seems to be the centre of the UK so thats where we could dump the MPs. A plan with no drawbacks.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
But it's only underwater for some of the time.