should we change our government ourselves?

Question

why not abolish our system of electing government and let the people elect individuals in society who have proven skills in certain fields, ie top legal experts/business experts, names should be taken from the public as nominations, we can then get rid of all the parties, and they should not be paid high salaries they can also be sacked easier, do we need any government constantly at war within, come on uk get modernised

Answer 1

I agree with you 100%.

At present we elect one party who then proceed to give high paid positions to some-one of their choice, whether they have experience or not. John Prescott being a shining example of this.

I have always advocated that the people of this Country should elect who the majority of them want to represent them in the various fields.

The best person available for a specific post may be denied the opportunity to serve his Country because of his Political aversion.

Answer 2

.

I agree, the present method of governing Britain is out of date


My idea is that we need a complete revamp in government. Not just change the people, but completely change the way we think about government.
When the current system of democracy was created the population of England was about a sixth of what it is now. So there were 659 MPs for about 10 million people, being a representation ratio of about 15000 to 1.

Now, we have 646 MPs, and about 60 million people giving a representation factor of about 93,000 to one.

So each person's representation has reduced by around 600%.
In other words, you now get about one sixth of the representation that a citizen in 1801 got. Another way of looking at this is to say that, in order to have the same level of representation that we had in 1801, we would need 3876 MPs.
This is obviously ludicrous. and is absolute evidence of a need for a change.

As the population has increased so dramatically, then the effectiveness and fairness of a central government has reduced.
What we now need is an increase in the power of local government, and a reduction in the power of central government.
I propose that we should bring back something akin to the parish councils. We should have constituencies of a maximum of 500 families. These constituencies should have total control over the lives of its constituents, with no interference from outside, They must elect their own officials, provide all of their own facilities such as school, health care, pensions, police, ar anything which they feel that they need.
If they feel that they are too small for a particular project or service, then they negotiate with nearby constituencies to make suitable arrangements. There would be no higher level arbitrator. Full responsibility would rest at the local level.

The benefits of this are enormous. Firstly, everybody would know everybody else within a constituency, so when a problem arises it would be easy to get to the source, because it would be to everyone's benefit to do so. This alone would reduce terrorism and serious crime to a minimum. A sort of neighbourhood watch scheme in which everybody takes full part, and makes the decisions. The money presently spent on taxes, most of which disappears in red tape, civil servants' and MPs' salaries, waging war, and hundreds of other expenses from which the average citizen receives no benefit whatsoever, would be spent on directly benefiting the community, on projects voted for by the community.
It is most likely that taxes could be reduced to a fraction of what is presently paid, because all wastage would be readily identified. Everybody would participate in their own government, because they would be able to understand it, and would have a real voice.
There would be no need for secret services, or secrets of any kind, saving another fortune, and removing another load of confusion.
International relations could be handled by people who volunteer for the job, seconded by their own community. Anyone would be entitled to do the job, with funding coming from the small communities that are interested in each individual project. When a project is completed, then the people working on it are retired. If a project is not popular, it will not receive funding.

I'm sure you can identify many other benefits, and I'm also sure that any disadvantages could quickly be overcome.
.

Answer 3

i say yes we should, that would be real democracy as opposed to the present day de'mockery' we have 2day. Democracy was never really intended for the masses, it was a tool for control by an elite minority. Most people don't even know that revolution is our right, unfortunately to many r afraid and/or don't care. Britains r so lame at defending their rights and r on the verge of loosing them all together. Two thirds of this nations work force r in the service sector, a nation of servants heading into neo-slavery with the help of 'technology'.

Answer 4

In theory, it's great. However, it takes a lot of people in key positions to be able to pull off such a feat. Plus you need to ensure that the people put into such positions are actually trustworthy.

The same suggestion can be prescribed to people who complain about the poor work conditions. Putting responsible employers and people in key business positions that can properly train and hire the correct workers would clean up the Economic System.

However, finding qualified individuals who can step up and lead is another story. A lot of people know what to do, but who's going to do it or even qualified to do it?

Answer 5

Thats what I want for our country.

Answer 6

Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

Answer 7

Who would you bring instead?

Answer 8

yes we would , if we only could