2006-09-12 03:52:06 · 14 answers · asked by aladinsane 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
they would get another job, they tend to be quite clever people (In the UK) and they don't really get paid that much when you think that their running a country. Its pittence compared to football players, and all they do is kick a ball around
2006-09-12 03:55:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Voter turnout at elections might have been at an all time low in recent elections, but you'll never get a situation where no-one votes if that happened, the queen would have to appoint a government - then you'd have no say.
The politicians who don't get re-elcted go and work in the media or become directors of big companies and make a fortune out of writining books and public speaking engagements.
2006-09-13 08:38:53 · answer #2 · answered by thebigtombs 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the sentiments of the question.
All of our political systems are outdated.
I have an idea, which relates to the UK, but could just as easily be applied to USA.
The present method of governing Britain is out of date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 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.
I'm sure you can identify many other benefits, and I'm also sure that any disadvantages could quickly be overcome.
2006-09-12 13:40:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well we'd have to refuse to pay taxes too as they are paid out of that and if we didn't vote they would either make it compulsory or the most corrupt ones would stay in power longer due to voter apathy.
I'd like to see less wangling of expenses and no tax relief on convenient secondary London flats etc and do wonder if we'd get a better standard of people going into politics if they were paid a minimum wage or if it was an entirely voluntary and unwaged.
2006-09-12 04:05:21 · answer #4 · answered by emread2002 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think they have astronomical salaries. It's the power and perks of the job they're after.
They make the big money from being directors of big companies, or being an after-dinner speaker once they're no longer Prime Minister ...
2006-09-12 04:00:14 · answer #5 · answered by kpbunches 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They really get paid peanuts compared to most jobs, especially given the educational requirement that most posts have ... I mean, most have been to University and studied hard, most love the job as they could make more money in legal, health or financial professions.
Guy opposite me is 25, gets about £4m a year for clicking buttons ... THAT is obscene
2006-09-12 03:55:59 · answer #6 · answered by Morph 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
unfortunately it would make no difference. there are quite a few politiicans who also hold high office in private sector companies and/or could make money anyway by writing biogs, tv apperances, newspaper articles, etc. i say we sack all of them and make Boris Johnson president of the UK
2006-09-12 05:18:50 · answer #7 · answered by edmunds_momma 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
On their astronomical expenses of course!!
2006-09-12 05:25:49 · answer #8 · answered by Rob Roy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They would vote for themselves. Not voting is playing into their hand. You have to vote against them!
2006-09-12 03:59:24 · answer #9 · answered by Jotun 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Scam some from bussiness for pushing things through.. just like they do now
2006-09-12 03:55:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋