“There was recently a definite movement towards something that has at the moment been named a written constitution”
“It seems that some feel a need for this thing”
“But what is it we actually need?”
“There are definite arguments against a written constitution as well as for”
“This hole that is wished filled, is for something, but a written constitution is not the answer to the problem. What is the problem that some feel needs filling? Is there a better solution. One that looks at the problem at a different level, and so keeps our flexible system as is, yet provides more clarity and is felt more useful, more important, more relevant by the public and the government”
“No change at all to our constitution, but a meta-constitution. A definition of terms, such as government, democracy, MP, Minister, PM, Party, Public, Elected official etc. A list of flaws, maybe even views of each from each others perspective. No views considered wrong to start with. An ideal direct pure democracy, as defined as everyone deciding directly in every matter, and the majority decision being followed. But we have a practical democracy of elected proxies. They are our trusted choices that we elect to do as we would wish, if we had the time to research every matter fully and had full knowledge of the matter we were voting upon and its implications. They should do as we would, if we all could. ”
“MPs should vote as their electorate would, if they all had full knowledge. Now, sure, MPs shouldnt necessarily vote as their electorate see things, and their argument that they have to protect us from bad decisions is valid, however, it is dangerous. They should be voting as their electorate would wish if fully informed. An attitude that they are there to decide for us, because we are incapable, is a problem. The assumption that they are in full knowledge of the facts and their implications is maybe taken too quickly or easily when they see or believe they are ‘above’ their electorate. It can lead to a belief that if they are better, they are fit to decide. This may prevent them from seeing that they need to understand the problem and its implications properly. It can lead to a kind of arrogance perhaps.”
“When people see their MPs voting in a way that is obviously not as a proxy for a fully informed public (ie. when the subject is more straightforward, so that more of the population see their decision is not as theirs would be), then the public see this as a kind of arrogant abuse of their position as a servant, as a proxy, as a trusted representative, and often it seems as though their MP believes they are incapable of being in the position of one of many that is used to shape that MPs decision. The MP is now on their own, their own proxy, and talk of an electorate is just that of convenience when it suits them. This is a problem”
“I suppose I am conservative in my views, but here the problem looks worse most often. One event is just that, one event, but several, slightly suspicious events, becomes a pattern. Unfortunately every small thing adds up and paints a picture. The last PM can give honours to his favourite dog walker if he wants, he’s done his part, and he tried, and it didn’t go his way, and well, I can kind of see he tried, and well, he felt he did his best, and now he is off, and so why not look after those close. Then deciding staying to represent his constituents was what he wanted, even after being PM, but oh, no cabinet position for me? actually, im out of here. One thing alone is nothing, but things add up, and tar all im afraid. I can’t say those actions were a problem for him. They were a problem for the party, because they were the honesty at the end, that lingers on and ends up adding to the conservative picture, that picture of how the world sees conservative MPs, as a mix of all the stories of all of them, averaged out. I see real hope with our new MP, I really do. She is the once in a lifetime PM for me. I really know she sees the world how I want her to, and I hear her saying what I was just thinking. I just hope it doesn’t all collapse around impatience. Theres so much she could do, that is so easy. We do a lot, that people don’t know about. We have so much good news we havent taken advantage of. Anyway, I digress…”
“So, back to the Meta-Constitution…. A statement of definitions, goals, roles, flaws, fairly expressed, all sides views are important, government need the tools, the ability to work better, more enjoyably, more efficiently. This should address it all. A statement of bounds, the ideal, where questions and decisions are worded unfairly, or good bundled with a little bad to get bad through. The government actually do quite well digitally, and yet, there are small areas where it could all be made to shine that they just miss. The PM really is sitting on gold. You send a message to government and you know you may as well be deleting it instead and saving everyone the time of not reading it. They don’t want to read most the almost identical nonsense emails, i suppose. It would be so easy to cut public emails down vastly, and have less to read, yet everybody get more out of the system. As a software developer, I can see several places where almost nothing would become everything. Where it can all be put together. God knows why it hasn’t. And I digress again…..”
You have shelved the written constitution. I understand the thinking behind one but suggest it wasnt the answer, there is a better one. I suggest we solve the real problem in a better easier way that is more effective and popular for you.
Better way and why
We need a contract, definition, or a statement of role, goals or purpose, and I will explain why this is what will fill that public need, and make you popular, but allow you more control.
The real way
A definition of our representative democracy, MP’s, government, and publics’ purpose and goals.
A definition of a democracy, a representative democracy, electorate’s, MP’s, and government minister and employees purpose, and maybe a discussion of real world flaws
Public problem with government
The real problem is that government still behaves as they did 100 years ago, as if they have the power over life and death of the public rather than as working on behalf of the public.
People understand what democracy is defined as, and see that is not what they are getting. Their MPs don’t act as their proxies, even as a proxy for a public in full possession of the facts to decide correctly. They consider themselves the last line of defence of the public choosing badly, which prevents introspection into their own lack of understanding.
How to not do it
MPs like Arlene Foster who put herself and her job above peace, and play chicken with NI.
Her fault or not, her job is to look after NI above all else. She is not in employment court, yet she treats it like that.