The UK Un-Constitution fixing Government

How the act of deciding not to have a written constitution may solve the problems better

Advertisements

chbrain2“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…..”

Shelved Constitution

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.

 

 

James Cook

UKThinkTank.com


 

How not to be an MP

  • You are a proxy for the electorate.  You work for them on their behalf.  You are not their chosen wise representative, or their better.
  • You should represent their wishes as if they had all the information about the relevant subject to make a decision, and pick that choice.
  • You are a flawed component with flawed knowledge in a flawed system and understanding this rather than considering yourself as the voice of sense that thankfully is there to choose right rather than choose democratically.
  • Your job security is not more important than what you do and choose in your job.
  • We really see straight through arrogance, and there’s a lot to see through.
  • Be all Arlene Foster isn’t and you are half way there.
  • So you accidentally nuked somewhere?  Just be honest and all will be forgiven.  You will be surprised.
  • You can do so much better.  Why don’t you?
  • Because your party is in power, it doesn’t mean we had any real choice.

 

End of rant.

 

 

Why UK Government gets old fast

grumbles on UK government in 21st century

  • Honesty would be lovely.  The PM could tell me she accidentally nuked most of Europe if she admitted she was drugged up with medication for her anxiety attacks and well, she thought it was another illusion.  Yup, the honesty would be lovely, awww bless her, i support her.
  • We see how government works now, and we dont like what we see.   We read about democracy & see something different.  We elect MPs as our proxies, but thats not how they view themselves.  They are the voice of reason to save us from our selves, but it goes further.  They know best and dont question whether they have it right.
  • They continue to tell themselves that selling off all our gold is too complex for us to really understand and there are reasons we dont see, really, now shussh.
  • For the most part we are useful to stick up for when it is convenient, but mostly an unwelcome annoyance.
  • We are easily appeased.  Here, ive added 50p to your grans pension.
  • We dont see the flaws with democracy.  Cameron said he wanted to look after his constituents after being PM, but as soon as it was clear he wasnt in the cabinet, he resigned.  stange huh??  At least it wasnt all about the power huh?  If PM pay isnt great, then the only reason to put yourself forward is power or to just help more people better.  Unfortunately, people that really help, dont want to get clogged down in office or more work getting in the way, usually, so generally dont volunteer.  Its the ones who dont ask who should get.
  • Cameron lost Brexit, was off, we all let him down, he deserved a few dodgy honours as reward, screw what they think, or how dare they question my motives.
  • Arlene Foster is just so damn important, more so than her country, or peace in it, how dare anyone question her that isnt on her high level.  Its her god given right, now shhh.

By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com