How would you reform the UK?

[TheSel]

The snag is ... who would implement changes to the Civil Service?

Yep - you've got it - The Civil Service!

 

[DarloRich]

I go for your system, except me instead of you as supremo!

that simply wont work. The people love me. Not you

The first step would be a major review of the civil service. Transform it into a body whose sole function was "to do as it is told"

Ah yes, I forgot to mention civil service reform!

Amazing how people swallow media spin on this without asking why these ideas are proposed. They are proposed because the civil service limit the application of crack pot government policy that changes with the wind and try to shape it into something that can actually be delivered in the real world. The Civil Service aren't the problem and moving them to some kind of policy delivery lap dog would be disastrous and to suggest that shows a complete lack of understanding of how our system works.

That’s more or less what Dominic Cummins was proposing for the reform of the Civil Service.

Which suggest it is a wrong move!

 

[Butts]

I would appoint myself supremo with unlimited powers and that would be everything sorted. Obviously you cant make an omelette without breaking a few eggs and things might be a bit unpleasant for some people for a time but after that broad sunlit uplands here we come....................

(Clearly I will try to be a benign overlord but I can make no guarantees.)

No doubt you will be holding Court in Hogan's, whilst the noise of summary executions drifts in from The Smoking Area out the back

 

[xotGD]

Parliament elected via multi member constituencies using d'Hondt PR. Abolish the Lords. Elected Head of State.

 

[High Dyke]

Make voting mandatory. BUT - importantly - every ballot paper to have a 'None of the above' option on the bottom. If 'None of the above' gets an overall majority, a further election to be held - with a completely fresh set of candidates - within 14 days.

You've got my vote for that...or not as may be the case if introduced.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

The German system seems to work, the towns in the East are tidier than those in the West now
But the Bundestag has many more members than it should have , it has 709 members, in theory there should be 598. 111 extra members were appointed to ensure voters wishes were reflected, very complicated
There were quarter-hearted talks about action to reduce the number of members, but after the election on 26.9.2021 th Bundestag may have even more members
Only China has a bigger national assembly

 

[Bevan Price]

that simply wont work. The people love me. Not you





Amazing how people swallow media spin on this without asking why these ideas are proposed. They are proposed because the civil service limit the application of crack pot government policy that changes with the wind and try to shape it into something that can actually be delivered in the real world. The Civil Service aren't the problem and moving them to some kind of policy delivery lap dog would be disastrous and to suggest that shows a complete lack of understanding of how our system works.

I can only disagree. For example:
Parts of the Civil Service have demonstrated gross incompetence when negotiating contracts that turn out to be way over-schedule and over-expensive.
(Consider just : IT system for NHS; military equipment; etc., etc.)

 

[DarloRich]

I can only disagree. For example:
Parts of the Civil Service have demonstrated gross incompetence when negotiating contracts that turn out to be way over-schedule and over-expensive.
(Consider just : IT system for NHS; military equipment; etc., etc.)

So chuck out the civil service rather than look at why contracts have been badly specified and who leads that exercise? Madness. Straight out of the Daily Mail comments section.

 

[RT4038]

I can only disagree. For example:
Parts of the Civil Service have demonstrated gross incompetence when negotiating contracts that turn out to be way over-schedule and over-expensive.
(Consider just : IT system for NHS; military equipment; etc., etc.)

And who do you think is going to be relied on to do a better job?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jan 2021 ==

that simply wont work. The people love me. Not you

They are so fickle. They did love you, until you enacted some policies, but now they love me - by order

 

[Bevan Price]

And who do you think is going to be relied on to do a better job?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jan 2021 ==

So chuck out the civil service rather than look at why contracts have been badly specified and who leads that exercise? Madness. Straight out of the Daily Mail comments section.

I did not say get rid of the entire Civil Service -- just get rid of some of those at the top, with major changes to how it is organised.

 

[Clansman]

In my opinion, to safeguard the UK, the solution is a straightforward one.

Reform how power is distributed in order to make each constituent country equal, and use that as a base to integrate their common ideals, and provide an arena for each nation to debate with one another and come to a consensus on the way forward.

The UK cannot politically afford to function as one country any longer, as it results in shortfalls on all fronts to the power distribution throughout each nation - notably Scotland and England in particular. I see many members and others outside of the form citing benefits to systems such as that of Germany or the US, however the UK faces the issue that a) it comprises of countries with separate legal systems with more prevalent industrial, economic, and cultural distinctions b) the desire of each nation to have separate foreign and diplomatic relations with other countries and b) the wishes of one country can overrule the others through sheer population/parliament size alone including any devolved chambers, rendering point a) irrelevant to the country that's overridden.

Protecting each nation's interests is essential, but providing an arena for them to solve their disagreements and come to consensus on a platform of equality is critical. Without this, the UK won't last much longer.

Without going into its micro perils, the base structure of the EU is a template which could safe-guard the UK indefinitely, but in a less politically restrictive or intrusive way. 'EU light' you could think of the structure as; meaning common currency, open border movement, integrated armed forces, a veto for each nation, and full autonomy for each nation to pursue it's own political ambitions both domestic and how it functions as a member of the UK. English devolution can be implemented proportionally, neither of the nations can force one to do one thing without their agreement or compromise, and each nation has the freedom to ultimately chart it's course for what it does.

The UK is a union after all. It should be one of equality with each nation having the same influence, and through that equality it will be united and remain so for decades to come.

With such a structure, you'd find at least some areas of compromise on constitutional issues such as Brexit, as each nation would have full autonomy to seek or not to seek a relationship with the EU. And if hypothetically speaking there were incompatible arrangements that would hinder the integrity of say the above principles (say due to one nation's wishes) the solution to which requires changes to the UK's structure, then there'd be a chance to debate it in an equal chamber and voted on by each nation to accommodate it within the UK's structure. Failing that, then the buck rests with each nation to decide if the UK is the best place for them, in the same way EU member countries have the freedom to make this decision.

I just can't see a situation where one nation's elected representatives can overrule the others to such an extent as to inflict something against the majority of that nation's wishes, purely through the basis that they have either a larger population or a disproportional parliamentary influence.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I would appoint myself supremo with unlimited powers and that would be everything sorted.

You are Donald Trump and I claim the £5...

 

[Sad Sprinter]

In my opinion, to safeguard the UK, the solution is a straightforward one.

Reform how power is distributed in order to make each constituent country equal, and use that as a base to integrate their common ideals, and provide an arena for each nation to debate with one another and come to a consensus on the way forward.

The UK cannot politically afford to function as one country any longer, as it results in shortfalls on all fronts to the power distribution throughout each nation - notably Scotland and England in particular. I see many members and others outside of the form citing benefits to systems such as that of Germany or the US, however the UK faces the issue that a) it comprises of countries with separate legal systems with more prevalent industrial, economic, and cultural distinctions b) the desire of each nation to have separate foreign and diplomatic relations with other countries and b) the wishes of one country can overrule the others through sheer population/parliament size alone including any devolved chambers, rendering point a) irrelevant to the country that's overridden.

Protecting each nation's interests is essential, but providing an arena for them to solve their disagreements and come to consensus on a platform of equality is critical. Without this, the UK won't last much longer.

Without going into its micro perils, the base structure of the EU is a template which could safe-guard the UK indefinitely, but in a less politically restrictive or intrusive way. 'EU light' you could think of the structure as; meaning common currency, open border movement, integrated armed forces, a veto for each nation, and full autonomy for each nation to pursue it's own political ambitions both domestic and how it functions as a member of the UK. English devolution can be implemented proportionally, neither of the nations can force one to do one thing without their agreement or compromise, and each nation has the freedom to ultimately chart it's course for what it does.

The UK is a union after all. It should be one of equality with each nation having the same influence, and through that equality it will be united and remain so for decades to come.

With such a structure, you'd find at least some areas of compromise on constitutional issues such as Brexit, as each nation would have full autonomy to seek or not to seek a relationship with the EU. And if hypothetically speaking there were incompatible arrangements that would hinder the integrity of say the above principles (say due to one nation's wishes) the solution to which requires changes to the UK's structure, then there'd be a chance to debate it in an equal chamber and voted on by each nation to accommodate it within the UK's structure. Failing that, then the buck rests with each nation to decide if the UK is the best place for them, in the same way EU member countries have the freedom to make this decision.

I just can't see a situation where one nation's elected representatives can overrule the others to such an extent as to inflict something against the majority of that nation's wishes, purely through the basis that they have either a larger population or a disproportional parliamentary influence.

Agree with this. I think the problem with the Act of Union was it ironed it England's insecutity over decentralisation. After all, England unified as a means to combat foreign (European) threats and has been reluctant ever since to spread the power balance across the UK. A looser, but more pratical UK, is definetly the way forward.

 

[Chester1]

In my opinion, to safeguard the UK, the solution is a straightforward one.

Reform how power is distributed in order to make each constituent country equal, and use that as a base to integrate their common ideals, and provide an arena for each nation to debate with one another and come to a consensus on the way forward.

The UK cannot politically afford to function as one country any longer, as it results in shortfalls on all fronts to the power distribution throughout each nation - notably Scotland and England in particular. I see many members and others outside of the form citing benefits to systems such as that of Germany or the US, however the UK faces the issue that a) it comprises of countries with separate legal systems with more prevalent industrial, economic, and cultural distinctions b) the desire of each nation to have separate foreign and diplomatic relations with other countries and b) the wishes of one country can overrule the others through sheer population/parliament size alone including any devolved chambers, rendering point a) irrelevant to the country that's overridden.

Protecting each nation's interests is essential, but providing an arena for them to solve their disagreements and come to consensus on a platform of equality is critical. Without this, the UK won't last much longer.

Without going into its micro perils, the base structure of the EU is a template which could safe-guard the UK indefinitely, but in a less politically restrictive or intrusive way. 'EU light' you could think of the structure as; meaning common currency, open border movement, integrated armed forces, a veto for each nation, and full autonomy for each nation to pursue it's own political ambitions both domestic and how it functions as a member of the UK. English devolution can be implemented proportionally, neither of the nations can force one to do one thing without their agreement or compromise, and each nation has the freedom to ultimately chart it's course for what it does.

The UK is a union after all. It should be one of equality with each nation having the same influence, and through that equality it will be united and remain so for decades to come.

With such a structure, you'd find at least some areas of compromise on constitutional issues such as Brexit, as each nation would have full autonomy to seek or not to seek a relationship with the EU. And if hypothetically speaking there were incompatible arrangements that would hinder the integrity of say the above principles (say due to one nation's wishes) the solution to which requires changes to the UK's structure, then there'd be a chance to debate it in an equal chamber and voted on by each nation to accommodate it within the UK's structure. Failing that, then the buck rests with each nation to decide if the UK is the best place for them, in the same way EU member countries have the freedom to make this decision.

I just can't see a situation where one nation's elected representatives can overrule the others to such an extent as to inflict something against the majority of that nation's wishes, purely through the basis that they have either a larger population or a disproportional parliamentary influence.

You highlight the problem with UK federalism. Either Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (combined population of just over 10 million) are each individually equal to England (population 56 million) which would be massively undemocratic or England will dominate a federal parliament, which won't work for nationalists of the three other countries.

A very decentralised Federalism with UK parliament representation calculated by population is probably the only viable option. In the unlikely event of their being sufficient support in England it would only work short term because of England's dominance. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. The more the end of the UK resembles the slow independence of Canada, Australia and New Zealand the better for all UK Citizens. The primary risk of Scottish independence is the abruptness of a massive change. Federalism provides a bridge between the status quo and 4 seperate independent home nations.

 

[Clansman]

You highlight the problem with UK federalism. Either Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (combined population of just over 10 million) are each individually equal to England (population 56 million) which would be massively undemocratic or England will dominate a federal parliament, which won't work for nationalists of the three other countries.

A very decentralised Federalism with UK parliament representation calculated by population is probably the only viable option. In the unlikely event of their being sufficient support in England it would only work short term because of England's dominance. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. The more the end of the UK resembles the slow independence of Canada, Australia and New Zealand the better for all UK Citizens. The primary risk of Scottish independence is the abruptness of a massive change. Federalism provides a bridge between the status quo and 4 separate independent home nations.

Completely agree. Even as a pro-independence supporter, I recognise that there are cultural and economic binds within the UK nations that are worth recognising. However they're not worth voting for for the sake of it, especially with the UK in it's current state and even including the meaningless promises to 'reform' by union supporters. Something more meaningful and radical needs to happen that's not dependent on a party getting into government with English backing for it to be a proposal for the rest of the nations.

In other words I'm saying that any change to the UK cannot be done half-heartedly or through force. All nations have to want it, and to me it should be an 'outside-in' job, rather than 'inside-out'. Each nation coming together from their own accord, rather than the central UK government finding away to paint over cracks because it's losing the argument.

I believe independence from the UK altogether or the endorsement of it, will enable this.

Sadly though, the answer to the growing independence movement as perpetuated by the major political parties in Britain is too backwards for this. Devolution of more micro managed powers that is sugar coated in the narrative that it is radical (a la 2014), Federalism, Gordon Brown, or proxy show piece constitutional conventions - won't cut it this time round. It has to be a true radical change if the UK is ever going to last in the long term.

Ironically, it's the only way the UK (well, England) is ever going to save face in the international arena should Scotland decide (hopefully) to take a radically different path.

 

[Chester1]

Completely agree. Even as a pro-independence supporter, I recognise that there are cultural and economic binds within the UK nations that are worth recognising. However they're not worth voting for for the sake of it, especially with the UK in it's current state and even including the meaningless promises to 'reform' by union supporters. Something more meaningful and radical needs to happen that's not dependent on a party getting into government with English backing for it to be a proposal for the rest of the nations.

In other words I'm saying that any change to the UK cannot be done half-heartedly or through force. All nations have to want it, and to me it should be an 'outside-in' job, rather than 'inside-out'. Each nation coming together from their own accord, rather than the central UK government finding away to paint over cracks because it's losing the argument.

I believe independence from the UK altogether or the endorsement of it, will enable this.

Sadly though, the answer to the growing independence movement as perpetuated by the major political parties in Britain is too backwards for this. Devolution of more micro managed powers that is sugar coated in the narrative that it is radical (a la 2014), Federalism, Gordon Brown, or proxy show piece constitutional conventions - won't cut it this time round. It has to be a true radical change if the UK is ever going to last in the long term.

Ironically, it's the only way the UK (well, England) is ever going to save face in the international arena should Scotland decide (hopefully) to take a radically different path.

I don't think most English voters care about losing face in the international arena. The establishment does but I don't think the average person cares and has had enough of the UK trying to be a great power. Part my support for an independent England comes from a belief it would act like Canada or Australia in international affairs. I can't see the UK doing that.

What you suggest would best be described as confederation not federation. Its looser than Germany or the USA.

A good model would be to look at the Eurozone and do what it needs to work well. Central management of:

- Currency, financial services regulation and central banking
- Internal market regulation
- Import duties and sales taxes e.g. VAT

In other areas:

- Military and top level policing e.g. counter terrorism
- Foreign Policy, trade and International Development
- Border control, Immigration and Citizenship

Customs duty and VAT revenue should be sufficient to fund those federal functions, pay off the existing national debt and fund "solidarity payments" to Wales and Northern Ireland. The UK government could be constitutionally banned from taking on or renewing debt. The shortfall caused by central government keeping all duties and sale taxes would mean the 4 nations would need to borrow to fund a significant deficit, transferring the UK debt progressively to them. No doubt England and Scotland would need to part guarantee Welsh and Northern Irish debt to make sure they could borrow at sensible interest rates.

I doubt such an arrangement could last more than a generation but it would certainly smooth the transition to 4 independent nations.

 

[317 forever]

Parliament elected via multi member constituencies using d'Hondt PR. Abolish the Lords. Elected Head of State.

What is particularly good about this is that we can vote for a party that becomes much more likely to get a seat in the area compared to the "all or nothing" outcome of single-member constituency votes at present. It therefore reduces the need for tactical voting and also the perception of the wasted vote.

 

[Mat17]

I would split England into regions (along the lines of THE NORTH, THE MIDLANDS, THE SOUTH-WEST, THE SOUTH-EAST)...

I'd settle for splitting England into separate kingdoms; Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria, East Anglia, Danelaw etc.

 

[ABB125]

I'd settle for splitting England into separate kingdoms; Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria, East Anglia, Danelaw etc.

A bit archaic, but I can see some sense in it. After all, Mercia sounds much more interesting than "The Midlands" (if I've got my geography right)!

 

[Mat17]

A bit archaic, but I can see some sense in it. After all, Mercia sounds much more interesting than "The Midlands" (if I've got my geography right)!

To be fair I was posting tongue in cheek a little, but perhaps some devolution in England and taking decisions outside of Westminster would help to level up the country for real. After all, the local Government in each region probably knows what the local regions need better than a remote power in a Westminster bubble.

 

[Bevan Price]

Parliament elected via multi member constituencies using d'Hondt PR. Abolish the Lords. Elected Head of State.

So - you think M Thatcher would have been a better Head of State than HM QE2 ?
Because that would have been the consequences of your proposal in the 1980s. And likewise, do you think Boris would be beneficial for UK ??

 

[xotGD]

So - you think M Thatcher would have been a better Head of State than HM QE2 ?
Because that would have been the consequences of your proposal in the 1980s. And likewise, do you think Boris would be beneficial for UK ??

Well neither would have received my vote, but if that is what the majority want, that is democracy.

Anyway, we wouldn't have a president in the style of the USA or France. It would be more a ceremonial position as is the case in Ireland, Germany, etc.

 

[ABB125]

To be fair I was posting tongue in cheek a little, but perhaps some devolution in England and taking decisions outside of Westminster would help to level up the country for real. After all, the local Government in each region probably knows what the local regions need better than a remote power in a Westminster bubble.

I agree.

 

[XAM2175]

So - you think M Thatcher would have been a better Head of State than HM QE2 ?
Because that would have been the consequences of your proposal in the 1980s. And likewise, do you think Boris would be beneficial for UK ??

Well neither would have received my vote, but if that is what the majority want, that is democracy...

The Prime Minister is the head of government, not the head of state, so implementing that proposal in the 1980s wouldn't have resulted in any change to Mrs Thatcher's status unless she chose to resign as an MP in order to pursue it.

 

[najaB]

Anyway, we wouldn't have a president in the style of the USA or France. It would be more a ceremonial position as is the case in Ireland, Germany, etc.

An elected ceremonial head of state. I thought people were opposed to government waste?

 

[edwin_m]

An elected ceremonial head of state. I thought people were opposed to government waste?

An elected one wouldn't cost any more than our current unelected one. And we wouldn't have to fund any of their relatives.

 

[najaB]

An elected one wouldn't cost any more than our current unelected one. And we wouldn't have to fund any of their relatives.

Elections aren't free.

 

[xotGD]

Elections aren't free.

Best scrap them then.

We can then happily tug our forelocks and allow those who know best to get on with things.

The government was quite happy to introduce extra elections for the key role of Police and Crime Commissioner, so I think finding a few bob to cover the cost of electing the Head of State ought to be doable.

 

[najaB]

The government was quite happy to introduce extra elections for the key role of Police and Crime Commissioner

Those weren't ceremonial posts though.

 

[DarloRich]

No multiple ownership of UK media. One man, one paper.