Annual Political Party Conference season is nearing an end. For the last three weeks, we have heard party leaders and influential individuals gloat about their previous year's achievements while bashing their opponents. For journalists and political enthusiasts, September is a month they feast on. After a summer where Westminster goes quiet, the following weeks after the MPs' return from their holidays, storms are created and scandals dominate our media. And this September certainly didn't disappoint.
There haven't been many Septembers like the one 2014 produced. 55 percent of the Scottish public decided that it wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom after fierce debates and unrealistic, and possibly, unreasonable promises. Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minster announced that his days as leader of the proud nation are numbered after his campaign for Scottish independence collapsed, and in convincing fashion too.
David Cameron, who urged people to vote "No" in this independence referendum must have thought his return from his summer holiday started off very well. It became better for him as polls started to head to his favour as it appears clear that people are beginning to lose faith in Ed Miliband, who suffered some amnesia, forgetting parts of what may have been his most important speech to date in Labour's annual conference. Miliband was ridiculed which meant brownie points for Cameron.
What Cameron didn't realise was that shortly after this, his Conservative Party would come off their high horses. In as many months, a second Tory MP decided to defect to the Party-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named, and hours after that announcement, another was embroiled in some kinky scandal, exposed by a Sunday newspaper. Both of which were conveniently announced a day before the Conservative Party Conference commenced.
Now all of a sudden, Cameron is in a pickle. How can he be leading in some polls when faithful party members are turning their backs on him? Or do people feel that Cameron is 'the best of the worst of the bunch'? That sounds more believable because, honestly, despite the economic recovery gathering pace, the Conservative's popularity has declined rapidly since 2010. And with more cuts to funding on many crucial departments to come, many are counting down to May 2015 so they can see Cameron and his Eton mess out of 10 Downing Street.
If that were to be the case, it would be fascinating as to where the UK would go. Are the polls right to suggest that the Party-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named are to be considered the third most popular party in the country and, therefore, gain a few seats in parliament? Apparently, they 'represent what Britain needs'. But if they gained enough votes to force another Hung Parliament, and one or two would become Cabinet Ministers, would any of us be happy with them? I mean, in the end of the day, for example, we have never chosen who should lead the Education system, despite it affecting millions nationwide. We seem to choose who represents our local community and those individuals will be lined up and the most number of people from that party who get picked from these areas, gets to represent the entire nation.
To me, the way we vote for our government is ridiculous and I think some may agree with me when I say that I'm bored of leaders who whine about each other's weaknesses and incompetence. People aren't fooled by this form of manipulation anymore. Others are starting to moan about different matters now, such as how we 'badly' we are governed by Brussels - not naming any individuals, of course - which has caused some debate. However, we are still unhappy about something in the political system, whether it would be with the European Union, or Westminster.
My solution... abolish political parties.
Yes, you read right. Abolish Conservatives. Abolish Labour. Abolish Liberal Democrats. Although I praise the current local MP aspect of British politics where each constituency has a representative on both a regional and national level, but I feel that voters vote tactfully so that one person is ousted as Prime Minister. The British people vote by looks, not by policy. They felt in 2010 that Cameron and Nick Clegg had charm and good media presence whilst Gordon Brown was quite the outcast - and I can see it being the same way for next year. The majority of people won't vote Labour because Miliband 'looks weird'. They'll vote the leader of the Party-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named because he's like a 'local lad', who enjoys a pint or five at a nearby rugby club. Policy is now secondary importance to voters and I find that quite frightening.
What I find therefore baffling is that, once people vote for a government, they will complain about the policies that government has to offer. Michael Gove, former Education Secretary, was a victim to plenty of hatred comments because his policies, they felt, were horrifying. Some of them were, but we have this system where if you vote for one Party, you will get no choice in who should govern a particular department.
So here is what I propose, we should vote for our local MP - that should stay the same, but by no means should that therefore determine who becomes Prime Minister. What should determine who becomes Prime Minister is that we are given a separate choice. And then we get a separate question of 'Who should be our Education Secretary', 'Who should be our Foreign Secretary', and so on. By having this choice and picking the head of each department would indicate our trust in that particular individual to do their job properly, and hire their best people for their department.
And if that means we have a "Labour Health Secretary" and "Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer" in the same team, simply because we trust Labour with the NHS and Conservatives with the economy, then so be it. They then should have their own powers without the interference of the Prime Minister, who should simply be the spokesperson and the note taker - if a large number of people have issues which they felt were ignored, then the PM should raise them and liaise with the local MPs. That will be a vital role that people would actually appreciate.
Having this new system could see minimum conflict in Westminster and Unions who represent 'ordinary' people. Parties are meant to unite, not turn their back against each other like they did in Scottish referendum when the Scottish National Party were fighting their corner against the Westminster mafia. Even though I probably would have voted 'Yes' if I was in Scotland more than two weeks ago, I was saddened to discover 45 percent of the Scottish public felt the need to leave the UK because they believed those in Westminster weren't representing them the way they felt would work for them.
There are some signs that Parties are uniting, however. As awful was the decision by government to back air strikes in Iraq, at least all but 43 politicians acknowledged that something radical must be done to defeat extremist groups who are ruining it for the innocent majority.
Even though my suggestion in how the political system should work in Britain is very unrealistic, I feel that if it did, this would create a more realistic and idealistic picture of how a country should run. Politicians want trust, they can only get it by gaining it from those who matter - the 62 million people who live in a Kingdom that is United.
There haven't been many Septembers like the one 2014 produced. 55 percent of the Scottish public decided that it wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom after fierce debates and unrealistic, and possibly, unreasonable promises. Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minster announced that his days as leader of the proud nation are numbered after his campaign for Scottish independence collapsed, and in convincing fashion too.
David Cameron, who urged people to vote "No" in this independence referendum must have thought his return from his summer holiday started off very well. It became better for him as polls started to head to his favour as it appears clear that people are beginning to lose faith in Ed Miliband, who suffered some amnesia, forgetting parts of what may have been his most important speech to date in Labour's annual conference. Miliband was ridiculed which meant brownie points for Cameron.
What Cameron didn't realise was that shortly after this, his Conservative Party would come off their high horses. In as many months, a second Tory MP decided to defect to the Party-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named, and hours after that announcement, another was embroiled in some kinky scandal, exposed by a Sunday newspaper. Both of which were conveniently announced a day before the Conservative Party Conference commenced.
Now all of a sudden, Cameron is in a pickle. How can he be leading in some polls when faithful party members are turning their backs on him? Or do people feel that Cameron is 'the best of the worst of the bunch'? That sounds more believable because, honestly, despite the economic recovery gathering pace, the Conservative's popularity has declined rapidly since 2010. And with more cuts to funding on many crucial departments to come, many are counting down to May 2015 so they can see Cameron and his Eton mess out of 10 Downing Street.
If that were to be the case, it would be fascinating as to where the UK would go. Are the polls right to suggest that the Party-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named are to be considered the third most popular party in the country and, therefore, gain a few seats in parliament? Apparently, they 'represent what Britain needs'. But if they gained enough votes to force another Hung Parliament, and one or two would become Cabinet Ministers, would any of us be happy with them? I mean, in the end of the day, for example, we have never chosen who should lead the Education system, despite it affecting millions nationwide. We seem to choose who represents our local community and those individuals will be lined up and the most number of people from that party who get picked from these areas, gets to represent the entire nation.
To me, the way we vote for our government is ridiculous and I think some may agree with me when I say that I'm bored of leaders who whine about each other's weaknesses and incompetence. People aren't fooled by this form of manipulation anymore. Others are starting to moan about different matters now, such as how we 'badly' we are governed by Brussels - not naming any individuals, of course - which has caused some debate. However, we are still unhappy about something in the political system, whether it would be with the European Union, or Westminster.
My solution... abolish political parties.
Yes, you read right. Abolish Conservatives. Abolish Labour. Abolish Liberal Democrats. Although I praise the current local MP aspect of British politics where each constituency has a representative on both a regional and national level, but I feel that voters vote tactfully so that one person is ousted as Prime Minister. The British people vote by looks, not by policy. They felt in 2010 that Cameron and Nick Clegg had charm and good media presence whilst Gordon Brown was quite the outcast - and I can see it being the same way for next year. The majority of people won't vote Labour because Miliband 'looks weird'. They'll vote the leader of the Party-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named because he's like a 'local lad', who enjoys a pint or five at a nearby rugby club. Policy is now secondary importance to voters and I find that quite frightening.
What I find therefore baffling is that, once people vote for a government, they will complain about the policies that government has to offer. Michael Gove, former Education Secretary, was a victim to plenty of hatred comments because his policies, they felt, were horrifying. Some of them were, but we have this system where if you vote for one Party, you will get no choice in who should govern a particular department.
So here is what I propose, we should vote for our local MP - that should stay the same, but by no means should that therefore determine who becomes Prime Minister. What should determine who becomes Prime Minister is that we are given a separate choice. And then we get a separate question of 'Who should be our Education Secretary', 'Who should be our Foreign Secretary', and so on. By having this choice and picking the head of each department would indicate our trust in that particular individual to do their job properly, and hire their best people for their department.
And if that means we have a "Labour Health Secretary" and "Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer" in the same team, simply because we trust Labour with the NHS and Conservatives with the economy, then so be it. They then should have their own powers without the interference of the Prime Minister, who should simply be the spokesperson and the note taker - if a large number of people have issues which they felt were ignored, then the PM should raise them and liaise with the local MPs. That will be a vital role that people would actually appreciate.
Having this new system could see minimum conflict in Westminster and Unions who represent 'ordinary' people. Parties are meant to unite, not turn their back against each other like they did in Scottish referendum when the Scottish National Party were fighting their corner against the Westminster mafia. Even though I probably would have voted 'Yes' if I was in Scotland more than two weeks ago, I was saddened to discover 45 percent of the Scottish public felt the need to leave the UK because they believed those in Westminster weren't representing them the way they felt would work for them.
There are some signs that Parties are uniting, however. As awful was the decision by government to back air strikes in Iraq, at least all but 43 politicians acknowledged that something radical must be done to defeat extremist groups who are ruining it for the innocent majority.
Even though my suggestion in how the political system should work in Britain is very unrealistic, I feel that if it did, this would create a more realistic and idealistic picture of how a country should run. Politicians want trust, they can only get it by gaining it from those who matter - the 62 million people who live in a Kingdom that is United.
Comments
Post a Comment