Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Harrowby Hall on July 24, 2016, 10:05:24 PM
-
Did anyone see the Andrew Marr Programme today?
It included an interview with Paddy make Ashdown about a new popular (as in "relating to people") movement called MoreUnited, whose intention is to bring humanity back into politics. It is not a political party and is open to people in all political parties but is about making political parties behave in the interests of the electorate rather than the political elite.
There is a website MoreUnited.com
Any thoughts?
-
Did anyone see the Andrew Marr Programme today?
It included an interview with Paddy make Ashdown about a new popular (as in "relating to people") movement called MoreUnited, whose intention is to bring humanity back into politics. It is not a political party and is open to people in all political parties but is about making political parties behave in the interests of the electorate rather than the political elite.
There is a website MoreUnited.com
Any thoughts?
Sounds interesting, but when I tried to log onto the site you quoted, all I got was a site telling me that the domain was for sale.
-
Sounds interesting, but when I tried to log onto the site you quoted, all I got was a site telling me that the domain was for sale.
Try this
http://www.moreunited.uk/
-
Try this
http://www.moreunited.uk/
Thanks for that, NS. I did wonder whether it was the wrong domain suffix (or whatever the .co/.co.uk/etc. suffix is called)
-
Looks good on paper. Very idealistic. I can't see anything against it at the moment.
-
Did anyone see the Andrew Marr Programme today?
It included an interview with Paddy make Ashdown about a new popular (as in "relating to people") movement called MoreUnited, whose intention is to bring humanity back into politics. It is not a political party and is open to people in all political parties but is about making political parties behave in the interests of the electorate rather than the political elite.
There is a website MoreUnited.com
Any thoughts?
Bad idea...
-
I did wonder whether it was the wrong domain suffix (or whatever the .co/.co.uk/etc. suffix is called)
Top level domain or TLD for short
-
Apologies.
It is MoreUnited.uk
sorry, but I am in south west France at the moment trying to operate with an iPad and not being particularly successful.
Sassy
Why is trying to bring some humanity into politics a bad idea? Is it forbidden in Leviticus or something?
-
I think it is a very good idea and Paddy Ashdown always strikes me as a man of integrity. I don't know if it will work.....but worth a try surely. It's good to have something independent of party politics that is passionately idealistic.
Has this idea, or something like it, been proposed before though? It seems familiar.
-
Apologies.
It is MoreUnited.uk
sorry, but I am in south west France at the moment trying to operate with an iPad and not being particularly successful.
Sassy
Why is trying to bring some humanity into politics a bad idea? Is it forbidden in Leviticus or something?
We need a Party listening to the British People who can vote. Not someone feeling sorry and catching a ride to power and then reneging on what they promised.
-
We need a Party listening to the British People who can vote. Not someone feeling sorry and catching a ride to power and then reneging on what they promised.
Why don't you switch on your brain before you respond to proposals you don't really understand?
You haven't a clue about what MoreUnited is about. It is about making Parliament more responsive and more responsible. It's about having a government system which meets the needs of people not a self-serving, self-electing elite.
Edited to remove unnecessarily angry response.
-
If it works, it could be a good way of financing support of the middle ground of politics and then the formation of a new party of the centre. At a time when the world population is expanding rapidly I would like to see what the views are on defence and law and order.
-
We need a Party listening to the British People who can vote. Not someone feeling sorry and catching a ride to power and then reneging on what they promised.
Never mind Sass it is all a little bit much for your poor brain to take in.
I think it is a good idea.
-
Sounds interesting but is still very vague. Not sure how it is "going to transform the way politics is funded".
Why pay money to an intermediary who will decide how to spend or distribute it - if that is way it is going to work? Even systems similar to "justgiving" which can provide a platform for sending payments to charities that you can select have significant overheads.
-
Why don't you switch on your brain before you respond to proposals you don't really understand?
That switch was broken a long, long time ago!
-
I think, as long as we have First Past the Post, we need to make constituency MPs more accountable to their constituencies. My suggestion is regular summaries of how local MPs are doing against their promises in the election on the local news channels and in the media and the power for the constituency to hold a recall vote.
This will break some of the power of the party whips and will make the MPs be more representative of their constituents on pain of being fired.
-
I think, as long as we have First Past the Post, we need to make constituency MPs more accountable to their constituencies. My suggestion is regular summaries of how local MPs are doing against their promises in the election on the local news channels and in the media and the power for the constituency to hold a recall vote.
This will break some of the power of the party whips and will make the MPs be more representative of their constituents on pain of being fired.
MPs and even ministers don't run the government, the top civil servants do. They can say what they like when trying to get elected but they are soon put in their place when they try their wild ideas.
People seem to think a guy can change from Education or Transport straight into Health or Environment and start putting their ideas into practice. They can't. They can tell their Heads of Department (guys who have been working in that part of government for many years and are experts) what they would like to do, but their choices are limited to what's possible and practical - and what the Treasury will allow. Then it has to pass the Cabinet and the PM.
So please don't start let us start publishing in the media the things they promised but couldn't make happen.
Why do they promise things in the first place? Purely because if they didn't, someone else who did would get elected. Would you vote for someone who promised nothing at all? It's better to look at their promises as their hopes, dreams and inspirations, we all have those, we're only human.
-
It all seems a bit wishy washy to me.
They want me to give them money to fund a politician they like, but I may not. Presumably taking a cut along the way to cover expenses.
If I were to fund a politician I would rather pick him/her myself.
-
MPs and even ministers don't run the government, the top civil servants do.
Ministers tell civil servants what to do. The stereotypes of Yes Minister are actually mythical
They can say what they like when trying to get elected but they are soon put in their place when they try their wild ideas.
My idea is not about how the government works but about getting MPs to be more representative of their constituents.
So please don't start let us start publishing in the media the things they promised but couldn't make happen.
You think it would be a bad idea to expose MPs failed promises? That's a first.
-
You can join without giving any money John, It will be several months before the start fundraising and that would give you enough time to see if it is worthwhile or not.
-
Why don't you switch on your brain before you respond to proposals you don't really understand?
It wasn't about what I understood it was simply my opinion.
Something you need someone to give you.
You haven't a clue about what MoreUnited is about.
I read some independent reports and I can see through the front and what is behind it.
Maybe you could look further.
It is about making Parliament more responsive and more responsible. It's about having a government system which meets the needs of people not a self-serving, self-electing elite.
You tell yourself that... It is self deceiving and unworkable.
It is always about power and that kind of response is dangerous to say the least in a democratic society. If you can't see why you should not be taking part.
Edited to remove unnecessarily angry response.
[/quote]
-
Never mind Sass it is all a little bit much for your poor brain to take in.
I think it is a good idea.
Again,,,no one to explain it to you or tell you what to say... How are the prostitutes?
-
How to part fools and their money... 8)
-
Again,,,no one to explain it to you or tell you what to say... How are the prostitutes?
:D ;D ;D
What on earth brought that on?
-
Looks good on paper. Very idealistic. I can't see anything against it at the moment.
It sounds an nice idea in principle, but I can't see how it would work in practice.
-
It is always about power and that kind of response is dangerous to say the least in a democratic society. If you can't see why you should not be taking part.
And what is wrong with the electorate having power, rather than a self-appointed, unrepresentative, secretive, political clique?
-
And what is wrong with the electorate having power, rather than a self-appointed, unrepresentative, secretive, political clique?
The problem I see is that their aim is "about making political parties behave in the interests of the electorate rather than the political elite" and they are intending to achieve this through crowd funding, which all sounds very laudable. However, because of our FPP voting system, that could only work with the co-operation of the major parties who would probably be reluctant to change their ways and you would just end-up with all the candidates sounding quite radical while nothing would actually change.
-
That's possible LA. However, on balance, I think it is worth giving it a whirl, if it doesn't work it will cease to be.
-
That's possible LA. However, on balance, I think it is worth giving it a whirl, if it doesn't work it will cease to be.
It could work is all other sources of funding for political parties was banned, but I can't see that happening any time soon.
-
... However, because of our FPP voting system, that could only work with the co-operation of the major parties who would probably be reluctant to change their ways ...
One of the stated objectives of MoreUnited is a fairer electoral system.
-
One of the stated objectives of MoreUnited is a fairer electoral system.
Yes, but we rejected that in 2011.
-
Yes, but we rejected that in 2011.
So that means that it can never be revisited?
-
So that means that it can never be revisited?
I suppose you can never-say-never, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.
-
And what is wrong with the electorate having power, rather than a self-appointed, unrepresentative, secretive, political clique?
I suppose the honesty bit and the way of twisting that power.
Well if the secretive political clique exists you think this will get past them?
Not sure if just naive or being unrealistic on your part when it comes to men in power and their toys and dealings.