Friday, 16 May 2008

Is it time to shrink the state to more manageable proportions?

The Telegraph asks an interesting question today “Who is the 'right leader' for our hard times”? Sparked by Broon’s waffle about providing the right leaderhip.

Even more adventurously they ask: “Do we need a politician running Britain at all”?

Maybe the question they should really be asking is: “Do we need anyone running Britain at all”?

Personally I am not really sure I want much so-called leadership at all. Belgium seems to have managed well enough with no parliament recently. Could we manage mostly at a county level?

We have after all a perfectly good royal family to represent the country. The queen probably knows more about politics than any two prime ministers put together. They are certainly more in tune with practical environmentalism than the average politician.

So combine the Royal family with a parliament that has responsibility for maintaining the legal system, the armed forces and the currency. Claw back every last parliamentary privilege and power ceded to the unelected EU commission.

Have a watchdog to police MPs propriety and finances. Make it impeachable to renague on election promises. These people should be the servants of the Nation, not it’s patrician ruling class.

Given that we have had a millennium’s worth of very, very, bad legislation in the last decade let's make it as difficult as possible for them to ever pass any new legislation again. Without at least 75% in favour.

The state should be kept very firmly away from telling the citizen what to do.

Let local democracy, take care of all the other details.

Works for me…

4 comments:

Mark Wadsworth said...

"Without at least 75% in favour"

Good rule, but will all existing legislation be put to the 75% test as well? That would get rid of tons of it.

Or would you say it requires a 75% majority to repeal legislation as well?

Phil A said...

Mark, Excellent questions.

Personally I would like to see all legislation, including that imposed directly without review by instrument, imposed in the last 15 years all subject to the 75% approval rule before it can be ratified.

After that, once things are stable, maybe a 75% inn favour of repeal, but maybe with a system where the repeal process could be triggered with a 39% vote.

Maybe a system where major stuff was automatically subject to referenda, that would trump parliament.

Mark Wadsworth said...

OK, how about ... no new legislation without either 75% majority or a referendum in favour, and any existing legislation can be scrapped by 25% of MPs? That'd liven things up no end.

Phil A said...

Mark, I think that could work for me. It should be easier to repeal than to enact. Ok we’ll go for that then.

Will you tell parliament or should I? ;-)