1/THREE YEAR PARLIAMENTS

THREE YEAR PARLIAMENTS.//

From 'Modern Britain' by Richards and Hunt, published 1950. "The six Chartist demands were: a vote for all adult males, the secret ballot, annual elections, abolition of the property qualification for MPs, payment of MPs, and equal electoral districts." So now we all know what we are all talking about when we mention Chartism.//

In reality it was a matter of groups of reformers more or less taking it in turns to get their snouts in the trough. David Cameron and Nick Clegg are the current representatives of that tradition.//

The nineteenth century reformers did not want to end the gang culture, which was at the basis of their social and political problems. And David Cameron and Nick Clegg don't want to end the gang culture which is at the basis of our current social and political problems. Cameron and Clegg have made this clear by their insistence on five year parliaments.//

Following on from the reprimands to two hundred or so MPs who were caught recently with their hands in the till, there has been a popular clamour for parliamentary reform, although the chattering classes have fairly ruthlessly made sure that this popular clamour has not been allowed to crystallise around any particular demands.//

Apparently we, the modern electorate, should not worry our pretty little heads about parliamentary reform. We should apparently leave it to the experts with their PPE degrees from Oxford to sort out our little worries about institutional corruption, or something.//

It would be possible to put together a list of Modern Chartist demands, and it might be worth doing so. HOWEVER THE ONE BASIC DEMAND WOULD BE FOR THREE YEAR PARLIAMENTS. THIS WOULD IN ONE MEASURE, ONE REFORM SOLVE MANY OF THE CURRENT POLITICAL PROBLEMS.//

Three year parliaments would greatly improve accountability to the electorate. Three year parliaments would end unpopular leaders being able to linger on. Three year parliaments would end MPs masquerading as social workers to cover up their political incompetence or political inactivity. With three year parliaments, political activity would be the important factor. And equalising constituency sizes would be fairly secondary.//

I am enthusiastic about First Past The Post. Fiddling arould with Party Lists and Second Preferences is in my opinion merely a perpetuation of institutional corruption.//

Three year parliaments would also sort out the House of Lords problem. We are told that Nick Clegg 'wants to abolish the House of Lords.' Really? Well, no. According to The Times, Monday 2nd August 2010, there are "two versions of a reformed House of Lords. A fully elected Upper House which drags British democracy into the twety first century, or an unsatisfactory compromise of the type that has evolved through past centuries."//

WHAT ABOUT COMPLETE ABOLITION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS? It is nauseating and absurd that people like John Reid, John Prescott and Peter Mandelson should be given non jobs for life, apparently for no other reason than that they have had their snouts in the trough for so long that they should be allowed to continue to have their snouts in the trough.//

What is the rationale for the continued existence of the House of Lords? A revising chamber? Checks and balances? The electorate electing three year parliaments would be an entiely adequate revising chamber. Get things right, or we will get you out and change things.//

Checks and balances? The electorate electing three year parliaments would be quite enough checks and balances. The idea that institutional dishonesty has to be countered by adversarialism, frank exchanges of views and so on, is one of the basic bits of nonsense put forward by the chattering classes as they try to justify their lazy institutional corruption, as they try to justify keeping their snouts in the trough.//

THREE YEAR PARLIAMENTS IS AN IDEA, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY.//