Thursday, 5 January 2012

'The Plan' for direct democracy.........

Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell are 'big' on direct democracy, in fact they have written quite a few pamphlets on the subject, whilst also publishing their 'tome', one entitled "The Plan".


If those two politicians really believe in that which they espouse, they surely will not be 'backward in coming forward' to endorse this - will they?


All things considered and bearing in mind that which they promote, how can they argue against:
"1. A Codified Constitution for the UK, based upon the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta.....
2. To clearly define the limitations of Government.
3. To set out an Operating Convention for Government, based upon the Swiss model, including referism and localism. A model of government where decisions are taken at the lowest possible level and fed up, rather than from the center and fed down. This will also encourage the rise of independent representatives as the party system looses both its power and influence, as that power is reclaimed by the people to whom it belongs, the public."
Well, chaps............? 

8 comments:

Single acts of tyranny said...

Oh to be like Switzerland...

Stuart said...

I never read The Plan but it was serialised in the Telegraph I believe. I think I remember the point of referenda and that it still required the politicians consent. Hannan and Carswell were only half way there, but then they are members of the political class.

john in cheshire said...

WfW, I hope you are not holding your breath. I suspect that Messrs Hannan and Carswell believe, like all politicans, that because they are the paid professionals, only they are endowed with sufficient knowledge and expertise to be able to make such pronouncements.

TomTom said...

Switzerland is in fact The Swiss Confederation since 1848 whereas Britain is a Unitary State and does not have 26 autonomous cantons.

The US has a Movement known as "States Rights" trying to keep the Federal Government at bay, and in fact it was the causae of South Carolina being "First To Fight" in 1861. In fact the Confederate Constitution of March 1861 was the alternate "Swiss" counterpoint to the US Constitution.

So, why you expect Parliament to change its own power base is unclear. Scotland got some autonomy because a) Callaghan's Government was scared of the SNP and John Smith was a Scotsman leading the Labour Party......I don't see how Southern England wants to relax London's control over England believing it to be "their London"

offwitheirheads said...

Carwell + Hannan only want more power for the likes of themselves rather than the government they want Parliament to be the holder of power, it is not direct democracy and people power that they are after, if it were they would not be in the 'conservative' party, as it is.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

saot: Agreed.

S: So it was and agree they are only half way there, but then they are politicians who believe in ultimate central control.

jic: See response to S.

TT: I don't expect Parliament to change its own power base - I expect we the people to change its power base!

ofth: Exactly!

The Gray Monk said...

Yes,I think I couldsupport such a model - but I'd need to see the detail and be assured that the sort of person generally elected as a"shop steward" because noone else wants the job, isn't the default candidate for MP.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

TGM: Selection would be by open primary - however whatever the 'quality' of the candidate their hands are tied because the people have the final say if they so wish on any proposal that emanates from a politician.