FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Government change?

Jump to newest
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
7 days ago

.

Why are continuing to vote for single political parties every 5 years when the country’s needs change many time over relatively short periods of time?

Would it be better if we agreed the nation’s priorities first and then voted for the people most capable of delivering them?

The government team selected to deliver on merit would be measured against clear, independently assessed objectives. If they began to fail to deliver without good reason, they would lose their job, just as they would in any other job. If they succeeded, they would remain in place until their objectives had been achieved.

At that point, the country would vote on the next direction. For example, should we continue prioritising business growth and economic expansion, or shift the focus towards improving public services and welfare? The vote would determine the next set of national objectives, and the electorate would then choose the person or team they believed was best placed to deliver.

Rather than expecting one government to solve every problem at once, this approach would create a focused leadership team with clear objectives, accountability and provide the flexibility to change direction when the country’s priorities change. The people delivering the objectives could also be replaced without having to reset the entire government and all the other objectives.

Basically we would choose a mixed Cabinet to deliver agreed national policies and hold each minister accountable for the outcome they are responsible for, rather than electing a political party that is promising to have all the answers, without the talent and the policies we agree with.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
7 days ago

Gilfach

You're proposing that we adopt the Swiss system of direct democracy.

I agree.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
7 days ago

.


"You're proposing that we adopt the Swiss system of direct democracy.

I agree."

I think it is different, you tell me.

My idea is the electorate would first decide the national priorities based on the proposals put forward by the competing teams, and then elect the team they believe is best placed to deliver those priorities.

In real terms, we would be electing the executive team rather than a political party, with each member accountable for delivering the objectives they committed to and were appointed to based on their proposals.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ore_Than_VanillaMan
7 days ago

Cheddar

You can not preplan direction.

Covid, Iran war, tariffs, ukraine, all of these have required a change in plan.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
7 days ago

.

[Removed by poster at 06/08/26 15:03:38]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
7 days ago

.


"You can not preplan direction.

Covid, Iran war, tariffs, ukraine, all of these have required a change in plan. "

Correct, each of those events required a change in direction, which is exactly what the model is designed to accommodate.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostindreamsMan
7 days ago

London

I guess the challenge is to balance between stability and too many changes. We could still follow the existing model with a condition on the kind of decisions which have to come to people for a vote. That would be more similar to Switzerland.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eroy1000Man
7 days ago

milton keynes


"You're proposing that we adopt the Swiss system of direct democracy.

I agree.

I think it is different, you tell me.

My idea is the electorate would first decide the national priorities based on the proposals put forward by the competing teams, and then elect the team they believe is best placed to deliver those priorities.

In real terms, we would be electing the executive team rather than a political party, with each member accountable for delivering the objectives they committed to and were appointed to based on their proposals.

"

Interesting idea. Would it be a referendum that the public use to decide the direction?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *izandpaulCouple
7 days ago

merseyside


"Why are continuing to vote for single political parties every 5 years when the country’s needs change many time over relatively short periods of time?

Would it be better if we agreed the nation’s priorities first and then voted for the people most capable of delivering them?

The government team selected to deliver on merit would be measured against clear, independently assessed objectives. If they began to fail to deliver without good reason, they would lose their job, just as they would in any other job. If they succeeded, they would remain in place until their objectives had been achieved.

At that point, the country would vote on the next direction. For example, should we continue prioritising business growth and economic expansion, or shift the focus towards improving public services and welfare? The vote would determine the next set of national objectives, and the electorate would then choose the person or team they believed was best placed to deliver.

Rather than expecting one government to solve every problem at once, this approach would create a focused leadership team with clear objectives, accountability and provide the flexibility to change direction when the country’s priorities change. The people delivering the objectives could also be replaced without having to reset the entire government and all the other objectives.

Basically we would choose a mixed Cabinet to deliver agreed national policies and hold each minister accountable for the outcome they are responsible for, rather than electing a political party that is promising to have all the answers, without the talent and the policies we agree with."

Think it would be difficult while party politics are in play.

What's good for the Country is secondary to getting voted in.

And many people who have the talent, ability, skills and strength to run specialist areas would run a mile from politics.

I can’t think if a worse job and if I was forced to be an MP I'd do as little as possible to scupper my chances of a cushy well paid job once out of office.

It would be 4 years of utter shit for a lifetime of well paid heaven.

On reflection, where do I sign up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hrill CollinsMan
7 days ago

The Outer Rim

in your world how often would these plebiscites to decide the "nations priorities" be held? In your world, how many topics would be included? In your world, what would be the vote margin? In your world, what would be the minimum turnout for the topic to be voted on?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hrill CollinsMan
7 days ago

The Outer Rim


"You're proposing that we adopt the Swiss system of direct democracy.

I agree.

I think it is different, you tell me.

My idea is the electorate would first decide the national priorities based on the proposals put forward by the competing teams, and then elect the team they believe is best placed to deliver those priorities.

In real terms, we would be electing the executive team rather than a political party, with each member accountable for delivering the objectives they committed to and were appointed to based on their proposals.

"

this is just the same as we have now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
7 days ago

Central

There are good points in parties working together. We need less shorter term planning and management, as it's too easy to get wasteful stop/start. Large investments can take many terms to get fulfilled but are needed from the state.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ingdomNightTimePleasuresMan
7 days ago

nearby

Good idea but unfortunately no party or ministers would agree to the concept

For them it’s solely about power, ego and blame.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan
7 days ago

Gilfach


"You're proposing that we adopt the Swiss system of direct democracy.

I agree."


"I think it is different, you tell me."

The Swiss have a site much like our Government Petitions site where people can submit policy ideas framed as a question with a simple yes or no answer. People join the positions to support the idea. Every 3 months they take the top 30 petitions and put them to the public for a vote. Once the votes are counted, the government has to implement whatever it was the people decided.

Swiss politicians tend to to get elected based on how effective they are at getting stuff done in a sensible timeframe. Party politics exists, but it's much less important as the parties don't get to set individual policies.

Does that match what you were thinking of?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
7 days ago

.


"You're proposing that we adopt the Swiss system of direct democracy.

I agree.

I think it is different, you tell me.

The Swiss have a site much like our Government Petitions site where people can submit policy ideas framed as a question with a simple yes or no answer. People join the positions to support the idea. Every 3 months they take the top 30 petitions and put them to the public for a vote. Once the votes are counted, the government has to implement whatever it was the people decided.

Swiss politicians tend to to get elected based on how effective they are at getting stuff done in a sensible timeframe. Party politics exists, but it's much less important as the parties don't get to set individual policies.

Does that match what you were thinking of?"

The difference here would be a board that sets out the "as is" and benefits of the "to be", that would be what the executive teams would propose a solution for. The team with the greatest number of votes takes on the task and have the responsibility to deliver their proposal. This way the public understand the direction of travel, they why and decide the best option for that.

It is not a referendum, this would be key economic decisions and direction of travel, it is not tied to a single party and a 5year window, if it is not delivering it can be pulled without disrupting the other initiatives and a new approach can be sought without delay and interference, creating speed of change.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
7 days ago

.


"You're proposing that we adopt the Swiss system of direct democracy.

I agree.

I think it is different, you tell me.

My idea is the electorate would first decide the national priorities based on the proposals put forward by the competing teams, and then elect the team they believe is best placed to deliver those priorities.

In real terms, we would be electing the executive team rather than a political party, with each member accountable for delivering the objectives they committed to and were appointed to based on their proposals.

Interesting idea. Would it be a referendum that the public use to decide the direction?"

Not a referendum, choice of direction and who manages that direction, and once complete or if it fails to deliver on time or to plan it is pulled in favour of a new direction. It supports speed of change with the right people not the unqualified.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
7 days ago

.

It is interesting that people are still referring to the people that would manage this as MPs.

The point would be to remove MPs and move to a more agile and multi-disciplined team structure that focuses on the core economical and public service changes.

Changes and teams the public decide on, not leaving it to a bunch of people who haven't got the experience to complete, which is where we are today.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
7 days ago

.


"I guess the challenge is to balance between stability and too many changes. We could still follow the existing model with a condition on the kind of decisions which have to come to people for a vote. That would be more similar to Switzerland."

We could leave the less important items to local elected people to manage, and move the critical options to specialised teams to deliver. The point of change and the speed of change is to become more agile in reaction to global events, by changing the course of certain initiatives and not destabilising the whole.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66 OP   Man
7 days ago

.


"Good idea but unfortunately no party or ministers would agree to the concept

For them it’s solely about power, ego and blame.

"

That is a blocker

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oubleswing2019Man
6 days ago

Colchester

I like it.

.

A democratic meritocracy with programme-based governance.

.

And you don't need MP's of any flavour to deliver these objectives either. Party Politics doesn't come in to it.

.

My biggest concern would be nuance.

.

For example, Brexit was presented to the public only as In or Out binary decision.

.

Not "Out but with Customs Union adherence" or "In, but with modifications to certain EU policies". Or any number of other options like Freedom of Movement, ECJ Jurisdiction, etc. Other "nuances" or potential offerings that were not presented to the public to decide upon.

.

So under the meritocracy/governance led system, they could present something like "Welfare. Increase spending or decrease spending." Without explicit nuance explained, people would vote on gut instinct alone. Or what the media/papers say.

.

Political scientists called these "False Binary Choices".

.

That's when MP's of a party do matter, IMHO.

.

The idea has merit, but I feel it would definitely need "guard rails".

.

Constitutional Rule # 1 : Do no harm

.

I'd also like to see complete transparency. All meetings are recorded and publicly inspectable (apart from where National Security is at stake).

.

No Lobby Group can privately lobby government. Representations are made through publicly recorded hearings or published written submissions. The existence of Lobby Groups is not a problem. They must be transparent and open in their submissions however.

.

Members of government may neither accept nor solicit gifts, hospitality, employment promises or financial benefits from any individual or organisation with an interest in government policy. It's illegal to offer any gift to a member of the meritocracy.

.

Experts who implement policy are held accountable for delivering the policy under "normal conditions".

Eg, day to day running of the policy. If the Health Secretary fails because they managed the system badly, that's on them.

.

If waiting times rise because a pandemic arrives or there's a global shortage of doctors, that's different.

Likewise, if the target itself was unrealistic or based on flawed assumptions, the people who designed the policy should also be accountable.

.

In general terms however, I feel the concept has considerable merit and have felt for many years that the electorate should choose national priorities. I just feel however a major civic education needs to occur at classroom level to engage a new generation of citizens with an understanding of how government works, how public finances operate, how evidence should be evaluated, and how policy choices inevitably involve trade-offs. The aim would not be to teach people what to think, but to give them the knowledge and critical thinking skills needed to make informed democratic decisions.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ctionSandwichCouple
6 days ago

Newcastle under Lyme

To be honest we're at the point where only something akin to a new Cromwell would sort the mess out.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *e-OptimistMan
6 days ago

Stalybridge

You mean attack Ireland - look how that turned out!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top