Is there anyway to change the system? Watch

landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#61
Report 3 weeks ago
#61
Sixth change - a President (4votes) elected by the polity, senior vice- President (2votes) and junior vice-president (1vote) elected by parliament from time-served MP's or a time-served member of a recognised profession (the president would be Head of State and run the country in the absence of a Prime Minister selected by parliament or if less than 50% of the polity vote (parliament scrutinising presidential governance as it would prime ministerial). The present pantomime at the HoC should convince people of the need to avoid the prospect of a minority government (that FPTP is supposed to avoid!). A presidential system, in circumstances where a PM cannot govern or parliament cannot agree on one, could assume eminent domain for the remainder of the election cycle. At the next election if the electorate are completely disenchanted most could just avoid the election booth and presidential rule would continue until the next election. The MP's who are elected on the low turnout would assume the role they were elected for, scrutinising the government in this case a presidential one but still be able to instigate legislation which the president would be at liberty to adopt or not.
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#62
Report 2 weeks ago
#62
Seventh change - Extend remit of NS&I Bank to be the sole issuer of new money as the domestic central bank in charge of the consolidated fund (government receipts) the international banks become banks of deposit and the BoE the point of contact between them and the national economy.

A) No individual or financial institution or any affiliate of them trading inside or outside the national jurisdiction is allowed to create the nation’s money as credit uncollateralized by the individual or institution in order to ensure that the nation retains sovereignty over its stock of money. Individuals and institutions will source their funding from their industry or other private individuals or organisations or the State through the National Savings and Investment Bank (NSIB).

B) Domestic territorial and international financial institutions within the national jurisdiction are only allowed to lend out existing bank money (shareholders’, depositors’, bondholders’, borrowed and earned) while maintaining a minimum amount % reserve amount (fixed by the treasury) at the domestic central bank (NISB). Bank borrowing from the State could only be conducted through the NSIB (domestic) or the Bank of England (international), it would be on the basis of a running average of their reserve holdings held by themselves at the NSIB (domestic) or as determined by BoE MPC (international).

C) All institutions reserves at the NSIB would be deposited in the government consolidated account (the repository of all government income presently at the BoE) at the NSIB. The NSIB would be able to create interest bearing loans to institutions based on a fixed (but annually adjustable) % of the reserves they have held on deposit at the NSIB (the annualised average of reserves held at the NSIB will determine the banks entitlement) the interest from the loan being retained by the NSIB the principal being paid into the consolidated account. Institutions can draw down any amount of their reserves held at the NSIB that are greater than the minimum amount required to qualify for a licence to trade in national money.

D) The NSIB would become the conduit through which the national payment system operated. Everyone would have account which their bank could access and check its state before authorising a transaction (the NSIB would be a non- retail bank). All bank customers account details would remain at the customers’ bank (territorial or international) which would act as an agent for the customer by accessing a record of their balance at the NSIB and updating it as necessary.E) The BoE would become the point of contact between domestic and international money system. It would licence international banks operations within the UK. To obtain a license they would have to maintain a fixed level of reserves at the BoE, deposited in a sovereign wealth fund which they could subsequently increase, the surplus funds being immediately redeemable and covered by an immediate loan to the BoE (chargeable to the sovereign wealth fund - SWF) from the NSIB. The surplus from the SWF would pay the BoE’s running costs and contribute to the consolidated account at the NSIB conversely any surpluses at the NSIB would be available to invest in the SWF.
Last edited by landscape2014; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#63
Report 2 weeks ago
#63
370 years ago a parliamentary army attempted change by force, an army of Englishmen that the English parliament betrayed. The ‘Levellers‘ in the army brought forth a document ‘The case for the Army truly stated’ in 1647 which argued that the priority in any settlement with the monarch had to be people’s rights, their birthright, which included the right to select those who would represent them. The Putney debates that followed exacerbated the political divide between the New Model Army hierarchy and the rank and file when a new document ‘The Agreement of the People’ was produced calling for the abolishment of the house of Lords, a written constitution and a parliamentary electorate ‘proportioned to the number of inhabitants (democrats are patient, we‘re still waiting).

The hierarchy rejected the document claiming it would lead to anarchy and communism provoking a trooper to remind the assembled generals that four months prior they had asserted that the army had fought ‘to the defence of our own and the peoples just rights and liberties‘. He continued, ‘The army have engaged in this kingdom and ventured our lives, and it was all for this: to recover our birthrights and privileges as Englishmen. It seems now, except a man has fixed estate in this kingdom, he has no right in this kingdom. I wonder we were so much deceived’. A deception practised on Americans once they were rid of the British ‘yoke’ in the C18th - they were ’yoked’ to different masters just as their English ancestors were in the C17th and for the same reason a general inclination to let those who know better sort it out - they did.
Last edited by landscape2014; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#64
Report 1 week ago
#64
Is there anyway to change the system?

Not in a revolutionary way, even though we have an unjust system of land occupation, a shambolic political system, a corrupt financial system and a one-sided tax system the better off are relatively satisfied and the less well-off not interested, a generalisation that is a truism, not the truth for some but there are not enough of the polity to whom is does not apply. Whilst this generalisation is the case no-one will address the ‘not fit for purpose’ land, electoral, finance and tax systems that affect our daily lives far more that ‘Brexit’, and have done for centuries.

The meek and disadvantaged have not and never will inherit the Earth, the organised wealthy (those who can organise the media narrative) and the meek will come to an accommodation, a few ‘beads for the natives’. When people say “I have never voted and I don’t think you should either” they promoting nihilism for although the electoral system is a rigged game that will not address the reform of an inequitable system constructed by previous establishments for their benefit, it is the only method of expressing the public will that has to held regularly (unlike referenda - the gift of parliament). Regular elections are a right that our ancestors died to bring about it is incumbent on everyone to vote even if its just to put a cross across the entire voting slip, at least the number of ‘spoilt' papers will register the level of active discontent instead of the apathy implied by a low turnout.
Last edited by landscape2014; 1 week ago
1
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#65
Report 1 day ago
#65
If the system is to be changed then the conception of ourselves as prisoners of our history (mere subjects of a State system constructed by and for the benefit of those who consider themselves exceptional instead of for a nation of individuals who are associated because of our common mores) needs to be addressed. The concept of the nation is a very different concept from that of the State, one is the child of the other. The conception of a nation precedes that of the State just as the concept of property precedes the recognition of it by a legal system. The two foundations of present day States are first a civilised population and second a defined area of territory that population is prepared to defend. An acceptance of the primacy of the State over the nation is an acceptance that the individual is a subject of the State (that is, the people in charge of it), it is fundamental to stable governance.

A functioning democracy posits a community that possesses eminent domain over itself and the territory it occupies, if it does not then it cannot be a democracy because without the polity having the ability to directly select and remove their authority figures democracy cannot exist. If authority figures accept that their powers are conditional on decisive periodic review (elections) they are acknowledging that the collection of citizens over which they have been conceded control are the ultimate authority (eminent domain) - the building block for a democratic system. 'Democracy' has become public and private authority figures catchphrase to obfuscate the domination of real peoples lives by the partisan decisions of those in control of invented people, public and private corporations, democracy is something those authority figures do everything in their power to frustrate. Whilst In the interest of efficient government a nation would, of necessity, conditionally delegate the right of eminent domain to State functionaries legitimised by elections, to be democratic those elections have to reflect the general political disposition of the nation, be genuinely representative of the constituencies taking part, not a lottery, minority 'winner takes all' FPTP. The State should operate as steward of the nation's territory and master of its population, a patrician. A vote for any party in the present rigged election system is an acknowledgement of contentment, that genuine representative democracy is not on the political agenda (unless you believe that by supporting an entrenched establishment you can change it), your continuing support will only encourage them to not change their behaviour.
Last edited by landscape2014; 14 hours ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (65)
23.38%
No (213)
76.62%

Watched Threads

View All