A new idea for government

I am pretty certain that everyone who is reading this realises that the present way we are governed leaves a lot to be desired.

I have come up with a few different ideas recently, such as voting for the other party at every election to ensure that MPs don’t get their feet under the table for too long. I have also advocated the idea of voting for small parties to enable them to grow larger and give the major parties a better fight.

However, I have now come up with what I think is a better idea. It costs a certain amount of money to prepare for an election. Having many elections, localised, should not cost very much more, if at all, to what is being spent now.

My idea, seeing that the EU is now making 80% of our laws, would be to reduce the number of seats in parliament to 300. The next idea is to set the period that an MP serves to a fixed four years.

We should then divide the 300 new constituencies by eight, making about 38 constituencies per period. My idea is then to hold a revolving election every six months for just those 38 constituencies.

During the period of four years, every constituent in the entire parliament would have gone through one election.

This would mean that if we had a government like the present government, and with the leader like the present leader, every time a crass policy was put forward, the leader would know that people would judge him at the next sectional election. Depending on how crass the policy would depend on how many MPs he would shortly lose. And I mean shortly. Naturally, there would be those dyed in the wool supporters who would vote positively no matter what was done in their name. But those sorts of supporters are dying out and there are far more floating voters than there ever were before. In addition, government supporters might be tempted to vote against them knowing that they would not lose power, only that their life might be more “difficult”.

There would also be continuity as, at each election, there would be at least 262 sitting MPs and out of the 38 standing for election, quite a few of those would be returning again.

However, I’m sure you will realise that there isn’t a leader of any party who would countenance such a radical idea, especially if it meant they would be kept on the straight and narrow.


  1. #1 by Ampers on Monday, 21 September 2009 - 4:17 pm

    Stuur my jou e-posadres en ek sal dit in my afrikaans humor groep teplaas.

  2. #2 by skoor on Monday, 21 September 2009 - 1:04 pm

    Oh man, what would you say if you were living in South Africa!!!Can you tell me more about your 'Boeremeisie' as I believe i am one myself:-)

  3. #3 by Ampers on Saturday, 12 September 2009 - 9:14 am

    Yes and no. It should improve forward planning that is good for the country as there will not be any actual general election for the whole country. They would be more careful about wasting money in projects such as ID cards, and putting eleven million child carers on a register.For the bad things, they know there will be an election of a sizable amount of MPs. This could also spell the end of the party whip system as MPs who are soon to face re-election would not want to be a turkey voting for Christmas.Many clubs and societies have a third of their membership up for election each year to ensure continuity.

  4. #4 by Rasmus Jensen on Saturday, 12 September 2009 - 2:23 am

    Would that not mean that you would end up with a government that only looked 6 months into the future and not thought about what is going to happen in 10 years time (or just after it has gone), as it seems to be a major problem that politics is controlled by public opinion, focus groups and so on, rather than being controlled by people actually wanting to change the country within a longer period than till next general election?

%d bloggers like this: