These are my twelve suggestions for reforms to improve our democracy, and to increase the efficiency of government:
The House of Commons should elect the Prime Minister for the duration of the coming Parliament. This should be fixed at either four or five years.
The Prime Minister should choose his cabinet, drawing Ministers from both Houses of Parliament, or from outside. Ministers should not be allowed to vote in Parliament. If they come from outside, they would have to answer questions and debates and to pilot new legislation through Parliament.
The House of Commons should elect the Chairman and members of its select and standing committees. Parliamentary Private Secretaries should be abolished, since their votes are traditionally tied to the government of the day.
At Parliamentary elections, candidates gaining 51% or more of the votes should be elected. Where this does not happen, the two top candidates in terms of votes, should take part in a run-off election. All elected MPs would thus be assured of majority support.
Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs should not be allowed to vote on purely English issues. Some reciprocal limitations may be necessary, but the principle of devolution must be upheld.
There should be a joint committee of both Houses to resolve issues, where the House of Commons has twice rejected House of Lords amendments in the same Parliament.
Whipping of votes on party lines should only be allowed on “confidence” issues, when the Government stake their continuance on the result of the vote.
Political parties should have strict limits on the amount of money they may spend (a) on general elections, and (b) between elections.
Candidates for the House of Commons should be selected by primary elections. Each constituency should decide whether its primary elections should be open to all voters, or else restricted to registered party members.
The new Parliament might decide whether there should be a moratorium on all, except absolutely urgent, legislation. This could enable existing laws to be consolidated and better enforced.
Parliament should decide to what extent lobbying and expenditure on gaining influence in Parliament for special interests is permissable.
Government departments, with large administrative functions, should have departmental boards, eg for foreign affairs, security and policing, immigration, health, prisons etc. Ministers would normally chair these boards, whose members should ensure maximum continuity, administrative competence and interdepartmental cooperation. Boards would relate to Parliamentary scrutiny committees and to Inspectors of Services.
I`m impressed !
How do you answer such common sense and logic ?
#4 I`m worried about apathy amongst the electorate. I`ve alway`s been an advocate of making voting compulsory but I`m not sure that`s the answer as people vote ????? because Mum and Dad did, without understanding.
#9 Candidates should come from within the area they wish to represent, they must have resided 4 years or more.
Would be a fantastic start though ! Well done Lord Hylton.
Noble lord Hylton has some interesting ideas; I wonder what the useful effect of this would be? A former party whip would give a good answer!
“Ministers should not be allowed to vote in Parliament”.
Secondly;What is wrong with the long campaigned for LD Proportional representation Mi lord?
His description of government departments sounds rather like what Maggie T wanted to do with her agencies, which now need to be reviewed and taken back in to more effective non-agency control; they have had 25 years of service.
Living near the Martyrs’ union village as I do, and having a swing riot forefather, I regret that the unions decide on a great number of Labor seats, with very little reference to the constituents other than a
nominal support.
They are also the ones who favor wages for members (of both places), which was their first campaign. A campaigner who could not get to parliament due to cost, could not get elected at all easily!
Nor can he now.
The same applies to Peers expenses. An honorable gentleman who lives near by, and can nip in to a debate at the shortest notice
is the one most likely to be appointed to the second chamber.
On that subject, is the Peer’s daily allowance scrutinised for Bills and receipts, or are they just accepted as being gospel? Ten quid from Dorking is rather different from £300 from the Hebrides, and yet the allowance may be the same for all one knows. Are Bills and receipts submitted, like any honest business?(!)
I beg lord Norton’s pardon for putting another post in straight away, but I missed the most important suggestion of all, and I know that L. Hylton will object to it, pretty darned quick!
The English and Welsh counties are far,far too small. Certain aspects of it are pretty darned corrupt, but I am not going to repeat too often which they are. They are administratively top heavy; the backhanders that local authority gets from central government is far too complex and petty, yet important to them.
It would be absolutely fine, hunky dory, to suggest no vote for Welsh and Scottish members on English issues, but the best way of dealing with the question of self-determination(!) for the English, is to create larger administrative units along the lines of the European/UK regions.
Then Wales and Scotland would be the proper
single region each that they are, and England would be the proper 7-10 regions that it should be, but what happened to the legislation (referendum bah!) for the new English regions and its fledgling organization, which are still meeting from time to time now?
Interest that when it comes to increasing democracy, you’ve excluded yourself from the democractic scrutiny.
Nothing in what you’ve suggested solves these problems.
1. You vote (unelected) is worth more than mine. Democratic dictatorship by a quango appointed by patronage.
2. The cost. The gaffs been blown. Even today we have you debating dropping hamsters from model aircraft. You want to introduce a law against it. [Quite what is wrong with the current law on animal cruelty. How many times has the supposed offence going to be committed. Cost of enforcement? Cost of debating the law itself?]
Where is my democratic vote on the issues?
Electing a representative who doesn’t do what they promised, and does lots of things they don’t isn’t enough.
Bribery. You’ve excluded the Lords from the current set up. You haven’t prevented Lords offering to change legistlation for cash. You’ve slapped them on the wrist. At least one Lord has said that they wouldn’t have got away with it so its not a problem. A refresher on the actual law is needed there.
Primary elections is part of the way. However, who gets on the short list?
Costs. Where are the controls on costs? The current liabilities of the government are vast. The Gilt cost is a small part. Unless you address debts, you will reap the results
Lord Hylton: Gosh, such passion! Good for you, but watch the blood pressure we want you blogging here a while longer. I think what you say gives conviction to the fact that the HoL constantly strives to strengthen democracy within our system of governance.
Not happy about peers being in government, see it as a conflict of interest between the HoL which serves to protect people from those that govern and the act of governing itself. Been there done it, lost the American colonies. Just think of all that debt that could now be filling the Treasuries coffers.
A cosmological metaphor could be used to describe both houses and with due deference to Guy Fawkes the Commons represents the big bang version of creation; ever expanding universe, rise and fall of elected stars and enormous black holes.
The HoL on the other hand represents the steady state version of creation with continuity a dependable presence and a much slower pace of change but with a single omission, an elected house to keep its stars shining bright.
I think the HoL has been too preoccupied with big bang Commons style elections when it should really be concerning itself with smaller steady state version. The house prides itself on its expertise so there is no reason why peers could not be elected by their own professional peers on a steady state basis every so often at many times during the year.
We could have some ceremony attached to the handing over of the baton both a cause for celebration and relevant democracy. As the Commons now behaves like a latter day monarch, fighting wars appointing peers to the HoL willy-nilly we could change the way the Writ of Summons works. In fact the Commons could appoint as many peers as it likes but only those with a writ of Summons could attend the house.
Ref: House of Lords: Writ of Summons
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HofLBpmembership.pdf
Thanks for your comments
What democracy? When the people have to choose between THREE Major Political Parties that all want the same-to remain in the European Union-what kind of democracy is THAT? Just how long do you think the people are going to pay or contribute from their taxes to a FULL COMPLIMENT OF ‘THEIR’ STAFF IN TWO HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT, when they have to obey the same EU laws as the people they are supposed to represent?
Some are beginning to question whether this is ‘taking money under false pretenses’.
If, as some suggest, the EU made about 70% of our laws BEFORE “LISBON” WHAT ON EARTH IS LEFT FOR OUR OWN ELECTED MP’S TO DO AFTER LISBON? Alter a ‘may’ to a ‘might’?
The people want a government that can actually govern. What is the point of an election when the Government IGNORE the people?
Did Her Majesty have a say on Lisbon or was she too ignored? Did Her Majesty sign the Treaty of Lisbon personally? Has her majesty ever signed an EU Treaty personally?Or was it ratified on Her Majesty’s behalf through the use of the Royal Prerogative? That same Royal Prerogative that has been given to the EU to use on Her Majesty’s behalf for the ratification of Treaties now that the EU has “Legal Personality”.(Art 47)
Many of Lord Hylton’s suggestions are brilliant, but is there really much point? I suspect, and hope, that the EU issue will come to a head soon and we can finally have a say on it. We cannot possibly rebuild our national democracy when it has become so irrelevant to our lives, and will only become more so.
I remember being cheesed me off by the way that the EU website turned the United Kingdom blue (to indicate “ratified”) before our Sovereign Lady had even signed the bill.
A minor point, but one which shows how little regard they have for national legislatures.
See my commenet above –
WIth your disaffection for British politics I expect you will vote for the European Parliament and encourage others to do the same. Also, lobby your MEP
With your disaffecction for British politics, I expect you will vote for the European Parliament and encourage others to do the same. Also, lobby your MEP.
Ann Palmer: I agree with your sentiments.
One of the advantages that the US has over the EU is that it was designed more or less in one go and its states existed in the first instance as independent unicameral ‘countries’. The federal side of things started small and grew in response to common needs such as cross border policing and national defence.
The EU on the other hand has come together piecemeal as a free trade association on the back of real countries with diverse political systems and cultures and there is enormous duplication and cost. Take a peek at the link below to see this in terms of second houses.
One could argue that the EU Parliament needs a Senate and a Supreme Court and to reduce each member state to a unicameral arrangement that maintains its own legislatures’. In such a model the federal part would need to acknowledge that a component ‘state’ had priority when no common need could be demonstrated.
The other advantage the US has over the EU is that its states have not fought perpetual wars over many centuries. These wars are interesting in that one country would try to annex another country to raise taxes or take something it did not itself have. Now wars have no purpose except to destroy with no thought given to post war scenarios.
There may come a time again when political ambition drains exchequers and the need to wage war on another simply to raise taxes becomes the norm. Can this be what the EU is trying to prevent by its existence or is it just an embellishment sat atop a free trade zone?
Ref: Report on Second Chambers in Europe
http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2006/CDL%282006%29059rev-e.pdf
You don’t mention the American Civil War. It was an ideological one, with very heavy casualties. Its consequences and fall-out can still be seen in contemporary life.
The only thing civil that ever came out of that war was thanksgiving day a celebration of its end.
Sorry my Lord but many of your proposals are not well thought through.
Your proposal for Alternative Vote makes elections to the Commons even more disproportionate than they currently are – Labour would enjoy an even bigger majority. FPTP may well need to go, however.
There is no point in the House ‘appointing’ the Prime Minister. This choice should remain with the apolitical Monarch, in case the Commons cannot agree on a PM. This is the method used in many Continental monarchies.
Fixed-term elections are also incompatible with parliamentary systems. You need the safety-valve of an early election to offset constitutional crises – that’s the point.
In addition fixed term elections can encourage pork-barrel politics as governments gear up to elections by creating ‘sweeteners’. This is offset by allowing the government to choose an earlier or later time where they won’t need to use pork barrel to win re-election (normally).
Your proposal of ‘English votes for English laws’ as it is better known, is barmy and betrays a complete lack of understanding on the issues. I propose you read Professor Hazell’s book ‘The English Question’ for an explanation.
A joint committee system would work, but only if, in my view, the second chamber were considerably smaller than it currently is. It’s important to maintain the will of the people through their MPs in the system, and this would be more effectively mitigated through their MPs having a built-in majority (even a slender one) in the joint committee.
Adrian, while it was certainly true that the ’97 election would have seen a bigger labour majority under AV that’s not the same thing as AV always or mostly producing a less proportionate result which your remarks tend to imply. My memory of the last figures I saw were that with equalised constituency populations (one of the major structural distortions of the present system) AV is very slightly more proportional but not significantly so.
PPS and government non-jobs exist purely for the ‘payrole’ vote (even if unpaid). I think everyone accepts this though anyone actually changing it is another matter. On the other points by Lord Hylton, some of which are provocative, I’d love to see the faces of the various chief whips!
🙂
“Sweeteners” happen now – see the pre-Budget Report
I felt energised reading this post – I felt the weight of government, red tape and endless talk slip away and a chink of productive work for the country (rather than personal political careers) emerging.
Great ideas – but – you will just have to show that any changes empower the voter, for the the electorate to want to vote and engage. There is a lot of ground both both Houses have to make up to restore trust and show leadership. 1st question – What best to start to get the process rolling?
Best of Luck.
Chris K mentions that,”I remember being cheesed me off by the way that the EU website turned the United Kingdom blue (to indicate “ratified”) before our Sovereign Lady had even signed the bill”.
As I understand matters, our Loyal and true Government Ministers use the Royal Prerogative on behalf of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. So, I ask, has Her Majesty ever actually personally signed any EU Treaty?
SENEX touches upon a different matter. There has been no need of a war for the EU to take over matters in this Country or to tax us, all this will come in time-not too far in the distance if the EU gets its way and as long as any UK Government continues to obey and willingly “WELCOMES” everything that the EU puts forward.
However, Governments have forgotten the people. Big mistake! MP’s STILL rely on the people’s vote, or at least until the EU becomes a full dictatorship and then there will be no need for a UK Government, for the EU Regions are all in place and in working order. Yes, even the Scottish Parliament is an EU Region. So, why would we want a Government or Parliament here in the UK? Especially if their is a second Chamber in the EU? A real Government for the EU eh?
I seem to recall that the European Union (amendment) bill (which gave effect to the Treaty) received Royal Assent the day after it passed its Third Reading in the Lords. So I presume that the bill had been signed personally by Her Majesty, although the “instruments of ratification” are “deposited” in a different way, and were delayed by Stuart Wheeler’s noble attempt to block ratification.
“There may come a time again when political ambition drains exchequers and the need to wage war on another simply to raise taxes becomes the norm. Can this be what the EU is trying to prevent by its existence or is it just an embellishment sat atop a free trade zone?”
No Post-Hiroshima, and actually post -Chernobyl too, EU is far more than that. It is an economic and political union differing very little from that of the United States of America…, and differing veyr little from a number of other nascent trading blocs.
The most recent Geographical concepts of Megalopolises suggest that the method of
trading of the Hanseatic league is more likely an effective one. Indeed in the region of the Black Sea, a number of cities have created a trading enterprise based on just that … trading between cities… not between these very artificially created, small nation states.
The vast emptiness of the former soviet Central Asian satellites militates against
any other organization than the SCO, for EU neighbors. Does Ann Palmer not think that a time may come when we need to sit down and talk with a worldwide power grouping called
the SCO (Shanghai cooperation Organization)?
Perhaps Anne Palmer would like to re-arrange the world so that the 60 largest cities should trade amongst themselves, in say sub groups of 10-20 cities, without regard for the hinterland in which they function.
No union, just a city league!
The post imperial world of globalism is just not like that. The UN rules ok!
The United Kingdom could sit down and talk with anyone it liked in days gone by, now all the talking will be done by the one voice for the EU for all 27 Sates. If no country can speak for itself, what is the point in have separate Governments? How will they all feel when the people eventually make then redundant?
This Country fought a war all by itself until America came to help. (Our friends came to our aid without any bound, legal obligation or full commitment) We certainly traded with the Commonwealth, yet we let ALL those friends down when we joined the EEC as it was then.
However, I will give you one thing that we had then and we do not have now. And that Gar Hywel, is REAL leaders of this Country. They made the decisions that were in the best interests of this Country. They were real leaders.
What is happening now will lead to war, firstly perhaps civil war. I can’t re-arange anything although I would if I could believe you me. I certainly do not want another war. I see already people being killed in Afghanistan and I know what a waste of life it all is. Wasn’t the war in Iraq enough of a warning?
As for your first paragraph. The EU is all part of working towards World Governance or World domination. The United Nations as Government? Is that what you are hinting at? It really all depends on whether a leader of a country is weak or strong as to what happens. When President Bush said “NO” to Kyoto, mouths of the rest of those present, fell open. You see, he didn’t want anyone telling him what to do with his own Country, now the leader has changed-we shall see whether he is weak or strong.
@ Anne who said
“This Country fought a war all by itself until America came to help. (Our friends came to our aid without any bound, legal obligation or full commitment) We certainly traded with the Commonwealth, yet we let ALL those friends down when we joined the EEC as it was then.”
The fact of the matter and it is part of history is that America joined the second World War on condition we virtually gave up the commonwealth. Please also look to how much in financial terms this Country still owes the USA for it`s help during that period.
We didn`t fight the war all by ourselves, many of our troops were from different Countries, including France, India, Poland, Australia, Canada, Africa, et al.
To talk of real leaders whilst mentioning the war is daft. Churchill was possibly the worst for expenses as he tried and indeed succeeded in avoiding taxation. He was personally responsible for the slaughter at Gallipoli and during WWII when he took control of missions they were often a disaster.
Strength of a leader ? You mean like Mugabe, Pol-pot or Stalin ?
“If no country can speak for itself, what is the point in have separate Governments?”
Thanx to Ann for her courteous and thoughtful reply. Above, there may not be that much point!
There is far,far too much government and jobs for the boys from Parish… through district… through county…thru WA/SR… through Westminster through Lords(!) to EU assembly….to commissions…. to Presidents!
They all get fat wages. Parish, district and county should be abolished!
We should have regional government in the 7-10 regions of England just the same as we have regional govt in Wales and Scotland…. but talk to noble Lord Hylton about that.
He likes the HofL, and the County lieutenancies, redolent of the ancient past.Where would we be without the Counties?
Without the mythology of these islands?!
So we keep the lot, from Parish to Cathy Ashton, every slam bang dang doogle bit of all of it….. at similar cost, and more besides!
“The EU is all part of working towards World Governance or World domination. The United Nations as Government?”
Yes; working towards effective world government. The United Nations is an effective International Law making body.
All these international or supranational governments have representation at the UN,
even the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conferences)which is the next best thing to worldwide representation of Al Qaeda/Taliba.
UN is the highest level (International) Law
making body.
SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization)
Mainly Russia and China but open to all central Asian states from Turkey to Khazar, from the borders of the EU to the borders of China.
ECO (Economic Community Organisation) overlapping with SCO , but not including
Russia as a voting member and not China at all except, as observors; it is very poorly funded, and includes Afgh,Pakistan, Iran and seven other states including Turkey.
The SOONER people understand the name of the International/Supranational Govt game the sooner there will be understanding by democracies of the problems of war and Peace in Afgh.
I believe that the president of the USA does, and has the power to end it. He is a after all president of the guiding International grouping known as the United States!
Do you remember as a child identifying yourself in the universe?
I live at … 18,, blah road… blah town… blah county… country… all the way to universe… constellation may have been added by now?
Politics may be that easy, but as Croft has suggested,it is when politicians start yakking about it, that it gets complicated.
Let’s have a child like understanding for the time of year!
Firstly Carl, we did not have to give up the Commonwealth, and yes they did fight with us during that second world war, because they were/are part of ‘our family’.
We ratted on the Commonwealth WHEN WE JOINED THE EEC IN 1972. All that is recorded in Hansard BEFORE we joined in what was to become a State of European Union.
Extracts Prime Minister Harold McMillian 31st July 1961 Col 928 Mr Fell (Same day Column 935), “Is the Prime Minister aware that this decision to gamble with the British sovereignty in Europe, when 650 million people in the British Commonwealth depend upon his faith and his leadership, is the most disastrous thing that any Prime Minister has done for many generation past?”
On 2nd August 1961 column 1478 a Mr Silverman is restating that on the 28th June he moved a Motion about the European Common Market in the following terms, “That this House, being gravely concerned at the pressure to make this country enter a European Common Market and the consequent threat to subject its independence, its membership of the Commonwealth and its right and power to plan its economy in its own way, to a political union with Germany, France, Italy and Benelux, as well as a threat to the survival of the Commonwealth inherent in these proposals, urges Her Majesty’s Government not to enter into any negotiations concerning such entry until expressly empowered so to do by a conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers and by this House.”
Mr Gaitskell then reminds the Prime Minister (column 1498) what Macmillan said in 1956 when Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was, Finally, we must recognise that the aim of the main proponents of the Community is political integration. We can see that in Article 138 of the Treaty, which looks towards a common assembly, directly elected. The whole idea of the six, the coal and steel community and Euratom is a movement towards political integration. That is a fine assertion, but we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal—to accept as the ultimate goal–political federation in Europe, including ourselves”.
I have lots more should you desire further proof although much of what I have is far more “damning”, than the above.
Churchill would never have agreed (AND DIDN’T) to such a condition re the Commonwealth, he was fighting for his Country and all that went with it, which included the Commonwealth. We finished paying off the financial debt to America a couple of years ago.-yes, it took that long to repay that financial debt, but we can never repay for all those Americans that lost their lives in that fight. How long is it going to take us to pay the debt this Government has got us in to NOW? Our Prime Minister has made yet another Commitment TODAY for at least another BILLION.
We let our Commonwealth friends down very badly indeed when we joined the EEC because the trade we did before joining-New Zealand meat, butter and countless other things from all over the Commonwealth went down, because we bought Danish butter, etc.
There is a whole chapter on that too. Many people were ashamed of the treatment our Government metered out to those loyal and true friends.
Without Winston Churchill You Carl, along with many of us would not be here today and most certainly he would never have betrayed or let down the people of this Country as “Today’s” Leaders have. They will never be forgiven for what they have done. It is never a good idea to ignore the people.
That was another good thing about Winston, he got ALL the people working together, everyone did their best for their Country, they didn’t and most certainly he would not have given the governing of this Country away to foreigners to govern.
Chris K asked, “I seem to recall that the European Union (amendment) bill (which gave effect to the Treaty) received Royal Assent the day after it passed its Third Reading in the Lords. So I presume that the bill had been signed personally by Her Majesty, although the “instruments of ratification” are “deposited” in a different way, and were delayed by Stuart Wheeler’s noble attempt to block ratification”.
You assumed incorrectly. See my comments Posted above at 7:39 pm and
Treaties Hansard 11th Feb 1998.
Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances persons who are not members of Her Majesty’s Privy Council are authorised to sign treaties on her behalf. [28947]
Mr. Doug Henderson: Most treaties are signed with Governmental Full Powers either by Ministers or Ambassadors. Membership of the Privy Council is not a factor in the issuing of Full Powers.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs are eligible to sign treaties by virtue of their office. Anyone else signing a treaty in articled form requires a formal document known as a Full Power.
In the United Kingdom, the Treaty-making power is vested in the Crown as part of the Royal perogative. The exercise of that power is the concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
The United Kingdom has three types of Full Power: (i) Queen’s General Full Powers, which are signed by Her Majesty The Queen and empower the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, FCO Ministers of State, FCO Under-Secretaries of State to sign any treaty; and the UK Permanent Representatives to the UN and the EC to sign treaties in their respective fields. (ii) Queen’s Special Full Powers, which are issued for the signing of a specific treaty drawn up between Heads of State. (iii) Governmental Full Powers, which are signed by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and are issued for the signing of specific inter-governmental and inter-state treaties.
This was in the Daily Mail. “Article 47 gives the EU as a whole a legal personality, so the EU itself can ‘speak with one voice’ to ratify any future treaties on behalf of all 27 countries. This includes the power to go to war.
In the UK, to date, for many things, including the decision to fight wars or to ratify treaties, our Government uses the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the British Crown.
The power of the Crown is held in trust by the executive and passed on to the next government. Article 47 of the Lisbon Treaty means our Government has handed over the Royal Prerogative to foreigners.
Yet the power of the British Crown is the ultimate authority – or sovereignty – behind Parliament, so it is not in the power of the government to give away the Royal prerogative to anyone – and certainly not to foreigners.
By this action, not only our Government, but also the Crown, has been made subservient to the EU.
EU treaties are designed to be permanent, so given that the EU is planning for the next 50 years, the gift of the Royal Prerogative is one which cannot be taken back.
I believe this gift was not in the power of Ministers and that they could, at a future date, be held guilty of sedition against the state”. End of quote.
Anne Palmer
United States of Europe
The second important address delivered by Churchill in 1946 is one that is well known to scholars and Brussels bureaucrats but largely unknown to the general public. This was his call for a ‘United States of Europe’ at the University of Zurich on 20 September.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/legacy_01.shtml
The rest eg., America bringing us to the point of bankruptcy after WWII, hence not being able to afford an Empire/Commonwealth is History.
We have our own dream and our own task.
We are with Europe, but not of it.
We are linked but not combined.
We are interested and associated but not absorbed. Winston Churchill.
We paid back our debt to America without going bankrupt and in fact did not do too badly at all. You see Carl, IN THOSE DAYS, we did make cars, designed and built ‘planes (my brother was one of A.V.ROE’s Chief Design Engineers), and my what a fantastic Ship Building Industry we had. NOW WHERE ARE THEY ALL? We are near enough bankcrupt now, yet our PM has just pledged yet another billion away.
“NOW WHERE ARE THEY ALL?”
Gone with the power cuts, the three day week, the persistant strikes, the starving children, the family of 9 living in two rooms (mine) etc.
Yes we made cars etc., but they became uneconomical. The Unions would have bankrupted us a lot sooner and the price to consumers would have been astronomical.
Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the strength of the United Nations Organization. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European Family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe. And the first practical step would be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can. Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill London 28-11-1949
The British Government have rightly stated that they cannot commit this country to entering any European Union without the agreement of the other members of the British Commonwealth. We all agree with that statement. But no time must be lost in discussing the question with the Dominions and seeking to convince them that their interests as well as ours lie in a United Europe. An opportunity for these consultations offers itself at the Conference of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers at Colombo early next year which Mr. Bevin is going to attend – we hope to be a help. We ask that the issue of European Union be placed upon the agenda of this conference. Then when the European Assembly next meets at Strasbourg, the representatives of Britain in the Committee of Ministers and in the Assembly will no longer be restrained as they are now by uncertainty about the opinions and wishes of their partners overseas.
The three day week and the power cuts came in HEATH’s time. The starving children were mostly before the first World War.
In the decade before the 1914-18 war, the sound of clogs against flagstones seemed almost to make the towns tremble. They started their day at about 6am. Before the first World War, a time when little chidren were sent down the pits and when basically the whole family-even young children worked in the Cotton Mills of Lancashire. They were not called “The Satanic Mills” for nothing. Mostly, those that worked there were known as slaves of King Cotton.
You wrote Carl, “Yes we made cars etc., but they became uneconomical”. I have no idea where I was for many, many years when “cars allegedly became uneconomical”!! Perhaps you never visited Coventry and surroundings.
Churchill was right to try to bring “European” countries together. Certain parts of this Country too had been bombed to HELL and needed building up. Most of the major City’s were devasted, those too wanted rebuilding. Churchill did not want however, to dominate any part of those countries in Europe, he wanted them to stand up for themselves. He did encourage them to work together but he did not want “England” as he called the UK, part of it. He certainly would not have wanted the main Country, Germany, to be leading the rest. Again I put for you, We have our own dream and our own task.
We are with Europe, but not of it.
We are linked but not combined.
We are interested and associated but not absorbed. Winston Churchill.
“Commonwealth Foreign Ministers at Colombo early next year which Mr. Bevin is going to attend – WE HOPE TO BE A HELP”.
Anne I appreciate your answers but you`re ignoring mine re Churchills points of view, picking out only that which you choose.
As for the starving children being pre WWI , I then must be a lot older than I think. I can remember being 4-6 years old and going stealing sunday dinner from other peoples ovens. I can remember only 2nd toys donated to my family from others for xmas. Second hand clothes virtaully to my teenage years. 9 of us in two rooms until the mid 60`s, 2 fires which burnt my sister badly caused by landlords that didn`t care. I`m not even mid 50`s yet. Anne did you ever visit the East End in the early 60`s ?
I was a big British Bike fan, still am, but they couldn`t compete mechanically or financially with Japanese or Italian and lost their market. I drove uneconomical cars, like the Austin Allegro, the rotting Rovers and more where the workmanship and design was shoddy to say the least.
Quote
“It would perhaps be too simplistic to just say that the car industry was destroyed by the unions, although they certainly played a very major role in its collapse, which is ironic really when you consider the number of jobs and families that depended on the car industry for their livelihood. Poor management also played its part as did the governments of the day.
Whilst foreign car makers were getting their act together in terms of build quality, reliability and service, the British car manufacturing industry was slowly imploding. In the 1970’s the industry was effectively in the control of the unions. To avoid industrial action cars were allowed to go out to dealerships in a faulty condition, as finding fault with too many cars coming off the production line resulted in further walkouts.
1974 was probably a low point for the car industry, indeed for the country, with an extraordinary 2,922 industrial disputes across the country. The government had to enter into discussion with the union leaders on a whole variety of subjects, if they took action without consultation with the unions; they did so at their peril. The unions were becoming more powerful than the government. There was however a shock waiting for them, in the form of Margaret Thatcher.” Unquote.
Gar was correct.
Dear Young Carl: “I appreciate your answers but you`re ignoring mine re Churchills points of view, picking out only that which you choose”.
I quote this from the “Churchill Society”. “Churchill spoke about his hope that to prevent future wars there would be one day a United States of Europe. He did not speak about a single nation called the United ‘State’ of Europe – or as it is called today the ‘European Union’ where every country’s law would be subservient to the laws formulated and introduced by unelected EU Commissioners and rubber stamped by MEPs. That would have been to him – as it was to Powell – anathema.
Churchill did not say that the UK should be part of it. He said that the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth of Nations must be “the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine”. Upon that concept Powell, like everyone else, had no disagreement and supported the wise European politicians that brought into existence the Council of Europe.
But Powell – like Churchill – would never have dreamt that the British people would in their lifetime surrender their ancestors’ hard-won sovereignty let alone agree to be taxed and have their laws passed by any institution other than the House of Commons.
For Powell such a concept was treason for it struck at the heart of our unique monarchy and thus at the very heart of our nationhood”.
“Powell devoted much thought and time to educating the public. He said:- “my self imposed business in my political life has been telling the English about themselves – who they are and what they are, how they govern themselves, and why they govern themselves in that way”.
His unconditional presupposition was identical to Churchill’s, ie, that “the Tory Party stood for the absolute independence of the UK: and that in peace as well as in war, this demanded any sacrifice – including life and limb”.
With incredulity and angry astonishment he saw the Conservative Party cede the omnicompetance of parliament through Edward Heath’s absurd belief “that self government was now obsolete” in order to become a member of the EEC. He stated he would sooner live under a socialist government in Britain rather than see it lose its independence.
He predicted that it was an issue that would destroy the Conservative Party” End of quotes. This of course is what is happening now. If there is any victory for the Conservatives in the next election it will be a very weak and poor one.
I mentioned Clogs previously because I also remember their use when workers would not join the Union movement in Lancashire at that time, for every ‘penny’ the Union wanted there was a far better use for it at home. So, it wasn’t the “boot” that was used, it was the foot with the clogs on-a fierce weapon indeed. To complete the picture for you Carl, coming from Lancashire near the Manchester ship canal, the Aqueduct and the Swing Bridge plus the holding tanks, and the big Power Station, it was a prime target for the German Bombers, so I know very well what the term being bombed to Hell means. Churchill fought the war for FREEDOM, not to be dominated by foreigners. I fight the same fight as Churchill, to be FREE in thought, word and deed, that we are governed by true British people and by our own Constitution, protecting the British Crown and the solemn Oath made by our Queen at Her Coronation. That is what we fought for. That “No foreign Prince, person prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have any jurisdiction, power superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm”.