There should be more assistance for Independents to stand for Parliament, they can truly represent their electorates interests whilst still agreeing with others issue by issue.
The extensive voter apathy and distrust of politicians owes a lot the tribal nature of the parties to whom allegiance directly competes with representing all the voters in their constituency.
Too many people that become uncomfortable in one party jump to another party so they get the financial backing and support and in effect compromise their beliefs.
It is essential for a healthy democracy that Parliament is an evolving entity.
Getting a reasonable amount of Independents with a promise to stand up for the town they represent in Parliament would I suggest act as a check or pressure on the major parties which ought to deliver better government. This then should help to reduce voter apathy along with the voters and regions being better served negating the need for the ever more levels of government that is being currently suggested.
All Members of Parliament get their mandate by being elected by the voters and so a power of recall should be by the same. Not a system being cobbled together by the present Parliamentary members – ‘Would a turkey vote for Christmas’ springs to mind?
No MP should be able to change parties without standing down having previously been elected under a stated banner. In my mind that is tantamount to FRAUD.
Any MP convicted of fiddling their expenses should face recall whether they receive a custodial sentence or not.
All MPs convicted of a custodial sentence when in office should stand down.
Scottish MP’s should not have any vote on English only matters.(The West Lothian question that also involves Wales and N.Ireland to a lesser degree). Need to be prepared for Independence for Scotland by the back door.
The Barnett Formula (a 1970’s stop gap solution for distributing government spending to the four nations of the UK) is unfit for purpose and biased against the English who perversely suffer the greatest cuts. If Scotland has devolution of financial control why should they have subsidy – classic case of cake and eat it syndrome.
Boundary changes are overdue, so that they fairly reflect changing numbers in the
constituency and parity with other constituencies.
Continued reduction of the National Debt is essential as part of a long term economic strategy.
To ensure we control our destiny we need our own Bill of Rights to run alongside the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights which is not part of the EU).
Serious structural reform by the government of public services is needed to reduce costs and improve the quality of services whilst providing value for money.
The question of is the Government too big? needs to be asked and resolved, as an outsider but one paying towards Government it concerns me that the number of members of the USA Senate and Congress is vastly smaller than the House of Commons and the House of Lords here. Are we getting the Government we need and is it good value?
In the UK we currently have the House of Commons with a fixed number of 650 MP’s plus the House of Lords (no limit on number) consisting of 791 members with another 56 on leave of absence giving a total of 1441 +56
The USA has a Senate of 100 members plus the House of Representatives with 435 members (+5 delegates) giving a total of 535 (+5)
The European Union(EU) has 754 MEP’s which include 73 from UK).
Public sector pension costs are unsustainable in the long term and they cannot continue to be subsidised by the private sector. This subsidy is expected to cost each taxpayer £1,600 per annum within the next decade.
Public sector pay and conditions should reflect public finances and performance. There should be routine disclosure of the remuneration for all public servants earning above £100,000.
We need to reduce the record number of fat cat civil servants, (208 in 2010, 316 in 2014). Why have those on wages of £150,000 been allowed to double in number? Not forgetting the others on double the Prime Ministers salary.
The government should set up a central purchasing agency created and headed by someone from the business/industry sector and not a civil servant mandarin. This would a common sense business approach to purchasing goods/ equipment) taking advantage of the massive buying power as a supplier to all government departments.
It ill serves the tax/ratepayer when there is a difference of £5 paid buying in wheelie bins between councils.
I came across another example where a prison could buy seating cheaper at a high street branch but went back to the manager and told him that he was forced to buy it from the same companies special catalogue at an higher price! (Preferred Providers)
Even purchases of reams of standard printer paper are made at vastly different prices.
It is ludicrous that there is no standard basic uniform for the different police forces and similarly for the armed services which make it a seller’s market when should be a buyer’s market. MAXIMISE BUYING POWER – CREATE SAVINGS it is a no-brainer, the taxpayers purse is not bottomless.
Long term Robust Flood programme including measures to prevent; offer rapid and thorough recovery for all. The disruption is costly to the national economy and in many cases the cause and impact can be significantly reduced.
Legal Highs: There should be a blanket ban on all the supply and sale of legal highs and so called head shops.
Of personal details should always be based on an automatic opt in not opt out approach.
Sale of details such as those on the electoral register and DVLA should not be allowed unless people have been given the right to opt in.
No return of Humberside under any guise
For sale of goods or services should not be allowed.