The only way I could vote for Theresa May requires a complete change to The United Kingdom’s system of government.
Mrs May would have to run for presidential office. There would need to be a Lower House of Parliament with MPs appointed to represent existing constituencies and re-elected every two years.
An Upper House chamber of review – a reduced and democratic House of Lords – would be similarly elected and appointed to represent a regional ‘county’ of constituencies with one-third of its membership re-elected by some form of proportional representation every two years.
In other words, for Mrs May to win my support the UK would need to adopt the US system of government.
Yes, I know it has its drawbacks but Washington’s downfall is based on its nineteenth century reliance on religious fundamentalism, American society’s crass, cash-based class system and an infant cashocracy’s juvenile determination that it is Biggest and Best in every international department.
But the very system that throws up a Trump or a Clinton also has the power to delay and deny a president who loses control of one or both houses of Congress. Look at the difficulties experienced by Obama in his second term after the Democrats lost control of both House and Senate.
Republican grandees’ greatest current fear, beyond the madman Trump winning or losing the presidential race, is the result of the ‘under ballots’, the votes that will determine
control of House (an almost impossible task in 2016 for the Democrats) and Senate (a more realistic Democrat target). Their loss of these substantial majorities would weaken their ability to control legislation.
Were I currently to vote for Theresa May I would cast my constituency vote in favour of a candidate who did NOT belong to the Conservative Party and who fought the seat with a pledge to halt the proposed EU Brexit (referendum only an advisory vote, remember).
My Upper House vote, preferably exercised in a system of proportional representation, could then go to a peer whose interests lay outside party politics: a Green, perhaps, or someone who might attract party sponsorship but whose career or area of expertise made him/her a valuable asset to our governing body.
Under the same system I could, just as easily, vote Jeremy Corbyn for president but I would elect a right-of-centre MP and a moderate member to the Upper House.
Hence I would have effectively helped create a consensus parliament, a coalition in which the legislature exercises a series of checks and balances on the executive, which satisfies the electorate’s desire for constituency representation while imposing an elected upper chamber to keep a check on the extravagances of MPs.
After all, our abandonment of the traditional parliamentary election in favour of a Her-or-Him beauty contest is a presidential system in all but the name.
The alternatives? A Tory prime minister supported and urged on by wild-eyed right-wingers or a Labour leftie jabbed into action by a Marxist-Leninist rump. Then there are the Liberal Democrats.
‘Nuff said?
Dear Mr Banks
I think the American system is lousy and seems to achieve very little. Why you want to bring it here is beyond me! You say you would vote differently in the Upper House for a peer whose interests lay outside party politics, but I am willing to bet you would be as entrenched as ever in your political views and vote accordingly!
Your “system” appears to be based on assuming all will approach it with your mindset. I am sure they would not.
You are clearly cross about the “Brexit” vote. By now, you should have learned that you cannot have everything in life your own way! Sit back and see what happens. I think it will be interesting – for the first time in years! I am surprised you appear to suggest that Jeremy is not the flavour of the month – unless I have misunderstood your missive. Thought you would have been supporting him to the hilt! He is another who is shaking things up and making politics (which I don’t follow) interesting!
The slightly worrying thing is that both systems may just be fundamentally flawed; I mean, checks and balances just equal deadlock and irreconcilable political positions. In Westminster, your fun with Brexit just shows that he who lies largest screws the country for generations to come . So Mr Banks, your Plan B is. . .??
The US Constitution is just the late 18th century British constitution written down and preserved, with a President in place of a King. There would never be a US referendum on whether it had been a good idea to cede so much sovereignty to a Continental super-state because there is zero chance of the US ever signing up to such a body in the first place.
Rmind me again: the UNITED STATES, what were its origins?
i listened to David Banks on the Stephen Nolan Show [BBC R5]and what a deluded, out of touch, far Left, lunatic media establishment fascist he is if he thinks he can rob the Brexit voters of their legitimate vote to get out of the EU. They say there is aNidiot in every village, Mr Banks; get what I mean?