Talk:POWER inquiry calls for radical power shift in British democracy

Useful Quotes

Collected here to save having to find them again later.

Prime Minister's Official Spokesman:

"Asked what the Prime Minister's view was about the Power Report, the PMOS said that there were many issues dealt within the Power Report. They were all matters that were debated as much within Parties as between Parties. People took different views about some of the issues contained in them. The Prime Minister had no doubt that the report would add to that debate."[1]

Frankie Roberto 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Report's 30 Recommendations

Included here for completeness (is there a better place? Wikiquote? Wikisource?). I tried to pick out the 3-4 most newsworthy recommendations.

1. A responsive electoral system for the House of Commons, House of Lords and local councils to replace the first-past-the-post system.
2. The closed party list system to be replaced.
3. The Electoral Commission to encouragewomen, ethnic minorities, people on lower incomes, young people and independents to stand.
4. The voting and candidacy age should be reduced to 16.
5. Automatic voter registration at age 16 to be introduced.
6. Donations from individuals and organisations to parties to be capped.
7. State funding for local activity by political parties.
8. Text voting or e-mail voting only after other reforms.
9. 70 per cent of the House of Lords should be elected by a 'responsive electoral system' for three parliamentary terms.
10. Select committees should get enhanced powers.
11. Limits on power of the whips.
12. Parliament should be ableto initiate legislation, launch inquiries and act on petitions.
13. A decentralisation of powers.
14. Local government should be able to raise taxes and administer its own finances.
15. Meetings of ministers with business, including lobbyists, to be listed every month.
16. All public bodies to involve the public in their policy- making processes.
17. Citizens to initiate legislative processes, public inquiries and hearings into public bodies.
18. Rules on plurality of media ownership to be reformed.
19. Public service broadcasters to involve viewers in matters of public importance.
20. MPs to be required and resourced to produce annual reports and hold AGMs.
21. A new independent National Statistical and Information Service to provide information free of political spin.

(copied from The Independent which takes them from [2] - could probably be copied direct from the press release PDF if anyone knows how... )

Frankie Roberto 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is important

This story should be the lead.

Also, where they are talking about a more responsive system and first-past-the-post, there are links to Wikipedia to be made. Wikipedia has excellent articles on voting systems, which can guide the reader through the ramifications of proportional voting (which is discussed in the full report).

Finally, there should be some further mention of the very low voter turnout in the UK generally. I don't have precise figures, but it is much lower than one would expect.

StrangerInParadise 02:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. 82.35.10.202 15:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I wish there was a similar inquiry in the United States. Though it seems this is not a government-ordered inquiry (?). - McCart42 20:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this nonsense?

This article is meaningless until is states who ordered the inquiry and who will act based on it.

If this is just some paper written by an NGO, then it is absolutely not major news. If this is (A) a government requested thing, and (B) likely to be acted on, then it is major news. Which is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bill3 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 February 2006

Don't even know where to begin, except to suggest that your grasp of UK politics may be lacking. The fact you have both the head of government and the head of the opposition commenting on it should indicate that your sense of major news might be a bit off. Also, bear in mind that the problem addressed is of concern at all levels of political leadership- control without mandate breeds instability. Beyond that, I can only refer you to the article, and the report itself, which does answer your questions.

StrangerInParadise 21:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my grasp of UK politics is lacking. Articles have to be written assuming this. Because I don't have a reliable grasp of politics and titles and terminology from the UK, I can't tell the difference between a government-funded plan, and an opinionated-philanthropist's dream. Bill3 17:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you might trust— for the moment— our sense that this is significant news, and hold your assumptions in reserve, rather than make absolute declarations. Given the nature of the UK media and the structure of political parties and their relation to government, this is going to get play, and it is very likely that at least STV, 16-year-old sufferage and reform of the House of Lords will be broadly discussed. You could also be guided by the pace of change in the UK over the last several years. Things are a bit more plastic there, for many reasons, but mainly size, the Westminster System, and its role in the EU. I'd recommend also reading through to the sources, and tracking BBC. StrangerInParadise 22:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in some ways thinktank reports are two-a-penny, but this one is significant when seen against a backdrop of growing resentment against the democratic processes, an election where the winning party got a much higher proportion of seats than actual votes, and a campaign for democratic reform led by a major national newspaper. It is also important, IMO, to be reporting long-term news stories, of which this is part of, from the very start. If you only wait until stories become bigger news then you miss out on an archive of coverage documenting the build up period. Frankie Roberto 22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

21. A new independent National Statistical and Information Service to provide information free of political spin.

Perhaps Wikipedia could bid for the contract, in exchange for grant money. StrangerInParadise 21:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea. How better to avoid spin than to expose all the facts and allow a community to collaborativly interpret the statistics.,, Frankie Roberto 22:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

97% of PEOPLE in the USA say Congress does not represent them

Perhaps we can do a story about the connection between the statistical death of democracy in the USA and the UK? [3] "DOBBS: And now, the results of our poll tonight: 97 percent of you responded saying the officials you elected are not representing your interests in Congress; 3 percent say they are." Neutralizer 21:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea, but they are very different animals, for many reasons. StrangerInParadise 22:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This notice is a friendly reminder that talk pages are to be used for discussion of the development of the article, and are not areas to express your own personal opinion on matters. Thank you. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)