b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Austerity Britain » Message 10704501

[challenge entry] Save a fortune in time and money by replacing the House of Commons with a web forum

Click for the other half of it
I'm genuinely baffled as to why in this day and age the House of Commons exists. I appreciate in the olden days before communications networks it was important to have everyone in the same place to get discussions heard and information shared. But when you could clearly handle the entire Prime Ministers Questions via a web forum or skype chat why the hell are they wasting important council/department/country running time by travelling all the way to London and then sitting on their arses occasionally going 'hear hear'?
A very, very rough internet based calculation puts the house of commons daily running costs for mps offices and the main hall (not tours or cafes or whatever) at £1.2m. Add to that travel expenses and the wasted days pay and it officially adds up to fuckingcrazyloads of our taxes.
Give them an ipad and a decent secure forum that is no more complex than B3ta and they can do the whole fucking job during their lunch break in their constituency.
I apologise for the confused and semi ranty nature of this typing, I've just spent far, far too long listening to and transcribing twattish mps talking at each other in raised childish voices without them ever answering a single question. Which has obviously left me more irritated at the fucking stupid state of our system than I was expecting from a semi-throwaway b3ta joke.
If you want to see the 15 minutes of arsemonkery in question for yourself, it is here www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_fGvVOCT00 It can in reality be condensed to 3 forum posts -
Ed 'Why weren't representatives in that meeting?
Dave 'I'm not answering that'
Everyone else 'rhubarb, rhubarb, shout, my team is better than your team'

I'm going for a bit of a lay down now.

From the Austerity Britain challenge. See all 107 entries (closed)

(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 15:10, archived)
# it exists for this
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 15:14, archived)
# What a rubbish tie
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 15:27, archived)
# Pretty much, yes...
...that is the reason.

Bascially, the party can control its MPs much more effectively when they're gathered in person, and MPs can much more easily see who is inclined to vote one way or the other.

Funnily enough, HappyToast was beaten to the idea of remote voting by Thomas Edison back in 1869. It was Edison's first patent - an electric vote recorder:

It was rejected. Edison couldn't understand why until a Congressman took him aside and explained that instant voting would be disastrous, for a number of reasons. For a start, it made filibustering impossible. Also, his fellow representatives had to be able to see what their peers were intending to do, to see which way their allies or enemies (potential or actual) intended to vote and modify (if necessary) their intentions accordingly, and to engage in the usual horse-trading of political life. Instant, remote vote recording made all that impossible and for those reasons was hated by both the party whips (or equivalent) and representatives themselves.

After that failure, Edison resolved never again to invent something for which there was not an identifiable need, i.e. from which a profit could be made.

Meanwhile, I have clicked 'Like'!

'Cos I like it.
(, Wed 29 Feb 2012, 8:58, archived)
# Thomas Edison
(, Wed 29 Feb 2012, 18:44, archived)
# I like this.
I also like the prospect of /talk invading a commons debate.

In fact thinking about it, /talk is pretty much the tone and standard of the average commons debate.

EDIT If you do That There Twitter, then follow @stevehiltonguru His side commentary to PMQs is generally very good.
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 15:15, archived)
# Because they'll all end up on "ignore"
but your point is very valid, similarly with all the business travel that goes on just for a meeting that could easily take place with web conferencing.
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 15:29, archived)
# :)
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 15:30, archived)
# I'm all for having them in one place, this is an age of terrorists and bombings after all
But yeah, you're right. Unfortunately it involves common sense, technology and a loss of "I'm better than you" status, so they'll never go for it.
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 15:38, archived)
# This is most excellent :D
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 16:36, archived)
# to be honest
I'm completely baffled about the way the entire world works. If you think about things for a few years, the whole thing's is absolutely batshit insane. Totally bonkers. Why we haven't ripped the whole system... the WHOLE system, economy, government, the lot.... out years ago and started again with one that makes sense baffles me every time I think about it. To me, it looks like a load of lazy arseholes quoting meaningless rules that means everyone has to pay their way for them with money that they decide the value of.

I won't start going on about it, I gave up whingeing ages ago.

*also: click :D
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 16:59, archived)
# Sadly...
...it's not at all baffling, and you answered it with this sentence:

"To me, it looks like a load of lazy arseholes quoting meaningless rules that means everyone has to pay their way for them with money that they decide the value of."

The only people with the power to change the system are the very people who stand to lose most by changing it. Turkeys, after all, would never vote for Christmas...
(, Wed 29 Feb 2012, 9:00, archived)
# You da man!
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 17:22, archived)
# Hahaha...
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 17:26, archived)
# that's very good
*aims and clicks*
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 18:32, archived)
# A click for the rant and the pic.
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 19:13, archived)
# Looks nicely done
but there's no way in hell I'm reading all those bloody words
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 20:52, archived)
# fantastic
time well spent
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 22:03, archived)
# This is one of the best things I've seen here in ages,
really well done and fantastic point made. Wish it could spark a petition by someone more articulate/competent than I.
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 22:20, archived)
# to be fair
PMQ's is a circus, hated by everone from sketch writers to the politicians themselves. but it is 30 minutes out of a long long week of debating law in the chambers.

not saying that there isn't waste, but most time in Westminster is spent outside of the chamber, in meetings, committees and within the various departments that each minister has a responsibility to.

if you want to rip waste in politics apart, have a crack at the house of lords. that's a proper outrage.
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 22:41, archived)
# Not realistic
Until someone starts slagging off the /houseoflords board.
(, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 22:50, archived)
# :D
(, Wed 29 Feb 2012, 7:33, archived)
# well, they've saved travel money
by allowing the mp's to buy houses in london which the tax payer effectively pays the mortgage on.

being an mp sounds like a pretty nice gig
(, Wed 29 Feb 2012, 8:24, archived)
# Just seen this and it's pure genius!
It's so true, it's not even funny. I second this proposal, hear, hear!
(, Wed 29 Feb 2012, 9:45, archived)
# An excellent rant and one I fully endorse
If I had my way I'd hang the lot of them and replace democracy with Genghis Khan.

He knew how to get shit done.
(, Wed 29 Feb 2012, 9:50, archived)
# Hear hear
I don't see why we need MPs at all. It made sense in 1748 when my local MP would spend three days in a horse-drawn carriage to go to London and represent my views in parliament, but now I can present my views directly, there's no need for an elected representative at all.

Replace the whole lot with an internet-based jury-service style system. At any one time, 10,000 randomly-selected citizens are required to consider whatever it is that MPs think about, discuss, consult and then vote remotely. Every three months or so, 1,000 of the citizens finish their service and another 1,000 are randomly picked to replace them. Those who can't be arsed to take part, even having been picked, will get the 'government' they deserve.

The civil service can get on with running the country with direction from the 10,000 voting punters.

Replace all numbers with larger/smaller ones as you see fit.

(, Wed 29 Feb 2012, 16:12, archived)
# People talk about the "sanctity of Democracy"...
...But essentially it's either a privileged few running the show (which can be done better under the more... tyrannical systems) or it's mob rule. Neither is an ideal way of getting something done.

When you look into systems of governance, the ideal is Anarchy; which is to say, a lack of governance and everybody working together, independently, for the best.

But that'll never happen. Not with humans.
(, Wed 29 Feb 2012, 18:53, archived)