Biggest in History?!
No lack of ambition here then.
Personally I'd settle for the biggest in the UK (for now).
All joking aside though, I suggest that this initiative from Not Our Future has much to commend it.
No it won't be perfect, so if you're looking for perfection then, as always, you will have to look elsewhere; but if "we the people" want to wrest control of our country back from the vice-like grip of the political parties (and their donors/controllers), then we will have to vote them out.
That gives us two high hurdles to leap -
- The votes must be honestly collected counted verified and substantiated.
- They must not go to political parties or party members.
Only then will our representatives in Parliament be free to work out amongst themselves what our national priorities are, and debate and vote according to their consciences and our constituency needs, without having to accommodate the party whips / donors / controllers.
Parliament will be an entirely transformed institution.
Now we can argue the details until the cows come home (and we no doubt will) but if we don't have election integrity then votes can be stolen, if we just vote in the same parties then we will get the same results, and if we the people continue to take no interest in politics because it's too difficult, then we the people will still get the same results.
Election integrity - isn't that a problem confined to the US?
Don't we know (I didn't) that the Smartmatic brand election machines that have been at the centre of controversy in the US (along with other brands) were also used in the recent elections for the Mayor of London? The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, so all aspects of the electoral system must be scrutinised.
How would a parliament without political parties operate?
I don't profess to know, but challenges are there to be addressed. Some sort of publicly accessible central database linking candidates / MPs to policies for / against might be a start - it would be a learning process.
I suggest that MPs would in practice spend a great deal more time in topical break-out discussion groups than in the debating chamber itself - they would need to thrash out who supported what and debate the overall structure before finally presenting and debating detailed Bills. Special interest groups (that already exist) could expand their functionality here.
Hopefully the debating chamber would be transformed from a bear pit back into a final debating and voting chamber, most of the heavy lifting being already done.
We could also devolve a plethora of central powers to local level - I'm sure there's plenty of scope, and we could simplify by removing legal requirements to add medications (fluoride, flour additives, etc) to our food and water supplies - forced medication is entirely unethical and we have seen whither that sort of thinking leads.
The question might turn out to be not what new statutes we would require, but how much of the statute book could we simply repeal, to our enormous benefit, without corresponding adverse effect?
There is one further issue that will eventually need to be addressed. Historically the legislature (that creates passes and - let's not forget! - repeals legislation) is separate from the government, which was historically vested in the monarchy. The monarchy has however taken to appointing its government (Prime minister) from whoever can command a majority in the House of Commons. This leads to much overlap between the legislature and government ministers, obfuscating the separation of powers. In the absence of some sort of top-down revolution (probably undesirable!) this arrangement would inevitably continue, but might well be considered for review in due course.
The world is changing, the incentives for change are mounting, and we can help it along.
Simply giving up because it's all too difficult won't cut it. Nevertheless, reform needs to be as process, not a revolution, otherwise loss of control becomes the likely outcome. We want to regain control, not lose it.
So whether "Not Our Future" are on the right lines or not, I suggest that their ideas are deserving of careful attention, if only as a starting point for future thinking.