Controlling governments is about controlling the money. It always was about money. That's how parliament emerged as a force in the land, going as far back as 1215 when the tenants-in-chief secured the Magna Carta from King John.

That concession, more than anything else, established the principle that the king might not levy or collect any taxes (except the feudal taxes to which they were hitherto accustomed), save with the consent of his royal council. And it was the "council" which gradually developed into a parliament. The rest, as they say, is history.

That principle survives to this day. The executive must refer to parliament each year for approval of its budget. Without that, it runs out of money. Our problem is – and the heart of all our problems – is that this process has become an empty ritual. No parliament has rejected a budget in living memory, and none is likely to.

So each year, we see this great ritual, where the government of the day pretends to ask us for the money it wants, and we have to watch the empty charade of approval being given – only then to see vast amounts of money being spent on things of which the majority of us do not approve, such as the European Union.

This must stop. The ritual must turn back into substance, and there must be real control over the annual budget. The politicians cannot be trusted to discharge this duty. They have their fingers in the till and a vested interest in maintaining high levels of expenditure. The power must go to the people who pay the bills - us.

The means by which must be achieved is through an annual referendum. The budget must, each year, be submitted to the people for approval, and comes into force only once approved. The politicians must make their case, put their arguments, and then ask us for the money ... and they have to say please. We, the people, decide whether they get it. We, the people, have the power to say no.

View full article here

That is a fairly nuclear option. I once proposed http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/20 ... nment.html that there should be a limit to the proportion of GNP taken by the state and the public be allowed to set, or change, it by referendum. If the government is above that limit each department's budget would be limited to half the inflationary increase, which, in a growing economy, would mean about a 4% reduction in the government as a % of the economy annually.

Such polling as there has heen done on the subject suggests that the median approved figure would be about 20% of GNP.

Nuclear options have their own dynamics ... they do concentrate the minds, to the extent that the politicians would have to focus on the mood of the country, if they were to get their budget through. They would have to talk to and listen to people outside the bubble, as well.

I agree, incidentally, with your limits. I would like to see an codified constitution, with mandatory limits written in. However, on the KISS basis, a yes/no power on the budget is a good one to fight.

"Referism" has a nice ring to it. It's short, clear and to the point; I like it!

This has a wide appeal because everyone will want referism thinking that it will help them get their way. Whether that be more welfare or stopping our participation in the latest war. People have a tendency to believe/project that the silent majority share their own views.

The real result will more likely be that everything except the most simple and essential budgets will get blocked.

I think we may be too late to retake control of government in this country. The EU is demanding sight of the budget before our regional council is allowed to pass it. It will be one small step to actually approve or veto it and then to take control of the process, by-passing the electorate.
The EU has managed to agree a bail out Portugal by completely by-passing the government, because Portugal hasn't got one at the moment. Their civil service has accepted the conditions of the loan on behalf of the government that the people are about to elect.
The Irish Bank’s governor seems to have done a similar thing when between one party leaving government and the election of another set of clones he agreed the terms of the loan to bail out the Irish banks. The Irish are just awakening to the coup by the EU that leaves them as one of the regions in the Europe of the regions, stripped of all vestiges of sovereignty.
Only with the collapse of the Euro and the EU can we seek to take back government of this country.

Refer ism, a new word? OK, nothing from the past is relevant so here we go. Bag the word and make it mean something positive.

There are other ideas in the waiting room to deal with that. One thing at a time. But I should imagine that the greatest effect will be one of deterrence, preventing politicians proposing schemes that might invite risk if budget rejection. The main point in the short-term, though, is that it will re-energise politics.



It is never too late ... and as long as I breathe, it will not be too late.

Yeah, I think it has real legs, the 'elite' will abhor the very idea of the people having the final say so and that's what is so appealing.

Refer that! - you pluckers!

My fellow accordians ... We permissionists ... Consentians?

The Referee party.

All we need is a lapel button ...

The idea has a lot of logic. Getting hit in the wallet and/or loss of frontline services is what is going to get people wound up, if anything is. It is also good marketing to focus on the impact of policies, not the policies themselves. Richard has obviously thought through "referism", but I wonder whether something like "budgetism" would be a more immediate hook to the uninitiated ?

Brilliant idea. Include me in.

The use of Referenda, as the Swiss do ie after collecting sufficient signatures, would go a very long way to controlling the Dolts who run roughshod over us.

So I would agree to this idea, but let's not just use it for the budget.

Doesn't have the same ring! And do you really want to be a budgie?



One thing at a time ... don't frighten the horses.