May 26, 2009 12:00 PM

Radical Reform Pushed In U.K. Politics

(AP)  Britain's top opposition leader proposed a radical redistribution of power on Tuesday as a way to restore faith in government following a scandal over the misuse of public funds.

Conservative leader David Cameron, who is widely favored to become Britain's next prime minister, wrote in an op-ed piece in The Guardian newspaper that the power of the prime minister should be reduced. He also said he would also consider giving lawmakers fixed terms.

"I believe the central objective of the new politics we need should be a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power," Cameron, 42, wrote in a two-page article. He pledged decentralization, transparency and accountability.

"We must take power away from the political elite and hand it to the man and woman in the street," he said.

Cameron said individual lawmakers should get more say in how they vote - rather than being forced to follow the party line. Leaders should also consider curtailing the immense power of the prime minister, who can decide when to hold elections.

Cameron's promises follow more than two weeks of sordid revelations about the abuse of lawmaker expenses that has tarnished all of Britain's political parties, particularly Prime Minister Gordon Brown's ruling Labour Party. A handful of House of Commons lawmakers have been forced to announce they will not run for re-election due to the expenses scandal and political analysts say hundreds of lawmakers could lose their jobs in the next election.

Brown has proposed sweeping reforms of the expenses system for lawmakers, saying that will eliminate the outrageous charges seen under the old system, where lawmakers did not have to publicly reveal their reimbursement details.

But Brown has resisted calls to hold an early national election to let the public oust legislators who abused the system because the opposition Conservatives are far ahead of Labour in opinion polls and widely expected to win. By law, Brown must call the next election by June 2010.

British lawmakers do not have fixed terms. A prime minister must call an election within five years of the previous election.

Cameron wrote that beneath the current anger is a deeper discontent in British society over a feeling of powerlessness and Britain's "increasingly Orwellian surveillance state," citing a hotly-disputed plan to give people identification cards.

"The anger, the suspicion and the cynicism - yes with politics and politicians, but with so much else besides - are the result of people's slow but sure realization that they have very little control over the world around them, and over much that determines whether or not they'll live happy and fulfilling lives," he wrote.

The op-ed piece was part of Cameron's maneuvering to pressure Brown into calling early elections.

Public anger has been fueled by revelations of how lawmakers used public money to clean a moat, buy plasma screen TVs and repair swimming pools. Most claims were legally valid under Parliament's lax rules, but some - like claiming interest payments for mortgages that were already paid off - could spark criminal charges.

The stricken lawmakers are pushing for changes unprecedented in the nation's history, even though many ideas have been discussed before, such as changing Britain's electoral system - which favors the two major parties - to one that apportions House of Commons seats based on each party's share of the national vote.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg described Cameron's ideas as a "nip and tuck" solution.

"I think David Cameron's ideas are fine as far as they go - but they don't go far enough," he told GMTV, a British morning television program. Clegg said huge amounts of power were given to Britain's two main parties.

"It seems to me that we want to have governments in power in our name who really have to get a proper mandate from us, otherwise what right do they have to run things on our behalf?" Clegg said.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment
by zwaggsy May 27, 2009 7:56 AM EDT
To whitemale08

I was referring to your statement that Gordon Brown had pumped billion of British taxpayer into Barclays. I pointed out that Barclays publicly stated that they did not require any bailout packages from the government. I made no mention of any international dealings as YOU mentioned Gordon Brown specifically & the above article is about the UK.

As for Gordon Brown promising to underwrite all the big banks that's an unknown quantity. On the one hand no government wants to see a big bank go under on it's watch, on the other hand Gordon has already publicly stated that the UK government cannot continue to write out blank cheques for every banking crisis. While this current government has an abysmal record for honesty, going back on that particular statement with the present public mood could very well be literal as well as political suicide, only way we'd find out is if Barclays did indeed go under.

By the way at no point did I defend the banks, we all stand to lose courtesy off unregulated financial trading & I have no loyalty to these people whatsoever. As for the UK being on the road to hell, it's possible but as some of my older & calmer workmates pointed out we've been through much worse & still come out ok.
Reply to this comment
by whitemale08 May 26, 2009 11:54 PM EDT
In fact the 'stress-tests' were different for each bank.

You know what the 'stress-test' was for Barclays Capital and Goldman Sucks? huh? do you?

The Stress-Tests on banks like Goldman Sucks and Barclays was based upon CONTINUING THE BAILOUTS OF ALL BIG FAILED BANKS!!!!!!

HOW 'BOUT THAT FOR TRANSPARENCY AND INTEGRITY?

In other words if the taxpayer all of a sudden wised up and said: 'NO MORE F_CKIN' BAILOUTS', your favorite bank, BARCLAYS CAPITAL, would have to IMMEDIATELY go into RECEIVERSHIP and start papaerwork for CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY RE-ORGANIZATION!

How int the hell is that 'doing better then RBS or HBOS?

Do yourself a favor zwaggsy, don't ever ever in your life dispute anything I post on this site unless you have the written proof to back it up....DON'T YOU DARE!
Reply to this comment
by whitemale08 May 26, 2009 11:45 PM EDT
Try watching the news sometime you might learn something!
Posted by zwaggsy at 6:30 PM : May 26, 2009

Here's more 'news' for your ignorant comments:

Barclays (NYSE: BCS - option chain) shares are headed higher today on reports that the company has been determined unlikely to need more capital to survive the current credit crisis(subscription required). Regulators have been performing a stress test on Barclays and this result is pretty much as good as anyone could have hoped. If you think that the stock won't fall by too much in the coming months, then now could be a good time to look at a bullish hedged trade on BCS.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/03/27/barclays-bcs-passes-stress-test/

The article implies that Barclays Capital has already received direct British taxpayer money...how about in-direct?

The UK has already pumped £1.4 trillion into strengthening the banking system through investments, asset insurance and underwriting loans

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5370618/FSA-mulls-more-data-on-bank-bail-outs.html

...this article means that Gordon Brown has already guaranteed the worthless derivatives and credit-default swaps of the other British banks that Barclays Capital is exposed to as a counter-party.

If you had went to elementry school and learned how to connect-the-dots then you would've been able to figure out that my original post was accurate and correct before you posted an ignorant reply. ...embarrassed? I know, don't worry about it, I'm really good at this
Reply to this comment
by whitemale08 May 26, 2009 11:23 PM EDT
Try watching the news sometime you might learn something!
Posted by zwaggsy at 6:30 PM : May 26, 2009

Here's Reuter's dumb_ss:

Goldman was not the only large bank with exposure to AIG. The list of counterparties that AIG disclosed on Sunday included others that got large sums. Goldman was followed by Societe Generale (SOGN.PA) with $11.9 billion, Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) with $11.8 billion and Barclays PLC (BARC.L) with $8.5 billion.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN1712706420090317

So Barclays received bailout funds from the American taxpayer; even worse.

I suggest you quit defending these BIG FAILED BANKS like a sucker and help us STOP THE LOOTING and these CROOKS.

How do you look now? ....STUPID.
I thought so.
Reply to this comment
by zwaggsy May 26, 2009 9:30 PM EDT
Gordon Brown is a joke and a hilarious bafoon. After handing out 100's of billions of British taxpayer money to bailout the Rothshchilds and the Barclays, he has officially bankrupted England and sent it's citizens on a path to hell.

Barclays were offered bailout money but refused it to prove to critics how stable they were, as a result their stocks rose and it's one off the reasons their doing better than the likes of RBS or HBOS.
Try watching the news sometime you might learn something!
Reply to this comment
by whitemale08 May 26, 2009 8:11 PM EDT
The 'prime minister' is already weak, he's basicly a giant bozo the clown goofing off with parliament in their hilarious debates, called 'prime minister's questions'.

I sometimes watch these events on c-span and they are absolutely a riot of laughter and stupidity.

The U.S. had better not even think of going down the road like Europe with this silly parliamentry system and discard sovereignty for some private-central-banker's creation called the EU.

I mean the first thing that the EU did when it was established, before anything else, was to form a EU central bank to make null and void the local currencies of the respective countries.

Now Europe is suffering the wreck of the breakdown-crisis of the Anglo-Dutch monetary system and neither Italy, Germany, Spain or any of these countries can do a damn thing about it because their currencies are tied up in this piece of krap called the ECB.

Gordon Brown is a joke and a hilarious bafoon. After handing out 100's of billions of British taxpayer money to bailout the Rothshchilds and the Barclays, he has officially bankrupted England and sent it's citizens on a path to hell.

In just a few months England will look worse then Haiti, and why shouldn't it, after all England has no more to export to the world then any 3rd world country, and it's paper money, the British pound is utterly worthless and soon to be used to wipe down toilet seats.

If England wants to get its house in order, it needs to ditch the culture of imperialism and help the world replace the 'private-monetary-system' with a fixed-exchange-rate system of 'sovereign-credit' so that every nation can use to rebuild and develop for the benefit of it's peoples and not Rothshchild's.
Reply to this comment
by gunownerdan May 26, 2009 1:37 PM EDT
"We must take power away from the political elite and hand it to the man and woman in the street."

The good citizens of England are finally going to get their gun rights back?
Reply to this comment
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook