Three changes... Are MP checkers a good idea?

Politics in the UK is far from perfect... so here are 4 changes we think would make it better:

CHANGE ONE

Firstly, we would make it a law to behave well in the house of Commons.

We would do this because bad behaviour in the Commons reduces productivity, if a bill needs to be passed quickly then bad behaviour will slow the process down. For example: someone in the Commons might interrupt another person, then the speaker of the commons will have to sort this out and due to this, valuable time will be lost. In addition to this, lack of productivity means that MPs will not have enough time to raise important issues, the constituents he/she is representing might not get their voices heard as a result of lack of time due someone misbehaving in the House of Commons. For example: someone could shout at another MP in the House of Commons, and then as a result other MPs will lose valuable time to raise important issues and then the constituents might not vote for that MP again due to the fact that he/she did not raise an important issue.

Secondly, MPs are meant to be role models due to the fact that they represent their constituency, they are a leader and so therefore should conduct themselves in a civilized way in the Commons, if they do not they are setting a bad example to their constituency and they might not get voted for again. For example: One MP in the commons called another MP an ignoramus, this is not acceptable, frankly, this person is not fit to be an MP, Another example is: Boris Johnson called Paula Sherriff a hysterical female in the House of Commons. Boris Johnson leads the country, he should be setting an example.

However, it is arguable that MPs should not have to have good behaviour forced on them because they should be mature enough to set a good example.

So, in conclusion we think it is necessary to enforce a law that states that MPs must behave well in the House of commons since bad behaviour in there reduces productivity, this has consequences.

CHANGE TWO

We would make it a law that politicians must tell the truth and tell their constituency what they want to do since the constituents elected this person, and so therefore it is the voters right to know what their MP wants to do. Politicians must not mislead the public with half-truths and tweaked statistics. For example: if a politician wants to ban diesel cars in their constituency, the politician will have to ask the public and if they say no then the politician cannot do it. Being dishonest presents many problems: The public might react badly if they find out a decision has been made without their approval, in addition to this, if the politician is dishonest then they are risking their job and their constituency’s faith in the party that they are part of. As well as this, another reason we think it should be a criminal offence for a politician to be dishonest to the public is that politics is not some game that 1 year old babies play, politics is a serious matter, it is a real-life thing that impacts millions in multiple ways. Concluding our argument, we think that it should be a law that politicians must be honest since millions are at risk and it is the people’s right to know what the politician’s future plans are.

CHANGE THREE

Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a MP checker, who would check that the MPs actions are in the best interest of their constituency. This is similar to a shadow minister except that MP checkers check individual MPs who are not necessarily government ministers. As well as this, MP checkers would be elected by members of the MP's constituency. We would add MP checkers because:

Firstly, the MP checker would make sure that the MP is properly supporting their constituency, this in turn means that the constituents would feel more reassured. For example: the MP might try to make library opening times shorter, the MP checker would make sure that this benefits the people, this means that the constituents know that they have someone who will look out for them. Secondly, MP checkers would make sure MPs do not tell half-truths or mislead the constituency. This means that the constituency is not subjected to biased and dishonest information which would alter the constituent’s views in favour of the MP who represents them - no one should not know the truth. Concluding our argument, we think that MP checkers or a second line of truth checking would be beneficial for constituencies across the UK.

Do you agree with our changes to UK politics? Are MP checkers a good idea? What would your three changes to UK politics be?

BY GENUINE_CAT AND VERSATILE_MOLECULE! THANKS FOR READING EVERYONE!

Comments (15)

  • tom Tom @ the BNC
    05 Feb 2020

    Thank you for these suggestions - clearly a lot of thought has gone in to making changes to our political system. You mention an MP Checker - this reminds me of fact-checking services that help people understand if what a politician has said is true. How would the MP Checker work? Would it be funded by government, or by a private business? How would people access it, and who would be the judges?

    Reply to this comment
    1. Hammond School logo genuine_cat | Hammond Junior School A
      Tom @ the BNC's comment 05 Feb 2020

      MP checkers unlike fact checking services would focus more on checking whether the MP's plans are in the interest of the constituency. MP checkers would be a government funded role, and anyone could stand for it just like a MP. MP checkers would work by following the MP's every political move, they would also be neutral and not necessarily favour one party. MP checkers would be elected by members of the MP's constituency, this would mean that the constituents can trust the MP checker with his/her job. MP checkers would be overlooked and supervised by an organisation set up by the government, which would not necessarily favour one party.

      Reply to this comment
    2. Moreland logo smart_nation | Moreland Primary School
      Tom @ the BNC's comment 07 Feb 2020

      How do two accounts make a post together?

      Reply to this comment
      1. tom Tom @ the BNC
        smart_nation's comment 07 Feb 2020

        Either do it through your teachers' account, or let us know in the text and we'll add the second name!

        Reply to this comment
  • Tendring Primary School storytelling_frog | Tendring Primary School
    05 Feb 2020

    i agree their should be a new law saying no arguing in the house of commons

    Reply to this comment
    1. Olivia-Avatar.jpg Olivia @ the BNC
      storytelling_frog's comment 06 Feb 2020

      What do you think this would achieve? Can you say why it would be an improvement?

      Reply to this comment
    2. Hammond School logo sociable_volcano | Hammond Junior School B
      storytelling_frog's comment 12 Feb 2020

      If there was no arguing in the House of Commons, it wouldn't take a headline in the news every day. We need arguing, it is what makes British politics so famous. If we didn't argue than how do you think we would be known for politics ( excluding BREXIT ).

      Reply to this comment
  • Streatham-Wells-logo-250x250.jpg unparalleled_writer | Streatham Wells Primary School
    06 Feb 2020

    I agree that there should be no arguing in the House of Commons but I wouldn’t stop people from debating, although in my opinion the do argue. I believe this because when you start debating you think “Maybe they will change my mind,” but when you start arguing you think “ I am going to change their mind,” So that is why I believe that the politicians argue instead of debate.
    However, they are trying to change peoples minds for the good of the country....we’ll most of the time *cough cough* Donald Trump *cough cough*

    Reply to this comment
    1. Lyons Hall Primary School steadfast_dove | Lyons Hall Primary School E
      unparalleled_writer's comment 11 Feb 2020

      I do agree with you my reasons are the same as yours! And yes they are trying to change peoples minds.

      Reply to this comment
  • Hammond School logo giving_elephant | Hammond Junior School A
    12 Feb 2020

    Geuine_cat you are creating one of the best pieces I have ever seen

    Reply to this comment
  • Graveney-logo-250x250.jpg lovable_writer | Graveney School
    12 Feb 2020

    genuine_cat, I admire how much your post revolves around the topics of reliability and honesty. However, I think this is precisely the reason that some of your laws might not work. For example, how are we to know that the MP checker isn't deceiving us too? Would we have to employ an MP checker-checker? It sounds silly, right? this is one of the issues with politics at the moment; it seems impossible to tell truth from a mass of lies. It is certainly an issue that should be addressed, but I think that enforcing new laws is not the answer because it tends to create even more basis for speculation, an increase in social tension and the situation becomes ever more complicated.

    Reply to this comment
    1. tom Tom @ the BNC
      lovable_writer's comment 12 Feb 2020

      A valid question, lovable_writer! Interest to hear people's thoughts...

      Reply to this comment
    2. Michael-Faraday-logo-250x250.jpg memorable_orchard | Michael Faraday School
      lovable_writer's comment 20 Feb 2020

      I understand where you are coming from, lovable_writer. However, what if the MP-checker-checker is deceiving us also, would that mean we would need a MP-checker-checker-checker? In fact, should we trust anyone? It may have been impossible to tell truth from a mass of lies as if they tell the truth and it is not what the audience wants to hear, therefore making them not want to support them, and if they lie, we would get mad and insecure about whether we should trust MPs or not. When really, it is our fault for not abiding what a PM or MP tells us. Also, if they do not set down new and better rules for us to follow, the current issue we are going through now may worsen if we just sit back and do nothing. Since they do not know whether we will like the new rules, they can always go through an election. In conclusion, these are my thoughts on the question you set and more additional things.

      Thank you for reading.
      memorable_orchard.

      Reply to this comment
  • Braiswick Primary School succinct_leaves | Braiswick Primary School
    17 Feb 2020

    I like the idea of MP Checkers, but I think there is a something about them that shouldn't be a reason to have them. What I mean by this is you mentioned that MP Checkers would ask the constituency if they agree with the MP, so the MP knows that they are making the right decision. But isn't part of a MP's job to organise votes for their constituency and see what they want, so shouldn't they be doing that? Even though MP Checkers would get paid to do their job, it seems that MPs are capable of doing some things they are meant to do, so having them would be pointless in some ways. If politicians are too busy to organise it, there will have to be a delay or wait so they can do it themselves. In short, MP Checkers are, in my opinion, not a good idea, but maybe something like it but altered a bit could be useful.

    For your first change, I partly agree. This is mainly because, yes, interrupting and misbehaving in rude, but if you have something to say relating to that topic you need to say it before politicians start talking about another issue, because what they have to say could be something other politicians haven't considered yet. It shouldn't always be a rush to finish the meeting, because you have to listen to other people, and it's actually a human right to be listened to. But arguing and interrupting should be kept to a reasonable level in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, so as not to cause chaos. If everybody kept giving a new idea then politicians wouldn't have enough time to process all the new information and come with a beneficial solution. To conclude, I do agree, but to some extent; if one person at a time says something it shouldn't be considered "illegal".

    I have just a few questions: to what extent do particular changes go? Should MP Checkers do all the work politicians don't have time for? And finally, if one person says a single word out of turn, should they face legal charges?

    succinct_leaves

    Reply to this comment

You must be logged in to post a comment