" ... that we many be free from factional impositions, corrupt representation and unjust settlements."
Propositions concerning Constitution
Initiated 15th August, 2020
In his quest to establish a written constitution for the people of Britain, John Lilburne, a leading Leveller, spent much time in prison at the Tower of London and Dover Castle. Working tirelessly he started journey which we have yet to complete in the name of the people...Read more in the Resources section ....
Reading the objectives of the Levellers the logic of their propositions is based on their not being professional politicians, or basically, no political parties. Enough has been referred to on their tiny dimensions. It is notable that they are so generally uninspiring as to result in all parties put together managing a total membership of less than 1.3% of the electorate. How is it that the electorate permit these tiny private organizations to dominate the agenda and lever themselves into a position of gaining command over 40% of the economy?
About ten or so years ago there was a considerable amount of analysis concerning the damage political parties were doing and the value of a written constitution.. for example, someone catalogued the specific constraints introduced by political parties to reduce individual freedoms and proposed a constitutional solution, maybe linked to Sir Paul Judge's Jury Party initiative. Does anyone know of sources on this topic or records, links, documents on this topic? If so please contact the Secretariat.
[This set has been advanced from concerns level because except for observational concerns those affected are the majority of the constituency]
[We are awaiting some details on mechanisms (cause and effect - many of which are self-evident)]
- The dominance of the "political agendas" by political parties but very sparse involvement of constituents in policy formulation
- Political party memberships are so small as to be irrelevant (total less that 1.3% of the electorate) and yet these factions decide policy agendas
- At elections the public only have choices between representatives of political parties as opposed to constituency representatives
- Politicians are unable to vote in line with constituent preferences because of "party lines" and "whip system" on the other hand most MP do not know what the preferences of their "constituents" are
- In the past, decisions by juries have defined important human rights by nullifying the law in cases where it application was deemed inappropriate or unfair. With macroeconomic policies and financial regulations leading to problems in an increasing range of economic and financial circumstances of the constituency but executed in accordance with the law and regulations appears to call for a wider application of the community conscience, in the form of a jury of constituents, in assessing the fair application of the law
- There is a need for new due diligence procedures in structuring and presenting financial fraud cases brought before juries. Any confusion arising creating the "case of the confused jury" should bring into focus intent on the part of the legal council or those presenting arguments to prevent failed cases.
- The widening lack of provisions of legal support for low income individuals/families is in reality a denial of justice and needs to be addressed