Is tradition holding the UK back?

[brad465]

This is something I've thought of often recently, particularly in relation to politics/governance. Areas where I think tradition has put us a long way behind peer countries include:

- Palace of Westminster and voting rituals: the Palace is very old and in dire need of repair, with several reports in recent years about the time and financial expense required. I think we need to move Government into a new modern building and convert the PoW into a museum of sorts. Admission fees could go towards restoration costs. I'd also do away with division lobbies and have electronic voting, something we'd definitely have done a long time ago if we weren't such tradition lovers.

- The Monarchy: I'm in two minds about how this should proceed, abolition in favour of a republic is one option, but a much slimmed down monarchy in every way would still be a significant improvement. We don't need pompous ceremonies like the State Opening of Parliament, Order of the Garter, etc, and the Royal family certainly doesn't need several stately homes (one or two should be enough) and vast swathes of land via two Royal Duchies.

- Honours: The British Empire is long gone, and in any case the current system has got way out of hand with its size and many honours being awarded for apparent loyalty in politics. I'd be in favour of scrapping the current system and bringing in a new one that removes historical references, while also not having any political involvement in deciding recipients.

- Listed buildings/heritage restrictions: I'm not against preserving historical buildings, but I think it's preventing certain modern necessities being made. Apparently such statuses make modern insulation, solar panel installation, etc. much harder to get approval for. I can support buildings needing to look like their surroundings and not to be too tall to avoid being eyesores, but with climate change and energy demand challenges, reform is needed somewhere.

I'm sure there are others that I haven't thought of that will come up in discussion, but I'll add this quote that I think sums up tradition best, although I don't know the origins: "Tradition is an excuse to keep lazy thinkers in line."

 

[Thirteen]

Listed buildings are important because otherwise things would be demolished without replacement.

The Houses of Parliament's repairs have been in the planning for a few years but it won't happen until 2025 at the earliest.

 

[birchesgreen]

The Commons Chamber is not fit for purpose, its not big enough for the number of MPs! I think only about 2/3 of the total number of MPs can be seated in there which is completely ridiculous!

 

[ainsworth74]

The Houses of Parliament's repairs have been in the planning for a few years but it won't happen until 2025 at the earliest.

Ah so you're an optimist then!

 

[Enthusiast]

The Commons Chamber is not fit for purpose, its not big enough for the number of MPs! I think only about 2/3 of the total number of MPs can be seated in there which is completely ridiculous!

There's a simple solution to that - reduce the number of MPs to about 400.

 

[Trackman]

The Commons Chamber is not fit for purpose, its not big enough for the number of MPs! I think only about 2/3 of the total number of MPs can be seated in there which is completely ridiculous!

It was flattened during world war two (I think the entrance to the chamber survived and so did Westminster hall) , so they had their chance then - I think it was Sir Winston Churchill insisted on rebuilding it to the old the spec.

 

[urbophile]

There's a simple solution to that - reduce the number of MPs to about 400.

Hear hear! And ensure that those 400 are elected by proportional representation. It is a nonsense that so many peoples' votes just don't count at all.

 

[uglymonkey]

" It is a nonsense that so many peoples' votes just don't count at all."I think on average an election is won in a few "key marginals", the rest of the country doesn't need to bother as what ever they do it doesn't make a "jot" of difference".

 

[gabrielhj07]

What exactly is tradition holding the UK back from doing?

 

[uglymonkey]

Full metric system ? Driving on the right?

 

[gabrielhj07]

Full metric system ? Driving on the right?

Good point, let's become a republic immediately.

 

[Bevan Price]

I think that the senior Civil Service structure needs to be reformed, particularly how and which staff are recruited. Time after time it seems to make a mess - railways, IT systems, Military equipment contracts, to name just a few.

 

[brad465]

What exactly is tradition holding the UK back from doing?

Being unproductive and wasting money where it can be better spent elsewhere, something applicable to all my original points.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Being unproductive and wasting money where it can be better spent elsewhere, something applicable to all my original points.

I'm not sure which of your examples represents wasting money? Nor can I really see how their 'traditional' nature is much of a problem.

 

[DerekC]

I think that the senior Civil Service structure needs to be reformed, particularly how and which staff are recruited. Time after time it seems to make a mess - railways, IT systems, Military equipment contracts, to name just a few.

There is certainly room for better expertise in the Civil Service, and the current system at senior levels works against people building up knowledge of the department they work in, because they being moved around is part of the promotion system. It would also be better if there was more movement of people between the civil service and the private and other public sectors. However be careful what you wish for. Amongst politicians "civil service reform" is often a cloak for a politicised civil service which just does what ministers demand, without challenging it - and since politicians mostly don't have a clue, that's a recipe for disaster. The civil service is there to advise as well as execute - but the advice and the execution both need to be better, I agree.

 

[brad465]

I'm not sure which of your examples represents wasting money? Nor can I really see how their 'traditional' nature is much of a problem.

The most expensive I'd say is the Palace of Westminster stuff: it has a huge maintenance/restoration bill ahead (upwards of several billion), which will only increase if they decide to restore it while keeping the building active as much as possible. A new building for Government can be modern in design with smaller maintenance costs, while if the Palace of Westminster is converted into a Museum and/or other less intensive uses, maintenance costs would either be lower and/or funded through admissions/donations, rather than taxpayers generally.

There is also a productivity advantage in changing the voting means. Rather than having to walk through division lobbies every time there's a vote (there can be several on bills with multiple readings and amendments), electronic voting speeds things up massively, allowing more time to debate and potentially allowing more debates to fit within the same timeframe.

 

[edwin_m]

I've heard it suggested that the layout of the House of Commons with government and opposition facing each other actively encourages confrontation. Most assemblies adopt a semi-circular layout where parties sit politically left to right. Such a change would complement a more proportional voting system, the lack of which to be honest is holding the UK back far more than a few stuffy traditions.

 

[Hadders]

If we were starting with a blank sheet of paper you would have a monarchy. But what's the alternative - an elected head of state. Tony Blair, Boris, Liz Truss anyone.....

I think we're better sticking with what we've got.

 

[Snow1964]

I think that the senior Civil Service structure needs to be reformed, particularly how and which staff are recruited. Time after time it seems to make a mess - railways, IT systems, Military equipment contracts, to name just a few.

Yes, system encourages generalists who move around every 9-24 months to get promotion, and doesn't reward anyone who tries to specialise in an area to become knowledgeable.

Result is they keep using (very expensive) consultants to do what civil service should do because no one has experience, and any knowledge of how not to do it is forgotten, so regularly repeat the mistakes.

 

[nw1]

If we were starting with a blank sheet of paper you would have a monarchy. But what's the alternative - an elected head of state. Tony Blair, Boris, Liz Truss anyone.....

I think we're better sticking with what we've got.

It depends what kind of president we get. In some countries (notably France and the USA, and many African and South American countries) they have real power but in many European republics, they are just a figurehead.

The monarchy is something that I am very neutral about to be honest. The kind of tradition being discussed in this thread has a certain charm and I don't have a real problem with it. To be honest I don't even mind the House of Lords, who frequently seem to be more sane than the House of Commons!

As for listed buildings and preserving history, I am very "pro" this. History absolutely has to be preserved and listed buildings are listed for a reason.

Rather than tradition of this sort, my problem with British culture is more with its very modern isolationism, stubbornness and pig-headedness, and the warped British "winner takes it all" concept of fairness (the type that says First Past The Post is a fair election system). These are the "British" things I'd far rather get rid of.

 

[Yew]

Yes, system encourages generalists who move around every 9-24 months to get promotion, and doesn't reward anyone who tries to specialise in an area to become knowledgeable.

Result is they keep using (very expensive) consultants to do what civil service should do because no one has experience, and any knowledge of how not to do it is forgotten, so regularly repeat the mistakes.

The standard one is to put a Civil Servant with minimal domain knowlege, and no experience managing IT projects in charge of a Complicated IT project; then wonder why the project goes over budget.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

- Palace of Westminster and voting rituals: the Palace is very old and in dire need of repair, with several reports in recent years about the time and financial expense required. I think we need to move Government into a new modern building and convert the PoW into a museum of sorts. Admission fees could go towards restoration costs.

I don't think it's tradition holding that back. More that Governments are scared about how it'll look to voters if they spend £billions on what many will see as, new accommodation for MPs at a time when people are in poverty etc. Agree with you that we do need something more modern though.

I'd also do away with division lobbies and have electronic voting, something we'd definitely have done a long time ago if we weren't such tradition lovers.

Kinda agree there. Division lobbies are an anachronism, a waste of MP's time and arguably at least a minor hindrance to good government.

- The Monarchy: I'm in two minds about how this should proceed, abolition in favour of a republic is one option, but a much slimmed down monarchy in every way would still be a significant improvement. We don't need pompous ceremonies like the State Opening of Parliament, Order of the Garter, etc, and the Royal family certainly doesn't need several stately homes (one or two should be enough) and vast swathes of land via two Royal Duchies.

What does having a monarchy hold the UK back from doing?

I guess more generally, tradition is a double edged sword. On the one hand, it gives a sense of continuity and an actual stability that is important. I really wouldn't underestimate the need for continuity and at least some sense of the familiar in people's lives - that's a part of human nature. There is also an argument that many things that are traditional have stood the test of time that they work. With almost any new thing you introduce, you hope that it'll work but if it's untried then there's always the possibility that it won't work the way you expected. But on the other hand, tradition can cause a resistance to change even when the old institutions are demonstrably deficient or inferior to what we see in other countries. I don't think any country is immune from that. The difference between the UK and much of Europe is that, thanks to the devastation of WWII and subsequent occupations and complete rebuilding, many of the 'traditions' that determine how Government works in most European countries date back only to 1945, whereas ours frequently date back to the 19th century or even before, and so tend to be more dated.

 

[AlterEgo]

What exactly is tradition holding the UK back from doing?

Well, our necrotic political system is pretty much the core of why progress in this country can be glacial. We are facing declining standards of living, and frankly a lot of people are quite happy with that as long as they get to live in a museum.

 

[dangie]

We have a knack of beginning projects, sometimes taking them through to near completion, then scrapping them.

For example: TSR2 aircraft, APT (Advanced Passenger Train), Northern leg of HS2, Rest of HS2 (give it time it’s not built yet).

 

[gabrielhj07]

The most expensive I'd say is the Palace of Westminster stuff: it has a huge maintenance/restoration bill ahead (upwards of several billion), which will only increase if they decide to restore it while keeping the building active as much as possible. A new building for Government can be modern in design with smaller maintenance costs, while if the Palace of Westminster is converted into a Museum and/or other less intensive uses, maintenance costs would either be lower and/or funded through admissions/donations, rather than taxpayers generally.

What would you replace it with, and where would you put it? We could have the Senedd building in St James’ Park perhaps?

 

[dangie]

What would you replace it with, and where would you put it?

Where would we put it? That would make an interesting thread!

 

[uglymonkey]

Birmingham - middle of the country. Good transport links. Make London an independent city state ( it's too different) and concentrate on the rest of England, which never got a fair shout when devolution was being given out!

 

[Purple Train]

It depends what kind of president we get. In some countries (notably France and the USA, and many African and South American countries) they have real power but in many European republics, they are just a figurehead.

The monarchy is something that I am very neutral about to be honest. The kind of tradition being discussed in this thread has a certain charm and I don't have a real problem with it. To be honest I don't even mind the House of Lords, who frequently seem to be more sane than the House of Commons!

As for listed buildings and preserving history, I am very "pro" this. History absolutely has to be preserved and listed buildings are listed for a reason.

Rather than tradition of this sort, my problem with British culture is more with its very modern isolationism, stubbornness and pig-headedness, and the warped British "winner takes it all" concept of fairness (the type that says First Past The Post is a fair election system). These are the "British" things I'd far rather get rid of.

Indeed, but members of the Royal Family are brought up to acquire the skillset necessary to be a figurehead, and someone who is respected enough that they can be a figurehead for most, if not all, of the population, irrespective of view. The late Queen was particularly excellent at this.

I don't think a President - a politician, in other words - would have the same effect, irrespective of whether they wielded genuine power or were just a figurehead. The objective of politics, in its present state, is to polarise rather than unite.

I have a similar problem with the abolition of the House of Lords. Nice idea, but, if we were to elect them, then there would be either a government majority in both Houses, in which case anything and everything would get waved through, or one party would command a majority in each House, and nothing would happen. I think that keeping it in its state, but restricting the number of political appointments (and removing the whipping system, which I can just about understand in the Commons but not the Lords) would be better.

Although I'm not best qualified to reply to this thread in all fairness, as I'm so small-c conservative that I don't even like having to get used to a new type of calculator

 

[sor]

There's a simple solution to that - reduce the number of MPs to about 400.

While we insist on having direct rule for England, that's not going to happen. If we had English devolution (preferably regionally) then you could slim it down in line with our peer countries.

400 would be an awfully arbitrary number otherwise, and I'm not sure we should determine representation based on how many people can sit in an antiquated room.

There is also a productivity advantage in changing the voting means. Rather than having to walk through division lobbies every time there's a vote (there can be several on bills with multiple readings and amendments), electronic voting speeds things up massively, allowing more time to debate and potentially allowing more debates to fit within the same timeframe.

They actually do have electronic (swipe card) voting now, but of course in true UK style it's bodged onto the existing process of shuffling through the lobbies. We had a fleeting moment of modernisation during COVID when MPs were permitted to vote remotely, but the MP for the 19th century stopped that. The government likes to talk about how "world beating" everything is, and apparently this system was actually so world beating that other parliaments were watching with interest, so naturally we stopped doing it.

Even the US congress has fully electronic voting (a number of swipe card readers are dotted around the room and anyone can vote anywhere) and they have done since the 70s.

 

[uglymonkey]

" fully electronic voting (a number of swipe card readers are dotted around the room and anyone can vote anywhere) ". Might also allow more of a free vote ( not being seen and stared at which lobby you walk into) as it would be easier to vote "unseen" as it were.