butchersapron
Bring back hanging
He hasn't claimed 800 grand over the last 7 years either.
Do we want a General Election Now?
- Thread starter JCravitz
- Start date
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Swiss voters in the Canton of Geneva have just used direct democracy to snuff out the lamp by which liberty lives, namely by voting to abolish jury trial in all cases. This is far worse than any of Labour's attacks on this institution. (This shouldn't be taken as an attack on the Swiss system of democracy, which I respect and admire: just a modest point that it is has its downside.)
Proportional representation is another idealist system I can't stand. It slavishly tries to achieve numerical perfection while ignoring the practical question of whether it leads to better government. Coalitions are inevitable. FPTP, for all its flaws, leads to coalitions being formed prior to voting, and gives people a choice upfront. PR is a gift to backroom deals, closed-lists and fringe parties like those Danish Marxists you mention, who are gifted a wholly disproportionate amount of power in their role as kingmaker. That's as far from "democratic" as you can get, but hey, it's theoretically pure.
Ditto sweeping away the monarchy, a powerless and symbolic institution that does no harm to anyone, except perhaps the people in the line of succession.
How's law and order to be restored? I'm all for that, but I suspect our definitions and methods will differ.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
I'll probably get slated for saying this, but all arguments about the merits of this and that political system being "better" cos it's more "democratic" piss me off.
How a policy or law is implemented is irrelevant, what IS relevant is what that policy or law is.
Nobody argues for more democracy if they think they have a chance of implementing their ideas through the current system. Those that do argue for a change only do so because they think that will increase their chances of implementing their ideas.
A dictator can implement excellent policies that are extremely beneficial to society, and a pure democracy can implement the most horrific policies (altho we don't call that "democracy", we call that mob rule, because democracy is "good" all the time)
People should promote their ideas to make them popular, not promote a way of implementing their ideas in order to side step gaining that popular support...
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Not by me.
Democracy is morally right, in that it gives people a say in their government, but it's not the be-all and end-all. Its greatest benefit is as a means to an end, in that it tends to be fairer than dictatorships (which are rarely benign). But it's far from pefect, and can produce some horrific results. Any serious defender of democracy recognises these flaws and limitations, and tries to counter them. Instead we've made a fetish of the universal franchise, and shout "democracy" as a nice slogan.
And as you say, people's support for it fades when it leads to policies they don't like (Amnesty International can't get shot of it quickly enough when it comes to capital punishment).
Representative government is what we should aim for: mathematically pure voting systems don't help that end.
thats Jim Allister, former MP for Baisingstoke who retired at the last election, whereas Rosindell was returned on on increased majority in Romford
lobster
Well-Known Member
Policies are important and should not be ignored, however i am not asking for the house of lords to be removed but changed so that members are elected by the people, not in the same way as the House of Commons, and also members of the house of lords should serve like a six year fixed term.
well yeah , they have to change they strategy to get anywhere...
lobster
Well-Known Member
I agree on that .a simple majority vote should not be able to change something like this.
I am interested to know your fears or doubts with PR and why you call it idealist ?
At least then we can have a debate
Bills that they have submitted have actually got passed before and a bill submitted in parliament by an independent MEP has also been passed
Right now teenagers stab without remorse or punishment , rapist get out of jail very quickly and people possessing marijuana have known to receive ridiculous punishments.
We need a society where anyone can feel safe walking the streets at night and a reform on drugs.
Where a life sentence is what it says , for life.
I am happy to compare with your own thoughts on this.
lobster
Well-Known Member
Democracy is the vote of the people and people are not perfect. I acknowledge that but what should i do , go hang myself?
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
My fears are mainly those expressed above: backroom coalitions and closed lists, which cut off an MP from their constituents. I call it idealist because it assumes that fair government is achieved by mirroring voting patterns, and ignores the practical effects of this.
As for the Acts that begin with Danish Marxists, I have no problem with minority parties having the right to introduce bills, but were the bills passed because the Marxists were needed for the governing coalition? If yes, that just backs up my point that they have too much power.
As for law and order, we don't appear so far apart as I'd expected. I'd want most criminals subjected to reasonably short sentences in disciplined prisons at hard labour and the worst murderers hanged. While I'd legalize drugs, any addict who couldn't fund their own habit should be gaoled.
lobster
Well-Known Member
The bills introduced by the marxist group were in fact passed when the party was in the opposition and a liberal+conservative government with support from the far-right (the danish far-right are not a bunch of neo-nazis , more like hardline conservatives, Denmark was occupied during the war so neo-nazis that do exist are not political parties a such because nobody would support such a party) were in power, these bills were passed because the other parties in the Folketing thought it was a good idea and voted in favor of it.
I agree that criminals should work , like clean streets, do something for the community. The reason i don;t support capital punishment is because of mistaken identity. I know its easy to sound light on this when nobody close to me has been murdered or something terrible but there is always that mistake that could happen.
I agree drugs should not be supplied by the state for those that cannot afford them , i would however support programmes for people that want to get off them.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
No problem with it in that case.
Wrongful execution is the strongest argument against hanging, but we don't apply this absolute standard to any other field of life. A prisoner hanged after jury trial and appeal is far, far less likely to be innocent than the people killed on our roads, or in a just war, yet we don't impose draconian restrictions on driving, or abolish the army.
I'd support programmes for people genuinely eager to stop using drugs, but ones of an intensive kind, not an open-ended methadone script. And I'd have no problem with criminals doing something useful for the community.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
We really need to get a wtf smiley!
Anyway, my previous post wasn't really aimed at you, just something that could have been posted in any thread where the subject came up and it just happened to manifest itself on this thread.
Democracy is a means, not an end. It is merely a political system of implementing policies and it should never been seen as anything else. Those who are interested in politics or ideology should stick to the policies themselves and promote them, not fanny around making how to implement them more important than the policy itself.
True democrats would not concentrate on winning power, which, let's all admit, is the aim of any "democratic" argument. Instead, true democrats would concentrate on selling a policy or idea to the general public and see if it wins popular support.
Arguing for "greater" democracy just so your chosen party or ideology can gain power runs counter to the very essence of democracy they claim to champion. It boils down to the desire for power, not the desire for the man on the street to have a greater voice.
Sell your ideas, but if no-one buys them, perhaps they're just shit?
No problem with it in that case.
Wrongful execution is the strongest argument against hanging, but we don't apply this absolute standard to any other field of life. A prisoner hanged after jury trial and appeal is far, far less likely to be innocent than the people killed on our roads, or in a just war, yet we don't impose draconian restrictions on driving, or abolish the army.
I'd support programmes for people genuinely eager to stop using drugs, but ones of an intensive kind, not an open-ended methadone script. And I'd have no problem with criminals doing something useful for the community.
I oppose hanging because I think it is wrong to kill someone.
What purpose would it serve? Save money is it?
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
No, as I said to you in the other thread that crossed this topic, it's because it's a proportionate response to murder.
Do you oppose killing in self-defence or in a defensive war? If not, you don't think it's wrong to kill someone at all, and we disagree about the circumstances.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Excellently, if bluntly, put.
I'm sure some Lib Dems (for example) are sincere in their support for PR. I suspect the majority like it because it'll get them a piece of the pie. To be fair, much voting is tribal, so a good idea can be sunk for the wrong reasons. But I'm of the view that compelling arguments can get a long way despite that.
No, once again Azrael this didn't just happen to come up, you brought it up once again. Where was capital punishment mentioned previously?
Murder is a proportionate response to murder. Really? Nobody here agrees, yet is you that throw it in once again. I don't know you but I get the impression you are somewhat disingenguous and to be honest dishonest. Answer the questions though.
For example, consider the following question and answer:
You are playing games Azreal, that is no fair response and you know it. Get to fuck or stop crusading for capital punishment like you 'just happened' to do in this thread and have done in many others.
Murder is a proportionate response to murder. Really? Nobody here agrees, yet is you that throw it in once again. I don't know you but I get the impression you are somewhat disingenguous and to be honest dishonest. Answer the questions though.
For example, consider the following question and answer:
You are playing games Azreal, that is no fair response and you know it. Get to fuck or stop crusading for capital punishment like you 'just happened' to do in this thread and have done in many others.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Lobster raised law and order, I asked for elaboration, and lobseter said, "Where a life sentence is what it says , for life". I then replied that I'd prefer hanging to life. Which is a logical progression, and not me forcing capital punishment in.
If you're unable to answer my points about killing, or want to drop the matter, by all means do so. Kindly don't accuse me of dishonesty.
If you're unable to answer my points about killing, or want to drop the matter, by all means do so. Kindly don't accuse me of dishonesty.
Lobster raised law and order, I asked for elaboration, and lobseter said, "Where a life sentence is what it says , for life". I then replied that I'd prefer hanging to life. Which is a logical progression, and not me forcing capital punishment in.
If you're unable to answer my points about killing, or want to drop the matter, by all means do so. Kindly don't accuse me of dishonesty.
Which post number?
Hmm.. you're a nutter then?
Killer - someone who kills people. No?
(Oh but the state said it isn't killing. They said.)
You always bring it up, albeit you look for the slimmest pretext.
What was your question. Do I want to drop it? Not at all fire away killer.
JHE
.
No, I don't want an election right away. I want the political parties to have time to work out coherent responses to the present scandal-induced crisis. That should include time for local parties to reselect or deselect and replace candidates.
An election soon-ish would be good, though I don't mind waiting till next year. It is true, of course, that there's a major risk of the Tories winning. That will be true, I reckon, whether the election is in a month, three months, six months or 12 months.
An election soon-ish would be good, though I don't mind waiting till next year. It is true, of course, that there's a major risk of the Tories winning. That will be true, I reckon, whether the election is in a month, three months, six months or 12 months.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Perhaps (although I think the polls are overstating things) but I wouldn't worry too much: they're indistinguishable from Labour on most things.
It's a quirk of the Westminster system that the government can decide when to call an election. Mark Steel compared it to a winning manager being allowed to decide when to blow the whistle. I'd prefer to have set elections.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
I'm right here. I'm not debating hanging with you in this thread because it'll derail the thread and we've done it before to no avail. If you're desperate to discuss the matter, start another thread, avoid insults, and I'll discuss it. If you're looking for a reaction, you'll be disappointed.
Similar threads
- Poll
