Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
nice circular argument there!
The Peace for Israel and Gaza Rally in Trafalgar Square today
- Thread starter Zachor
- Start date
nice circular argument there!
untethered
For industry & decency
You raised the semantic argument. British democracy is not proper democracy.
It's dull and irrelevant unless you can demonstrate how the word democracy should not be applied to the UK unless it meets your personal ideal, because it certainly isn't shared by 99.9% of people that understand politics.
By all means criticise our political system but let's not get into any fruitless discussions.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
I pointed out that laws are made by the powerful.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
untethered
For industry & decency
don't be anti-semantic.
But I'm a semantite myself. We should respect the meanings of generally-understood words.
If Blagsta continues this line of argument I'll report him to the Anti-Definition League.
Spion
I hear ya
We can vote for a representative every four years and thereafter we have no opportunity to hold them to account for decisions they make for another four year. But, it's worse than that. The government - ie the cabinet - is appointed and doesn't have to be elected. Then it gets worse still. The people we have directly voted for every four years only get to question the govt for a tiny percentage of the time parliament sits, and only with questions that are pre-submitted 24 (or is it 48?) hours in advance. Does it get worse? Yes. behind the government is an army of unelected permanent civil servants who do the majority of work in drawing up policy.And behind all this sits the armed force of the state, so if we ever decide we're so pissed off we try to change something by more direct means, we get whacked.
If that's the best democracy you think is possible on this planet then you're ignorant or a fool.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
But I'm a semantite myself. We should respect the meanings of generally-understood words.
If Blagsta continues this line of argument I'll report him to the Anti-Definition League.
Corax
Luke 5:16
I'll stick on the fact that the principle of "one (hu)man, one vote" is completely ignored by the consituency system as well. It's all a big, sophisticated fraud.
untethered
For industry & decency
This is tiresome, but I'll correct some of your basic errors and misunderstandings.
The House of Commons has a maximum term of five years. Usually elections are more frequent than that.
Not true at all. Firstly, we have a representative democracy, not an direct democracy. To my mind this implies that the representatives we have elected should have a reasonable chance to get on with the job without the threat of summary removal.
However, this does not mean we cannot hold our representatives to account. Our country has a healthy political culture in which the government, the political parties and individual MPs can and are scrutinised and criticised by the public, the media and of course, other politicians.
To suggest that once elected our MPs or government then do exactly as they please is a very long way from the reality of the various immediate and long-term forces acting on them.
It has become the convention in our system that the vast majority of ministers, including cabinet ministers and always the prime minister, are elected members of the House of Commons. So nearly all these people are elected. You could argue that ministers should be directly elected to their roles, though I know of no country that does that and the benefits of such a system are unclear. It would certainly fundamentally change the relationship between parliament and the executive which is central to our constitution. New Labour have been keen on reinforcing the separation of powers where it has suited them (eg. changing the role of the Lord Chancellor) and less keen where it hasn't (special advisers, scrutiny issues, centralised micromanagement in the delivery of public services, politicisation of the police, etc.)
The various measures which New Labour implemented to diminish the capacity of Parliament to scrutinise the executive are regrettable and could easily be, and I hope would be, reversed by the next Conservative government.
The independence of the civil service is an incredibly long-standing convention and a huge benefit to the country. What are the alternatives? Shunting out the whole civil service (or at least the policy-making parts) and replacing them with political appointees every time the government changes hands? Recent years have seen the independent civil service being undermined both by appointed political special advisers (which Tony Blair kindly gave authority over career civil servants) and to a degree sidelined by political parties' greatly increased own policy-making capacities, both in-house and via the numerous think-tanks, business lobbies, trade unions, etc.
But whatever you think of this (and I certainly don't like it), ultimately it is the elected government that makes the decisions.
This is entirely characteristic and necessary for a true democracy. The civil power must maintain a monopoly of violence so that the law can be implemented through force if necessary. The alternative is to have a place like Pakistan where the army tends to be loyal to a particular faction regardless of who is elected to government, or to have various militias and paramilitary forces which can oppose or undermine the official armed forces and make it possible for warlords or unelected political groups to control territory in an entirely undemocratic fashion.
Note that imperfectible doesn't mean unimprovable.
The House of Commons has a maximum term of five years. Usually elections are more frequent than that.
Not true at all. Firstly, we have a representative democracy, not an direct democracy. To my mind this implies that the representatives we have elected should have a reasonable chance to get on with the job without the threat of summary removal.
However, this does not mean we cannot hold our representatives to account. Our country has a healthy political culture in which the government, the political parties and individual MPs can and are scrutinised and criticised by the public, the media and of course, other politicians.
To suggest that once elected our MPs or government then do exactly as they please is a very long way from the reality of the various immediate and long-term forces acting on them.
It has become the convention in our system that the vast majority of ministers, including cabinet ministers and always the prime minister, are elected members of the House of Commons. So nearly all these people are elected. You could argue that ministers should be directly elected to their roles, though I know of no country that does that and the benefits of such a system are unclear. It would certainly fundamentally change the relationship between parliament and the executive which is central to our constitution. New Labour have been keen on reinforcing the separation of powers where it has suited them (eg. changing the role of the Lord Chancellor) and less keen where it hasn't (special advisers, scrutiny issues, centralised micromanagement in the delivery of public services, politicisation of the police, etc.)
The various measures which New Labour implemented to diminish the capacity of Parliament to scrutinise the executive are regrettable and could easily be, and I hope would be, reversed by the next Conservative government.
The independence of the civil service is an incredibly long-standing convention and a huge benefit to the country. What are the alternatives? Shunting out the whole civil service (or at least the policy-making parts) and replacing them with political appointees every time the government changes hands? Recent years have seen the independent civil service being undermined both by appointed political special advisers (which Tony Blair kindly gave authority over career civil servants) and to a degree sidelined by political parties' greatly increased own policy-making capacities, both in-house and via the numerous think-tanks, business lobbies, trade unions, etc.
But whatever you think of this (and I certainly don't like it), ultimately it is the elected government that makes the decisions.
This is entirely characteristic and necessary for a true democracy. The civil power must maintain a monopoly of violence so that the law can be implemented through force if necessary. The alternative is to have a place like Pakistan where the army tends to be loyal to a particular faction regardless of who is elected to government, or to have various militias and paramilitary forces which can oppose or undermine the official armed forces and make it possible for warlords or unelected political groups to control territory in an entirely undemocratic fashion.
Note that imperfectible doesn't mean unimprovable.
untethered
For industry & decency
There is a major political party in this country, the Liberal Democrats, that has a clear commitment to implementing a system of proportional representation for the House of Commons.
For some strange reason they never attract significant support.
That is democracy in action. Our electoral system may not be theoretically perfect (but then neither are any of the various PR systems) but it is the one that people seem to want.
The "sophisticated fraud" of the first past the post electoral system isn't an elaborate, arcane ruse. It can be explained to a moderately-intelligent person in about five minutes.
winjer
holocene death beat
Precisely corax's point - the current system supports itself, and is incapable of critical restructuring of itself. External (to the system, not the country) intervention is not just likely, it's inevitable.
winjer
holocene death beat
As must the population avoid a monopoly of violence so that laws can be implemented through force if necessary.
untethered
For industry & decency
Surely if the mass of people wanted PR they'd go and vote for the LibDems?
Given the size of the turnout even in general elections it wouldn't be that hard to organise a concerted campaign to reform the electoral system and elect MPs that supported that reform, from whichever parties.
The LibDems' fundamental problem isn't that the electoral system is unfair to them (though that is also true) but that they simply haven't convinced sufficient people in the country of the merits of their policies. If they did, they'd find themselves coming first in many more constituencies rather than second.
More generally, it wouldn't take the LibDems to make PR happen in the HoC. It could easily and probably be better done by an independent campaign to persuade candidates of all parties to back it and to encourage people to vote for those candidates.
So regardless of the inbuilt distortions of the system, where is the mass political movement in support of PR?
Edited to add: I should also point out that we have had various such campaigns, such as Charter 88 / Unlock Democracy. They have had little success.
untethered
For industry & decency
You might think that politically desirable but that's not democracy.
untethered
For industry & decency
The counter example would be when Labour supplanted the Liberal Party as an electable governing party.
winjer
holocene death beat
It's the essence and foundation of democracy, it's the entire basis on which our current system of government progressed from rule by decree.
Force is the basis of all law, the force of the state is law-preserving, the force of the people is law-making.
untethered
For industry & decency
Our governments do not rule by decree, do they?
If, for example, a government whose term had expired refused to leave office there would be a major constitutional crisis. It is by no means certain that the armed forces would support such a situation.
But fortunately this is really an academic argument in this country. Our political culture is democratic and constitutional. We are not Zimbabwe.
This is just theoretical twaddle. The will of the people in this country finds expression through the electoral system and the wider democratic culture. For that we should be very thankful.
Conservatives: Not fixing problems that don't exist in practice since time immemorial.
winjer
holocene death beat
untethered
For industry & decency
We seem to differ in our evaluations of the current UK system.
My point is that the UK is democratic in practice, that by and large the will of the people is expressed through and reflected in our institutions of government.
You may well disagree, but be clear I'm not making a theoretical point.
If the case were to the contrary in practice, I assume we'd find a huge movement for political alternatives and change outside the mainstream system. It simply isn't there.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
There is nothing "strange" about it: the Lib Dems are always playing catch-up or trying to steal the clothing of the other two parties. I think the majority of the electorate can see through their posturing and place their vote elsewhere.
Partly BECAUSE the current electoral system makes it difficult for them to win seats, so people see them as a wasted vote, and so they win even less seats.
I agree that most of the population do not see our electoral system as a priority, but then I suspect most people consider the sky subsciption more important than what they see as human rights for accused criminals.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
do you have a credible (unbiased) source? One that can reference a primary source?
editor
hiraethified
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
Well if that's the case, Zachor, then I'll say it again, as I've said before.
The whole of Israeli citizens are being cynically used as human shields by an administration, a military, several arms manufacturers, at least two governments, and several thousand businesses. In return, the power elite get get cheap/free land, a compliant fearful workforce, single-parents that have to work on the front-line (Sderot) else lose their workfare benefit, they use barely-out-of-childhood 'student' soldiers who are indoctrinated from kindergarten up to assist with demonising 'the other'* to maintain a state of fear in the hope that 'the other' they will give up or leave, and a testing ground for new weaponry.
*Palestinians, our stateless cousins
The whole of Israeli citizens are being cynically used as human shields by an administration, a military, several arms manufacturers, at least two governments, and several thousand businesses. In return, the power elite get get cheap/free land, a compliant fearful workforce, single-parents that have to work on the front-line (Sderot) else lose their workfare benefit, they use barely-out-of-childhood 'student' soldiers who are indoctrinated from kindergarten up to assist with demonising 'the other'* to maintain a state of fear in the hope that 'the other' they will give up or leave, and a testing ground for new weaponry.
*Palestinians, our stateless cousins
Similar threads
- Poll
