voting for law change
- Thread starter bonjour
- Start date
bonjour
Registered User
I have absoloutely no idea what that means. I don't want to ruin the humour of your flavoured comment but i'm going to have to ask for an explanation?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
I'd say it's the main one. Not unjustified too, given that the people are currently used to a completely different way of doing things. so not fear that the people will take away their power, but fear that the people will royally fuck it up.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
I think people who demand direct democracy like to twist things and accuse those opposed to it of thinking that the public are thick as pig shit. I don't think people will royally fuck it up if they are fully knowledgeable about the subject and are free from propaganda from people who are trying to manipulate the public (which, as we have seen through history, it isn't that hard to do). As there can be no guarantees that the public will be fully knowledgeable about the subject or free from manipulation, I fail to see how any progressives could possibly think direct democracy is a good idea. Direct democracy is only positive for the right wing (and I'd go further and say it would be a perfect tool for the fascists)
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
Sorry, couldn't resist it, it was your original phrasing wot made me do itI have absoloutely no idea what that means. I don't want to ruin the humour of your flavoured comment but i'm going to have to ask for an explanation?
Taylor left the [England football team manager] job on 24 November 1993, He had also agreed to be filmed during the qualifying campaign for Cutting Edge, a Channel 4 fly-on-the-wall documentary series, in which his portrayal further undermined his authority. During the film, Taylor was heard to use foul language, and what became his personal catchphrase: "Do I not like that", uttered just before England conceded a goal to Poland. wiki
fwiw, i tend to agree what's been posted above about why this is unlikely to happen.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No, only people indoctrinated by the middle class media actually believe that.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Same way most people are when asked to make decisions that don't have immediate personal repercussions.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Why would a Government hold a referendum and then ignore the outcome, you'd only agree to it in the first place if you knew what the outcome would be.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
"Should all asylum seekers be deported from the UK"
"Should the unemployed receive any benefits"
"Should anyone have to pay any tax"
"Should the UK have the death penalty"
There's just a few examples of possible referendums we could have, can you tell me how you think the public would vote on each of them...
bonjour
Registered User
Well...?
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
50/50 - i don't think the majority are as simplistic as many would believe
Yes - public surveys have shown the majority in favour of this
Yes - as above, probably stronger in many cases
No - close perhaps, but i reckon most people again wouldn't want the death penalty.
What actually poses a bigger problem would be whether the population would be forced to participate or whether voting in a national referendum would be optional and thus subject to any particular political party or faction distorting the underlying theme of the vote in such a way as to distort who votes, what they think they're voting on and so on, imo.
And isn't it referenda?
Yes - public surveys have shown the majority in favour of this
Yes - as above, probably stronger in many cases
No - close perhaps, but i reckon most people again wouldn't want the death penalty.
What actually poses a bigger problem would be whether the population would be forced to participate or whether voting in a national referendum would be optional and thus subject to any particular political party or faction distorting the underlying theme of the vote in such a way as to distort who votes, what they think they're voting on and so on, imo.
And isn't it referenda?
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
There's a difference between stupidity and ill-informed. We're not stupid, but we're not trained to think about things. And just because the national outcome might disagree with mine, it doesn't mean that they're automatically stupid. It means they're merely motivated by different values.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
too fucking right they can't most of them buy the mail, the express the gruidad etc... not one of them should have any say in the running of a tap let alone a country... we'd have national service and hanging back and all darkies out before you could say nick griffin...
Either that or the general public would be overwhelmeed or apathetic to it so the novelty would wear off and people would stop voting in which case only the hardcore headbangers of dubious moral standing would vote meaning the law would suddenly change to be utter nonsense...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No
Yes they should
Ditto
Maybe
I think your attitude says it all really. Everyone else is thick, they can't be trusted to think the right way etc And shockingly it's a common attitude amongst large numbers of people 'on the left' - it goe sosme way to explaining why they are so isolated and have no weight amongst the wider population. The same attitude is also partly responsible for what appears as political apathy but it often really rejection of, and disgust at, that sort of finger-wagging approach you embody.
What's more it feeds on itself, you put people off politics then damn them for not beng interested in politics, which then means that they need to be denied more responsibility and participation needs to curtailed, follwed by even more people becoming alienated from any sort of public political process, and round and round we go, withy the finger waggers being confirmed in their own prejudices along each step of the way.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Yep.
We, as the electorate, have no power except that of our vote, which elects people who are not legally required to represent the best interests of their constituents.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
No.
In short the "power elites" of the UK consider the mass of British people too unreliable (insofar as they won't necessarily be herded in the direction that the power-elites wish to shepherd them) to be permitted to "think for themselves".
Hence our pseudo-democratic parliamentary political system with it's "first past the post" electoral stitch-up of power.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Of course, what those who argue for limiting popular democratic participation in one form or another ( often using 'democracy' itself as a fig-leaf) or who insist that people don't have the capabilities to identify, think about and come with solutions to social problems (i.e to do politics) really fear is people starting to discuss economic democracy.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
Or you could say, 'the people' could actually have the power in their own hands, yet they simply don't realise how to use it. So those best able to manipulate the situation to their own ends continue to exploit those who don't or can't be bothered.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
In that case, you should not complain at any policies introduced by the Labour Party, because that's who more people voted for than any other party, and if the Tories win the next election, you should not complain about any of their policies either because that would have been who more people voted for
If you were so confident that the public would vote as you claim they would above, how do you explain the absolute failure of the "left" to win any public support whatsoever?
And I notice you regurgitate "left" propaganda when you accuse opponents of direct democracy of viewing the public as "thick". Is this really the only argument you can think of to get people to support direct democracy?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Yup, and then where would we be?
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Can you tell me what % of Americans think Iraq had some involvement in 9/11...
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
More people didn't vote all than voted for any of the political parties - what does that tell you about the democratic deficit?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I'd argue that while what you say is fundamentally accurate, if you look at the question of the masses historically attempting to take responsibility for their own governance, even on the micro rather than macro scale, those forces that comprise the state and or the establishment have always acted to suppress such movements. It's not that people don't realise or can't be bothered, it's (IMHO) that many look at history and feel the weight of thousands of years of repression pushing them down, and the fear that this can engender, especially in a society where consumption has overtaken religion as "the opium of the masses".
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What? How on earth does that follow from my post? You see, you're already fucking it up and showing your misunderstanding of what democracy is. It's isn't an outcome. It isn't 'getting the right result'. It's a process, one that involves the clash of interests, positions and so on - it's not getting exactly what you want. It contains the possibility that things that you don't support will be victorious at any given point. That doesn't scare me, i welcome it in fact, because that's one way in which we progress, through experience and through fighting for your own position - collectively and individually. You seem terrified of it though.
Again, what the hell does that have to do with my post. Is that series of question suppsoed to signify 'the lefts' positions?
You clearly do think much of the electorate is thick though and have consistently argued over many years that democratic participation via referenda should be limited as a result. I have plenty of other arguments in favour of extending DD in some form or another. The fact that you/the state are terrified by it is merely one of them. The real danger in the poll tax was the extension of democracy via street committees and things like that, the financial issue rapidly became a secondary once the state realised what they'd opened the door to.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Well then they don't count towards the result, and they wouldn't count towards the result under direct democracy either if they didn't vote. In Switzerland, they average around 50% for national referendums, so what exactly is your point?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Here you are again, not saying that other people are thick and shouldn't be allowed to participate politically.
YOur question is irrelavent, it was precisley the limited democratic structures that you support that allowed the US to invade and occupy Iraq. Given the anti-war mood in the US do you think this would have happened under conditions of direct democracy and popular political participation. I doubt it myself.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
You seemed to be implying that criticism of Labour party policy was restricted to those who have actually voted (for them?), which is very peculiar.
My other point re: the democratic deficit is on what basis can any government claim credibility to govern, when there are more of the voting population who have not voted for them than have. eta: what is your point?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Seems to me it indicates:
1) A disillusionment with our current party political choices and their consensus on neo-liberal economic solutions.
2) A massive disengagement from party politics (but not from single issue or non-aligned politics) at a grass roots level.
3) An erosion of the quid pro quo or "social contract" that made previous generations willing and ready to engage with party politics and "parliamentary democracy".
Similar threads
