This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
At the last general election there were more people who did not vote than did. Yet no party seems to have anything in there manifestos to address the situation.
Government are imposing laws to restrict freedom of choice and the public have no redress as all major parties in Britain are very similar just appeasing the minority who they know will vote for them.
As the saying goes “I used to be apathetic now I just don’t care” which sums up the majority of voters.
Government are imposing laws to restrict freedom of choice and the public have no redress as all major parties in Britain are very similar just appeasing the minority who they know will vote for them.
As the saying goes “I used to be apathetic now I just don’t care” which sums up the majority of voters.
In reply to PaulHarris:
What do you propose the parties should do? I equally oppose compulsory voting, as it should be the individual's democratic right to say "don't care" if they wish. However if you do you lose the right to whine about the result.
Personally I'd like to see a move towards more Swiss style direct democracy on important issues, but also to a circular Parliament elected by proportional representation. Government needs to be about consensus rather than petty childish bickering.
Neil
What do you propose the parties should do? I equally oppose compulsory voting, as it should be the individual's democratic right to say "don't care" if they wish. However if you do you lose the right to whine about the result.
Personally I'd like to see a move towards more Swiss style direct democracy on important issues, but also to a circular Parliament elected by proportional representation. Government needs to be about consensus rather than petty childish bickering.
Neil
In reply to PaulHarris:
That's not true - turnout was 65.1%
Which choices are being restricted?
> At the last general election there were more people who did not vote than did.
That's not true - turnout was 65.1%
> Government are imposing laws to restrict freedom of choice
Which choices are being restricted?
In reply to Neil Williams:
I agree parliament should represent the majority proportional representation is a lot fairer. Some European countries you have to attend the polling station and register otherwise have a fine but you do not have to vote. This could be a way forwards as some people just can't be bothered to go.
I agree parliament should represent the majority proportional representation is a lot fairer. Some European countries you have to attend the polling station and register otherwise have a fine but you do not have to vote. This could be a way forwards as some people just can't be bothered to go.
In reply to PaulHarris:
If you lived in a dictatorship you'd probably be arrested by the secret police for even posting this. Don't be so ridiculous and have some respect for the poor souls who do live in one. Jesus wept.
If you lived in a dictatorship you'd probably be arrested by the secret police for even posting this. Don't be so ridiculous and have some respect for the poor souls who do live in one. Jesus wept.
In reply to MG:
Smoking being the big one. And no I do not smoke
> That's not true - turnout was 65.1%
I need to check my source>
> Which choices are being restricted?
Smoking being the big one. And no I do not smoke
In reply to PaulHarris:
No, I don't support that either. It is to me the individual's right to vote *and* not to vote, though if you don't vote (or at least spoil your paper deliberately) you lose any right to complain about any Government policy. That said, if there was an option for re-open nominations I imagine turnout might increase.
Neil
No, I don't support that either. It is to me the individual's right to vote *and* not to vote, though if you don't vote (or at least spoil your paper deliberately) you lose any right to complain about any Government policy. That said, if there was an option for re-open nominations I imagine turnout might increase.
Neil
In reply to PaulHarris:
Well not really. You are free to smoke, just not to inflict your smoke on others.
> Smoking being the big one. And no I do not smoke
Well not really. You are free to smoke, just not to inflict your smoke on others.
In reply to PaulHarris:
This could be a way forwards as some people just can't be bothered to go.
So you complain about choices being reduced and your solution is to, err, reduce people's choices.
This could be a way forwards as some people just can't be bothered to go.
So you complain about choices being reduced and your solution is to, err, reduce people's choices.
Post edited at 09:55
In reply to MG:
If you voted then you have the right to moan. If you did not vote then stop moaning, you had your chance.
I don't think there are too many do dictatorships that allow you to vote.
Not too many dictatorships give you relatively free access to the web and there are not too many police snatch groups banging on doors in the night for threatening to show a political view. Terrorists are an exception.
If you voted then you have the right to moan. If you did not vote then stop moaning, you had your chance.
I don't think there are too many do dictatorships that allow you to vote.
Not too many dictatorships give you relatively free access to the web and there are not too many police snatch groups banging on doors in the night for threatening to show a political view. Terrorists are an exception.
In reply to MG:
Many years ago people going to pubs and clubs had a choice where to drink in a smoke room or lounge those choices have been taken away and smokers are treated like the unclean
> Well not really. You are free to smoke, just not to inflict your smoke on others.
Many years ago people going to pubs and clubs had a choice where to drink in a smoke room or lounge those choices have been taken away and smokers are treated like the unclean
In reply to The Lemming:
I have always voted
look back in history to Germany in the 30's and you can see what apathy can do
> If you voted then you have the right to moan. If you did not vote then stop moaning, you had your chance.
I have always voted
> I don't think there are too many do dictatorships that allow you to vote.
> Not too many dictatorships give you relatively free access to the web and there are not too many police snatch groups banging on doors in the night for threatening to show a political view. Terrorists are an exception.
look back in history to Germany in the 30's and you can see what apathy can do
In reply to PaulHarris:
Very few pubs were arranged this way. The default was allowing smoking with the attendant health risks. I don't think stopping this is a terrible loss of choice. Given that nearly 80% of the population support the ban, I don't think your "dictatorship" claim stands up.
and smokers are treated like the unclean
Well they are.
> Many years ago people going to pubs and clubs had a choice where to drink in a smoke room or lounge those choices have been taken away
Very few pubs were arranged this way. The default was allowing smoking with the attendant health risks. I don't think stopping this is a terrible loss of choice. Given that nearly 80% of the population support the ban, I don't think your "dictatorship" claim stands up.
and smokers are treated like the unclean
Well they are.
Post edited at 10:03
In reply to PaulHarris:
Yep, it all started with a smoking ban in Germany. We should be careful.
> look back in history to Germany in the 30's and you can see what apathy can do
Yep, it all started with a smoking ban in Germany. We should be careful.
In reply to PaulHarris:
.Yet no party seems to have anything in there manifestos to address the situation.
(That's 'Their manifestos' by the way) - Have you read them all?
What laws have been imposed that restrict your freedom of choice?
Really? if one votes can one be labelled apathetic? Do you mean the electorate? Have you spoken to 'the majority of voters'?
Are you knee-jerking to something you are not quite sure what you are knee-jerking to?
.Yet no party seems to have anything in there manifestos to address the situation.
(That's 'Their manifestos' by the way) - Have you read them all?
> Government are imposing laws to restrict freedom of choice
What laws have been imposed that restrict your freedom of choice?
> As the saying goes “I used to be apathetic now I just don’t care” which sums up the majority of voters.
Really? if one votes can one be labelled apathetic? Do you mean the electorate? Have you spoken to 'the majority of voters'?
Are you knee-jerking to something you are not quite sure what you are knee-jerking to?
In reply to PaulHarris:
Regarding the smoking ban.
I am a smoker and I think the smoking ban was a great idea. I think banning smoking in cars carrying children is an even better idea.
I don't know many smokers who disagree with the smoking ban. What it's done/is doing is changing a smokers's mindset. It's NOT ok to force others to breathe secondhand smoke. It's not nice huddling outside for a ciggie but smokers understand that it's for the good of everyone. It is also making people smoke less....what's not to like?
Regarding the smoking ban.
I am a smoker and I think the smoking ban was a great idea. I think banning smoking in cars carrying children is an even better idea.
I don't know many smokers who disagree with the smoking ban. What it's done/is doing is changing a smokers's mindset. It's NOT ok to force others to breathe secondhand smoke. It's not nice huddling outside for a ciggie but smokers understand that it's for the good of everyone. It is also making people smoke less....what's not to like?
Post edited at 10:12
In reply to PaulHarris:
Why is smoking important? You're allowed to do it, unlike consuming most drugs.
> (In reply to MG)
> Smoking being the big one. And no I do not smoke
Why is smoking important? You're allowed to do it, unlike consuming most drugs.
In reply to PaulHarris:
I agree and we are sleepwalking into something similar. It's not just the UK that is apathetic either.
Nobody trusts politicians because they all lie for the good of the party, not the good of the country.
Who's fault is that?
>
> look back in history to Germany in the 30's and you can see what apathy can do
I agree and we are sleepwalking into something similar. It's not just the UK that is apathetic either.
Nobody trusts politicians because they all lie for the good of the party, not the good of the country.
Who's fault is that?
In reply to PaulHarris:
There was a glimmer of hope when the coalition with an agreement for a referendum on electoral reform came in. Sadly, the LDs were stitched up with the vote being between FPTP and AV; and AV has nothing to recommend it and is impossible to argue for.
Not that a sound argument for PR would really have helped, people don't work that way.
There was a glimmer of hope when the coalition with an agreement for a referendum on electoral reform came in. Sadly, the LDs were stitched up with the vote being between FPTP and AV; and AV has nothing to recommend it and is impossible to argue for.
Not that a sound argument for PR would really have helped, people don't work that way.
Post edited at 10:19
In reply to PaulHarris:
Wasn't Weimar-era Germany full of political parties, fighting it out on the streets and in print, never mind parliament? I get the impression - I may be wrong - that Germans, like most people in Europe in the 1920s and 30s, were deeply politically engaged.
> look back in history to Germany in the 30's and you can see what apathy can do
Wasn't Weimar-era Germany full of political parties, fighting it out on the streets and in print, never mind parliament? I get the impression - I may be wrong - that Germans, like most people in Europe in the 1920s and 30s, were deeply politically engaged.
In reply to PaulHarris:
You can't force people to vote. You can force them to attend at the polling station and mark a voting card, but you still can't actually force them to vote if they choose to spoil their card
You can't force people to vote. You can force them to attend at the polling station and mark a voting card, but you still can't actually force them to vote if they choose to spoil their card
In reply to Trangia:
With apologies for the poor video quality
youtube.com/watch?v=Vjbi1GjesXM&
> You can't force people to vote. You can force them to attend at the polling station and mark a voting card, but you still can't actually force them to vote if they choose to spoil their card
With apologies for the poor video quality
youtube.com/watch?v=Vjbi1GjesXM&
In reply to PaulHarris:
You've lost me. Are you proposing compulsory voting?
None of that makes our government a dictatorship in any meaningful sense of the word.
jk
> At the last general election there were more people who did not vote than did. Yet no party seems to have anything in there manifestos to address the situation.
You've lost me. Are you proposing compulsory voting?
> Government are imposing laws to restrict freedom of choice and the public have no redress as all major parties in Britain are very similar just appeasing the minority who they know will vote for them.
> As the saying goes “I used to be apathetic now I just don’t care” which sums up the majority of voters.
> As the saying goes “I used to be apathetic now I just don’t care” which sums up the majority of voters.
None of that makes our government a dictatorship in any meaningful sense of the word.
jk
Voting in a general election is like choosing which kind of sh*t you want in your sandwich.
In reply to jkarran:
People who chunter on about Britain becoming a dictatorship usually have never visited a real dictatorship.
> None of that makes our government a dictatorship in any meaningful sense of the word.
People who chunter on about Britain becoming a dictatorship usually have never visited a real dictatorship.
In reply to PaulHarris:
Democracy, want to test it? Your ability to question it on here is proof enough.
An argument could be suggested that it is an unrepresentative democracy.
Whilst I disagree on the attacks on civil liberties and the anti-social polices of the current government in this country we are nowhere near a dictatorship and to think so is vastly underestimate the struggle of those who truly are.
A smoking ban is not a dictatorship, being shot for attending school or tortured and imprisoned without trail for disagreeing with the ruling party in your own home or starved to death by having you crops stolen by the state, are.
Sorry to get het up,
Democracy, want to test it? Your ability to question it on here is proof enough.
An argument could be suggested that it is an unrepresentative democracy.
Whilst I disagree on the attacks on civil liberties and the anti-social polices of the current government in this country we are nowhere near a dictatorship and to think so is vastly underestimate the struggle of those who truly are.
A smoking ban is not a dictatorship, being shot for attending school or tortured and imprisoned without trail for disagreeing with the ruling party in your own home or starved to death by having you crops stolen by the state, are.
Sorry to get het up,
In reply to Pete Dangerous:
There is that, which is why I think more direct democracy like Switzerland might be desirable.
Neil
There is that, which is why I think more direct democracy like Switzerland might be desirable.
Neil
In reply to PaulHarris:
Compulsory voting is not the way forward. It may compel people into voting centres and perhaps to exercise a choice, but it's the quality of that choice that is important. And the police and authorities have better things to do with their time than prosecuting those who would defy the rule for either positive or negative reasons.
I've two ideas that I would be interested to see implemented or debated in parliament:
1. No government can be elected unless X% of the electorate have exercised their vote. Maybe the X% can be two-thirds +/-. Therefore all political parties have an interest in enthusing the electorate with enough interest to get out and vote.
2. All voting papers should have a 'none of the above' and a box to say why. Clearly this would tempt the loons of the world to put their manifestos in print, but if enough people were to exercise a choice of 'none of the above' and explain succintly and postively, then things would change.
I think it's idealistically assumed that in a democracy a vote that is as close to 100% as possible is healthy and to be aimed for. The involvement of the populace in the political process is encouraged, however, only at civic level. Endorsement of an election by an electorate is only encouraged by politicians to such a level that allows a ballot to be rendered legitimate, and therefore provides them a mandate to just get on with their routines to the relative exclusion of the electorate.
Compulsory voting is not the way forward. It may compel people into voting centres and perhaps to exercise a choice, but it's the quality of that choice that is important. And the police and authorities have better things to do with their time than prosecuting those who would defy the rule for either positive or negative reasons.
I've two ideas that I would be interested to see implemented or debated in parliament:
1. No government can be elected unless X% of the electorate have exercised their vote. Maybe the X% can be two-thirds +/-. Therefore all political parties have an interest in enthusing the electorate with enough interest to get out and vote.
2. All voting papers should have a 'none of the above' and a box to say why. Clearly this would tempt the loons of the world to put their manifestos in print, but if enough people were to exercise a choice of 'none of the above' and explain succintly and postively, then things would change.
I think it's idealistically assumed that in a democracy a vote that is as close to 100% as possible is healthy and to be aimed for. The involvement of the populace in the political process is encouraged, however, only at civic level. Endorsement of an election by an electorate is only encouraged by politicians to such a level that allows a ballot to be rendered legitimate, and therefore provides them a mandate to just get on with their routines to the relative exclusion of the electorate.
In reply to PaulHarris:
The present system was designed within the technical constraints of a few hundred years ago when everything had to be done with paper or by face to face meetings. Many things could be done differently if computers and internet technology was used.
For example, geographic constituencies are necessary a if people have to visit their MP but much less useful when communication is by phone and e-mail. If we got rid of geographic constituencies people could select someone to represent from a larger list of candidates and find someone who was much closer to their own views.
The present system was designed within the technical constraints of a few hundred years ago when everything had to be done with paper or by face to face meetings. Many things could be done differently if computers and internet technology was used.
For example, geographic constituencies are necessary a if people have to visit their MP but much less useful when communication is by phone and e-mail. If we got rid of geographic constituencies people could select someone to represent from a larger list of candidates and find someone who was much closer to their own views.
In reply to Neil Williams:
Personally I think I prefer the views of the mob filtered through our elected representatives who are in general at least well educated moderates who tend to act with their constituents' best interests in mind.
jk
> There is that, which is why I think more direct democracy like Switzerland might be desirable.
Personally I think I prefer the views of the mob filtered through our elected representatives who are in general at least well educated moderates who tend to act with their constituents' best interests in mind.
jk
In reply to PaulHarris:
An imperfect democracy.
Dangerous to confuse voter apathy with dictatorship.
If voters find that their views are not represented then they are free to form their own party, recent example being UKIP. Trying setting up a new party to rival the status quo in a dictatorship.
An imperfect democracy.
Dangerous to confuse voter apathy with dictatorship.
If voters find that their views are not represented then they are free to form their own party, recent example being UKIP. Trying setting up a new party to rival the status quo in a dictatorship.
In reply to paul-1970:
They already have plenty of interest in getting people out to vote, their jobs depend on it.
The loons are dissuaded by the deposit, not the fact that people can't turn up to not vote for them!? Besides venting frustration 'none of the above' achieves nothing except potentially an even smaller mandate for the winning candidate.
Edit: Perhaps I misunderstood the loons going to print. Do you mean when they choose not to vote? Who'd read it and why would it be of any more interest than what people now scrawl on their spoiled ballots?
Find me a politician that doesn't want and encourage people to turn out and vote for them and you'll be part way to convincing me this isn't just nonsense.
jk
> 1. No government can be elected unless X% of the electorate have exercised their vote. Maybe the X% can be two-thirds +/-. Therefore all political parties have an interest in enthusing the electorate with enough interest to get out and vote.
They already have plenty of interest in getting people out to vote, their jobs depend on it.
> 2. All voting papers should have a 'none of the above' and a box to say why. Clearly this would tempt the loons of the world to put their manifestos in print, but if enough people were to exercise a choice of 'none of the above' and explain succintly and postively, then things would change.
The loons are dissuaded by the deposit, not the fact that people can't turn up to not vote for them!? Besides venting frustration 'none of the above' achieves nothing except potentially an even smaller mandate for the winning candidate.
Edit: Perhaps I misunderstood the loons going to print. Do you mean when they choose not to vote? Who'd read it and why would it be of any more interest than what people now scrawl on their spoiled ballots?
> I think it's idealistically assumed that in a democracy a vote that is as close to 100% as possible is healthy and to be aimed for. The involvement of the populace in the political process is encouraged, however, only at civic level. Endorsement of an election by an electorate is only encouraged by politicians to such a level that allows a ballot to be rendered legitimate, and therefore provides them a mandate to just get on with their routines to the relative exclusion of the electorate.
Find me a politician that doesn't want and encourage people to turn out and vote for them and you'll be part way to convincing me this isn't just nonsense.
jk
Post edited at 11:59
In reply to jkarran:
As I said in my final para, I believe that politicians are only interested in getting enough people out to vote that will render a mandate legitimate. If this is deemed to be about 60%, then there is no interest in reaching beyond this. Hence a section of the populace is alleged* to be untargeted and not of interest to the campaigning politian. (*by people like me!)
I was referring to the loons in the electorate who may be encouraged by a box requesting their views to give a thesis instead. Venting a postive 'none of the above' is not the same as being merely dismissive of the current choice. All respected ballots usually have a RON choice: re-open nominations.
As I said, they only want enough people to get out to mandate an election. It would be different if the electoral process was incentivised for politicians to get a high general turnout in an election as well as a positive result for them alone.
> They already have plenty of interest in getting people out to vote, their jobs depend on it.
As I said in my final para, I believe that politicians are only interested in getting enough people out to vote that will render a mandate legitimate. If this is deemed to be about 60%, then there is no interest in reaching beyond this. Hence a section of the populace is alleged* to be untargeted and not of interest to the campaigning politian. (*by people like me!)
> The loons are dissuaded by the deposit, not the fact that people can't turn up to not vote for them!? Besides venting frustration 'none of the above' achieves nothing except potentially an even smaller mandate for the winning candidate.
I was referring to the loons in the electorate who may be encouraged by a box requesting their views to give a thesis instead. Venting a postive 'none of the above' is not the same as being merely dismissive of the current choice. All respected ballots usually have a RON choice: re-open nominations.
> Find me a politician that doesn't want and encourage people to turn out and vote for them and you'll be part way to convincing me this isn't just nonsense.
As I said, they only want enough people to get out to mandate an election. It would be different if the electoral process was incentivised for politicians to get a high general turnout in an election as well as a positive result for them alone.
In reply to paul-1970:
But at the time of an election, no-one knows how many votes are going to be needed to win a seat, so it's obviously in the interests of each politician to maximise the number of votes being cast for their party. Since all parties have the same issue, the overall aim is to get the most voters out.
It's not for nothing that parties invest heavily in their efforts to 'get the vote out' - party staff and volunteers spend as much time as they can in mobilising voters. The incentive for a higher turnout is an improved probability of being elected.
That's not to say there isn't a problem with the way MPs are elected in quite a large number of seats. There are plenty of safe seats where the result is never in doubt. I wonder if there's been any research to look at the relative turnouts in marginal and safe seats?
> As I said, they only want enough people to get out to mandate an election. It would be different if the electoral process was incentivised for politicians to get a high general turnout in an election as well as a positive result for them alone.
But at the time of an election, no-one knows how many votes are going to be needed to win a seat, so it's obviously in the interests of each politician to maximise the number of votes being cast for their party. Since all parties have the same issue, the overall aim is to get the most voters out.
It's not for nothing that parties invest heavily in their efforts to 'get the vote out' - party staff and volunteers spend as much time as they can in mobilising voters. The incentive for a higher turnout is an improved probability of being elected.
That's not to say there isn't a problem with the way MPs are elected in quite a large number of seats. There are plenty of safe seats where the result is never in doubt. I wonder if there's been any research to look at the relative turnouts in marginal and safe seats?
In reply to PaulHarris:
and what is wrong with that?
> Many years ago people going to pubs and clubs had a choice where to drink in a smoke room or lounge those choices have been taken away and smokers are treated like the unclean
and what is wrong with that?
In reply to tony:
This is true enough, I don't doubt for a moment that all the main parties are interested in canvassing as many people as possible in order to gain an indication of how many likely voters they may have - if these people exercise their vote. Then all attentions focus on voting day on actually getting these 'yes' or 'probablies' out to vote.
But, of course, if any politicians canvas a staunch supporter of another party or a clearly disinterested individual, then the attempts by this particular politician to get this person interested and enthused in the elctoral process ends.
> But at the time of an election, no-one knows how many votes are going to be needed to win a seat, so it's obviously in the interests of each politician to maximise the number of votes being cast for their party. Since all parties have the same issue, the overall aim is to get the most voters out.
> It's not for nothing that parties invest heavily in their efforts to 'get the vote out' - party staff and volunteers spend as much time as they can in mobilising voters. The incentive for a higher turnout is an improved probability of being elected.
This is true enough, I don't doubt for a moment that all the main parties are interested in canvassing as many people as possible in order to gain an indication of how many likely voters they may have - if these people exercise their vote. Then all attentions focus on voting day on actually getting these 'yes' or 'probablies' out to vote.
But, of course, if any politicians canvas a staunch supporter of another party or a clearly disinterested individual, then the attempts by this particular politician to get this person interested and enthused in the elctoral process ends.
In reply to paul-1970:
...for party A's activists quite reasonably. Party B or C may still be interested in getting them out to vote and frankly what more can anyone do, if someone really doesn't want or care to vote then why not just leave them be?
jk
> But, of course, if any politicians canvas a staunch supporter of another party or a clearly disinterested individual, then the attempts by this particular politician to get this person interested and enthused in the elctoral process ends.
...for party A's activists quite reasonably. Party B or C may still be interested in getting them out to vote and frankly what more can anyone do, if someone really doesn't want or care to vote then why not just leave them be?
jk
In reply to jkarran:
I agree with a representative democracy but your second point?!? Most of them vote the way the party whip tells them to. They're just bodies in the voting lobby.
> Personally I think I prefer the views of the mob filtered through our elected representatives who are in general at least well educated moderates who tend to act with their constituents' best interests in mind.
I agree with a representative democracy but your second point?!? Most of them vote the way the party whip tells them to. They're just bodies in the voting lobby.
In reply to PaulHarris:
Thanks all,
for your views very interesting and has brightened my day no-end. Didn't real think about the dictatorship word when I first wrote the comment and realise it was the wrong word to use.
Thanks again for all you comments and views.
Thanks all,
for your views very interesting and has brightened my day no-end. Didn't real think about the dictatorship word when I first wrote the comment and realise it was the wrong word to use.
Thanks again for all you comments and views.
In reply to Papillon:
And the masses wouldn't do the same or far worse when the press told them to?
jk
> I agree with a representative democracy but your second point?!? Most of them vote the way the party whip tells them to. They're just bodies in the voting lobby.
And the masses wouldn't do the same or far worse when the press told them to?
jk
In reply to jkarran:
As I said I'm in favour of representative democracy but ours isn't that good (as you implied). We are trying to elect a representative for our area and vote for a government at the same time, most MPs do one or the other, mostly the other. Now if we only had a spare chamber....
As I said I'm in favour of representative democracy but ours isn't that good (as you implied). We are trying to elect a representative for our area and vote for a government at the same time, most MPs do one or the other, mostly the other. Now if we only had a spare chamber....
In reply to Neil Williams:
Or California? The state where everyone votes to lower taxes and for more state govt programmes, meaning it's close to going bust. Not to mention the expensive and entirely predictable disaster that was "three strikes and you're out" - iirc a deeply popular proposal that a majority voted for (disclaimer - I might be wrong on the role of direct democracy on this last one).
What works in a small, cohesive country might not work in a large, varied one, and we're close to California than Switzerland.
> There is that, which is why I think more direct democracy like Switzerland might be desirable.
Or California? The state where everyone votes to lower taxes and for more state govt programmes, meaning it's close to going bust. Not to mention the expensive and entirely predictable disaster that was "three strikes and you're out" - iirc a deeply popular proposal that a majority voted for (disclaimer - I might be wrong on the role of direct democracy on this last one).
What works in a small, cohesive country might not work in a large, varied one, and we're close to California than Switzerland.
In reply to seankenny:
That seems to me to be a question of implementation. For example, I would see it sensible that in a local Council area, when it comes to funding time a sensible referendum choice might be between a set of costed packages of services vs. taxation. Though there are things that might make sense for a simple national referendum, such as the smoking ban.
Neil
That seems to me to be a question of implementation. For example, I would see it sensible that in a local Council area, when it comes to funding time a sensible referendum choice might be between a set of costed packages of services vs. taxation. Though there are things that might make sense for a simple national referendum, such as the smoking ban.
Neil
In reply to PaulHarris:
The Lib Dems have had proportional representation in their manifesto for years but not enough people vote for them to form a government (on their own at least). Even when, within the coalition, they got their big chance to bring about major electoral reform a large majority rejected the idea. Electoral reform hasn't happened because people don't vote it.
> At the last general election there were more people who did not vote than did. Yet no party seems to have anything in there manifestos to address the situation. >
The Lib Dems have had proportional representation in their manifesto for years but not enough people vote for them to form a government (on their own at least). Even when, within the coalition, they got their big chance to bring about major electoral reform a large majority rejected the idea. Electoral reform hasn't happened because people don't vote it.
In reply to PaulHarris:
We have a form of compulsory voting here, it seems to work. I don't feel oppressed by it.
We have a form of compulsory voting here, it seems to work. I don't feel oppressed by it.
In reply to PaulHarris:
You are eiher trolling or have no idea of what democracies or dictatroships are.
We live in a democracy. Not a perfect one, but a democracy. We have the democratic right not to vote. That is not exactly a feature of a dictatorship.
> At the last general election there were more people who did not vote than did. Yet no party seems to have anything in there manifestos to address the situation.
You are eiher trolling or have no idea of what democracies or dictatroships are.
We live in a democracy. Not a perfect one, but a democracy. We have the democratic right not to vote. That is not exactly a feature of a dictatorship.
In reply to PaulHarris:
If you really think that banning choices (smoking) means this is not a democracy, you need to broaden your reading on politics!
If you really think that banning choices (smoking) means this is not a democracy, you need to broaden your reading on politics!
In reply to Neil Williams:
Referendums are too black and white to create sensible policies. As ever, the devil is in the detail and not to give law makers the power to alter bits, change things and negotiate is dangerous - as it pretends complex decisions are simple.
> Though there are things that might make sense for a simple national referendum, such as the smoking ban.
Referendums are too black and white to create sensible policies. As ever, the devil is in the detail and not to give law makers the power to alter bits, change things and negotiate is dangerous - as it pretends complex decisions are simple.
Post edited at 21:56
In reply to PaulHarris:
I think it's difficult to say whether or not we live in a democracy. Certainly everyone has the right to vote unhindered by government intervention which is a key facet of democracy.
However in Britain there is no codified constitution which means that the government and judiciary are quite free to behave as they see applicable without fear of redress aside from outside influences (such as the EU and UN). The people of Britain have no clear bill of rights which again means they are reliant on outside influences for protection. This is not ideal but not undemocratic.
Also in this country the voting system is outdated, bias toward existing large parties and thereby powerful business interests. Again this is arguably still fully within the realms of democracy but a system based on PR would be much fairer and provide minority groups with a voice. In my opinion it is not in the peoples interests to continue with our current system but it is still not undemocratic.
Large portions of our country and economy are run by un-elected committees and quangos. This is not democratic and these bodies are not directly answerable to the people.
Finally but most importantly in my opinion, the government abuses its position and restricts our behaviour unnecessarily. Our right to protest is often denied. We are not free to dress or undress as we like. Our property laws are ridiculous and as a result many people are homeless yet squatting is illegal in existing properties. The police have far too much money and power.
Our drugs policy is contradictory and inconsistent. Despite the fact that other countries have been successfully dealing with drug use as a medical issue for forty years, our government still fires its own experts when they produce scientific evidence which renders our archaic laws as unsubstantiated and damaging to peoples health.
In light of this, telling lies about drugs and failing to provide testers for users is no less than murder, and our politicians should be held to account.
For those who think we live in a Utopian democracy you're living in a dream land. This is not a dictatorship in the traditional sense, but we have no rights, no suitable voting system and a weak government that favours multi-national industry over the good of its people.
So democracy but a f*%king sh&t one if you ask me...
I think it's difficult to say whether or not we live in a democracy. Certainly everyone has the right to vote unhindered by government intervention which is a key facet of democracy.
However in Britain there is no codified constitution which means that the government and judiciary are quite free to behave as they see applicable without fear of redress aside from outside influences (such as the EU and UN). The people of Britain have no clear bill of rights which again means they are reliant on outside influences for protection. This is not ideal but not undemocratic.
Also in this country the voting system is outdated, bias toward existing large parties and thereby powerful business interests. Again this is arguably still fully within the realms of democracy but a system based on PR would be much fairer and provide minority groups with a voice. In my opinion it is not in the peoples interests to continue with our current system but it is still not undemocratic.
Large portions of our country and economy are run by un-elected committees and quangos. This is not democratic and these bodies are not directly answerable to the people.
Finally but most importantly in my opinion, the government abuses its position and restricts our behaviour unnecessarily. Our right to protest is often denied. We are not free to dress or undress as we like. Our property laws are ridiculous and as a result many people are homeless yet squatting is illegal in existing properties. The police have far too much money and power.
Our drugs policy is contradictory and inconsistent. Despite the fact that other countries have been successfully dealing with drug use as a medical issue for forty years, our government still fires its own experts when they produce scientific evidence which renders our archaic laws as unsubstantiated and damaging to peoples health.
In light of this, telling lies about drugs and failing to provide testers for users is no less than murder, and our politicians should be held to account.
For those who think we live in a Utopian democracy you're living in a dream land. This is not a dictatorship in the traditional sense, but we have no rights, no suitable voting system and a weak government that favours multi-national industry over the good of its people.
So democracy but a f*%king sh&t one if you ask me...
In reply to The Lemming:
Rather than looking to the history of dictatorships, rather think to the idea of what a pefect dictatorship might look like. Rule by a small group in which such asymmetry of power is hidden behind enough of the facade of democracy, and the pretences of freedom and choice. Rule in which alienation and apathy, disengagement with voting etc serve the purposes of the dictatorship, but which are dismissed by the people (as they have been on here) as being their own fault, their choice, their right, and the view that once expressed they should shut the feck up because they've given up their rights. You couldn't design such a self imasculation of power better if you tried. Better still a system in which even nominal elected representatives of the people are subsumed into the agendas of the dictatorship and become the willing servants thereof! On the basis of what a more I during and perfect dictatorship might look like, are you so sure we lie so far away than that.
I don't personally believe in this dictatorship. Personally I believe we live in something that lies between a kleptocracy and a corporate oligarchy.. ..and I think the people and it's representatives are fairly efficiently subsumed into the agendas of this power base, sufficiently fobbed off by the facade of democracy.
> I don't think there are too many do dictatorships that allow you to vote.
Rather than looking to the history of dictatorships, rather think to the idea of what a pefect dictatorship might look like. Rule by a small group in which such asymmetry of power is hidden behind enough of the facade of democracy, and the pretences of freedom and choice. Rule in which alienation and apathy, disengagement with voting etc serve the purposes of the dictatorship, but which are dismissed by the people (as they have been on here) as being their own fault, their choice, their right, and the view that once expressed they should shut the feck up because they've given up their rights. You couldn't design such a self imasculation of power better if you tried. Better still a system in which even nominal elected representatives of the people are subsumed into the agendas of the dictatorship and become the willing servants thereof! On the basis of what a more I during and perfect dictatorship might look like, are you so sure we lie so far away than that.
I don't personally believe in this dictatorship. Personally I believe we live in something that lies between a kleptocracy and a corporate oligarchy.. ..and I think the people and it's representatives are fairly efficiently subsumed into the agendas of this power base, sufficiently fobbed off by the facade of democracy.
In reply to PaulHarris:
What a lot of bollocks being talked on here by some individuals. Verging on the tinfoil hat conspiracy brigade in some cases
The fact that people choose not to excercise their democratic right does not make us a dictatorship. At worst it makes us a less representative democracy and how do you represent the apathetic?
If you hate it that much start a campaign, petitition or party. Then reflect for a moment on whether you could have done that in a dictatorship.
What a lot of bollocks being talked on here by some individuals. Verging on the tinfoil hat conspiracy brigade in some cases
The fact that people choose not to excercise their democratic right does not make us a dictatorship. At worst it makes us a less representative democracy and how do you represent the apathetic?
If you hate it that much start a campaign, petitition or party. Then reflect for a moment on whether you could have done that in a dictatorship.
Post edited at 07:35
In reply to DaveHK:
The best, most successful, viruses are the ones that don't kill their hosts, or at least not too quickly. Thus the best, most successful dictatorships, are the one's where the facade of your freedoms are maintained. Start a campaign / petition: tried that, didn't work, we got a horrendous NHS bill with negligeable media interest, and almost total electoral ignorance. Start a party: whats the point FTPT has the system stitched up. And thus everyone gives up, and the virus continues to replicate.
> If you hate it that much start a campaign, petitition or party. Then reflect for a moment on whether you could have done that in a dictatorship.
The best, most successful, viruses are the ones that don't kill their hosts, or at least not too quickly. Thus the best, most successful dictatorships, are the one's where the facade of your freedoms are maintained. Start a campaign / petition: tried that, didn't work, we got a horrendous NHS bill with negligeable media interest, and almost total electoral ignorance. Start a party: whats the point FTPT has the system stitched up. And thus everyone gives up, and the virus continues to replicate.
In reply to DaveHK:
At the end of the day, does it really matter whether it's democracy or dictatorship?
No single system is perfect, and each *could* be made to work. The simple problem with the world is too many people, not enough resources. Under those circumstances no system is going to work for everyone.
I don't believe we live in anything close to a dictatorship. However I do think the right to protest in this country is seriously undermined (yes I know, in some countries protesting is equivalent to a death sentence). And our increasing reliance on technology makes me uneasy, but more in a Brave New World kind of way than 1984.
At the end of the day, does it really matter whether it's democracy or dictatorship?
No single system is perfect, and each *could* be made to work. The simple problem with the world is too many people, not enough resources. Under those circumstances no system is going to work for everyone.
I don't believe we live in anything close to a dictatorship. However I do think the right to protest in this country is seriously undermined (yes I know, in some countries protesting is equivalent to a death sentence). And our increasing reliance on technology makes me uneasy, but more in a Brave New World kind of way than 1984.
In reply to PaulHarris:
Politics and democracy hasn't until recently been about the "individual" but about society and its direction and how our collective institutions are managed, since maggie told us there is no such thing as society we have become Distracted by our "rights" as individuals and have allowed the bigger disicions about society and its institutions to be made behind our backs.
our "right" to choose within the NHS could result in it being dismantled around our ears
the "right" to buy your council house has removed affordable housing from future generations of working people
the "right" to consumer choice has led to the closure of the high street and the concentration of our spending on a few big corperations.
having choices and rights are important but as a society we are heading in a direction where this will be on a right to buy basis only, and despite the media's fasination with "scroungers" many of those people left out will be hard working people.
Politics and democracy hasn't until recently been about the "individual" but about society and its direction and how our collective institutions are managed, since maggie told us there is no such thing as society we have become Distracted by our "rights" as individuals and have allowed the bigger disicions about society and its institutions to be made behind our backs.
our "right" to choose within the NHS could result in it being dismantled around our ears
the "right" to buy your council house has removed affordable housing from future generations of working people
the "right" to consumer choice has led to the closure of the high street and the concentration of our spending on a few big corperations.
having choices and rights are important but as a society we are heading in a direction where this will be on a right to buy basis only, and despite the media's fasination with "scroungers" many of those people left out will be hard working people.
In reply to jethro kiernan:
Well said.
> Politics and democracy hasn't until recently been about the "individual" but about society and its direction and how our collective institutions are managed, since maggie told us there is no such thing as society we have become Distracted by our "rights" as individuals and have allowed the bigger disicions about society and its institutions to be made behind our backs.
> our "right" to choose within the NHS could result in it being dismantled around our ears
> the "right" to buy your council house has removed affordable housing from future generations of working people
> the "right" to consumer choice has led to the closure of the high street and the concentration of our spending on a few big corperations.
> having choices and rights are important but as a society we are heading in a direction where this will be on a right to buy basis only, and despite the media's fasination with "scroungers" many of those people left out will be hard working people.
> our "right" to choose within the NHS could result in it being dismantled around our ears
> the "right" to buy your council house has removed affordable housing from future generations of working people
> the "right" to consumer choice has led to the closure of the high street and the concentration of our spending on a few big corperations.
> having choices and rights are important but as a society we are heading in a direction where this will be on a right to buy basis only, and despite the media's fasination with "scroungers" many of those people left out will be hard working people.
Well said.
In reply to contrariousjim:
And the best kind of paranoia is one that is subtle and vague and not susceptible to be being disproved by the facts.
> (In reply to Dave Kerr)
>
> [...]
>
> The best, most successful, viruses are the ones that don't kill their hosts, or at least not too quickly. Thus the best, most successful dictatorships, are the one's where the facade of your freedoms are maintained.
>
> [...]
>
> The best, most successful, viruses are the ones that don't kill their hosts, or at least not too quickly. Thus the best, most successful dictatorships, are the one's where the facade of your freedoms are maintained.
And the best kind of paranoia is one that is subtle and vague and not susceptible to be being disproved by the facts.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
And the best kind of subjects are those that would willingly stay a part of the Truman show!
> And the best kind of paranoia is one that is subtle and vague and not susceptible to be being disproved by the facts.
And the best kind of subjects are those that would willingly stay a part of the Truman show!
In reply to jethro kiernan:
How can you take seriously a post with that codswallop in it ?
a) she didn't say it - in fact she implied the exact opposite
b) why is yours, and everyone elses, behaviour STILL apparently being dictated by what you thought someone said 30 years ago ?
People make their own choices.
> since maggie told us there is no such thing as society
How can you take seriously a post with that codswallop in it ?
a) she didn't say it - in fact she implied the exact opposite
b) why is yours, and everyone elses, behaviour STILL apparently being dictated by what you thought someone said 30 years ago ?
People make their own choices.
In reply to contrariousjim:
Start a campaign / petition: tried that, didn't work,
Didn't work because you didn't get sufficient people to agree with you. That's democracy for you - you can't always have it your way, unlike in a dictatorship. There are plenty of campaigns that work (e.g. not selling the Forestry Commission, or banning hunting, or access laws) there are also new parties that are influential (LibDems in 1980s, UKIP more recently)
Start a campaign / petition: tried that, didn't work,
Didn't work because you didn't get sufficient people to agree with you. That's democracy for you - you can't always have it your way, unlike in a dictatorship. There are plenty of campaigns that work (e.g. not selling the Forestry Commission, or banning hunting, or access laws) there are also new parties that are influential (LibDems in 1980s, UKIP more recently)
In reply to stroppygob:
Does it genuinely, or does it cause people to turn up and tick a random box?
Neil
Does it genuinely, or does it cause people to turn up and tick a random box?
Neil
In reply to seankenny:
True. This is why a lot of work goes on before a referendum to define the question, and afterwards to form it into a sensible policy. But it at least in a way resembles the mandate of the people.
Neil
True. This is why a lot of work goes on before a referendum to define the question, and afterwards to form it into a sensible policy. But it at least in a way resembles the mandate of the people.
Neil
In reply to jethro kiernan:
"the "right" to consumer choice has led to the closure of the high street and the concentration of our spending on a few big corperations."
I was with you until that one. The Internet is providing tiny companies global reach. It is the renaissance of the small business over the chain store.
It does happen that a few large corporations e.g. eBay and Amazon are providing some of the infrastructure allowing this, but that doesn't detract from what is happening. It is in many ways preferable to an identikit High Street with a set of mediocre chain stores, which outside London is what it's been for years. Indeed, those small businesses might well complement their online operation with a bricks and mortar shop.
Neil
"the "right" to consumer choice has led to the closure of the high street and the concentration of our spending on a few big corperations."
I was with you until that one. The Internet is providing tiny companies global reach. It is the renaissance of the small business over the chain store.
It does happen that a few large corporations e.g. eBay and Amazon are providing some of the infrastructure allowing this, but that doesn't detract from what is happening. It is in many ways preferable to an identikit High Street with a set of mediocre chain stores, which outside London is what it's been for years. Indeed, those small businesses might well complement their online operation with a bricks and mortar shop.
Neil
Post edited at 09:30
In reply to MG:
There was far more opposition to the NHS bill than the forestry commission sell off, which amply illustrates the reality, which has far more to do with where media power lies, and to whom it is connected, and to whom it is not, and the resilience of government to be willful and ignore dissent. A few powerful people get concerned with loss of amenity = media coverage, combined with the obvious stupidity of a self sacrificial Spelman, made that an easy decision. Ultimately it had little to do with the straight expression of democratic voice. There were big demonstrations on the streets with respect to the NHS bill, I know, I was part of them, which there were not with respect to the forestry commission, at least not that I found out about, that being another issue I campagined on. The media barely covered the NHS bill, and barely reported the demonstrations.
> Start a campaign / petition: tried that, didn't work,
>
> Didn't work because you didn't get sufficient people to agree with you. That's democracy for you - you can't always have it your way, unlike in a dictatorship. There are plenty of campaigns that work (e.g. not selling the Forestry Commission, or banning hunting, or access laws) there are also new parties that are influential (LibDems in 1980s, UKIP more recently)
>
> Didn't work because you didn't get sufficient people to agree with you. That's democracy for you - you can't always have it your way, unlike in a dictatorship. There are plenty of campaigns that work (e.g. not selling the Forestry Commission, or banning hunting, or access laws) there are also new parties that are influential (LibDems in 1980s, UKIP more recently)
There was far more opposition to the NHS bill than the forestry commission sell off, which amply illustrates the reality, which has far more to do with where media power lies, and to whom it is connected, and to whom it is not, and the resilience of government to be willful and ignore dissent. A few powerful people get concerned with loss of amenity = media coverage, combined with the obvious stupidity of a self sacrificial Spelman, made that an easy decision. Ultimately it had little to do with the straight expression of democratic voice. There were big demonstrations on the streets with respect to the NHS bill, I know, I was part of them, which there were not with respect to the forestry commission, at least not that I found out about, that being another issue I campagined on. The media barely covered the NHS bill, and barely reported the demonstrations.
In reply to Neil Williams:
Well, the will of the people can change with time and events, and democracies should be able to chop and change a bit, that's what gives them strength. If you had a steady stream of referendums every year, people would get bored, few people would vote and more and more decisions would be in the hands of special interest groups who are committed and keen to get the vote out. Also, it would make it very hard to plan ahead - currently we know that when the government suggests something, much of the time that policy, or something similar to it, will go ahead.
> True. This is why a lot of work goes on before a referendum to define the question, and afterwards to form it into a sensible policy. But it at least in a way resembles the mandate of the people.
Well, the will of the people can change with time and events, and democracies should be able to chop and change a bit, that's what gives them strength. If you had a steady stream of referendums every year, people would get bored, few people would vote and more and more decisions would be in the hands of special interest groups who are committed and keen to get the vote out. Also, it would make it very hard to plan ahead - currently we know that when the government suggests something, much of the time that policy, or something similar to it, will go ahead.
In reply to seankenny:
"If you had a steady stream of referendums every year, people would get bored, few people would vote and more and more decisions would be in the hands of special interest groups who are committed and keen to get the vote out."
Evidence for this, using Switzerland as an example?
"Also, it would make it very hard to plan ahead - currently we know that when the government suggests something, much of the time that policy, or something similar to it, will go ahead."
Something being a bit difficult is not necessarily a reason not to do it.
Neil
"If you had a steady stream of referendums every year, people would get bored, few people would vote and more and more decisions would be in the hands of special interest groups who are committed and keen to get the vote out."
Evidence for this, using Switzerland as an example?
"Also, it would make it very hard to plan ahead - currently we know that when the government suggests something, much of the time that policy, or something similar to it, will go ahead."
Something being a bit difficult is not necessarily a reason not to do it.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
I agree the landscape is changing and I have no disagreement with market forces within the structure of society and the internet has changed things, but much of our consumer "choice" has been fuelled by sweatshops in the third world.
Amazon has been pretty brutal in its dealings with smaller companies sometimes spending large sums of money to close these companies out of the market, not to mention their big F*&%k of to democratic goverment in not paying any meaningfull amount of tax, and their pretty poor employment record for those below managment level.
The market and choice is part of democracy but it cant be the sole driver it needs, regulation put in place by democraticaly elected goverments, implemented by independent goverment institutions, enforced by an independent judical system and watched over by collective representation and comented on by an independent press this is all required for society to work. Once you start undermining these things then democratic society is affected, individual "freedom" might not be obviosly affected immediately.
I agree the landscape is changing and I have no disagreement with market forces within the structure of society and the internet has changed things, but much of our consumer "choice" has been fuelled by sweatshops in the third world.
Amazon has been pretty brutal in its dealings with smaller companies sometimes spending large sums of money to close these companies out of the market, not to mention their big F*&%k of to democratic goverment in not paying any meaningfull amount of tax, and their pretty poor employment record for those below managment level.
The market and choice is part of democracy but it cant be the sole driver it needs, regulation put in place by democraticaly elected goverments, implemented by independent goverment institutions, enforced by an independent judical system and watched over by collective representation and comented on by an independent press this is all required for society to work. Once you start undermining these things then democratic society is affected, individual "freedom" might not be obviosly affected immediately.
In reply to GrahamD:
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SOCIETY. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
Politics and democracy hasn't until recently been about the "individual" but about society and its direction and how our collective institutions are managed, since maggie told us there is no such thing as society we have become Distracted by our "rights" as individuals
Graham Please highlight the codswallop if you can drag yourself away from the daily mail
> (In reply to jethro kiernan)
>
> [...]
>
> How can you take seriously a post with that codswallop in it ?
>
> a) she didn't say it - in fact she implied the exact opposite
> b) why is yours, and everyone elses, behaviour STILL apparently being dictated by what you thought someone said 30 years ago ?
>
> People make their own choices.
>
> [...]
>
> How can you take seriously a post with that codswallop in it ?
>
> a) she didn't say it - in fact she implied the exact opposite
> b) why is yours, and everyone elses, behaviour STILL apparently being dictated by what you thought someone said 30 years ago ?
>
> People make their own choices.
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SOCIETY. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
Politics and democracy hasn't until recently been about the "individual" but about society and its direction and how our collective institutions are managed, since maggie told us there is no such thing as society we have become Distracted by our "rights" as individuals
Graham Please highlight the codswallop if you can drag yourself away from the daily mail
Post edited at 10:51
In reply to Neil Williams:
I just think people should have the right to not vote.. if they have no view why vote?
Some ward, with the current system, if you support none of the main parties why vote? I tended not to in Wales, it was plaid cymru.
I just think people should have the right to not vote.. if they have no view why vote?
Some ward, with the current system, if you support none of the main parties why vote? I tended not to in Wales, it was plaid cymru.
In reply to IainRUK:
I'd go with compulsory voting, with a "none of the above" box to make more explicit a genuine lack of faith in the available options.
I'd also ban whipping. Police lobbying more strictly. Reform party funding. And if possible create a more proportional electoral voting system.
> I just think people should have the right to not vote.. if they have no view why vote?
I'd go with compulsory voting, with a "none of the above" box to make more explicit a genuine lack of faith in the available options.
I'd also ban whipping. Police lobbying more strictly. Reform party funding. And if possible create a more proportional electoral voting system.
In reply to jethro kiernan:
since maggie told us there is no such thing as society we have become Distracted by our "rights" as individuals
But she was explicitly highlighting in that passage that we have obligations and people had "entitlements too much in mind" Sounds like you agree with her.
Anyway, why this obsession with a dead politician from a generation ago?
since maggie told us there is no such thing as society we have become Distracted by our "rights" as individuals
But she was explicitly highlighting in that passage that we have obligations and people had "entitlements too much in mind" Sounds like you agree with her.
Anyway, why this obsession with a dead politician from a generation ago?
In reply to IainRUK:
I suppose the point of voting when you know your candidate can't win is being there playing the long game. You'd vote if it was a close run thing last time presumably, if there was a chance of your candidate winning? Maybe your seemingly pointless vote this time round means your party gets a better turn out in 5 years time and off the back of that your candidate builds momentum and is elected in 10 or 15 years time. Problem is most people, myself included don't think on that sort of timescale and struggle to see the point in going out to waste a vote in a 'safe' seat. They're only quite so safe because we can't imagine it being otherwise.
jk
> Some ward, with the current system, if you support none of the main parties why vote? I tended not to in Wales, it was plaid cymru.
I suppose the point of voting when you know your candidate can't win is being there playing the long game. You'd vote if it was a close run thing last time presumably, if there was a chance of your candidate winning? Maybe your seemingly pointless vote this time round means your party gets a better turn out in 5 years time and off the back of that your candidate builds momentum and is elected in 10 or 15 years time. Problem is most people, myself included don't think on that sort of timescale and struggle to see the point in going out to waste a vote in a 'safe' seat. They're only quite so safe because we can't imagine it being otherwise.
jk
In reply to MG:
No I believe that politicians of all parties have used individual freedom especialy in the Market sense to undermine some of the collective systems and institutions that underpin society and democracy.
Maggies speach on those who "entitlements too much in mind" has evolved into David Camerons war on welfare scroungers. Our society at the moments is being dictated by a reaction to a small percentage of the poorest by the richest and will have have long term implications for the majority caught in the middle.
No I believe that politicians of all parties have used individual freedom especialy in the Market sense to undermine some of the collective systems and institutions that underpin society and democracy.
Maggies speach on those who "entitlements too much in mind" has evolved into David Camerons war on welfare scroungers. Our society at the moments is being dictated by a reaction to a small percentage of the poorest by the richest and will have have long term implications for the majority caught in the middle.
In reply to contrariousjim:
I'm quite intrigued by the "just vote for a party" type of PR proposed further up. Genuine local Government is provided by local Councils, which could be elected on the same basis.
Neil
I'm quite intrigued by the "just vote for a party" type of PR proposed further up. Genuine local Government is provided by local Councils, which could be elected on the same basis.
Neil
In reply to PaulHarris:
ive only voted once and im over 30 now. I just dont see how voting for party A or party B is going to make any difference.
Its a pretty poor democracy when the individuals, groups of individuals or even the majority of the population has no say on important issues such as wars, education, drugs/smoking etc.
Just because we are free to have a say, whether thats in a public forum or a letter to an mp, doesnt mean we have any influence at all.
Free speech is different to a democracy surely
ive only voted once and im over 30 now. I just dont see how voting for party A or party B is going to make any difference.
Its a pretty poor democracy when the individuals, groups of individuals or even the majority of the population has no say on important issues such as wars, education, drugs/smoking etc.
Just because we are free to have a say, whether thats in a public forum or a letter to an mp, doesnt mean we have any influence at all.
Free speech is different to a democracy surely
Post edited at 12:49
In reply to jethro kiernan:
'There is no such thing as Society' is not a separate thing that sits outside what you do - you ARE the society. People view it as a thing, a separate entity as an alternative to individual responsibility - but society is the collective effect of everyone's individual action.
Its not hard to grasp. You just need to think about whether you need to take any responsibility at all for what society is or whether you don't. What exactly do you think Maggie told YOU to do that you feel compelled to follow ?
'There is no such thing as Society' is not a separate thing that sits outside what you do - you ARE the society. People view it as a thing, a separate entity as an alternative to individual responsibility - but society is the collective effect of everyone's individual action.
Its not hard to grasp. You just need to think about whether you need to take any responsibility at all for what society is or whether you don't. What exactly do you think Maggie told YOU to do that you feel compelled to follow ?
In reply to GrahamD:
"the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations"
I dont disagree that we all have our individual responsabilty and its a two way street with regards our interaction with the greater comunity ie society, but in todays complex society we must abdicate some of that individual responsabilty to collective organisations wether they be goverment departments, corporations or NGO's because we dont live in a village in a low tech culture we can't make disicions about aircraft safety, set nuclear safety protocols and some the other complexities of society we abdicate responsabilty, we do have an obligation to ensure these organisations are doing their job properly and ensure that checks and balances are in place, I also believe we can't just let the market decide.
There will always be some people who dont engage with society or put little back, but surely we would want our society to be based on our better instincts and an understanding we are in it together rather than a reaction to percieved scroungers and piss takers.
"the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations"
I dont disagree that we all have our individual responsabilty and its a two way street with regards our interaction with the greater comunity ie society, but in todays complex society we must abdicate some of that individual responsabilty to collective organisations wether they be goverment departments, corporations or NGO's because we dont live in a village in a low tech culture we can't make disicions about aircraft safety, set nuclear safety protocols and some the other complexities of society we abdicate responsabilty, we do have an obligation to ensure these organisations are doing their job properly and ensure that checks and balances are in place, I also believe we can't just let the market decide.
There will always be some people who dont engage with society or put little back, but surely we would want our society to be based on our better instincts and an understanding we are in it together rather than a reaction to percieved scroungers and piss takers.
Post edited at 16:11
In reply to PaulHarris:
Propaganda is to democracy as violence is to dictatorship. Or something like that. I guess the OP is waking up to his own political naivete. Like who benefits the most from an apathetic and naive electorate.
D
Propaganda is to democracy as violence is to dictatorship. Or something like that. I guess the OP is waking up to his own political naivete. Like who benefits the most from an apathetic and naive electorate.
D
In reply to PaulHarris:
How about considering the dictatorship of capital? You won't have a job if the capitalist who pays your wages doesn't see the prospect of realising a profit from your labour. Yep, that's a dictatorship.
How about considering the dictatorship of capital? You won't have a job if the capitalist who pays your wages doesn't see the prospect of realising a profit from your labour. Yep, that's a dictatorship.
In reply to
You won't have a job if the capitalist who pays your wages doesn't see the prospect of realising a profit from your labour.
Why else would someone employ you and pay you? Philanthropy?
You won't have a job if the capitalist who pays your wages doesn't see the prospect of realising a profit from your labour.
Why else would someone employ you and pay you? Philanthropy?
In reply to Neil Williams:
It does both. You do not get fined for not voting, you get fined for not attending a polling station and having your name crossed off the register.
Most people, having made the trip to the polling station will vote. It's a preference system here, so you have to mark candidates rating the contestants from "1" as in "I luvs him", to as low as "37" or "tw@t". The last election I only voted down to seven, I got bored. There is no limit to how few you mark, you can just mark one if you like. My wife did the whole 37, as she wanted to mark "37" against a pollie she particularly deplores. But, as you may have guessed some people just turn up, write something rude about politicians on the paper, while others just draw a big cock on it and leave it at that..
> (In reply to stroppygob)
>
> Does it genuinely, or does it cause people to turn up and tick a random box?
>
> Neil
>
> Does it genuinely, or does it cause people to turn up and tick a random box?
>
> Neil
It does both. You do not get fined for not voting, you get fined for not attending a polling station and having your name crossed off the register.
Most people, having made the trip to the polling station will vote. It's a preference system here, so you have to mark candidates rating the contestants from "1" as in "I luvs him", to as low as "37" or "tw@t". The last election I only voted down to seven, I got bored. There is no limit to how few you mark, you can just mark one if you like. My wife did the whole 37, as she wanted to mark "37" against a pollie she particularly deplores. But, as you may have guessed some people just turn up, write something rude about politicians on the paper, while others just draw a big cock on it and leave it at that..
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...