UKC

Just when you thought all remnant of serious democratic process had vanished in Britain, all was politicing and posturing by career politicians, with vital decisions going through on the nod or used as props for partisan or personal advantage .....

Reasoned argument, respect for opponents, serious points being put seriously and responded to, backbencher after backbencher challenging their own leadership. All being listened to in absolute, attentive silence and universally polite and rational.

If you get the chance listen to as much of it as you can, and just hope that a candle does not burn brightest before it goes out.

In reply to Simon4: Er ... any links?

In reply to Simon4: Have you been to parliament?

I think its great. I watched PMQ's last year..

I love it, so quintessentially British.. but I disagree that proper protocol isn't followed. I think we have a good system, today showed that, with DC changing his plans due to opposition.

In reply to Simon4:

Been watching it for the last ten minutes.

Yes, very sensible debate. Democracy in action.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23877247

In reply to Simon4:

What, are we invading Norway now?

In reply to Simon4:

I honestly can't work out whether you're referring to the Norway Debate or today's discussions on Syria!

Anyway, I watched an hour or so this afternoon (had day off) and was quite impressed with it, compared to the usual PMQs behaviour. Balls needs his mouth stapling shut but apart from that everyone seemed to respect the process.

I watched it on Sky BTW - do I still need a licence fee?

In reply to Simon4:

+1
Normally hate politics, but this was the best I've seen for a democratic process. I think the worries about Iraq still burn strong which is good.

Whats the point about Norway tho?

In reply to JamButty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway_Debate

I thought it was well known

In reply to Doug:

Thanks, I was a little puzzled myself and I've been in Britain this last few weeks

In reply to Simon4: I agree it's a good thing that something as important and non partisan as this wasn't just rubber stamped by the majority party (coalition in this case). But I think the people are giving a bit much credit to the standard of debate.

First, there was the usual cheering and here-here-ing. I find this sad but fairly harmless debating more mundane things and/or partisan issues, but it's plain distasteful for something like this. And there was a bit of joking and laughing at one point.

Second, neither side set out in full their assessment of the pros and cons of invading. Cameron's sides just repeated they're slippery slope argument, and didn't address whether for the people of Syria this might just make things worse. I'm still a bit confused as to Milliband's arguments are... sort of just we messed this up last time so lets do the opposite this time?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Ta, thank god its not just me!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
The Guardian also managed to mention not just Suez in 1956 but Chanak in 1922, that's a new level of obscure history for me.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/29/syria-debate-parliamen...