A form of Democracy?

[Freddie]

I didnt say my point was or wasnt about UK politics, strange how you keep bringing up Australian politics if we are now only talking about Britain.

All this is completly pointless, Engineer throws up a point either outragious or completly senseless and never backs it up, and if you dont agree with him and so far only one person has on the forum, all he does is throw insults at you----------its a complete waste of time.

 

[jasy]

Agreed, the guy is a muppet. I know lets be democratic and vote him off of here

 

[Big_Spark]

I didnt say my point was or wasnt about UK politics, strange how you keep bringing up Australian politics if we are now only talking about Britain.

All this is completly pointless, Engineer throws up a point either outragious or completly senseless and never backs it up, and if you dont agree with him and so far only one person has on the forum, all he does is throw insults at you----------its a complete waste of time.

I used Australia as an EXAMPLE of this type of system..and No they do not fine you for not voting..and when thinking about this it isn't practical for the very reason that has been pointed out by a couple of people here.

However I still feel that some action should be taken if a large enough section of society is continually adsenting themselves from the process. Everyone should be encouraged to take part, and if people are not, then the system is not woirking as a democrasy should, so there must be something wrong with it, and as a society we should find out what it is and improve or change it completely...do you not agree?

Freddie...you only say my points are sensless or outrageous because you happen not to agree. I do not say what I have proposed is the be all and end all..AS I HAVE SAID, but the point of a debate is to find that common ground everyone can agree on..all such debates usually begine at opposite extremes of a point of view until they come together somewhere in the middle.

The system of Government we have was fine sevral hundred years ago when it was created, but it is now archaic and not particularly representative. I read that in the last 20 years the average turn out for an election (General) was less than 60%, and that, as an average, less than 50% of this figure decided the Government, so in real terms only some 25% of the possible population actually decided who the Government would be!!

Now as I said this is what I read, I have not researched it to authenticate it, although it does tie in with comments by politicians and the media.

I don't know about you, but it does concern me that less than 30% of the population are deciding who will screw us for the next 5 years.

The other thing that I find concerning is this talk of Blair stepping down after the election and handing the reigns to Gordon Brown...What ****** is this..the poeple vote for Blair, and Brown gets the Job..Hello..this is not democrasy.

The system needs a drastic overhaul, Politicians need to represent the community, and they should live in it to understand the concerns and needs of these people, Politicians also need to be able to be held to accountf or their behaviour and the quality of the manner in which they do the job. The Public should decide on the PM seperate from any other political bull that occurs, Voting for your local MP hand the PM job to the Gimp leading the party by default..this is not democrasy.

Now I accept that what I proposed was controversial, but if we do not alter our system of Goverance then we are not advancing this nation at all..whether we are or not in Europe.

If we cannot debate these points, then how can we expect the Politicians to do it?

And when I say debate, I mean using reasoning to get your point across, not simply saying "No I don't like it, justify why you don't like it...

And I think we should all try to leave the personal comments out of it..don't you?

 

[Freddie]

And when I say debate, I mean using reasoning to get your point across, not simply saying "No I don't like it, justify why you don't like it...

And I think we should all try to leave the personal comments out of it..don't you?

Ferkin hilarious mate

 

[WoodYouLike]

I used Australia as an EXAMPLE of this type of system..and No they do not fine you for not voting..

In Belgium (EXAMPLE ! !) you must show up to vote. If you don't show up to vote you are fined to do community work (or count votes the next election).
Note the difference: show up to vote, not voting itself is the main issue here.

It is thought that with this kind of system voters will take more interest in political programs, but I don't think it will ever work that way.

We, the small people, just don't believe any political party anymore. That's the problem. If you can change that, then people will be start taking an interest in politics, politicians and voting again.
And then perhaps we will have a true democracy again. Now the big boys and big companies are making the deals.

 

[Damocles]

The difficulty is that ordinary people do not believe the parties because the parties have been shown time and time again not to do what they claim. There is nothing wrong with the people, it is just that they are not offered anything to vote for.

Banning parties is impossible. Assume each MP is an independant. How do people get a majority for legislation? Make some friends and agree to vote together? oops...formed a party, cart them off to gaol.


What is wrong with british elections is that it is virtually impossibly for anyone not in the main parties to win. The voting system means that no one will vote for an outsider for fear that the party they really hate might win. A good start would be to introduce transferrable voting. Rank candidates 1,2,3,4, etc. One with fewest first choices is eliminated, his votes are transferred to their next preference....and so on until only one is left. This would help immensely.

Next, reform the house of lords to be elected proportionately. So 10% of national vote gets 10% of members. So even tiny parties get represented. Spread the lords elections a few each year with council elections so there is always something for the government to worry about. Absolutely, do not reduce the powers ofthe house of lords. In fact probably give them more.

Do something about the queen. She is technically extremely powerful, but never does anything unless ordered by the prime minister. This is really stupid. Either she must act as she thinks fit, or we need an elected president too. My preference would be to formally enshrine her independence in law. (though this is an absurd thing to say, because he law does say she has absolute power. But she needs the right to use it.)

 

[david and julie]

Do something about the queen. She is technically extremely powerful, but never does anything unless ordered by the prime minister. This is really stupid. Either she must act as she thinks fit, or we need an elected president too.

So would that be Queen+Prime Minister+President?

Don't you think we have enough parasites as it is?

 

[Damocles]

Once upon a time a group of bright guys who were sick of dictators got together to try to make a guaranteed foolproof form of government. They came up with the American constitution. One house elected proportionately per head of population. One elected to represent each state. One man to represent the entire country elected directly. All three must normally agree to allow a law to go forward.

Their guiding principle was to break apart power so that that no single group or person could seize it.

Someone who gets their job by birth is an excellent way of preventing outsiders infiltrating the system. But our queen is not allowed to exercise her powers as she should. This is dangerous.

The EU helps us by making life difficult for westminster. means they sometimes have to fight really hard to get their way. All good for us. The commons is quite right that the lords should not simply be a carbon copy elected the same way. Their problem is that any of the obvious ways of improving the lords would take legitimacy away from the commons.

 

[Big_Spark]

I don't see the need to bring The Queen into this..she is a constitutional Monarch, has only Ceremonial Powers and is of no consequence to British Politics in the 21st Century.

I am not anti-monarchist..simply neutral on this point.

 

[Damocles]

The trouble is that she is not simply symbolic. She appoints all the ministers, judges, civil servants. If she wanted, she could appoint you prime minister tomorrow. She could appoint Bush. The ministers virtually have enough power to run the country without recourse to parliament. Another safeguard once built into the system by much spilt blood which has pretty much been been dismantled in modern times. It took centuries to strip the monarch of the right to rule without parliament. She has a veto on any new law. She controls the church of england and all the armed forces of this country. She has much more power then president Bush.

There is a big gaping hole in the British constitution where there is supposed to be a third force balancing the commons and lords. The monarch represents the state. She IS the state. She owns it lock stock and barrel and it is her job to protect and defend her property. Her interest is deliberately a personal one to defend and maintain what is hers. That is what a monarch does and why people have felt they are a good idea. Parliament is our part of the government. Where the people and interest groups are represented and can make their say.

As things stand the house of commons has become ridiculously powerful. It means that only about 25% of the population is needed to vote in a parliament which can do absolutely anything. Broadly speaking the vote is going down and one day it may get small enough that some real nutters get to be in charge. Better to reform before that happens.

I do not like the idea of an elected president or prime minister. But it would be better than having such an important part of the constitution which is utterly hamstrung.

 

[Igorian]

The trouble is that she is not simply symbolic.

Tis true. See here. Off with 'is 'ead!

 

[david and julie]

Damocles, the more of your posts I read the more convinced I am that you must work for a public body.There is always a part of your comments which can be changed to suit your needs. This is what I mean.

The ministers virtually have enough power to run the country without recourse to parliament.

Whilst I am not saying you are incorrect in your comments on HM. Should anyone pull you up, the above leaves you with the option to say we have misunderstood. I have noticed these so often I presume you must do it as a matter of course in your work.

Broadly speaking the vote is going down and one day it may get small enough that some real nutters get to be in charge. Better to reform before that happens.

I fear you are right and also to late.

 

[jasy]

I don't see the need to bring The Queen into this..she is a constitutional Monarch, has only Ceremonial Powers and is of no consequence to British Politics in the 21st Century.

I am not anti-monarchist..simply neutral on this point.

Ignorance is bliss FWL. Not only does she have Absolute Power as given by law but she is a powerful figure in commerce. The income the Monarchy generates for this country is phenomenal. To say she is of of no consequence is very, very mis-informed

 

[Damocles]

I see you have a poor opinion of our present MPs. Mr Blair has hardly covered himself in glory and our equally deeply beloved Mr Howard has just been busy getting himself deep in the thick stuff my sacking duly adopted and popular MPs. Another sign of increasing central control. Ah well.

I must admit to having a strong tendency to see both sides of the argument.

In this particular case I do not know whether it would be possible for the monarch to rule without parliament or not. I find it hard to imagine a situation in which she would try but I could imagine a doomsday scenario where a prime minister decided to dispose of democracy and rule via the royal prerogatives. This is broadly what Adolf Hitler did after winning power via election. I do not know whether the queen or her successor would resist such a move or feel constitutionally obliged to obey her prime minister. If she would feel obliged to obey her own prime minister, then, I am sorry, but the usefulness of having a monarch is at an end.

Back to the question of ability to dispense with parliament. For many centuries parliament extracted concession after concession to close off all loopholes which would allow the monarch to run the country without them. For the last 50-100 years this process has been put into reverse. Ministers are now seen as parliaments agents, not the queens, and have been very busy giving themselves more and more powers. This is mostly for the convenience of the ministers because they can carry on their duties by decrees issued in the queens name, and without having to rush back to parliament each year to renew time-limited legislation (principally the powers to raise taxes, which used to expire annually).

Just this year they have granted themselves the right to detain anyone who is a terrorist, which means nothing if it does not mean an enemy of the government. Now when was that particular royal prerogative abolished? Last year they granted themselves the right to suspend parliament 'in an emergency'.

It remains an open question whether they now have regained enough power to rule without parliament. For my money I would be very much happier if I was reassured that any attempt by the prime minister to rule without parliament would be resisted by her majesty personally using all powers and forces available to her. The difficulty would be that command is delegated to her ministers, who would all have to be replaced in a counter-coup.

 

[Freddie]

I see you have a poor opinion of our present MPs. Mr Blair has hardly covered himself in glory and our equally deeply beloved Mr Howard has just been busy getting himself deep in the thick stuff my sacking duly adopted and popular MPs. Another sign of increasing central control. Ah well.

I must admit to having a strong tendency to see both sides of the argument.

In this particular case I do not know whether it would be possible for the monarch to rule without parliament or not. I find it hard to imagine a situation in which she would try but I could imagine a doomsday scenario where a prime minister decided to dispose of democracy and rule via the royal prerogatives. This is broadly what Adolf Hitler did after winning power via election. I do not know whether the queen or her successor would resist such a move or feel constitutionally obliged to obey her prime minister. If she would feel obliged to obey her own prime minister, then, I am sorry, but the usefulness of having a monarch is at an end.

Back to the question of ability to dispense with parliament. For many centuries parliament extracted concession after concession to close off all loopholes which would allow the monarch to run the country without them. For the last 50-100 years this process has been put into reverse. Ministers are now seen as parliaments agents, not the queens, and have been very busy giving themselves more and more powers. This is mostly for the convenience of the ministers because they can carry on their duties by decrees issued in the queens name, and without having to rush back to parliament each year to renew time-limited legislation (principally the powers to raise taxes, which used to expire annually).

Just this year they have granted themselves the right to detain anyone who is a terrorist, which means nothing if it does not mean an enemy of the government. Now when was that particular royal prerogative abolished? Last year they granted themselves the right to suspend parliament 'in an emergency'.

It remains an open question whether they now have regained enough power to rule without parliament. For my money I would be very much happier if I was reassured that any attempt by the prime minister to rule without parliament would be resisted by her majesty personally using all powers and forces available to her. The difficulty would be that command is delegated to her ministers, who would all have to be replaced in a counter-coup.

So thats sorted then we are all up for the revolution, we will send Richard in first to stir up the trouble, Engineer to start an argument followed by Damacles to confuse the issue with references to the war with Iraq when talking about any other subject, Me i will go for the crown jewels while you try and find a good mugshot of Cherie in handcuffs for the evening news.