Democratic Reality

[moon]

Everywhere I go on the 'net people are looking for a different political system than what we have now. They are almost unanimous on the lack of choice. Risking oversimplification, Tuesday's debate in the Commons will feature a Prime Minister who has already renaged on his manifesto promises, who has lost 350,000 dead Iraqis and lots of wmd in a war which may , or may not, be illegal according to the paperwork which he refuses to release. Directly opposing him is the leader of a party which broke the heart of a nation when in power, a leader who gained his job through false allegations about his predecessor and the acceptance of a £5 mill bung from a sponsor. Whoever wins this tussle the UK peeps are the losers.

I am a foreigner looking in on your system. You are very welcome to go look at the state of the mongrels running my country. For those who don't have the time or inclination, take my word for it that they're almost as bad as your lot. Your's take the biscuit though, real humdinger stinkers.

I looked with interest at catgate's thoughtful suggestions on his SITE and it's pleasant to see that the issue is frequently discussed at WF. It's usually the same ol' faces posting but I'm sure that there are many others looking in. They will also, I believe, recognise that our current system of government has taken the population out of the loop.

Anyway, very long posts get tedious. My suggestion is that we make use of the existing structure but insist that our local representatives stick solely to the results of frequent local referenda ( ums ) These simple beginnings would make massive change workable.

My name is moon and my mum has approved this message.

[-pops-]

I find it difficult to view your post with any gravity when I consult your profile, in particular your photograph which doesn't seem appropriate with your comment

my mum has approved this message.

and your location as being cyberbumsville. I have been unable to find this place in any atlas.

[moon]

I reserve the right to privacy and the maintenance of my cyberlife. :D

[andsome]

Any system can only be as good as the people who run it. It is a sad fact that democracy can never be perfect because the only people who want to be M.P's are usually the wrong sort. Unless the people who do care are prepared to stand for parliament this will always unfortunately be the case. The other alternative such as a dictatorship is totally untenable as can be seen by looking back at the worlds history. Referendums are OK for the odd momentous decision, but again are untenable as a means of everyday government. Unless Joe Public is prepared to stand for election we are stuck with the present system. The whole point is that none of us are prepared to do the job, so we have to put up with those who are, at least we can get rid of them every five years. A system of government by an enforced committee of over sixty five year olds has been muted elsewhere on this forum. Again, this completely untenable as who would want to be co-opted by a jury type selection as has been suggested? I can only suggest that those who feel strongly enough actually stand for election and attempt to put things right, but then of course you too would be open to temptation and would probably end up just as corrupt as the present politicians.

[-pops-]

I reserve the right to privacy and the maintenance of my cyberlife.  :D

So do I but, I remain unimpressed by this whole post when you seem unable to give even a vague indication of your location. Remember that you have written

I am a foreigner looking in on your system.

This being so, it would help your argument immensely if your whereabouts were at least indicated, if not revealed.

[moon]

it would help your argument immensely if your whereabouts were at least indicated, if not revealed.

I'm interested in what you think, -pops-, not where you live nor even your nationality. Still, although I've made no secret of my nationality and location in numerous posts here I'll allow that you may have missed them or been disinterested in the past. My full details have always been available on my website, listed in my profile, right down to my address and phone number. 'Cyberbumsville' is an expression of the technological inadequacy of my location as well as of my computer knowledge and state of mind.

I hope that facilitates a comprehension of the implications of my thread for you.

[catgate]

A system of government by an enforced committee of over sixty five year olds has been muted elsewhere on this forum.

I think this quote should be placed, alongside Mahler, so that it is always there to remind us. Because each time this, or a similar quote crops up I am reminded of Our Beloved Leader and his WMD stance. He repeated the claim so often, and at every possible opportunity, but the evidence now shows that his assertion had no basis in fact, and he knew it. One can only assume that he believed that if he shouted it loud enough and long enough it would miraculously turn into reality.

The whole point is that none of us are prepared to do the job, so we have to put up with those who are, at least we can get rid of them every five years.

What sort of cockeyed logic is this? No one will do it ... so we have to put up with them (who do we have to put up with if no one is doing it?)...and we can get rid of them (who..those people who are not doing it?) every five years. Is there any wonder the older generation are looked upon as clowns by the very people who should be being guided by them.

The one thing to come out of all of andsome's comments on this matter is that he wants no part in, or responsibility for, the creation of the honest, safe, democratic society that we should be trying to bequeath to generations yet unborn (that's a bit poetic init?). It is precisely because of generations gone by, with this same attitude, who were fooled by the "bread and circuses", that we have reached the sad plight that we are in.

Everyone wants to live in an honest, safe, democratic society and it only seems right to me to be prepared to create and defend such a society. To expect such a society to miraculously emerge on its own, from the current cesspit, in response to negative outpourings is probably what gave rise to some of our countrymen being called whinging pommes. Unless this negativity is replaced by positive action in the very near future "our countrymen" will become "our continentmen" (which I suppose is better than our incontinentmen) and it will all be too late.

[-pops-]

I'm interested in what you think, -pops-,

OK.

This thread is developing into an extended mindless rant, just like some other threads of late.

Please let us remember the title of this forum and not let us wander into a field totally and utterly divorced from that.

[andsome]

I'm interested in what you think, -pops-,

OK.

This thread is developing into an extended mindless rant, just like some other threads of late.

Please let us remember the title of this forum and not let us wander into a field totally and utterly divorced from that.

Couldn't agree more pops. We have had some ranters on the forum in the past, but this one beats them all. Let's keep this one on topic folks

[catgate]

Please let us remember the title of this forum and not let us wander into a field totally and utterly divorced from that.

As far as I can see the first response to the original post was the one that originated the wandering away from the title of the forum, which is "Democratic Reality". Apart from the responses to that, and andsome's last post, I fail to see any deviation from the topic.

I can only infer that I am the "ranter" because I will not condone andsome's misrepresentation of important (maybe only to me?) material on my site. I feel strongly about this Democracy topic, and also feel that there should be a country wide debate on the whole set-up of government, but if this little WF group can not take an unbiased objective look at something that is presented as a possible starting point for change, then I fear democracy has absolutely no hope of a future.

[Robbers Dog]

Couldn't agree more pops. We have had some ranters on the forum in the past, but this one beats them all.

It appears to a newbie like me, that there are still plenty of other people posting on this forum that the term "ranter" is applicable to.

[moon]

Despite apparent differences I'm assuming from previous debates that there's an air of dissatisfaction with two party politics ?

Suppose your local borough councillor was obliged, by law, to truly represent the majority of his constituents. ( I'll bypass parish council level as recent laws on declaraion of interest have reduced them to pompous nonentities) Currently, my borough councillor works for himself and his mates. ( I can prove that if pressed. ) Under a system of Obligation my representative wouldn't want the job. It doesn't pay much and he's only in it for the perks. With him and his ilk out of the way the road would be open for somebody with a real sense of responsibility to represent me, and when I say that I mean that the representative would be somebody capable enough to organise local referenda on local issues. Wouldn't that be preferable to the current system of one voting opportunity every four years on a bland and ambiguous manifesto ?

The real joy of it would be the redundancy of political parties. With frequent voting on relevant issues they would lose their purpose. Personality politics would be history.

[catgate]

This question of representation is the heart of the matter.

It is presented to us as democracy, and we are led to believe that those people elected, by us, represent us in that London palace of prestidigitation. However that is totally at odds with the reality of the situation.

Those people who appear, from somewhere, at general election time have each been selected, by Local Party Members, from a small group, selected as "suitable", by the hierarchy at Party Head Office. Precisely what makes someone suitable can only be guessed at, but "compliance" and "lack of personal integrity" must come high up on the list.

All this would be fairly unsatisfactory if there were enormous numbers of people in the general population that are party members. I found it difficult to believe when I first saw the figures. Although they are out of date somewhat (1998) they are representative of the sort of situation that must have existed for a long, long time. The figures I quote here are the latest I have been able to find, and I am sure someone will be able to come up with other more recent estimates, but they show the general situation.

Lab.-385,000 Con.-350,000 Lib.-100,000 Green- 5,000

This represents a total of only about 1.95% of the Electorate.

http://www.bham.ac.uk/POLSIS/department/st...ezen_pp2001.pdf

This leads on to the fact that less than .87% of the Electorate were involved in selecting all the candidates put up for Lab. (In fact it would be much less because they would not all vote for the same candidate in each constituency).

Which ever party "gets in" the illusion of decisions being made "democratically" in Westminster are surely shattered when these facts are known.

Is this a satisfactory arrangement or should there be another method of reaching decisions about the country's well being, rather than leaving it to the few Party Head Office officials who organise this deception on behalf of the real "selectors"?

[-pops-]

As far as I can see the first response to the original post was the one that originated the wandering away from the title of the forum, which is "Democratic Reality".

Please be aware of the difference between "Forum" and "thread".

[moon]

Bump

Wouldn't that be preferable to the current system of one voting opportunity every four years on a bland and ambiguous manifesto ?

[andsome]

Repeated referendums would eventually turn everyone off and they wouldn't bother. Thats the whole point of electing someone to do the job. It is unfortunate that the right people do not stand for election. Unless those of us who do care are prepared to take the job on we are stuck. Do you want to do the job?

[catgate]

Repeated referendums would eventually turn everyone off and they wouldn't bother. Thats the whole point of electing someone to do the job. It is unfortunate that the right people do not stand for election. Unless those of us who do care are prepared to take the job on we are stuck. Do you want to do the job?

Leaving aside this thorny issue of referenda, can we agree that the present system is unacceptable and something else is needed?

Currently the whole point of elections is to create a "committed majority" in Westminster who will force through the wishes of the trough master, whether or not those wishes are in line with the aspirations of those who voted them in.

Is this acceptable ? Do we need an alternative system in which the wishes of the people are heeded?

[andsome]

The only alternative that I can see is proportional representation. We have seen the results of that in other countries with election after election as coalitions have fallen apart.

[moon]

Repeated referendums would eventually turn everyone off and they wouldn't bother

Show them some archives of the last Tory government and the current Labour one- they'll bother alright.

The point of having a representative is not so that we can shuffle down to the booth once and then take a four year nap. The point of having a representative was that it simplified the process of harvesting opinion. Computers have simplified that process in a fairer and more efficient way. It's time for the personality politicians to exit the stage, preferably through the trapdoor.

In an eDemocracy none of us would have to take the job. There wouldn't be a job to take.

[andsome]

Referendums would not run themselves. Someone would have to word them and arrange to put them into operation. Someone would have to interpret the results and put them into practise. How about organising one on the subject as to whether or not the country should be run by referendum? How about supplying all those without computers with one, and teaching them how to use them? The whole idea is another non starter, and will never happen. If you make it happen I will use it, but how many would?

[djohn]

It does seem at times when I read these debates it would not matter who was in control of the our country. All I hear are constant complaints about how bad they are.

I think I must be completely out of step somewhere as I think on the whole they are doing a fairly decent job. I vote at my local elections, [The last one via the internet] and never miss voting in a general election. Yes, they do many things I don't agree with but also many that I find of benefit. I don't sit back and complain to anyone who will listen to me, I very rarely speak on politics but I do write or e-mail my MP quite regular, also have sent the Prime Minister several e-mails over the past few years.

All have been answered, usually by a secretary but my last letter to the Prime Minister just prior to the Iraq war brought a personal reply from Tony Blair himself. Typed on Commons paper but a handwritten signature. I was quite impressed he found the time to reply to me when his mind must have been filled with the responsibility of what was about to happen. :unsure:

[moon]

I was quite impressed he found the time to reply to me when his mind must have been filled with the responsibility of what was about to happen.

He was probably quite impressed that you found the time to write to him when your mind must have been filled with the misinformation of what was about to happen.

[linc]

I'm with those that don't think we are in a democracy.

If we were then why on something like the Iraqui War did they go round whipping [No that's a different story] the labour members who were going to vote against St Tony and the rest of the choir. If they truly worked on our behalf there should never be ''a toe the party line'' nuff said.

[Tankus]

MP's voting with their conscience ...? ...scary stuff

[catgate]

My mother had a wondeful little saying about there being "none so blind as they who did not wish to see". This is perfectly true in so many situations.

Back in history it was perfectly obvious that you could not sail too far across the sea, because it was flat, and you would fall off the edge. It used to be impossible for man ever to fly, and as far as watching something happening only a mile away, that to was impossible. Yet it was all done. It was done because someone wanted to do it and developed the knowledge and the means.

If the present system is unsatisfactory then it must be possible to find a better system, that suites even andsome. After all, the present system was designed purely for the Lords of the Manor and the village squires to be able to have their say in their House, whilst the Real Aristocracy had their say "in another place". The original occupants of the House of Commons did not need to scheme and lie for "honour" and access to the trough, because each had his own "honour" and trough at home within his own village/manor, and that was enough for those times. The well being of "the people" was not a real concern providing they knuckled under.

A careful perusal of history will reveal that as the Lords of the Manor and the village squires were gradually replaced, in the commons and out, by ambitious industrialist, each with his own axe to grind, and then by hungry union leaders, shop keepers and bankers each with his own axe to grind, the desire for "honours" and trough access became paramount. Unfortunately the poor peasants still came in a very lowly second place. That is the state of affairs right now. It is time for a change.

Surely the combined brain power of WF can come up with a workable alternative, even if it eventually finishes up as andsomes bete noir.

Any takers????

ps Djohn, I have had "signed" letters from several MPs and Ministers and the signatures have always been a very good imitation of a "real" signature. The one that first made me look very careful was a reply purporting to come from Two Jags, and of course I knew he was virtually illiterate (his mother and father were only pretending to be married!!)