Ids

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Originally posted by rynnor
Its funny how most states no matter how corrupt/unfair their system of government is declare themselves to be a democracy.

Ironically no country in the world actually runs as a true democracy - the greeks who came up with the idea had the people regularly voting on decisions that affected them.

Instead of this all modern 'democracies' allow for people to vote for a very limited choice of parties/leaders to make all the decisions on their behalf.

The effect of this is clearly hugely different from people voting on real decisions - this is why voter apathy is so high - people realise that their ability to actually affect policy is practically nil...

With our current state of technology there is no reason why people couldnt actually vote on all major decisions such as going to war, budgets etc. etc. but it will never happen because it goes completely against politicians interests.

The problem is that if we had referendums for everything we would know longer live in a democracy. Anarchy its called, and it doesnt tend to work well. In theory I would be behind the idea of complete freedom of information, where all people could make informed choices. However, even if the majority of the population could grasp the various complex economic and diplomatic scenarios (which we cant, which is why people are employed fulltime to fully understand and deal with them), i still very much doubt that people would have the stomach to make the best choices for this country (I know I couldnt).

Whatever leadership system is in place, power corrupts and theres nothing we can do about it because theres no alternative.

People dont always know whats best for them even when they have information, let alone with out.

 

[Neural Network]

Maybe a complete change of the political structure would be good? Maybe go back to feudalism or perhaps let computers do the politics?

 

[Gumbo]

The real problem is, a genius such as myself, gets the same number of votes as all the rest of you ignorant fucks!

Go figure

Also : 'Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.'

Thats a Winston Churchill quote, he's not wrong you know.

 

[dr_jo]

I think I will probably vote Lib Dem when the time comes. Although (Shovel) may well end changing my mind if he shifts...

I really hate politics. I hate the lies they tell, and just they way they go about everything. Trying to hide behind spin, make everything look as good as possible. What is wrong with being honest? At least people would know what was going on, and why, and would trust them.
I don't think I trust any of the people running the country, and that's depressing.

 

[Deebs]

Originally posted by SoWat
I used to see cars with 'Free Enterprise Works' stickers during the eighties. I used to imagine they belonged to sweat-shop owners.

I too did ok during the eighties, but I was very aware that a lot of people were a lot worse off. The Thatcher years spawned the 'I'm alright Jack' generation which is morally wrong to anyone who gives a toss about their fellow countrymen.

*Of course I'm not suggesting that you were a sweat-shop owner

The only sweatshop I owned in the 80's was in my pants

 

[rynnor]

Originally posted by Flamin_Squirrel
People dont always know whats best for them even when they have information, let alone with out.

Paternalism is an evil in itself - it all comes down to whether you trust the people or not.

Not trusting the people is a slippery slope that leads to a dictatorship...

I think you might be surprised at how sensible the majority would be - it would have kept us out of the Iraq fiasco which seems a pretty good reccomendation in itself.

 

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Nowt to do with trust. Most people have other occupations and simply dont have the time, or inclination, to study international relations and global economics. Without knowing all of the factors involved its unwise to make desicions on complex and often sensitive issues, and Iraq is a good example of this.

Its quite possible given the bigger picture that we've somehow benefited from it (better relations with US bringing more money/power, i dont know), and lets for arguments sake assume this is true. Sure everyone would still preach morality and say its bad, but i doubt people would complain about their increased wealth if that was the result. People dont want to belive that people suffer for their high standard of living, but complain when they dont get it.

 

[rynnor]

Actually under the current system politicians dont need to understand anything such as international relations or global economics - they are briefed by senior civil servants who have access to specialists - all the politician does is listen to a dumbed down version of the situation and then takes the decision - all you do is have the civil servants provide briefs for all to decide.

If we really had to rely on politicians going round understanding things we'd really be in trouble

 

[Sleet]

I think next vote, everyone will be put off the idea of labour with the tabloids help, everyone will be put off conservatives with the tabloids help.

So it leaves a minority to win which is kinda scary.

So im going to start a party where the colour will be orange, blue and red. That'll confuse a few voters. Thats me got 2% already.

I'll never mention the word tax, as even when a tax reduction is said, it isnt a nice word to hear. Add on 5%

I dont care about schools until they lower the voting age to 5. +2% there, mums to busy to vote as kids are a handful anyway so no loss and save shedloads on the budget.

I care about students when they pay taxes (but mention of the bad word, so i'll just pretend students dont excist and encourage the same) + 30%

Reduce the cost of spirits by 2/3s (off course by removing taxes but that words a no no word im this campaign) so i'll say its by removing education from under 16s since they dont vote so obvoiusly dont care. +20%


whos with me?



ok ok, absolute nonsense, but shower isnt free yet

 

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Politicians are briefed by civil servants who have access to specialists who do understand, this is correct. However, they will have all the information. Although naieve to think its completely unbiased, it will be in a purer form than what we receive though the media, which has its own agenda.

Yes you maybe right that the full implications arent understood by the politician, but given the choice id still rather have descisions made by politicians than the public. Most people on this forum are smart relatively well informed people, but we are the exception. There are alot of people who arent, and would make stupid choices. Even if everyone was significantly smarter, the majority would find it hard to seperate morality from statistics (such as putting a price on human life).

Another bad reason for giving power to the people is that they would have noone to answer to but themselves, where as politicians are (although arguably to a limited extent) answerable to us.

 

[rynnor]

Originally posted by Flamin_Squirrel
Another bad reason for giving power to the people is that they would have noone to answer to but themselves, where as politicians are (although arguably to a limited extent) answerable to us.

This is the theory but in practice take the example of Blair - he has upset the majority of voters and launched a war without popular backing yet due to the 2 party system the only opposition is the appalling'ly pathetic conservatives so he is effectively invulnerable.

In addition he can influence public opinion pretty heavily using his army of spin doctors and has politicised the civil service to an unheard of degree.

Unpleasantly enough it can only get worse - the 3rd term is a certainty really and the longer a party remain in power the more corrupt they become in their excesses.

What a great system...

 

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Originally posted by rynnor
This is the theory but in practice take the example of Blair - he has upset the majority of voters and launched a war without popular backing yet due to the 2 party system the only opposition is the appalling'ly pathetic conservatives so he is effectively invulnerable.

As i said, his responsibility in answering to the public is limited. He isnt invunerable, and would be prevented from doing something totaly crazy like say... invading Europe. However, a diminished liability isnt always a bad thing, as it is sometimes contrary to the greater good to follow public opinion. For example, the war might actualy have benefited us in some way, for arguments sake.

Originally posted by rynnor
Unpleasantly enough it can only get worse - the 3rd term is a certainty really and the longer a party remain in power the more corrupt they become in their excesses.

What a great system...

This on the other hand i agree with completely. Kinda illustrates my point about the public doing not knowing whats best for its self.

 

[(Shovel)]

Originally posted by rynnor
This is the theory but in practice take the example of Blair - he has upset the majority of voters and launched a war without popular backing yet due to the 2 party system the only opposition is the appalling'ly pathetic conservatives so he is effectively invulnerable.

Good point there that demonstrates how skewed our system is. Remember, Blair himself is accountable to the people of his constituency. We (living elsewhere) don't vote for him. However, through both Blair's own ambition, and the encouragement of our bullshit tabloid media, elections are presented in a way more akin to a presidency.

I honestly think that if the democracy of this country was reinforced, maybe with european (maybe Switzerland?) style "100000 signitures on a petition gets a referendum" moves, and more, then the efficiency of our politics would be far improved. The problem is that huge quantities of the "general public" don't give a shit about the way the country works, they lose interest in any solution that requires more than one "step".

e.g. "Sorting out democracy will improve all this decision making gubbings, that will allow us to make decisions improving health, education and all the rest of the things you get excited about". But people don't think enough. It's depressing that so many people are happy to be fed their politics on a drip from tabloid rags (note absence of the word "newspaper").

If people chose to engage more then the system would work far better (be that in its current state or through reforms), but far too many people want someone else to do it for them, and then complain when their apathy causes problems.
Apathy I think is a vicious cycle, the more apathetic people get in elections the more apathetic people get when they see the result - before factoring in their opinions on political individuals.



A question: What would people say to compulsory voting? Never mind how it would be enforced. But have a law whereby you have to vote, in all elections, and you have the additional choice of "None of the above". If the majority votes for None, then there is an immedaite by-election where the candidates have to get off their arse and make a case for their election better than before.

 

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Originally posted by (Shovel)
If people chose to engage more then the system would work far better (be that in its current state or through reforms), but far too many people want someone else to do it for them, and then complain when their apathy causes problems.
Apathy I think is a vicious cycle, the more apathetic people get in elections the more apathetic people get when they see the result - before factoring in their opinions on political individuals.



A question: What would people say to compulsory voting? Never mind how it would be enforced. But have a law whereby you have to vote, in all elections, and you have the additional choice of "None of the above". If the majority votes for None, then there is an immedaite by-election where the candidates have to get off their arse and make a case for their election better than before.

I agree voter apathy is a problem. Compulsory voting is an interesting idea, but in practice i think it would be a bad. It would worry me that were such a thing to be implimented, at best people would still not vote for the wiser choice, at worst they'd just tick any box so they could get the hell out and back to whatever they wanted to be doing.

 

[xane]

Compulsory voting often includes a "none of the above" candidate.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by (Shovel)
Good point there that demonstrates how skewed our system is. Remember, Blair himself is accountable to the people of his constituency. We (living elsewhere) don't vote for him. However, through both Blair's own ambition, and the encouragement of our bullshit tabloid media, elections are presented in a way more akin to a presidency.

Ironically, a US-style presidential election system, where votes for head of state and local government representatives are separate elections, would in fact make the PM directly accountable.

 

[rynnor]

Originally posted by xane
Ironically, a US-style presidential election system, where votes for head of state and local government representatives are separate elections, would in fact make the PM directly accountable.

Thats a pretty good idea though you would have to vote for President at the same time as the general election or you would get even less voters.

I'd implement the max 2 terms rule the US have as well.

 

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I think the two terms rule is a bad idea. Politicians need as much incentive to think in the long term as possible.

 

[Tom]

Historically, thats always been the problem. You have one government which implements changes and policies designed to have an effect over a period of decades, only for those policies to be altered beyond recognition by the next incumbent.

As regards the NHS, hospital treatment is getting more expensive as technology advances. If you want a good NHS, you're gonna have to pay a hell of a lot more in tax, and that's something that people will not accept.

Saying that, I think the roads budget is massively over-inflated. All that red paint bollocks is just done to keep people in a job.

 

[Delboy]

His Missus is better looking than Cherie - but I still wouldn't.

Aye, better looking and fine figure. Better than a good few politicians wives. (Particularly Ken Clarke's - thought it was his mum!)

Quick verdict: Tony Blair prolly hopes IDS stays in power, in order to help Labour to another Landslide.

I suspect the conservative Party have another wave of blood letting (lose some members) before we see them become a force. They've still got much of their attitude from when they were in power.

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Tom
If you want a good NHS, you're gonna have to pay a hell of a lot more in tax, and that's something that people will not accept.

Actually its more to do with not seeing the visible benefits, which is always a problem since it naturally takes time for real change.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Tom
Historically, thats always been the problem. You have one government which implements changes and policies designed to have an effect over a period of decades, only for those policies to be altered beyond recognition by the next incumbent.

Or worse, for those policies to eventually bear fruit that is taken by the next government.

TBH, the infighting between politicians is enough to halt long-term policies, Thatcher had the not-so-bright idea of regularly shuffling her ministers every two years, consequently none of them every implemented a plan that would take longer, lest it be claimed by his successor, even though they would probably be the same political party.

Most senior politicians seem to think they need to do _something_ during the short term they are in charge, even if the ministry they inherit has no real problems, the worst place is in Education, which has been kicked about with so many schemes over the last 20 years, why can't they just leave it alone ?

Transport has probably been the greatest victim of short-term vision, most transport plans would take many years, beyond even two terms of government, basically the railway system has remained the same since the days of Dr Beeching.

I can only suggest that, as with Beeching, the government appoint people to make long-term changes, and such appointments go through the Upper House ("Royal Appointment") to prevent subsequent governments from scrapping the plans too early.

 

[throdgrain]

Originally posted by Delboy
His Missus is better looking than Cherie - but I still wouldn't.

Aye, better looking and fine figure. Better than a good few politicians wives. (Particularly Ken Clarke's - thought it was his mum!)

Quick verdict: Tony Blair prolly hopes IDS stays in power, in order to help Labour to another Landslide.

I suspect the conservative Party have another wave of blood letting (lose some members) before we see them become a force. They've still got much of their attitude from when they were in power.

Are you sure you're not talking about the previous Tory leaders wife ?

 

[Delboy]

I did go a bit OTT. Those comments are prolly best reserved when she was a bit younger.

 

[Custy]

Originally posted by rynnor
I think the new aggressive IDS is hilarious - hes about as convincing as that Iraqi Information Minister - Classic!

Rofl, i know exactly what you mean, i did have a good chortle when he kept showing his clenched teeth in his conference speech.

 

[Lester]

Can you have a next incumbent?

 

[Gumbo]

Gone then.

Wonder who's next and if they could win an election.

I'm not saying I support him in any way shape or form, but surely the only fella with the recognition and charisma to challenge Big Tone, would be Portillo?

 

[DaGaffer]

Originally posted by Gumbo
Gone then.

Wonder who's next and if they could win an election.

I'm not saying I support him in any way shape or form, but surely the only fella with the recognition and charisma to challenge Big Tone, would be Portillo?

...who's probably not going to stand. All the likely candidates are dull little Englander nonentities except Michael Howard - and he's just scary (although comparing his time as Home Secretary to Blunkett I think I prefer his 'flog 'em and hang 'em ' style to Blunkett's 'spy on 'em and charge them for the privelidge' style).

 

[Gumbo]

I do wonder if Portillo will end up being dragged reluctantly into a second ballot by his friends, out of a sense of duty to his party, type thing.

But like you say it has been very quiet regarding him in all this, maybe a little too quiet.....

 

[Embattle]

I love the fact that the Conservative's do Labour's job for them