mario114 Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 I found a link to this article on anouther site, and was shocked by what i read, surly such a thing goes against the whole point of a dimocracy. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-2049791,00.html
Dan_Dare Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 that is....faintly disturbing. but frankly, its not going to pass. and if it does? nuts to this place, I'm off to Sweeden to meet some ladies.
masaki86 Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 M'eh; only the Royal Family should have the power to abolish Parliament. Those bastards killed Charles I due to his acts of abolishment, and I'll be damned if what he died for gets given to lowly MP's and such.
Arragaun Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 I don't think any one here is licensed to comment on the running of the country. None of us are unbiased and none of us know the full story.
bob Posted March 17, 2006 Posted March 17, 2006 I don't think any one here is licensed to comment on the running of the country. None of us are unbiased and none of us know the full story. I'm unbiased! I know the full story! Now if only i had an opinion on this story....
MunKy Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 Bottom line is, the people should decide how their country is run. Not some rich politician with totalitarian dreams. Im drunk but my point remains valid! Sorry for grammer and spelling mistakes, like I said, Im drunk!
Blackfox Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 Bottom line is, the people should decide how their country is run. Not some rich politician with totalitarian dreams. Im drunk but my point remains valid! Sorry for grammer and spelling mistakes, like I said, Im drunk! And they do, by the ballot...
Dan_Dare Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 M'eh; only the Royal Family should have the power to abolish Parliament. Those bastards killed Charles I due to his acts of abolishment, and I'll be damned if what he died for gets given to lowly MP's and such. please. tell me I'm missing a massive great wad of sarcasm? please? anyone? please?
gaggle64 Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 Don't panic, I'm sure he's being sarcastic. There should be some kind sarcasm smiley or something. Anyway, yeah, this is the kind of freaky crap that eventually leads to a dictatorship. Some people say "Yeah, whatever, it will never happen.". Oh really? Go tell it to the Patriot Act in the US. Go tell it to the Bellesconi. Go tell it to Putin. We shouldn't let ouselves be cojoled into this kind of crap. I really don't like the sound of this. I really don't want ministers getting too much power over our laws, even with those restrictions. I hope they don't let this sneak by and the opposition doesn't get seduced by the Blairites again.
Haver Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 We are essentially governed and always have been governed by an elected dictatorship. The nature of our representative democracy is such that participation in the political process ends when we elect our representative. From that moment on, while we have the capacity to 'unelect' in four or five years time, the government has a Doctor's mandate - especially with the sort of majority Blair had in 1997 and then in 2001 - to legislate and govern as they see fit with little accountability. Iraq is a good example. We, in theory, voted for a representative based on the Labour party manifesto. We didn't vote for a Labour government to take us into a war that had large scale, extremely vocal opposition.
gaggle64 Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 Although I'm not big fan of Labour or the Iraq war, it was quite honerable of the Blair government to take it to vote, even though they were not required to do so. Although if they had lacked the support of the Tories, I do suspect they might not have bothered. I feel quite confident with current Palimentary procedure as it stands, all being said. I just feel, god forbid, this or similar legislation is succesfully smuggled in (in a similar American fashion to Blair's early terror laws - although a failure, it's clear he's spending to much time with Bush) it can only be the start of a long slippery slope to the demise of a currently stable democracy.
MoogleViper Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 And they do, by the ballot... Oh wow some say. We should vote on laws and policies, not people. And do we even know if the voting system is legit? I don't. Especially seeing as we can't all vote on any party due to the smaller parties not being able to afford it. Some say we have.
Dan_Dare Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 you vote for the people based on their political stance, not their looks. so yes, our votes directly relate to policy. our system does suck though. proportional representation is the way to go, but its never going to happen in this country (where, ironically, it would work great!)
gaggle64 Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 To start off, I think we need people to sodding vote. I'm sick to death of people complaining they don't have say in their democracy, and then only about half the populoce actually turning out to vote at all. As the mighty Rory Bremner noted during the 2005 election: "After over four years of complaining bitterly about the Blairite government, the electorate finally get a say in the matter, and what's their reaction?: 'Gawd, I wish they would hurry up and get this election over with.'" Final voter turnout? Up over 2% from 2001 to a mighty, er... 61%. Great. Oh wow some say. We should vote on laws and policies, not people. And do we even know if the voting system is legit? I don't. Especially seeing as we can't all vote on any party due to the smaller parties not being able to afford it. Some say we have. Oh c'mon, it's not as if there isn't enough choice. On the right you have New Labour and the Tories. Centre you have the Lib Dems. Go left you find the Greens (who I may vote for come the next election), and on both extremes you have the likes of the BNP and the Socialist Party. Ever looked at a ballot sheet? Trust me, it's longer then you think. This is why Peter Snow has an "other" column. EDIT: Also, I'm not sure a preportional government system would work very well. I personally feel it would cause political instability, but that's just my opinion.
Arragaun Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 I think the best way to get peolpe to shut up about voting would be to give everyone some portable voting device. This device would send everyone a message about a new bill and everyone in the country would vote on it. That'd give us proportional fucking representation.
mario114 Posted March 18, 2006 Author Posted March 18, 2006 Theres some good veiws above, not to sure hoe proportional govement would work though. In my opion I think labour is taking things to far, every day they ban somehting else. It wouldn't be to bad if they played by the book, but if a law doesn't go through the lords, they just sneak it around the "back door", through the commons. I havn't voted yet (am only 17) , but as soon as i can I will vote conservative, not that I am a major fan of theres but they are the only reall alternative to labour.
gaggle64 Posted March 18, 2006 Posted March 18, 2006 At least you're voting. There's no shame in a protest vote either. I'm currently almost past caring who people vote for, so long as they vote. I think I'll start some kind of cheerleading group next election or something - just to get people to take some intrest and action in their democarcy.
KingJoe Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 There are 2 very scary changes going on, this new bill and a weakening of the power of the house of lords. Now, idealogically, I'm generally against an unelected mass deciding matters of state. But the Lords seem to serve a useful purpose: the fact that they are not elected means that they don't have to pander to vogue or current feelings (cf the spate of anti-terror laws rejected by the lords after 911) meaning they get to veto stupid laws based on tabloid 'opinion'. The Lords rejected the foxhunting ban. The govenment used a handy piece of legislation to bypass the lords (the Parliament Act), s) for this sort of thing. Too much power in the hands of the government. Laws should be made in open parliament. That is all.
Arragaun Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 The Commons have been able to bypass the Lords for a century now, nothing very new in that respect. I do agree though that the Lords are a sort of buffer against 'popular moronism'.
McPhee Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 I think the worst thing about the elections is this stupid "im going to vote for <instert name here> because they'll win anyway" mentality. I know a lot of people who wanted to vote Lib Dem / Green etc who voted Labour/Conservative instead because "nobody else stands a chance" or "i think <insert name here> will win, so i'll vote for him"! No way should the population vote on every law, it would be removing power from parlement and handing it to the press!
Big Red Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 hell yeh....................................................................what you gona do move to fiji
gaggle64 Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 I think the worst thing about the elections is this stupid "im going to vote for <instert name here> because they'll win anyway" mentality. I know a lot of people who wanted to vote Lib Dem / Green etc who voted Labour/Conservative instead because "nobody else stands a chance" or "i think <insert name here> will win, so i'll vote for him"! No way should the population vote on every law, it would be removing power from parlement and handing it to the press! I must say, I agree with you there. I believe in a free democracy, but there's a point where it stops being a clean, organised democracy and just falls under a mob mentality. You're also quite right that people probably should vote for who they want to win, not who they think will win. I personally make it a point when I vote. Besides, even the smallest parties have a decent shout in the local council vote. I suppose who will get X amount of seats and who will get Y seats might change who you vote for though. Of course, that's their business. Secret ballot and all that.
MoogleViper Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 Oh c'mon, it's not as if there isn't enough choice. On the right you have New Labour and the Tories. Centre you have the Lib Dems. Go left you find the Greens (who I may vote for come the next election), and on both extremes you have the likes of the BNP and the Socialist Party. Ever looked at a ballot sheet? Trust me, it's longer then you think. This is why Peter Snow has an "other" column. Sure there's choice. But not always an option of choosing. In my constituency you could only vote for Labour or Tory. (btw I can't vote I'm 15) I think that it should go on individual votes. Not constituencies.
Haver Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 To start off, I think we need people to sodding vote. I'm sick to death of people complaining they don't have say in their democracy, and then only about half the populoce actually turning out to vote at all. As the mighty Rory Bremner noted during the 2005 election: "After over four years of complaining bitterly about the Blairite government, the electorate finally get a say in the matter, and what's their reaction?: 'Gawd, I wish they would hurry up and get this election over with.'" Final voter turnout? Up over 2% from 2001 to a mighty, er... 61%. Great. Oh c'mon, it's not as if there isn't enough choice. On the right you have New Labour and the Tories. Centre you have the Lib Dems. Go left you find the Greens (who I may vote for come the next election), and on both extremes you have the likes of the BNP and the Socialist Party. Ever looked at a ballot sheet? Trust me, it's longer then you think. This is why Peter Snow has an "other" column. EDIT: Also, I'm not sure a preportional government system would work very well. I personally feel it would cause political instability, but that's just my opinion. But do we really have our say? Socio-economic ties are now pretty much severed and redundant, instead we have centre-right parties packaged with grand but meaningless rhetoric. Parliament operates without public accountability for half decades at a time. Our representatives, chosen from a selection defined by the parties not the people, are largely bound legislatively by party lines. No wonder there's apathy. No wonder only one fifth of the electorate voted for a Labour government. Sure, there's smaller parties, but how can they inch power away from a two-party system when First Past the Post denies them anything?
Recommended Posts