Well sure, and don't get me started about direct democracy. But still, it's hard to judge a party's performance if you don't understand their job. And the electorate is supposed to be interviewing every 5 years.
Capitalism depends on continued growth. Obviously that's impossible. Communism doesn't work either, perhaps the answer is somewhere in between.
I would like to see some form of recall available to constituents over their MP. I quite like what I hear from Glidd of the Swiss system where key topics are put to the people in referenda.
On the 9th of Feb we get to say what we think about a major railway investment scheme, immigration ( do we tell the EU to stick it where the sun don't shine?) and some other thing. Should be interesting, the immigration one particularly.
Well OK, but as Glidd has previously mentioned, it requires the whole population to take a close interest in political issues, inform themselves, and bother to get out and vote. It is also pretty expensive to operate. I cannot see Brits going for it. Contrast the Swiss system with the German constitution which specifically forbids referenda. This is in the light of Hitler's use of referenda in the 1930s to overturn the Weimar democracy and establish himself in absolute power. Each approach has its merits, surely.
True, and a good point about Hilters use of referenda, which I didn't know. I think Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell put forward some very interesting ideas in The Plan - twelve months to renew Britain http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0955979900/?tag=ducatiforum-21 As I have said several times before I think the lack of democratic accountability in the UK is appalling, a single vote every 5 years on a wide ranging manifesto lacks precision.
Perhaps you have forgotten that we also get to vote periodically for our MEPs, and for our Borough/County/District councils, and for mayors in some cities, and for the parliaments/assemblies in Wales Scotland and N Ireland, and for the London Assembly, and for Police Commissioners in some areas. Not to mention by-elections at all levels. There are even elections for parish councils and school governors, if anybody bothers to contest them. Turnouts in the UK tend to be low and declining - if we had yet more votes, turnouts might well be lower still. There does not seem to be a widespread demand for additional voting in the UK. Personally I think the most important things we are lacking are elections for our Head of State and for the House of Lords - but that's just me.
clearly you advocate the use of lies and story telling, to gain votes and trust, then turning and running away. Also discarding scruples and long-held political principles set by years of effort, negotiation and identity with parts of society and/or political ideals and structures. Wish i had such an easily acceptable view of being led down the path by my lords and betters. Actually, no i dont.
I don't advocate it. I was simply describing the way the world actually works, if you have a democratic system.
So what would you have Pete: the system as it is and gain power or campaigning on the hearts and minds of the electorate based on the right principles for your political persuasion?
This has won my reply of the week award.You have hit the nail on the head.I heard Balls again on Radio 4 ,no grace,no answers and no good.
I prefer a (slightly) democratic system to a totalitarian one. And I prefer politicians campaigning for office to be able to put forward whatever arguments and promises they think fit. It is for the voters to decide what arguments they agree with, what promises they believe, and what they do not accept. Each party tries to persuade the voters that their opponents are unfit for office, and the voters choose. Of course, all the parties may be equally right on that score. Cynical whining about the shortcomings of the democratic system is all too easy; just try having to live under a tyranny for a while, and you may find democracy is worth supporting after all.
Perfectly rational sensible human beings, at least they offer an alternative to the bland Lib Lab Cons, and they are true democrats.
I agree with you on this Pete, poiticians should be able to put forward their views to be assessed by the electorate, the problem is is that after they are elected they are forced to toe the party line. The diverstity of opinion is replaced by a whipped policy dictated by the party high command, the link with the electorate is broken.
Winston Churchill was correct when he said "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried". But that doesn't mean we can't criticise or improve it.
