1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Democracy needs to change

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by ultralaser, Oct 29, 2017.

  1. SPG

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 28, 2010

    Posts: 5,627

    The problem is now the system has turned into the political elite, the majority if not all are educated at Cambridge/Oxford who are all taught by the same the same bunch professors who are stuck in the same mind set as its a "cushy job"

    The Conservative party is nothing but an establishment club and anyone who votes for them who is not in this tier of wealth and standing is deluded. (REES MOGGS A PLENTY ALL SNIVELLING IN THE BACKGROUND)

    As for Labour again its been infested by the so called bright young things from Cambridge who again have no clue due to the reasons above.

    Democracy in the UK needs a reset, we will never get rid of the old boy network, they are too entrenched in the system for anyone to make a difference.....

    Apart from the SNP being a Englishman i admire the way they have gave the system at least in Scotland a big reset, (i do not like the idea of the separate Scotland though but hey ho) but again this has a downside as there is no effective opposition, unless of course they end up making a hash of it and in certain areas they are so the jury is out on that one atm.

    Parliament is not diverse enough, we do not need people with degrees to run the country we need people with life experience, who can take advice from the experts in the field from both sides of the coin.

    (NHS aside as this is Tory greed to bring it to its knees, it is ideology of the private health care they are all board members on of private health care/ medical companies)
     
  2. Quartz

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 1, 2014

    Posts: 8,887

    Location: Aberdeen

    Absolutely not. PR distances the elected from the electors, rewarding loyalty to party over attention to electors.
     
  3. billysielu

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 9, 2009

    Posts: 11,442

    Location: Oxfordshire

  4. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,092

    I think our society needs to limit how rich an individual person can be and what they should be allowed to spend their money for.
    An individual person should not have more than 500 mln in any currency. Something like that.
    When they get the aforementioned wealth, they should give their place to someone new who has the space to grow, etc.

    Another thing that needs to change is consciousness of the society not to strive at all costs for more wealth. The rich must understand that there is in fact no value at all if they are rich but at the expense of more and more poor and struggling people.
    An ugly example of corruption is, if a struggling U.S company receives an aid and its general manager uses huge part of this aid for a new personal aircraft, then this must be declared as a crime.

    There should be a better balance, better education towards this direction, etc. Human nature must be changed.
     
  5. crinkleshoes

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jun 9, 2009

    Posts: 11,696

    Location: London, McLaren or Radical

    You should watch episode 7 of The Orville to see an example of why such direct democracy is bad.

    You’ve said that these skewed opinions have led to these bad things, but completely missed what skews these opinions in the first place. There is so much manipulation going on for various reasons.

    Before we could apply true direct democracy... we would need to teach people to think as objectively as possible and, in certain cases, to act against their own self interest... when exactly do you see that happening? On a small scale I have seen just how difficult it is to get people to vote on facts and freely available information vs their emotions.
     
  6. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,092

    We should stop thinking that an individual has an actual weight in a population of 7 bllion, and 95% of this population is poor because of the system.
    We should strive as an one. All united for the common future of the human beings.
     
  7. crinkleshoes

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jun 9, 2009

    Posts: 11,696

    Location: London, McLaren or Radical

    That would be nice... and while you and I may be able to contemplate such things... that same 95% appear incapable.

    That's why the leave vote won and it's why Trump got into power.
     
  8. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,092

    It is nice and it will happen. Sadly, not in our life times but in the future.

    About leaving the EU. I think the EU in this form must be changed.
    As a beginning, should be divided into two - like East EU and West EU, where brother nations are in their own union.
    The two unions should be allowed to free trade without any iron curtain or another garbage.

    When people in both unions grow sufficiently to allow the people from the other union as equals, then the two unions shall unite into one.
     
  9. crinkleshoes

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jun 9, 2009

    Posts: 11,696

    Location: London, McLaren or Radical

    Worked really well for Berlin...
     
  10. ver01@

    Gangster

    Joined: Aug 7, 2017

    Posts: 420

    It's not about being wealthy. Aristocracy is about having the best, responsible, accountable, individuals representing us and being able to make decisions for the common good. Referendums and elections the way they are conducted are unfortunately a poor way to achieve this.

    I agree with you. The question is if some knowledge is worse than ignorance.
     
  11. FrenchTart

    Man of Honour

    Joined: May 16, 2005

    Posts: 31,310

    Location: Manchester

    Please don't double post. Thanks.
     
  12. TallPaul1878

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 21, 2012

    Posts: 2,333

    "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot." Alexander Pope

    When people have some knowledge but not enough to be an expert it encourages them to be overconfident in their abilities and they make bad decisions. An expert will have already gone through that patch and have the wisdom not to make those bad decisions.

    Where government is concerned, they prefer their population to be docile. Having a highly educated population when you have few job opportunities for them is a recipe for revolution.
     
  13. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 28, 2005

    Posts: 48,109

    Location: On the hoods

    We've had a grand total of two referenda in this country, so not really a serious concern.

    As for the aristocracy, I'm not sure the aristocracy as it is generally defined is going to get you anywhere close to the "best, responsible, accountable individuals".
     
  14. Caged

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 23,249

    I wouldn't say the aristocracy is particularly concerned with the common good, accountability, or responsibility. Are you going down the "benevolent dictator" path? I've noticed that some of the insane alt-right people actively support the idea of a monarchy as something other than a purely symbolic entity.
     
  15. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 16,382

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    The problem would then be that our country would be ruled with as little thought and far less knowledge than is applied to product reviews. If I buy a widget from Amazon I will have a lot of relevant knowledge about that widget since I will be using it. I don't have a lot of relevant knowledge about, for example, the interaction between Iran and Qatar. Or pretty much anything else to do with politics, whether domestic or international. Anyone can be qualified to give an informed opinion on a widget they bought and used. Nobody can be qualified to give an informed opinion on everything and hardly anyone is qualified to give an informed opinion on anything. Many product reviews are rubbish and that's for a very narrow scope on a single item that the reviewer owns and has used.

    Not to most people, apparently. Besides, it would require far more time to gain even a superficial understanding of even some of the issues. The world is a lot more connected nowadays, so an informed decision has to take a wider area into account.

    FPTP is what we have now. Voting reform to reduce the extent to which simplistic polarisation is forced on everyone wouldn't solve the problem but I think it would reduce it by forcing politicians to co-operate more.

    Like that. Maybe not necessarily PR, but some form of voting reform that breaks the two party system and makes a party having an outright majority in parliament an extreme rarity rather than the norm. I don't want one party controling parliament. I want several parties required to co-operate with each other to get votes from enough MP's to get something passed through parliament.

    I also don't want the leader of a party controlling the party's MPs. So I'd also like to see steps taken to reduce that power. Perhaps something as simple as extending the secret ballot to MPs. It was enacted in 1872 for very good reasons, but Parliament itself was excluded from it. Why?

    I think that's a good idea but I don't see how it could be implemented. It's possible to provide such evidence for almost any political decision since they're rarely clear-cut and testable.

    An ugly truth.
     
  16. Caged

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 23,249

    See also, bikeshedding
     
  17. Stretch

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 14, 2004

    Posts: 11,546

    Location: Cambridge

    We could still have constituencies under a PR system.
     
  18. Quartz

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 1, 2014

    Posts: 8,887

    Location: Aberdeen

    But they'd be far larger and the individual MP would have a much more tenuous link to the the electors, concentrating mainly on keeping themselves high up the party's list of candidates. And you can say goodbye to independent MPs.
     
  19. FishFluff

    Soldato

    Joined: Nov 7, 2003

    Posts: 5,185

    Location: Deepest, darkest Leeds

    How is that different to what happens now? My MP is Rachel Reeves (Labour) who was born down south somewhere and parachuted into Leeds as the PLP judged she was a strong candidate. She has no more of a link to the local area than I do to Cheshire.
     
  20. Quartz

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 1, 2014

    Posts: 8,887

    Location: Aberdeen

    But she is beholden to the local party and to the electorate. There is only one Labour candidate for Leeds - her. If there were more then she would be more beholden to the party than the electorate. She has a constituency of c70,000. If we were using PR the constituency might be a million or more, so you personally would be worth very much less to her.