Democracy - Is it worth the bother?

1966_and_all_that

1966_and_all_that

Well-known member
Xi Jinping and the Chinese ruling Communist Party will, no doubt, point to their massively growing economy, their successes in advancing technology and their military strength in South East Asia and the Pacific, as evidence of the benefits brought by long term planning under autocratic, one party rule. Those of us who subscribe to the liberties engendered under Liberal Democratic government celebrate our freedoms, openness and ability to choose our leaders according to our personal beliefs.

Of course, democracy can appear to be a double-edged sword. Donald Trump showed how it is possible (with enough financial backing) for even the most unsuitable candidate to be elected to the leadership of a democratic country. Then again, the strength of American democracy has held firm against the most provocative and disingenuous of bullying leaders by showing that the people can get rid of him.

So, strong, stable and autocratic leadership versus the instability, occasionally unproductive and diffident rule of liberal democracy. Which of these is preferred by our politics clique, and why?
Football-exclusive posters are welcome to join the party.
 
Interesting debate although I wouldn't say that China is communist.
Since the 'party' got into power over 100 million deaths.
The foolishness around the senate - awful but can you imagine that kind of protest and a similar storming of the Chinese parliament buildings - I can and if Tiananmen square is a judge then up to 7,000 people would have been killed. Indeed try finding out anything about the massacre whilst in China - you wont and if you try hard enough expect a knock on the door. A whole different level of state control way beyond anything we have in the west. China decided to try to gain massive world influence/ domination via economic rather than military means - kinds similar in a way to what the US did in 44 with the gold/dollar link up.
As for the American system it has proven to be flawed. It will recover but needs to remain as a buffer to China IMHO
So in summary democracy is flawed but the alternatives are very flawed.
 
'The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.'

Churchill
 
Tangerinenick said:
Interesting debate although I wouldn't say that China is communist.
Since the 'party' got into power over 100 million deaths.
The foolishness around the senate - awful but can you imagine that kind of protest and a similar storming of the Chinese parliament buildings - I can and if Tiananmen square is a judge then up to 7,000 people would have been killed. Indeed try finding out anything about the massacre whilst in China - you wont and if you try hard enough expect a knock on the door. A whole different level of state control way beyond anything we have in the west. China decided to try to gain massive world influence/ domination via economic rather than military means - kinds similar in a way to what the US did in 44 with the gold/dollar link up.
As for the American system it has proven to be flawed. It will recover but needs to remain as a buffer to China IMHO
So in summary democracy is flawed but the alternatives are very flawed.
Click to expand...
Note: I agree that China is most certainly not Communist - it has massive State control, therefore, can't be. I was more looking at it's own stated belief that one party rule allows for far greater long term planning that we achieve under multi-party government. That gives them a degree of stability in R&D and the exploitation of commercial enterprise that we cannot achieve under a private-led capitalist economy. I make no judgement here (I have my own views, which are partly obvious from my OP), but leave it open for others to comment.
 
isnt china actually still called the peoples democratic republic of . . . . .

what does democratic mean its largely en empty statement that every individual attaches their own meaning to
 
I'm not sure there's much difference between a one party state and our democracy, we're a two party state where there's barely a cigarette paper between the parties most of the time, anyone not middle of the ground is classed as dangerous and maverick and unelectable.

Let's face it, we've been a one party state for fifty or more years.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
I'm not sure there's much difference between a one party state and our democracy, we're a two party state where there's barely a cigarette paper between the parties most of the time, anyone not middle of the ground is classed as dangerous and maverick and unelectable.

Let's face it, we've been a one party state for fifty or more years.
Click to expand...
There’s a massive difference lol

literally night and day
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
A democracy would be my choice, though I do think that there’s a place for long term cross party agreed policy on a range of key issues...
Click to expand...
Interesting...democracy built on a foundation of collectively agreed principles. That's supposed to be how our country is run now: a welfare state, NHS, education free at the point of delivery (up to Teriary and no further any more), civilian policing, Separation of Powers and a rule of law. I get a feeling that your agreed "range of key issues" would go beyond that.. If so, It would be good to hear them.
 
I think economic growth linked with long term planning is not exclusive to regimes such as China. Germany, Israel and Japan have at various times in the last 40 years had long term schemes in place whilst maintaining a democratic process. Whereas Soviet era Russia had long terms economic plans under an autocratic regime which totally failed to achieve their aims.

A more interesting question would be, could China have got to where it is now economically if it was fully democratic.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
I'm not sure there's much difference between a one party state and our democracy, we're a two party state where there's barely a cigarette paper between the parties most of the time, anyone not middle of the ground is classed as dangerous and maverick and unelectable.

Let's face it, we've been a one party state for fifty or more years.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that we now have devolution that gives a great deal of power to Scotland - Wales, to a degee - and Northern Ireland (when they're not squabbling). Also, local Government gives power to smaller parties - the Lib Dems run a number of Councils and Plaid Cymru have a number of councilors. During the May Government the DUP was particularly influential.
 
CompleteControl said:
I think economic growth linked with long term planning is not exclusive to regimes such as China. Germany, Israel and Japan have at various times in the last 40 years had long term schemes in place whilst maintaining a democratic process. Whereas Soviet era Russia had long terms economic plans under an autocratic regime which totally failed to achieve their aims.

A more interesting question would be, could China have got to where it is now economically if it was fully democratic.
Click to expand...
Good points. I wasn't trying to limit this to a China versus others debate btw. I just chose China as an example - albeit the largest example of autocratic government.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Don't forget that we now have devolution that gives a great deal of power to Scotland - Wales, to a degee - and Northern Ireland (when they're not squabbling). Also, local Government gives power to smaller parties - the Liv Dems run a number of Councils and Plaid Cymru have a number of councilors. During the May Government the DUP was particularly influential.
Click to expand...
But they're basically the same middle of the road parties with more or less the same policies (DUP aside, who are an anachronism of intolerance).

Democracy leads to cowardice, every party is concerned with just appealing to the electorate, not upsetting them, instead of any actual tenets or idealism.

Let's also throw in to the mix that unless you can get big business and the Murdochesque media on your side you're not going to win.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
But they're basically the same middle of the road parties with more or less the same policies (DUP aside, who are an anachronism of intolerance).
Click to expand...
Oh yes, definitely. That is, middle of the road in so far as they believe in the consensus of liberal democratic government. However, within that construct there's a world of difference.
 
the thing with autocratic regimes is that the more success you have the more that success has to be distributed to a wider part of the population, or the leadership is at risk, but the wider distribution puts the autocracy at risk as well as peoples demands increase, the only way an autocracy works is to continually increase autocratic behaviour which is such a massive cost and social burden that any innovation will be stifled and you return to an economic model where basics are difficult to achieve.

At the moment china is on the up where the population is being introduced to and learning how to deal with some limited access to 21st century normalities, but there will come a point where those normalities as experienced in the west, across the whole of china will be a significant risk to the leadership there. More and more resources human and otherwise will have to be applied to securing the leadership and the system.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
Is there though, does anything ever change in this country these days? If Labour were voted in tomorrow what would actually change?
Click to expand...
Well the party who the power was vested in would change for starters. That alone gives a huge amount of protection to the citizens living in the democracy vs Chinese autocracy...

Though it’s hardly surprising that a well established democracy is going to come to relative consensus on many issues. You’d expect that Parties would have less to disagree about as many issues are resolved/better understood....We are well aware that either colour of extreme politics is a pointless enterprise for starters...
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Note: I agree that China is most certainly not Communist - it has massive State control, therefore, can't be. I was more looking at it's own stated belief that one party rule allows for far greater long term planning that we achieve under multi-party government. That gives them a degree of stability in R&D and the exploitation of commercial enterprise that we cannot achieve under a private-led capitalist economy. I make no judgement here (I have my own views, which are partly obvious from my OP), but leave it open for others to comment.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that China is now closer to the economic set up of a nationalistic (4,473 days) Germany .
China has created over 300 billionaires solely and effectively to back up the state.
Are there any Chinese citizen billionaires from a minority or persecuted group in China?
The Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and Hui would probably see many similarities between their current position and those who lived and were persecuted under the Nazi regime. The scary thing is what happens when China's economic plan starts to implode.
 
seasideone said:
Democracy tends to come with free speech.

So the fact you can ask that question publicly, probably answers the question for me 👍
Click to expand...
thats a very good way to look at it, and to build on it, three levels of freedom (democracy) and it comes back partly to the discussion about class elsewhere.
1. can you ask a question without fear (of reprisals)
2. can you ask a question with the hope of an answer
3. can you ask a question with any certitude of an honest answer.

depending on your position in a country's stratas or heirarchies the people of a country can appear to be in any one of those categories. traditional working class in the UK for example can ask questions but are unlikely to get any real answers. a poor black man in the USA would potentially face reprisals if he was to ask questions of authorities, but the same questions from a white middle class professional might elicit honesty.
 
i have to say, im connected to quite a lot of economics, business and politics forums as part of research i have to do for work. and this site sometimes (often) is better as a source of intelligent discussion and ideas.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
i have to say, im connected to quite a lot of economics, business and politics forums as part of research i have to do for work. and this site sometimes (often) is better as a source of intelligent discussion and ideas.
Click to expand...

I haven’t started yet...
🤪🤪
 
Re the O/P, democracy of course, but not a binary party system

Parliament has evolved ( but not far) from the adversarial court system, even to the language of honourable friend, honourable member , etc.

Politics is so much about doing the opposition down rather than being positive. Both ourselves and the US have this basically 2 party system, with two really flawed parties with a lot of historical baggage. This also leads to so many voters feeling disenfranchised because they do not feel their vote can make a difference.

Back in the 70's, discussion of PR used to be met with derision, with the example being Italy and its short lived governments. However, there are now many countries which do have PR and coalition governments.

We need consensus cooperative government, lead by people of talent and integrity. How on earth we get there, I haven't got a Scooby.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Re the O/P, democracy of course, but not a binary party system

Parliament has evolved ( but not far) from the adversarial court system, even to the language of honourable friend, honourable member , etc.

Politics is so much about doing the opposition down rather than being positive. Both ourselves and the US have this basically 2 party system, with two really flawed parties with a lot of historical baggage. This also leads to so many voters feeling disenfranchised because they do not feel their vote can make a difference.

Back in the 70's, discussion of PR used to be met with derision, with the example being Italy and its short lived governments. However, there are now many countries which do have PR and coalition governments.

We need consensus cooperative government, lead by people of talent and integrity. How on earth we get there, I haven't got a Scooby.
Click to expand...
A meritocracy would be a start, we're so far away from that right now that it's almost medieval.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Re the O/P, democracy of course, but not a binary party system

Parliament has evolved ( but not far) from the adversarial court system, even to the language of honourable friend, honourable member , etc.

Politics is so much about doing the opposition down rather than being positive. Both ourselves and the US have this basically 2 party system, with two really flawed parties with a lot of historical baggage. This also leads to so many voters feeling disenfranchised because they do not feel their vote can make a difference.

Back in the 70's, discussion of PR used to be met with derision, with the example being Italy and its short lived governments. However, there are now many countries which do have PR and coalition governments.

We need consensus cooperative government, lead by people of talent and integrity. How on earth we get there, I haven't got a Scooby.
Click to expand...
It's not a binary / two party system by design though is it? And whilst coalition governments can 'get by' are they really desirable or do they actually just inhibit policy making and actually stunt progress?

Lytham made the point earlier (though I don't entirely agree with him) that the two Major Parties aren't really that different from each other.... So perhaps that suggests that we're simply getting closer to a general concensus on how things ought to be done?

I mean, what are the potential alternatives anyway? And what has prevented those alternatives from gaining the Public Support they require to govern? From what I can see, you are largely looking at single issue parties and I'm not sure they really offer much, beyond perhaps influencing some Policy decisions in the main parties.
 
With a good conscientious leader no problem...................then there is the Hitler/Stalin type!
 
Tangerinemoss said:
We need consensus cooperative government, lead by people of talent and integrity. How on earth we get there, I haven't got a Scooby.
Click to expand...

We often end up with a Blackadderesque " a rotten candidate for a rotten borough" type MP moulded to the bit two`s party machine ideal.

So many internal and external pressures on MPs to conform, it`s no wonder many lose what integrity they may have possessed when they entered politics.

Good debate with some thought-provoking comments...
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
It's not a binary / two party system by design though is it? And whilst coalition governments can 'get by' are they really desirable or do they actually just inhibit policy making and actually stunt progress?

Lytham made the point earlier (though I don't entirely agree with him) that the two Major Parties aren't really that different from each other.... So perhaps that suggests that we're simply getting closer to a general concensus on how things ought to be done?

I mean, what are the potential alternatives anyway? And what has prevented those alternatives from gaining the Public Support they require to govern? From what I can see, you are largely looking at single issue parties and I'm not sure they really offer much, beyond perhaps influencing some Policy decisions in the main parties.
Click to expand...
Your first point is of course correct, but apart from the Libs in coalition and wartime, it has been binary back to Tories and Whigs days. IT may not be the intent but it is the outcome.

The second point follows from the first, if I want to get in, I have to take your voters so have to be conservative with a small c. so that I don't alienate them.

It is difficult to look outside the system we have, because that is all we have ever know. Maybe if we had PR, which does have big voters support, although certainly not Labour / Conservative support, we could start to feed some with ideas and talent into the system, rather than relying on Constituency Parties doing as their central offices tell them. The whole current system is rigged to suppress change.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Your first point is of course correct, but apart from the Libs in coalition and wartime, it has been binary back to Tories and Whigs days. IT may not be the intent but it is the outcome.

The second point follows from the first, if I want to get in, I have to take your voters so have to be conservative with a small c. so that I don't alienate them.

It is difficult to look outside the system we have, because that is all we have ever know. Maybe if we had PR, which does have big voters support, although certainly not Labour / Conservative support, we could start to feed some with ideas and talent into the system, rather than relying on Constituency Parties doing as their central offices tell them. The whole current system is rigged to suppress change.
Click to expand...
Is it not just the case though that a binary system is just where a well developed democracy naturally ends up and so rather than being a flaw in the system it's actually just an inevitability?

Also, is it not also desirable and inevitable for any serious political party to be conservative with a small c in any case? I mean we've seen the obvious negatives that develop in the extremities and therefore it makes sense that any "extreme" Political opinion ought to sit within the fringes of the major politcal parties or in minority parties... To that extent, the influence of potentially valuable 'extreme' perspective within both the electorate and also politics, is there to be developed. In essence, it is simply a reflection of who we are as a society...

The issue, as I see it, with PR is that far from ensuring that the varying aspirations of the electoirate are properly reflected, it actually rests far too much power and influence in the hands of the 'King-Makers' or minority groups.

I tend to think that the current system gets the balance of power / influence about right ...
 
We get the politicians and system we deserve in this country. We've had referenda on regional government and Proportional Representation, both of which failed to succeed in a binary vote and therefore with FPTP we have MP's elected to represent us based by area. Interestingly PR voting gave the likes of Ukip and the Greens a huge boost; neither of which had a cat in hells chance of replicating that success in FPTP.

FWIW I quite like the chance to have a choice, to vote or not vote and if I'm really unhappy to stand myself. I'd take that over the alternatives.
 
TSSeasider said:
We get the politicians and system we deserve in this country. We've had referenda on regional government and Proportional Representation, both of which failed to succeed in a binary vote and therefore with FPTP we have MP's elected to represent us based by area. Interestingly PR voting gave the likes of Ukip and the Greens a huge boost; neither of which had a cat in hells chance of replicating that success in FPTP.

FWIW I quite like the chance to have a choice, to vote or not vote and if I'm really unhappy to stand myself. I'd take that over the alternatives.
Click to expand...
You always have a choice to vote, I didn't between 1997 and 2017.
 
The problem is that we are trying to fit at best a 17th century idea of governance and "democracy" to a 21st century world. Even the economics system and economic analysis and management is based on idea that are stuck in world of 18th century idustrialisation. investors - workers - capital - labour. its fundamentally out of date. Even the social ideas that most of us would consider essential, health care, provision for the vulnerable, education????, etc are coming up to a century old. There is nothing new. Traditional leftists Corbyn are stuck with some idealised version of Marxism that they keep wanting to return to, and right leaning traditionalists want to get rid of as much regulatory protections as they possibly can so that they can get back to some idealised version of the 18th century proto capitalism. sorry for being labelist.

China might have the best system currently, simply because it is adaptable depending upon which authoritarian is in charge. Its not one I would want to live under though.

The american reverence for the constitution as a sacred point of origin for the USA is hampering it as a nation and probably impinging on democracy as far as USA is a democracy. I've had that conversation with spaniards as well over basque and catalan separation claims.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
The problem is that we are trying to fit at best a 17th century idea of governance and "democracy" to a 21st century world. Even the economics system and economic analysis and management is based on idea that are stuck in world of 18th century idustrialisation. investors - workers - capital - labour. its fundamentally out of date. Even the social ideas that most of us would consider essential, health care, provision for the vulnerable, education????, etc are coming up to a century old. There is nothing new. Traditional leftists Corbyn are stuck with some idealised version of Marxism that they keep wanting to return to, and right leaning traditionalists want to get rid of as much regulatory protections as they possibly can so that they can get back to some idealised version of the 18th century proto capitalism. sorry for being labelist.

China might have the best system currently, simply because it is adaptable depending upon which authoritarian is in charge. Its not one I would want to live under though.

The american reverence for the constitution as a sacred point of origin for the USA is hampering it as a nation and probably impinging on democracy as far as USA is a democracy. I've had that conversation with spaniards as well over basque and catalan separation claims.
Click to expand...
The problem?

Why are we coming from an assumption that we have a problem?
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The problem?

Why are we coming from an assumption that we have a problem?
Click to expand...
Rising child poverty

Growing inequality of capital

Reducing life expectancy in certain areas and social groups

Austerity caused by Government response to banks inability to weigh risk factors on loans

Regionalised independence groups due to feelings of disenfranchisement with the London Elite

Could probably come up with an awful lot more with a few minutes thought. The system is not working for ALL its citizens, just the capital rich few.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
thats a very good way to look at it, and to build on it, three levels of freedom (democracy) and it comes back partly to the discussion about class elsewhere.
1. can you ask a question without fear (of reprisals)
2. can you ask a question with the hope of an answer
3. can you ask a question with any certitude of an honest answer.

depending on your position in a country's stratas or heirarchies the people of a country can appear to be in any one of those categories. traditional working class in the UK for example can ask questions but are unlikely to get any real answers. a poor black man in the USA would potentially face reprisals if he was to ask questions of authorities, but the same questions from a white middle class professional might elicit honesty.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand what democracy is. What I was trying to tease out in my OP was the obvious economic, technological and developmental advantages of an autocratic society in which the masses look to "the party" for leadership. They don't say let's have a choice of parties. So, the mechanisms of democracy become redundant and all of the checks and balances that would otherwise take up so much time, simply evaporate.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Rising child poverty

Growing inequality of capital

Reducing life expectancy in certain areas and social groups

Austerity caused by Government response to banks inability to weigh risk factors on loans

Regionalised independence groups due to feelings of disenfranchisement with the London Elite

Could probably come up with an awful lot more with a few minutes thought. The system is not working for ALL its citizens, just the capital rich few.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to challenge the individual points you raise (though I do think they are debatable) as that's really a separate issue...

I'm not entirely sure it is possible or even desirable for a system to work for ALL it's citzens is it?... I'm also not entirely sure whether the issues raised are necessaily issues with the system either. They could, for example, be issues with the choices that people are legitimately making within the system...

No system is ever going to be perfect I wouldn't have thought and so we are ideally trying to identified the least worst system.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Note: I agree that China is most certainly not Communist - it has massive State control, therefore, can't be. I was more looking at it's own stated belief that one party rule allows for far greater long term planning that we achieve under multi-party government. That gives them a degree of stability in R&D and the exploitation of commercial enterprise that we cannot achieve under a private-led capitalist economy. I make no judgement here (I have my own views, which are partly obvious from my OP), but leave it open for others to comment.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the evidence yet that China still wouldn't have achieved its economic advancement if it wasn't an autocracy (though that's because you could never prove it). China was the biggest economy for most of human history, it was only in the 1800's that began to change, you could argue it's just a return to form, it's also much easier to catch up with current economies, most countries which are poorer have higher growth rates which means they're catching up with the west. There's a great video from Gapminder that shows you the growth over the last 200 years. China also does especially well as they're happy to pillage intellectual property, and can't really be hurt for doing so. The video is here:


I fundamentally think that you can have good and bad democracies, as well as good and bad autocracies, there is plenty of evidence for countries that have done poorly under autocratic systems (China included suffered ups and downs until ~1970). I think the U.S system of democracy is horrendous though and needs a massive overhaul. Any system needs change and I think we should be looking at how we could make democracies work much better in the 21st century with all the technology we have available.

Fundamentally though I'd always want to live in a country where I can choose to remove my leaders if they were incompetent or even worse dangerous/genocidal, what China is doing to the Uighers is absolutely terrifying and I'd never want to live in a country where I could end up in that situation, in healthy democracies where there are protections against the tyranny of the majority such things aren't possible, and I'd happily have my country be behind the curve economically if needs be to avoid that fate (as mentioned before it's easier to catch up anyway).
 
Costero Poderoso said:
the thing with autocratic regimes is that the more success you have the more that success has to be distributed to a wider part of the population, or the leadership is at risk, but the wider distribution puts the autocracy at risk as well as peoples demands increase, the only way an autocracy works is to continually increase autocratic behaviour which is such a massive cost and social burden that any innovation will be stifled and you return to an economic model where basics are difficult to achieve.

At the moment china is on the up where the population is being introduced to and learning how to deal with some limited access to 21st century normalities, but there will come a point where those normalities as experienced in the west, across the whole of china will be a significant risk to the leadership there. More and more resources human and otherwise will have to be applied to securing the leadership and the system.
Click to expand...
Hence the hard-line approach to Hong Kong and the threat to close down internet access to Western websites.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I'm not going to challenge the individual points you raise (though I do think they are debatable) as that's really a separate issue...

I'm not entirely sure it is possible or even desirable for a system to work for ALL it's citzens is it?... I'm also not entirely sure whether the issues raised are necessaily issues with the system either. They could, for example, be issues with the choices that people are legitimately making within the system...

No system is ever going to be perfect I wouldn't have thought and so we are ideally trying to identified the least worst system.
Click to expand...
I think I posted elsewhere a few days ago something like, " how can we call ourselves civilised if we do not take care of our most vulnerable citizens?" Any modern system should start with their needs, not those of billionaires. I get that that is a political viewpoint, but our current system does not even allow that as an option.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Well the party who the power was vested in would change for starters. That alone gives a huge amount of protection to the citizens living in the democracy vs Chinese autocracy...

Though it’s hardly surprising that a well established democracy is going to come to relative consensus on many issues. You’d expect that Parties would have less to disagree about as many issues are resolved/better understood....We are well aware that either colour of extreme politics is a pointless enterprise for starters...
Click to expand...
Trump was taking a well established democracy out of agreements with the rest of the civilised world: the Paris Agreement on the environment, the nuclear treaty with Iran, the friction with other member States of NATO, the destroying of the consensual recognition of Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel.
 
G
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
It's not a binary / two party system by design though is it? And whilst coalition governments can 'get by' are they really desirable or do they actually just inhibit policy making and actually stunt progress?

Lytham made the point earlier (though I don't entirely agree with him) that the two Major Parties aren't really that different from each other.... So perhaps that suggests that we're simply getting closer to a general concensus on how things ought to be done?

I mean, what are the potential alternatives anyway? And what has prevented those alternatives from gaining the Public Support they require to govern? From what I can see, you are largely looking at single issue parties and I'm not sure they really offer much, beyond perhaps influencing some Policy decisions in the main parties.
Click to expand...
Good points, particularly the constraints that coalition can place on progressing and implementing policy. I say 'can'. The Tory/Lib Dem coalition was overwhelmingly a one sided affair. Germany's Grand Koalition succeeds because, whilst it contains the three main parties, the CDU has the whip hand.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Your first point is of course correct, but apart from the Libs in coalition and wartime, it has been binary back to Tories and Whigs days. IT may not be the intent but it is the outcome.

The second point follows from the first, if I want to get in, I have to take your voters so have to be conservative with a small c. so that I don't alienate them.

It is difficult to look outside the system we have, because that is all we have ever know. Maybe if we had PR, which does have big voters support, although certainly not Labour / Conservative support, we could start to feed some with ideas and talent into the system, rather than relying on Constituency Parties doing as their central offices tell them. The whole current system is rigged to suppress change.
Click to expand...
Your last point about the system being rigged to suppress change is one of the failings if democracy in large organisations. When I've been in the Labour Party (on and off over the years), being able to change anything at local level without having to refer up to the constituency exec' and so forth was a no-no. Whilst it prevents anarchy and maintains fair order it can also be sclerotic over such minor details.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
I think I posted elsewhere a few days ago something like, " how can we call ourselves civilised if we do not take care of our most vulnerable citizens?" Any modern system should start with their needs, not those of billionaires. I get that that is a political viewpoint, but our current system does not even allow that as an option.
Click to expand...
It is a political viewpoint... I also think that we do a pretty good job of taking care of our most vulnerable (and I think that word is sometimes used very loosely). It's by no means perfect, I agree, but we are largely looking at things relative to markedly improved measures and failing to acknowledge and recognise the advances that have and continue to be made.

1966_and_all_that said:
Trump was taking a well established democracy out of agreements with the rest of the civilised world: the Paris Agreement on the environment, the nuclear treaty with Iran, the friction with other member States of NATO, the destroying of the consensual recognition of Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel.
Click to expand...
And he has ultimately been sacked - Democracy in action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top