Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Democracy in the UK

Page: 1 2(3)

16:30 / 20.08.08

At a high level most people agree on what works, in this fantastically rich, well working society.

I think I just ROFL'd. Possibly, I also LMAO'd.

How terribly uncouth of me...I do apologise.

22:48 / 20.08.08

Not quite sure what that means but I agree.

Anna de Logardiere

07:59 / 21.08.08

Well Buk, there seems to be a democratic consensus forming around the proposition that you're a bit dim. We could put it to secret ballot if you like.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

20:27 / 28.08.08

Fist Fun If someone held a gun to your head and demanded a better system than democracy what would you come up with?

I don't think I can help you there, but democracy only works if people keep themselves informed about everything and are involved a lot more in the every day decision making. Watching something like PMQ or a Lords debate is frequently a depressing spectacle that is one stage up from a Radio Five Live phone in show, "I say to my honourable friend that we should send 'em back where they came from, because they only came here to steal benefits and have lots of kids". This would suggest a professional political class that spend their time doing that and not just popping into the chamber when they aren't busy on the boards of multinationals.

A second house made up of a revolving set of people like a massive jury service might be more technically democratic but would it just be a rubber stamping of mob rule.

Eventually all forms of people management, whether monarchy, parliamentary, tyrannies, despotism, Communism, come down to one group of people managing another group of people. When control comes in, it will always involve someone imposing their will on another. I'm not saying I believe in anarchy, but no system will ever be perfect and I'm dubious as to whether any system would ever be even half-great.

Closed for Business Time

21:33 / 28.08.08

I think it'd be interesting to talk about the actual amount of choice available to elected politicians at the national and regional levels, and try and gauge how that relates to ideals of democracy and good governance (if that mythical beast doth exist). Someone earlier mentioned path dependence. I have heard it bandied about that politicians in the Norwegian parliament have at most about 5% of the total national budget to argue over. This figure might not be entirely correct, but as a matter of both principle and practice I think the question of "How much leeway do politicians, and by extension any interest group, have to seriously change what's a political priority and so gets money and what does not?" is an interesting one, especially if one wants to question the merits and demerits of contemporary forms of governance in the UK.

------

Totally unrelated, but thanks to Anna and Quants I'm back in the Switchboard. THANKS GUYS!

15:56 / 29.08.08

Pas du problem.

Buk, these issues that we have a broad consensus on, viz;
- should we have a free market
- should we have a democracy
- should there be a free press
- should there be public services funded by taxation

...look like questions to me. I *think* you're assuming we would all agree on the answers, but for 100% clarity let me give you my answers and see if you and I have a consensus (never mind everyone else, let's try for 2)

- should we have a free market
NO
- should we have a democracy
NO
- should there be a free press
NO
- should there be public services funded by taxation
YES

So, if those are your answers too then huzzah! a consensus of two, me and you! If your answers are different (let me guess, yes to all?) then your idea that we all share a broad consensus seems flawed.
Can you see where I'm going with this?

Closed for Business Time

16:04 / 29.08.08

I'm sure he can still see, but AFAIK he cannot reply anymore. Fist Fun was banned, no?

Anna de Logardiere

00:24 / 30.08.08

But you managed a consensus with me which is actually kind of unusual. I'm up for a coup if you feel like it...

02:15 / 30.08.08

seems like stating the blindingly obvious, but my problem with democracy is that it's mostly equates to a popularity contest.

It's not hard to see from X-Factor, to Big Brother to Mayor of London, that the most popular person is not always the 'best' person for the task being voted upon.

I'm with the benign dictatorship - with me in charge (don't tell me you've not thought the same), doing my best to consider the many over the self, and not being corrupted by anything in the meantime, whilst perhaps being televised 24-7 to prove am doing the best I can. Then handing over to someone suitable when I've had enough. This being based on the "I can have as good a go at being in charge as anyone else" system. Not sure how this would be implemented - in my ideal, I would just tell everyone in their dreams to vote for my unlikely party, whilst somehow coming up with the funds to represent UK wide....

02:25 / 30.08.08

By the by - forgot to say, opt out of free market capitalism and aim for non monetary society (assuming I can now do whatever I like as I'm in charge...) We all get basic 'goods' to ensure we can live, and anything over and above that is based on effort and reward. (ps am a little 'emotional' after big Friday night out, so although I stand by my beliefs, I apologise for spelling and grammar and other such issues which shouldn't really detract from the gist) - is it just me, or does any decent conversation degenerate into destruction and personal slating of each other these days (et al...)

14:45 / 11.09.08

Ignoring the fact that Buk started this thread to be an exercise in circular logic (his), I would like to continue the debate of Democracy in the Western world in general and whether it truly exists.

It's my understanding that pretty much all the Commonwealth countries along with the US and many European countries are set up in a two party system.

We the people get to decide between the lesser evil in most cases and since whoever gets in usually owes big to those who bankrolled them, often we come across cases of "Voodoo Politics" and the choice between the two parties becomes increasingly blurred.

So do we the people have a real choice, or merely the illusion of choice?

We're stuck between voting left or right, but many of us could see ourselves preferring an X,Y quadrant when we approach the smorgasbord of political choice: What if I'm Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay Marriage, and Pro-Gun? What if I need an Up or Down to go with my Left/Right? Why do we allow for an either/or designation? (Sorry, I don't buy the Left-Centre-Right scale...) It seems to me that we have accepted the concept of free choice/no-choice: You're free to chose the option we allow you to choose...

I don't see a fix: It's bigger than I can wrap my brain around and I become overwhelmed with the impression of impotence. Politics are so entrenched with economy that the only way to exact change is to be rich in the first place and if you are that wealthy, you probably support the existing system...

I am afraid that I may be overcome with my own circular logic... But my question will stand:

Does democracy exist in a capitalist society?

museum in time, tiger in space

03:03 / 15.09.08

... but many of us could see ourselves preferring an X,Y quadrant when we approach the smorgasbord of political choice: What if I'm Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay Marriage, and Pro-Gun?

I would say that you're always going to have a problem in that case, or, at least, that you're always going to have to compromise and make choices about which of your beliefs is more important to you. I can't really imagine a setting (two-party democracy or otherwise) where campaigning for gay marriages wouldn't involve working with people who were, mostly, pro-gun control - and the same is true the other way around if you wanted allies in your campaign to install a machine gun in every household.

Any kind of political action, in any system or framework, involves working with other people. Certain political beliefs tend to clump together - what I mean is that it's a lot more common to find people who are pro-gun control and pro-gay marriage than people who are for the latter but not the former. This is not to say that it's wrong, or even necessarily inconsistent in some way to be for both guns and gay weddings. If you then want to work politically to achieve or secure on of these goals, however, you will almost certainly have to ally yourself with people who are firmly against the other one.

Page: 1 2(3)