Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
You vote for the party, not for the man.
That's America you're thinking of.
and it fucks me off that people think differently
I mean it was largely expected that at some point Blair would leave and Brown would take over......people were slightly surprised that Blair hadnt given Brown a chance earlier.
Out of all political expectations, the idea that Brown would take over from blair was the most widley held view, it was a secret to no one..........how many people voting for labour would have bet against Brown taking over the leadership from Blair?
We all know this to be true.
Would anyone deny this was a widespread belief?
Anyone on DIS surprised by Brown becoming leader?
I bet no one will say they are (apart from the deliberately perverse elements)
Tories calling for a Genral Election is bizarre. They weren't doing this when Major took over from Thatcher. Because Labour would have won
I mean, they're not meant to, but that's fundamentally how Kinnock lost to Major.
John, you vote for a representative of your constituency to attend Parliament. I can't stand Blair's New Labour but I voted for an old Labour bearded Socialist type who votes against PFI.
don't generally vote like this though. Take the last election. Our MP in St Albans was a very good Labour one who held a fairly good majority and often held the government to account, but he got removed because of Iraq and the Labour Government's part in that. There are no two ways about it
that they want to see directing the country. The fact that they have to do this by voting for an individual is by the by nine times out of ten.
I understand this is what often happens, but it is not how the system should work.
I just think that voting for the party in the "general election" type way you seem to be so agreeable to is lazy. Do some research for gods sake.
I mean that to The Public, not you)
But often that is superceded by the direction I'd like the government to move in generally, and so the overriding factor is which party attains a majority.
yeah. An almost identical thread.
That NEVER happens.
on the way brainlove shot me down that time for suggesting that you don't vote for PM, and yet he's mentioning it here.
"not Sh!" John :)
are you Snoop Dogg?
LOL @ BLAIR
democratic injustice yes.
but not because he hasn't been internally elected.
As was widely discussed the other week. Our democratic system in the UK is pretty fucking useless. I don't doubt an american would be appalled to learn that the ruling party can simply choose a prime minister based on whoever volunteers for the job, which is effectively what happened here.
Sure people knew this would happen when they voted labour. But that doesn't mean it's not wrong. Gordon Brown will be wielding a vast amount of power and personally I don't think he's up to it. Tony Blair might be a demented, lying, bloodthirsty, bullshitting, incompetent, war criminal who's more concerned with image than achievement.
BUT Gordon Brown appears to have systematically gambled our economy on short term fixes for long term problems and doesn't have the guts to tell people that it's actually going to be neccessary for them to not get everything they want all the time.
I think he'll be worse than Blair and I expect David Cameron to beat him in the next general election. Though I doubt he's got it in him to start any wars.
I don't believe Tony Blair is a demented, lying, bloodthirsty, bullshitting, incompetent, war criminal who's more concerned with image than achievement.
I don't believe Gordon Brown appears to have systematically gambled our economy on short term fixes for long term problems. Though the second part is rooted in truth.
I don't expect David Cameron to beat him in the next general election
I take back 'bloodthirsty'.
would that make it all right?
'democratically elected, according to the customs of this country' is largely an oxymoron.
'democratically elected under a more satisfactory system than the one we have now' would be better, but still not perfect by a long way.
but people seem mostly reluctant to consider refor democratic or parliamentary reform, they seem to be mostly frightened that if you suggest it you are secretly a nazi or commie.
Im baffled why people like paxman dont kind of throw such ideas to mixed groups of political representitives.
Im having a little episode at the moment where Im being simplistic and just wondering why and where people get their motivation to trust politicians enough to vote for them, cos i read a couple of comments in the gordon brown thread from a while ago....prole though brown was a brilliant economist and pigfoot trusted brown.........i thought i would return to grassroots and examine my simple problem with these statements.
I have not evidence that would let me conclude that brown is a brilliant economist or that he is a crap economist, i dont know how people form ideas such as this, nor indeed how pigfoot feels he is trustworthy.
I am feeling rather childlike
Brown didn't just 'volunteer' - 308 MPs have put their names forward in support of his nomination, and he's been in the 2nd highest position of government for 10 years.
but his uncontested victory still sticks in my craw a little.
if people hadn't spent the past 2 or 3 years talking like he was the undisputed heir to the throne maybe there could, at the very least, have been some proper debate in the coming weeks between Brown's vision for Britain and some of his contenders, might have made people think a little. alien as that concept may be.
As it stands it's a foregone conclusion, leaving the media largely free to continue encouraging the public to wish on a star for madeleine's safe return.
it was widely known before the last election that Brown was being lined up to take over from Blair, and that it was likely to happen sometime during the current term of office. You'd have to be fairly naive not to have accepted this to be the case had you voted Labour 2 years ago. As such, to describe the process of making Brown leader as undemocratic is silly. I for one am quite looking forward to the next couple of years under Brown - see if/how the direction of Labour changes prior to another election.
if you were a dyed-in-the-bone labour voter and you loved tony blair but hated gordon brown who should you have voted for, party wise, at the last election?
and maybe you could have drawn half an X on the ballot paper so your vote expired after two years?
believe there are any voters who love Blair and hate Brown. They are two sides of the same coin. Only politicians who have ambitions separate themselves into Brownites and Blairites. Their policies are fundamentally inseparable.
Thus vote Labour
that's why I said 'hypothetically'.
the question is whether it's 'democratically unjust' to have a coronation for party leader. in real world terms I largely agree with you that labour won't change much under brown and no one's likely to feel cheated.
doesn't mean that in the realm of an ideal democracy he should be able to waltz up the ladder.
that said the public never got to vote for TB before labour came to power did they?
which is good
reckon once Blair has been gone and forgotten, shouldn't be too much of a problem the Conservatives gaining power. Brown isn't personable enough to be Prime Minister.
was about politics and not personality!
that would require the british public to make an effort without being directly rewarded for it. and also to find something interesting other than TV and football.
TV, football and politics, but I appreciate it was a simplification!
I don't think the Tories have a prayer.
their best hope in a long while. but for utterly crap reasons.
It'll be an absolute tragedy if they win, because they're trying to win by moving closer to Labour. Soon the mainstream of both parties will be indistinguishable and people will effectively be voting for their favourite colour.
the problem is that the Tories are the ones who have fundamentally moved. Labour are implementing their policies and they are successful - this is why the ground has been moved to the centre.
I still believe there could be viable right-wing and left-wing (is there such a thing anymore?) alternatives that might succeed.
It really is the most public-led political playpen that has ever existed.
Labour, historically, are a socialist party. Practically nothing in the last ten years that has been implemented by Labour has had anything to do with this heritage.
The Tories are undoutbedly moving away from the Right, but the real shift has been the one Labour has made away from the Left within the last twenty years, particularly since Blair became leader of the party.
They have helped some of the poorest people in the poorest places. just because they haven't helped middle-class students buy a house in London does not mean they are not Socialist.
possessed by the spirit of Richard Littlejohn for a moment there, were you?
Do you think the 'poorest people in the poorest places' have a better chance of buying that same house? or do you think maybe labour have also been helping the richer ('upper class' doesn't exist any more you're just very rich middle class) person who owns the house in the first place. and who pays less tax on it cos it's their 'second home'?
people who, for example, buy up 'holiday cottages' in rural wales, putting prices up so people who've lived their all their lives (and are pretty poor) can't afford to buy the house their parents lived in?
it's a lot more complicated than you just implied, is all i'm saying...
but I'm not going to write a 6,000 word balanced essay on here am I?
If New Labour has been 'been helping the richer ('upper class' doesn't exist any more you're just very rich middle class) person who owns the house in the first place' then why are they so unpopular with Middle England?
if there's going to be a political debate, any chance of using some useful terminology as opposed to just 'the poorest people in the poorest place' or 'people who are really really rich' or 'unpopular within Middle England.'
It doesn't mean anything.
Voting is carried out by many on the basis of perception. That is a strong current perception in the current political climate.
Thus it might not mean anything to you, but....
keep on going with your vague references. You're clearly a visionary.
vague references that inform the majority of the population's political choice. I am trying to articulate how a great part of the country think, not how I think, which you will find is a completely different kettle of fish.
politicians shouldn't appeal to the lowest common denominator. they should be trying to raise the level of public debate. there should be a genuine difference between the parties to give people a choice and also so people see that there is a choice in the first place.
otherwise the only alternative viewpoint that gets high profile recognition is the BNP's.
would you agree that supporting democracy is tantamount to supporting people not thinking as long as they get enough celebrities and beer and football and shoes and ready meals and the occasional luxory haagen daaz......whoever promises that to the most people for the longest should win.
That is what democracy is all about after all..........control the mob......lead it a bit train it make it predictable, then give power to the person that cna make the mob wag its tail most to.
that we have electoral reform and deny the very people who have fought for our freedom over the years the vote?
utterly seperate things.
how is suggesting electoral reform in any way the same as denying someone the vote?
is he suggesting that we help deny the 'mob' - often people who historically have been the backbone of this country - a say in determining the political direction of the UK?
because I think that I can articulate the problems that must be addressed and faced by parliament and governments far better (ok not snappily) I have no power or influence or abilities/techniques to get into a position where I can influence things because of the counter logical way of obtaining political office.
The people in parliament could quite easily be cleverer than me and be capable of articulating what I articulate better and with more foresight....it could just be that their position and the necessity to continue with 'the least of two evils' means that they feel they cannot consider 'the right things to do' ,they might feel that the best they could hope for is to have a minute influence and shut the hell up aout the truth lest they let in 'the OTHER side'
we see little clues of politicians who appear to have 'sold their honour' to at least allow a bit of thier principals become a reality.....i.e. rather than be holy and have their good ideas not realised they are prepared to accept rubbishing of their good reputations just to alloe a tiny bit of good happen (I think this may have been Clare Shorts thinking) (its irrelevant about whetherh you think shes right....im talking about her, her reported hipocrasy, and her later 'ratting on the government for not doing what she said they promised they would do in return for her support in an unpolpular matter)
i.e. its the sheer horrid hoplessness of it .......this is often why i rail against democracy..........its the lies that party political democracies make people make......who knows what the truth is anymore?.....no one......its whoever comes across the best.....or makes least enemies in the press.
So I would describe the UK as 'party political democracy as determined by the press'
I dont want this.
and you shouldnt.
I dont want this so much that i am tempted to say that I would overide the majorities decision if it said it didnt want to change it.
Because situations can get so serious and so pressing that merely sticking to ethereal political principals is not more important than possible bad effect this intransigence might cause.
We have to improve democracy.....the single most obvious major change would be the party/confrontational/fear aspects.
my point here ^ was merely to try to say that the demands of party political confrontation demand that you can not have the countries pure best future in you mind first......first you must have how to win the party political battle.........which goes on and on every term to the next term,
people should vote in elections because elections always produce a government whether you vote in them or not so you should have a say. if that counts as 'supporting democracy' then i suppose I do.
you can vote in an election and still be opposed to the process, or even the party you vote for (vote for the one you feel will be most receptive to your campaigning against them).
the most important message of democracy is that the electorate has just as much responsibility as the government. But democracy seems to have been demoted to 'who shall we pass the buck to and moan about?'.
that said no one's ever gonna get elected by using 'take some responsibility for yourselves' as a manifesto.
should have the option to put a dirty great X next to 'non of the above'.
but I never see anyone suggest what should happen if a majority of people cross that box?
i would suggest all the candidates are told they cannot stand again and they draft in new candidates,this then carries on until they finally get to Me and then I will reign supreme, nuke the middle east,ban benefits to able bodied adults between the age of 18-60,introduce a statutory minimum sentences of 6 weeks solitary confinement for all antisocial behavior.
Make everyone pay for private healthcare,and introduce an australian type immigration programme.Oh yeah and Noel edmonds would be my second in command
meaning more than all the other votes for parties put together........well that means that all the electoral professionals....all the parliamentry professionals, all the paid paliamentarians must then seek advice from electoral reform groups and using the BBC as a medium find out what might have to change to get the people to vote in a majority.....what sort of change do people want ....electoral reform? parliamentary process reform, more manifestoes, more information about these, need for explanations when hese arnt followed whatever....some referendums on what reforms are needed by the people for them to be happier and want to vote.
Then a re-election. (repeat as necessary)
is probably a better idea than mine
......people do not need to worry about the percentages of strategic voting and stuff.....in fact the more opaque the better, because that means that they will have to vote sincerely not so much out of fear of 'the other' being the overiding factor...
your bit is good too....we should have elements of both.
is greater than the number votes of the winning party then the remaining parties can try to see if they can form a winning coalition government (there will also need to be an extra box to indicate whether you would be prepared to let your party be in power as a coalition if they dont get in straight) If any coalition that is formed cannot match the number of 'none of the aboves' then reform referendums and re-elections as per the previous post.
Please do not say this will cost too much....it wont (unless you allow t***s to deliberately make it unworkable)
has approached it the other way.....yes we will need to spread the non vote across both local representation plus the overall (proportional representation aspect)
if it'd been brown at the last election labour would probably have done better. he was robbed!