Popular Post snowychap Posted September 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted September 22, 2019 (edited) On 21/09/2019 at 06:20, Mic09 said: How is a referendum not the most direct democratic tool available? Whether you like referendums/democracy or not, surely this can't be argued? You didn't it call it the most 'direct democratic tool', you said that it was 'the most democratic vote there is'. What is implicit in this is creating a hierarchy of democracy that puts direct democracy above representative democracy and it then allows people to pursue a narrative that a referendum result therefore trumps the entire representative system in which this particular example of direct democracy sits. Sure, a referendum is more 'direct' than a vote for [something via] a representative - I don't think anyone would waste their time arguing against that. However, any claim that it being more direct makes it more democratic rather than differently democratic is very much open to argument. That's before we get in to fetishism of democracy, tyranny of the majority, the extent of the franchise, 'will of the people', individuals claiming to speak on behalf of a non-homogenous voting group, &c. Edited September 22, 2019 by snowychap 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Dr_Pangloss Posted September 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted September 22, 2019 (edited) People don't understand the system we live in. Also how can it possibly be desirable to put the big decisions directly to the 'people'. The vast majority of people either do not have the time to completely understand the big issues or the intelligence to understand them. Edited September 22, 2019 by Dr_Pangloss 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 21 hours ago, choffer said: Not saying it’s necessarily connected... 30 years straight of economic growth and old Poles still unhappy with the direction of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 22, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted September 22, 2019 1 hour ago, blandy said: Peace loving Switzerland, Ireland and others use referenda for major changes. It’s not referenda themselves that are necessarily the flaw, more the way ours was subject to so much dishonesty, cheating and so on was a major factor as well as a lack of information about what we were actually, in reality, voting for. Well, yes. They may work in civilised countries. Not here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post PompeyVillan Posted September 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted September 22, 2019 1 hour ago, snowychap said: You didn't it call it the most 'direct democratic tool', you said that it was 'the most democratic vote there is'. What is implicit in this is creating a hierarchy of democracy that puts direct democracy above representative democracy and it then allows people to pursue a narrative that a referendum result therefore trumps the entire representative system in which this particular example of direct democracy sits. Sure, a referendum is more 'direct' than a vote for [something via] a representative - I don't think anyone would waste their time arguing against that. However, any claim that it being more direct makes it more democratic rather than differently democratic is very much open to argument. That's before we get in to fetishism of democracy, tyranny of the majority, the extent of the franchise, 'will of the people', individuals claiming to speak on behalf of a non-homogenous voting group, &c. I think this is a very good point indeed. The accepted narrative both in the media and within the rhetoric of the pro Leave camps is that the (marginal) referendum result should trump any other democratic process. Not only should it trump any other democratic process, it should be taken to the extreme end of the Brexit spectrum. It's created a situation where a significant proportion of the electorate support a Prime Minister that will bypass parliament and are happy for him to break the law. Ironically, they want to undermine our democracy, but they see it as wanting to uphold the result of the referendum. Unfortunately, this issue has become so polarised there is no sensible public debate on it. The reality is, Brexit is 95% a grey area, but most people will position themselves in the black and white ends without considering the importance of the grey. That doesn't make sense really, but basically Brexit is ridiculous and becomes more ridiculous every day. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 On 21/09/2019 at 12:12, choffer said: Not saying it’s necessarily connected... Two happiest are brutal dictatorships who will see you executed for talking out of turn. Two unhappiest are possibly the most culturally diverse countries in the western world. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 22, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted September 22, 2019 21 minutes ago, Xela said: Two happiest are brutal dictatorships who will see you executed for talking out of turn. Two unhappiest are possibly the most culturally diverse countries in the western world. Doesn't really mean a thing, does it? Some will not like "the direction this country is going in" because they think there's too much diversity, too many immigrants, too much lefty political correctness. Others will dislike the perceived "direction" as being too monocultural, right wing, racist, reactionary. Take your pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Xela Posted September 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted September 22, 2019 Just now, mjmooney said: Doesn't really mean a thing, does it? Some will not like "the direction this country is going in" because they think there's too much diversity, too many immigrants, too much lefty political correctness. Others will dislike the perceived "direction" as being too monocultural, right wing, racist, reactionary. Take your pick. Exactly, that was my point. The poll is kind of pointless without context. i'd rather be pessimistic in the UK or France than be optimistic in Saudi Arabia or Israel. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A'Villan Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 On 18/09/2019 at 07:45, NurembergVillan said: We could get @A'Villan to write it This has me grinning ear to ear. You know I'm the one for the job. I think I would start right where it all began with an etymology lesson.. "Poly" derives from Latin and means "many", "ticks" means "multiple blood sucking parasites" and derives from people getting stung. And that is how it came to be known as "politics" by the assembly of "many blood-sucking parasites" doing as they do. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted September 23, 2019 Moderator Share Posted September 23, 2019 15 minutes ago, A'Villan said: This has me grinning ear to ear. You know I'm the one for the job. Glad you took it the way it was intended! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 On 22/09/2019 at 09:09, Dr_Pangloss said: People don't understand the system we live in. Also how can it possibly be desirable to put the big decisions directly to the 'people'. The vast majority of people either do not have the time to completely understand the big issues or the intelligence to understand them. So if I claim that I have the time and intelligence to understand these things and you don't, would you accept that? If I support my claim with echoes from popular media saying that lots of people support something, is that ok, does it confer validity?, I'm unclear where you're aiming here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 8 minutes ago, peterms said: So if I claim that I have the time and intelligence to understand these things and you don't, would you accept that? If I support my claim with echoes from popular media saying that lots of people support something, is that ok, does it confer validity?, I'm unclear where you're aiming here. Democracy in a nutshell. We don't decide right or wrong based on validity and accuracy of a claim, but mostly on its popularity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackbauer24 Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 If we're debating referendums vs politicians, I have long argued that it should kind of be a mixture of the two - elected officials voting on many issues. My belief is the party system doesn't work. It creates a tribalism style voting pattern from generations who 'couldn't' vote for x party in their geographical areas, it creates situations were questioning authority is rewarded with banishment from the party and it creates 'career' politicians who act based on their job aspirations and not for their community or country. I would want 650 independent MPs. Elected based on the individual rather than the party. It would also force the electorate to understand their representative better. 650 MPs turn up at Parliament and vote for practically everything from the Prime Minister, to who runs which department to the laws of the land. To be in charge of, say Education, you need to know about Education. MPs should be qualified in the area they lead - to know that industry. It's only politics where the boss can one week be in charge of Nuclear Weapons and the next week be caring about whether 5 year old should know their phonics. It's ridiculous when you think about it. Would we not have a broader selection of society if we elected the individual rather than the same Eton cohorts pulled up by the big political parties too? The only thing I see parties providing is a simple, dumbed down version, of each person that makes them easy to vote for as, "if they're x party they must support x,y and z policies and I don't need to know them" which is false anyway as it takes away any individuality but is also proven to be a waste of time when politicians bounce from party to party anyway after being elected. 650 people, pulling in the same direction, directly responsible for areas they are qualified to talk about, working like a business run by shareholders (the public). I'm sure there is a lot more complexity to it than that but, on principle, I can't see why it doesn't work. Completely irrelevant as it'll never happen but... 650 politicians with a free vote on everything, working every day to understand an issue rather than be whipped one way or the other seems to make sense to me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A'Villan Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 On 22/09/2019 at 18:09, Dr_Pangloss said: People don't understand the system we live in. Also how can it possibly be desirable to put the big decisions directly to the 'people'. The vast majority of people either do not have the time to completely understand the big issues or the intelligence to understand them. Don't mistake our silence for ignorance, our calmness for acceptance, our kindness for weakness. We know who we are and what we are capable of, you'd be wise not to underestimate us. We saw the rise and we are going to be here for the fall. Capitalism and democracy are not synonymous. You tell me which of the two holds true to our society, as it is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 7 hours ago, A'Villan said: Don't mistake our silence for ignorance, our calmness for acceptance, our kindness for weakness. We know who we are and what we are capable of, you'd be wise not to underestimate us. We saw the rise and we are going to be here for the fall. Capitalism and democracy are not synonymous. You tell me which of the two holds true to our society, as it is. Lol ok... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A'Villan Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Dr_Pangloss said: Lol ok... Sorry @Dr_Pangloss!! I'm a bit embarrassed by that one and your response is apt. You have probably figured out by now that I can get on my soapbox.. The post wasn't necessarily directed at you, except for the last line. Which you are free to answer if you feel inclined. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 So if Boris is found to be acting unlawfully will he get a punishment? It seems like when politicians break the law they are allowed to reverse the act and that is that. If I rob a bank and get caught, will they let me off if I return the money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Genie said: So if Boris is found to be acting unlawfully will he get a punishment? It seems like when politicians break the law they are allowed to reverse the act and that is that. If I rob a bank and get caught, will they let me off if I return the money? Depends on whether you own/ run the bank or not. Edited September 24, 2019 by Dr_Pangloss 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said: Depends on whether you own/ run the bank or not. Pretty sure I'd still be jailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts