thetrees Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 a royal family orrepublic is all about democracy and you made a statement which you can back up with either evidence or a country you feel that fits the bill On that basis Ian would you argue that the USA, the most prominent republic in the world, is more democratic than the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 yes it is at many levels they have far more votes, for local sheriffs, for legislation etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted May 22, 2008 Author Share Posted May 22, 2008 I've yet to see a convincing argument to keep the royal family Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Me neither... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted May 22, 2008 Author Share Posted May 22, 2008 I just fail to see what they bring to anything and IMO we would be no worse off without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 We are all born equal, respect is earned and we are all accountable. Core principals we should all value, live by or strive for - none of them are represented by Monarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 We are all born equal, An argument for 100% inheritance tax if ever there was one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 yes it is at many levels they have far more votes, for local sheriffs, for legislation etc. Voting = democracy = freedom? A couple of false links there, I think. For example, a vote between two candidates who essentially stand for the same thing is not a real choice. A democracy which takes freedom away from a minority group is not a free society. This idea that we can vote on a few very narrowly constrained topics between people who essentially have the same standpoint and therefore we are free is just a way of misleading people, to head off revolt. The US is if anything even worse than us, in that the candidates standing have barely any perceptible difference between them (except to people who are so close to it that the minute differences seem a real choice). Hobbes argued that the legitimacy of government was based on its "contract" to protect the population from harm. A reasonable proposition. So when a government makes active plans to increase the risk to its population, by inviting a foreign country to base nuclear arms on our soil in preparation for aggressive action against a third party, and makes plans for managing the deaths of millions arising from miltary retaliation to this strike and suppressing the revolt which follows, as our government did throughout the 80's, where does that leave either the proud boasts about "democracy" or the legitimacy of the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Peter I accept that to some degree but what are freedomws anyway and what is democrqacy to everyone it means something different. I mean for example in this country it is extremely difficult in terms of social mobility for a working class bloke to get into a position of power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Especially when so many of the leading members of the "workers party" come from a privileged public skule background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 as mentioned before it seems like that the only way any poltician can be one is from this kind of background 'normal' people don't stand a chance !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 24, 2008 Moderator Share Posted May 24, 2008 as mentioned before it seems like that the only way any politician can be one is from this kind of background 'normal' people don't stand a chance !! Thats only in the dual tory party state we live in. Look at the LibDems (and as much as I hate saying this), they have a certain Prof Steven Webb as an MP, who was touted by a few as their next leader in the last contest but he stepped aside to support one of the other candidates. Yes he's Oxbridge educated, yes he's a very clever man but public school, nope nothing of the sort. He went to Dartmouth High School at the same time as me, in the same year as me and he lived just the other side of the mental hospital from you Ian on the Whitecrest estate, hardly the dwelling of an upwardly mobile family in the seventies, distinctly working class. Its perfectly possible to be a politician and not from a "privileged" background. Unfortunately its not possible to be a politician and not tied to some form of fuckwittery known as a political party..............though the time will come and hopefully sooner rather than later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 but he had to go to to oxbridge to get a doctorate and then later in life when comfortable he could move into poltics. the background I mean is university educated or a professional one It does seem that a normal person who has worked akk their life with no uni background struggles to get in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 'normal' people don't stand a chance !! I really think that you need to clarify what you regard as normal, Ian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 just did as above ... I mean sometimes it happens of course sometimes by fluke but of all the cabinet and shadow how many did NOT attend uni ? Alan Johnson was a postie is the only one I can think of (BTW I thought he should have become PM) that is the problem I bet in this country a non university educated person could not get elected as PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Peter I accept that to some degree but what are freedomws anyway and what is democrqacy to everyone it means something different. *cough* *cough* I must refer back to a post from last night: Without defining freedom and what you mean by it, Ian, then the argument is pointless. .... not true snowy you and I both know what the general term Freedom means.. Is this some sort of merry-go-round onto which I have climbed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 not at all freedom as a generic term is obvious, it is waht we are doing now, open debates, freedo of speech etc. where we woud differ is how far these can go does total freedom of speech allow for somoen to preach hate (of whatever kind ) on the street for example ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 just did as above ... I mean sometimes it happens of course sometimes by fluke but of all the cabinet and shadow how many did NOT attend uni ? Alan Johnson was a postie is the only one I can think of (BTW I thought he should have become PM) that is the problem I bet in this country a non university educated person could not get elected as PM So if someone is educated outside the state sector (either public school or grammar school) or goes on to higher education or tries to learn something or attempts to educate themselves, etc. they stop being normal? Under this government's wonderful idea of trying to get every man, woman, dog and budgerigar a degree that would mean that they all disqualify themselves from being normal, would it? How about someone who takes an OU course? Vocational evening classes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 most peopel in this country are NOT university educated are they ? most normal people in this country went straight into work after school to have the cabinet and shadow be what nealry 100% uni educated is unrepresentative of this country got nothing to do with class at all as all class's go to uni but politics now is for the professional and thus a lot are out of touch in what the rest of the country do or think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 not at all freedom as a generic term is obvious What are you on about? Do you mean free will? Do you mean not being physically in chains? Do you mean not being mentally shackled by the society in which you are living? Do you mean not being constrained in the way in which one chooses to live by peer pressure, arbitrary government influence or a nagging 'other half'? it is waht we are doing now, open debates, freedo of speech etc. This is not a good example of freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts