Europe

[Furunculus]

1. You are quite sold on this "will of the British people" thing aren't you?

2. Permit me a question or two (beyond the obvious How do you impartialy measure it?):
-Would you follow the "will of the British people" even if they disagreed with you?
-Would you follow the "will of the British people" even if you knew that what they wanted was impractical, flawed or dangerous?

3. Personaly I'm deeply suspicious of anyone purporting to follow the "will of the people", it's just populism. Firstly, It sounds to me like ridding a white rhino, secondly I'm concerned about the nut-job who would get on it -and exactly what scruples they do have.

4. Given the drivel in the media, can you actually trust the people it informs? I'm cautious at best.

1. yes. it's called political representation and i'm a big fan.

2. yes, because i trust that there is nothing so contentious that it would cause me to split with my 'people'. i have this trust because i am the product of our shared social and cultural history, just as are they.
yes, because i trust that there is nothing so contentious that it would cause me to split with my 'people'. i have this trust because i am the product of our shared social and cultural history, just as are they.

3. personally, i have sufficient faith in the strength of our social and cultural institutions that i am willing to trust my 'family' to act in a manner that i can abide. we are not some tin-pot continental country recently reprieved from dictatorship, nor brutalised by fifty years of ideological oppression, or have a recent history dotted with revolutions. we have been free and represented for 350 years, there is no need for proportional representation to disallow tyrants and demagogues from the levers of power.

4. in Britain, those of over 18 years of age and sound mind are considered legally responsible, adults in short. i prefer to treat the adult population of britain as capable and responsible of acting in an adult manner............ and punishing those who fail to do so. treating people as infants for whom every action and thought must be proscibed and regulated inevitably infantilises that population.

[al Roumi]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

oh i will, i will always fight to ensure a representative Britain.

whether i like the result or not.
have i not said in the past that i would accept (grudgingly) a federal EU with Britain a active and positive participant, if that is what the people wanted?

while the people are not given that choice, and especially so when the people appear to be opposed, then the result of pursuing the default course of ever-deeper-union is both un-representative and tyrannical.

but you guys won't have a problem with that; tyranny of the majority just being another slogan to shout whenever anyone threatens your post-national liberal* project. ;)

* in the modern nannying sense, rather the the more noble original.

1. yes. it's called political representation and i'm a big fan.

2. yes, because i trust that there is nothing so contentious that it would cause me to split with my 'people'. i have this trust because i am the product of our shared social and cultural history, just as are they.
yes, because i trust that there is nothing so contentious that it would cause me to split with my 'people'. i have this trust because i am the product of our shared social and cultural history, just as are they.

3. personally, i have sufficient faith in the strength of our social and cultural institutions that i am willing to trust my 'family' to act in a manner that i can abide. we are not some tin-pot continental country recently reprieved from dictatorship, nor brutalised by fifty years of ideological oppression, or have a recent history dotted with revolutions. we have been free and represented for 350 years, there is no need for proportional representation to disallow tyrants and demagogues from the levers of power.

Furunculus, are you by any chance an idealist?

You look increasingly like an anarchist for the total democracy you seem to desire.

I think you are also shaky on the "free and represented for 350 years", I would entreat you to find out more on who was represented and who was free -and dare I say at the expense of whom, during these glorious 350 years.

You might find the odd "oppressed mass" or two, both in the UK and overseas.

But never mind, we're a boiler-plate post-colonialist only-recently-relegated superpower, still "punching above our weight", right?

[Furunculus]

Furunculus, are you by any chance an idealist?

You look increasingly like an anarchist for the total democracy you seem to desire.

I think you are also shaky on the "free and represented for 350 years", I would entreat you to find out more on who was represented and who was free -and dare I say at the expense of whom, during these glorious 350 years.
You might find the odd "oppressed mass" or two, both in the UK and overseas.

But never mind, we're a boiler-plate post-colonialist only-recently-relegated superpower, still "punching above our weight", right?

a little yes, because i believe we have a system worth fighting for.

not total democracy, just representative democracy.

you mean things weren't perfect back-in-the-day? gee wizz, would never have guessed! i think the record of a stable and plural civil society is pretty good in Britain relatively speaking, any complaints with that statement?

is there anything wrong with the statement you quote?

[al Roumi]

a little yes, because i believe we have a system worth fighting for.

not total democracy, just representative democracy.

you mean things weren't perfect back-in-the-day? gee wizz, would never have guessed! i think the record of a stable and plural civil society is pretty good in Britain relatively speaking, any complaints with that statement?

Aww man, I wish. I wish we, or anyone, had a truly representative democracy. I wish society was able to cope with such a thing! Frankly, wishing for proper democracy and representation is wishing for a utopian ideal, you might say as crazy as wishing for a working form of communism.

On what basis do you think elections are won? Issues and Manifestos? Emotions? Personalities? Marketing? What the media say? What the people who own the media want?

The elected representatives, according to what criteria are they put forwards? Impartiality? Suitability for the job? Internal party politics? Who they know? Who they pay off?

And what about the electorate? Do they have the first clue about the consequences of political and budgetary decisions? Is there any way they can be appropriately informed by a sensationalist, commercialised and news-as-entertainment media?

1 single example, look at the responses to the spending cuts requried by the recession: everyone says it is neccessary to cut government spending, but won't actually take the hit on Education, Health or anything else that they value! How helpfull is the "will of british people" then???

IMO you have to be a loony or a complete tosser to go into politics, but ultimately the poor buggers in office are faced with some seriously difficult decisions. At the best of times they will always p!ss someone off and ultimately those decisions will all snowball and they'll end up faced with an electorate who are bored with their face and voice, and want some other prat to talk ernestly to them!

As Churchill said: democracy is not the best form of government, but it is better than the alternatives (or something simmilar).

But don't for one second kid yourself that it's anything to be particularily proud of. It can only ever be "less bad" than something else.

[Furunculus]

Aww man, I wish. I wish we, or anyone, had a truly representative democracy. I wish society was able to cope with such a thing! Frankly, wishing for proper democracy and representation is wishing for a utopian ideal, you might say as crazy as wishing for a working form of communism.

On what basis do you think elections are won? Issues and Manifestos? Emotions? Personalities? Marketing? What the media say? What the people who own the media want?

The elected representatives, according to what criteria are they put forwards? Impartiality? Suitability for the job? Internal party politics? Who they know? Who they pay off?

And what about the electorate? Do they have the first clue about the consequences of political and budgetary decisions? Is there any way they can be appropriately informed by a sensationalist, commercialised and news-as-entertainment media?

1 single example, look at the responses to the spending cuts requried by the recession: everyone says it is neccessary to cut government spending, but won't actually take the hit on Education, Health or anything else that they value! How helpfull is the "will of british people" then???

IMO you have to be a loony or a complete tosser to go into politics, but ultimately the poor buggers in office are faced with some seriously difficult decisions. At the best of times they will always p!ss someone off and ultimately those decisions will all snowball and they'll end up faced with an electorate who are bored with their face and voice, and want some other prat to talk ernestly to them!

As Churchill said: democracy is not the best form of government, but it is better than the alternatives (or something simmilar).

But don't for one second kid yourself that it's anything to be particularily proud of. It can only ever be "less bad" than something else.

there really isn't a useful response to this other than to say; no kidding.

i agree and concur that these are the problems faced, but that will not stop me advocating a political system that does its best to represent the will of the people, because the alternative is tyranny, and varying intermediate steps on the way to tyranny.

[al Roumi]

i agree and concur that these are the problems faced, but that will not stop me advocating a political system that does its best to represent the will of the people.

Honestly, I find it hard to seperate what you advocate from anarchy or government by plebiscite.

Neither of which are at all guarantors of the stability you applaud. Stability has historicaly been maintained by the haves, and undermined by the have-nots (who would like to have, and thus have a jolly good -and unstable- upheaval during or as a result of their acquisition).

If the UK has been stable as you assert, its because it was definitley not a plural and open society. Historicaly, the UK gave little and selectively enough to dampen social upheaval and maintain the staus-quo for the haves.

The ruling parliaments of GB were cautious to learn from others' mistakes -as in the French revolution (which started as a power grab by middle class property owners, which GB celebrated as freedom from tyranny, and was co-opted by working class/artisans, which horrified the ruling class of GB).

[Furunculus]

Honestly, I find it hard to seperate what you advocate from anarchy or government by plebiscite.

Neither of which are at all guarantors of the stability you applaud. Stability has historicaly been maintained by the haves, and undermined by the have-nots (who would like to have, and thus have a jolly good -and unstable- upheaval during or as a result of their acquisition).

If the UK has been stable as you assert, its because it was definitley not a plural and open society. Historicaly, the UK gave little and selectively enough to dampen social upheaval and maintain the staus-quo for the haves.

The ruling parliaments of GB were cautious to learn from others' mistakes -as in the French revolution (which started as a power grab by middle class property owners, which GB celebrated as freedom from tyranny, and was co-opted by working class/artisans, which horrified the ruling class of GB).

i fail to see why you think i have a thing for anarchy or direct democracy.

I am a fan of neither, i am in fact a fan of letting the government take the tough decisions that people (as a crowd) would always shout down. but for this to work the people have to be able to weigh the decision makers on the merits of their decisions and then cast a vote of approval or disproval at the next election. that is neither of the ideas which you suggest i hold.

Where my enthusiasm for representation comes from is when the system described above fails; i.e a consensus forms between the two poles of politics that a given policy is-the-way-forward and the disatisfaction of the voter is to be disregarded.

it is a contemptuousness of the voter that will only breed contempt from the voter for his political 'masters'.

and you can tell when this has happened in a stable polity like Britain because the poles of British politics no longer dominate the ballot sheet results.
examples of this include:
> both parties letting too many immigants into the country (particularly labour) which has resulted in 1,000,000 BNP votes at the last euro election. only now are senior Labour figures beginning to admit they made a mistake after 12 years of chaos.
> both parties holding a greater enthusiasm for ever-deeper-union than its electorate, and repeatedly lieing to the voters about each new level of integration that wasn't happening, thus do we have UKIP.

this is a failure to represent because there is no opportunity to punish a bad decision within the mainstream of politics, and thus do the les pleasant and less credible fringes flourish. if you can't kick out those who hold with decisions with which you disagree then you are not represented.

so please, control any urge to travel further down this intellectual dead-end about direct democracy or anarchy as the only end-result of being enthusiastic about representative democracy.



here's a clue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives; that is, not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.

[al Roumi]

With apologies to the esteemed Mods for this double post...

you mean things weren't perfect back-in-the-day? gee wizz, would never have guessed! i think the record of a stable and plural civil society is pretty good in Britain relatively speaking, any complaints with that statement?

How do you judge society to be stable and plural I wonder? Plural is an easier one to look at, so lets have a quick look at how inclusive Britain has been... this list is not by any means going to be definitive, but I'll try to bring out some important milestones or positive steps.

Suffrage in the United Kingdom was slowly changed over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries to allow universal suffrage through the use of the Reform Acts and the Representation of the People Acts.

Reform Act 1832 - extended voting rights to adult males who rented propertied land of a certain value, so allowing 1 in 7 males in the UK voting rights
Reform Act 1867 - enfranchised all male householders, so increasing male suffrage to the United Kingdom
Representation of the People Act 1884 - amended the Reform Act of 1867 so that it would apply equally to the countryside; this brought the voting population to 5,500,000, although 40% of males were still disenfranchised, whilst women could not vote
Representation of the People Act 1918 - the consequences of World War I persuaded the government to expand the right to vote, not only for the many men who fought in the war who were disenfranchised, but also for the women who helped in the factories and elsewhere as part of the war effort. Property restrictions for voting were lifted for men, who could vote at 21; however women's votes were given with these property restrictions, and were limited to those over 30 years old. This raised the electorate from 7.7 million to 21.4 million with women making up 40% of the electorate. Seven percent of the electorate had more than one vote. The first election with this system was the United Kingdom general election, 1918
Representation of the People Act 1928 - this made women's voting rights equal with men, with voting possible at 21 with no property restrictions
Representation of the People Act 1948 - the act was passed to prevent plural voting
Representation of the People Act 1969 - extension of suffrage to those 18 and older

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage

So, up untill 1928, only the upper/middle classes could vote -while 1832 saw only 1 in 7 of the male population with a vote. Up untill 1948, some people had more than 1 vote (e.g. extra votes for having a degree, owning a certain ammount of capital, owning properties in different constituencies etc), elections were literaly biased in the favour of the views of the few.

Just how is that open and plural?

is there anything wrong with the statement you quote?

Do you know what hubris is?

[Furunculus]

How do you judge society to be stable and plural I wonder? Plural is an easier one to look at, so lets have a quick look at how inclusive Britain has been... this list is not by any means going to be definitive, but I'll try to bring out some important milestones or positive steps.
So, up untill 1928, only the upper/middle classes could vote -while 1832 saw only 1 in 7 of the male population with a vote. Up untill 1948, some people had more than 1 vote (e.g. extra votes for having a degree, owning a certain ammount of capital, owning properties in different constituencies etc), elections were literaly biased in the favour of the views of the few.
Just how is that open and plural?



Do you know what hubris is?

you missed the "relatively" in my statement. as i inferred earlier; i recognise that human history evolved from cavemen with clubs rather than Elysium.

lol, yes, however the opposite is equally as damaging a trait, and i find it far more common in Britain.

[Subotan]

You might find the odd "oppressed mass" or two, both in the UK and overseas.

With one nation in particular enduring particular oppression. The British Empire was built upon the bones of millions of Indians.