How can we get a proper democracry?
Discussion
It was mentioned in another thread that we've not had a 'proper' democracy in the UK for decades, if actually ever.
When you think about what a "democracy" is, then most will think that the individual has a say, or at least has a input in to a common desire via voting, that has an influence on the direction of policy making in the nation/region that you reside.
But is that true for the UK?
Likely not, because how often does a party up for election issue a manifesto, and then when elected do not deliver on it?
The other factor, is the UK has in effect, a two party system, whereby the vast majority of the electorate are entrenched in to 'tribally' voting for either 'red' or 'blue', with alternative options having a near zero chance of being elected.
The added frustration is also that an elected party can introduce policies that were not mentioned in their manifesto and which nobody voted for. The agenda by which an elected party sets itself becomes completely out of the control of the electorate. The electorate in this sense is powerless, which opposes the premise of a "democracy".
So what can the general public rally their MPs on to bring about change?
And would they listen or are they all now simply "career politicians" with their only focus on climbing the greasy pole of promotion and salary, for their own self-importance?
When you think about what a "democracy" is, then most will think that the individual has a say, or at least has a input in to a common desire via voting, that has an influence on the direction of policy making in the nation/region that you reside.
But is that true for the UK?
Likely not, because how often does a party up for election issue a manifesto, and then when elected do not deliver on it?
The other factor, is the UK has in effect, a two party system, whereby the vast majority of the electorate are entrenched in to 'tribally' voting for either 'red' or 'blue', with alternative options having a near zero chance of being elected.
The added frustration is also that an elected party can introduce policies that were not mentioned in their manifesto and which nobody voted for. The agenda by which an elected party sets itself becomes completely out of the control of the electorate. The electorate in this sense is powerless, which opposes the premise of a "democracy".
So what can the general public rally their MPs on to bring about change?
And would they listen or are they all now simply "career politicians" with their only focus on climbing the greasy pole of promotion and salary, for their own self-importance?
What's a "proper democracy" ?
When you consider that a large number of people can be persuaded to believe anything, however absurd (see this thread for an example: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... ), how is it possible for democracy to ever be anything other than a sham?
When you consider that a large number of people can be persuaded to believe anything, however absurd (see this thread for an example: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... ), how is it possible for democracy to ever be anything other than a sham?
I think you have to take into account that though we have just two major parties, those parties are in themselves coalitions of people with quite disparate views. There could even be some overlap between them.
At an election we vote for the coalition that suits us best, which in my mind is better than in some other systems where there is a myriad of small parties, and then you have to wait 18 months after an election for a governing coalition to form, with no idea of the political flavour it might eventually have.
At an election we vote for the coalition that suits us best, which in my mind is better than in some other systems where there is a myriad of small parties, and then you have to wait 18 months after an election for a governing coalition to form, with no idea of the political flavour it might eventually have.
I'm not sure why you would elect a party based solely on a manifesto. What would you do if the party stuck rigidly to the manifesto and ignored things like Covid or other external factors.
Most politicians/leaders/prime ministers/presidents are like Captains of small ships in a huge storm fight their way through and hoping they don't capsize.
Most politicians/leaders/prime ministers/presidents are like Captains of small ships in a huge storm fight their way through and hoping they don't capsize.
UK public can and are very vocal but expect them to actually contribute with some effort into the political scene and they are just not interested.
With the abuse many MPs get why anyone would want to serve in this role is quite amazing.
The pay is not great either.
I'm an advocate of some sort of PR which may improve representation but it isn't without its shortcomings.
I'm really disappointed the when Westminster got refurbished the HoC seems to be staying the the same. It should be abandoned and turned into a museum.
Our debating chamber should be more circular to encourage a more collegiate approach.
With the abuse many MPs get why anyone would want to serve in this role is quite amazing.
The pay is not great either.
I'm an advocate of some sort of PR which may improve representation but it isn't without its shortcomings.
I'm really disappointed the when Westminster got refurbished the HoC seems to be staying the the same. It should be abandoned and turned into a museum.
Our debating chamber should be more circular to encourage a more collegiate approach.
Nickgnome said:
UK public can and are very vocal but expect them to actually contribute with some effort into the political scene and they are just not interested.
With the abuse many MPs get why anyone would want to serve in this role is quite amazing.
The pay is not great either.
I'm an advocate of some sort of PR which may improve representation but it isn't without its shortcomings.
I'm really disappointed the when Westminster got refurbished the HoC seems to be staying the the same. It should be abandoned and turned into a museum.
Our debating chamber should be more circular to encourage a more collegiate approach.
We do have a pertition system but populism can be dangerous (I think untill 10 years ago most people like the idea of the death penalty)With the abuse many MPs get why anyone would want to serve in this role is quite amazing.
The pay is not great either.
I'm an advocate of some sort of PR which may improve representation but it isn't without its shortcomings.
I'm really disappointed the when Westminster got refurbished the HoC seems to be staying the the same. It should be abandoned and turned into a museum.
Our debating chamber should be more circular to encourage a more collegiate approach.
They get 80k plus expenses that most people could not dream off an meals are subsidised in the HoC they also don't actually physically have to do much an judging by some its not mentally taxing either
If a new parliament was built I would suggest a virtual one would do fine. Save millions and MPs no longer need huge expenses an travel unless they are a minister
I think brexit was the closest we got to true democracy.
Therein there was a vote, and every single vote counted equally and with equal weight. No first past the post, no boundaries to fiddle with... simply one person one vote.
If we wanted true democracy then we could do with something like this. Have some mechanism to decide what issue/matter/proposal is up for decision and then everyone gets a vote on it, if they want to. By all means have MPs, but the notion of them being "in power" vanishes, as they're there to merely suggest something to vote on, and persuade/lobby people to vote for it.
If you had a mobile app you could have a list of things come up daily, read about them, and then vote one way or another for any you wanted to.
The problem is that firstly you'd need the turkeys to vote for xmas, as in to get rid of themselves, but more over the mechanics for fairly and affordably allowing people to vote for many things every single day, yes even people who can't use the internet to do it, would be a bit tricky. That an electronic voting isn't exactly widely trusted... let alone apps on phones.
Therein there was a vote, and every single vote counted equally and with equal weight. No first past the post, no boundaries to fiddle with... simply one person one vote.
If we wanted true democracy then we could do with something like this. Have some mechanism to decide what issue/matter/proposal is up for decision and then everyone gets a vote on it, if they want to. By all means have MPs, but the notion of them being "in power" vanishes, as they're there to merely suggest something to vote on, and persuade/lobby people to vote for it.
If you had a mobile app you could have a list of things come up daily, read about them, and then vote one way or another for any you wanted to.
The problem is that firstly you'd need the turkeys to vote for xmas, as in to get rid of themselves, but more over the mechanics for fairly and affordably allowing people to vote for many things every single day, yes even people who can't use the internet to do it, would be a bit tricky. That an electronic voting isn't exactly widely trusted... let alone apps on phones.
phil4 said:
... That an electronic voting isn't exactly widely trusted... let alone apps on phones.
Yet it's safe enough to pay your taxes and do your online banking 
The government gateway ID could be used to vote i'm sure. For those that don't have it - well you need to do it the traditional way
Misanthrope said:
What's a "proper democracy" ?
When you consider that a large number of people can be persuaded to believe anything, however absurd (see this thread for an example: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... ), how is it possible for democracy to ever be anything other than a sham?
If it's a true democracy, does that mean every opinion gets a seat in parliament?When you consider that a large number of people can be persuaded to believe anything, however absurd (see this thread for an example: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... ), how is it possible for democracy to ever be anything other than a sham?
For example, you have 10% of the population belonging to a certain belief group - if they always vote in the favour of that belief group, would you want 10% of our laws to be based on that ?
Or is a proper democracy more like a referendum on everything? 51% of the vote gets it?
Edited by s1962a on Friday 18th February 14:34
s1962a said:
Yet it's safe enough to pay your taxes and do your online banking
The government gateway ID could be used to vote i'm sure. For those that don't have it - well you need to do it the traditional way
Fair point... so perhaps it would work. The government gateway ID could be used to vote i'm sure. For those that don't have it - well you need to do it the traditional way
I get your % representation idea... and if we do give every person an equal say, one of two things would occur... the 10% would either never have a law passed because the other 90% disagreed, or they'd get more than they do now, by virtue of some ideas not being voted against or perhaps even voted on at all by the other 90%
I suspect the later.
What do you mean by a true democracy?
If we had a vote for everything then you would still see upto 49% of the population not getting what they wanted on any particular policy.
Then you have the issue of people not understanding the wider impact of what they vote for. High earners would vote for lower taxes, poorer people would vote for higher benefits etc. Simple binary questions would get simple binary results.
That's why we have a representative democracy.
If we had a vote for everything then you would still see upto 49% of the population not getting what they wanted on any particular policy.
Then you have the issue of people not understanding the wider impact of what they vote for. High earners would vote for lower taxes, poorer people would vote for higher benefits etc. Simple binary questions would get simple binary results.
That's why we have a representative democracy.
Edited by 98elise on Friday 18th February 16:35
98elise said:
That's why we have a representative democracy.
Surely we have representative to make things easier? Ie. back when it all started, we could have the entire population voting, so we all picked someone to try and represent our views.
So instead of the 49% always losing, now they're just grouped together behind representatives that also don't get anything for those 49%.
Biker 1 said:
What I don't understand is that seemingly every new rule our great leadership devises, is basically killjoy.
Is there a party out there that could actually make the UK a bit more, you know, fun again?
This is the real problem for democracy. Most people define it as "people making rules that I agree with". Which is rather missing the point.Is there a party out there that could actually make the UK a bit more, you know, fun again?
phil4 said:
I think brexit was the closest we got to true democracy.
It was interesting that a couple of single-issue parties popped up around Brexit, and they did quite well in elections where/when they were needed. Suggests to me that people are happy enough with the two main parties, but would go 'direct' if the issue was big enough.phil4 said:
98elise said:
That's why we have a representative democracy.
Surely we have representative to make things easier? Ie. back when it all started, we could have the entire population voting, so we all picked someone to try and represent our views.
So instead of the 49% always losing, now they're just grouped together behind representatives that also don't get anything for those 49%.
No democratic process is going to make every happy. If you have to make decisions it's because there are opposing views.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff