What do you understand by the concept of Democracy?

[bitchstewie]

Moonhawk said:

The goalposts must be allowed to shift a certain amount though. Plenty of governments have implemented policies mid or late term that were not scoped out in their manifesto.

If we had to hold a new GE every time a government tried to implement policy that wasn't declared in a manifesto - we'd be in a never ending cycle of GEs.

Agree entirely, point being it's the size of shift that probably should determine it and ask 100 people and they'll all have different views which is fine with me.

[GetCarter]

Democracy means that from time to time we let the lunatics run the asylum.

[Octoposse]

I think most people have missed the single (by a factor!) unique advantage of democracy . . . it enables change of government without hanging people from lamposts or using cluster munitions in built up areas. It also makes violent resistance to the doings of that government illegitimate.

Yes, I’d love to see ‘better’ democracy (constitutional reform, voting reform, proportional representation, elected upper house, full federal system in the UK, etc, etc) and less idiocy in public policy, but the big picture is that everything is pretty rosy (using Syria or Ukraine as admittedly low bars).

[Randy Winkman]

crankedup said:

Eric Mc said:

The least important aspect of democracy is voting.

In order of importance (to me) -

freedom of speech
an independent legal system
freedom of the press
the right to vote
general tolerance of the other person's point of view

Spot on also would add freedom to 'come and go' as we please, within legal boundaries.

It's odd that freedom of movement is the one freedom lots of right wingers don't like much.

[Thorodin]

Who said the EU was running a democracy? if the Brexit vote was democratically valid - a subtle shift- it has resulted in the UK leaving a clearly non-democratic entity. That in itself is a democracy at work and entirely valid.

If you want to overrun anything you do so by stealth or small increments, just as in 1973. And then again in 1975. What we have is a national democracy being governed by a supra-national authoritarian assembly, not dissimilar to communism, only with the illusion that citizen votes have value. That was probably the least reported reason the B. vote went the way it did.

[robemcdonald]

bhstewie said:

It's an interesting thread and part of me can't help but think that some people want democracy when it suits them.

If Teresa May came out today and said "We've fked up royally, we get it, income tax is going up 5p in the pound for everyone" would you honestly say "Fine, five more years but hey, it's what we voted for"?

I suspect not because the goalposts would have shifted.

If we're talking about Brexit then personally I don't think the goalposts have moved sufficiently to justify another referendum/vote yet but I can understand people asking for a debate about whether there should be another referendum when we know what the deal will be.

It depends.
If Teresa May said "We've fked up royally, we get it, income tax is going up 5p in the pound for everyone. With this extra money we will improve social care and better fund the NHS" I would say OK.
If Teresa May said "We've fked up royally, due to my hubris we no longer have a majority and have to cut a deal with the DUP. As a result income tax is going up 5p in the pound for everyone to finance the pay off" I would say no.

[Moonhawk]

Randy Winkman said:

It's odd that freedom of movement is the one freedom lots of right wingers don't like much.

I don't think its the "freedom of movement part" most have an issue with - it's the "within legal boundaries" part.

[Randy Winkman]

Moonhawk said:

Randy Winkman said:

It's odd that freedom of movement is the one freedom lots of right wingers don't like much.

I don't think its the "freedom of movement part" most have an issue with - it's the "within legal boundaries" part.

So it's a case of "not too much freedom of movement" is it?

[Kermit power]

robemcdonald said:

Kermit power said:

robemcdonald said:

Kermit power said:

To my mind, the death knell of democracy is Universal Suffrage.

If everyone who contributes into a pot gets a vote on how it is spent, then reasonable democracy can continue.

Once you start letting people who don't contribute to the pot vote on how it gets spent, especially when you allow more to be spent than is put in the pot, how can democracy ultimately survive?

It's not a rapid process, maybe, but it seems we're well on the way there, and it's going to be a difficult stable door to lock even if the horse hasn't already bolted.

I have to disagree with this.

Everyone should have a vote and they should be all worth the same.

Remember that although the tax paid by the wealthy is at a high, the percentage of their income they pay compared to the average tax payer is at an all time low.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/low...

They are paying a greater amount simply because they are making more money in the first place.

The only thing I would change is making voting madatory. Show up and spoil your paper if you like, but show up.

That may well be the case, but how do you address the current issue we have where large swathes of the population can vote for benefits dangled before them, safe in the knowledge that they'll never have to pay for them themselves, leading to huge levels of national debt?

Anyone with half a brain can see that the welfare bill is far, far to expensive to ever be sustainable as it is, yet no government can do anything significant about it, because all the recipients get a vote on whether to keep them in power.

Putting it on a micro level, when we go out for a family meal with my parents, sometimes we split the bill and agree on where we're going to go. Other times, being grandparents, they like to treat us and take us out for a meal. In that case, we'll go where they want to go, and be grateful that we've been treated to a meal out.

If we were going to apply the current model of democracy, then the next time my parents say they want to take us out to a local pub, we could outvote them by 5 to 2 and say we want them to foot the bill for us at the Manoir aux Quatre Saisons instead. How long do you think it would be before they stopped offering to take us out for a meal?

I see your point, but don't agree. The people on benefits aren't dictating where we go for dinner are they. It's more like basic survival. At the same time they see people at the top that are paying less in tax (as a percentage of income) then ever before. It's easy to see why people get miffed.
There seems to be a general opinion in the UK that if you want the poor to work harder you pay them less and to get the rich to work harder you pay them more. The surprise is that many that fit into the former group seem to agree. I suppose the thought process is that sooner or later we will be the ones at the top of the pile.

Granted, the analogy doesn't fit 100%, but it was as close as I could get with a real life example.

The fact remains that we have a system which has become horrendously unsustainable because multiple generations of unscrupulous politicians have dangled shiny baubles in front of people who have the right to vote for the baubles to be made, but have absolutely no share in paying for the cost of making them. How can that possibly be sustainable?

Granted, back in the days of only 427 men and a shaved gorilla called Bernard being allowed to vote, things were skewed too far the other way, but at least back then, no party could say "we're going to give baubles to the masses" to win an election, as every single voter would've been a significant contributor, and would've simply said "no, you're not, because we're not going to vote for you with those ludicrously irresponsible financial plans!"

Now, though, if you've got the top 1% paying 30% of income tax and the bottom 30% paying no income tax at all (numbers have not been checked for accuracy), then the top 1%, despite paying vast amounts in, is effectively disenfranchised, as their voice will never be heard at the ballot box compared to the 30% who aren't contributing at all. How can that be fair?

As I see it, there are two fair options.

1. You earn the right to vote after you have paid income tax for at least five years, with exemptions for those truly too disabled to do any work of any kind, after which, you retain the right to vote for life, with the hope that you'll remember what it's like to see that deduction on your pay slip and remember that real people have to pay for those baubles, not the magic money tree. Allow those earning below the tax threshold the option to pay a voluntary 10% tax to earn the right to vote.

2. Abolish every single personal tax except for VAT. All governments and potential governments are then forced to publish their spending plans in the form of one single number that will hit everyone equally on their spending on non-exempted items such as groceries and other essentials.

Kicking into rant mode overdrive, that reminds me that there are TWO nails in the coffin of democracy. One is the lunacy of allowing people to say how we should spend money when none of it is theirs, and the other is a tax code which has grown so complex (as has happened in pretty much every "democratic" nation) that every party of every hue can find ways of screwing people over a little bit at a time here there and everywhere, to the point where none of us (with the possible exception of Eric Mc and the other accountants if they gave up their day jobs) would really be able to figure out which party was going to cost us the most!

Think about it for a moment. If you're on £45k a year - a decent salary, but certainly not wealthy - then you're going to be paying £7,626.60 a year, which sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

Except of course you've then got £4,138.28 in NI. And if you dare to use 80 litres of petrol a month, that'll be another £600 in duty alone. Then let's add on VED, the tax they charge you for the privilege of insuring your car, 19.08p and 20% of the cost of the pint for very beer you have, etc, etc, etc... If all of that was replaced with a single VAT rate, there would probably be an immediate revolution tomorrow!

[Thorodin]

With apologies to an earlier poster:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin.

[Wiccan of Darkness]

I haven't read the whole thread as I have a splitting headache, but from what I see, democracy is probably the best system of keeping plebs in check.

Here's how I see it. Stuff needs to be done. Decisions need to be made. Someone, somewhere, has to be responsible for making those decisions. so here's what we do.

We all go and vote for whoever we want to make these decisions on our behalf. They then get elected. As the electorate, we give a group of people a mandate, based on a manifesto, that they can do these things.

This is where democracy seems to break down. Once elected, the electorate have no direct mandate to make these people do what we want. Those elected now have to consider a lot of things before making a decision and make those decisions based on what is in the best interests of the majority of the electorate and for the future of society as a whole.

Take brexit as the first example. People voted 52% to 48% to leave the EU. Now, it is up to the people we elect, to deliver that. WE have to trust them to give us the best result. We voted, we gave them the mandate, now it is up to those we elected to deliver a brexit that is in the best interests of all.

Sadly, some people think that mandate should be changed, and protest that what is happening is not democratic. We made the decision to leave, we elected people to negotiate brexit on our behalf and the ball is firmly in their court.

On a local level, there was in my area a very unsavoury planning application that highlighted democracy and its problems in an absolute nut shell. I live in an area full, and I mean full, of middle class, self entitled want-it-all retired people. There is fk all in the way of provision for young people. The council (elected by people to take decisions on our behalf) could see the ghastly crisis unfolding. Nobody under 30 had any hope of living in the area, the numbers of sofa surfers makes for painful reading.

So a planning application went in for some social housing in one of the nearby villages. The public consultation was a fking disgrace. Full of self entitled old farts getting extremely angry that more houses were to be built. On the balance, the need was so extreme that our elected representatives, having considered all the facts, had no option but to agree to the decision. The fury and outrage was unbelievable, ending in letters to the rag slating the council saying the decision was clearly undemocratic as the wishes of all those angry residents had not been taken in to account. But it had. You see, democracy is not about who can shout the loudest getting what they want, it's about electing people to make decisions on our behalf, who look at ALL the evidence, and not simply cowtow to a small but very vocal minority who mistakenly believe if they shout loud enough then they'll get what they want.

We have seen lately, across social media (Charlie Gard) that people are stupid. Insanely stupid. I'm surprised half the population can even function. What would society be like if mob rule and the loudest voices were the ones that dictated everything? Often, decisions have to be made that are unpalatable. Such as closing a hospital, or raising the state pension age. Decisions that spineless politicians put off for decades until an absolute st storm of a crisis hits, and lo and behold, the people we elected to make decisions on our behalf are forced to act as the overwhelming evidence says it is in our best interests.

Post election, it looked as though this system was breaking down. Labour lost, but for some reason the illiterati decided labour had won, and the tories were governing illegally - and that shouting loud enough was the best route forward. The fact that a small minority of very loud obnoxious people decided that as their supreme leader comrade Corbyn wasn't wielding his hammer and sickle outside Downing Street was undemocratic and did their utmost best to subvert the course of Government shows how close to a banana republic we're becoming.

On much the same line of thought, regarding brexit, I am firmly of the belief the Government knows a lot about the EU the rest of us don't. If remaining in the EU was ultiately a known disaster we would never have been given the referendum, if leaving is such a calamity, article 50 would never have been triggered. The G knows something we don't. That means, since we seem to be on our way out, the G feels it is in our best interests, otherwise they'd have kicked it in to the long grass by now.

Oh.... and Cameron said in the 2015 election he'd step down before the next election in 2020, so why were people surprised he resigned after the EU referendum? It's as though the G knew in 2015 that we'd be leaving the EU....

[Kermit power]

Dindoit said:

By definition a democracy is a system where we elect people to govern us and make decisions for us. There are a million and one things we don't get to vote on and rightly so. The country simply couldn't function if every single piece of legislation or policy decision was put to a public vote.

A referendum vote is the antithesis of democracy. Instead of the elected government proposing something followed by a vote in parliament they passed the buck and asked the public what they should do.

May I suggest you go back and take another look at your dictionary?

Democracy is derived from Greek dēmokratia, meaning dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule’.

As such, a referendum vote is not the antithesis of democracy at all; it is, in fact, the purest form of democracy.

It just so happens that we have chosen in the West to create parliamentary democracies where we choose to grant proxy over our democratic right to vote on each and every issue to the political parties for reasons of efficiency.

[CaptainSlow]

TTwiggy said:

Moonhawk said:

Surely those people complaining about not getting the result they wanted are the ones who are behaving contrary to democracy - afterall they were quite happy to participate under the rules laid out when they thought the result was going to go the way they wanted.

Quick point here - nobody ever asked me if I was happy with the rules.

Yes you were. It was on The 2015 Conservative manifesto which you were asked if you wanted or not.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Dindoit said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Not a single person in the UK voted for, or was even given a chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU.

That's because we live in a democracy. By definition a democracy is a system where we elect people to govern us and make decisions for us. There are a million and one things we don't get to vote on and rightly so. The country simply couldn't function if every single piece of legislation or policy decision was put to a public vote.

A referendum vote is the antithesis of democracy. Instead of the elected government proposing something followed by a vote in parliament they passed the buck and asked the public what they should do.

You rightly point out that we live in a democracy. However you appear to believe in a highly selective form of `democracy' where if the decision of what `you' think the people of the country wants aligns with your point of view, no referenda are needed on a particular matter, but if the decision of the people is counter to what you want, a referendum is a mistake, and should not be used, or acted upon.
Using `your' version of democracy, the government should simply have walked out of the EU without asking the people of the UK if this was what they wanted, in the same way the government took the UK into the EU without asking them if this was what they wanted.
Even this would not be good enough to satisfy `your' version of democracy, because even when the only truly democratic vote on the UK`s membership of the EU is held, those with their highly selective form of democracy, did not want to accept the result, and have been doing their best to overturn the decision of the majority of the people who voted.
Why was it OK for the UK government to take the people into the EU without asking them, but it is not Ok for the government to take them out of it, in the same way, and in the case of 2016 even after the majority voted for the UK to leave the EU? It seems you only believe in `democracy' when it aligns with `your' point of view. and believe me, that is NO kind of democracy.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Thursday 27th July 07:51

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Thursday 27th July 08:29

[Moonhawk]

Randy Winkman said:

So it's a case of "not too much freedom of movement" is it?

Isn't it always. Freedom of movement always operates within a defined set of rules wherever you go (even within the UK).

Does anywhere in the world operate a policy of true unrestricted freedom of movement for everybody?

[Pan Pan Pan]

Disastrous said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Disastrous said:

Troubleatmill and Man Man Man, why are you arguing about Brexit?

This thread asks a question about the nature of democracy, not whether it was correct to leave the EU.

FWIW OP, I agree with your position. I would never expect the losers to just 'give up and get behind' the winners of any vote...it's weird to expect people to just abandon their principles. I would expect them to keep campaigning until such time as circumstances change and the vote goes their way.

Exactly, If we are talking about DEMOCRACY, please kindly show where the people of the UK were given a democratic vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU. The only DEMOCRATIC vote the people of the UK were ever given on the matter was in 2016, It may surprise you to know they voted OUT. so we are leaving, surprisingly, that is how true DEMOCRACY works.

I thought we were discussing what we understand to be democracy? Have I ever said our entry into the EU was democracy in action? If not, then I fail to see why I should 'kindly show' you anything to do with it...

Genuinely, this discussion isn't (or wasn't until you turned up and started shouting the odds) about whether or not Brexit was a good thing or not. It was an interesting (to me) miscussion about the nature of democracy, acceptance and protestation. Are you really unable to separate the hypothetical from the factual? We really don't need another thread where you can crow about leaving the EU. We all know it's happening so can we perhaps discuss politics without you shouting about it?

What`s the matter? is the undemocratic way the UK was taken into the EU, compared to the democratic way it is being taken out of it an uncomfortable form of democracy for you?
I would be interested to see what you believe democracy should mean.
Or do you only operate the highly selective form of democracy which is only Ok when it suits / aligns with your point of view, but it is not, when democracy delivers a position which is different to the one you want?

[Pan Pan Pan]

Randy Winkman said:

Moonhawk said:

Randy Winkman said:

It's odd that freedom of movement is the one freedom lots of right wingers don't like much.

I don't think its the "freedom of movement part" most have an issue with - it's the "within legal boundaries" part.

So it's a case of "not too much freedom of movement" is it?

When your house has 150 immigrants in it, whom you have kindly invited in to live with you, in a putting `your' money where `your' mouth is kind of way, (rather like silly Lilly Allen et al) please tell us how you are getting on, particularly as `you' will be giving them their spending money, entertainment, access to health care, education, transportation etc, not to mention various members of your family etc
Of course the UK with one of largest land masses of any country in the world, can carry on accepting immigrants from all over the world in truly vast and untold numbers, and it wont ever have the slightest effect on the indigenous population whatsoever. What's not to like?.

[Disastrous]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Disastrous said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Disastrous said:

Troubleatmill and Man Man Man, why are you arguing about Brexit?

This thread asks a question about the nature of democracy, not whether it was correct to leave the EU.

FWIW OP, I agree with your position. I would never expect the losers to just 'give up and get behind' the winners of any vote...it's weird to expect people to just abandon their principles. I would expect them to keep campaigning until such time as circumstances change and the vote goes their way.

Exactly, If we are talking about DEMOCRACY, please kindly show where the people of the UK were given a democratic vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU. The only DEMOCRATIC vote the people of the UK were ever given on the matter was in 2016, It may surprise you to know they voted OUT. so we are leaving, surprisingly, that is how true DEMOCRACY works.

I thought we were discussing what we understand to be democracy? Have I ever said our entry into the EU was democracy in action? If not, then I fail to see why I should 'kindly show' you anything to do with it...

Genuinely, this discussion isn't (or wasn't until you turned up and started shouting the odds) about whether or not Brexit was a good thing or not. It was an interesting (to me) miscussion about the nature of democracy, acceptance and protestation. Are you really unable to separate the hypothetical from the factual? We really don't need another thread where you can crow about leaving the EU. We all know it's happening so can we perhaps discuss politics without you shouting about it?

What`s the matter? is the undemocratic way the UK was taken into the EU, compared to the democratic way it is being taken out of it an uncomfortable form of democracy for you?
I would be interested to see what you believe democracy should mean.
Or do you only operate the highly selective form of democracy which is only Ok when it suits / aligns with your point of view, but it is not, when democracy delivers a position which is different to the one you want?

What are you on about? I wasn't talking about the EU. I've posted numerous times on the thread discussing the subject in the OP so if you're too thick to read them I'm disinclined to engage with you on what is obviously something irrelevant that you're desperate to argue about, but no, I don't find it uncomfortable. It'd just be nice to have an interesting discussion that doesn't degenerate into ANOTHER fking Brexit shouting match.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Disastrous said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Disastrous said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Disastrous said:

Troubleatmill and Man Man Man, why are you arguing about Brexit?

This thread asks a question about the nature of democracy, not whether it was correct to leave the EU.

FWIW OP, I agree with your position. I would never expect the losers to just 'give up and get behind' the winners of any vote...it's weird to expect people to just abandon their principles. I would expect them to keep campaigning until such time as circumstances change and the vote goes their way.

Exactly, If we are talking about DEMOCRACY, please kindly show where the people of the UK were given a democratic vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU. The only DEMOCRATIC vote the people of the UK were ever given on the matter was in 2016, It may surprise you to know they voted OUT. so we are leaving, surprisingly, that is how true DEMOCRACY works.

I thought we were discussing what we understand to be democracy? Have I ever said our entry into the EU was democracy in action? If not, then I fail to see why I should 'kindly show' you anything to do with it...

Genuinely, this discussion isn't (or wasn't until you turned up and started shouting the odds) about whether or not Brexit was a good thing or not. It was an interesting (to me) miscussion about the nature of democracy, acceptance and protestation. Are you really unable to separate the hypothetical from the factual? We really don't need another thread where you can crow about leaving the EU. We all know it's happening so can we perhaps discuss politics without you shouting about it?

What`s the matter? is the undemocratic way the UK was taken into the EU, compared to the democratic way it is being taken out of it an uncomfortable form of democracy for you?
I would be interested to see what you believe democracy should mean.
Or do you only operate the highly selective form of democracy which is only Ok when it suits / aligns with your point of view, but it is not, when democracy delivers a position which is different to the one you want?

What are you on about? I wasn't talking about the EU. I've posted numerous times on the thread discussing the subject in the OP so if you're too thick to read them I'm disinclined to engage with you on what is obviously something irrelevant that you're desperate to argue about, but no, I don't find it uncomfortable. It'd just be nice to have an interesting discussion that doesn't degenerate into ANOTHER fking Brexit shouting match.

Good heavens what are you shouting about? the OP`s original post was based on the Brexit decision, so why are you screaming about `Brexit threads' now? or is it just that `your' highly selective view of what democracy means has been high lighted?

[scherzkeks]

Eric Mc said:

The least important aspect of democracy is voting.

In non-democratic societies, yes.

Explains a lot about your views.