How Bad Was My Attempt In Approaching...
Family & Relationships0 min ago
The Will Of The People?
It’s philosophy time, folks.
In a question yesterday AOG asked whether there should be a referendum to bring back Capital Punishment. One answer (from dannyk13) said “It would be waste of time due to all political parties being against it…”
Leaving aside the specific issue (let’s say the question was “Should we have a referendum to introduce a compulsory 10% tax on Jelly Babies”), do you think that’s s satisfactory state of affairs? I’ve trivialised my question deliberately to avoid a debate on the merits of a tax on Jelly Babies (because, unfortunately, AOG’s question descended into a debate on Capital Punishment, not whether a referendum should be held). But it has a serious slant. Let’s assume that a vast majority of the electorate wanted a tax on Jelly Babies. However, all of the political parties are against it. Do we just let that situation prevail? Do we just allow 650 MPs to overrule the wishes of 45m voters just because their parties’ policies do not support it?
Since Brexit there has been an argument that it should be MPs, not the electorate, who decide whether the UK leaves the EU (strangely, a question only raised after the result of the referendum - which 80% of MPs supported being held - was published). The majority of MPs (and all the main political parties bar UKIP) seem to be against it. But the majority of people who voted are in favour of it. Like my tax on Jelly Babies, do we just leave it at that? Or, on a matter of the sovereignty of the UK, do the wishes of the people trump party politics?
In a question yesterday AOG asked whether there should be a referendum to bring back Capital Punishment. One answer (from dannyk13) said “It would be waste of time due to all political parties being against it…”
Leaving aside the specific issue (let’s say the question was “Should we have a referendum to introduce a compulsory 10% tax on Jelly Babies”), do you think that’s s satisfactory state of affairs? I’ve trivialised my question deliberately to avoid a debate on the merits of a tax on Jelly Babies (because, unfortunately, AOG’s question descended into a debate on Capital Punishment, not whether a referendum should be held). But it has a serious slant. Let’s assume that a vast majority of the electorate wanted a tax on Jelly Babies. However, all of the political parties are against it. Do we just let that situation prevail? Do we just allow 650 MPs to overrule the wishes of 45m voters just because their parties’ policies do not support it?
Since Brexit there has been an argument that it should be MPs, not the electorate, who decide whether the UK leaves the EU (strangely, a question only raised after the result of the referendum - which 80% of MPs supported being held - was published). The majority of MPs (and all the main political parties bar UKIP) seem to be against it. But the majority of people who voted are in favour of it. Like my tax on Jelly Babies, do we just leave it at that? Or, on a matter of the sovereignty of the UK, do the wishes of the people trump party politics?
Answers
Sir David Attenborough undermines his own argument. he says it should be left to the MP's but these MP's are the people chosen by the electorate who are not wise enough to vote.
01:03 Wed 02nd Nov 2016
Surely the very concept of representative democracy should be that those elected to represent the areas do get the opinion of their constituents in order to represent their views. Where the system has been corrupted to allow the one elected to do as they please, including following some party line, then the system does need changing: as voting in an elite to push you around for 5 years, is no democracy. Politicians can deal with non-controversial day to day stuff without consulting us, but anything beyond that demands knowing the will of the people.
Seems to me that Vulcan has not made a point. One does not need to be wise to vote. If one chooses to vote one can only vote for the folk who have put themselves up as candidates (which if one is cynical could indicate that they were unfit to be chosen for the job). None of this has any relevance to getting the people's opinion on individual issues.
Certainly our representatives should take into serious account the views of their constituents. It seems to me that this is what happens, most of the time. But cases such as NJ's Jelly Baby tax don't usually come up -- in the sense of such universal support for a given measure, I mean -- so, mostly, the views of constituents are too mixed for any one MP to be able to reflect them all in a single vote. If an MP gets two letters from two constituents, one imploring the MP to support such-and-such a position, and the other equally passionately against it, then how can that MP vote to reflect both? Abstain, I suppose -- but then very little would ever get done because almost always those two constituents would exist.
Or, at least, that would be true for the legislation anyone outside Parliament actually cares about. The other catch is that there's a lot of stuff in Parliament that goes unnoticed to the (majority of the) general public. But that is the second part of representative democracy: we elect these people to do this stuff on our behalf so that we don't *have* to care about such things, most of the time. And, again most of the time, that's fine and dandy. It needn't be an issue for public consideration to decide whether to set a tax on Jelly Babies or not, and then at what level under what conditions. Should the tax scale with weight or be fixed at 11% to the bag? Or 12% a bag? Or should it be flat for the first 99.9 grammes but after that start at a base rate of 5% and then jumping a further 5% at 500g and again every 500g after that, reaching a maximum of 45% for a 5kg purchase? (Wow, even thinking about 5kg of jelly babies makes me slightly nauseous... )
But the silly details above aside, no way can such a matter be put to the public. The blunt instrument of a referendum can't cope with that. But then, in a representative democracy, it doesn't need to.
Or, at least, that would be true for the legislation anyone outside Parliament actually cares about. The other catch is that there's a lot of stuff in Parliament that goes unnoticed to the (majority of the) general public. But that is the second part of representative democracy: we elect these people to do this stuff on our behalf so that we don't *have* to care about such things, most of the time. And, again most of the time, that's fine and dandy. It needn't be an issue for public consideration to decide whether to set a tax on Jelly Babies or not, and then at what level under what conditions. Should the tax scale with weight or be fixed at 11% to the bag? Or 12% a bag? Or should it be flat for the first 99.9 grammes but after that start at a base rate of 5% and then jumping a further 5% at 500g and again every 500g after that, reaching a maximum of 45% for a 5kg purchase? (Wow, even thinking about 5kg of jelly babies makes me slightly nauseous... )
But the silly details above aside, no way can such a matter be put to the public. The blunt instrument of a referendum can't cope with that. But then, in a representative democracy, it doesn't need to.
is this question what do we have ?
in which case parliamentary democracy prevails and no the will of the people from moment to moment is irrelevant - xc every five years
and so yes the will of the people ( hahaha) are trumped by parliament
or is it what do 'we'want ?
anything
series of referenda if you want
the swiss do and it is not obviously badly governed
during the first ever referendum 1972 I think
these arguments were rehearsed
including " we dont want / need too many or else it will usurp the will of Parliament "
if fact - with my philosophy hat on - they were talking in 1972 about a
never-again-dum rather than a never-end-um
in which case parliamentary democracy prevails and no the will of the people from moment to moment is irrelevant - xc every five years
and so yes the will of the people ( hahaha) are trumped by parliament
or is it what do 'we'want ?
anything
series of referenda if you want
the swiss do and it is not obviously badly governed
during the first ever referendum 1972 I think
these arguments were rehearsed
including " we dont want / need too many or else it will usurp the will of Parliament "
if fact - with my philosophy hat on - they were talking in 1972 about a
never-again-dum rather than a never-end-um
Jim, I know how representative democracy works, but you, like Zacs-Master and OG, are missing the irony in Vulcan’s post.
From the OP. //Since Brexit there has been an argument that it should be MPs, not the electorate, who decide whether the UK leaves the EU//
David Attenborough agreed with that, implying that the electorate is too thick to vote, and therefore should leave decisions to the people they vote for – their elected representatives being wiser. As I see it Vulcan is saying that if the electorate is too thick to vote, how can they be trusted to elect wise representatives? See? I think that’s an astute observation. It made me chuckle anyway.
From the OP. //Since Brexit there has been an argument that it should be MPs, not the electorate, who decide whether the UK leaves the EU//
David Attenborough agreed with that, implying that the electorate is too thick to vote, and therefore should leave decisions to the people they vote for – their elected representatives being wiser. As I see it Vulcan is saying that if the electorate is too thick to vote, how can they be trusted to elect wise representatives? See? I think that’s an astute observation. It made me chuckle anyway.
// Do we just allow 650 MPs to overrule the wishes of 45m voters just because their parties’ policies do not support it? //
As things stand, yes, unless we want to go the way of the Swiss, who have had 9 (maybe 10) already this year;
https:/
As things stand, yes, unless we want to go the way of the Swiss, who have had 9 (maybe 10) already this year;
https:/
// Vulcan42 are you saying people who don't vote for the same people as you are inferior intellectually? //
well in my constituency ( constituency in which I live ) about 50% dont read and write. They vote tho
Yeah but no but -'
what I wanted to say was ....
during the ostracism of 350BC where the athenians voted to expel one person - one illiterate went up to a fella and said " write 'Aristides the Just' on this ostrakon please (=voting slip) "
and the fella who later told the story asked why he chose that one
and the illiterate said " aristides the just ! aristides the just ! I just get sick whenever I hear that name "
so the fella did
ter daaah story told by ... aristides the just who was the fella
ho hum just an example in case the usual suspects ask in serried rows " Aris-hoo-dees the what ? wot he den ? " of rule by referendum
well OK a little off the point but still better than the usual hair pulling and name calling we see just above
well in my constituency ( constituency in which I live ) about 50% dont read and write. They vote tho
Yeah but no but -'
what I wanted to say was ....
during the ostracism of 350BC where the athenians voted to expel one person - one illiterate went up to a fella and said " write 'Aristides the Just' on this ostrakon please (=voting slip) "
and the fella who later told the story asked why he chose that one
and the illiterate said " aristides the just ! aristides the just ! I just get sick whenever I hear that name "
so the fella did
ter daaah story told by ... aristides the just who was the fella
ho hum just an example in case the usual suspects ask in serried rows " Aris-hoo-dees the what ? wot he den ? " of rule by referendum
well OK a little off the point but still better than the usual hair pulling and name calling we see just above
You can not be sure of electing wise representatives since you do not know the candidates intimately enough anyway, and have to simply rule out the obvious inappropriate contenders and hope for the best, regardless how wise you personally are. I still think this "point" about unwise voters is irrelevant.
As for Brexit, the people did make a decision, the MPs may be in the position to make an ultimate decision but are claiming that, voluntarily, they're not deciding whether to leave or not, but intend eventually to enact the will of the people. That said, it remains to be seen whether they actually do, or whether they go for a fudge that leaves us in, in all but "name", and in a worse rather than better position; as some remainers seem to crave.
As for Brexit, the people did make a decision, the MPs may be in the position to make an ultimate decision but are claiming that, voluntarily, they're not deciding whether to leave or not, but intend eventually to enact the will of the people. That said, it remains to be seen whether they actually do, or whether they go for a fudge that leaves us in, in all but "name", and in a worse rather than better position; as some remainers seem to crave.
. //As I see it Vulcan is saying that if the electorate is too thick to vote, how can they be trusted to elect wise representatives?//
thank GOd someone is a trained irony interpreter- missed that ccompletely
but with my philosophy hat back on
we have 'elect wise representatives' which has an existential implication ( philosophy geddit ?) that our elected reps at present are "wise"
ho ho ho good one - not so much irony as knock about humour
think Lembic Opic - John Stonehouse - Anthony Barber ( chancellor who used matches to balance the books ) Beast of Bolsover - Michael Mates - Geoffrey DIcken o god the list is endless
thank GOd someone is a trained irony interpreter- missed that ccompletely
but with my philosophy hat back on
we have 'elect wise representatives' which has an existential implication ( philosophy geddit ?) that our elected reps at present are "wise"
ho ho ho good one - not so much irony as knock about humour
think Lembic Opic - John Stonehouse - Anthony Barber ( chancellor who used matches to balance the books ) Beast of Bolsover - Michael Mates - Geoffrey DIcken o god the list is endless
I would say that the vast amount of voters who voted to come out of the EU, thought that once the votes were counted, we would either come out almost immediately or stay in.
But it seems now, that we will come out only after lengthy negotiations, meaning really that we will only come out partly.
On the subject of referendums though, might things be different now if Blair had given us a referendum on whether or not to go to war in Iraq?
But it seems now, that we will come out only after lengthy negotiations, meaning really that we will only come out partly.
On the subject of referendums though, might things be different now if Blair had given us a referendum on whether or not to go to war in Iraq?
Many thanks to all for a lively debate (and it didn’t get nasty!!!).
I have a loathing of party politics (which I’ve explained before). I’ve had it for a long time, but it was doubled or trebled soon after Tony Blair became PM. He stated that MPs need to move away from believing their job is to represent their constituents. Instead they must sell the government’s (i.e his party’s) policies to them. This appalled me and it has nothing to do with him being a Labour Prime Minister. I’d have been equally appalled had Margaret Thatcher said the same.
I appreciate that the country cannot be run by referenda and that’s why we have MPs. I also understand that matters upon which MPs vote are rarely, if ever, unanimously liked or disliked by their constituents and my “Jelly Baby Tax” scenario was therefore a bit crude. But it struck me with AOG’s Capital Punishment question when danny stated that “it would never happen because none of the parties support it” that the tail is somehow wagging the dog. I know Capital Punishment is not a good issue on which to start a debate (because it is an emotive topic and anyway the UK has signed international agreements which forbid it). That’s why I moved to jelly babies. I appreciate all the difficulties in gauging public opinion but there must be examples (and Brexit is one) where the views of the political parties – at least those likely to be in a position to form a government - run contrary to those of the electorate and I believe that betrays democracy.
A ruling on Vulcan’s “David Attenborough” comment: I think it is relevant to this particular question (I like a wide debate!). On the one hand we have Sir Richard telling us we are far too unintelligent to vote on such an important matter, whilst on the other he tells us that we are clever enough to elect somebody to decide for us. Whilst not directly relevant to my question, it does provide useful background debate, so I will allow it in! In fact, so much difficulty have I had deciding on a “Best Answer” (because there were many excellent contributions) that I’m going to give it to Vulcan for amusement value. :-) But best of all was the fact that we managed to have a reasoned debate which remained affable with no insults. See, we can do it !!!
I have a loathing of party politics (which I’ve explained before). I’ve had it for a long time, but it was doubled or trebled soon after Tony Blair became PM. He stated that MPs need to move away from believing their job is to represent their constituents. Instead they must sell the government’s (i.e his party’s) policies to them. This appalled me and it has nothing to do with him being a Labour Prime Minister. I’d have been equally appalled had Margaret Thatcher said the same.
I appreciate that the country cannot be run by referenda and that’s why we have MPs. I also understand that matters upon which MPs vote are rarely, if ever, unanimously liked or disliked by their constituents and my “Jelly Baby Tax” scenario was therefore a bit crude. But it struck me with AOG’s Capital Punishment question when danny stated that “it would never happen because none of the parties support it” that the tail is somehow wagging the dog. I know Capital Punishment is not a good issue on which to start a debate (because it is an emotive topic and anyway the UK has signed international agreements which forbid it). That’s why I moved to jelly babies. I appreciate all the difficulties in gauging public opinion but there must be examples (and Brexit is one) where the views of the political parties – at least those likely to be in a position to form a government - run contrary to those of the electorate and I believe that betrays democracy.
A ruling on Vulcan’s “David Attenborough” comment: I think it is relevant to this particular question (I like a wide debate!). On the one hand we have Sir Richard telling us we are far too unintelligent to vote on such an important matter, whilst on the other he tells us that we are clever enough to elect somebody to decide for us. Whilst not directly relevant to my question, it does provide useful background debate, so I will allow it in! In fact, so much difficulty have I had deciding on a “Best Answer” (because there were many excellent contributions) that I’m going to give it to Vulcan for amusement value. :-) But best of all was the fact that we managed to have a reasoned debate which remained affable with no insults. See, we can do it !!!
