Do we live in a democracy?

[anotheoldgit]

If we truly live in a democracy, should not the electorate be allowed to vote on important issues, such as who the Prime Minister should be? And in the case of Europe which countries we should allow into the union. Or are we not capable to make these important decisions that effect us more than they do our politicians?

[jno]

the Swiss vote on everything, which may be why women have only had the vote everywhere there for the last 10 years or so. But do you really want an election every weekend? Wouldn't it just be simpler to vote for politicians who think the same way you do, and let them get on with it?

[dyli795]

Yes, it would be simpler, and is more or less what happens. But it's only after that, when the overall picture gets a bit more focused and matters of a certain magnitude (in some peoples oppinion) require a national vote to be resolved adequately.

I think I could go along with that. You may disagree, lets have a vote on it.

[Loosehead]

You cannot govern by referendum, we elect a government for good or bad to act on our behalf. If we don't like what they do we can boot them out. To answer your second question, no I don't think people are capable of making important decisions, mainly because very few people take the trouble to understand the issues, mostly they believe what is fed to them by the tabloids so if we did have such a system it would just transfer power from the government to the sun!

[jake-the-peg]

The idea is that politicians produce a manifesto and are effectively empowered to produce legislation in line with that but not to step wildly out of line of that unless there are unforeseen circumstances.

This is accepted practice not law.

There is a strong case for reform to formalise this understanding of a government mandate and other things which currently make our democracy a bit of a joke.

I'm thinking specifically about "safe seats" meaning that most of us don't matter.

The fact that we have no say in the election of a prime-minister and the fact that we still have people sitting in the house of Lords who's only qualification is that their families are members of the aristocracy.

Gordon Brown has already hinted an enthusiasm to do more to reform government and given his past record of doing things like handing over control of interest rates to the bank of England he's probably the most likely person to do it.

Historically the Tory party have never been big on reform

[Catso]

It would be nice, but just unworkable (and very expensive) in practice.

And, I would think that the last thing any polictician wants is the electorate getting involved in government.

[anotheoldgit]

To answer jno Who suggested a vote every W/E how many times does a country ask to join the European Union? And for a Prime Minister, it would be everytime we had a general election. So you could vote for the PM when you voted for his or her party. And what makes you believe politicians think the same as us mortals?

Loosehead where do you gain your information of issues from, if it is not the media who report it, or the politicians who spin it ?
I think your statement that people are incapable of making Important decisions is to say the least rather arrogant on your part.
Also It does not have to be the tabloids, but even these publications have more resorces than you can ever have, in which to see the whole picture. This is just the usual Daily Mail bashing again.

[brionon]

Well, we wouldn't be in Iraq now, I think.

[Bazile]

Maybe - maybe not Brionon

But if it was left to a vote , the same could be said for other countries where british troops have been involved , recently - eg , the gulf war / the falklands - just to name two .
Given a vote I dont think that the vast majority of British people would vote to send troops to war - when the conflict does not affect Britain

[jno]

the government has even more resources than the Daily Mail, so does that make their decisions better based? (The Mail, as I recall, was well in favour of the Iraq war.)

As for the prime minister, that's the leader of the party that wins the most seats. Why should the public be allowed to elect a party leader? What happens if the public elects Labour to the most seats but votes for Cameron - or Screaming Lord Sutch, or anyone - as PM? How is that going to work?

[jake-the-peg]

I think jno the flaw in the system was exposed when you said "the pm is just the leader of the party that wins the most seats"

The system of voting for the head of the executive explicity is what happens in the US and many other countries.

The problem (as I see it although I accept some will see it as a strength) is our blurring of the distiction between the executive (the cabinet and ministers who run the country) and the Legislature (who form laws).

Blurring this distinction makes it easier for Prime Ministers to hammer through legislation giving them more power - a technique honed by both Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher.

It may be worth considering whether the institution of the three line whip is a good thing for the country

[jno]

Americans vote for the head of state, which is the equivalent of the queen rather than the PM. The US equivalent of Blair would be someone like the party leaders in congress. Britain doesn't just mingle the legislature and executive, it throws in the judiciary as well; Americans diligently separate the three

[jake-the-peg]

Well it rather depends on what type of head of state you have doesn't it.

Some heads of state are heads of the executive and some are not.

In may ways the Queen is a "pretend" head of state with theoretical powers that in practice cannot be exercised (Vetoing parliamentry bills for example) or powers such as appointments that are exercised by the prime minister and everybody pretends they're done by the crown.

This is why I say we have 2 heads of state and don't get to vote for either.

[dyli795]

Loosehead, can't we be given a bit more credit than that?
It takes all sorts you know! (including your good self of cource) - oh yea and -me me me !!!!!!