Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Why Is The Uk Not A Democracy?
Please watch the above. If you do you will realise how fundamentally undemocratic this country is.
I believe the best solution would be to allow the leader of the party who win the most individual votes to form a government. As in the present government, which has members at cabinet and committee level from all the main parties, nothing would have to change. The main thing is that people like me would feel that the democratic principle had been observed.
As it stands now I don't think UN observers would think much of our attempts to continue to refer to ourselves as the oldest democracy in the world.
I believe the best solution would be to allow the leader of the party who win the most individual votes to form a government. As in the present government, which has members at cabinet and committee level from all the main parties, nothing would have to change. The main thing is that people like me would feel that the democratic principle had been observed.
As it stands now I don't think UN observers would think much of our attempts to continue to refer to ourselves as the oldest democracy in the world.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Colmc54. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
2010 Conservative 10,703,654 votes, Labour 8,606,517. Yet the Conservatives, having beaten Labour by more that 2 million votes were still short of the seats necessary to obtain a parliamentary majority. If the numbers were reversed Labour would have easily had a parliamentary majority, no coalition required.
Personally, I prefer a system where you vote for a local candidate rather than - as in the EU system and that in many countries - you are presented with a party list.
I also prefer a parliamentary democracy to some presidential systems, where although you might vote directly for a head of state, the president then appoints the prime minster.
No system is going to be wholly democratic, neither are countries which have supposedly "democratic" elections necessarily fair either. A lot depends on the politicians who are elected. We may complain about politicians in the UK but they are paragons of virtue compared to those in many countries.
I also prefer a parliamentary democracy to some presidential systems, where although you might vote directly for a head of state, the president then appoints the prime minster.
No system is going to be wholly democratic, neither are countries which have supposedly "democratic" elections necessarily fair either. A lot depends on the politicians who are elected. We may complain about politicians in the UK but they are paragons of virtue compared to those in many countries.
FPTP is designed to produce a governement and usually does. You can't have it both ways, if it was done entirely by percentages (some form of PR) then we'd never get a governement with any sort of power. Your assertion that the leader of the party with the most votes should be the PM is sound and is in fact what happens so will you now acknowledge that your assertion that we are somehow undemocratic was wrong?
I meant to comment on what you suggest the UN would make of our voting arrangements, Colmc. Quite honestly the United Nations is the last body that I would turn to to assess whether a nation has properly embraced democracy or not. Here's an example of the spoutings of a "UN Spokesperson" on the UK's apparent "sexist" culture:
http://
To save you reading it all, a few extracts:
"Rashida Manjoo, a United Nations human rights expert, says Britain's sexist culture is more 'pervasive' and 'in your face' than any other country she has visited "
"Ms Manjoo, who has reported on violence against women in more than 10 countries since 2009, including Somalia, Zambia, Algeria, Jordan and America, said her findings came from meetings with UK government officials, civil society organisation and individual survivors of violence as she travelled throughout the UK. "
"She warned that sexual bullying and harassment were now "routine" in UK schools..."
So there you have it. I take it Ms Manjoo has visited (or at least heard of) places like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, where women variously cannot drive, cannot embrace a man in the street, cannot have sex with a man who is not her husband (and so on) before she drew her conclusions. Forgive me if I don't embrace the musings of every "UN Spokesperson" that comes along.
"The need for a fairer system of democracy has been transformed by technological innovations like Facebook etc."
I'm not too sure how the rise of Facebook has somehow driven the need for a fairer system of democracy. Because I can now see what somebody ate for breakfast or when they last went for a pee seems somehow disconnected from the democratic process. Perhaps you could explain.
The UK's form of electing a government is by no means perfect. However any sort of PR produces inherently weak government. The best example of this is Italy where the average tenure of each government since WW2 has been less than a year. An unfortunate feature of democracy is that very often some people are disappointed and do not get what they want. But that's no reason to alter the system to one where everybody gets what nobody wants. One of the reasons the next election is likely to be skewed towards Labour is that Mr Clegg threw his toys from the pram and refused to agree to necessary boundary changes that would make the election of MPs fairer (a consequence of weak government). The fact that people are ignorant of the electoral process is not sufficient reason to change it. What is needed is education of the electorate - particularly to inform them that they do not elect a Prime Minister or a Government. Their MPs do that. And we need move away from party politics and see a return to each constituency sending their representative to Westminster. This person should have allegiance primarily to his constituents, not to a party and should lobby Government on their behalf on each individual issue.
http://
To save you reading it all, a few extracts:
"Rashida Manjoo, a United Nations human rights expert, says Britain's sexist culture is more 'pervasive' and 'in your face' than any other country she has visited "
"Ms Manjoo, who has reported on violence against women in more than 10 countries since 2009, including Somalia, Zambia, Algeria, Jordan and America, said her findings came from meetings with UK government officials, civil society organisation and individual survivors of violence as she travelled throughout the UK. "
"She warned that sexual bullying and harassment were now "routine" in UK schools..."
So there you have it. I take it Ms Manjoo has visited (or at least heard of) places like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, where women variously cannot drive, cannot embrace a man in the street, cannot have sex with a man who is not her husband (and so on) before she drew her conclusions. Forgive me if I don't embrace the musings of every "UN Spokesperson" that comes along.
"The need for a fairer system of democracy has been transformed by technological innovations like Facebook etc."
I'm not too sure how the rise of Facebook has somehow driven the need for a fairer system of democracy. Because I can now see what somebody ate for breakfast or when they last went for a pee seems somehow disconnected from the democratic process. Perhaps you could explain.
The UK's form of electing a government is by no means perfect. However any sort of PR produces inherently weak government. The best example of this is Italy where the average tenure of each government since WW2 has been less than a year. An unfortunate feature of democracy is that very often some people are disappointed and do not get what they want. But that's no reason to alter the system to one where everybody gets what nobody wants. One of the reasons the next election is likely to be skewed towards Labour is that Mr Clegg threw his toys from the pram and refused to agree to necessary boundary changes that would make the election of MPs fairer (a consequence of weak government). The fact that people are ignorant of the electoral process is not sufficient reason to change it. What is needed is education of the electorate - particularly to inform them that they do not elect a Prime Minister or a Government. Their MPs do that. And we need move away from party politics and see a return to each constituency sending their representative to Westminster. This person should have allegiance primarily to his constituents, not to a party and should lobby Government on their behalf on each individual issue.
Reply to New Judge.
I think when I said relativistic people would understand that comparisons with other nation states were not what I was talking about, though I grant you such issues are nor irrelevant to the problems our party oligarchs are mulling over now.
My concern is quite simple. A government could be elected at the next election to form a government that once again would set in train another phase in our blighted post-war history that could see them and their patrons bankrupt our country for a third time within my lifetime.
My clip from Newsnight shows that this outcome may well not be what the people of this country individually voted for and that disturbs me.
You feel constituency politics is more important than Westminster government politics but surely you know you are wrong about that. This country is totally dominated by party politics such that once the MPs get to parliament they are effectively controlled by their party whips.
I have to say that it is a sign of health y politics when, as a global realist, the party I support his ridiculed for having more MPs in it's ranks prepared to give the finger to the whips on behalf of their constituents than any of the others.
The now silenced independent Boundary Commission's report made recommendations following the last election that reflected changes in the demographics of the population of England.
http://
They were effectively castrated by nick Clegg when he conflated the need for democratically elected governments with the parliamentary rejection of his his own party's House of Lord's reform proposals in order to try and make himself look good in the eyes of his party.
One thing I truly believe is that we should honour the people who fought and died to preserve democracy in this country by making voting in this country compulsory. I heard that the votes for UKIP represented only 1% of the total electorate of the UK!
I would just say that when we have compulsory voting there should always be a box for 'None of the above'.
I think when I said relativistic people would understand that comparisons with other nation states were not what I was talking about, though I grant you such issues are nor irrelevant to the problems our party oligarchs are mulling over now.
My concern is quite simple. A government could be elected at the next election to form a government that once again would set in train another phase in our blighted post-war history that could see them and their patrons bankrupt our country for a third time within my lifetime.
My clip from Newsnight shows that this outcome may well not be what the people of this country individually voted for and that disturbs me.
You feel constituency politics is more important than Westminster government politics but surely you know you are wrong about that. This country is totally dominated by party politics such that once the MPs get to parliament they are effectively controlled by their party whips.
I have to say that it is a sign of health y politics when, as a global realist, the party I support his ridiculed for having more MPs in it's ranks prepared to give the finger to the whips on behalf of their constituents than any of the others.
The now silenced independent Boundary Commission's report made recommendations following the last election that reflected changes in the demographics of the population of England.
http://
They were effectively castrated by nick Clegg when he conflated the need for democratically elected governments with the parliamentary rejection of his his own party's House of Lord's reform proposals in order to try and make himself look good in the eyes of his party.
One thing I truly believe is that we should honour the people who fought and died to preserve democracy in this country by making voting in this country compulsory. I heard that the votes for UKIP represented only 1% of the total electorate of the UK!
I would just say that when we have compulsory voting there should always be a box for 'None of the above'.
Sorry if this is a little patronising but wouldn't it be important if the politicians were no longer able to pass off the existing arrangements for the 'none of the above' people who don't vote as apathy or just bone idleness?
Imagine if voters were, to respect the life sacrifices made by their ancestors to give them the vote or pay a fine, inclined to vote in their masses for 'none of the above'. What wriggle room would that leave the party leaders with then?
Imagine if voters were, to respect the life sacrifices made by their ancestors to give them the vote or pay a fine, inclined to vote in their masses for 'none of the above'. What wriggle room would that leave the party leaders with then?
