Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Democracy or Dictatorship
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Are we be better off living as we do in a democracy , or would we rather live in a dictatorship ?
Are you smoking an illegal substance?
Well I am not enjoying living under the current dictatorship that we have endured for the last thousand year.
First Kings and Queens dictated what we could and couldn't do, often under pressure from the church or parliament or in the interests of their own self power and gains in wealth.
Nowadays the Government dictates what we can and cannot do and for the same reasons as above, oh yes we can vote them out, but they are just replaced by the next lot, a rose is still a rose by any other name.
We can object when they steal from us with their expense claims but they still do it, we can moan when they bring in laws that suit themselves only but they still get them passed.
We can beg for referendums or change and they will promise to do it but they always have a reason why they can't once they have got what they want, ie your vote.
Will we have the promised referendum on EU membership, of course not, they will try and get into power with it and if they fail they are off the hook if they win they will find a reason for not holding the referendum
They will promise to ban something then put clauses in so the laws are meaningless.
They will promise a clamp down on crime but never have enough prisons to house those they catch.
They will tell us we cant afford our forces and cut them back whilst wasting 2.5 billion of things the forces didnt need.
and so it goes on ......
Even the Dictators come under the rule of the MP's like her or hate her Margaret Thatcher was elected as PM by the people, but when the time came that she wouldnt do what her party wanted it was the party that ousted her not the people that had voted her into the position she held, they took away the populations vote for their own gains.
First Kings and Queens dictated what we could and couldn't do, often under pressure from the church or parliament or in the interests of their own self power and gains in wealth.
Nowadays the Government dictates what we can and cannot do and for the same reasons as above, oh yes we can vote them out, but they are just replaced by the next lot, a rose is still a rose by any other name.
We can object when they steal from us with their expense claims but they still do it, we can moan when they bring in laws that suit themselves only but they still get them passed.
We can beg for referendums or change and they will promise to do it but they always have a reason why they can't once they have got what they want, ie your vote.
Will we have the promised referendum on EU membership, of course not, they will try and get into power with it and if they fail they are off the hook if they win they will find a reason for not holding the referendum
They will promise to ban something then put clauses in so the laws are meaningless.
They will promise a clamp down on crime but never have enough prisons to house those they catch.
They will tell us we cant afford our forces and cut them back whilst wasting 2.5 billion of things the forces didnt need.
and so it goes on ......
Even the Dictators come under the rule of the MP's like her or hate her Margaret Thatcher was elected as PM by the people, but when the time came that she wouldnt do what her party wanted it was the party that ousted her not the people that had voted her into the position she held, they took away the populations vote for their own gains.
I believe democracy could be far better served when who we elect are not attached to 3 main groups called parties. It is like belonging to any set beliefs. You can pick out the bits you can agree upon and there are other elements that you can have your own individual opinion off, even within party members.
I would like to see everyone in politics as independent people that carry their own voice and be accountable for their own actions judged by the people that elected them to be there.
How this would work completely I haven't come up with the answers for yet.
But in practice I have been part of moving things forward when you collectively make who you are doing it all for clear and consistent and never losing sight of that.
Maybe it is about time we came up with a new system all together. where what party side, religion, educational background, sex has no baring and it is driven on a passion that you want to do right for the people you serve and have to sell your own self to those people to believe you are the right one to send up to work on their behalf.
Only then I believe you would stop in house fighting, frustrations within and out and keep your focus and your purpose for being there.
I would like to see everyone in politics as independent people that carry their own voice and be accountable for their own actions judged by the people that elected them to be there.
How this would work completely I haven't come up with the answers for yet.
But in practice I have been part of moving things forward when you collectively make who you are doing it all for clear and consistent and never losing sight of that.
Maybe it is about time we came up with a new system all together. where what party side, religion, educational background, sex has no baring and it is driven on a passion that you want to do right for the people you serve and have to sell your own self to those people to believe you are the right one to send up to work on their behalf.
Only then I believe you would stop in house fighting, frustrations within and out and keep your focus and your purpose for being there.
Which means she was voted by the people because each party has a leader and many votes cast are based on who leads the party as to wether or not you vote for the party, many people dont even know the name of the local candidate till election time, most have never met them but most do know the party leader, a vote for a party is more a vote for the leader that you hope will the become Prime Minister so technically I agree but still say Thatcher was voted in by the people, certainly the Tory term after the Falklands War was always put down to the popularity of the Leader and a landslide vote because of Margaret Thatchers stance on the matter.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Which means she was voted by the people because each party has a leader and many votes cast are based on who leads the party as to wether or not you vote for the party, many people dont even know the name of the local candidate till election time, most have never met them but most do know the party leader, a vote for a party is more a vote for the leader that you hope will the become Prime Minister so technically I agree but still say Thatcher was voted in by the people, certainly the Tory term after the Falklands War was always put down to the popularity of the Leader and a landslide vote because of Margaret Thatchers stance on the matter.
Then leaders can put themselves forward from the people we have elected in mass and it would sell themselves to the people and we could vote for them individually, I think there is a total cross section of society that would make a far and balanced judgement whom they would like to lead their government.
Sadly running for election is expensive and out of reach of the average individual, they need the party to finance their election campaign. a shame because the best Government would have a lot of Independant MP's in it. MP's who could vote for what they believe in and not just to conform with party politics, MP's who could put forward debates in Parliament that they believe would be a benefit to the Country not necessarily their particular party.
Even with a main party in power an Independant can have a loud voice, there are times when the big parties need their support to get a bill past and to do that they have to "trade" with the Independents "we like your idea on that so support us on this and we will back you" providing the Independant only sides with the big parties policies here or she agrees with it's not a bad thing, and most of the time they can side with the party they agree with because the opposition is just as keen to trade with them not to support something.
Independants can have a lot of power especially when majorities are low.
One of the worst things I have seen in current politics is the time when (for example) a Labour MP moves to the Liberal Democrats, people probably put him in the Commons becaue they wanted a Labour MP and suddenly they find they have a Liberal Democrat, surely that makes a mockery of the voting system, I believe that when an MP changes his allegience there should be a bi-election in his/her constituency as there is when he/she resigns or is sacked.
Even with a main party in power an Independant can have a loud voice, there are times when the big parties need their support to get a bill past and to do that they have to "trade" with the Independents "we like your idea on that so support us on this and we will back you" providing the Independant only sides with the big parties policies here or she agrees with it's not a bad thing, and most of the time they can side with the party they agree with because the opposition is just as keen to trade with them not to support something.
Independants can have a lot of power especially when majorities are low.
One of the worst things I have seen in current politics is the time when (for example) a Labour MP moves to the Liberal Democrats, people probably put him in the Commons becaue they wanted a Labour MP and suddenly they find they have a Liberal Democrat, surely that makes a mockery of the voting system, I believe that when an MP changes his allegience there should be a bi-election in his/her constituency as there is when he/she resigns or is sacked.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Sadly running for election is expensive and out of reach of the average individual, they need the party to finance their election campaign. a shame because the best Government would have a lot of Independant MP's in it. MP's who could vote for what they believe in and not just to conform with party politics, MP's who could put forward debates in Parliament that they believe would be a benefit to the Country not necessarily their particular party.
Even with a main party in power an Independant can have a loud voice, there are times when the big parties need their support to get a bill past and to do that they have to "trade" with the Independents "we like your idea on that so support us on this and we will back you" providing the Independant only sides with the big parties policies here or she agrees with it's not a bad thing, and most of the time they can side with the party they agree with because the opposition is just as keen to trade with them not to support something.
Independants can have a lot of power especially when majorities are low.
One of the worst things I have seen in current politics is the time when (for example) a Labour MP moves to the Liberal Democrats, people probably put him in the Commons becaue they wanted a Labour MP and suddenly they find they have a Liberal Democrat, surely that makes a mockery of the voting system, I believe that when an MP changes his allegience there should be a bi-election in his/her constituency as there is when he/she resigns or is sacked.
Actually it doesn't cost much to have a passion to do the best by people, as if they believe in you they to would back and offer to help you. You can sell passion better than you can sell a party believe me it is amazing how many people come forward to help if they believe your focus is them.
I watched a very frank interview recently with president carter as he said politics today has lost its way as it is driven by money. He said in his day he won with 2 dollars. He still believes in his passion that being in politics is about trying to make the best decisions based on people he said he made some mistakes he is after all human and it cost him his leadership but the focus always have to be the people, not power or money.
Sex God
I have always found a strange irony in the fact that with our electoral system the person voted in generally has more people that have voted against him/her than for them!
It has been said that we live in an elected Dictatorship anyway. That said, we either vote people in and hope/expect them to get on with it or we have referendums for every decision made by parliament.
It has been said that we live in an elected Dictatorship anyway. That said, we either vote people in and hope/expect them to get on with it or we have referendums for every decision made by parliament.
The biggest problem with Politics as we suffer them today is that the system exists.
To change the system you have to go through the very people who like the system as it is, for example, trying to take away some of the powers of the House of Lords would have to go through the House of Lords.
The US system is worse, if they got the best President possible who did wonders for the Nation he could only serve 3 terms, no matter how good he was they would then get rid of him, where is the sense in that ?
To change the system you have to go through the very people who like the system as it is, for example, trying to take away some of the powers of the House of Lords would have to go through the House of Lords.
The US system is worse, if they got the best President possible who did wonders for the Nation he could only serve 3 terms, no matter how good he was they would then get rid of him, where is the sense in that ?
Quote by Too Hot
I have always found a strange irony in the fact that with our electoral system the person voted in generally has more people that have voted against him/her than for them!
It has been said that we live in an elected Dictatorship anyway. That said, we either vote people in and hope/expect them to get on with it or we have referendums for every decision made by parliament.
I think we have been forced into an elected dictatorship by the system in itself it has created. I have listened to people that have gone into politics and I see people from all parties that impress me. The problem comes from the line in politics in order to get there you have to take. It sub divides everyone and sticks a label on their heads. As we often hear they have to toe the party line, I have been inside the houses of parliament and into the room the politicians cast votes and their vote gets logged into large ledgers you and I can read. The way the system is now you can't hide from other party members what line you stand in. If you never had to worry about party politics then you wouldn't have to worry about what line you stood in.
Hot you wouldn't have to have a referendum how it is done now for everything you could use the medium we have in place now to cast votes direct to your local MP on issues arising. We could have stations on tv like the parliament channel or channels on TV, Internet showing an agenda on issues that would affect all people that we can vote on via our local MP who would vote on by the outcome of the majority vote via means. People say this could be fixed but we all have a pin number for instance and password to our bank account we have to secure and look after.
Media can be used differently to better inform people so we all have an understand of what is happening. After all we pay their wages to represent us I don't like paying them to join a party that causes sub division and stops the job getting done.
I wish I had your faith in human nature minx.
If bank accounts can be 'hacked', surely the voting PIN could be too. Just look at what happened in the last General Election in Birmingham where the local sitting Labour MP was accused of 'personating' the voting intentions of pensioners by misdirecting their postal votes!
If bank accounts can be 'hacked', surely the voting PIN could be too. Just look at what happened in the last General Election in Birmingham where the local sitting Labour MP was accused of 'personating' the voting intentions of pensioners by misdirecting their postal votes!
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
I have always found a strange irony in the fact that with our electoral system the person voted in generally has more people that have voted against him/her than for them!
That's what the voting system the Lib Dems tried to bring in is designed to avoid. It gives people a way to say "I want this person, but if I can't have them, this other one will do". It gives independents and minor parties more of a voice (to the extent that they represent the preferences of the voters), as tactical voting is no longer required. As it is now, a vote for your favourite can effectively become a vote for your last choice.
The danger of direct democracy (the people voting directly on each issue, rather than electing representatives to make the decisions on their behalf) is that people tend to pursue their own interests at the expense of others. I fear that minorities would not fare well in a system like that. The best policy is not the one that benefits me personally, but the one that does best for the country as a whole.
Quote by GnV
I wish I had your faith in human nature minx.
If bank accounts can be 'hacked', surely the voting PIN could be too. Just look at what happened in the last General Election in Birmingham where the local sitting Labour MP was accused of 'personating' the voting intentions of pensioners by misdirecting their postal votes!
Not in the same words but I was going to say the same thing, we recently had a case where the voting system was tampered with, lost ballot boxes, boxes that had been tampered with, it would be even easier to interfere with any kind of electronic voting system. The idea might be good and we do have the tools to make voting easy but we also have the tools to tamper with those votes.
Quote by GnV
I wish I had your faith in human nature minx.
If bank accounts can be 'hacked', surely the voting PIN could be too. Just look at what happened in the last General Election in Birmingham where the local sitting Labour MP was accused of 'personating' the voting intentions of pensioners by misdirecting their postal votes!
GNV I have edited my response to you, I should never write a forum post while rushing to go out as reading back it never made sense to me.
The system, as it stands at present is to put faith in a party. Most people I know don't have faith in any of the parties at present.
GNV your comment did make me laugh about my faith in humans. It is humans within the system we operate now, the difference is they can hide behind party name and cover each others back. It is typical group behaviour.
I am sorry but I have no faith in humans that have such power over masses that can do so under the label of a name.
My idea I believe is to make each one accountable for their own action.
You can still have the same MP in parliament for instance but instead of toeing the party line they have to toe the line of the people that elected and put them there. After all we as tax payers pay their wages.
They would be viewed and watched by those that elected them within their constituency and often can know their MP better publicly and the work they do within. Many are doing good work on behalf of us with the community that they serve even the children know them. Many go into politics because of their belief they can help make a difference.
Once in they parliament is when they see how it works. That is when they have to toe the party line. Like many group behaviour you have to toe the party line or your face doesn't fit. Often it is who you have to suck up to that counts. If you don't conform to the party way, you don't stand much chance within to be noticed. I don't believe many MP's go into politics for this reason I do believe many go in with good intentions.
By voting and putting faith in our local MP. The system could still be the same to a degree just not assigned parties and the duty of the MP is to represent its people. Which I thought was what their duty is and are paid to do, not to work within the confines of the party. It causes a divide and rule principal (divide us the electorate and rule by the party).
I simply believe together they should rule for many reasons. It would stop in house party squabbles, it would eradicate the point and blame culture, it would make them have to focus together for the greater good of everyone and look forward. The reasons they all look back is to remind each others parties who was to blame for what in the past.
It would eradicate hung parliament, coalition Governments. As collectively they are all the government elected by all the people in the country and everyone would feel they have a voice in government. I believe many more people including young people would take notice as often they have met the local MP in schools, youth groups, opening of local events etc etc and can relate themselves to them.
The system I was saying about chip and pin, it has been proven that those frauds against peoples bank accounts have happened when they have used their cards in dodgy places and their cards have been copied by fraudsters. Many people bank online and have user names and passwords I believe this type system could be used to vote for your local MP.
It wouldn't be a national vote for a party.
It is funny as you said you wished you had my faith in humans.
Yet I believe the system you would support at present is run by humans just within parties. Humans that can hide behind party names either doing good or bad.
I do believe in humans within a community that elect a MP within it would have a fair and greater judgement of who they would be electing than who they vote for in with the present system. So yes collectively I do put my faith in humans.
On average around 65% of eligible voters actually do vote, back in 2005 that figure dropped below 60%
That of course means 35% of the voting population don't bother, that is a large number of people who I believe dont vote because they don't think there is a reason worth voting for.
I certainly havent voted for 20 years and wont until I think there is someone who is worth voting for and who has my respect.
That of course means 35% of the voting population don't bother, that is a large number of people who I believe dont vote because they don't think there is a reason worth voting for.
I certainly havent voted for 20 years and wont until I think there is someone who is worth voting for and who has my respect.
Quote by Theladyisaminx
I wish I had your faith in human nature minx.
If bank accounts can be 'hacked', surely the voting PIN could be too. Just look at what happened in the last General Election in Birmingham where the local sitting Labour MP was accused of 'personating' the voting intentions of pensioners by misdirecting their postal votes!
GNV I have edited my previous response to you, I should never write a forum post while rushing to go out as reading back it never made sense to me.
The system, as it stands at present is to put faith in a party. Most people I know don't have faith in any of the parties at present.
GNV your comment did make me laugh about my faith in humans. It is humans within the system we operate now, the difference is they can hide behind party name and cover each others back. It is typical group behaviour.
I am sorry but I have no faith in humans that have such power over masses that can do so under the label of a name.
My idea I believe is to make each one accountable for their own action.
You can still have the same MP in parliament for instance but instead of toeing the party line they have to toe the line of the people that elected and put them there. After all we as tax payers pay their wages.
They would be viewed and watched by those that elected them within their constituency and often can know their MP better publicly and the work they do within. Many are doing good work on behalf of us with the community that they serve even the children know them. Many go into politics because of their belief they can help make a difference.
Once in they parliament is when they see how it works. That is when they have to toe the party line. Like many group behaviour you have to toe the party line or your face doesn't fit. Often it is who you have to suck up to that counts. If you don't conform to the party way, you don't stand much chance within to be noticed. I don't believe many MP's go into politics for this reason I do believe many go in with good intentions.
By voting and putting faith in our local MP. The system could still be the same to a degree just not assigned parties and the duty of the MP is to represent its people. Which I thought was what their duty is and are paid to do, not to work within the confines of the party. It causes a divide and rule principal (divide us the electorate and rule by the party).
I simply believe together they should all rule for many reasons. It would stop in house party squabbles, it would eradicate the point and blame culture, it would make them have to focus together for the greater good of everyone and look forward. The reasons they all look back is to remind each others parties who was to blame for what in the past.
It would eradicate hung parliament, coalition Governments. As collectively they are all the government elected by all the people in the country and everyone would feel they have a voice in government. I believe many more people including young people would take notice as often they have met the local MP in schools, youth groups, opening of local events etc etc and can relate themselves to them.
The system I was saying about chip and pin, it has been proven that those frauds against peoples bank accounts have happened when they have used their cards in dodgy places and their cards have been copied by fraudsters. Many people bank online and have user names and passwords I believe this type system could be used to vote for your local MP.
It wouldn't be a national vote for a party.
It is funny as you said you wished you had my faith in humans.
Yet I believe the system you would support at present is run by humans just within parties. Humans that can hide behind party names either doing good or bad.
I do believe in humans within a community that elect a MP would have a fair and greater judgement of who they would be electing than who they vote for within the present system. So yes collectively I do put my faith in humans.
Quote by Theladyisaminx
I wish I had your faith in human nature minx.
If bank accounts can be 'hacked', surely the voting PIN could be too. Just look at what happened in the last General Election in Birmingham where the local sitting Labour MP was accused of 'personating' the voting intentions of pensioners by misdirecting their postal votes!
GNV I have edited my previous response to you, I should never write a forum post while rushing to go out as reading back it never made sense to me.
The system, as it stands at present is to put faith in a party. Most people I know don't have faith in any of the parties at present.
GNV your comment did make me laugh about my faith in humans. It is humans within the system we operate now, the difference is they can hide behind party name and cover each others back. It is typical group behaviour.
I am sorry but I have no faith in humans that have such power over masses that can do so under the label of a name.
My idea I believe is to make each one accountable for their own action.
You can still have the same MP in parliament for instance but instead of toeing the party line they have to toe the line of the people that elected and put them there. After all we as tax payers pay their wages.
They would be viewed and watched by those that elected them within their constituency and often can know their MP better publicly and the work they do within. Many are doing good work on behalf of us with the community that they serve even the children know them. Many go into politics because of their belief they can help make a difference.
Once in they parliament is when they see how it works. That is when they have to toe the party line. Like many group behaviour you have to toe the party line or your face doesn't fit. Often it is who you have to suck up to that counts. If you don't conform to the party way, you don't stand much chance within to be noticed. I don't believe many MP's go into politics for this reason I do believe many go in with good intentions.
By voting and putting faith in our local MP. The system could still be the same to a degree just not assigned parties and the duty of the MP is to represent its people. Which I thought was what their duty is and are paid to do, not to work within the confines of the party. It causes a divide and rule principal (divide us the electorate and rule by the party).
I simply believe together they should all rule for many reasons. It would stop in house party squabbles, it would eradicate the point and blame culture, it would make them have to focus together for the greater good of everyone and look forward. The reasons they all look back is to remind each others parties who was to blame for what in the past.
It would eradicate hung parliament, coalition Governments. As collectively they are all the government elected by all the people in the country and everyone would feel they have a voice in government. I believe many more people including young people would take notice as often they have met the local MP in schools, youth groups, opening of local events etc etc and can relate themselves to them.
The system I was saying about chip and pin, it has been proven that those frauds against peoples bank accounts have happened when they have used their cards in dodgy places and their cards have been copied by fraudsters. Many people bank online and have user names and passwords I believe this type system could be used to vote for your local MP.
It wouldn't be a national vote for a party.
You could apply the same voting system to every one on key issues. Fox hunting, ban smoking, gay marriage etc etc. We would be able to see votes change as they happen.
You would need for example many people sitting counting our votes, a system you support yet you say I have faith in humans. I believe the system wouldn't cost anywhere near what it does with the present system. Thus huge savings for everyone. Everyone has mobile phones even old people I am sure a system to vote could be used via them.
We need to be moving forward with the times and think collectively to make a difference.
The best ideas I believe are the simple ones thinking outside the box in what we are told is how it is so have to stick with it.
Have you heard the name Dave Fishwick he thought outside the box read his story here
It is funny as you said you wished you had my faith in humans.
Yet I believe the system you would support at present is run by humans just within parties. Humans that can hide behind party names either doing good or bad.
I do believe in humans within a community that elect a MP would have a fair and greater judgement of who they would be electing than who they vote for within the present system. So yes collectively I do put my faith in humans.
Quote by Theladyisaminx
I wish I had your faith in human nature minx.
If bank accounts can be 'hacked', surely the voting PIN could be too. Just look at what happened in the last General Election in Birmingham where the local sitting Labour MP was accused of 'personating' the voting intentions of pensioners by misdirecting their postal votes!
GNV I have edited my previous response to you, I should never write a forum post while rushing to go out as reading back it never made sense to me.
The system, as it stands at present is to put faith in a party. Most people I know don't have faith in any of the parties at present.
GNV your comment did make me laugh about my faith in humans. It is humans within the system we operate now, the difference is they can hide behind party name and cover each others back. It is typical group behaviour.
I am sorry but I have no faith in humans that have such power over masses that can do so under the label of a name.
My idea I believe is to make each one accountable for their own action.
You can still have the same MP in parliament for instance but instead of toeing the party line they have to toe the line of the people that elected and put them there. After all we as tax payers pay their wages.
They would be viewed and watched by those that elected them within their constituency and often can know their MP better publicly and the work they do within. Many are doing good work on behalf of us with the community that they serve even the children know them. Many go into politics because of their belief they can help make a difference.
Once in they parliament is when they see how it works. That is when they have to toe the party line. Like many group behaviour you have to toe the party line or your face doesn't fit. Often it is who you have to suck up to that counts. If you don't conform to the party way, you don't stand much chance within to be noticed. I don't believe many MP's go into politics for this reason I do believe many go in with good intentions.
By voting and putting faith in our local MP. The system could still be the same to a degree just not assigned parties and the duty of the MP is to represent its people. Which I thought was what their duty is and are paid to do, not to work within the confines of the party. It causes a divide and rule principal (divide us the electorate and rule by the party).
I simply believe together they should all rule for many reasons. It would stop in house party squabbles, it would eradicate the point and blame culture, it would make them have to focus together for the greater good of everyone and look forward. The reasons they all look back is to remind each others parties who was to blame for what in the past.
It would eradicate hung parliament, coalition Governments. As collectively they are all the government elected by all the people in the country and everyone would feel they have a voice in government. I believe many more people including young people would take notice as often they have met the local MP in schools, youth groups, opening of local events etc etc and can relate themselves to them.
The system I was saying about chip and pin, it has been proven that those frauds against peoples bank accounts have happened when they have used their cards in dodgy places and their cards have been copied by fraudsters. Many people bank online and have user names and passwords I believe this type system could be used to vote for your local MP.
It wouldn't be a national vote for a party.
You could apply the same voting system to every one on key issues. Fox hunting, ban smoking, gay marriage etc etc. We would be able to see votes change as they happen.
You would need for example many people sitting counting our votes, a system you support yet you say I have faith in humans. I believe the system wouldn't cost anywhere near what it does with the present system. Thus huge savings for everyone. Everyone has mobile phones even old people I am sure a system to vote could be used via them.
We need to be moving forward with the times and think collectively to make a difference.
The best ideas I believe are the simple ones thinking outside the box in what we are told is how it is so have to stick with it.
Have you heard the name Dave Fishwick he thought outside the box read his story here
It is funny as you said you wished you had my faith in humans.
Yet I believe the system you would support at present is run by humans just within parties. Humans that can hide behind party names either doing good or bad.
I do believe in humans within a community that elect a MP would have a fair and greater judgement of who they would be electing than who they vote for within the present system. So yes collectively I do put my faith in humans.
And there's the dichotomy minx.
You say you would put your faith in humans (I actually mentioned human nature) but only after you have put faith in a fallible electronic system to put them in place.
However, i'm sure you already know that when you elect an MP, technically they are independant. They are generally expected to accept the whip of the party who funded (in part at least) their campaign and they benefit from the national campaign machine running alongside the election.
However, as said, they are technically independent of the party who supported their election and if they seek higher office, they have to follow the party line or face the consequences.
As for consequences, these are not monetary as the party does not fund them. The State pays them an allowance which covers a multitude of activities in order to perform their function.
There have in the past been many principled MPs who have 'crossed the floor of the House' to accept a different whip. The most famous and significant being Churchill of course and, amongst others, Shaun Woodward who was elected as Conservative MP for Witney but after a disagreement with the (then) leader of the Conservatives in 1999 (he was William Hague's front bench spokesman for London) he joined the Labour Party and was given the task of coordinating Labour's 2001 election campaign which Labour of course won (leaving his seat of Witney - now occupied by David Cameron - for a safe Labour seat). After a number of key Government posts, he was eventually appointed Northern Ireland Secretary by Gordon Brown.
So, the system is already in pace for the very best politicians to move according to their conscience and for the good of the Country. The system works, so why change it?
You say you would put your faith in humans (I actually mentioned human nature) but only after you have put faith in a fallible electronic system to put them in place.
However, i'm sure you already know that when you elect an MP, technically they are independant. They are generally expected to accept the whip of the party who funded (in part at least) their campaign and they benefit from the national campaign machine running alongside the election.
However, as said, they are technically independent of the party who supported their election and if they seek higher office, they have to follow the party line or face the consequences.
As for consequences, these are not monetary as the party does not fund them. The State pays them an allowance which covers a multitude of activities in order to perform their function.
There have in the past been many principled MPs who have 'crossed the floor of the House' to accept a different whip. The most famous and significant being Churchill of course and, amongst others, Shaun Woodward who was elected as Conservative MP for Witney but after a disagreement with the (then) leader of the Conservatives in 1999 (he was William Hague's front bench spokesman for London) he joined the Labour Party and was given the task of coordinating Labour's 2001 election campaign which Labour of course won (leaving his seat of Witney - now occupied by David Cameron - for a safe Labour seat). After a number of key Government posts, he was eventually appointed Northern Ireland Secretary by Gordon Brown.
So, the system is already in pace for the very best politicians to move according to their conscience and for the good of the Country. The system works, so why change it?
Quote by flower411
Are you trying to talk to yourself minx ?
I always do flower as the great thing about me is I never expect others to listen anyway. I am surprised I even get comments on the stupidity of my thoughts as I know it can never work. It just whiles away time when I have nothing better to do rather than read newspapers or watch TV
Its called "put the cat among the pigeons" meow!
Quote by GnV
Are we be better off living as we do in a democracy , or would we rather live in a dictatorship ?
Well this is a rather odd question but it depends what you define as a democracy .
A dictatorship is usually obtained by force, and there have been many examples of Dictators being overthrown even in recent years. Saddam and Gadhafi to name just a couple, who met with grisly deaths by the very people they were supposed to be ruling. Dictators usually rule with a rod of iron and total fear. For me I would not like to live under this system as the Dictator and the very close ones around him have everything, and everyone else has nothing.
With democracy that of course is totally by definition means ' the Government by people 'Which means that all the people should have a say in what affects their lives.
Do we really have the true meaning of the word democracy in the UK? I think Minxy touched on this bit where the elected MP's are forced into voting with the party they serve regardless of their own or their constituents feelings. When there is a ' free ' vote then of course that is the case but more often than now it is not a ' free ' vote. I believe that for us to be a true democracy any voting that takes place within Parliament should be done in secret, where every MP chooses to vote on what they believe to be right, and not what they are told to do. How can that be democracy in the true meaning? There have been many instances of MP's voting with their consciences and defying their party and then have their whip taken away. An MP should be able to vote on what they and the people they are supposed to serve, think is right and not what they are told to vote.
But I would still prefer a democratic country of sorts to live in, than a Dictatorial one.
Quote by star
For me I would not like to live under this system as the Dictator and the very close ones around him have everything, and everyone else has nothing.
You say that star but you are doing no more than just accepting the images flashed across your TV screen to make you believe that is true.
The facts may speak differently.
In Gaddafi's Libya, with all the oil money he had, residents of the main towns enjoyed a lifestyle no different to that of Londoners - indeed, in some cases better.
And please don't forget that Saddam was sitting on a tinderbox. If Iraq had a government like the UK, they would have been over-run by the regimes surrounding him, including the so called democracy of the State of Israel - one of the fiercest legalised terrorist organisations of our time!
He ruled with a rod of iron - he needed to and much of it was subterfuge anyway. There were no weapons of mass destruction. It was a ploy to keep his enemies at bay.
Quote by GnV
For me I would not like to live under this system as the Dictator and the very close ones around him have everything, and everyone else has nothing.
Quote by GnV
You say that star but you are doing no more than just accepting the images flashed across your TV screen to make you believe that is true.
The facts may speak differently.
Facts GnV? You cannot deny the images flashed across our tv screens by people who have videod it from their mobile phones. When all the news stations use the same images and use different people on the ground to report from wherever the unrest is, then yes I do believe the images I see on my television.
Quote by GnV
In Gaddafi's Libya, with all the oil money he had, residents of the main towns enjoyed a lifestyle no different to that of Londoners - indeed, in some cases better.
How do you know this GnV? From the same media sources you are telling me not to believe? Do you know people who live there or have lived there? From what I saw of Libya on the tv after his death, they looked pretty much like most Middle Eastern countries......all dust and dreadful buildings. Nothing I saw on the tv looked anything like London, in fact the complete opposite. Mind you though his Palaces looked rather nice with toliets made of solid gold fittings etc. Obviously spent the countries oil wisely.
Quote by GnV
And please don't forget that Saddam was sitting on a tinderbox. If Iraq had a government like the UK, they would have been over-run by the regimes surrounding him, including the so called democracy of the State of Israel - one of the fiercest legalised terrorist organisations of our time!
But Iraq did not have a Government like the UK.......he was a Dictator hence the title of the thread, or so I thought. Oh and your Israel comment.......was this thread just an excuse to use Israel in your debate by any chance? You should pal up with Georgie Galloway.
Quote by GnV
He ruled with a rod of iron - he needed to and much of it was subterfuge anyway. There were no weapons of mass destruction. It was a ploy to keep his enemies at bay.
What a bit like the mustard gas he used to kill of his own people? Or was that media hype as well GnV? The guy was a tyrant and he eventually met with the Saddam swing. Oh and was Gaddafi not directly involved with the downing of Pan am flight 103 ??
Quote by GnV
"One would assume that Star would look on such a man as a bit of a hero !"
Only because he was eventually elected perhaps
Hero is a strong word. Now JT could be labeled as such, but this man I know nothing of.
There have obviously been a lot of dictators over the years but are the people able to be themselves more than they would be under a democracy? If being in a democratic country means a better life for the people, then surely that is better.
