That would be called Abolishing The Whips, surely.
At least it retains the representative element of representative democracy, the last thing anyone wants is a direct vote for the entire electorate on every issue. The resulting carnage of direct democracy would make the French Terror look like a Sunday School outing
The rats get ready to leave
The rats get ready to leave
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The rats get ready to leave
spot;1302115 wrote: The would be called Abolishing The Whips, surely.
At least it retains the representative element of representative democracy, the last thing anyone wants is a direct vote for the entire electorate on every issue. The resulting carnage of direct democracy would make the French Terror look like a Sunday School outing
Agreed, mob rule at its worst as the media go all out to manipulate public opinion.
At least it retains the representative element of representative democracy, the last thing anyone wants is a direct vote for the entire electorate on every issue. The resulting carnage of direct democracy would make the French Terror look like a Sunday School outing
Agreed, mob rule at its worst as the media go all out to manipulate public opinion.
The rats get ready to leave
Yes I am going to say it......
There is nothing wrong with a time limited dictatorship.
It gets things done.
And that from a far left of centre liberal.
There is nothing wrong with a time limited dictatorship.
It gets things done.
And that from a far left of centre liberal.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The rats get ready to leave
Bruv;1302123 wrote: Yes I am going to say it......
There is nothing wrong with a time limited dictatorship.
It gets things done.
And that from a far left of centre liberal.
In time of war it may be justified but in times of peace, as the Romans found, it tends to be self-perpetuating.
There is nothing wrong with a time limited dictatorship.
It gets things done.
And that from a far left of centre liberal.
In time of war it may be justified but in times of peace, as the Romans found, it tends to be self-perpetuating.
The rats get ready to leave
BBC News - Swingometer is a useful page. My call back at the new year was a Labour majority of 30 which is a 0.5% swing to the Conservatives. 1.5% results in a hung parliament. The Conservatives would need a full 7% swing to get a bare majority of 4 seats, by which time pigs will have taken to the air in droves. An identical swing of 7% to Labour would, by way of contrast, give a majority of 155. Mind you, that's not going to happen either.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The rats get ready to leave
Bryn Mawr;1302112 wrote:
The Thatcher government was more akin to a time limited dictatorship than a democracy.
Bruv;1302123 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with a time limited dictatorship.
Bryn Mawr;1302124 wrote: In time of war it may be justified but in times of peace, as the Romans found, it tends to be self-perpetuating.
We are at war, and at a time of international crisis.
And first past the post makes the winners a virtual dictatorship, far better to have a strong leader than the wishy washy ones we have to choose from now.
The Thatcher government was more akin to a time limited dictatorship than a democracy.
Bruv;1302123 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with a time limited dictatorship.
Bryn Mawr;1302124 wrote: In time of war it may be justified but in times of peace, as the Romans found, it tends to be self-perpetuating.
We are at war, and at a time of international crisis.
And first past the post makes the winners a virtual dictatorship, far better to have a strong leader than the wishy washy ones we have to choose from now.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The rats get ready to leave
spot;1302081 wrote: How about I'll give an example or two and you come up with a counter-example?
Israel, and the power of the ultra-religious parties with fewer than 5 members. If you'd like instances I'll post them.
Italy, and the rate of coalition crashes through the 1970s and 1980s. A generation of paralysed governance.
Now, what examples of coalition government can you offer which have been stable and productive?
I seriously argue that a system where 78% of the people get ignored is better than perpetual coalitions composed of party-list members who can't ever be voted out of the assembly.
Germany, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Denmark, Iceland, Spain, Auatria, New Zealand, Norway. Ireland etc etc. In fact 21 of the 28 european countries use PR.
It's easy to point to countries with PR that have had problems - usually completely unrelated to the PR system they use, italy and greece being cases in point. On the other hand our problems can be laid at the door of a system that elects governments with overwhelming majorities that are nor representative and where political doctrine can be applied with no means of checking it. Thatcher and blair have wrecked this country more of the same will just make things worse.
posted by bruv
We are at war, and at a time of international crisis.
And first past the post makes the winners a virtual dictatorship, far better to have a strong leader than the wishy washy ones we have to choose from now.
We are involved in a war started by strong leaders who arguably did not have the interests of their country at heart and who because of the electoral system cannot be brought to account by the electorate and in the middle of an international economic crisis caused by strong leaders who were daft enough to believe in a ludicrous monetarist economic theory that completely ignored the basics of capitalism and instead believed in an economy where wealth was generated out of thin air.
posted by bruv
There is nothing wrong with a time limited dictatorship.
It gets things done.
And that from a far left of centre liberal.
No offence but you clearly are not a liberal if you can come out with crap like that.
Strong leaders who do not listen are incredibly destructive. It's another myth perpetuated by the far right, people who need to follow string leaders are idiots.
Israel, and the power of the ultra-religious parties with fewer than 5 members. If you'd like instances I'll post them.
Italy, and the rate of coalition crashes through the 1970s and 1980s. A generation of paralysed governance.
Now, what examples of coalition government can you offer which have been stable and productive?
I seriously argue that a system where 78% of the people get ignored is better than perpetual coalitions composed of party-list members who can't ever be voted out of the assembly.
Germany, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Denmark, Iceland, Spain, Auatria, New Zealand, Norway. Ireland etc etc. In fact 21 of the 28 european countries use PR.
It's easy to point to countries with PR that have had problems - usually completely unrelated to the PR system they use, italy and greece being cases in point. On the other hand our problems can be laid at the door of a system that elects governments with overwhelming majorities that are nor representative and where political doctrine can be applied with no means of checking it. Thatcher and blair have wrecked this country more of the same will just make things worse.
posted by bruv
We are at war, and at a time of international crisis.
And first past the post makes the winners a virtual dictatorship, far better to have a strong leader than the wishy washy ones we have to choose from now.
We are involved in a war started by strong leaders who arguably did not have the interests of their country at heart and who because of the electoral system cannot be brought to account by the electorate and in the middle of an international economic crisis caused by strong leaders who were daft enough to believe in a ludicrous monetarist economic theory that completely ignored the basics of capitalism and instead believed in an economy where wealth was generated out of thin air.
posted by bruv
There is nothing wrong with a time limited dictatorship.
It gets things done.
And that from a far left of centre liberal.
No offence but you clearly are not a liberal if you can come out with crap like that.
Strong leaders who do not listen are incredibly destructive. It's another myth perpetuated by the far right, people who need to follow string leaders are idiots.
The rats get ready to leave
gmc;1302188 wrote:
We are involved in a war started by strong leaders who arguably did not have the interests of their country at heart and who because of the electoral system cannot be brought to account by the electorate and in the middle of an international economic crisis caused by strong leaders who were daft enough to believe in a ludicrous monetarist economic theory that completely ignored the basics of capitalism and instead believed in an economy where wealth was generated out of thin air.
I don't think the leaders were strong, and neither were the opposition.
In fact I don't believe they were/are leaders in the truest sense of the word, just opportunists.
No offence but you clearly are not a liberal if you can come out with crap like that.
Strong leaders who do not listen are incredibly destructive. It's another myth perpetuated by the far right, people who need to follow string leaders are idiots.
No offence taken......A liberal with a small 'L'
Maybe my understanding of Leader is different, or the quality of leadership today is poor.
We are involved in a war started by strong leaders who arguably did not have the interests of their country at heart and who because of the electoral system cannot be brought to account by the electorate and in the middle of an international economic crisis caused by strong leaders who were daft enough to believe in a ludicrous monetarist economic theory that completely ignored the basics of capitalism and instead believed in an economy where wealth was generated out of thin air.
I don't think the leaders were strong, and neither were the opposition.
In fact I don't believe they were/are leaders in the truest sense of the word, just opportunists.
No offence but you clearly are not a liberal if you can come out with crap like that.
Strong leaders who do not listen are incredibly destructive. It's another myth perpetuated by the far right, people who need to follow string leaders are idiots.
No offence taken......A liberal with a small 'L'
Maybe my understanding of Leader is different, or the quality of leadership today is poor.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The rats get ready to leave
Bruv;1302219 wrote: I don't think the leaders were strong, and neither were the opposition.
In fact I don't believe they were/are leaders in the truest sense of the word, just opportunists.
No offence taken......A liberal with a small 'L'
Maybe my understanding of Leader is different, or the quality of leadership today is poor.
Plenty of people seem to think Blair and Bush had leadership qualities, goodness knows why. We even had some putting forth the notion that to disagree was unpatriotic, or in the case of new labour bad for the party
I must admit this notion that we should back a "strong" leader and that a "strong" leader is a good thing is one that raises my hackles. A leader that gets rid of those who disagree or who are strong enough to hold to their own opinions against the leaders is not strong they are weak. Good leaders do not surround themselves with yes men.
In fact I don't believe they were/are leaders in the truest sense of the word, just opportunists.
No offence taken......A liberal with a small 'L'
Maybe my understanding of Leader is different, or the quality of leadership today is poor.
Plenty of people seem to think Blair and Bush had leadership qualities, goodness knows why. We even had some putting forth the notion that to disagree was unpatriotic, or in the case of new labour bad for the party
I must admit this notion that we should back a "strong" leader and that a "strong" leader is a good thing is one that raises my hackles. A leader that gets rid of those who disagree or who are strong enough to hold to their own opinions against the leaders is not strong they are weak. Good leaders do not surround themselves with yes men.
The rats get ready to leave
Bruv;1302176 wrote: We are at war, and at a time of international crisis.
And first past the post makes the winners a virtual dictatorship, far better to have a strong leader than the wishy washy ones we have to choose from now.
Ah yes, I keep forgetting our time limited dictatorship makes a habit of invading other countries - that's the problem with virtual dictators
And first past the post makes the winners a virtual dictatorship, far better to have a strong leader than the wishy washy ones we have to choose from now.
Ah yes, I keep forgetting our time limited dictatorship makes a habit of invading other countries - that's the problem with virtual dictators
The rats get ready to leave
Bryn Mawr;1303290 wrote: Ah yes, I keep forgetting our time limited dictatorship makes a habit of invading other countries - that's the problem with virtual dictators
What about virtual democracies ?
What about virtual democracies ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
The rats get ready to leave
Bruv;1303315 wrote: What about virtual democracies ?
I only wish that we had a system that even began to resemble a democracy.
I only wish that we had a system that even began to resemble a democracy.