Let's do away with so-called democracy

[Flosshilde]

The difference is that the succession is enshrined in legislation, which makes it rather more fixed. I suppose it might change first if Cameron gets legislation through Parliament, but it won't have any effect until the queen's great grandchildren. So pretty far down the line.

[Lateralthinking1]

Oh yes. A lot more would be fixed. Just to have a look at those figures from the past 200 years:

Monarchs - Males 7 Females 2
Prime Ministers - Males 36 Females 1

Number of years

Monarchs - Females 123 Males 77
Prime Ministers - Males 189 Females 11

[teamsaint]

"democracy for planet Earth
they roll it out like astroturf"

what a great line that is.

Too much faith put in a system by the elite for the elite.

Walk down your local high st sometime. Go shopping in asda, and look around you.
and then consider the people who totally dominate the political, legal, cultural , academic worlds.

We endlessly get cabinets composed of people who have never done real jobs, or got their hands dirty. They can't, and don't want to understand how it is for most people.
labour are almost as bad.

We pride ourselves on our long democratic pedigree....without really examining it.

it makes me sad.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, well, I was in Morrisons today. I'm not the greatest in terms of conversing with strangers. I do though absorb it. I take in what is going on, look and listen. There is an affinity there because my relations have worked on tills in umpteen shops. I like a lot of what I see in terms of people getting on with people, soldiering on, trying to be sunny, sometimes naturally so. None of them are made of money and it is hardly the stuff of glamour.

When in the Service, I was generally the person dealing with public worries on the phone. I liked helping as far as I could. As required, I sometimes tried to defend the Government at public events. Many were initially wary but quickly saw me as much like them. That worked both ways. They felt that there was a human side to it. They also assumed that it meant I was on a low grade and really wanted to get their teeth into senior officers. They could pick them out purely on attitude.

As for those seniors, there was increasing talk of the need to "face outwards" more. When this was mentioned, I felt that it was an instruction with which they wouldn't comply themselves. It was also quite ridiculous. It isn't a case of them needing to show themselves more to the public. They need to be hearing them and then taking their opinions on board. It said so much about their insularity. In fact, I have seen it myself among friends in high places. Wheeling the trolley round at lightning speed, they show frequent irritation that the plebs get in the way. I should say ex-friends - never again and largely for that reason.

One of the least popular of my frequent comments in the workplace was about the public. As soon as others launched in to some discussion about what "story" to give "them", I'd say "that's us too". The reactions could be awkward, embarrassed, often very irked. There would mainly be silence. It was as if I were some sort of traitor for reminding colleagues that they weren't like Mr Benn, turning into other people as they walked into the building. But actually they didn't change then. They were just the same as they were everywhere else including the supermarket. That was precisely the problem and it is the problem with politicians too.

[Flosshilde]

Um, what's the above got to do with whether an absolute monarch would be better than an elected government? (& don't forget that even absolute monarchs need ministers & civil servants - even if they're not called that - to put their decrees into practice. Look at the beauraucracy around Louis 14th, or any of the Russian Czars).

[Lateralthinking1]

I was responding to teamsaint's comment and agreeing with him. In short, the political system we have is more remote from the average person than Her Majesty. It is bad enough that the elected representatives should be so aloof. That though extends to the bureaucracy and down to senior middle management.

[teamsaint]

I was responding to teamsaint's comment and agreeing with him. In short, the political system we have is more remote from the average person than Her Majesty. It is bad enough that the elected representatives should be so aloof. That though extends to the bureaucracy and down to senior middle management.

yes, all you have to do is look at the backgrounds of those on the labour front benches to see how bad it is.
We know about the multi millionaire inheritance backgrounds of the tory cabinet anyway.

THe shadow cabinet is in favour of raising pension ages,(their policy)for the pittance that is the state pension, while we have mass youth unemployment. They live in cloud cuckoo land. does my head in.

"Work till you drop, and be grateful you don't live somewhere even worse" might be a good election slogan for any of the main parties next time round.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes. I can't see any reason to vote for Labour. You teamsaint have mentioned pensions. If the recent past is anything to go by:

- Salaries would still be frozen, benefits cut and removed, the tearing up of the planning regulations would not be reversed and still there would be the same old housing crisis.

- There would be the same expense on foibles, ie entertainment projects, there would be further part privatisation of the health and education services, the expensive tuition fees would be retained.

- They would be as friendly with the City, they would probably clobber people with little or no income with inheritance tax - the final nail in the coffin for many in their 50s and 60s I would think, at least in terms of keeping poverty at bay.

- There would probably be a war or two, the economy would remain rocky with no real jobs, climate change wouldn't be tackled, nuclear power would be further advanced while lip service was paid to renewable energy.

- Plus further significant Big Brother interference in people's lives, they themselves would of course live the life of riley along with their financial supporters, and there would be no new chance of electoral reform.

Frankly, what is the difference? Not much. A few small advantages over the current lot. A few things that would be much worse!

[MrGongGong]

I can't see any reason for voting at all anymore

"There would be the same expense on foibles, ie entertainment projects," do you mean like The Sage ?

Raising pension ages is an inevitable consequence of demographics, the idea that somehow you are owed a luxurious endless holiday from the age of 65 is really not sustainable anymore. Why shouldn't people who are not ill, not totally exhausted, fit and able, continue to work ? the argument that "its not what we expected" really is a little pathetic. Life is like that, get over it !

[amateur51]

Raising pension ages is an inevitable consequence of demographics, the idea that somehow you are owed a luxurious endless holiday from the age of 65 is really not sustainable anymore. Why shouldn't people who are not ill, not totally exhausted, fit and able, continue to work ? the argument that "its not what we expected" really is a little pathetic. Life is like that, get over it !

If you mean living on the State pension then I think you're a bit wide of the mark, MrGG.

And if people don't retire, and the economy is flat, where do the jobs for young people come from, if not from retirement?

[MrGongGong]

I don't mean simply living on the state pension alone
but there are currently thousands of retired people who have very good deals indeed
largely through accident of birth !
If you were born in the late 1930's you will have escaped WW2 and lived through a period of more or less continuous employment , Spain is full of these people in the winter. We need a bit more balance in these things, there are many people who need much more support and some who could do with much less (my parents being a prime example , one being a retired teacher and the other a retired office worker)

for those of us who are self employed (through choice , I would add !) much of this seems like a very good deal indeed.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

it seems to me to be a bad argument to argue from a personal distaste or disgust for a reform of the polis .....

i don't like it does not cut it ... see 3beebies thread for this point

it is also somewhat unreasonable to propose that because we have not been very good at doing it we should abolish it ,,,,, a counsel of despair if there ever was .... how can we improve our performance as democrats and as governments is the key issue .... and an extremely hard challenge

our present system and behaviour has embroiled all major democracies in high alienation from politics, poverty, and high youth unemployment ....

glorifying the monarchy, and indeed the monarch, fails to recognise the truly vicious empire and imperialism of britain and the war mongering and servitude inflicted by this institution prior to the age of empire ... we inherit a right royal battle for social status as a cultural legacy .... far better imv to renounce monarchy and all its trappings, renounce empire and its legacies [except our now greatly diverse population, a rare historical blessing] and embrace the british enlightenment, the place of reason in our polis, and to the extent that it has, embrace the benefit of capitalism to our living standards as individuals, families and communities ... and also acknowledge that we are disgracefully poor at being effective capitalists .... private enterprise and innovation has, in just over two hundred years raised living standards immeasurably for a rapidly growing population across the planet .... we need more and better private enterprise not less, we also need a more open and honest democracy, and to rid ourselves of the rentiers and casino players who so dominate our present conditions and choices ...

we do not need to abdicate our will to a monarch, we need to get much better at asserting our will and our sense of virtue, a challenge imv that we flunk badly ...

[amateur51]

we do not need to abdicate our will to a monarch, we need to get much better at asserting our will and our sense of virtue, a challenge imv that we flunk badly ...

Excellent point Calum but those who would sustain those in power know only too well about divide and rule

[amateur51]

I don't mean simply living on the state pension alone
but there are currently thousands of retired people who have very good deals indeed
largely through accident of birth !

Thanks for the clarification, MrGG

[Flosshilde]

Raising pension ages is an inevitable consequence of demographics, the idea that somehow you are owed a luxurious endless holiday from the age of 65 is really not sustainable anymore. Why shouldn't people who are not ill, not totally exhausted, fit and able, continue to work ? the argument that "its not what we expected" really is a little pathetic. Life is like that, get over it !

I see no reason why the pensionable age of women, who have a longer life expectancy than men, shouldn't be the same as, or older than, the age for men.

It is possible to continue working beyond state pensionable age, & defer your pension - which means that your pension would be worth more once you started taking it. It's employers who insist on people stopping work at 60/65. Some (B&Q for example) employ people well beyond that age. As Mr GG is self-employed he can continue working as long as he wants & put off receiving the state pension, & look forward to getting more when he does decide to retire.