Originally posted by MrGongGong
View Post
The Queen's Jubilee
Collapse
X
-
-
-
Originally posted by amateur51 View PostYour point being ...
Comment
-
-
amateur51
Originally posted by ahinton View Post...quite obviously that, following every General Election in Britain, large swathes of people will be stuck with a government that they don't want and for which they didn't vote and which almost certainly will do things that contrast with some of the contents of its election manifesto in any case.
You and your 'obviously' ah
What are you like?
Comment
-
scottycelt
Originally posted by MrGongGong View PostI must have missed the bit on the paper that said Conservative/Lib coalition ..............
also you are ignoring how many people didn't vote
so it's hardy a clear majority is it ?
given that no one was asked to vote for what we have ..............
People who don't even bother to vote automatically 'disenfranchise' themselves from any election, and therefore should lose any particular concern and consideration from the rest of us!
Comment
-
Originally posted by scottycelt View Postshamelessly natural"...the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears, and sometime voices..."
Comment
-
-
amateur51
Originally posted by scottycelt View Post
People who don't even bother to vote automatically 'disenfranchise' themselves from any election, and therefore should lose any particular concern and consideration from the rest of us!
There needs to be, I would suggest, a vital minimum turnout (and I would set it quite high) below which the election would be regarded as null and void both locally and nationally. This would encourage politicians to make contact with electorate directly. It's many a year since a politician has presented her/himself on my doorstep.
I think I'd be tempted to do away with the publication of opinion polls too. The ballot is meant to be secret. I'm not averse to candidates or even parties finding out how they're doing but I do feel that the opinion poll has become a negative factor in political life, not least because it has created the political pundit class of journalist.We being spoon-fed, and spoon-fed unnutritious crap at that.
Quite a constructive rant for a Saturday morning before 09:00
Comment
-
Originally posted by scottycelt View PostForgive my shamelessly natural scepticism (EU excepted), Mr GG, but would you have been quite so democratically pure and suffocatingly pedantic if it had been a Lab/Lib Dem Coalition (with a much smaller majority) instead .. ?
People who don't even bother to vote automatically 'disenfranchise' themselves from any election, and therefore should lose any particular concern and consideration from the rest of us!
I have no support for any of them so on your first bit I guess the answer is yes
People who don't vote ARE saying something, (remember what Cage said !)
The simple pont is that you can't claim that Something has the support of " a majority" of people if you don't
A: ask them
And
B: include everyone
Whether voting for things is always a good idea is another thing altogether. Don't assume that just because someone is opposed to heredity monarchy that it automatically follows that they want an elected political president
Comment
-
-
JohnSkelton
Originally posted by John Wright View Postjohnb, it's possible the existence of the monarchy in UK might have prevented a left-wing or right-wing coup during the last 60 years?
In 2006 the BBC documentary The Plot Against Harold Wilson alleged that there had been another plot involving Mountbatten to oust Wilson during his second term in office (1974–76). The period was characterised by high inflation, increasing unemployment and widespread industrial unrest. The alleged plot centred around right-wing former military figures who were supposedly building private armies to counter the perceived threat from trade unions and the Soviet Union. They believed that the Labour Party, which is partly funded by affiliated trade unions, was unable and unwilling to counter these developments and that Wilson was either a Soviet agent or at the very least a Communist sympathiser – claims Wilson strongly denied. The documentary alleged that a coup was planned to overthrow Wilson and replace him with Mountbatten using the private armies and sympathisers in the military and MI5. The documentary stated that Mountbatten and other members of the British Royal Family supported the plot and were involved in its planning
Lot of nonsense, I'm sure.
Comment
-
Originally posted by John Wright View Postjohnb, it's possible the existence of the monarchy in UK might have prevented a left-wing or right-wing coup during the last 60 years?
As well as ignoring the content of this thread, johnb, you are also ignoring the happiness in the crowds following the Queen's journeys this weekend, and ignoring the fact that the royals don't 'rule' us, we are hardly her maj's subjects are we, we are a democracy and you are entitled to dislike them without fear of imprisonment, so live with it!
And we are, in fact, subjects of the monarch. We are a democracy as long as the monarch permits it - the Prime Minister is answerable to the monarch (what exactly do they talk about in their weekly meetings?), the armed forces are answerable to the monarch
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by MrGongGong View PostDon't assume that just because someone is opposed to heredity monarchy that it automatically follows that they want an elected political president
People claim that the hereditary monarchy buttresses the class system and therefore social inequalities. Yet recent research has shown that parallels exist between the disadvantaged young in the US and the UK where education is concerned, whereas in Canada and Australia social mobility is more common, even though all four countries are among those with the biggest income gap between rich and poor.
There is an objection in principle to a hereditary monarchy but I don't see much evidence that society would be fairer or more equal in a republic. As for a hereditary principle: would it help if we all forfeited our wealth assets to the state when we died? [Except the Queen, of course: there have to be some perks.]
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by MrGongGong View PostI have no support for any of them so on your first bit I guess the answer is yes
People who don't vote ARE saying something, (remember what Cage said !)
The simple pont is that you can't claim that Something has the support of " a majority" of people if you don't
A: ask them
And
B: include everyone
Whether voting for things is always a good idea is another thing altogether. Don't assume that just because someone is opposed to heredity monarchy that it automatically follows that they want an elected political president
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post...And we are, in fact, subjects of the monarch. We are a democracy as long as the monarch permits it - the Prime Minister is answerable to the monarch (what exactly do they talk about in their weekly meetings?), the armed forces are answerable to the monarch
Incidentally, the Glorious Revolution was the 18th time we had been invaded successfully since 1066, and the 10th time such an invasion had led to 'regime change'. That gives a flavour of our selectivity in historical matters.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by scottycelt View PostPeople who don't even bother to vote automatically 'disenfranchise' themselves from any election, and therefore should lose any particular concern and consideration from the rest of us!
That you should think that anyone should lose your "particular concern and consideration" is surprising.
BUT: the trouble with the current voting system is that it makes no differentiation between those who find the options given them unacceptable (or even undemocratic) and those who simply can't be bothered. It would be interesting to see the results if an "abstention" or "None of the above" option were introduced onto ballot papers. For those of us who have no wish to be "represented" (least of all by someone who can drop everything s/he'd said s/he'd do for us as soon as s/he gets to Westminster) giving anyone our approval (let alone our "automatic" approval) is merely pouring petrol onto the flames of a burning house. The fact that some of them are talking openly about making voting compulsory only goes to show what a façade the whole voting system is.[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
Comment