The Queen's Jubilee

[ahinton]

So please do remind me how the present bunch were elected by a majority vote ?
hummmmmmm

and is this REALLY how we would like the rest of the world to see us ?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-2290148.html

It's in quite a lot less than 90 years, actually - and we're presumably due for another one tomorrow. At least no. 9 has an amusing get-out clause. When all's said and done, he isn't the monarch, though. And as for how people outside Britain regard the Brits, is coming away with a view of a most peculiarly twisted sense of humour the end of the demo-monde?

[ahinton]

Your point being ...

...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.

[amateur51]

...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.

And so this is an argument for ... leaving the country? ... starting a revolution? ... creating a new political party? .... ignoring politics under the current system altogether? ....

You and your 'obviously' ah

What are you like?

[scottycelt]

I 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 ..............

Forgive 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!

[Nick Armstrong]

shamelessly natural

We're perfectly used to your shameless naturism now, Scotty, having faced your avatar portrait for years

[cloughie]

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!

[amateur51]

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!

Which is a major flaw in the system (one of several) scotty.

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

[amateur51]

We're perfectly used to your shameless naturism now, Scotty, having faced your avatar portrait for years

I believe the Scottish demotic is :boak:

[MrGongGong]

Forgive 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

[JohnSkelton]

johnb, 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?

There was a BBC documentary a while ago 'The Plot against Harold Wilson' which claimed that Mountbatten was involved in talks about an anti-'left-wing' coup, and that members (?) of the royal family were sympathetic

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Mountbatten,_1st_Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma

Lot of nonsense, I'm sure .

[Flosshilde]

johnb, 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!

As John S demonstrates above, current members of the the royal family are not neutral politically (& the late Queen Mother was almost as right-wing as her brother-in-law was). The suggestion that the monarchy is a bulwark against coups has no basis in evidence - & if you take the experiences of other countries that have had monarchies in the past as evidence the case is quite the opposite.

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

[french frank]

Don't assume that just because someone is opposed to heredity monarchy that it automatically follows that they want an elected political president

What might they want? An apolitical president - a sort of popularity poll?

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.]

[cloughie]

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

No they are not - when spoilt papers are the largest vote then you can say they are.

[Pabmusic]

...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

Sort of. Yes, we're subjects, but constitutionally the Queen is monarch only because parliament permits her to be. That was the result oh the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the subsequent Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement. Parliament could abolish the Monarchy tomorrow, if it chose.

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.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

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!

Oh, and we were getting on so well on the "Bruckner Finale" Thread.

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.