Not sure what your definition of democracy is, but we do live in one really.

My definition is we vote once every five years or so. And that’s it.

The political parties are financed and influenced by “interested parties”, you have to get the media on your side, of course without stepping on the toes of those who run them and their “interests”, the main parties are increasingly only choosing particular candidates who wont rock the boat and from particular backgrounds.

A classic example is what this current Government is doing. Things it’s doing that weren’t in it’s manifesto, so how could you vote for it?

We don’t, we live in a nation with a constitutional monarchy.

…who don’t actually run anything.

We vote for the people who do though – that’s democracy. They may not run it in our best interests, but that’s our fault. What with this being a democracy and all.

A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional republic, such as France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, or the United States, or a constitutional monarchy, such as Japan, Spain, or the United Kingdom. It may have a presidential system (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, the United States), a semi-presidential system (France and Taiwan), or a parliamentary system (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Poland, the United Kingdom).

from the Wiki.

The political parties are financed and influenced by “interested parties”

Yep. And why are the parties in power? Cos we voted for them. If we weren’t so stupid, we would be able to create an alternative.

We don’t live in democracy

Whilst I don’t think our system is perfect, I think that’s a matter of perspective & relativity. Spend some time in China, North Korea, Cuba, Russia, Myanmar and try living your life as you do in the UK, pretty much going where you want, when you want and saying pretty much what you want…

after the virtual collapse of capitalism in the last decade

I’m not sure the Chinese, much of Africa, India, ex-Eastern bloc would agree with you that capitalism has collapsed. How many pure Communist countries exist in the world, how powerful are they and what standard of living to their citizens enjoy?

To the OP, if i were a socialist I’d be pretty upset that there was no-one left for me to vote for. But at the same time I think the country has gradually moved rightwards post-war so a proper Socialist party in the UK would be highly unlikely to ever get into power, in which case, what purpose would it serve to the electorate as a whole?

the party leader would have to wear a silly wig and clown makeup of course.

Tell me, if you’re so keen on democracy, would you be happy to have a truly democratic society? lets take a couple of exmaples, would you be happy for a referendum on the following subjects:

i) EU membership
ii) The death penalty
iii) immigration
iv) Foreign Aid

Or are you happy to tolerate democracy only as long as those democratic decisions fit with your own belief system?

As soon as we have made sure we have an honest and balanced national press then yeah, let the referendums go ahead.

As soon as we have made sure we have an honest and balanced national press then yeah, let the referendums go ahead.

And who would monitor and balance this new honest and balanced national press?

What we need is a state run press who’d make sure that it was handled evenly and fairly and without bias from rich individuals/companies.

Well we do have the BBC…

I think i need to down tools and have a good read through this but while I’m here…did I hear right? The most Thunderbird-puppet-like man in politics of recent years has gone to work for International Rescue?!

) EU membership
ii) The death penalty
iii) immigration
iv) Foreign Aid

i’m not so sure that mr average is particularly informed about the above, and not really able to make a decision, i know naff all about eu membership for example

What we need is a state run press who’d make sure that it was handled evenly and fairly and without bias from rich individuals/companies.

😆 😉

Yep. And why are the parties in power? Cos we voted for them. If we weren’t so stupid, we would be able to create an alternative.

Well at least we can agree on something.

i’m not so sure that mr average is particularly informed about the above, and not really able to make a decision

Thankfully Mr A Verage is only 1 man, the rest are either above or below him

we’d have to have soft drinks coloured red in carboard cups and crisps as well, but not smokey bacon, yuuuuckkk.

anyone see newsnight the other night

quite a rational debate about immigration then along came farage quoting some platerers hed allegedly been chatting to in the pub just b4 he was obviously lying through his manky teeth but he sees to be the ‘voice of the nation’ when it comes to immigration

Nigel Farage is now effectively writing the main parties policy on immigration for them.

And why? Because betwen the main parties, they’ve distilled and gerrymandered the political system to the point where the outcome of any general election is decided in a few key constituencies. The rest don’t matter, so neither do the opinions of their inhabitants

But those key swing-vote constituencies are exactly where UKIP are now making a nuisance of themselves. Hence the panic in Westminster, and the quick re-writing of policy by all of them to pander to the UKIP inclined

How about a party that doesn’t have Left or Right ideals. Perhaps something based around humans not destroying the environment they are part of by raping said environment for resources?

A crazy thought. A party that isn’t about being union or capitalist. If only the Green Party could actually do something!

If you start one, you’ll get my vote. All this conforming left and right (you must be one or the other) is limiting our choice. Some of us want neither.

he sees to be the ‘voice of the nation’ when it comes to immigration

I fear he’s onto something. Which is scary.

An interesting article in the Economist this week came to the conclusion that the US recovery is lagging simply because there are fewer people of working age in the country, which is simply a matter of demography – lots of old people, retired and not enough young people, working and generating economic output.

Europe also has an aging population.

So unfortunately if we want growth, we will have to import the labour to deliver the economic growth.

I think the electorate need to have this spelled out to them in cold terms rather than the emotional rhetoric you get from UKIP, Tories and the right-wing press, before we knacker the country’s future…

Thus they were there to serve the central London-obsessed, Islington dwelling party

This is a lot of cack: it was ZaNuLieBore (thought I’d make you feel at home with the official Daily Mail spelling) that introduced devolution fr Scotland, the Welsh National Assembly, revived the peace process and Stormont, washed is hands of London affairs allowing a disgraced Old Labour hack to become the second most important man in UK politics, introduced directly-elected mayors and proposed English assemblies that were so de-Londonised that no-one wanted it. Oh, and occupied Kosovo, and intervened in Sierra Leone, and invaded Iraq, and invaded Afghanistan.

But yeah, they were just OBSESSED by Central London, right?

Tell me, if you’re so keen on democracy, would you be happy to have a truly democratic society? lets take a couple of exmaples, would you be happy for a referendum on the following subjects:

i) EU membership
ii) The death penalty
iii) immigration
iv) Foreign Aid

Or are you happy to tolerate democracy only as long as those democratic decisions fit with your own belief system?

Up until the last election we routinely have had a referendum on these issues, its called a general election and thus far it has maintained the status quo as you know it. I have to say our system isn’t working well with an unelected government and that is a cause for considerable concern to me and I suspect many others.

Up until the last election we routinely have had a referendum on these issues, its called a general election and thus far it has maintained the status quo as you know it.

Really, can you tell me which significant political party in the past forty years has stood on an election commitment regards the reintroduction of the death penalty, departure from the EU, or cessation of foreign aid?

I thought we wanted democracy?

why cant we have democracy on these issues as well as the issues that suit the political elite?

Why does it have to be a significant political party? Surely if enough people cared sufficiently about those issues then a party advocating them would get elected?

You’re quite free to set up such a party and see how many people vote for you.

I’m a bit more suprised at the fact that we have an unelected government in the UK. I swear that I remember an election back in 2010 that resulted in the government that we currently have.

Oh get real konabunny

Devolution is a sham. Its meaningless tokanism, the same as the Tory’s much trumpeted ‘localism’. Utter bullshit!!!!

They never gave any real power to anybody other than limited ones to the Scottish parliament. Only after they thought they’d safely stitched up their very clever electoral system so that it could never deliver a working majority to anyone except labour. Oops! That went well then?

The rest of the regional assemblies are talking shops stuffed with Nu Labours favourtes: reams and reams of pointless overpaid quangos, consultants and committees going round in endless circles to achieve nothing. Just the gravy train of another level of pointless bureaucracy to spaff taxpayers money on. Same as directly elected mayors. Yeah… note the electoral enthusiasm. Would you like a North West regional assembley? No! **** off!! Placate us with another expensive, pointless, powerless talking shop? I think most of us saw through that one

And exactly WTF does invading Iraq and Afahnistan prove they’re not London centric? Other than the fact that they were more prepared to listen to people in Washington, than Manchester 🙄

Stand for election yourself. If folk care enough about those policies they’ll vote for you. If you’re successful, other folk will stand on the same ticket and they’ll also get elected. Pretty soon, there will be enough of you to form a government.

Or not.

I thought the SWP was the true socialist party or do you want to create something slightly to the right of them but definitley more to the left than current New labour?

I thought the SWP was the true socialist party or do you want to create something slightly to the right of them but definitley more to the left than current New labour?

People’s Front of Judea? SPLITTERS!

Stand for election yourself. If folk care enough about those policies they’ll vote for you.

Isn’t that what UKIP did – but we’re constantly hearing from the lefties that they are unfairly targeting swing voters with emotional arguments

I thought you wanted democracy, not more of the same?

Isn’t that what UKIP did – but we’re constantly hearing from the lefties that they are unfairly targeting swing voters with emotional arguments

Are we? Troll troll troll – new username but the same old nonsense eh?

All we need to bring our political parties into line is to make it illegal (with substantial criminal penalties) to accept political donations from anyone but a registered voter in the relevant electorate. That way they’ll have to actually talk to the electorate.

At the moment we have the best government that the big corporates can buy.

And to fix the Labour party – no representatives who haven’t had a proper job in the real world.

People’s Front of Judea? SPLITTERS!

The problem with The Life of Brian is it reminds us this kind of chat has been going on for ever… and the best way to deal with it is to just laugh at the powermongers and get on with living life as well as you can…

Not sure what your definition of democracy is, but we do live in one really.

Guided democracy, also called managed democracy, is a term for a democratic government with increased autocracy. Governments are legitimated by elections that are free and fair but emptied of substantive meaning in their ability to change the State’s policies, motives, and goals.
In other words, the government has learned to control elections so that the people can exercise all their rights without truly changing public policy. While they follow basic democratic principles, there can be major deviations towards authoritarianism. Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the State’s continuous use of propaganda techniques.

I would also like to see new political parties but would prefer the debate to focus on the other axis in Scotroutes 4-quadrant diagram ie from authoritarian towards more libertarianism.

To some extent, it is a truism that societies get the politicians they deserve. We do not have a (modern) history of political extremism in this country (which some claim is the benefit of a monarchy) but even so, there has been an concentration of political thinking in the centre (I would not agree that this is RW) and this has alienated those at the RELATIVELY more extreme ends of the political spectrum. One of the reasons for that IMO is that the populations who sit at these extreme are in the minority – so in this case, it will be interesting to see if there is sufficient support. Personally, I doubt it.

But as I said at the start, rather than a shift R=>L, I would prefer to see a shift from less government and certainly less authoritarian government in favour of more libertarianism. Perhaps a shift towards the centre of the axis in the quadrant box. Too much meddling, too much bureaucracy, too little accountability, too little responsibility and freedom lie at the heart of the many of our problems. The subjecation of the populations of S Europe to the political elites of Europe’s core, is the most extreme example of this.

FWIW, Ken Loach would need better spokesman. He was awful on QT recently. Both he and Heseltine appeared like relics of a distant political age.

Couldn’t give a stuff about wingedness – or even democracy for its own sake. Just critical thinking, and evidence following.

For example. We currently still have prohibition of (some, arbitrarily chosen) drugs, we can barely mange to build a nuclear power station, and we sold all our carrier capable aircraft for spares right before buying two aircraft carriers.

Also, watch a debate in the commons, then in the lords. Then tell yourself the democratically elected house gives us anything of worth.

Not sure what wingedness any of that makes me, but yearning for wingedness of any stripe seems daft.

rattrap – Member

Up until the last election we routinely have had a referendum on these issues, its called a general election and thus far it has maintained the status quo as you know it.

Really, can you tell me which significant political party in the past forty years has stood on an election commitment regards the reintroduction of the death penalty, departure from the EU, or cessation of foreign aid?

I thought we wanted democracy?

why cant we have democracy on these issues as well as the issues that suit the political elite?

Clearly there are one of two possibilities here;-

A) You’ve not understood the basic tenents of Democracy (if you’re not sure what that means google majority)
B) You are a Troll, and I claim my rights under Troglodytae Prima Nocte…tonight you’re mine sucker

No, Bandit, you’re mistaking the parliamentary representative democracy that we have in the UK as the only form of democracy, there have been a great many differing form of democracy throughout time, all of which have had differing yet equally valid ways of deciding ‘what the majority want’ on particular subjects.

Why on earth shouldn’t the people have a referendum on issues that affect us all – the death penalty being a fantastic example of where the political settlement does not and has not reflected the majority public view for decades.

The fact that you’re unable to expand your thinking beyond the current format of government shows that you’re one of those who on reflection probably would benefit society by having your democratic mandate limited to putting a cross in a box once every five years.

My best idea is still to ensure that people actually know who they’re voting for by removing the names of the political parties from all ballot papers and at least 500m of the polling station. If you have to be memorable to your local voters then perhaps you won’t turn out to be such a douche.

Also MP’s should be limited to two terms to ensure decent turnover.

In fact I’d go so far to say it’d be better to select parliament the same way we select jurors.

I think Left and Right are as bad as each other

I think left and aren’t really relevant ideologies to try and apply to a lot of the issues today and branding yourself a tory or a socialist has about as much relevance and meaning as which leg of your trousers you put on first. MP’s should be there to use their conscience to put forward what they feel is in the best interests of their constituents, not to follow the sponsored/sanctioned party line

oliverd1981 – Member
MP’s should be there to use their conscience to put forward what they feel is in the best interests of their constituents, not to follow the sponsored/sanctioned party line

Careful, not adhering to strict political parameters and party lines is strictly frowned upon on STW. How very dare you?!? The “outing-gang” will be on to you shortly.

More than a new political party, we need a new economic model that addresses how to overcome excessive levels of debt across most sectors of the economy. None of the current models are working and are unlikely to do so in the near future – tight fiscal policy/loose monetary policy (Europe) or tight monetary policy/loose fiscal policy (until recently Japan). The political elite are stuck with one framework to understand and tackle our problems but it isn’t working – and no thats not just capitalism, that’s merely a sloppy headline.

more libertarianism

I’ll happily (hello Stoner! 8) ) take my cue from Thoreau when it comes to the evils of Big Government, but – IME – self-styled libertarians rarely have concrete solutions to real-world problems. And the more evangelical of ’em are simply barking. What they do offer, however, is plenty of vague platitudes, and they tend to occupy political territory inwhich both anarchists and monied elites can feel comfortable – while the rest of us have to make do. So, no thanks.

Careful, not adhering to strict political parameters and party lines is strictly frowned upon on STW. How very dare you?!? The “outing-gang” will be on to you shortly.

That’s a very inaccurate and one might even say disingenuous way of describing the stick you got.

MP’s should be there to use their conscience to put forward what they feel is in the best interests of their constituents, not to follow the sponsored/sanctioned party line

I totally agree – the party system with an official line enforced by whips is fundamentally undemocratic IMO.

Why on earth shouldn’t the people have a referendum on issues that affect us all – the death penalty being a fantastic example of where the political settlement does not and has not reflected the majority public view for decades.

As already explained, if a political party thought they could get enough support by advocating such a policy, they would – or you can start your own – that’s democracy. But apparently that’s not good enough for you. And what people say in opinion polls is often not reflected in actual votes BTW.

We do not have a (modern) history of political extremism in this country (which some claim is the benefit of a monarchy)

Nah it is asymptom of it tbh we are conservative [ small c true meaning ] here and dont have much history of either right or left wing extremis – i think we dont like change much

One of the reasons for that IMO is that the populations who sit at these extreme are in the minority – so in this case, it will be interesting to see if there is sufficient support. Personally, I doubt it.

you would need to eb a pretty deluded right or left winger to thinkl your brand of politics will ever be electable – I realise that the majority do not share my views for example

I would prefer to see a shift from less government and certainly less authoritarian government in favour of more libertarianism. Perhaps a shift towards the centre of the axis in the quadrant box. Too much meddling, too much bureaucracy, too little accountability, too little responsibility and freedom lie at the heart of the many of our problems.

Interestingly I see that as right wing as it beefitss those of means – where you see an authoritarian state i see it as providing the helping hand the less middle class actually need. Choice and empowerment are buzz words but if you try working with the needy they are meaningless[ re reading that and not sure if that reads like a dig but it is not a dig at you so sorry if it reads as such ] I deliver a service that is all about that and it just does not meet some peoples needs as they need to actually be shown. Sadly , for some , it would be like empowering a child over bed times or how much xbopx to play. It wont end well- see what happens giving the “needy” their Housing Benefit rather than their landlords
Libertarianism has its place as govt should not limit your choices it should however enable them and that means help IME

branding yourself a tory or a socialist has about as much relevance and meaning as which leg of your trousers you put on first

you really think that simply by knowing this it tells you nothing in political terms 😯 You may dislike labels, the party system but knowing this gives a pretty good insight into what someone stands for.

The political elite are stuck with one framework to understand and tackle our problems but it isn’t working

Your right they all think and act the same though we get a slightly different flavour with little real alternatives – certainly economically there is little difference beyond the rhetoric.

and no thats not just capitalism, that’s merely a sloppy headline.

Obviously I disagree but if you want to have it you need to take boom and bust and save for the busts as they are as inevitabe as the booms. It is not designed to be steady or zero growth so you inevitably get this – if its not inevitable then so far we ack the means of controlling it and obviosuly i think it is impossible to control greed when you base a system on it …folk will always want more and not think it coudl ever end so that when it hits the fan they are too over stretched.