I ask this question after my last post on ID cards.
I thought there were many varied arguments and it was in general a good debate.
Now on to another subject.
After our debate on ID cards what does the forum think about the trust we should have in the government and their controllers (ie, the banks and corporations and funders or whoever you think might have influence)?
And do you think this is the way we should live and if not how should people organise to give meaning to their lives to break away from such subversive entities.
Over to you guys.
0
Comments
The country should be run by an executive committee, from the world of politics, business etc. ie the right individual with proven track records, and the chairman is elected by the populate every four years.
as they are there longer the spin gets stronger........
Its all flannel and coruption is what keeps governments and Big business ahead... thats enough or ill get on my soap box.......
F@#$ 'em
Who is the Government? Your local MP, your council who most likely have more impact on your day to day life than Westminster MPS? The Civil Service who many of the people on here have or do work for. The BBC?
AFKA, what you are suggesting is a president with no opposition party. The rest of the committee are who? unelected power brokers but who chooses them? It would most likely be Max Clifford, Richard Branson, Micheal Caine, The Archbishop of Canterbury, JK Rowling and others that people have heard of but that doesn't make them fit to run the country.
Trust them, no not fully. That's why we should take an interest, vote, write, protest, march, petition etc to keep them on their toes. Never trust anyone who says "trust me".
I would prefer to see multi-seat constituencies where say Greenwich and Bexley elected 6 MPS and your had 6 votes. You could vote for the 6 candidates from your party or you might go for the local person who you think does a good job but is the "wrong" party. You would still have a local MP (in fact you would have six) but you would be more likely to have a range of say three labour, two Tory and a liberal to choose from. You would also feel more willing to vote as your vote would count. There is a danger of Nazi BNP scum getting in but less than straight national proportional representation and if people elect them then it is up to the other parties to offer a better alternative (assuming running them off the streets as we did with the NF in the 70s doesn't work)
5 yrs is too short considering it really takes at least 10 yrs for the average man on the street to see the benefit of any economic policies. Therefore meaning all the Govt. is looking to do is appease the country and ensure another term in office by making short-term fixes rather than anything particularly beneficial for the country.
Having said that I wouldn't want a party in for 10yrs as that gives them freedom to do what they like.
As Ben said, Democracy isn't perfect buts its the best option open to us.
To briefly link to the ID card debate, one of the main reasons for pushing for ID cards is to harmonise us with the majority of other EU countries which already have ID cards. A largely Eurosceptic British population would not accept this as a valid reason however hence the use of terrorism and identity theft as reasons to justify them. There is a fundamental difference between the way the British Constitution has developed to that of the "Napoleonic" European countries that form much of the EU. In essence the prevailing principle in Britain, stemming from the Magna Carta in 1215 and later the Bill Of Rights of 1689, has always been that of freedom of the individual. However individuals cede certain freedoms to a democratically elected government for the common good. On the other hand the "Napoleonic" approach has always been that the government reigns supreme and hands down freedoms and rights to the individual. The distinction is subtle but vitally important to understanding why a supra European government, involving Britain anyway, is unrealistic.
Back to the question! Our electoral system, first past the post, has the merit of giving the elected government the power to be strong where necessary. However it has the disadvantage of being open to abuse without accountability until the next election. I think we reached that point under the Tories before Blair got in and I think we are there again. For this reason I would favour a proportional representation system which would offer more democratic accountability.
We live in strange times politically, largely because of the influence of the EU, and "traditional" party differences have become blurred. I cite Iraq. We have a Labour government who participated in this invasion so the Party is nominally in favour yet 100 plus Labour backbenchers oppose the war!
Proportional Representation would allow ALL voices to be heard in the Mother of Parliaments even if it has little or no power anymore.