Sorry I’ve been away for a while. I was abducted by Aliens whilst still at my computer, although they showed me they’re wonderful democracy they
said I was spending too much time online and needed to spend more time on “boring things”.
Well thanks for you’re support FreedomERP
but in the interests of accuracy I’ve got one small correction. At the time of the Iraq war the
majority of the English people supported it. Yes we had one of the biggest political demos of all time, and yes that majority was extraordinary fin.
But it was once there
. In my opinion it existed only because of a host of lies and untruths.
Oddly enough you could say it is a great credit to the English people that we will support a war when a country has WMD’s pointed at you
, has a dictator so evil he’s almost insane FACT
, and whose people would (in the long run) be almost infinitely better of without
(even though none of these things are facts they certainly took the identities of facts at the time).
So to all critics I concede that there is problem with referendums if fiction ends up taking the identity of truth. But I’ll ask: How is any
political system immune? At least referendums carry the will of people with them.
1. Originally posted by UK Wizard
they are prone to populist influences with outlets such as newspapers swinging votes through half-truths and shocking headlines.
Newsgroups do that repeatedly (and as part of a grand strategy) when they’re owners-controllers decide to support one political party over the
other. To see grand strategies like this at work just compare the almost consistently pro Tory Express
with the almost consistently pro-Labour
Currently whatever damage they do to representing the intended will of the people is cemented for up to
five years (i.e. next election), but
whatever damage these strategies-mind games do under a system of more referendums lasts till either the next referendum, or parliamentary vote.
So it’s almost a separate issue that belongs under Press Freedom as it affects both systems, but perhaps ours over much longer periods of time?
Also I would speculate that one of the first casualties of a more populist democratic system would be the “right” of news organisations to
deliberately mislead the public. It’s a sort of trial by jury case, resulting in meagre big fines to help make sure it doesn’t happen often.
After all any government that relies on giving the people a more direct say in decisions cannot afford to wilfully tolerate mass deception in the way
they do now. And if it ever has anything to with referendums I think the vast majority of people would agree with more draconian legislation against
. And what’s the great value anyways? It’s not welcome here on ATS, and I for one hate it when I find it in my head.
2. Originally posted by Ste2652
How long until we see events like Kristallnacht on British soil? Mobs of people burning mosques and the homes and businesses of Muslims just
because they're of a particular religion.
I doubt very much that any referendum will ever see this legalised. I haven’t conducted an opinion poll to find out, but sorry you’re idea that
the British people are just inching to burn down a few mosques; I don’t buy into.
I suppose it depends on what type of crowd you ask: if you ask some drunken yobs outside a football stadium, they’ll think it’s a great idea. Or
if you ask the people who actually have to live next door to minorities where English is like foreign language, or where there’s a sizeable number
who want to make us a Islamic state complete with stoning women to death for alcohol or adultery, then you’ll certainly have a crowd in favour of
more “decisive” action. But the idea of something wretched being on the menu nationally…not this generation, and I think what people think now
is wretched is unlikely change, unless of course you can give a bit more of a reason.
As odd as it sounds, I think politicians sometimes know best (the death penalty issue you mention, Liberal, being a good example)
That’s because you’re against the death penalty?
I'm also (pretty much) against it, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t respect a verdict of a referendum on it. Especially as there are other areas
where the majorities view is closure to my own. Of course if you look at the whole list of what the public wants there’s more than likely be a few
things you personally do not want. But it is from start to finish a trade of. And it’s one I believe would massively reduce political discontentment
with our government (overall at least).
3. Originally posted by Sminkeypinky
In fact it is on those opportunistic subjects (such as the EU/Europe, immigration, law & order, etc) that one can see just how incredibly
conservative the UK has been since the end of WW2 effectively.
So much so that it makes your claims and implications that the UK is run by some kind of 'liberal' or progressive 'elite' so laughable.
What you call “conservative” is clearly quite liberal in comparison to what the English people actually want. Otherwise (take law and order) why
don’t we have the death penalty for certain crimes?
Or how about Europe (you also mentioned): why are we part of the EU for anything other than trade? It’s because of trade the British people voted to
join the EU, and European trade we generally support. But it’s regarding they’re government over our people we reject. Take the they’re human
“rights” act, they’re feared EU constitution, they’re ideology even over really quite basic things like banning pints in pubs (not for
, but for home battering of course).
Regarding immigration I have no idea whether the English people support the EU immigrants or not (I personally do) but regarding the broader is; I
think the common feeling here is that “we have enough people living in this country thank you very much” and that it even goes so far as to prefer
a couple of economic percentage points loss. I think you’ll find the only time the English people accept immigration is when it’s for people who
are in genuine need to flee they’re country, and on the condition it’s not too many tens of thousands. I think you’ll find that’s not how
it’s been over the last 50 years, and that if the economy is really such a huge consideration we’d much prefer a system of temporary work permits
(better still for specific areas). And that’s a big difference from granting full blown citizenship. If it had been followed over the last 50 years
areas where’s there’s huge cultural as well as racially difference would be so rare they’d almost be novelty.
I.e. It’s because the Liberal Left (in Labour and Conservative governments) defying
what the majority of people have wanted (and continue to want) that we have the sons and daughters of economic immigration ghettos, that we have the
racial tensions and cultural differences the Liberal Left loves to spend so much time to dwelling on, (and complain) about in so much of they’re
Sminkey you say it’s laughable that we are ruled by a Liberal elite but you couldn’t help but select a list of examples where the ideology has
conformed to none other than the Liberal elite. In this way (with a little bit of examination) you kind of make my point.
Why would you make that mistake? Is it because it’s hard to select a list
of issues where (in comparison to what people want) the ideology
has not conformed to the liberal elite?
A Summary Of What I Maintain…
Mob rule will not be popular, so it will not win referendums. The Liberal Elite are oppressing us for the simple reason that bar certain issues (like
the NHS) what the majority wants does not confirm to they’re taste of politics.
Reasoning like that is found at the core of every dictatorship they’re ever was.
And if the Liberal Elite genuinely believes they’re behaving in the common good, then that’s good; but it’s still not good enough, because
(likewise) every dictatorship they’re ever was has claimed to be acting in the common good, and many actually believed it (e.g. Nazis and
Communists, plus countless variations, and others) (yet by virtue of being diametrically opposed they can’t all have been right).
I agree there is a place for parliament and that’s over minor issues, as well as overturning the mandate of a referendum (if they want to). Of
course I know that’s unlikely, but if the people, our people keep electing really do
(in general) care about the greater good, then no doubt
they’re will be occasions.
I recognise that a system of extensively
more Direct Democracy
is not possible
without better regulation on acts of deliberate
deception carried out through the mass media. There’s just too much deliberate deception not
to make a government that held a great many referendums “flippant minded” (always reversing past decisions).
But even without any changes in media legislation it would seem the gulf between the general public’s viewpoint, and the general political classes
viewpoint is too wide even for its own good. This is partly because the publics opinion is being consistently ignored over very long periods of
, and because there are many issues, and because many of these aren’t minor at all.
The Liberal Elite (or whatever you call it) may not be a single entity, but I believe there are solutions available, which are mechanisms (politically
neutral), that these are peaceful, and long overdue.
[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]