It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Does Our Dictatorship Work?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I was watching BBC Hardtalk (050707) by Stephen Sackur in which he interviewed Martin Narey en.wikipedia.org... Chief Executive of Barnardo's (the children’s charity).

Anyway about halfway through Stephen challenged Martin on his view that less children should be sent to prison, by pointing out how most opinion polls of British people show we believe the government isn’t tough enough.
Martin Narely replied “oh come on, most opinion polls of British people would also show they want to bring back hanging, we aren’t that kind of democracy, we don’t have referendums on these sorts of things”

He makes a good point.
And so this is a sample of they’re propaganda is it?
I.e. “that the opinion of “worker ants” shouldn’t be enacted; as there are a range of controversial questions (in which controversial answers must thereby be given) but where the opinion of the worker ants is also different to those of the status quo.


1. So who is this “liberal” elite?
2. And what are such large swarms doing in our parliamentary democracy?
3. What individuals besides the public determine the nature of political correctness?
4. What is they’re power structure?
5. And how can we rid ourselves of them lawfully and peacefully?

Regarding Power Structure: One would have thought there is some sort of cross party consensus that ensures if the publics opinion differs from They’re Ideologies opinion, the chances of this counter opinion being enacted is very slim.

Whatever the case surely it is right that we rid ourselves of this semi-totalitarian ideology? And replace it with a more Libertarian outlook which would make mistakes, but which will make those mistakes with a democratic mandate, and which will therefore for better or worse end our slavery.
I'm talking about a slavery to an ideology which hogs our government, thereby demands taxes from us, and simultaneously denies us the ability to live in a society we would choose for ourselves, and may even currently crying out for.

Clearly this elite fears referendums because they have a “God” which exists independently of matter in the same way maths, ideology, morality, and truth does. But this God is arrogant and dictatorial in nature.
And like everyone who has ever held a view passionately they’re God claims to be acting in the interests of the greater right. And like everyone who has ever followed a view passionately, they believe him.

There are many areas of British government where the will of the majority is not enacted supposedly for the greater. This is…
Our current foreign policy
Accessibility to abortion
Treatment of criminals (and extensive meticulous “human rights”)
Health and safety culture
The petrol tax which could instead be taken as income tax from the more well of
The “apparent” inability of teachers to discipline kids at schools
Capital punishment (as sais)
Release of convicted paedophiles in the community, and more specifically sentencing guidelines for them.
The payment of benefits without the need for at least receivers to work for the state.
Our governing by the European Union over all issues other than trade.

These are just a few things from the top of my head.


Do we, or do we not live in political climate so detached from enacting the will of the majority that in this way our people increasingly resembles the populace living they’re lives in a society under a dictatorship?
As this “nice” Martin Narey chap demonstrates isn’t our world complete with...
A ruling elite
Dominating lacking a proper democratic mandate
Has a great disdain for democracy, or at least libertarianism?

Personally I prefer not to believe it but…
Imagine if doctor Kelly was murdered; would it in light of what I have said be a case of the state going too far, or it be a case of the dictatorship going too far?

If we have a system of government by the common people, for the common people then why hasn’t someone out of the 60 million people set up a political party that has forced at least some of the above to be addressed in at least some of the years they’ve lacked common support?
Does no one set up the party because…
If it works they get silenced
The political party doesn’t work, because our democratic system doesn’t do all it’s billed to do (in most people minds).

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]




posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   
It's perfectly simple Lib, democracy works within a framework of law.

That's why you (or we) can't have the instance you gave of hanging, not because some dark conspiracy is stopping the democratic will of the people but becuase 'we' have agreed and enacted laws which prohibit that course of action.

TBH if you're seriously going to try & describe the UK as a dictatorship (particularly a dictatorship of the 'liberal elite'
) I suggest you go and try live under a real one and then come back with something more of a clue on the matter and then you'd be qualified to sound off about how much of a totalitarian state it is here.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
If we have a system of government by the common people, for the common people then why hasn’t...


Liberal, you have made the classic error in questioning the operation of a democracy. You have paraphrased Lincoln's Gettysburg address but missed out the third vital element of what has been taken as his definition of democracy which is, of course, "Government of the people.

Everyone loves the bits about Government by the people and Government for the people but all too often they try to gloss over the third constituent which is every bit as important as the other two. The People NEED to be governed and without this third element you cross the thin dividing line between democracy and anarchy or, alternatively, Government and mob rule.



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
You can translate “how does our dictatorship work” to “how does the well documented will of the common people fail to be enacted over such a large range of issues, over such large lengths of time”.

It matters because of the ten points I’ve listed above since there will probably be many where you yourself would appreciate a more populist approach, but also not appreciate it.

Personally
1. For me the area where I disagree with the will of the people most is capital punishment, I do agree with it for certain terrorism cases solely in order to prevent other free terrorists taking hostages in order to demand the release of their “comrades”. But this is a situation we barely face in the U.K anyway.

2. Likewise an area where I agree with the will of the common people most is the issue of benefits. I hate how well over a third of all taxpayers money going to the welfare state, and would much rather we discontinued some of it in order to provide the working classes with tax cuts on things like petrol or national insurance. I advocate that all (sane and physically mobile) people may only receive benefits in exchange for limited but fairly paid work for the state. I believe this would help pay for the tax cuts, and virtually eliminate fraud.

3. As for prison I actually hate many of the types who go there, and believe me if they were in a group they may well show much unproved hatred to you. For all but a relative few I wouldn’t cry if conditions (and running costs) were as low as America’s www.thesun.co.uk... toughest jail.[/url" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">

Frustrated United Kingdom
Many other people will feel passionately about many of the features a more populist society has to offer, but they tend to tolerate the boiling passion within them on two grounds…
1. “We are a democracy, therefore what they personally advocate is not what most people advocate” (even though the evidence is against this). “Or because we are a democracy, and because most do feel one way on certain issues, then it is only a brief (or maybe medium) matter of time before the policy direction of the country falls into line with the opinion of the majority on any given issues (assuming that is, that the opinion of the majority stands consistent through the passage of time)”. However once again this is not the case on many of the points above, since the will of the majority has indeed remained largely consistent through the passage of time (on many anyway).
2. Increasingly many people feel (or realise) there is something very wrong (in their view) about how this country is governed.
But they figure “little old me” can’t do anything about it; and since they’ve got a big-rent mortgage to pay of, high living costs, a mediocre wage; which demands many hours, and affords little free time (in order to pay off the stated costs), they just get along with their lives, leave politics behind, and use they’re free time to the maximum by directing (where they can) on entertainment instead.
It’s understood by most that this situation of apathy has established a self-fulfilling prophecy as many of these disenchantised people do not vote…
Because: the candidates they would like do not stand, and they do not stand because they do not win, and they will not win because their electorate do not vote, and their electorate do not vote because their candidates do not win.



If only there was a way of simultaneously communicating and explaining to the
majority of people about the slim chances of their will being enacted on a hole cost of core issues, then on the same day there would probably be a political uprising, if not on the day (hope not as that’s the anarchy of revolution) then certainly at next term of government through the handover of power at the ballot box.

Equally (as last said) it seems quite apparent from it’s long term existing absence that there is no way a political body which can be formed that will both manifesto the will of the majority, and gain power as quickly as its popular appeal should mandate it. In fact it seems no such body will gain power even during the course of a whole generation. I still wonder if there is foul play is going on, I know for a fact from my grandfather there is in Australia, but the most significant of all is the legal boycotting and hostility new parties receive from the mass owned media.


Sminkey I believe you’re 100% right that our situation operates fully within the framework of law. After all what other mechanism could there be?
Anyway it is because people govern within law without referendums (at least about once every 35 years) that the political system has become so detached from the will of the common people. Certainly more referendums would be a way of peacefully and lawfully resolving the current disenchantment. But the problem that first needs to be overcome is the same i.e. how to peacefully and lawfully get these core issues to the popular vote.

As for comparisons about living in a “real dictatorship” all I can say is that it depends on what kind of dictatorship. If Putins Russia, and it’s parliament, and state run media, is a virtual dictatorship (as many in the West proclaim) then I personally would credit their governments legislative arm, and the will of the people being in far more harmony than ours is. It is normal for certain breeds of dictatorial government to give in to popular opinion on most domestic issues, as a means of conserving power. Examples of this also include Saddam Iraq pre-1991 and pre-U.N sanctions.
Ironically it is on the foreign policy front where most dictatorships generally pay least attention to the will of their citizens (or more rather intellectuals). See any comparison there with the U.K currently unpopular (but maintaining cross Tory and Lab party consensus) foreign policy?

Timeless Test This where we could have a great debate…

The People NEED to be governed and without this third element you cross the thin dividing line between democracy and anarchy or, alternatively, Government and mob rule.


Firstly you state the people need to be governed. I agree but I do not think it’s wise, good, or necessary to ignore their opinions over many consecutive years.
You seem to say that if this wasn’t the case then we would have mob-rule…
Now when I think of “mob-rule” a image pops into my head of a lawless society where the prime power is groups of people going round wearing baseball caps as uniform, and carrying baseball bats as a primary weapon.

However I do not think it is the will of the majority of people (or perhaps even 10% of the people) that either all government be abolished, or that power be handed to Iraq style militias.
In fact regarding law and order it seems to be (or actually is) the long standing will of the majority for their to be more government in the forms of…
1. Higher prison sentences
2. More police
3. Fewer human rights for repeat offenders-convicted criminals

This does not seem to be anarchy to me, but rather the foundations of a more orderly-governed society. Despite “only” a [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6297715.stm 24.3%chance of any one person being a victim of crime in any given year, this 24.3% figure would seem to be at least about 12.5% too high.
Likewise the majority do not seem to favour getting rid of democracy as a mechanism for government, so with there will, and “democracy passion” in mind, I find it hard to see how this “mob rule” will ever materialise.
Why would it materialise under a more populist government?
Cos that’s where one great debate is sleeping.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Populism is a double-edged sword, however.

For instance, can you imagine how minorities would be treated by a populist government? As much as I hate to say it, many (most?) average Britons are ill educated when it comes to minority groups, especially groups like Muslims. 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. Perhaps even ghettos?

Also areas like foreign affairs... we'd pretty much hate everyone. We'd snub the US, leave the EU and end up isolated, alone and vulnerable.

You've also got to deal with issues such as election manifestos... people are elected (partly) because they put a manifesto forward and voters like the ideas they set forth. So at what point should they tear up the manifesto they were democratically elected on and just do exactly what 'the people' say?

As odd as it sounds, I think politicians sometimes know best (the death penalty issue you mention, Liberal, being a good example) and populism is a potentially dangerous way forward.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

Anyway it is because people govern within law without referendums (at least about once every 35 years) that the political system has become so detached from the will of the common people. Certainly more referendums would be a way of peacefully and lawfully resolving the current disenchantment.


- No; I utterly disagree with this proposition.

In fact it is my view that it is actually the other way around.

The current, IMO deeply misguided, regard for repeated referendums is something that could damage our system of Parliamentary democracy......and often because they are so transparently only being called for on the basis of the most shallow appraisal of 'x' proposal and for the most politically opportunistic of reasons.

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.

[edit on 6-7-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   
As a regular method of making decisions referendums can be dangerous as previous posters have mentioned, they are prone to populist influences with outlets such as newspapers swinging votes through half-truths and shocking headlines.

However in situations of extreme change such as Scottish independence or greater integration with the EU the decision should not just be left in the hands of politicians, after a vote in the respective parliament presuming they vote for the change then the vote should be put to the public referendum.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Liberal, I agree with the essence of your post, that there are some very glaring areas of policy where the appearent public opinion seems at odds with Government.

And you gave a good example: Capital Punishment

What gives the Government the right to refuse the electorate the ability to influence policy? And I care not a bit about the European convention on human rights. We can scrap this if we wanted.

And the agrument that we do influence policy by voting is not valid for these major issues. Government, in the case of capital punishment seems to fly in the face of the percieved public opinion, which seems to be in favour of a limited return to capital punishment (another thread I am sure)

What about the objection to the invasion of Iraq. Clearly many of the electorate were opposed, but did the Government listen or react? NO.

So I can see Liberal's point that we have a Government that does not listen to electorate opinion on major issues, and by logic, I can see how you get to the view of a dictatorship.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
The People NEED to be governed and without this third element you cross the thin dividing line between democracy and anarchy or, alternatively, Government and mob rule.



Correction. SOME people need to be governed.


I think that would be the error in your understanding.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Steve,

I used the word People to refer to the body of citizens who constitute society, (hence the capitalisation), rather then with the intent to refer to specific individuals.

You are quite correct in that there are some people who who do not need governing, however, I would suggest that there are relatively few of them but the People as a body have to be governed in order to protect the vulnerable and control those who would otherwise subvert society to their own ends.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   
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 FACT, has a dictator so evil he’s almost insane FACT, and whose people would (in the long run) be almost infinitely better of without him Fact (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 Mirror.
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 deliberate deception. 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 export, 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 debate.

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 time, 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]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join