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.

 

Democracy in the UK

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Just wanted to air a point of view that i have had for a while now.

With Tony Blair stepping down as Prime minister should there not have been a vote on who his replacement would be?

and when i say vote, i don't mean a vote by the ruling party, i mean a vote by the public...

We, as a nation, are now in a situation whereby our Prime Minister was not voted in by the people but his party. Mr Brown then arranged his new government as he saw fit appointing a new cabinet. What is causing me concern is the fact that he is continually putting off the next general election.

Is it legal to create a new government that has not been voted in?




posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
You do realise the UK is really a Monarchy? Seriously, just wiki the powers that the monarch still has, and you'll realise the UK is about as democratic as Saudi Arabia.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I believe that if a PM stands down, all that is needed is a vote by the party to elect a new one. Seems wrong i know, but that's how it is. But in the long term.it does'nt matter now anyway,as brown is giving the UK to Europe. Traitorous in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Yeah sayzaar is right we vote for the government not the PM so they can stick whoever they want in.

Thats "democracy" for you.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
The UK is not an absolute monarchy as Saudi Arabia is. It is a constitutional Monarchy (this means that the Monarch delegates powers to a parliament that is voted for by the people). I think that you need to wiki on how the governmental system works in the UK, i wont go into it on this thread.

I agree that the actions of Gordon Brown are not at odds with the wishes of the populace. The Irish got to vote, and they said no. Just like i am sure the UK would say no.

How can a treaty that has been democratically rejected in an EU nation still look to go ahead??



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerevar
Just wanted to air a point of view that i have had for a while now.

With Tony Blair stepping down as Prime minister should there not have been a vote on who his replacement would be?

and when i say vote, i don't mean a vote by the ruling party, i mean a vote by the public...

We, as a nation, are now in a situation whereby our Prime Minister was not voted in by the people but his party. Mr Brown then arranged his new government as he saw fit appointing a new cabinet. What is causing me concern is the fact that he is continually putting off the next general election.

Is it legal to create a new government that has not been voted in?


If you read your recent British History, you will notice that this happend when Margaret Thatcher was 'traitorously' brought down by her own Party and John Major became Prime Minister.

Remember we in the UK do not vote on who is to be Prime Minister like the way the Americans do with their President. We vote for the political party that comes close to our political beliefs or what the party is offering. The 'winning party' can then nominate a Prime Minister which is then ratified by HM the Queen.

General Elections must be called within 5 years of the previous General Election. Timings of such are with the Party that is running Government.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
You really do need to read up on monarchic powers. They are far greater than commonly thought, although I'll admit the monarchs are pretty tactfull and parcimonious in using them. Tricky folks monarchs, they would rather let someone else do the dirty work and ocasionally take the fall.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
The answer is there isn't democracy in the UK anymore...

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the police to stop and search anyone in a specific area. Meaning everybody in the UK is a suspect if the Police choose so.

Before Section 44, the police could only stop and search individuals if they had 'reasonable grounds' and certain criteria were met. That is no longer necessary, and we have seen Section 44 powers used against anti-war, anti-weapons and anti-capitalist protestors...

WHICH, co-incidentally is an invasion of a the Human Right 'The Right to Protest' one of your civil liberties.

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 has recieved most publicity for it's ban on unauthorised protests within 1 km of Parliament - widely accepted to have been devised to end the peace protest of Brian Haw.

Lets look at the Lisbon Treaty...

The UK Government sent out around 400,000 ballot papers to poll whether signing the Lisbon Treaty would be welcomed by the UK, 88% of the papers returned said that they would not welcome the move. Yet our Government did it anyways...

news.bbc.co.uk...

When did the people of the UK get to vote. Interestingly, only Labour and Lib Deb areas got to vote in the polls.

The Lisbon Treaty I'm sure you're all aware to basically sum it up makes Europe a superpower and there will be a president of Europe. We will inevitably have a European Army and most likely a European Police Force. Our army will be at the service of Europe and not just for our Queen and country. This seems to me like too few people with too much power. And that sounds like the beginnings of a dictatorship not a democracy.

Plans have gone ahead for compulsory ID Cards...

Although we will not be forced to have an ID card when renewing passports until 2010, we will have our details entered onto the National Identity Register much sooner.

If completed, the NIR would be the world’s biggest biometric database, holding fifty two pieces of information on every adult who remains in the UK for longer than three months.

MI5 don't seem to be doing so well with keeping top secret details private at the moment do they?

Our phones are now tapped for the whim of Police, Companies, the Government, but as yet I believe it cannot be used as evidence in court

All this to apparently curb 'Terrorism'...

There is one CCTV camera for every 14 people in the UK. If you live in London you are likely to be on cameras 300 times a day.

Yet, kids are killing other kids, stabbings, gun crime and anti-social behaviour is at an all time high. I rememeber a decade or so ago riding my bike around all day without my parents really worrying where I was. There is no chance kids could do that now...

Our spineless ass-licking Prime Minister has sent yet more troops (a record number since the start of the war there) over to Afganistan - have they found Bin Laden yet? NO lmao!

Pimped our country to Europe.

Is hated by alot of the UK even worse than Tony Blair was before he stepped down.

He is basically doing as he likes with his posse of MP's...

The US is the same too... Bush - this guy came out of Yale with such famous quotes as: "More and more of our imports now are from other countries"


Its confuses me why people don't do anything about it or atleast speak up in force... Is it not time to overthrow our Governments?



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 03:46 AM
link   
I remember being able to ride my bike around and play football until 9pm without worrying about getting caught up in violence / knife culture.

Thanks for clearing up the fact that we vote for a party and not a person...but that means that the parties can use a figurehead to gain peoples vote. Speaking from personal opinion, when voting for a party, i always look to see how the party will be lead. It is misleading to chop and change the leader of the party when in power.

As for the Lisbon treaty, it is completely wrong. The only possible good thing that can come out of that treaty is the appointment of a British EU President. And possibly the fact that we will not be a net contributor for much longer.

Think about this: Tony Blair MUST be in with a good shot....maybe that is why he 'stepped down'.....



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   
It's nothing new that a PM has resigned or been kicked out mid-term. It's happened quite a few times during Queen Elizabeth's reign. Eden replaced Churchill, Macmillan replaced Eden, Home replaced Macmillan, Callaghan replaced Wilson & in most recent memory Major replaced Thatcher.

So it's not some terribly unfair Labour phenomenon. It's HMQ exercising her right to appoint to the office of PM that individual who can command a majority in the House of Commons & whose government can ensure Supply.

In the 50's & early 60's she relied on the advice of the outgoing PM & privy counsellors to help her make the decision. Macmillan's preference of Home over Rab Butler caused particular controversy & to avoid placing the Queen in difficulty both parties introduced formal systems to elect their leader, which then gave the Queen a clear candidate.

To argue that Gordon Brown somehow lacks legitimacy because "he wasn't elected" flies in the face of tradition & custom. End of the day it's still very much "Her Majesty's Government", not ours. We're only consulted once every four or five years ... lucky old us, huh ?



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Democracy in itself is beguiling; in no way can the wishes of everybody be implemented in a social policy. The point is to strike a balance with the majority of the populace with the Government acting as a "facilitator".

Within this structure, the Government is clearly answerable to the populace. Giving a Government a 5-year window to "do some good" isn't that bad, many economic policies can take a long time to become productive.

However, even with this is mind the incumbent Government has to recognise that it is there for the "people" rather than its own self-service.

This appears to have been forgotten in the current Labour Government.

I have no issue with the fact that a PM has been replaced during a term of office, however, what sickens me is the scheming and negotiating that went on between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in order that the post would be "handed over".

It reminds me of the old James Gillray print of William Pitt and Napoleon Bonaparte carving up Europe. How full of ambition and devoid of honour must they have been to seriously sit down and discuss how they would hand over the highest rank of Governmental service all those years ago?

It is a disgrace.

It is Ego that has been served, rather than the country. That blundering buffoon Brown reeks of ego and blind belief in his own judgement and primacy. This period in our history will be regarded with great distate by the history books.

Society has crumbled in a period that coincides with New Labour rule - Coincidence? Maybe, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, however, they don't appear to be doing anything to correct it.

Our democracy, or at least the best attempt we have of it, it being eroded by the replacement of the law of the land and people by the law of the Government. You judge.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
You do realise the UK is really a Monarchy? Seriously, just wiki the powers that the monarch still has, and you'll realise the UK is about as democratic as Saudi Arabia.


I cannot believe that statement, it's rediculous. Whit i'm not a fan of labour lets not get out of hand about the UK.

Do you see peopel having their hands chopped off when they steal? Do you see people being executed in prisons? People have fair hearings and trials, and whist recently the detention laws have become worrying, even they will get a trial eventually.

I should say i find the current detention laws absolutely shocking, against the idea of a free democracy where everyone is supposed to have a fair trial and generally against freedom. However we are far ahead of Saudi Arabia in our freedoms, dont be so silly.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I am not saying it's is as culturally backwards as saudi arabia, but from a governmental organics pov, yes, it's very similar. The diference is how that hereditary power has been used, not it's existence. Don't take my word, read up on it.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Zepherian
 


I'm well aware of the monarchs powers, the old law of being able to grab any land the monarch wants is still in effect i believe. However the monarch is rather hindered because of government powers and the fact that the army itself would stand against the queen if she did such a thing.

Whilst the law exists, it's like a nuttered dog, able to commit the action but unable to produce anything.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Think ourselves lucky that we still have some in the Judiciary that act independantly and occasionally 'throw the spanner in the works' for Governments in the UK.

Yes, this Government 'has lost the plot' but then most do in their third term of office.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Because of democratic resistance against aristocracy you get conspiracies. England is perhaps the country on earth that best ilustrates the elitist struggle to keep power and influence over an ever more educated populace. It's a dynamic tension. And btw, it's not just the power to claim land, the monarch has a whole host of others, right up to the emission of currency, powers which parallel the parliment.



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
What is Common Purpose? On the surface, Common Purpose is an educational charity which does leadership and networking development training.

In reality, Common Purpose or, more properly, Communist Purpose, is a corrupt, subversive, secretive and sinister organisation which seeks to destroy the national identity of Britain and to destroy democracy in Britain.
www.wonkosworld.co.uk...
www.stopcp.com...



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 03:04 AM
link   
This is absolutely nothing to do with the monarchy at all.

In Britain, we vote for a political party, not a person. Its as simple as that.

The Prime Minister is traditionally the leader of that party, so when Blair stepped down, Brown applied for the leadership and had no opposition from within the party. He therefore became Prime Minister by default.

Its not sinister, its not a failing of democracy. Its a simple continuation of party politics.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


I don't like Brown though....he has too many chins for my liking....

and sometimes, i don't like his choice of ties....



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Nerevar
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I'm not exactly his biggest fan either.

Its the way he chews his face when he's not talking that really irks me.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join