[Sloper]

The point is, when Parliament legislated for equal suffrage it was in the face of quite trenchant public opposition, same for decriminalistation of homosexuality &, same for abolition of capital punishment etc

None of these things would have happened at the time that they did (or at all) if the decision had been made by referendum rather than in Parliament.

PS Sam isn't a hammer, he's a very naughty boy (and I think a troll and I should know!)

[psychomansam]

The Mail? no I read the Guardian.

You really need to take your head out of your arse.

Corporations do not hold sway over politicians in democratic states in any meaningful way compared to non democratic states.  Your understanding is as flawed as the old trope about the Jewish conspiracy used by fascists wearing both red and brown (and in many ways wholly consistent with the fascist myths).

You also need to understand the way in which government works; do you really think that 'you' or the 'people' should be 'consulted' via referenda on a routine basis?

There are lots of small socialist parties out there standing in elections; and in real terms they receive precisely no support.  There are the greens, PC, SNP, UKIP, SF, UDP. MRLP as well as the three main parties; there is no abr to standing in an election (bar the deposit).

Your problem with democracy is that you don't like the outcome and lust after a fantasy version of socialism which you neither understand nor appreciate.

Since we appear to be making it personal, your problem is that you're too comfortably monied and entrenched in your own socioeconomic boundaries to do anything other than butt-guzzle the system that got you there.

You apparently accept some black/white distinction between democratic and non-democratic states. Utter tripe, made up by the modern neo-corporo-capitalist empire-states to justify their own bullying and oppressions internal and external. We have a token modicum of democracy in this country. Yes, it's much better than some. Yes, I'm glad for what we have. But the notion that we should sit down and accept a total balls-up of a situation in which a tiny minority of people are working their arses off to please party donors and media moguls and trying to twist it round to at least not scandalise the people they were supposed to be representing, that notion sir, is bollocks.

There are a range of ways we could progress from here. Yes, one of them would be referenda and direct democracy. You talk about it like it's preposterous. You've obviously never heard of Switzerland. That might, pragmatically, be one way to progress, but I prefer deliberative democracy, and the way to progress in that direction would be greater localisation of powers (and not in the current governments understanding which is to de-fund public services and then 'localise' responsiblity for said service with zero funding, so as to avoid blame for the inevitable cuts. It also makes national media coverage difficult. Divide and conquer.) with deliberative public participation in the process of government. It happens a bit in America. It's been used in a variety of places for public spending decisions.
So perhaps that would be a good start. But we'd still have representative democracy, which I oppose, incredibly opaque government, 5-year government terms, media monopolies which need breaking and a public broadcaster which is spending our money to suck up to the cabinet.

I don't like what you call democracy because it isn't democratic. It isn't fit for purpose, unless you're one of the 1%, which, let's remember, is who parliament was created for - to protect their wealth against the king.

A couple of thousand years ago, the citizens got together once a month, discussed issues, voted on decisions and called it democracy. 2000 years of progress and you tick a box every five years for your choice of.... Oh fuck off, I've said it 3 times already.

If we're going to make it personal you'd better ask a grown up how to come up with some proper insults, try sending a pm to Peter Andre.

The rest of your lower VIth drivel barely deserves a response, but since we're making it personal I'll entertain you with a response, I hope you can read it with your one eyed myopia.

Firs toff (not a typo) you really ought to read some political history, I'd recommend that you start with the Rusells, The Crisis of Parliaments and Hailsham's the Dilemma of Democracy, also Dangerfield's The Strange Death of Liberal England and Cotterrrell's The Politics of Jurisprudence.

Until you have a good grasp of the subject, you're simply unable to engage in a mature debate.

As for not having heard of Switzerland, yes I have heard of it, I am familiar with their constitutional structure and use of referenda, which include devolution of tax policy to units smaller than the cantons (I can't remember what the equivalent of a county is) however in many ways the situation in CH doesn't work, its just that their socaial cohesion and wealth are able to sustain the weakness in their system(s).

If we had participative democracy in the UK we'd be out of the EU, have capital punishment and homosexuality would in all probability still be a criminal offence, women would not have the vote and so on.

AS for there being a media monolpoly, yeah I heard that Murdoch owns the BBC, the Guardian, The Telegraph, this website (Although Bubba should have asked more more than £3.00) The Socialist Worker, Al Jazera and so on.

Really, I would say 'could do better' but I'm not sure you can.e

I can give you a reading list too. Neither of us is going to read the other's, but if you suggest one book I might actually put it on my to-read list.
I'd agree that it's difficult to devolve tax policy and would suggest that it's the spending of the taxes that is more ripe for devolving. As for the situation in Switzerland not 'working', well it does, but I understand that it's stretching the limitations of a nation-state and that it's difficult to operate outside of that paradigm in a globalised world, but there are various levels and mechanisms of stability available. Membership of the EU for instance (not saying I'm a fan). Having to operate in the current international paradigm is a crippling disadvantage for anyone wanting real democracy, so compromises are necessary unless withdrawal is an option (I hear Catholics are fans). Which would probably be reasonably cataclysmic. Or worse in our case.

Viscount Rothermere and Murdoch have huge power over vast proportions of the demos. That's wrong. More to the point, corporations have vast power over said media empires.

I wouldn't suggest introducing deliberative democracy overnight. I'd suggest a process in which education and wealth were gradually equalised (somewhat, not totally) and corporate media was reined in, all the while increasing democratic participation. Failing that, I'd say fuck liberalism, let's get on with democracy and live with the fallout.

[petejh]

The point is, when Parliament legislated for equal suffrage it was in the face of quite trenchant public opposition, same for decriminalistation of homosexuality &, same for abolition of capital punishment etc

None of these things would have happened at the time that they did (or at all) if the decision had been made by referendum rather than in Parliament.
..

Don't be naughty. The point is we're talking about today in this context, not 1920s suffrage in the UK. And if there were referendums today then obviously women would be represented.

[petejh]

..
Viscount Rothermere and Murdoch have huge power over vast proportions of the demos. That's wrong. More to the point, corporations have vast power over said media empires.
..

Have you considered that part of the reason they hold so much sway over what people read might be becasue there are a huge number of perhaps stupid, perhaps lazy, perhaps everyday people in the world who, no matter how well-intentioned your motives, will never want anything more than a bit of idle titillation and some knee-jerk reaction to dumbed down issues to pass their lives with? Thinking that we can all be informed right-on citizens with sensible views seems to me as delusional as trying to oppress everyone.

[Oldmanmatt]

The point is, when Parliament legislated for equal suffrage it was in the face of quite trenchant public opposition, same for decriminalistation of homosexuality &, same for abolition of capital punishment etc

None of these things would have happened at the time that they did (or at all) if the decision had been made by referendum rather than in Parliament.
..

Don't be naughty. The point is we're talking about today in this context, not 1920s suffrage in the UK. And if there were referendums today then obviously women would be represented.

Hmmmmm...

Not if they hadn't been granted Sufferage.

[petejh]

Don't know how else I can make the point that, today, women have the vote and would therefore be represented in any referendum held - which was the original point being made.

We used to do lots of things that we no longer do. How far back do you want to go? Bloody Romans etc.

[GraemeA]

Don't forget Sloper is a dyed in the wool Right Wing Libertarian so doesn't believe in any form of regulation especially when it comes to the market.

So you could hardly expect him to argue against the TTIP and is doing a good job of laying down a smokescreen.

What's your view on the 1855 Classification Slopes? And should foie gras be regulated or should it fuck the geese?

[Sloper]

Don't know how else I can make the point that, today, women have the vote and would therefore be represented in any referendum held - which was the original point being made.

We used to do lots of things that we no longer do. How far back do you want to go? Bloody Romans etc.

Yes,, but if it wasn't for Parliament acting against the predominant view they wouldn't have had the vote.

The majority of 'progressive' legislation has been enacted in the face of wide spread social opposition; it is only a generation thereafter that society has accepted the change, this is a very strong argument for representative democracy rather than participative democracy, which would have maintained the status quo.

[psychomansam]

..
Viscount Rothermere and Murdoch have huge power over vast proportions of the demos. That's wrong. More to the point, corporations have vast power over said media empires.
..

Have you considered that part of the reason they hold so much sway over what people read might be becasue there are a huge number of perhaps stupid, perhaps lazy, perhaps everyday people in the world who, no matter how well-intentioned your motives, will never want anything more than a bit of idle titillation and some knee-jerk reaction to dumbed down issues to pass their lives with? Thinking that we can all be informed right-on citizens with sensible views seems to me as delusional as trying to oppress everyone.

Yes, I've considered that. There's real issues in correctly attributing causal direction. One imagines there's a degree of causal feedback of course.
I've also worked a variety of fairly menial roles including barman and care worker. I've had customers who are alcoholics, racists, the lot. And I've found that actually even those with low IQs and poor education aren't stupid and lazy when it comes to politics. They're generally interested and opinionated. Could they be better introduced to the world of politics via education? Quite possibly. Are they misled by narrow life-experience and the trash they call a newspaper? Perhaps. But given low expectations I've almost universally been impressed by the effort people put in to at least try to understand politics a little by the time they're 30. Perhaps, given more opportunities they would rise to it.
And of course, having some lazy people isn't necessarily a huge issue. Not everyone has to participate. While it's beneficial to have it open to everyone, you only really need a representative sample at any one time.

[Oldmanmatt]

..
Viscount Rothermere and Murdoch have huge power over vast proportions of the demos. That's wrong. More to the point, corporations have vast power over said media empires.
..

Have you considered that part of the reason they hold so much sway over what people read might be becasue there are a huge number of perhaps stupid, perhaps lazy, perhaps everyday people in the world who, no matter how well-intentioned your motives, will never want anything more than a bit of idle titillation and some knee-jerk reaction to dumbed down issues to pass their lives with? Thinking that we can all be informed right-on citizens with sensible views seems to me as delusional as trying to oppress everyone.

Yes, I've considered that. There's real issues in correctly attributing causal direction. One imagines there's a degree of causal feedback of course.
I've also worked a variety of fairly menial roles including barman and care worker. I've had customers who are alcoholics, racists, the lot. And I've found that actually even those with low IQs and poor education aren't stupid and lazy when it comes to politics. They're generally interested and opinionated. Could they be better introduced to the world of politics via education? Quite possibly. Are they misled by narrow life-experience and the trash they call a newspaper? Perhaps. But given low expectations I've almost universally been impressed by the effort people put in to at least try to understand politics a little by the time they're 30. Perhaps, given more opportunities they would rise to it.
And of course, having some lazy people isn't necessarily a huge issue. Not everyone has to participate. While it's beneficial to have it open to everyone, you only really need a representative sample at any one time.

Looking at UKIPs rise in this election, I'd have to go with Pete.
Utter fiction, I know, but I found Ben Elton's "Blind Faith" summed up my darkest fears of such Populist Government (See his "Wembley Law").

There is a good reason we have evolved our current parliamentary system, warts and all, and that I suspect is to slow the passage of legislation.
To mitigate the whims of individuals and mass hysteria, that would see us lurching from extreme to extreme.

Can you imagine the country today, if during the panic about Vaccines, a referendum had abolished their use?

So Sloper has a point, as do Pete, Sam, Graham et al. Because the reality lies somewhere in the middle.

I suspect both Sam and Sloper would be bitterly disappointed in their ideal worlds should either come to fruition...

[Sloper]

We're pretty much living in my ideal world, a liberal democratic society with effective rule of law and a capitalist system.

Note, there's no such thing as a wholly free market and democracy, freedom of speech & etc all have 'down sides' as well as the self evident benefits.

What would I want to change?  The playing of music in public so that others can hear it (minimum sentence 3 years and 50 strokes), people saying 'can I get a latte' 15 strokes and a £50 fine, work houses for the proles and compulsary pipe smoking lessons on the national curriculum (girls must learn to properly iron a shirt).

[petejh]

   How about jumpers for goalposts?

Oh yeah... suffrage, 1920s whatsit etc. = A snapsot of a moment in time - not a justification for always and only sticking with representative doodah, but neither is there justification for always and only having participative doodah. Each has its merits blah blah. Although the more I think about it (and in light of recent events) the less I want the citizens of the UK making stupid legislation.

[Sloper]

You're missing the point; representative democracy can take what at the time are unpopular and controversial decisions which the absecne of the legislated change would be seen in future generations to be bizzare, i.e. letting women vote.

Representational democracy very, very rarely results in changes to the status quo.

It is for this reason that representative democracy is categorically superior to democracy with a very highly significant participatory element. 

[Fultonius]

Ignoring all the massively  bun-fighting above. There's only 2 days left to overturn this deal - Get Your Signatures IN!

[mrjonathanr]

- Get Your Signatures IN!

Where do we do that?

[Sloper]

Ignoring all the massively  bun-fighting above. There's only 2 days left to overturn this deal - Get Your Signatures IN!

No, having read a bit about it, I'm all for it.

The opposition is mainly ill informed, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists and lefty bollocks (to be read disjunctively although there is a substantial degree of cross over).

[Fultonius]

Ignoring all the massively  bun-fighting above. There's only 2 days left to overturn this deal - Get Your Signatures IN!

No, having read a bit about it, I'm all for it.

The opposition is mainly ill informed, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists and lefty bollocks (to be read disjunctively although there is a substantial degree of cross over).

I had a longer read of it today, but I was short on time. Can you point me to the bits that you think are good?

[Fultonius]

- Get Your Signatures IN!

Where do we do that?

You'll need to register with them I think. I got it though an email. You can also reply to the public consultation: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=ISDS

[Sloper]

Ignoring all the massively  bun-fighting above. There's only 2 days left to overturn this deal - Get Your Signatures IN!

No, having read a bit about it, I'm all for it.

The opposition is mainly ill informed, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists and lefty bollocks (to be read disjunctively although there is a substantial degree of cross over).

I had a longer read of it today, but I was short on time. Can you point me to the bits that you think are good?

Ohh, improving 'free trade', moves towards the reduction in barriers to trade, making state protectionism more difficult, improving the efficacy of the rule of law in respect of investments, access to markets, reduction in state monopolies, subsidies and so on.  Is that enough for a flavour of why I'm in favour?

 

[Fultonius]

Ohh, improving 'free trade', moves towards the reduction in barriers to trade, making state protectionism more difficult, improving the efficacy of the rule of law in respect of investments, access to markets, reduction in state monopolies, subsidies and so on.  Is that enough for a flavour of why I'm in favour?

 

Are there really that many barriers to EU/US trade? Is most of this trade not just going to be financial based trade? Personally I think less barriers in this area can only be a bad thing...

Even if there are some benefits from this, is it worth loosing out on the ability for governments to stand up to the big multi-nationals?

[Sloper]

Yes, there are significant barriers between the EU and the US. take for example an EU domiciled Corp trading with Cuba or Iran,  remember the US Govt threatening to impose tariffs on Cashmere and Whisky following the release of Al Megrahi (sp?)

Governments control multi-nationals, not the other way around and this will no nothing to change that dynamic.

[slackline]

Yes, there are significant barriers between the EU and the US. take for example an EU domiciled Corp trading with Cuba or Iran,  remember the US Govt threatening to impose tariffs on Cashmere and Whisky following the release of Al Megrahi (sp?)

Why can't the US be more flexible then rather appearing to want to impose their conditions on everyone else? 

[Sloper]

It's called politics, who'd thunk it

[lagerstarfish]

Why can't the US be more flexible then rather appearing to want to impose their conditions on everyone else? 

L O L

[slackline]

Lets hope that if this goes ahead the EU won't be fucked over in the same manner as Mexico and Canada were, not holding my breath though.