Reply to: Truss Out!

[WTFH]

if the argument is anyone who doesn't agree with you is a fascist then you look like a feckwit.

I never said that. Go back to what I said.

https://www.repubblica.it/politica/2...smo-360551274/
https://time.com/6216624/italy-elect...iorgia-meloni/
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/ho...ntrunner-60141
https://www.salon.com/2022/09/29/yes...ashioned-kind/
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...solini/671515/

[malvolio]

Parties with minority support are always elected in the UK - the other 60-70%+ are excluded from any influence between elections - that's not democracy.

So let's extend that a little bit. If various commentators are to be believed and their predictions come true, a likely outcome of the next election is a coalition - official or otherwise - of Labour, LD and SNP as the majority government. that will hold together as long as the smaller parties go with the main one's policies but will demand reciprocal support for their own policies. So taken to the extreme, we could see the United Kingdom broken up because 51% of 65% of the supporters of a party with 10% of the seats have been allowed to succeed in their aims. And that is democracy?

In many UK areas - 'safe' seats, you could elect the animal of your choice as the candidate for the relevant political party. Supporters of the minority parties in those areas have zero influence and might as well not bother voting.

And that is actual democracy. It's the will of the majority that prevails. Nobody has a right to be elected, it's up to them to persuade people they should be.*

Grown up countries manage compromise between multiple parties well enough and if people vote Green or BNP for that matter, they get some influence under proportional representation, unlike our swing between two ideologies system which wreaks havoc with essential long term planning.

We've been a pretty stable country for over a thousand years, and a properly united parliamentary democracy for about 450 years. I think we count as "grown up". Long term planning is blighted by a politicised civil service (can't quite recall who to blame for that one...) ignoring the general will of government in favour of their own agenda and politicians who can only see as far as the next election in case they have to go out and get a real job.

Incidentally, democracy doesn't require an intelligent or educated population. Personally I'm in favour of a benevolent dictatorship, but the problem is always finding the benevolent ones, and even more difficult the ones who come afterwards.

So you don't believe in democracy at all. So why are you arguing?



* On that point our sitting MP is a total waste of air, an overweight tory buffoon with a ministerial position who flatly refuses to engage with the constituency in any real way. His main opponent is a Lib Dem who is a total PITA in many ways but has proven to be committed to the welfare of that constituency. But since the 50s, with one brief interlude, we have had a tory MP. Go figure.

[Smartie]

under most systems in use now, minority parties can have a disproportionate say in policy decisions.

And the other flaw in PR is that it requires an educated electorate making rational decisions. Good luck with that one.

Parties with minority support are always elected in the UK - the other 60-70%+ are excluded from any influence between elections - that's not democracy.

In many UK areas - 'safe' seats, you could elect the animal of your choice as the candidate for the relevant political party. Supporters of the minority parties in those areas have zero influence and might as well not bother voting.

Grown up countries manage compromise between multiple parties well enough and if people vote Green or BNP for that matter, they get some influence under proportional representation, unlike our swing between two ideologies system which wreaks havoc with essential long term planning.

Incidentally, democracy doesn't require an intelligent or educated population. Personally I'm in favour of a benevolent dictatorship, but the problem is always finding the benevolent ones, and even more difficult the ones who come afterwards.

[vetran]

If the argument to support fascists is that anyone who isn’t a fascist must be a communist and far more evil, you are seriously screwed up.

if the argument is anyone who doesn't agree with you is a fascist then you look like a feckwit.

[WTFH]

Well some in the UK adore communism to be fair they are more efficient at killing the innocents than your average fascist set up.

If the argument to support fascists is that anyone who isn’t a fascist must be a communist and far more evil, you are seriously screwed up.

[vetran]

They've got a facist coalition. It's a dream for some in the UK.

Well some in the UK adore communism to be fair they are more efficient at killing the innocents than your average fascist set up.

[NotAllThere]

You are kidding. You expect the UK civil service to come up with a working model of government that's efficient, and for any government to put it in place in less than a few hundred years?

Nope. It doesn't mean it isn't possible.

If you consider an elective oligarchy a democracy, then yes you do live in one.

[SueEllen]

You are kidding. You expect the UK civil service to come up with a working model of government that's efficient, and for any government to put it in place in less than a few hundred years?
.

Labour are doing their review without the use of the Civil Service. (Don't know what the UK Civil Service is)

[WTFH]

We have real democracy now...

If we have a real democracy now, with constituencies being roughly of equal size, why have the 2013 and 2018 reviews been scrapped, along with the 2011 plan to reduce the number of MPs to 600 and make population size the primary rule.
And then we have a fixed term parliament act (2011) which was repealed a few months ago, because the current government had sunk so far that it needed to re-write democracy rules to suit its position.

[malvolio]

According to the above snippet, perhaps more efficient and effective goverment and real democray.

Not a cat in hell's chance, until you work out how to get career politicians out of the process.

That's how it would work in Britain most likely - but it's not inevitable. It's possible to have, e.g. three layers of government each with their own tax raising powers and it be more efficient and simpler that the UK tax system.

You are kidding. You expect the UK civil service to come up with a working model of government that's efficient, and for any government to put it in place in less than a few hundred years?

We have real democracy now, it's just that you don't like the model we use and believe that it is not democratic. We could of course switch to a PR system such as STV or appoint MPs proportionately to national party votes or some other process, but that would not lead to better democracy; under most systems in use now, minority parties can have a disproportionate say in policy decisions.

And the other flaw in PR is that it requires an educated electorate making rational decisions. Good luck with that one.

[NotAllThere]

So what, exactly, would federalisation provide that doesn't already exist

According to the above snippet, perhaps more efficient and effective goverment and real democray.

other than making our taxation and leal systems even more horrendously complex and adding yet another no doubt expensive layer of government to the pot?

That's how it would work in Britain most likely - but it's not inevitable. It's possible to have, e.g. three layers of government each with their own tax raising powers and it be more efficient and simpler that the UK tax system.

[malvolio]

Still nothing to do with your comment that the UK is too small to federalise.

It's quite a lot to do with it. We don't have areas in England that have been properly independent for around a thousand years, so have no basis for having an independent existence. Wales remains a Principality, annexed by Henry V, Scotland actually took over the English throne in 1603 and formed the Union in 1707. Cornwall, Wessex, Northumbria, Mercia, all the rest have long gone.

You may not have noticed but Local Authorities have control over local budgets including any locally generated income from business, tourism and the like, and even have limited tax raising powers within the overall national regime. They can even impose local rules inside the overall legal framework.

So what, exactly, would federalisation provide that doesn't already exist, other than making our taxation and leal systems even more horrendously complex and adding yet another no doubt expensive layer of government to the pot? To put it another way, what is it you are trying to repair?

[NotAllThere]

However, the UK is not a group of independent nation states brought together in the last 200 years or so, unlike Switzerland, Germany, Italy and half a dozen others.

We already have four nominally independent groupings now, what would you put in their place?

Still nothing to do with your comment that the UK is too small to federalise.

Fun piece here about why regional government will never happen.

[SueEllen]

However, the UK is not a group of independent nation states brought together in the last 200 years or so, unlike Switzerland, Germany, Italy and half a dozen others.

We already have four nominally independent groupings now, what would you put in their place?

That's for Labour to work out, and us to say "Yep" or "Nope".


(Don't give them ideas however stupid)

[vetran]

However, the UK is not a group of independent nation states brought together in the last 200 years or so, unlike Switzerland, Germany, Italy and half a dozen others.

We already have four nominally independent groupings now, what would you put in their place?

We weren't fascists or the Fascists bankers either.