FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Parliamentary democracy needs to die.

Parliamentary democracy needs to die.

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Parliament should all work on the same side. As in not two benches against each other, cancelling each other out so they cant pass anything in parliament (Brexit took four years)

All the big cabinet positions and portfolios should be held by actual experts in those fields.

The will of the People should be carried out through plebiscite. I.e. referendums on every big decision (mandates not to be debated for years before carried out)

Any ideas?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Parliament should all work on the same side. As in not two benches against each other, cancelling each other out so they cant pass anything in parliament (Brexit took four years)

All the big cabinet positions and portfolios should be held by actual experts in those fields.

The will of the People should be carried out through plebiscite. I.e. referendums on every big decision (mandates not to be debated for years before carried out)

Any ideas?

So who holds the government to account, who challenges their decisions, offers an alternative, holds the government to account?

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/opposition-the/

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I like it.

There would be a better way of the People expressing their lack of confidence by way of referendum. Once yearly say.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I like it.

There would be a better way of the People expressing their lack of confidence by way of referendum. Once yearly say."

If theres one thing we've learned in the past five years. People will vote whatever way they've been told to/lied to about with a referendum.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I understand your point.

What I am trying to imagine, Is a way, irrespective of mine or anyone's opinions of lies and disinformation.

For the will of the people to be carried out.

Surely this would be true democracy.

Their reasons for feeling a certain way aren't really a democratic concern as such. The only concern of a democracy should be to act in accordance of the will of the people.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

But naturally under these conditions in describing, mass press and media would be balanced, bias would be allowed, just as long as it wasn't all biased towards the same position

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

It is beyond parody that in a country that is supposed to be the home of democracy, people can be appointed as Secretary of State for (for example) Health, Education, trade etc without having a shred of experience. The only qualification needed is to blindly loyal to the ideological aims of the sitting Government.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ild_oatsMan over a year ago

the land of saints & sinners

Referendums are actually the refuge of weak government who abdicate the responsibility of decision making.

The irony of a referendum is that while it typically asks voters to check a simple “yes” or “no,” there is no middle ground for compromise which is what we elect our politicians to do.

Thus it is actually one of the most complicated forms of voting: The policy issues at stake are complex; the wording of the question on the ballots can often technical. During any campaign, voters are often bombarded with information from political players and advocacy groups they have never heard of before.

Additionally they allow the question to be hijacked by fringe groups and become a populist or protest vote without understanding the real issues of the day.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ovebjsMan over a year ago

Bristol

"It is beyond parody that in a country that is supposed to be the home of democracy, people can be appointed as Secretary of State for (for example) Health, Education, trade etc without having a shred of experience. The only qualification needed is to blindly loyal to the ideological aims of the sitting Government."

If you employed someone would you not employ someone who would be loyal to you ?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *renzMan over a year ago

Between Chichester and Havant

How would you expect referendums on every piece of legislation and day to day policies work.

You'd have Doris from Dorset, or wherever with her knickers in a twist. Postal vote? Take too long when a decision needs making. Internet? Still a proportion of the population that wouldn't use it.

It would be more democratic but probably not practical.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oggoneMan over a year ago

Derry

"Parliament should all work on the same side. As in not two benches against each other, cancelling each other out so they cant pass anything in parliament (Brexit took four years)

All the big cabinet positions and portfolios should be held by actual experts in those fields.

The will of the People should be carried out through plebiscite. I.e. referendums on every big decision (mandates not to be debated for years before carried out)

Any ideas?

So no more political parties and using expertise to make decisions? 'The Will of The People' is a pretty loaded expression and if the ongoing debacle is anything to go by, the will of the people is to collectively shit in their own hands and then complain about their hands being covered in shit.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *uliaChrisCouple over a year ago

westerham

You mean like Californian propositions? How's that worked for them?

As we've seen with Brexit, half the country are not qualified to make the big calls.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Parliament should all work on the same side. As in not two benches against each other, cancelling each other out so they cant pass anything in parliament (Brexit took four years)

All the big cabinet positions and portfolios should be held by actual experts in those fields.

The will of the People should be carried out through plebiscite. I.e. referendums on every big decision (mandates not to be debated for years before carried out)

Any ideas?

Two parties means a decision can be made via means of a yes or no vote, if all MP’s started voting on conscience you would have hundreds of discerning views and never get anything done! It’s why the chief whips office exists

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You mean like Californian propositions? How's that worked for them?

As we've seen with Brexit, half the country are not qualified to make the big calls. "

Just over half of the vote to be precise

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You mean like Californian propositions? How's that worked for them?

As we've seen with Brexit, half the country are not qualified to make the big calls.

Just over half of the vote to be precise "

It's not about not being qualified to make the big calls. They need to teach people at school how to spot propaganda, how to analyse the information they receive.

If our education system focussed more on this. We wouldn't be in this current mess.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *mmabluTV/TS over a year ago

upton wirral

"Parliament should all work on the same side. As in not two benches against each other, cancelling each other out so they cant pass anything in parliament (Brexit took four years)

All the big cabinet positions and portfolios should be held by actual experts in those fields.

The will of the People should be carried out through plebiscite. I.e. referendums on every big decision (mandates not to be debated for years before carried out)

Any ideas?

"
Good in theory but stupid in practice as many issues to complicated for many to grasp.

Also we need things to be secret and not avaliable to the general public for national safety.

I think we would also need to close the internet for something like this as it is full of crap.

So the whole idea is ludicrous

Right now the scientist are very involved in decisions but people not happy with that,the cabinet does consult so called experts who know nothing of governing a country sadly

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *mmabluTV/TS over a year ago

upton wirral

"Parliament should all work on the same side. As in not two benches against each other, cancelling each other out so they cant pass anything in parliament (Brexit took four years)

All the big cabinet positions and portfolios should be held by actual experts in those fields.

The will of the People should be carried out through plebiscite. I.e. referendums on every big decision (mandates not to be debated for years before carried out)

Any ideas?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Parliament should all work on the same side. As in not two benches against each other, cancelling each other out so they cant pass anything in parliament (Brexit took four years)

All the big cabinet positions and portfolios should be held by actual experts in those fields.

The will of the People should be carried out through plebiscite. I.e. referendums on every big decision (mandates not to be debated for years before carried out)

Any ideas?

Good in theory but stupid in practice as many issues to complicated for many to grasp.

Also we need things to be secret and not avaliable to the general public for national safety.

I think we would also need to close the internet for something like this as it is full of crap.

So the whole idea is ludicrous

Right now the scientist are very involved in decisions but people not happy with that,the cabinet does consult so called experts who know nothing of governing a country sadly"

So if the government shouldn't make policy decisions based on scientific understanding of the world around us, should they just pick the polices that continue to benefit the rich, and fuck over the rest of us, the environment etc. Because that's basically just more of the same.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

If you employed someone would you not employ someone who would be loyal to you ?

I would employ people qualified to do the job as an absolute bare minimum.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *oggoneMan over a year ago

Derry

Honestly the idea suggested by the OP would be a total disaster. The death penalty would be back and there would be a return of gunboat diplomacy. The idea of the will of the people translates as opinion writers from the Sun & the Mail setting the agenda.

I think it would be more equitable to start with reforming the voting system.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Although what your saying is coherent, I'm not sure you are getting the idea.

If the system was changed as I am suggesting, there would be no cross party shows of strength nor any governmental weakness. It is the job of a government to carry out the will not the people. This then under a plebiscite is not an abdication but true actual democracy going straight to the people.

I think middle ground is where we got stuck for four years with Brexit.

The ballot would be final, even one vote more should count as a majority. Carry the mandated action through for better for worse. Sort the next important thing out.

There is only complications in this gridlocked parliamentary system where both benches neutralise and real decisive change.

All this about advocacy is irrelevant. For example a silly example I suppose could be are you happy for the London HS2 line to to carry on with construction.yes or no? Doesn't matter what opinions people hold and why. Only that they are expressed in the ballot.

Again it is not hijacking if the people vote for something they want.this is their legitimate franchise. dress it up as you will, this is the truest democracy.
"Referendums are actually the refuge of weak government who abdicate the responsibility of decision making.

The irony of a referendum is that while it typically asks voters to check a simple “yes” or “no,” there is no middle ground for compromise which is what we elect our politicians to do.

Additionally they allow the question to be hijacked by fringe groups and become a populist or protest vote without understanding the real issues of the day."

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Oh, you aren't convinced with democracy then.

I'm not with this current systemthe balanced bias of the media I mentioned earlier would ensure no Rupert Murdoch publications or any Reuters would not be over representated unlike they at present. Basically plebiscite is true democracy. All this dressing the current form up as something called democracynis silly, and the idea that a system that actually did what the people vote for because a real democracy wouldnt suit your sensibilities is a perfectly defensible position. You are just not a proponent of democracy bus all. would
"Honestly the idea suggested by the OP would be a total disaster. The death penalty would be back and there would be a return of gunboat diplomacy. The idea of the will of the people translates as opinion writers from the Sun & the Mail setting the agenda.

I think it would be more equitable to start with reforming the voting system."

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Very efficiently and like clockwork. Obviously not on every tiny price of legislation. Because we would have elected a government for this. But the most contentious biggest issues or manifesto promises straight away should be offered to the Pepe for or against.
"How would you expect referendums on every piece of legislation and day to day policies work.

You'd have Doris from Dorset, or wherever with her knickers in a twist. Postal vote? Take too long when a decision needs making. Internet? Still a proportion of the population that wouldn't use it.

It would be more democratic but probably not practical."

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Parliament should all work on the same side. As in not two benches against each other, cancelling each other out so they cant pass anything in parliament (Brexit took four years)

All the big cabinet positions and portfolios should be held by actual experts in those fields.

The will of the People should be carried out through plebiscite. I.e. referendums on every big decision (mandates not to be debated for years before carried out)

Any ideas?

The same people who had the same lust to destroy democracy were the Nazis, didn’t turn out well for them.

People only extremists would try to destroy our democracy, these are not patriots, they are thugs!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *ild_oatsMan over a year ago

the land of saints & sinners

" Although what your saying is coherent, I'm not sure you are getting the idea.

I think middle ground is where we got stuck for four years with Brexit.

The ballot would be final, even one vote more should count as a majority. Carry the mandated action through for better for worse. Sort the next important thing out.

There is only complications in this gridlocked parliamentary system where both benches neutralise and real decisive change.

Again it is not hijacking if the people vote for something they want.this is their legitimate franchise. dress it up as you will, this is the truest democracy. "

We elect governments to make difficult and sometimes what are seemingly unpopular decisions on our behalf. As well as finding compromise solutions which a “yes” or “no” vote cannot deliver.

Often the best decision is often counterintuitive to what is perceived by the “will of the people”.

This so called “will” is dominated at present by sections of the media who push a popularity agenda to maintain sales.

Hijacking of the vote will and does occur. The Bahamas provides an example of confusion hijacking the vote. During a constitutional referendum on gender equality this conservative, Christian country, rumors spread that voting “yes” could lead to same-sex marriage, even though the issues on the ballot were only about gender equality and its role in citizenship rights.

By Election Day, many were not voting on whether they supported equal rights for men and women, but whether they supported same-sex marriage and LGBT rights.

Ultimately, 79 percent voted against the gender nondiscrimination bill.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

» Add a new message to this topic