advertisement


King Charles III

ks.234 said:
Still preferable to the divine right of Kings
Click to expand...
Sunak, and his recent predecessors in the role, have in the last five years or so cost us far more than the royal family did over decades. Which is not to say I support the concept of a royal family, but more that just because something is 'democratic' doesn't make it of more societal benefit than something that isn't. Well, not unless and until it is properly democratic, anyway.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Sunak, and his recent predecessors in the role, have in the last five years or so cost us far more than the royal family did over decades. Which is not to say I support the concept of a royal family, but more that just because something is 'democratic' doesn't make it of more societal benefit than something that isn't. Well, not unless and until it is properly democratic, anyway.
Click to expand...
Yes, agree about the cost of Sunak to the public purse. However, a lot of the spaffing to Tory Donors has been done with the complicity of Parliament, which is another issue that is difficult to address

As a start, anyone who claims that tax funds spending should have full transparency of their tax affairs thrust upon them.
 
Mick P said:
They don't have divine right, they just get more votes than the others. Will of the people, democracy in action etc.
Click to expand...

Even though more people vote against them?

A divided opposition ensures a permanent minority rule.
 
Yank said:
Even though more people vote against them?

A divided opposition ensures a permanent minority rule.
Click to expand...

Not true, people cannot vote against a party/candidate. they can only vote for one. The fact that receiving less than 50% of the votes can lead to one party winning is purely down to having more than two candidates. You don't need a majority just more of one than anyone else.

In FPTP, you would typically get a bigger majority than in a PR system where the votes are shared across a wider candidate range. Virtually no PR government have any sort of majority; needing to partner with other parties to have a workable majority.
 
Labour will win soon, so still democracy in action.

If you want to change the system, all you got to do is get enough votes - simples.
 
cutting42 said:
The fact that receiving less than 50% of the votes can lead to one party winning is purely down to having more than two candidates. You don't need a majority just more of one than anyone else.
Click to expand...

That, in essence, was my point.

When you have more people disappointed with an election result than those who are pleased, you do not have "majority rule".
 
Yank said:
That, in essence, was my point.

When you have more people disappointed with an election result than those who are pleased, you do not have "majority rule".
Click to expand...

Kind of irrelevant really. With any voting system, you will always have more losers than winners. The only way to force it is to have an artificial limit of two candidates/choices like Brexit - that went well.
 
Mick P said:
They don't have divine right, they just get more votes than the others. Will of the people, democracy in action etc.
Click to expand...
They are basically the same thing around here, I can assure you!

If a government was brave enough to put monarchy-or-no-monarchy to a referendum, I'm not at all convinced that the "will of the people" would be to get rid. Not based on the newspaper headlines I read when I pop into the post office...

Of course if we're going to defend (our version of) democracy because it's based on votes, we also need to take a look at the House of Lords.
 
TheFlash said:
They are basically the same thing around here, I can assure you!

If a government was brave enough to put monarchy-or-no-monarchy to a referendum, I'm not at all convinced that the "will of the people" would be to get rid. Not based on the newspaper headlines I read when I pop into the post office...

Of course if we're going to defend (our version of) democracy because it's based on votes, we also need to take a look at the House of Lords.
Click to expand...
The House of Lords is an enigma. I would only admit those who have a proven track of success and definitely be subjected to mental health checks every year. I don't want a bunch of people in the Lords who were once good in their field but are now deteriorating. Keeping it youthful is essential. Old people (those over sixty) are too set in their ways and should be retired and kept away from decision making.

The future is for the young, so let them do what they want, not what a bunch of coffin dodgers want.
 
Mick P said:
The House of Lords is an enigma. I would only admit those who have a proven track of success and definitely be subjected to mental health checks every year. I don't want a bunch of people in the Lords who were once good in their field but are now deteriorating. Keeping it youthful is essential. Old people (those over sixty) are too set in their ways and should be retired and kept away from decision making.

The future is for the young, so let them do what they want, not what a bunch of coffin dodgers want.
Click to expand...
What is the criteria for success?
 
Mick P said:
The House of Lords is an enigma. I would only admit those who have a proven track of success and definitely be subjected to mental health checks every year. I don't want a bunch of people in the Lords who were once good in their field but are now deteriorating. Keeping it youthful is essential. Old people (those over sixty) are too set in their ways and should be retired and kept away from decision making.

The future is for the young, so let them do what they want, not what a bunch of coffin dodgers want.
Click to expand...
Even with your criteria for entry though, it’s hard to justify it rationally as any more democratic than the monarchy.
As an apparently “old person” I of course dismiss your dismissal of old people as stuck in their ways!
Here and in the US and elsewhere there is usually a second house with its primary role being to scrutinise/moderate the wilder policy swings one often sees in the elected chamber. The enthusiasms of youth are admirable but they’re unlikely to provide the steadying hand which is required.
 
Mick P said:
The House of Lords is an enigma. I would only admit those who have a proven track of success and definitely be subjected to mental health checks every year. I don't want a bunch of people in the Lords who were once good in their field but are now deteriorating. Keeping it youthful is essential. Old people (those over sixty) are too set in their ways and should be retired and kept away from decision making.

The future is for the young, so let them do what they want, not what a bunch of coffin dodgers want.
Click to expand...
Over sixties have a lot to offer and can make good decisions. Plenty of evidence on this forum.
 
Kirk said:
Over sixties have a lot to offer and can make good decisions. Plenty of evidence on this forum.
Click to expand...
No what I see is evidence of the same entrenched views that were once radical but are not aligned with the views of the younger generation, myself included.

One thing the over sixties need to accept is that they made a good job of what they did in their younger days but today the future has to belong to the young.

Please remember I am only talking about high office, not sitting on the local park committee.
 
TheFlash said:
Even with your criteria for entry though, it’s hard to justify it rationally as any more democratic than the monarchy.
As an apparently “old person” I of course dismiss your dismissal of old people as stuck in their ways!
Here and in the US and elsewhere there is usually a second house with its primary role being to scrutinise/moderate the wilder policy swings one often sees in the elected chamber. The enthusiasms of youth are admirable but they’re unlikely to provide the steadying hand which is required.
Click to expand...
Old people are destroying your democratic system. Would you honestly trust the judgement of Nancy Pelosi?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top