What do we want from democracy?

[Seeker_UK]

Wealth > law. Always.

Not always. Both Maxwells, Epstein, Weinstein, those listed here (https://www.forbes.com/sites/natali...res-and-ex-billionaires-who-have-served-time/) and many others ultimately could't use their wealth to stay out of jug.

 

[Seeker_UK]

On the polling point, I wonder whether that is because it is the socially conservative, more politically engaged, types who respond to pollsters. It is often said that the young don't engage with politics, and it is by and large the young who are less socially conservative, so I'd want any changes to be ones that got the young more actively engaged in politics which affect their futures. That's more likely if they can see that their participation has an effect. We saw it in the Corbyn Effect, and its failure has just led to more disillusionment and disengagement, AFAICS.

Just on numbers, it doesn't stack up. This is an American study https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/there-are-two-americas-and-age-divider but shows political ideology tends to shift in the population at 25 so engaging younger citizens won't get the changes on numbers alone. The Corbyn effect shows that; the weight of 'fresh opinion' needs to be turned into a message palatable to the majority >25, who will be more socially conservative, to make the change and that is a challenge. I suppose in that respect, the media have their part to play and, yes, that's less democratic.

 

[laughingboy]

More along the lines of vTaiwan, I think. Deliberative consensus-building, based on Polis software.

From Wired:

In Pol.is, success is defined by the achievement of clusters of agreement. The goal, Tang says, is not unanimity, but rather a concept borrowed from the open-source software developer community: “rough consensus.”

“Rough consensus is not that strong,” Tang says. “It’s just something programmers can live with, then go back and write some running code, and stop debating. That kind of rough consensus is the key in Taiwanese norm shaping, because it enables people to not squander their time on getting the fine consensus out but rather to agree on something that we can all live with. That is something that politics can learn from internet governance: If we can all live with it, maybe that’s good enough. Maybe we don’t need everybody to be literally on the same side.”

 

[Tony L]

The Corbyn effect shows that; the weight of 'fresh opinion' needs to be turned into a message palatable to the majority >25, who will be more socially conservative, to make the change and that is a challenge.

Corbyn was a totally hopeless leader, it is unwise to conclude some of the left leaning policies were unpopular. The problem was he continually came over as Forrest Gump and clearly had no coherent answer to Brexit. I’d argue much of his manifesto was pretty good, but the one time the UK most needed a forceful and articulate anti-fascist/anti-nationalist leader Labour were found hopelessly wanting. I’d actually argue the 21st century Labour Party was destroyed by Duffygate and has never recovered. It has been focus-group central from that point on endlessly trying to work out exactly how much fascism is the right amount…

 

[Seeker_UK]

Corbyn was a totally hopeless leader, it is unwise to conclude some of the left leaning policies were unpopular.

I'm not saying they weren't, the problem is that they clearly didn't get translated to winning votes. Your view on his failure is, I suggest, a minority view; the press at the time did a number on Corbyn, but I can't recall being a useless anti-fascist / anti-nationalist leader the stick he was beaten with.

 

[ks.234]

Corbyn was a totally hopeless leader, it is unwise to conclude some of the left leaning policies were unpopular. The problem was he continually came over as Forrest Gump and clearly had no coherent answer to Brexit. I’d argue much of his manifesto was pretty good, but the one time the UK most needed a forceful and articulate anti-fascist/anti-nationalist leader Labour were found hopelessly wanting. I’d actually argue the 21st century Labour Party was destroyed by Duffygate and has never recovered. It has been focus-group central from that point on endlessly trying to work out exactly how much fascism is the right amount…

But isn't this the precise problem? We are waiting for a forceful leader, but one with principles, to come along to marry up our need for democracy but a strong man to lead it.

If we are to take control of Democracy we will need to divorce ourselves from the need to be led by a strong man.

(someone will no doubt be along soon to accuse me of sexism, but by man, I mean any person, man is just a convenience)

 

[Tony L]

I'm not saying they weren't, the problem is that they clearly didn't get translated to winning votes. Your view on his failure is, I suggest, a minority view; the press at the time did a number on Corbyn, but I can't recall being a useless anti-fascist / anti-nationalist leader the stick he was beaten with.

His fans here are far better qualified to answer than me, but I was under the impression Corbyn (and more importantly his manifesto) were doing rather well in 2017. The support fell off a cliff once the legendary Fence of Brexit Ambiguity was wheeled out and every PMQs was full of Brenda from Barking’s bus timetable etc rather that the economic and social catastrophe being metered out on the UK by the Tories and the far-right. Labour ended up way out of step with all the other progressive left parties, so my analysis isn’t entirely without evidence. Again I blame Duffygate for this. The party has been neutered ever since.

FWIW I do increasingly think Labour should fight elections from the left (i.e. Corbyn was right in that), but also with a shared platform of electoral reform with the other non-Tory parties as PR is the only hope, the only way forwards. The more I look at it the more I’m thinking the endless dull grey corporate suits burping up focus-group-defined Tory-lite policies just doesn’t mean anything to anyone. I suspect Labour need to grasp they can never represent folk like me and get back to core function of forcefully and unashamedly representing unionised mass labour, the working class, the inner cities, zero hour contracts, the unemployed etc. There are others here who understand the stats far better than I do, but I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that this, and obviously the pushing of real electoral reform, is the only hope in hell for the UK. Let the LDs or Greens look after the likes of me, I fully understand I am a middle-class liberal with all the baggage that brings! Labour need to get back to their core early 20th century functionality and representing those who currently so desperately need it.

 

[Tony L]

But isn't this the precise problem? We are waiting for a forceful leader, but one with principles, to come along to marry up our need for democracy but a strong man to lead it.

If we are to take control of Democracy we will need to divorce ourselves from the need to be led by a strong man.

(someone will no doubt be along soon to accuse me of sexism, but by man, I mean any person, man is just a convenience)

I agree entirely, but the vested interests in the current corrupt system are so strong and well-financed it will take someone remarkably strong and articulate to win this argument. It will actually require a strong and articulate cross-party movement to overthrow, all the non-Tory parties will need to unify and that will really take some leadership skills!

 

[ks.234]

His fans here are far better qualified to answer than me, but I was under the impression Corbyn (and more importantly his manifesto) were doing rather well in 2017. The support fell off a cliff once the legendary Fence of Brexit Ambiguity was wheeled out and every PMQs was full of Brenda from Barking’s bus timetable etc rather that the economic and social catastrophe being metered out on the UK by the Tories and the far-right. Labour ended up way out of step with all the other progressive left parties, so my analysis isn’t entirely without evidence. Again I blame Duffygate for this. The party has been neutered ever since.

FWIW I do increasingly think Labour should fight elections from the left (i.e. Corbyn was right in that), but also with a shared platform of electoral reform with the other non-Tory parties as PR is the only hope, the only way forwards. The more I look at it the more I’m thinking the endless dull grey corporate suits bur, long ing up focus-group-defined Tory-lite policies just doesn’t mean anything to anyone. I suspect Labour need to grasp they can never represent folk like me and get back to core function of forcefully and unashamedly representing unionised mass labour, the working class, the inner cities, zero hour contracts, the unemployed etc. There are others here who understand the stats far better than I do, but I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that this, and obviously the pushing of real electoral reform, is the only hope in hell for the UK. Let the LDs or Greens look after the likes of me, I fully understand I am a middle-class liberal with all the baggage that brings! Labour need to get back to their core early 20th century functionality and representing those who currently so desperately need it.

The fanboys jibe goes to the heart of the problem. I don't give a flying duck for Corbyn. I only supported and campaigned for him because of the much needed changes to democracy that he stood for.

If we wait for someone to come along who wants to improve democracy and has the strength of character, charisma and television appeal to overcome the inevitable onslaught from the media and from his own party, we will be waiting for a long, long time.

 

[ks.234]

I agree entirely, but the vested interests in the current corrupt system are so strong and well-financed it will take someone remarkably strong and articulate to win this argument. It will actually require a strong and articulate cross-party movement to overthrow, all the non-Tory parties will need to unify and that will really take some leadership skills!

I disagree, all it takes to remove the current corrupt system, is for enough people to refuse to vote for it. The right will always win while personality and projection is more important than principle.

The real problem is that those with principles tend to be uglier

 

[Tony L]

I disagree, all it takes to remove the current corrupt system, is for enough people to refuse to vote for it. The right will always win while personality and projection is more important than principle.

The problem is the only people who are standing against it are a handful of Lib Dems and a Green. Where else is there an argument for real electoral reform in UK politics? Maybe Farage’s fascists would support it too as they are again highly unlikely to even win a seat. That isn’t going to get anything over the line. Labour just aren’t interested at all; Blair, Brown, Milliband, Corbyn and Starmer have never put it anywhere even remotely near a manifesto.

 

[ks.234]

The problem is the only people who are standing against it are a handful of Lib Dems and a Green. Where else is there an argument for real electoral reform in UK politics? Maybe Farage’s fascists would support it too as they are again highly unlikely to even win a seat. That isn’t going to get anything over the line. Labour just aren’t interested at all; Blair, Brown, Milliband, Corbyn and Starmer have never put it anywhere even remotely near a manifesto.

Sorry, but I don't think PR will solve the problems in our democracy, it might dilute them a little, it might lessen the impact of anti democratic agencies, but we can't wait for a coincidence of our demands and someone to voice them, we need to find a way to voice them ourselves. We need to speak with a collective voice against the corrupted politics that we currently have and one way to do that is to make Human Rights our message, a message that One Nation Tories, Greater Good Liberals and For The Many Not The Few socialists should all be able to get behind and shout loudly about

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

One little snag with that is that the Human Rights Act has been demonised by the right wing media for years now, so advocating for yuman rights is tantamount to refusing to deport murderers, because kittens, innit. We need not only to get behind the UDHR, but to wake people up to what the UDHR says, and why it matters to them.

We need a name for the party. Just as Labour was set up to represent the labouring classes, and the Liberals were, well, for the liberal chattering classes, what party do we want to represent the human in all of us?

 

[ks.234]

One little snag with that is that the Human Rights Act has been demonised by the right wing media for years now, so advocating for yuman rights is tantamount to refusing to deport murderers, because kittens, innit. We need not only to get behind the UDHR, but to wake people up to what the UDHR says, and why it matters to them.

We need a name for the party. Just as Labour was set up to represent the labouring classes, and the Liberals were, well, for the liberal chattering classes, what party do we want to represent the human in all of us?

The UK has signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, maybe it's time that we demanded that our politicians also lived up to it? Maybe we should make a manifesto promise to implement the UDHR a condition of lending any party our vote?

 

[Yank]

One problem with representative democracy is how the representatives are chosen. I don't mean at the ballot box, I mean the process by which the candidates are chosen by the parties. We, the electorate, get no say in that, we merely get Hobson's choice of candidates to vote for (or occasionally some no-hoper of an independent). Imagine what the Tory or Labour parties might look like if the likes of Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Patel, Hoey, Frank Field, Truss, Sunak, Davies, etc, etc had never been candidates.

That problem seems to be restricted to Parliamentary systems. In the US, for example, we have a series of primary elections to select the candidates, and just about anyone can stand for election. On the other hand, that can lead to the truly unqualified winning a seat (see Marjorie Taylor Greene as an example, or even Trump...).

 

[ks.234]

That problem seems to be restricted to Parliamentary systems. In the US, for example, we have a series of primary elections to select the candidates, and just about anyone can stand for election. On the other hand, that can lead to the truly unqualified winning a seat (see Marjorie Taylor Greene as an example, or even Trump...).

Anyone with lots of money and the support of the religious right and the NRA?

 

[wulbert]

Our democracy is highly centralised to an extent that is abnormal. I'd like to see much smaller democratic units of governance. In some parts of Northern Europe the average Local Authority contains 10,000 people. Here, it is more like 100,000 people. Way too big.

People pay their taxes direct to these small, truly local, authorities which gives voters a much greater interest in what the councillors are doing with their cash. And a much higher turn out in local elections as a result. It also results in truly empowered local authorities who can actually do stuff without needing to beg from central Govt.

I'd also like to see powerful mechanisms to separate the interests of global businesses and wealthy individuals from democratic processes. Lobbying, paying for a meeting with the PM, "Think Tanks", Honours etc; all that stuff is corrupting and corrosive. The Market is an excellent servant but a terrible master. It should not drive our democracy. I'd make "going into politics" a frugally rewarded vocation ( say, average UK wage plus on-costs for running an office) that attracted only those truly committed to public service.

I'd like to live in peace with fair laws that discouraged any one person from accumulating too much money because it is not good for them or for their fellow citizens.

 

[Seeker_UK]

FWIW I do increasingly think Labour should fight elections from the left (i.e. Corbyn was right in that), but also with a shared platform of electoral reform with the other non-Tory parties as PR is the only hope, the only way forwards

It's not going to happen. If you've not looked at it, look at the graphic in the section "Seats under d’Hondt Great Britain" at https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk...have-looked-with-proportional-representation/

Flick between the result of 2019 vs had the same voting been used for PR. Labour would have made an additional 14 seats and SNP would have 20 fewer seats. LD with 59 more seats along with Greens and other minor parties making the most gains.

The 'big 3' would make, at best, modest gains and more likely lose seats under PR and the last time we asked the electorate if they wanted to keep FPTP (yes, I know the referendum was flawed but it happened) they chose to keep it. With that, there is no logical reason for the parties to want change and evidence there is no appetite for it in the Electorate.

So, what is the likely process that gets from there to a new electoral system? If there isn't one, and I don't think there is, your calls for change are going to remain unanswered for a very long time. It would be better to start with the changes we can make under FPTP (and there are a lot: funding, candidate selection, greater devolution) than keep making impotent demands for the impossible.

 

[Tony L]

So, what is the likely process that gets from there to a new electoral system? If there isn't one, and I don't think there is, your calls for change are going to remain unanswered for a very long time. It would be better to start with the changes we can make under FPTP (and there are a lot: funding, candidate selection, greater devolution) than keep making impotent demands for the impossible.

Sadly I suspect you are right. This isn’t something new for me, I’ve recognised we don’t live in a democracy all my life. Growing up in a Tory safe seat brings that reality home at a very early age. All I can realistically do is to keep voting for parties that have reform as an central electoral pledge and making the arguments to anyone who will listen. I doubt I’ll see it in my lifetime, but I’ll certainly keep going, and doing so doesn’t exclude pushing for the other aspects you mention. I will also keep funding and publicly advertising those such as Good Law Project, Stop Funding Hate, Led By Donkeys etc who attempt to hold our truly rotten and corrupt kleptocracy to account. We all have very little power, but I’ll keep using what I have.

 

[Seeker_UK]

... I’ve recognised we don’t live in a democracy all my life.

We live in a democracy. It may not be perfect, nor meets all you particular needs / aspirations or those of a few posters on a hi-fi forum, but it is one, all the same.