Bump. Since the Socialist party is under attack from the Labour leader for being... well, socialist, I thought I'd ask how Labour can consider itself a "democratic socialist party" when it has an elected dictatorship.
THM this is pathetic. Your party isn't "under attack" and certainly not for being socialist. And to try this as a method of alleviating the pressure you've put yourself under by being unable to answer a simple question is childish beyond belief.
As for the actual question - perhaps you'd like to categorise the HoC as an elected dictatorship. Would you consider that the only valid democracy is one in which everyone and anyone can instigate legislation and anyone and everyone vote on it?
Dictatorship? I dictate nothing. All non-administrative decisions are taken after a vote.
You stated earlier that you decide who is allowed into the party, correct? And the people in the party are those who hold you to account -- both by electing you in the first place and holding the threat of a VonC over your head? Since you pick and choose the electorate, you can effectively do what you want.
THM this is pathetic. Your party isn't "under attack" and certainly not for being socialist. And to try this as a method of alleviating the pressure you've put yourself under by being unable to answer a simple question is childish beyond belief.
As for the actual question - perhaps you'd like to categorise the HoC as an elected dictatorship. Would you consider that the only valid democracy is one in which everyone and anyone can instigate legislation and anyone and everyone vote on it?
1. Sir, please state clearly what question I have not answered.
2. Yes, the HoC is quite undemocratic. Our RL governmental system is quite undemocratic. But since we're a minority, we don't have the power to change that.
1. Sir, please state clearly what question I have not answered.
2. Yes, the HoC is quite undemocratic. Our RL governmental system is quite undemocratic. But since we're a minority, we don't have the power to change that.
1. There have been a number, some may only have come after you left last night. Amongst them is who decides which members to accept and more generally how the party will operate effectively without an executive leader. (But that is really a discussion for the other thread which is where it is ongoing)
2. Sorry, is that the TSR HoC is undemocratic or the RL one or both?
You stated earlier that you decide who is allowed into the party, correct? And the people in the party are those who hold you to account -- both by electing you in the first place and holding the threat of a VonC over your head? Since you pick and choose the electorate, you can effectively do what you want.
I accept people in based on whether they are in another party or whether they will be inactive. If they're in another party they shouldn't have a voice in our sub-forum. If they're inactive their opinion on me won't come into play. I don't remove people who disagree with me from the usergroup. I don't reject people I've disagreed with in the past. Nightowl also accepts people into the group, being deputy leader. Internally there are no problems at the moment, and this is not because I've rejected about five people since becoming leader. I shall repeat that I dictate nothing. I have never forced anything through in the sub-forum.
^Perhaps the problem isn't that you don't manipulate things yourself or that it would be really hard to do so without everyone noticing and stopping you, but that in principle it is theoretically possible for you to do so in some case sometime
1. There have been a number, some may only have come after you left last night. Amongst them is who decides which members to accept and more generally how the party will operate effectively without an executive leader. (But that is really a discussion for the other thread which is where it is ongoing)
2. Sorry, is that the TSR HoC is undemocratic or the RL one or both?
1. I answered to say that no one decides: that it is automatic for a non-dupe to be accepted. If there was a dispute about whether someone should or shouldn't, the decision would be taken democratically.
2. Both. They are more democratic than other systems of government; but to say that this country is governed in a democratic way is, in my view, false.
Originally Posted by Jangrafess
I accept people in based on whether they are in another party or whether they will be inactive. If they're in another party they shouldn't have a voice in our sub-forum. If they're inactive their opinion on me won't come into play. I don't remove people who disagree with me from the usergroup. I don't reject people I've disagreed with in the past.
You stated that you made a decision on who to allow entry. Meaning, I assume, that you read their reasons for wanting entry and then deciding if they are or are not fit for membership. Now, would you accept someone who said in their application that they were in favour of abolishing the NHS?
Nightowl also accepts people into the group, being deputy leader. Internally there are no problems at the moment, and this is not because I've rejected about five people since becoming leader. I shall repeat that I dictate nothing. I have never forced anything through in the sub-forum.
No, but in these question threads we nit-pick about theoretical powers and theoretical definitions, remember?
So, you don't dictate at the moment. Your point being...? You are dictatorship merely because the leader has the ability to stay in power for as long as he likes. The fact that, in the short term, you choose to devolve that power to members isn't important. You can take that power away again.
Interesting to know that the official Socialist Party line is that Britain is not governed democratically and nor is the TSR HoC. But thanks for making that clear.
You stated that it was a decision on who to allow entry. Meaning, I assume, that you read their reasons for wanting entry and then deciding if they are or are not fit for membership. Now, would you accept someone who said in their application that they were in favour of abolishing the NHS?
I would send them a PM. This sort of thing has happened before.
No, but in these question threads we nit-pick about theoretical powers and theoretical definitions, remember?
So, you don't dictate at the moment. Your point being...? You are dictatorship merely because the leader has the ability to stay in power for as long as he likes. The fact that, in the short term, you choose to devolve that power to members isn't important. You can take that power away again.
I said I don't dictate at the moment because you said I do.
I thought I'd ask how Labour can consider itself a "democratic socialist party" when it has an elected dictatorship.
There. If you're accusing me of being a dictator when I don't dictate, I'm going to refute it. Then you say it doesn't matter that I'm not dictating at the moment. If I started to dictate, a VonC would be called. I highly doubt that the fact that I've accepted a member into the party would affect their view of me if I started dictating.
Just on the point of the NHS thing, and this relates to a question I asked in the other thread that hasn't as yet been answered - is it not obvious that if an applicant has political views that are wildly at odds with those of the Party they should not be accepted. Why else have a Party? I mean, I could be wrong here, but it would seem odd accepting Socialists into the Libertarian party and vice versa.
I would send them a PM. This sort of thing has happened before.
So, you would make some assessment as to their ideological suitability to join the party?
I said I don't dictate at the moment because you said I do.
No. I said it was a dictatorship. Your argument is equivalent to: "Hitler wasn't a dictator, because he allowed people certain freedoms, and devolved decision making powers to other people."
There. If you're accusing me of being a dictator when I don't dictate, I'm going to refute it. Then you say it doesn't matter that I'm not dictating at the moment. If I started to dictate, a VonC would be called. I highly doubt that the fact that I've accepted a member into the party would affect their view of me if I started dictating.
A dictatorship is a system in which the leader/leaders has/have ultimate theoretical power, and can prevent democratic challenges. Why would a democratic party create a theoretical dictatorship?
Just on the point of the NHS thing, and this relates to a question I asked in the other thread that hasn't as yet been answered - is it not obvious that if an applicant has political views that are wildly at odds with those of the Party they should not be accepted. Why else have a Party? I mean, I could be wrong here, but it would seem odd accepting Socialists into the Libertarian party and vice versa.
This is an interesting point, and I was hoping Jangra would take it here, but you seem to have got here first.
I would argue that parties evolve and change. Twenty years ago, the unsocialist policies that the (rl) government has in place would fundamentally unthinkable to the Labour party. Public ownership, PFIs, low taxation, etc. would have been in direct conflict with the Labour party constitution. Parties evolve as new ideas come in. If the majority rejects those ideas, the people arguing for them can be expelled.
This is an interesting point, and I was hoping Jangra would take it here, but you seem to have got here first.
I would argue that parties evolve and change. Twenty years ago, the unsocialist policies that the (rl) government has in place would fundamentally unthinkable to the Labour party. Public ownership, PFIs, low taxation, etc. would have been in direct conflict with the Labour party constitution. Parties evolve as new ideas come in. If the majority rejects those ideas, the people arguing for them can be expelled.
Yes parties evolve. This is not at all the same as allowing people to join a political party when their aims are completely at odds with that party.
I mean, under your system you really need not have a party at all since you don't care who joins and don't ever make people vote with a party line. In that case you are essentially a group of independent MPs who all hide under the Party's name to get a seat while potentially voting completely differently to the values of the party and the values of those who elected you as representatives.
This concerns me now, don't bother answering here I will ask it again in the Socialist thread.
TSR's model parliament.
Useful Resources:
Re: TSR Labour Party Question Time.
