Not as TSR savvy as yourself, so Im unable to multiquote, so I'll just use good old fashioned paragraphs(Original post by Fusilero)
Turnout a tad down since '45 but still 65% of the electorate last time!
Because, sir, we are the polity and the democratic will of the people is what gives legislation it's moral authority. Evidence and experts can be used in the decision making process without actually having the members of the BMA being part of the duly elected government but to take the political decision making process out of the hand of the representatives of the people to experts is undemocratic, elitist and downright dictatorial. That's an argument most dictatorships and oligarchies have used throughout the entirety of history to justify their own existence 'The people can't possibly know, we are smarter than the people and therefore we should lead for their own good.'. From the Hapsburgs to the Communist the belief that a single individual or a small group knows what is best for humanity and forcing it upon the people is something that civilization has spent the last good two/three hundred years fighting against since the first sparks of the American Revolution, to the bloodied sands of Libya and every single time we take part in the democratic process we are taking part, a small part to be true, in the history and liberation of mankind.
Yes. The government should not govern without the democratic consent of the people, even if the people of this country wish to adopt a completely unworkable economic system than that is what this country should be adopting. It'll fail and then, most likely, we'll return to a workable system a lot poorer than before but a tad wiser as a whole! But chances are that won't happen because the representatives the people send back to Parliament tend to be rather sane fellows, if a bit fond of their own voices.
But you are suggesting an elitist system where a part (a small part) of the government decision making process is out of the hands of duly elected representatives and I (and many others) see that as fundamentally wrong. The decision making process can use the knowledge and expertise of experts but it is our duly elected representatives who should be running the government with a mandate from the electorate.
The state and government has no rights except to serve the individuals of the nation, it's own self-preservation is unimportant if the individuals of the nation do not want it. When it leads the people rather than follow it has fundamentally overstepped it's bounds (which, in my view, it already has!). I would rather see the nation constantly convulsing, swaying and teetering on the edge of survival under it's own brilliance and political divisions from a representative constitutional democracy than a stable state under a single unifying dictator or party.
Considering the importance of the general election and how many people moan when the government do something they take issue with, 65% isn't too impressive a figure, though up from previous elections, thanks to the deficit.
The democratically elected representatives would still be running government as they are now. All I would like is for the Lords to possess the same powers they have now, only to be removed from the whip system and any form of partisanship. I do not want an elected Lords because I feel there would be no point having two parliaments, I doubt people would be very interested in voting for lords and because I think the current system works. No decision making power shouild be allocated to them, aside from the right to say 'Hey, we don't like this [because...], can you look at it again?'
Yes, the experts should be consulted by the government before the Bill is properly drafted, but I think it is important to have a publically recognised panel of experts who are identifiable and can be heard. For example, with the Lansley health Bill, it seems the BMA and most of the medical profession are against it, yet this Bill was still unveilled to Parliament and only recently, after a very public vote of no confidence, did Lansley agree to 'rethink'. In the interests of an open government, before presenting any Bill to Parliament the government could maybe present it to the lords and ask for thier input before drafting it, this would not only help the government, (avoidng more embarrasing uturns) it would also give the Bill extra legitimacy and therefore give government extra legimimacy.
I agree that government's own self-preservation SHOULD be unimportant but the reality is that it is. Back to the thread, Thatcher was the only PM who drastically disregarded public opinion and it is a divisive issue whether that was a good move or not. Is it better to upset a generation for the greater good of many after it? I'm no economics whizz so can't comment if the destruction of the manufacturing industry was ultimately a good move, but seeing as there have been no plans to reinstate it, it could be argued that politicians since have merely accepted Thatcher's change and lived with it, (possibly because such changes were irreversible...I don't know).
Government should indeed serve the people and exist to keep the country on its feet, they should evolve with sociey and enact rules and laws to keep the evolved society within its own ordained lines.
Apologies for any spelling errors, too lazy to check properly
Turn on thread page Beta
David Cameron the best PM since Thatcher watch
- 18-04-2011 20:37