Has anyone else come to the conclusion that democracy is not democracy if we do not have genuine political choice? What is the point of being allowed to vote when the 3 mainstream parties conspire to only to relieve us of more of our property and income while increasing the regulations we are subject to?
True political choice means Direct Democracy in the Athenian mould, where taxpaying citizens would be allowed to vote on laws, policy and courses of action.
There ought to be no representation without taxation and greater taxation ought to entitle the taxpayer to greater representation, just as if he were a shareholder voting at a company meeting.
Imagine yourself a diner in the only 3 restaurants in town.
Are you tired of being fobbed off with the same old set menu and repeatedly told that the dishes you want are off?
Are you tired of dishes promised by the fringe parties who will never cook anything up because they haven't even got a frying pan, much less any culinary skills to speak of?
Now here is a beautifully simple solution to this lack of choice.
Fringe parties co-operatively compile a Grand Amalgmated Manifesto of all their policies. This becomes the one-stop policy shop. These policies are presented in the form of promises to conduct referenda on them should they be elected into office.
Would this approach not put the lid under all political agreements?
By agreeing to ask the question, for example, "Should the UK withdraw from the EU?" you get the attention of both pros and antis.
Well, this is Direct Democracy as a campaigning weapon against the mainstream that requires ineffectual fringe parties to join together and become an effective Big Party that could overtake the Lib Dems. This is an idea that could run and revolutonise the way we think about politics.
Tired of the set menu? Dine a la carte!
THE VOICE OF REASON Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Why do Christians not follow the morality of the Bible? Because the Church itself does not follow Biblical principles and is only interes...
-
Key: CK = Claire Khaw CD = Claudia Dalgleish EB = Eddy Butler MC = Mark Collet TC = Tess Culnane CD on Facebook This past month... -
Beta males will never get female attention if it is OK for women to have premarital sex. If you want beta males to have a reasonable ...
6 comments:
Dear Andromeda, I got your link from Mr. Barnes site. You raise some good questions and points. Certainly the old three seem to have been failing everybody except themselves.I don't have a lot of time now and my connection keeps going off but I will be back.A fringe party is okay,but you need to have good activist. All too often that isn't the case.The few carry the work of many and the public gets confused and mixed messages.
Response to "Montecristo":
Thank you for your response. Do let me know what you think of www.1part4yall.co.uk when you have a moment.
I am more a theorist and polemicist than an activist who joins parties, though I have in my time. To help, it is better that I present myself as "above party". At any rate, the changes I propose are systemic and outside the box, or "off the trolley" as some people claim!
My mission is really to make politics "edu-taining" and invite further enquiry and thought.
Dear Andromeda,
I don't really understand what "Direct Democracy". You have to stand for something or you stand for nothing.The three main parties have really screwed things up. I will let you know when I have looked at oneparty for all blog.
Response to Montecristo:
Direct Democracy means that, instead of voting for a party (and in effect trusting that party to govern), the citizen would vote on individual policies. It means allowing citizens to take a more active part in government. “Government by referenda” would be another way of putting it.
There are all sorts of arguments against it of course, eg that the citizen cannot be trusted to know what’s good for him or won’t have the time or can’t be bothered. In fact, all that is required is a website resembling www.1party4all.co.uk where the votes actually counts.
It would be a government run along the lines of a shareholders’ meeting which would have no-shows, don’t knows and don’t cares alongside those who have a pretty good idea of what is going on and what they want.
As for your comment that I must either “stand for something or stand for nothing”, I of course have my views. However, even the best of friends disagree and the worst of enemies can agree on certain important issues. Rather than insist that our way only is right, Direct Democracy allows us to work together on the things we do agree on, while putting disagreements on the backburner until a quorum and majority is reached.
The most important constitutional question in the 21st century is the role of the EU - a body that makes laws for the UK.
Not everyone thinks being part of the EU is a good thing and, if you think about it, there are more political parties who want to withdraw than to remain. The ones who want to remain – the Big 3 – get their way because the parties who want withdrawal are politically insignificant under the current system – an oligarchy which allows the big “tribes” to command the attention and votes of an apathetic and ignorant electorate while denigrating the smaller “tribes” and their policies.
Imagine government along the lines of www.1party4all.co.uk where whatever is agreed to by the majority would be implemented! Does this appeal, or fill you with horror?
Click on VOTING POLLS to see what its members think on a range of issues. Then ask yourself whether you would be happier living under this proposed political system or under the one we have now!
Well , I see the point you are making, I think,roughly, but I seem to think where does the personality of a country go, if every decision is made by the click of a button on the internet,perhaps? You may reach the stage where people differ,as they do now,maybe people will stop working because they think it's not important anymore. Where is our country? People can't get along now, and Britain can't decide whether it wants to protect it's own race, or be absorbed into a hybrid melting pot. We've had faceless politics for the last 10 years, the Government has made laws and prioritised for people we never know or even should have needed to know and talks about them as if they are "us". 30 years ago you would never have had to implement something like this, because you still felt some trust in your own race.Now New Labour have finally broken that trust and nobody wants to know. But what does that mean to us as a nation?
I had a look at the site www.1party4all.co.uk but I just don't think this is going to get us anywhere. People have been bowed to say what they really feel,like all this question of the BNP,is just like going back to reasonable grounds,establishing our sense of identity and thinking what we want,without being told we are wrong.We live in the worst times,their is nothing worse than having your country taken over.People need to re-establish that their voice is worth something, and that this is something the present Government took away from them.Sorry it's a bit depressing.Vote BNP.
What you hint at is a qualified vote. Have you read Shaw's "The Applecart"? Or "In the Wet" by Neville Shute, both lead to the same conclusion that universal franchise will ultimately kill benevolent democracy, as is happening under our noses.
Post a Comment