Copenhagen showed up the need for new social change strategies
I&R ~ GB
protesting and demonstrating, while necessary are unlikely to produce
adequate policy and action. An additional tool, which can force
parliaments and governments to change direction is the citizens'
initiative or law proposal. Detail about how this works may be found via
http://campaignfordemocracy.org.uk/directdemocracyexamples/
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rodmell/
http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html
http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm election campaign call
Companies and corporations can be directed and controlled by citizens'
initiative and referendum (I and R).
To adapt to citizen-led democracy, experts and concerned groups must
modify their tactics in order to inform and appeal directly to the
electorate.
Pro-environmental law has been made by I and R. An example from Europe
is The Alpine Initiative, well recorded in a video to be found via
http://www.iniref.org/alpine.html
I&R ~ GB
Robert Peffers
"I&R ~ GB" <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
news:7pc3ni...@mid.uni-berlin.de...
Don't you think there are enough bloody idiots trying to run the UK already?
Just look at today's happenings - The three main Westminster parties agree
to have a face to face TV debate.
This is obviously only really applicable to England as the other three
countries have a very different system of politics and the main parties in
these countries are not the three main Westminster parties. In Scotland, in
particular, the latest opinion poll shows that the SNP are the leading
contenders for the Westminster election. The Tory Party are not even in the
first 5 as they only have a single Westminster MP. Yet there they are to be
shown on TV along with Labour and the Lib/Dems as the main parties. Now,
who, in their right mind, would really claim that Nick Clegg has the
slightest chance of leading the next Westminster government?
Yet you want to give Joe Public the right to dictate how the country is run
at nut & Bolt level?
If the three party leaders at the head of the top parties are making an arse
of running the country what chance has Joe Public got of doing a better job?
There are enough idiots in politics already.
--
Auld Bob
I&R ~ GB
Please dinny overlook that we propose PARTIAL direct democracy. The
parties and parliaments remain in place but that system is enhanced by
the citizens' proposition ("initiative") plus the optional veto
plebiscite. Sure, this keeps the politicians on their toes, and that is
good.
The people are not too stupid to select and throw out candidates, Bob,
and the elected candidates are supposed to decide on policy and
government as a whole.
fitlike min
> How can governments be made to act responsibly? Campaigning, lobbying,
> protesting and demonstrating, while necessary are unlikely to produce
> adequate policy and action. An additional tool, which can force
> parliaments and governments to change direction is the citizens'
>
> Companies and corporations can be directed and controlled by citizens'
> initiative and referendum (I and R).
>
> To adapt to citizen-led democracy, experts and concerned groups must
> modify their tactics in order to inform and appeal directly to the
> electorate.
>
> Pro-environmental law has been made by I and R. An example from Europe
> is The Alpine Initiative, well recorded in a video to be found viahttp://www.iniref.org/alpine.html
>
> I&R ~ GB
Copenhagen was a load of shite. The Chinese realised this but are too
polite to admit it. Thank God for them at least.
If you want to have your country run by a bunch of long haired hippies
then you would be in favour of Copenhagen.
The con of the century.
F.
Robert Peffers
"I&R ~ GB" <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
the Scottish Government and government attention is mandatory.After a
lifetime of knocking doors during election campaigns I know well the level
of political awareness among the general public. It is quite unbelievably
low with most people's grasp of the subject coloured by the same sort of
blind belief that drives the World's belief in God. In other words what they
believe is rock solid but there is not a shred of evidence to back up their
belief.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"aracari" <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote in message
news:55b4a9918ea6df84...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
> 'I&R ~ GB' wrote thus:
>
>>How can governments be made to act responsibly? Campaigning, lobbying,
>>protesting and demonstrating, while necessary are unlikely to produce
>>adequate policy and action.
>
> that could be taken in Britain to force govt to act responsibly
> is a proper written constitution, clearly defining the limitations
> of power of an elected government, and suitably supervised to
> prevent governmental abuse. How the populace interact with
> governmental on sensitive issues is a matter for debate ..
Not really. I can think of several issues that Joe Public would force any
government to adopt and every one of them would be wrong.
The vox populi of the hoi polloi would, for example, bring back hanging,
hard labour, ban abortions, pull out of Europe, throw out Gordon Brown, stop
immigration, abolish the discrimination acts, abolish income tax, do away
with child allowances, stop disability allowance end disabled parking
permits, bring back national service, abolish Broadcast reception licences,
fuel tax, road tax and council tax. And that's only the start of the
madness.
--
Auld Bob
>
>
>>An additional tool, which can force
>>parliaments and governments to change direction is the citizens'
>>initiative or law proposal. Detail about how this works may be found via
>>http://campaignfordemocracy.org.uk/directdemocracyexamples/
>>http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rodmell/
>>http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html
>>http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm election campaign call
>>
>>Companies and corporations can be directed and controlled by citizens'
>>initiative and referendum (I and R).
>>
>>To adapt to citizen-led democracy, experts and concerned groups must
>>modify their tactics in order to inform and appeal directly to the
>>electorate.
>>
>>Pro-environmental law has been made by I and R. An example from Europe
>>is The Alpine Initiative, well recorded in a video to be found via
>>http://www.iniref.org/alpine.html
>>
>>I&R ~ GB
>
Now there are lots of decent, sensible people out there but one only needs
to walk down the average High Street on a Saturday night and witness the
large numbers of total idiots making arses of themselves to realise that
giving such irresponsible people the power to interfere in the running of
governments, from community councils to the UK cabinet, is a bad idea.
The whole point comes down to this, any person who wants to be part of the
government of the UK is free to stand for office at any level of government
from the local community Council, to the Local Council, the UK Government
and even the European Union.
Here are the criteria for standing as an MP at Westminster - some may
surprise you -
People wishing to stand as an MP must be over 18 years of age, and a British
citizen, or citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland.
Candidates must be nominated by ten parliamentary electors of the
constituency they wish to stand in.
Authorisation is required to stand for a specific party, otherwise
candidates will be described as independent or have no description.
In order to encourage only serious candidates to stand, a �500 deposit is
required when submitting the nomination papers - returned if the candidate
receives over five per cent of the total votes cast.
Certain people are disqualified from standing as an MP -
Convicted prisoners serving a sentence of over 12 months
Certain people employed by the Crown
People found guilty of certain electoral offences
Peers who sit and are eligible to vote in the House of Lords.
Bishops (known as the Lords Spiritual) who are entitled to sit and vote in
the House of Lords.
Now consider that, even with the above restrictions, we have political
parties and candidates such as, "The Monster Raving Loony Party", and wonder
what would happen if we gave every raving loony the legal right to interfere
in the legislative process.
--
Auld Bob
William Black
> "aracari" <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote in message
> news:55b4a9918ea6df84...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
>> 'I&R ~ GB' wrote thus:
>>
>>> How can governments be made to act responsibly? Campaigning, lobbying,
>>> protesting and demonstrating, while necessary are unlikely to produce
>>> adequate policy and action.
>> As you and I have debated before, the single greatest action
>> that could be taken in Britain to force govt to act responsibly
>> is a proper written constitution, clearly defining the limitations
>> of power of an elected government, and suitably supervised to
>> prevent governmental abuse. How the populace interact with
>> governmental on sensitive issues is a matter for debate ..
>
> Not really. I can think of several issues that Joe Public would force any
> government to adopt and every one of them would be wrong.
> The vox populi of the hoi polloi would, for example, bring back hanging,
> hard labour, ban abortions, pull out of Europe, throw out Gordon Brown, stop
> immigration, abolish the discrimination acts, abolish income tax, do away
> with child allowances, stop disability allowance end disabled parking
> permits, bring back national service, abolish Broadcast reception licences,
> fuel tax, road tax and council tax. And that's only the start of the
> madness.
I doubt they do.
If they did then they'd vote for people who stand for such things.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Nkosi (ama-ecosse)
> On Dec 23, 3:38 am, I&R ~ GB <infoT...@OUTiniref.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > How can governments be made to act responsibly? Campaigning, lobbying,
> > protesting and demonstrating, while necessary are unlikely to produce
> > adequate policy and action. An additional tool, which can force
> > parliaments and governments to change direction is the citizens'
>
> > Companies and corporations can be directed and controlled by citizens'
> > initiative and referendum (I and R).
>
> > To adapt to citizen-led democracy, experts and concerned groups must
> > modify their tactics in order to inform and appeal directly to the
> > electorate.
>
> > Pro-environmental law has been made by I and R. An example from Europe
> > is The Alpine Initiative, well recorded in a video to be found viahttp://www.iniref.org/alpine.html
>
> > I&R ~ GB
>
> Copenhagen was a load of shite. The Chinese realised this but are too
> polite to admit it. Thank God for them at least.
> If you want to have your country run by a bunch of long haired hippies
> then you would be in favour of Copenhagen.
> The con of the century.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am a long haired hippie biker petrol head who believes global
warming is a farce and only instituted to allow governments to tax us
with new taxes as they realise we are a little pissed with increasing
amount of the old taxes.
Nkosi
Eunometic
> "I&R ~ GB" <infoT...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in messagenews:7pc3ni...@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
>
> > How can governments be made to act responsibly? Campaigning, lobbying,
> > protesting and demonstrating, while necessary are unlikely to produce
> > adequate policy and action. An additional tool, which can force
> > parliaments and governments to change direction is the citizens'
> > initiative or law proposal. Detail about how this works may be found via
> >http://campaignfordemocracy.org.uk/directdemocracyexamples/
> >http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rodmell/
> >http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html
>
> > Companies and corporations can be directed and controlled by citizens'
> > initiative and referendum (I and R).
>
> > To adapt to citizen-led democracy, experts and concerned groups must
> > modify their tactics in order to inform and appeal directly to the
> > electorate.
>
> > Pro-environmental law has been made by I and R. An example from Europe is
> > The Alpine Initiative, well recorded in a video to be found via
> >http://www.iniref.org/alpine.html
>
> > I&R ~ GB
>
> Don't you think there are enough bloody idiots trying to run the UK already?
> Just look at today's happenings - The three main Westminster parties agree
> to have a face to face TV debate.
> This is obviously only really applicable to England as the other three
> countries have a very different system of politics and the main parties in
> these countries are not the three main Westminster parties. In Scotland, in
> particular, the latest opinion poll shows that the SNP are the leading
> contenders for the Westminster election. The Tory Party are not even in the
> first 5 as they only have a single Westminster MP. Yet there they are to be
> shown on TV along with Labour and the Lib/Dems as the main parties. Now,
> who, in their right mind, would really claim that Nick Clegg has the
> slightest chance of leading the next Westminster government?
>
> Yet you want to give Joe Public the right to dictate how the country is run
> at nut & Bolt level?
Like the Swiss ban on minarets.
The lunar left would see its ideas and policies crushed by plebescite
peoples democracy which is why leftist governments always end up
either totalitarian or using the same easily manipulated system of
representational Government as other elites.
> If the three party leaders at the head of the top parties are making an arse
> of running the country what chance has Joe Public got of doing a better job?
Joe public would do an infinetly better job than some party hack who
spends much of his time taking party donations and getting lobbied and
spin doctoring hidden agendas.
Switzerland is better run than most countries.
> There are enough idiots in politics already.
There are enough idiots on the internet yet i don't see you leaving
it.
fitlike min
wrote:
> On 22 Dec, 19:40, fitlike min <killwh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 3:38 am, I&R ~ GB <infoT...@OUTiniref.org> wrote:
>
> > > How can governments be made to act responsibly? Campaigning, lobbying,
> > > protesting and demonstrating, while necessary are unlikely to produce
> > > adequate policy and action. An additional tool, which can force
> > > parliaments and governments to change direction is the citizens'
>
> > > Companies and corporations can be directed and controlled by citizens'
> > > initiative and referendum (I and R).
>
> > > To adapt to citizen-led democracy, experts and concerned groups must
> > > modify their tactics in order to inform and appeal directly to the
> > > electorate.
>
> > > Pro-environmental law has been made by I and R. An example from Europe
> > > is The Alpine Initiative, well recorded in a video to be found viahttp://www.iniref.org/alpine.html
>
> > > I&R ~ GB
>
> > Copenhagen was a load of shite. The Chinese realised this but are too
> > polite to admit it. Thank God for them at least.
> > If you want to have your country run by a bunch of long haired hippies
> > then you would be in favour of Copenhagen.
> > The con of the century.
>
> > F.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am a long haired hippie biker petrol head who believes global
> warming is a farce and only instituted to allow governments to tax us
> with new taxes as they realise we are a little pissed with increasing
> amount of the old taxes.
>
> Nkosi
My apologies to you in that case..
Stan de SD
> How can governments be made to act responsibly? Campaigning, lobbying,
> protesting and demonstrating, while necessary are unlikely to produce
> adequate policy and action. An additional tool, which can force
> parliaments and governments to change direction is the citizens'
>
> Companies and corporations can be directed and controlled by citizens'
> initiative and referendum (I and R).
>
> To adapt to citizen-led democracy, experts and concerned groups must
> modify their tactics in order to inform and appeal directly to the
> electorate.
Maybe the electorate has already realized that anthropogenic global
warming is a farce, and they are no longer buying into the mass
hysteria driven by manipulated data that is intended to steal their
freedoms and condemn them to living like third-worlders?
Robert Peffers
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hgriac$u1j$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
If you have ever been an active campaigner, knocking doors, speaking to
people on political subjects you soon find that there are few who have
actually though through any subject properly. There are different types of
political views and they start with blind loyalty to a party.
There is very little reasoning behind this type of person's thinking.
It is a bit like the belief in a mythical God that there is not a shred of
evidence of the God's existence.
These people just believe the ******* Party is the best.
Then there is the, "I'm all right", response that means the person votes for
the party that is biased to their own grasping greed.
These people are frequently living in a distant past and their chosen party
no longer gives them a thought.
Many Labour voters fall into this group and these still think Labour looks
after the, "working Class", but missed the quote from Mandelson, "We are all
Thatcherites now".
They also fail to see that New Labour dropped any pretence of rescinding the
Trade Union Laws brought in by Thatcher to curb the Unions.
Which begs the question of why the Unions still sponsor MPs and contribute
to Labour Party funds.
There is absolutely nothing that can be done to make such people even
consider that other parties may be a better option to meet their
aspirations.
Then we have the utterly thick voter who just votes for the party that
his/her father voted for and I include in this group the, "Folla the
Maister", groups who vote as the local farmer, Laird or employer tells them
to vote. I remember elections when the landed gentry laid on transport to
bring the farm/estate workers to the pole and supervised them into the
polling station and saw them back out again.
Then we have the sadly misled voters who have just got the whole political
thing wrong.
For example we have the quite aged OAPs who say such things as, "We have to
vote Labour because they give us a Christmas Bonus, or Winter Heating
Allowance", and no explanation that a decent pension, like the rest of
Europe, would mean such once/year bribes would not be needed.
This class of voter is not party specific but whatever their particular
party has promised means they will stay with that party until the day they
die. There are many Tory voters who have never hunted in their lives who
vote Tory because they are for hunting.
The people who actually do make a difference are the smallest group and
these few really know what is going on and will swing their vote towards the
party that is actually trying to make a real difference and these people
base their vote upon hard facts and real policies..
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
> 'Robert Peffers' wrote thus:
>
>>"aracari" <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote in message
>>news:55b4a9918ea6df84...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
>>> 'I&R ~ GB' wrote thus:
>>>
>>>>How can governments be made to act responsibly? Campaigning, lobbying,
>>>>protesting and demonstrating, while necessary are unlikely to produce
>>>>adequate policy and action.
>
>
>>> As you and I have debated before, the single greatest action
>>> that could be taken in Britain to force govt to act responsibly
>>> is a proper written constitution, clearly defining the limitations
>>> of power of an elected government, and suitably supervised to
>>> prevent governmental abuse. How the populace interact with
>>> governmental on sensitive issues is a matter for debate ..
>
>
>>Not really. I can think of several issues that Joe Public would force any
>>government to adopt and every one of them would be wrong.
>>The vox populi of the hoi polloi would, for example, bring back hanging,
>>hard labour, ban abortions, pull out of Europe, throw out Gordon Brown,
>>stop
>>immigration, abolish the discrimination acts, abolish income tax, do away
>>with child allowances, stop disability allowance end disabled parking
>>permits, bring back national service, abolish Broadcast reception
>>licences,
>>fuel tax, road tax and council tax. And that's only the start of the
>>madness.
>
> NOT something created by the political ruling elites.
>
Oh! I do understand what a written constitution is and how it, "Should", be
drawn up.
I just believe that until the existing system is changed it would be an
utter waste of time and effort.
Tell me, just what good is a written constitution while we have a system
that takes away all our freedoms, spies upon us, has massive databases with
all our details on it and can legally lift anyone from our streets, or
indeed from our own homes, slam us in prison and keep us there without legal
advice, trial or even charged under the law?
No matter what written constitution we have in place, if the ruling party
pays it no heed, it is just a waste of paper ink and resources.
This is nothing new in that I can quote you several incidents in the past
that show there is need for some way to curb our rulers but what that is
could be more chancy than what we have at present.
Tell me how a written constitution would have prevented the obvious murder
of the Scottish lawyer Willie McRae?
http://www.scotland.com/forums/scottish-politics/22473-mysterious-death-willie-macrae.html
Then we have such things as happened when the workers at Rosyth Dockyard
went on strike during the Thatcher years. Not only were the workers wages
lagging way behind the private sector by around a third but Thatcher was
working on schemes to sell the Dockyards to private industry. Now remember
the Dockyards had always been regarded as public assets to the UK. The
workers walked out of the yard and gathered outside the yard gates. Quite
correctly the local police were there to keep the peace. There was no
trouble and we were actually sharing our packed lunches and soft drinks with
the constables. However, just when the Secretary of State for defence was
due, the police were all packed into busses and went away. They were
replaced with several bus loads of men dressed in police uniforms. These
guys were really big guys and they started, for no apparent reason, to wade
into the workers with batons and several people were arrested. Thing was
that one of these, "policemen", was a regular visitor to my next door
neighbour's son. He was not a policeman but a member of an elite army unit.
As long as our governments ignore existent rule of law there is no hope any
written constitution will make a bit of difference.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:c9bb009e-3799-4397...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Your own level of logic demonstrates my point far better than I ever could.
Why would my leaving the internet make the slightest difference?
I'm not leaving this country either, nor am I leaving the UK.
I'm not stopping voting either, so just how does your strange implication
about leaving the internet due to idiots, like you, change the fact that
there are lots of idiots about - everywhere?
I just do not want the idiots getting a bigger legal right to enforce their
views upon the running of the UK.
If there were no other reason the simple fact that the general public do
strange things when prompted by a few people for their own benefit would be
enough.
Let me point out a few truths for you.
We have a constant stream of, "Experts", on the TV who are all used by the
powers that be to influence the way people spend their hard earned cash, (or
even worse use there not so hard earned credit cards).
It the Advertisements were not enough the stream of cheaply made, "Expert
Programmes", makes up for it.
There are less people who actually cook these days yet the TV often has wall
to wall celebrity chefs.
We are in a deep financial depression and we have many hours of TV programs
devoted to property buying and renovating.
We have fashion, "Experts", telling us how we should dress, decorate our
homes, what books to read, what music to listen to and what computer games
we should play.
What about the on-line campaign that saw off the TV programme winner's
Christmas number 1?
As long as Joe and Josie Public can be made to dance to such people's
instructions there is little hope of them running the country for the best.
Do you think all the companies who spend billions on adverts don't know what
they are doing?
What they are doing is manipulating Joe & Josie Public for profit.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"aracari" <spamtrap@v锟絠lable.here.com> wrote in message
news:824ada438884c0b6...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
> 'Robert Peffers' wrote thus:
>
>>"aracari" <spamtrap@v锟絠lable.here.com> wrote in message
>>news:6c1956736adb19fc...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
>>> 'Robert Peffers' wrote thus:
>>>
>
>>and how it, "Should", be drawn up.
>
indeed you do not. That's obvious.
>
>>I just believe that until the existing system is changed it would be an
>>utter waste of time and effort.
>
> This is a political newsgroup (ukpm) and people are free to
> discuss their perceived need for a proper written constitution.
Err!
it is not, "A", political newsgroup that you posted into.
It is,
"uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.misc,scot.politics,alt.politics.british,alt.activism".
That's 5 newsgroups.
> As government becomes ever more authoritarian, more people will
> be coming to the conclusion that some constraint has to be applied
> to it, else we will become a fascist police state. IMHO.
Perhaps not Facist but we are already a police state and have been for some
time.
When non-police people can dish out on-the-spot-fines to anyone they choose
then the rule of law has gone.
E锟絭en if these fines are levied by a warrant card carrying police officer
the rule of law has gone.
The whole idea is that the crime preventers and crime investigators are not
the same people who try and convict the supposed wrongdoer.
The fact that you get judged, found guilty and are punished on the spot
means you were presumed to be guilty.
Add to this that the police can keep records of innocent people together
with fingerprints and DNA and the same people can just lift you from the
street, bang you in prison and keep you there without trial, or even charge,
makes the law a nonsense.
>
>>Tell me, just what good is a written constitution while we have a system
>>that takes away all our freedoms, spies upon us, has massive databases
>>with
>>all our details on it and can legally lift anyone from our streets, or
>>indeed from our own homes, slam us in prison and keep us there without
>>legal
>>advice, trial or even charged under the law?
>
> That's the point of a proper written constitution.
> It governs government by imposing limits on their powers.
> As they say to govt:
> "if it ain't on the list, it ain't your business".
Indeed, but who is to draw this written constitution up in the first place.
Who is to police it in the second place and, in the third place, who is
going to punish the offenders?
Will it be the lawyers? The police? The political setup we have now?
>
> In the overall scheme of things, it takes precedence over any
> elected government of the day and of course no law can be passed
> which violates it. No govt can override the constitution without
> criminal penalties.
Did you actually think I did not know that?
>
> But of course, all this requires a fundamental redesign of the
> apparatus of govt, which is why no political party supports it.
> Turkeys and Christmas etc!
Did you think I had not considered that?
>
>>No matter what written constitution we have in place, if the ruling party
>>pays it no heed, it is just a waste of paper ink and resources.
>
> Like I said earlier, you do not understand what a proper written
> constitution is.
Like I said earlier I seem to have a far better grasp of the matter than you
do.
>
>>This is nothing new in that I can quote you several incidents in the past
>>that show there is need for some way to curb our rulers but what that is
>>could be more chancy than what we have at present.
>
> IMV people who claim that a constitution would restrict govt in
> undesirable ways are really saying that they only want govt to be
> limited in ways that suit them. IOW they are not committed to
> the principles of a constitution. That invariably means they are
> socialists.
So the above from you excludes you from being involved in drawing up a
written constitution.
In the first place you are anti-socialist and that means you are no better
at drawing up a constitution than a socialst would be.
The idea that only socialists would be against a written constitution is
ludicrous as would be the notion that only right wing supporters would be
for a written constitution.
The very fact that yoy would rule out socialists means you have
automatically declaed you want the constitution to favour non-socialists.
>
>>Tell me how a written constitution would have prevented the obvious murder
>>of the Scottish lawyer Willie McRae?
>>
>>http://www.scotland.com/forums/scottish-politics/22473-mysterious-death-willie-macrae.html
>
> How would it prevent me from burning the toast?
It wouldn't but the fact that you have just been very stupid rules you out
and rubbishes everything else you claim.
>
>
> Here follows a socialist party political broadcast:
So once again you have, in spite of being told I am neither a Labour nor
Conservative supporter assumed, that because I do not agree with you, I must
be the enemy and the enemy of both you and a written constitution must be a
socialist.
Neither unbridaled conservatism nor unbridled socialism works.
In my lifetime there have been two very deep depressions and it was the same
country that led the World into those depressions. They were both caused by
the USA and both by a right wing government.
In that same lifetime I saw the rise and fall of Nazi Germany and the Soviet
Union. Mind you the USSR was NOT a socialist government although it did
claim it was.
>
>>Then we have such things as happened when the workers at Rosyth Dockyard
>>went on strike during the Thatcher years. Not only were the workers wages
>>lagging way behind the private sector by around a third but Thatcher was
>>working on schemes to sell the Dockyards to private industry. Now remember
>>the Dockyards had always been regarded as public assets to the UK. The
>>workers walked out of the yard and gathered outside the yard gates. Quite
>>correctly the local police were there to keep the peace. There was no
>>trouble and we were actually sharing our packed lunches and soft drinks
>>with
>>the constables. However, just when the Secretary of State for defence was
>>due, the police were all packed into busses and went away. They were
>>replaced with several bus loads of men dressed in police uniforms. These
>>guys were really big guys and they started, for no apparent reason, to
>>wade
>>into the workers with batons and several people were arrested. Thing was
>>that one of these, "policemen", was a regular visitor to my next door
>>neighbour's son. He was not a policeman but a member of an elite army
>>unit.
>>
>>As long as our governments ignore existent rule of law there is no hope
>>any
>>written constitution will make a bit of difference.
So let's look at a couple of countries with written constitutions -
The United states of America -
Their constitution has written into it, among other things, the rights of
people to own slaves and the right to carry arms.
Then we have Canada where the political system slopes shoulders and passes
things to the highest court in the land as being a constitutional matter but
the highest court then passes the matter back to the parliament as a
political matter and that ends in stalemate.
Of course there is the Soviet Union where they just ignored the written
constitution and did as they liked anyway.
Then there is that little matter of who will draw up a constitution and, in
most cases, that means we must have a bloody revolution to eliminate both
the existing government who would oppose a constitution and the legal
system, including the police, who take orders from above, and would thus
oppose the new constitution and the armed forces who are also set up to do
as their masters demand.
Do you still think a written constitution is a good idea?
--
Auld Bob
Do you really want the conditions that lead to written constitutions?
I&Rgb
have shown that there is widespread powerlessness and perceived lack of
influence on public affairs. Falling turnout for elections. Citizen-led
direct democracy enables people to take part in meaningful ways. People
learn about politics and become better informed, more competent, also
happier in life (!) because they get a real say (findings backed up by
research). More detail via link:
I&Rgb
Petition is by no means equivalent to or a substitute for "the
initiative". Petition is a way of asking or begging the ruler or
authorities. The ruler is not obliged to take any notice. The citizens'
initiative enables the people to govern their own affairs. A citizens'
proposal endorsed by an agreed large number of people cannot be rejected
by the authorities without a decision (plebiscite, referendum) of the
whole electorate. More detail about citizen-led democracy via web site
below.
I&Rgb
I&R ~ GB <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote:
>> How can governments be made to act responsibly? Campaigning, lobbying,
>> protesting and demonstrating, while necessary are unlikely to produce
>> adequate policy and action. An additional tool, which can force
>> parliaments and governments to change direction is the citizens'
>> initiative or law proposal.
>
> down to the failure to obtain agreement amongst governments who's
> people's had different agendas?
Citizen-led direct democracy such as "initiative and referendum" can be
used at all levels of governance. Practically speaking, the line in
international affairs of a country can by set by referendum of that
country, mandating politicians. For example, this happened in Italy via
people's law petition in order to (successfully) change European Union
policy.
> Or are you just bandwagon jumping for PR purposes?
We take examples as they pop up, to show how CDD can work. In order to
achieve reform we need help, please join or donate to support the
campaign, via link below.
Robert Peffers
> 'Robert Peffers' wrote thus:
>
>>"aracari" <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote in message
>>news:824ada438884c0b6...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
>>> 'Robert Peffers' wrote thus:
>>>
>>>>news:6c1956736adb19fc...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
>>>>> 'Robert Peffers' wrote thus:
>>>>>
>
>>>>I just believe that until the existing system is changed it would be an
>>>>utter waste of time and effort.
>>>
>>> This is a political newsgroup (ukpm) and people are free to
>>> discuss their perceived need for a proper written constitution.
>>Err!
>>it is not, "A", political newsgroup that you posted into.
>>It is,
>>"uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.misc,scot.politics,alt.politics.british,alt.activism".
>>That's 5 newsgroups.
>
Which is not the point. Only you control which groups you post into.
Yet, you are debating with people outwith uk.pm, while speaking of, "this
group".
>
>>> As government becomes ever more authoritarian, more people will
>>> be coming to the conclusion that some constraint has to be applied
>>> to it, else we will become a fascist police state. IMHO.
>>
>>Perhaps not Facist but we are already a police state and have been for
>>some
>>time.
>>When non-police people can dish out on-the-spot-fines to anyone they
>>choose
>>then the rule of law has gone.
>>the rule of law has gone.
>>The whole idea is that the crime preventers and crime investigators are
>>not
>>the same people who try and convict the supposed wrongdoer.
>>The fact that you get judged, found guilty and are punished on the spot
>>means you were presumed to be guilty.
>
> might seem, realistically, Britain is not fully fledged yet - way
> to go. Look to the old Soviet Union and East Germany for a guide.
Why?
The UK is lifting people off our streets and putting them in prison without
charging them with any crime.
They have armed police shooting innocent people they, the police, had
accused, tried, found guilty and then executed.
How much more evidence of a police state do you need?
You have local counncil employees why can stop you in the street, judge you
guilty and fine you on the spot.
If you live in the UK, outside of Scotland, your vehicle can be rendered
imobile, or taken from you, and money demanded from you with the threat that
your property could be destroyed as they please and there is no recourse to
the legal system.
If the public dare to protest the police will turn up in numbers. They will
forceably herd the public into an enclosed area and proceed to assault them,
gas them, electrocute them and even kill them. To date there has been no
trial of a police officer for murder, manslaughter or even GBH.
We had a case of an innocent man shot dead for carrying a table leg. A
mini-cab driver killed in error and peaceful protesters, including MPs,
manhandled and assaulted.
Let me point out to you that if you as much as lay a hand upon a police
person's arm, during such confrontations, you will be arrested for
assaulting the police officer who is assaulting you with baton, tear gas,
water cannon, gun, Tazer, horse's arse or whatever. The passer by who was
recently murdered by a policeman was punched to the ground and left to die.
We are in a police state and there is no doubt about that.
We are no longer protected by the rule of law that says we are innocent
until proven, in court, to be guilty.
We no longer have the right to be charged if arrested.
We no longer have the right of legal advice.
We no longer have the right to walk free if we are not charged with a crime.
>
> But under New Labour it'll surely go up plenty of notches if they
> are re-elected. What we do not know is how much of the current
> police statism an incoming Conservative Govt will remove because
> much of Europe and US/Australia is traveling down the same road.
Whatever gave you the daft idea it was all Labour's fault?
Thatcher brought in the troops against the miners, the Dockyard workers and,
in fact the trade unions in general.
Are you so bloody stupid that you don't know it was the unions who won the
freedoms in the first place and many died for those freedoms?
It is not so long ago the workers were, in reality, slaves.
I live in a former mining community and the village was once a company
village.
The miners wages were so poor they lived in poverty and they paid their
wages right back to the coal masters.
They paid rent for a company house, they shopped in the company store and
even drank in the company pub.
Even the women and children had to work for the company.
>
>>Add to this that the police can keep records of innocent people together
>>with fingerprints and DNA and the same people can just lift you from the
>>street, bang you in prison and keep you there without trial, or even
>>charge,
>>makes the law a nonsense.
>>
>>>
>>>>Tell me, just what good is a written constitution while we have a system
>>>>that takes away all our freedoms, spies upon us, has massive databases
>>>>with
>>>>all our details on it and can legally lift anyone from our streets, or
>>>>indeed from our own homes, slam us in prison and keep us there without
>>>>legal
>>>>advice, trial or even charged under the law?
>>>
>>> That's the point of a proper written constitution.
>>> It governs government by imposing limits on their powers.
>>> As they say to govt:
>>> "if it ain't on the list, it ain't your business".
>>
>>Indeed, but who is to draw this written constitution up in the first
>>place.
>>Who is to police it in the second place and, in the third place, who is
>>going to punish the offenders?
>>
>>Will it be the lawyers? The police? The political setup we have now?
>
> The drafting of a proper written constitution, policing of it and
> mechanisms for punishing those who violate it, have been debated
> at length on ukpm between myself, James and several others.
> It would certainly require a fundamental redrawing of our current
> system and organisation of government. Therein lies a problem,
> because no political party has any incentive to kick start the
> process. It is something that might only happen if the current
> system disintegrates following civil unrest economic collapse etc.
> Judging from current events, we may be getting closer to that day.
>
>
>>> In the overall scheme of things, it takes precedence over any
>>> elected government of the day and of course no law can be passed
>>> which violates it. No govt can override the constitution without
>>> criminal penalties.
>>
>>Did you actually think I did not know that?
>
> Your previous comments led me to believe that you did not know.
No they didn't. You just presumed that anyone who did not agree with you had
no knowledge of the matter.
>
>>> But of course, all this requires a fundamental redesign of the
>>> apparatus of govt, which is why no political party supports it.
>>> Turkeys and Christmas etc!
>>
>>Did you think I had not considered that?
>
> I don't do mind reading.
Indeed you do not - but you do jump to conclusions without evidence to back
them up.
Allow me to do the same -
Now let me see! I presume that you, and your friends, will be the ones to
draw up this written constitution.
After all it could not be the polititians cutting their own throats.
It couldn't be the armed forces as these are the strong arm of the existing
system.
The same applies to the police force and your band of brothers seem rather
much extreme right wing and very much anti-trade union so it could not be
the workers who draw up this wonderful written constitution.
So what does that leave?'
Only Facists or Nazi like principles.
>
>>>>No matter what written constitution we have in place, if the ruling
>>>>party
>>>>pays it no heed, it is just a waste of paper ink and resources.
>>>
>>> Like I said earlier, you do not understand what a proper written
>>> constitution is.
>>
>>Like I said earlier I seem to have a far better grasp of the matter than
>>you
>>do.
>
> I doubt that, but dream on....
You are the one with the dreams.
I ask you again, if the working class, that you sneer about, do not draw up
a written constitution, if the present political powers don't and the police
& armed forces don't - just what is left to do the job?
I can see only nazi or facist groups left so correct me if I am wrong?
>
>>>>This is nothing new in that I can quote you several incidents in the
>>>>past
>>>>that show there is need for some way to curb our rulers but what that is
>>>>could be more chancy than what we have at present.
>>>
>>> IMV people who claim that a constitution would restrict govt in
>>> undesirable ways are really saying that they only want govt to be
>>> limited in ways that suit them. IOW they are not committed to
>>> the principles of a constitution. That invariably means they are
>>> socialists.
>
> Here follows your return to silly crap:
>
>>So the above from you excludes you from being involved in drawing up a
>>written constitution.
>>In the first place you are anti-socialist and that means you are no better
>>at drawing up a constitution than a socialst would be.
>>The idea that only socialists would be against a written constitution is
>>ludicrous as would be the notion that only right wing supporters would be
>>for a written constitution.
>>The very fact that yoy would rule out socialists means you have
>>automatically declaed you want the constitution to favour non-socialists.
>
> Definitely. Socialism has no place in a civilised society. It is
> destructive, corrupt and grossly incompetent. See New Labour.
>
> That said, do not make the grave error of assuming that I am
> some sort of right-wing nut who cares nothing about people who
> are disadvantaged.
>
>>>>Tell me how a written constitution would have prevented the obvious
>>>>murder
>>>>of the Scottish lawyer Willie McRae?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.scotland.com/forums/scottish-politics/22473-mysterious-death-willie-macrae.html
>>>
>>> How would it prevent me from burning the toast?
>>It wouldn't but the fact that you have just been very stupid rules you out
>>and rubbishes everything else you claim.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here follows a socialist party political broadcast:
>>
>>So once again you have, in spite of being told I am neither a Labour nor
>>Conservative supporter assumed, that because I do not agree with you, I
>>must
>>be the enemy and the enemy of both you and a written constitution must be
>>a
>>socialist.
>>Neither unbridaled conservatism nor unbridled socialism works.
>>In my lifetime there have been two very deep depressions and it was the
>>same
>>country that led the World into those depressions. They were both caused
>>by
>>the USA and both by a right wing government.
>>In that same lifetime I saw the rise and fall of Nazi Germany and the
>>Soviet
>>Union. Mind you the USSR was NOT a socialist government although it did
>>claim it was.
>
> I think you are trying to hide your political allegiances...
> A proper constitution in Britain would (hopefully) learn from the
> shortcomings of other countries.
>
>>Then there is that little matter of who will draw up a constitution and,
>>in
>>most cases, that means we must have a bloody revolution to eliminate both
>>the existing government who would oppose a constitution and the legal
>>system, including the police, who take orders from above, and would thus
>>oppose the new constitution and the armed forces who are also set up to do
>>as their masters demand.
>>
>>Do you still think a written constitution is a good idea?
>
> Absolutely. There is no other known way of keeping an elected govt
> in check, other than regular revolutions. Obviously it needs to
> have a serious back-up structure behind it to enforce it.
>
So if it is not to be the present political lot nor what you seem to think
is socialist then the only thing left is the Nazi party or even worse
fascism.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"I&Rgb" <in...@iniref.org> wrote in message
news:7psahv...@mid.uni-berlin.de...
Yes they do.
Look it the Holyrood model.
> The citizens'
> initiative enables the people to govern their own affairs. A citizens'
> proposal endorsed by an agreed large number of people cannot be rejected
> by the authorities without a decision (plebiscite, referendum) of the
> whole electorate. More detail about citizen-led democracy via web site
> below.
>
> I&R ~ GB
> http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html
--
Auld Bob
>
>
>
>
>
hummingbird
>
> [trimmed to context]
>
> If you own a photocopier or PC printer, have you been visited and
> ordered to provide a sample of the output?
>
> Do you have to fill out a form and get it authorised by the state
> before you go abroad?
>
> Do police routinely shoot people in the streets without penalty?
>
> Are police running protection rackets? Are police running
> drug-trafficking and organised crime? ...
>
> ... I don't discount them happening in Britain under a New Lab govt
For goodness sake, get a grip.
--
"All truth passes through three sieves.
First, it is sieved for ridicule,
second it is sieved for freeware,
and third, it is sieved for self-evidence"
(Arthur Schwarzenegger)
Robert Peffers
> 'Robert Peffers' wrote thus:
>
> -trimmed-
>
>>"aracari" <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote in message
>>news:9ba6d6e26b11d63c...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
>
>>Which is not the point. Only you control which groups you post into.
>>Yet, you are debating with people outwith uk.pm, while speaking of, "this
>>group".
>
> idea which group you are posting through, without looking it up.
You are not posting through, "A", group and the headers at the top of this
post prove that point. The address line is under your control and it shows
the groups you are posting your message too.
These are currently,
"uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.misc,scot.politics,alt.politics.british,alt.activism".
When you post to several groups you must expect the people in those groups
to read and reply to your posts that you sent to them. No one but the poster
is responsible for addressing where the messages go. It is just like sending
letters, they go to where you have addressed them to. Where you write the
post is neither here nor there.
>
> -snip-
>
>>> Police states - like fascism - exist on a scale. However bad it
>>> might seem, realistically, Britain is not fully fledged yet - way
>>> to go. Look to the old Soviet Union and East Germany for a guide.
>>
>>Why?
>
> I said because of scale. A nation is not either fascist or not,
> nor is it socialist or not. There are degrees of madness.
> In truth, Britain is traveling down that road under New Labour.
> God knows where it will end...
You are very obviously deluding yourself.
I see little difference between any of the three main UK parties and any
differences that there once was have shrank into nothing as European rules
are taking over. No matter what the main parties may claim they are now, for
all main reasons, controlled by Europe.
snip.
There is no scale. Even if there were it would not be seen as the person
that is taken away has no rights to let anyone know they have even been
taken away.
It is just like the Witch Finder General. For whatever reason someone points
a finger and shouts, "Witch".
From then on in the prson is taken away and has no right to even be charged
with a crime. Their fate was sealed when the finger pointed.
'
How many Guantanamo Bay prisoners ended up being charged? How many died, how
many were tortured and how many found not guilty?
snip.
--
Auld Bob
I&R ~ GB
They do take notice? Point here is that the ruler (parliament,
government) is not OBLIGED to take notice. A petition is only a
petition, a request, begging. In Scotland or anywhere else. In contrast
the citizens' initiative can be a law-proposal or veto. It expresses the
sovereign power of the electorate and can lead to a legally binding
decision.
Definitions of initiative and referendum are at
http://www.iniref.org/about.html
I&R ~ GB
Saracene
I&R ~ GB
> I&Rgb <in...@iniref.org> wrote in news:7psaim...@mid.uni-berlin.de:
>
>> soupdragon wrote:
>> I&R ~ GB <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote:
>>>> How can governments be made to act responsibly? Campaigning,
> lobbying,
>>>> protesting and demonstrating, while necessary are unlikely to
> produce
>>>> adequate policy and action. An additional tool, which can force
>>>> parliaments and governments to change direction is the citizens'
>>>> initiative or law proposal.
>>> So explain how this would work when the failure of Copenhagen was
>>> down to the failure to obtain agreement amongst governments who's
>>> people's had different agendas?
>> Citizen-led direct democracy such as "initiative and referendum" can
> be
>> used at all levels of governance. Practically speaking, the line in
>> international affairs of a country can by set by referendum of that
>> country, mandating politicians. For example, this happened in Italy
> via
>> people's law petition in order to (successfully) change European Union
>> policy.
>
> instead, answered a question I didn't ask.
>
>>> Or are you just bandwagon jumping for PR purposes?
>> We take examples as they pop up, to show how CDD can work.
>> Or are you just bandwagon jumping for PR purposes?
>
> We take examples as they pop up, to show how CDD can work. In order to
> achieve reform we need help, please join or donate to support the
> campaign, via link below.
>
> I&R ~ GB
> http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html
>
Your question "how this would work when the failure of Copenhagen was
>>> down to the failure to obtain agreement amongst governments" is
hypothetical because we in UK and countries do NOT have any citizen-led
direct democracy (CDD) to speak of. CDD can indeed influence or steer
international policy. For instance, if UK had changed its environment
policies before then its position could have been stronger in
Copenhagen. For How To Do It see the Alpine Initiative: video via
Robert Peffers
"I&R ~ GB" <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
system?
If any petition is submitted it must be considered. If it meets the
conditions it must be heeded.
Let's be honest here, Any system where the parliament does not have the
right to reject some of the daft things certain people/groups would attempt
to force through would be anarchy.
Abortion lobby: We want abortion for all.
Anti-abortion: No abortion for anyone.
Hanging lobby: Hang every guilty person.
Anti-hanging: Hang no one.
Racists lobby: No immigrants.
Anti-racist: Free open borders.
Nuclear lobby: More and bigger deterrent.
anti-nuclear: no deterrent.
Any one daft enough to think Joe & Josie Public can run the country is mad.
Just look at the protest/anti-protest situation on our streets.
The extreme right wing have a march and the anti-group march too. The police
then try to keep them apart and people die or are injured.
Only mad people would put the power to force through extreme policy in the
hands of the general public.
Is it not proof enough that we have suicidal bombers, people who run amok
with guns and extreme marchers on the streets of Britain without giving such
people a right to run the country.
--
Auld Bob
I&R ~ GB
> I&R ~ GB <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in news:7q1ir0...@mid.uni-
> berlin.de:
>>>>> down to the failure to obtain agreement amongst governments" is
>> hypothetical because we in UK and countries do NOT have any citizen-
> led
>> direct democracy (CDD) to speak of.
>
> deliver any different a result from that achieved.
>
>> CDD can indeed influence or steer
>> international policy. For instance, if UK had changed its environment
>> policies before then its position could have been stronger in
>> Copenhagen.
>
> think would have allowed Britain to influence or steer international
> policies any better than it did in the face of considerable 3rd World
> opposition to the proposals? Do you actually know what Capenhagen was
> about? Or are you suggesting gun-boat diplomacy would have worked
> better?
Your question "how this would work when the failure of Copenhagen was
>>> down to the failure to obtain agreement amongst governments" is
hypothetical because we in UK and countries do NOT have any citizen-led
direct democracy (CDD) to speak of. CDD can indeed influence or steer
international policy. For instance, if UK had changed its environment
policies before then its position could have been stronger in
Copenhagen. For How To Do It see the Alpine Initiative: video via
http://www.iniref.org/alpine.html
I&R ~ GB is a campaign for democracy reform. We are independent of
political parties and do not advocate particular policies. See
introduction via http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html
I&R ~ GB
Robert Peffers
"I&R ~ GB" <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
news:7q6dvl...@mid.uni-berlin.de...
Your views seem to be against anything on the political spectrum that is to
the right of Genghis Khan.
Furthermore, you still have not explained who will be the people to draw up
this, "independent", written document?
--
Auld Bob
I&R ~ GB
question "how this would work when the failure of Copenhagen was
>>>>> down to the failure to obtain agreement amongst governments" is
>> hypothetical because we in UK and countries do NOT have any citizen-led
>> direct democracy (CDD) to speak of. CDD can indeed influence or steer
>> international policy. For instance, if UK had changed its environment
>> policies before then its position could have been stronger in Copenhagen.
>> For How To Do It see the Alpine Initiative: video via
>> http://www.iniref.org/alpine.html
>>
>> I&R ~ GB is a campaign for democracy reform. We are independent of
>> political parties and do not advocate particular policies. See
>> introduction via http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html
>>
>> I&R ~ GB
>>
>>
>>
>>
> You could have fooled me that you were independent of parties.
> Your views seem to be against anything on the political spectrum that is to
> the right of Genghis Khan.
> Furthermore, you still have not explained who will be the people to draw up
> this, "independent", written document?
Auld Bob appears to refer to an exchange with Aracari not with us.
Regarding constitutional reform and democracy see our thoughts in a
piece entitled "Citizen-led democracy is essential for sustainable
constitutional reform" at http://www.iniref.org/latest.html
Further, Auld Bob has omitted to reply in the matter of petition versus
citizen-led democracy, such as initiative and referendum: See more at
http://www.iniref.org/steps.html
I&R ~ GB
Robert Peffers
"soupdragon" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF46E926...@62.141.42.83...
> "Robert Peffers" <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:vYydnUiN-NnwtKPW...@bt.com:
>
>>
>> "I&R ~ GB" <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
>> news:7q6dvl...@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>> soupdragon wrote:
>>>> I&R ~ GB <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in
>>>> news:7q1ir0...@mid.uni- berlin.de:
>
> put up 4 each and ask the public to phone in and vote for their
> favourite.
>
> Happy New year..
Cheers!
I make a point of switching channels if the show features celebs, reality TV
or features Russell Brand or Wossie.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
> I&R ~ GB <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in
>
>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>> question "how this would work when the failure of Copenhagen was
>>>>>>> down to the failure to obtain agreement amongst governments" is
>>>> hypothetical because we in UK and countries do NOT have any
>>>> citizen-led direct democracy (CDD) to speak of. CDD can indeed
>>>> influence or steer international policy. For instance, if UK had
>>>> changed its environment policies before then its position could have
>>>> been stronger in Copenhagen. For How To Do It see the Alpine
>>>> Initiative: video via http://www.iniref.org/alpine.html
>>>>
>>>> I&R ~ GB is a campaign for democracy reform. We are independent of
>>>> political parties and do not advocate particular policies. See
>>>> introduction via http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html
>>>>
>>>> I&R ~ GB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You could have fooled me that you were independent of parties.
>>> Your views seem to be against anything on the political spectrum that
>>> is to the right of Genghis Khan.
>>> Furthermore, you still have not explained who will be the people to
>>> draw up this, "independent", written document?
>>
>> Auld Bob appears to refer to an exchange with Aracari not with us.
>
> where you failed to answer any of the points put.
>
>> Regarding constitutional reform and democracy see our thoughts in a
>> piece entitled "Citizen-led democracy is essential for sustainable
>> constitutional reform" at http://www.iniref.org/latest.html
>>
>> Further, Auld Bob has omitted to reply in the matter of petition
>> versus citizen-led democracy, such as initiative and referendum: See
>> more at http://www.iniref.org/steps.html
>
> its place a standard cut-and-paste that bears no relation to the
> exchange has been stuck up?
>
Nah! I have replied several times and given citations to the petition system
as used by the Scottish parliament.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/publicInfo/htsapp/index.htm
Seems they don't want to know.
However, the Scottish Parliament is head & shoulders in the way it does its
business. Little pomp & circumstance, no piddling around division lobbies
and electronic voting from the floor of the house and instant counts.
--
Auld Bob
I&R ~ GB
Parliament and political parties = Indirect ("representative")
democracy. We at I&R ~ GB propose to add in elements of (real) democracy
in which the electorate can select and decide on public issues and veto
government. A petition is only a petition, a request, begging. In
Scotland or anywhere else. The citizens' initiative can be a
law-proposal or veto. It expresses the sovereign power of the electorate
and can lead to a legally binding decision.
Definitions of initiative and referendum are at
http://www.iniref.org/about.html
Plan of campaign via http://www.iniref.org/
I&R ~ GB
Robert Peffers
"I&R ~ GB" <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
news:7qcgdn...@mid.uni-berlin.de...
After all I seem to have spent long hours knocking doors during election
campaigns and have a bit of a problem with giving everyone the chance of
having a direct say.
--
Auld Bob
I&R ~ GB
not to vote in elections (for politicians). Direct democracy thematises
one or a few issues at a time, provides information about pros and cons
and gives people a sense of taking part in public life in a meaningful
way. This all leads to greater interest and knowledge -- admittedly it
would take some years in GB and countries.
Robert Peffers
"I&R ~ GB" <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
average person id 365 days in the year. We have the Parliament Channel, 24/7
news channels and newscasts on almost every channel both Radio and TV. Just
how many of those Joe & Josie Publics do you think will have left one of
these channels to answer the knock?
Not only do the general public not watch these services but they swap
channels as soon as a political broadcast comes on. They do not know and
they do not want to know. I've been in conflict with a person, on another
group, who thinks he is an expert. Yet he is lost when it comes to party
politics. He is only loyal to one party and, in his view, no other could
ever be right on any subject. I've never stated my own party of choice and
he thus bases his opinions of what I support on the basis of his own
loyalty. Within the same post he has classed me as both an extreme left-wing
Socialist Workers Party supporter and a Nazi, (Nationalsozialist), who were,
of course, fascist and thus extreme right-wing. When I laughed at him he
replied that it was the same thing. I laughed even more when his chosen
party leader made the NHS his top priority and thus showed the party was a
socialist party as most UK parties are. I wonder how many rock solid party
supporters have said to me, "The ********* party is the working man's
party", "or, "The *********", is the party of business". Yet anyone with
open eyes can see there is nothing between the two main parties and both are
more or less centrist. As long as non-thinkers show such stupid party
loyalty and who are thus blinded to the truth it is a very dangerous move to
give them a direct affect upon the running of the country.
--
Auld Bob
I&R ~ GB
> "I&R ~ GB" <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
You're looking mainly at political parties. Only a very small part of
the electorates are party members. There is widespread public
estrangement from politicians. If you ask people in GB+NI what they
think about reforming our democracy you get replies like the following
(from real people real replies):
I would like to have the opportunity to vote on issues that I feel
strongly about. ... why not let the people themselves vote on policies?
Can we not be trusted? A party�s policies frequently seem to change
during the course of a parliamentary term so why should I vote for a
person belonging to a party and not be sure that he will not carry out
his election pledges? What about all the issues that were not mentioned
during the elections? How will I know at the time of voting that my
representative will act in my best interests?
Yes, there should be more referenda. Of course the political
apparatchiks will denigrate this as leading to populist policies, but in
these days of good communications the whole raison d�etre of the MP as
representative is undermined .
Yes. Events evolve and change by the week/day. Elections every x years
assume a snapshot in time of public opinion, which may have been
appropriate 100 years ago ? not today.
We sent representatives to a London Parliament by horse and carriage and
trusted them to act in our best interests. Nowadays with instantaneous
communication why do we need to continue this archaic practice? Why
can�t I vote for issues that I have views about? What political
candidate or political party can I vote for with the certain knowledge
that my own values, concerns, ideas will be represented? Political
parties do not always deliver on their promises or election manifestos
and anyway the differences between the main political parties seem to be
in name only.
If one argues that some issues may not attract sufficient numbers of
them to vote then we need only to look at voting statistics in the
Houses of Parliament. No parliamentarian is sufficiently interested or
knowledgeable on every issue so rather than allowing them to be
persuaded by their party whips on how to vote, why not allow the
population to vote?
I do not trust politicians to vote for what they promise in their
election manifesto. I also realise that no politician or political party
shares all the same views as myself. I want to vote on issues that
affect me and that I am interested in. I would prefer to vote for issues
not for people or parties. I can represent myself and my family and my
community. Why should I ask a stranger to do it for me?
It would certainly help me to feel that my little vote is making a
difference, as a general or council election can seem to encompass such
huge issues that you feel you are a drop in the ocean. Also, I think
less and less people have faith in just one party as they may agree with
certain issues from one and others from another. It seems silly to me
that all our democracy is voting in someone who then takes it from there
and makes all the decisions.
It would be more democratic to have more referenda and opportunities to
vote on issues and not just parties. I think people feel more strongly
about specific issues rather than parties nowadays anyway.
---------
Remark: Opinion surveys from the 1990s onwards have repeatedly shown
that a large majority of adults support the above points of view.
Bob, you are in a tiny minority.
I&R ~ GB
http://www.iniref.org/