court of public opinion OR better democracy?
I&R ~ GB
"But the court of public opinion, in which voters are both judge and
jury, has already found the political class guilty of all charges. In
the week of the anniversary of the gunpowder plot, most voters would
like nothing better than to blow up the House of Commons, stoking the
fire with tables and chairs purchased from the John Lewis list."
I&R ~ GB replies
Building elements of direct democracy into our system of governance
would, with other advantages, bring increased respect for the
electorate. A referendum does not have to be held on every issue. Just
being aware of the possibility makes politicians "look before they
leap". The veto-referendum can be used to stop bad or unwanted law. The
citizens' initiative (e.g. law proposal) can enrich public debate and
bring new ideas into politics. More detail at www.iniref.org/
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/
http://www.iniref.org/steps.html Basic presentation
http://www.iniref.org/case.html The case for more democracy
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb sign up for reform
Robert Peffers
"I&R ~ GB" <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
news:7lboc5F...@mid.uni-berlin.de...
I, personally, would rather see the way forward as each UK country having a
parliament that would be far closer to the people and only a few top
ministers of each running the common to all functions of the UK, like
defence. After all the Scots law and English law are already different as is
education and health but many functions really do need to be devolved to the
UK countries. With a UK wide referendum the old problem of England's large
population dictating to everyone else, as she does now, would only be
increased - and that is not democratic.
The Scots think of themselves as Scot first and British second, as do the
Welsh and Northern Irish, but the English have long been confused between
English and British and most don't even know the difference.
It is not so long ago English sports supporters waved Union Jacks and sang
the UK anthem as England's flag & anthem.
So too are such as UK wide TV and Radio shows such as Dad's Army
propagating the myths. Just look at Dad's Army signature tune -
"Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler, if you think Old England's
done".
The myth that, "England stood alone against the might of Germany", was, and
is, utter rot.
What stood against the Third Reich was the Entire British Empire and that
included Scotland, N.Ireland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand, much of Africa,
India, Canada and quite a few more.
This elitist English attitude has destroyed the Commonwealth and is now
about to bring down the UK.
So sorry, but UK wide referenda is just another English ploy to dominate the
rest of us.
No thanks. I'm for an independent England - go for it.
--
Auld Bob
I&R ~ GB
> In message <7lboc5F...@mid.uni-berlin.de>, I&R ~ GB
> <info...@OUTiniref.org> writes
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/art
>> icle6900028.ece "But the court of public opinion, in which voters are
>> both judge and jury, has already found the political class guilty of
>> all charges. In the week of the anniversary of the gunpowder plot,
>> most voters would like nothing better than to blow up the House of
>> Commons, stoking the fire with tables and chairs purchased from the
>> John Lewis list."
>
The good Guig should scream against censorship: TimesOnline refused it
seems to display the I&R � GB comment at its web site
ORIGINAL MESSAGE
I&R ~ GB
Why do you want to continue with weak democracy? Stronger democracy
would not hinder more devolution or independence.
Why should the political elites be allowed to take all decisions
(between elections) with NO checks nor balances by the electorate?
The direct democracy lobby including we at I&R ~ GB pushes for stronger,
citizen-led democracy at ALL LEVELS of governance and in all polities.
That is villages, towns, counties, cities, devolved parliaments and
Westminster (and why not EU as long as we are in it). Partial direct
democracy.
The reality is that Scotland is still part of the UK so, as long as that
is the case, why should we refuse to obtain more say in what is decided
at Westminster? If we had Citizens' Initiative and Veto-Referendum we
could start campaigns in Scotland as in other parts of UK. These might
not gain majority in referenda but experience shows that there can be
powerful indirect effects of such initiatives.
Wallace-Macpherson
I&R ~ GB
http://www.iniref.org/
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Would that be the same court that was whipped into a pedo hysteria, and
then whipped into another hysteria when all those child protection laws
were passed?
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
I&R ~ GB
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
> I&R ~ GB wrote:
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article6900028.ece
>> "But the court of public opinion, in which voters are both judge and
>> jury, has already found the political class guilty of all charges. In
>> the week of the anniversary of the gunpowder plot, most voters would
>> like nothing better than to blow up the House of Commons, stoking the
>> fire with tables and chairs purchased from the John Lewis list."
>>
>>
>> I&R ~ GB replies
>> Building elements of direct democracy into our system of governance
>> would, with other advantages, bring increased respect for the
>> electorate. A referendum does not have to be held on every issue. Just
>> being aware of the possibility makes politicians "look before they
>> leap". The veto-referendum can be used to stop bad or unwanted law.
>> The citizens' initiative (e.g. law proposal) can enrich public debate
>> and bring new ideas into politics. More detail at www.iniref.org/
>>
>> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
>> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
>> http://www.iniref.org/
>> http://www.iniref.org/steps.html Basic presentation
>> http://www.iniref.org/case.html The case for more democracy
>> http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb sign up for reform
>>
>
> Would that be the same court that was whipped into a pedo hysteria, and
> then whipped into another hysteria when all those child protection laws
> were passed?
>
You would best put that question to the TimesOnline journalist who
described the UK public, in the context of anger about MPs and their
expenses, as a "mob".
The Times apparently refused to publish our comment on this.
We at I&R ~ GB do not recommend that much attention should be given to
"public opinion". In partial direct democracy the "court" is the
electorate, the demos. It is the body which has in recent referenda
abolished the death penalty, shown tolerance in matters of gender and
drug addiction as well as ecological responsibility beyond that of
governments.
Robert Peffers
"I&R ~ GB" <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
> Robert Peffers wrote:
>> "I&R ~ GB" <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
>> news:7lboc5F...@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article6900028.ece
>
> Why do you want to continue with weak democracy? Stronger democracy would
> not hinder more devolution or independence.
Where did I say I did want to continue with weak democracy?
I only pointed out the obvious fact that attempting to do so by the methods
suggested was very much NOT the way to do so.
>
> Why should the political elites be allowed to take all decisions (between
> elections) with NO checks nor balances by the electorate?
By the same token why should a referendum of a mainly ignorant, (of
political issues), public be thought any better than what we have now?
>
> The direct democracy lobby including we at I&R ~ GB pushes for stronger,
> citizen-led democracy at ALL LEVELS of governance and in all polities.
> That is villages, towns, counties, cities, devolved parliaments and
> Westminster (and why not EU as long as we are in it). Partial direct
> democracy.
Have you considered that the Scottish Parliament stands head & shoulders
over Westminster in many ways and the way the public can raise matters with
the house is but one of them.
>
> The reality is that Scotland is still part of the UK so, as long as that
> is the case, why should we refuse to obtain more say in what is decided at
> Westminster?
Quite simply because Westminster has shown itself incapable of handling the
simple fact that we have a different party sitting in Holyrood and they,
(Westminster), have fought against the Scottish people's choice from the
moment that the SNP gained power.
Note that Gordon Brown actually refused to even talk to Alex Salmond for
quite some considerable time. Note that Cameron said, "He would treat the
Scottish Parliament with respect but on the very same day objected to an SNP
representation on both TV and in discussions.
> If we had Citizens' Initiative and Veto-Referendum we could start
> campaigns in Scotland as in other parts of UK. These might not gain
> majority in referenda but experience shows that there can be powerful
> indirect effects of such initiatives.
Why do you not find out just what we already do have before attempting to
force mainly English and Westminster ideas upon us?
>
> Wallace-Macpherson
> I&R ~ GB
> http://www.iniref.org/
It is obvious you are ignorant of The Scottish Parliament: e-democracy
system. It may do you some good to check it out.
You will find the e-petitions system here -
http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/
Our parliament has little fancy dress, pomp and circumstance and archaic
practices. When a vote is called for there is no traditional closing doors
or members trooping out and in the chamber, no bowing and scraping and
formal announcements by petty official. Quite simply the chair call for a
vote and the members press a button and the count is instant.
We had no problems of members fiddling expenses as the system was already
sorted before it had problems.
We, the voters can raise matters that must BE ADDRESSED by the house.
So tell me, why should we not decide to dump the sleaze ridden, archaic
system that treats us like inferiors and go our own way?
We do not need the added complexity of a referenda ridden system as we
already do have access directly to our own parliament when we need it.
--
Auld Bob
I&R ~ GB
There are a few substantial points, some apparent misapprehensions and a
bit of "representative rulers'" rhetoric here (most political parties
are rabidly opposed to any effective citizen participation).
Your dismissal of the Scottish people as ignorant of public issues is --
to put it mildly -- breathtaking.
So it may help to define (in brief) what we at I&R ~ GB mean by "strong"
democracy:
(from http://www.iniref.org/about.html )
QUOTE
The term �citizens� direct democracy� refers to forms of democratic
decision-making which can be initiated by an agreed number of citizens
and which can lead to a decision by ballot or vote of the whole
electorate. In this context "ballot" means the same as binding
referendum or plebiscite. Thus citizens can identify, select and
prioritise public issues, stipulate the wording of proposals and put
proposals to the whole electorate of their state, city, town, village or
other political unit. Examples of such procedures are:
-- the citizens� law-proposal (initiative) leading to ballot,
-- the veto referendum,
-- the constitutional referendum and
-- the recall-initiative.
UNQUOTE
What Robert Peffers calls e-democracy and e-petitions fall far short of
the above standards. An essential of the "citizens' initiative" is that
if the proposal is rejected by parliament, it normally must go before
the whole electorate in referendum.
In opinion surveys large majorities agree with the essential principle
of direct democracy, that a large number of voters should be able to put
forward a proposal and demand a referendum about it.
Our proposals for citizen-led democracy (www.iniref.org) are designed to
compensate for fundamental design faults of indirect democracy, dubbed
"representative". For instance, the electorate gains the ability to
intervene and decide on issues which they select, in the periods between
elections. With "representative rule" we have to suffer and wait for the
next election in order to elect a new bunch (who may turn out to be
little better). These faults are inherent both in Scotland and UK.
Rest assured that the I&R ~ GB campaign for direct democracy is not a
sassenach plot. In England and UK there is no direct democracy to speak
of and the vast majority of politicians hate the idea.
Robert Peffers
"I&R ~ GB" <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
> which can lead to a decision by ballot or vote of the whole electorate. In
> this context "ballot" means the same as binding referendum or plebiscite.
> Thus citizens can identify, select and prioritise public issues, stipulate
> the wording of proposals and put proposals to the whole electorate of
> their state, city, town, village or other political unit. Examples of such
> procedures are:
> -- the veto referendum,
> -- the constitutional referendum and
> -- the recall-initiative.
> UNQUOTE
>
> What Robert Peffers calls e-democracy and e-petitions fall far short of
> the above standards. An essential of the "citizens' initiative" is that if
> the proposal is rejected by parliament, it normally must go before the
> whole electorate in referendum.
>
> In opinion surveys large majorities agree with the essential principle of
> direct democracy, that a large number of voters should be able to put
> forward a proposal and demand a referendum about it.
>
> Our proposals for citizen-led democracy (www.iniref.org) are designed to
> compensate for fundamental design faults of indirect democracy, dubbed
> "representative". For instance, the electorate gains the ability to
> intervene and decide on issues which they select, in the periods between
> elections. With "representative rule" we have to suffer and wait for the
> next election in order to elect a new bunch (who may turn out to be little
> better). These faults are inherent both in Scotland and UK.
>
> Rest assured that the I&R ~ GB campaign for direct democracy is not a
> sassenach plot. In England and UK there is no direct democracy to speak of
> and the vast majority of politicians hate the idea.
>
> Wallace-Macpherson
> I&R ~ GB
> http://www.iniref.org/
>
>
>
long ago came to the conclusion that the best way forward for Scotland is to
become either totally independent from Westminster or, at very least, to
form some more equitable form of government. It is very obvious that this
cannot be achieved by the form of government you would have us adopt. The
only other option for Scotland has to be a Federal system with each UK
country having their own parliament but with each country sending a small
group of ministers to deal with the very few matters they share such as
defence. Through the years I have seen enough English attempts to browbeat
everyone else and all of them with so many wrong facts that I know, without
doubt, that they have little knowledge of real facts. Most, even sitting
MPs, are devoid of factual information but full of myth and propaganda.
Let us just see how your own knowledge stacks up against real facts shall
we?
What part of the UK has been the most consistent employment blackspot since
WW1?
What part of the UK has had more people on benefits since the NHS was
formed?
What proportion of North Sea revenues are credited to each home country as
their earnings by HM Treasury?
What proportion of earnings from Registered head offices in London are
credited as earnings by each UK country?
What is the purpose of the Barnett Formula?
What is the reason for only England being funded as the UK while all other
countries have block grants?
Are block grants capped or uncapped?
Is the English UK funding capped or uncapped?
Does England subsidise Scotland and if so by how much?
What are the official languages of Scotland?
So let's see how you do on that little lot.
--
Auld Bob
I&R ~ GB
> I&R ~ GB <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in
> of being ignorant of the situation in Scotland.
>> So it may help to define (in brief) what we at I&R ~ GB mean by
>> "strong" democracy:
>
> that which kept women out of the political system for
> so long in Switzerland. Before any of your proposals
> take place, there *must* be a constitution in place
> guaranteeing minority rights.
You say there must be constitution in place (imposed? by whom? by which
authority?) before there can be democracy.
Making a state constitution requires the participation of the people. It
is accepted in lands across the planet that the final decision must be
in plebiscite, binding referendum. So direct democracy must pre-exist
constitution (or change of such). Genuine, creative, broad public
participation is sine qua non. How do you think this apparent dilemma
can be solved, Soupy?
Robert Peffers
"soupdragon" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB9D534515C...@62.141.42.83...
> I&R ~ GB <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in
> of being ignorant of the situation in Scotland.
You are right - I didn't say that but neither did I accuse him of ignorance.
What I did say was that the average person is ignorant of much of the facts
about how the four countries that make up the UK are funded, how they are
goverend and what they contribute to the UK economy. Thast also applies to
many of those who actually sit in the House of Commons and the house of
Lords. It is thus madness to ever contemplate putting the power of running
the country into such hands.
Want to test this diagnoses?
Ask some people to answer this multi-question.
(a) What is the Barnett Formula?
(b) Why is it used?
(c) What does it achive?
(d) How many members of the public could answer this four part question?
***********************
>> So it may help to define (in brief) what we at I&R ~ GB mean by
>> "strong" democracy:
>
I&R ~ GB
>> which can lead to a decision by ballot or vote of the whole electorate. In
>> this context "ballot" means the same as binding referendum or plebiscite.
>> Thus citizens can identify, select and prioritise public issues, stipulate
>> the wording of proposals and put proposals to the whole electorate of
>> their state, city, town, village or other political unit. Examples of such
>> procedures are:
> only other option for Scotland has to be a Federal system with each UK
> country having their own parliament but with each country sending a
small
> group of ministers to deal with the very few matters they share such as
> defence. "
The citizen-led partial direct democracy which we propose is entirely
compatible with this formula.
The citizens' initiative and veto referendum can address all fields of
politics so some of the topics which you list in your "exam" above could
become topics of citizen-law-proposals.
Whether Scotland takes more independence from UK or not, the direct
democracy tools which we list above would serve to enhance quality of
governance, participation and representation.
Regards,
I&R ~ GB
Robert Peffers
"I&R ~ GB" <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
>>> and which can lead to a decision by ballot or vote of the whole
>>> electorate. In this context "ballot" means the same as binding
>>> referendum or plebiscite. Thus citizens can identify, select and
>>> prioritise public issues, stipulate the wording of proposals and put
>>> proposals to the whole electorate of their state, city, town, village or
>>> other political unit. Examples of such procedures are:
and as long as there are 533 English MPs, 59 Scots MPs, 40 Welsh MPs and 18
NI MPs there can be no real democracy in the UK.
Even if all others were to join against the English MPs they could not
outvote them. So England always gets her own way. Add to that the fact that
England is funded as the UK and the system is stacked in England's favour.
At the moment Westminster has cheated Scotland out of �1020 million. They
paid a supplement for increased prison places to the rest but none to
Scotland that cost Scotland �120 million. Westminster paid out Council tax
rebate to the rest of the UK but nothing to Scotland which cost Scotland
�400 Million and they fiddled the Barnet Formula when cutting the block
grants and that cost the Scottish parliament �500 Million.
Nothing but independence and, perhaps, a federal system could cure that.
--
Auld Bob