Offering more democracy could revive interest in politics
Wallace-Macpherson
parties.
If the politicians and "the system" do such a bad job then why not start
to do a bit more ourselves?
We could introduce "more" democracy, by which I mean ways to participate
meaningfully in public affairs.
A current example is a formal citizens' initiative in Italy, which if
successful will allow the electorate to scrap the law with which
Berlusconi has attempted to secure immunity from prosecution.
Democratic procedures such as citizens' proposal (initiative) and
referendum triggered by the electorate (I and R) are well established
and practised in other countries. A carefully thought out and well
developed system of regulation prevents abuse (e.g. too many proposals)
and allows plenty of opportunity and time for information, debate and
"deliberation" on the matters concerned.
Effectively, on some selected issues, the people "take over" and decide
for themselves.
This allows we citizens to be truly involved in politics, more so than
if we can only vote for candidates once every few years.
If we had I and R in Britain then we could put a proposal before
parliament and if necessary take it to referendum. This might concern
the Euro, the proposed European constitution or part of it, and also any
existing law or proposed reform.
More information about I and R may be found at
http://www.iniref.org/learn.html
http://www.iniref.org/index.html
A promise to introduce citizen-initiated referendum has already appeared
in the manifestos of the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Which of the
"major" parties, Conservative or Labour, will show the foresight and
courage needed to introduce elements of real democracy into our remote,
indirect, "representative" system of governance ?
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org
http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
mailto:in...@WITHOUT.iniref.org
abelard
<w...@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
typed:
>This might concern
>the Euro, the proposed European constitution or part of it, and also any
>existing law or proposed reform.
read on!
>A promise to introduce citizen-initiated referendum has already appeared
>in the manifestos of the Liberal Democrats and the Greens.
this is the lib dems who are fanatically keen on the democratically
impervious eu?
they are also fanatically keen on forms of pr which are known to
undermine accountability in large electorates.....
> Which of the
>"major" parties, Conservative or Labour, will show the foresight and
>courage needed to introduce elements of real democracy into our remote,
>indirect, "representative" system of governance ?
in order to get elected, the public liar 'promised' freedom of information
and a bill of rights.....several years later he has produced neither..
in fact he has restricted freedom of information....
resorted to government by slight of hand....
been involved in a series of cash for favours incidents....
a continual and steady stream of attacks on civil liberties....
and much more....
the liberals were several years ago, infiltrated and effectively taken
over by some of the socialist labour enthusiasts....i might well use a
stronger term if the children were asleep....
every green meeting i have ever attended has been stuffed to the gills
with unthinking dogmatic socialists with little real world experience..
questions
1)why on earth would you trust either of these groups anywhere
near power?
2)why would you believe any 'promises' they made in order to curry votes?
3)why do you trust any left tinged party?
4)you have only one hope....reform of the tory party subsequent to
the socialist coup by major and his 'colleagues'......
or perhaps you know different....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
politics, ethics, education, etc >600,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wallace-Macpherson
Of course we must trust our political parties wholeheartedly ;-) and accept their
manifestos as gospel!
In our report about prospects for more direct democracy in Britain we have a
section called The political parties -- uncertain allies.
Our suggestion is to introduce some direct participation and law-making in local
and central government. This reform is unlike most other types of policy, because
it means that the politicians are voting to give some of their "own" power back to
the people. Parties may promise this while in opposition but are very unlikely to
fulfil the promise if elected to power; at best a diluted form of citizens'
initiative and referendum could be expected, with important subjects excluded from
the electorate's control, and huge hurdles (number of signatures, time allowed for
collection etc.) for initiative and referendum. Most politicians will fight like
hell to avoid giving back *any* power to the electorate. And, can you imagine that
any of 'em would introduce "recall", unless they had already been put under great
pressure?
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org/case.html
mailto:in...@WITHOUT.iniref.org
abelard
<w...@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
typed:
just so....your work is useful...eventually i fear it will be the streets.
how tiresome and wasteful of energy and community...
regards..
Roy Hutchins
<w...@WITHOUT.iniref.org> writes
Real democracy would be great!
I can't, however, believe that the politicians would ever willingly relinquish
political power to the people.
--
Roy Hutchins
Mark
> Making an attractive offer of more democracy could help political
> parties.
Democracy (i.e. the legalised mugging of 49% of the population by the
other 51%) is what has got us into the current mess, so _more_
democracy is hardly going to get us out of it.
Mark
Wallace-Macpherson
Faced with such damning criticism we turn to an unexpected source:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in
this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is
perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is
the worst form of government except all those other forms that
have been tried from time to time.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965), Hansard, November 11, 1947
What we are proposing is to refine this "worst form of government".
See http://www.iniref.org/case.html
Wallace-Macpherson
http://www.iniref.org/index.html
Mark
> What we are proposing is to refine this "worst form of government".
> See http://www.iniref.org/case.html
So why are you proposing _more_ democracy, rather than restricting the
vote to people of clue? The more the right to vote has been extended,
the worse government has become, so if any reform is possible, it
would have to be in the other direction.
As for why anyone would take anything Churchill said seriously is
beyond me: few people have proven more disastrous for this country
than that idiot.
Mark
Wallace-Macpherson
(Wallace-Macpherson wrote:)
> >Our suggestion is to introduce some direct participation and law-making in local
> >and central government. This reform is unlike most other types of policy, because
> >it means that the politicians are voting to give some of their "own" power back to
> >the people. Parties may promise this while in opposition but are very unlikely to
> >fulfil the promise if elected to power; at best a diluted form of citizens'
> >initiative and referendum could be expected, with important subjects excluded from
> >the electorate's control, and huge hurdles (number of signatures, time allowed for
> >collection etc.) for initiative and referendum. Most politicians will fight like
> >hell to avoid giving back *any* power to the electorate. And, can you imagine that
> >any of 'em would introduce "recall", unless they had already been put under great
> >pressure?
>
> just so....your work is useful...eventually i fear it will be the streets.
> how tiresome and wasteful of energy and community...
>
> regards..
>
> --
> web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
> politics, ethics, education, etc >600,000 document calls yearly
Roy Hutchins wrote:
> In article <3F48DC27...@WITHOUT.iniref.org>, Wallace-Macpherson
> <w...@WITHOUT.iniref.org> writes
> *snip*
> >We could introduce "more" democracy, by which I mean ways to participate
> >meaningfully in public affairs.
> >
> >A current example is a formal citizens' initiative in Italy, which if
> >successful will allow the electorate to scrap the law with which
> >Berlusconi has attempted to secure immunity from prosecution.
>
*snip*
> Real democracy would be great!
>
> I can't, however, believe that the politicians would ever willingly relinquish
> political power to the people.
>
> --
> Roy Hutchins
Before we resort to the streets, the guillotine and storming the Tower of London, or
giving up completely because the nasty politicians may not wish to help, I suggest
that we keep trying.
To get I and R introduced we recommend two strategies:
1. A campaign. People and groups from a broad range of political hues and views
support or potentially support the introduction of direct democracy. We should
recognise this and seek to co-operate with a broad public, democratic spectrum. See
suggestions http://www.iniref.org/campaign.html
2. An election strategy and appeal: Vote only for a candidate who promises if elected
to introduce citizens' initiative and binding referendum.
Are there any better ideas out there? Suggestions?
Cheers
Yer
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
Old Codger
"Mark" <mma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:69e61443.03082...@posting.google.com...
>
> As for why anyone would take anything Churchill said
seriously is
> beyond me: few people have proven more disastrous for this
country
> than that idiot.
So you would have been pleased to have been a citizen of
Nazi Germany then?
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
Wm James
The problem with democracy is that it offers no protection to anyone
or their rights. Solf government is ideal, but without guarenteed
rights then even the majority cannot infringe upon, you have mob rule
and that is NOT a good thing.
William R. James
SM
Wm James <wrjames...@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
news:h6b9lvcdoi5pjcqj4...@4ax.com...
law and the common practices of British subjects. Those contracts that have
been entered into without the direct consent of the people (the European
union for example) must be reconsidered under this new legislation.
sm
Wm James
wrote:
<My typos corrected>
>> The problem with democracy is that it offers no protection to anyone
>> rights that even the majority cannot infringe upon, you have mob rule
>> and that is NOT a good thing.
>>
>> William R. James
>>
>>
>>
>Precisely, we must start with a proper written constitution based on common
>law and the common practices of British subjects. Those contracts that have
>been entered into without the direct consent of the people (the European
>union for example) must be reconsidered under this new legislation.
>sm
I can't speak for the UU or the British, but I can can if I were a
british citizen, I would NOT want to surrender my rights or my
soverenty to the EU. I also agree that a written constitution is an
absolute necessity in guarenteeing rights. The british people have
'rights' but not really by US standards. The reason is that those
'rights' exist at the whim of the government. Government easily
disarmed them, for example. Should the parliment decide that speech
is too dangerious, that too can be infringed. A constitution, which
requires far more than even a supermajority to be altered is the only
real protection the people really have against runaway government.
Without it, any passing fad or emotional upheaval can quickly become
the law of the land.
William R. James
Paul
I don't agree.
Personally I believe we have a core system that is very effective based that
we can protest about gov without be seditious.
I understand the arguments about republics, constitutions, bills of rights
etc so dont lets get into monarchy debates, but we do have something unique
called Royal Perogative. The monarch cannot govern, we elect our govenors
however inept and we can remove them if we ever need to by appeal to the
crown who as head of state commands the armed forces. Legaly if we ever had
a despot ruling us from parliament no body could stop their removal if that
was the peoples will, the monarch can dismiss her ministers and could call
in the armed forces legally to remove them.
We are effectively ruled by concent an justifiably we can remove that at any
time with collective will.
This cannot be done in the USA.
The British have an inbuilt sense of justice and fair play, push them to far
and our collective nature says no! I trust the people when it counts.
Do we have free speach? No. are we truly a democracy? No. Is there much
injustice? Yes.
We do have free will and when that has been exercised as a nation nothing
stands against it.
Would I choose more freedom at the xpense of the best insurance policy we
have got? No. Its not about personalities its about the fundamental nature
of the country.
Tinker with all the rest and yes much more say with the individual, as much
as possible and more but never take away my right to appeal to the crown.
Paul
Then what was the American revolution, it seems to me that a US citizen does
not even have the right to elect its own President.
We have more rights or should I say privaledges than the US constitution/BOR
has on paper.
We are really at our best when we are a massive mob.
Paul
Churchill was a blunt, rude, drunken, stuborn bully.
Chaimberlin was a polite gentleman.
Who would you pick to fight an evil tyrant
Despite his faults Chruchill embodied much that was for its time admirable
and expressed the will of this people and more
SM
Paul <pa...@anti.spam.com> wrote in message
news:3f5fcb55$0$249$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
So
The Queen should now move against the government and its latest white paper
as it clearly infringes her sovereignty and the sovereignty of her subjects.
SM
Miguel O'Pastel
Which in fact do not exist in the Constitution except for the statement that
when the government takes your property, it has to pay you something.
M
vonr...@earthlink.net
<nos...@whitehouse.scum> wrote:
>The only rights the capitalists are interested in are property rights.
>Which in fact do not exist in the Constitution except for the statement that
>when the government takes your property, it has to pay you something.
>M
I see you haven't read the constitution. I can see that you don't
understand the relationship among the federal government, state
governments, and the people. All rights not granted to the federal
government nor belonging to the state governments are reserved to the
people. The rights of congress and the rights of the president are
explicitly stated, and the rights denied to them are explicitly
stated. The federal government's acquisition of private property is a
bit more complex than you describe.