Do we no longer live in a democracy?

[LilyBolero]

The United Kingdom purports to be a democracy. And yet, the people of this country have no say in what happens in this country.

Look at the NHS reforms. Nobody voted for them. Cameron and Lansley KNEW that if they announced what they were planning before the election, they would be roundly beaten. And so they kept it secret. Now, when polls say that 73% of voters oppose the use of private companies in the NHS, and 62% of voters do not trust the Tories on the NHS, when they are opposed by many health organisations (Royal College of GPs, Royal College of Nurses, Royal College of Midwives, Royal College of physiotherapists, and the list goes on and on) - their solution is to shut the door on them, and to exclude them from any further discussions.

How is this democracy? Most people DON'T WANT the reforms. Most medical people DON'T WANT the reforms. Even half the government DON'T WANT the reforms. And yet, because Cameron and Lansley want them, this is what is going to happen. Cameron said 'No more top-down reorganisation of the NHS'.

Then we have Michael Gove imposing his 'ban on termtime holidays'. Is it not up to parents to decide how to bring up their children? Has he forgotten that it is not 'his' country, to rule as he wishes, but all of our country.

Even on the economy, we have no democratic say. At the last election, there were 2 distinct approaches. The Labour way, and the LibDem way was to halve the deficit over 4-5 years. The Conservative way was to cut savagely and to eliminate the deficit in 5 years. Although elections are rarely fought on one issue, I think in the extraordinary situation of 2010, it would be fair to say that the economy was the over-riding issue, and if ever an election was mono-issue, it was that one.

The first solution, of shallower cuts received about 15.4 million votes. The second solution of savage cuts received 10.7 million votes.

So we get the second option.

The Lib Dems campaigned on a ticket of 'pledging to oppose ANY rise in tution fees'. In government, they are trebling the tuition fees.

David Cameron before the election said he 'liked child benefit being a universal benefit'. He said 'I LIKE child benefit, I WOULDN'T CHANGE child benefit'.

Now he is abolishing child benefit for some in an unfair and incompetent slash at families.

They are liars, and buy votes through lies, and then do whatever the hell they want. We should be able to force an election and actually hold politicians to account. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a fascist dictatorship.

Agree that manifestos should be legally binding.

New Labour pledged never to raise the 40% tax rate.
To abolish foxhunting.
That every NHS patient would be seen within 18 weeks (I think).
Plus many many more, all broken.

At least Cameron is not in power to personally enrich himself and mix with the rich and famous, unlike Blair.

In a democracy you vote for the party based on a manifesto. Broken manifesto pledges are always worrying, but do seem to be a par for the course. Our real democratic deficit is where all the parties have the same line, despite it being unpopular within the electorate (EC treaties, for instance) and also where constitutional changes are brought in without a direct mandate from the people via a referendum. New Labour did a lot of these.

I would like to apologise to my fellow countrymen and women for voting for one of the parties in the coalition.

larrygrylls - Labour weren't perfect, granted.

But I'm laughing that Cameron isn't in power to personally enrich himself or to mix with the rich and famous.....

?If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.?

Clytaemnestra - given that we can't 'know' the person we are electing, all we can go on is their manifesto. That is what they have a mandate to deliver (the clue is in the name - manifesto-mandate).

It is not democratic to lie your way in, and then just do whatever you like.

YANBU

Re: the health bill there are various petitions on this site
submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions

What good it will do signing is anyones guess but better than doing nothing at all I would hope. As the OP says most people don't want the health reforms but the goverment are determined to plough on regardless and I think it is perhaps too late - their mind is made up and they are not listening................

Even the meeting today they have exluded groups such as BMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners!

So why did everyone vote against AV then?! I know it wouldn't solve a lot of the problems - campaigning on one platform, doing something else altogether etc but it would make the votes more directly representative. It would for example, make the lib dem influence more strong and therefore perhaps weaken some of the nasty stuff. It perhaps would have made a Labour/Lib coalition a possibility etc etc..
People would be more directly able to shape policy.

How can we encourage democracy?

Engagement.

There's a reason that they've diverted money to keep up weekly bin collections. It's because that matters to people in an immediate way that grabs their attention. That is an issue that would motivate people to get involved. Unfortunately, politics generally doesn't. There are thousands of people who won't vote in their lives.

You can argue that it's because people feel that there is no party that represents their views or that the current voting system means their vote doesn't count leading to disengagement, but there are lots of people who just don't care about the macro. They only care about the things they feel directly effect their lives. They don't care about 'politics'.

Present the problem in a way that is accessible and preferably single issue and get it onto social networking sites. Link it to the personal - not cold stats and studies but 'If x happens y will happen to someone and that someone could be you, your child, your mother etc.

MushroomMagee

I think the benefit to the Lib Dems was a strong reason why people didn't vote for it, having seen Nick Clegg's lies and the spectacle of Vince Cable introducing tuition fees of 9k.

Lily,

Why would he be? He has plenty of money already, personally and via his wife. He has no need to pander to celebs or the rich.

Tony Blair went from one modest house in Islington to a portfolio of multi million pound properties, all bought with fees from consultancies based on his political career. Now Cherie is getting into private hospitals, again based on her relationship with NL power (hence using the name Blair and not booth).

Iraq war, dodgy dossier, formula 1 tobacco advertising etc

iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/04/labours-27-broken-manifesto-promises.html

The above is a list to 27 broken manifesto promises.

I don't think any of us entirely trust the political classes any more but I think that Cameron has more integrity in his little finger than Blair has in his whole body. Brown did have integrity but was a terrible leader for other reasons, such as being a bully.

Just as an aside on the bins, our council has privatised the bin collection. So we still have fortnightly collections, but, they've reduced the size of the bin so it will only contain 3 smallish bags. For 6 of us, this is a challenge.

granted, cameron doesn't need the money. He loves the connections though, loves being 'in' with the right people.

I don't think integrity is a word that can be applied to him ever. Or latter-Blair (I think Blair did have integrity at the beginning, but it got lost along the way).

I would like to see Alistair Darling as Labour leader, and as next PM.

So, are Labour the ones to have broken democracy as they also broke all these manifesto promises? Or is it only broken now it's the Tories doing it?

Just reading about Lansleys connections to private healthacre companies. So who is he he going to listen too? The voters or the money?

When Labour were first elected, they stuck to their election promises slavishly for the first couple of years.

This lost didn't even wait a few weeks. They never had ANY intention of keeping them.

I think it is worse with this lot, because they are using the coalition as a way of just riding rough-shod across the country.

So, you are all happy that the NHS continues to draw endlessly on the budget? That it employs only slightly less people than the Red Army in China? Do you not think that it is so inefficient because it is so big and unwieldy? Do you not think that were it to be reformed, (GP contracts?) and layers of bureaucracy taken out, that it might just make savings which could be used to further research or improve standards?

Take a look at other models of healthcare like the Belgian system for example; there is more than one model out there of how to run an efficient health system, and the monolithic and gargantuan NHS isn't cutting it at the moment.

If you don't like the current system, then stand as an independent or vote for an independent. There have been some highly successful results from this both on a council and general election level (campaigns to stop a local hospital being closed or Martin Bell kicking the Hamiltons out).

But we don't do this as its someone's responsibility to put an alternative on the table.

Or alternatively spoil your ballot. Spoilt ballot are counted and do get noted.

As for alternative electoral systems - don't see the point. They all have flaws. PR for example would give a greater voice to the BNP.

The problem isn't democracy itself. Its who gets involved in politics and who we allow to get voted in. We most definitely are not powerless and there are a great many examples to prove this. The problem is apathy and acceptance of the status quo as the only option.

"This lost didn't even wait a few weeks. They never had ANY intention of keeping them."

They're a coalition with conflicting policies. Of course they can't all stick slavishly to all of their policies, that is possible. Or should they have said, "Well we don't agree on the economy so we'll just sit here and do nothing. Would you like to borrow my fiddle? Something appears to be burning."

Anyway, it's still a principle. If broken manifesto promises = lack of democracy it doesn't matter how big or small or when it happened.

scaryteacher - I would agree that it needs reform. What worries me is THIS reform. There are many ways to skin a cat, and this reform is opposed by SO many people, and the only people who seem to support it are Andrew Lansley and David Cameron. Neither of whom I would entrust the NHS to.

The coalition is always used as the excuse though - 'we couldn't implement all of our policies because of the coalition'.

Hmm, I didn't notice either the LibDems or the Tories campaiging on these health reforms. I didn't notice either of them saying we must put up VAT. I didn't notice either of them saying they would treble tuition fees.

It's very convenient.

LilyBolero, how exactly, were the current coalition supposed to keep their manifesto pledges when the two parties involved had ideologically opposed pledges in the first place??

It was always going to be an impossible task to do that, and regardless of which political flag waving you might do, I think people need to realise that coalitions are going to be more problematic in that respect.

I actually have the biggest issue with Lib Dem voters who feel betrayed in that respect given the party's election support of PR. I'm not entirely sure whether they actually understood the implication of it - or why in places where it is used, it ends up with manifestos being thrown out the window in months of discussion over compromise which ultimately ends up being radically different from the original too.

I actually am relived we didn't have that problem and instead of fighting over the detail we just had a situation where both parties were pretty decisive and compromised very quickly and have done so continually since. There has been bickering between the two parties but on a much smaller scale than could have happened, and it means that decisions have been made rather than us all sitting around in limbo not going anywhere.

I think it is worth pointing out situations in europe where disagreement between parties have left them with a properly elected government for over 12 months whilst they hammered out deals. Thats a far worse situation.

We are never ever going to get a situation where we are going to be happy about every decision made and I think its loopy to suggest that no decisions should be made unilaterally either. There are situations where inaction is the great evil.

AfterDinner - I agree with lots of what you wrote. My principles are really quite simple;

You shouldn't lie to get elected.

And that's about it. If you know you are going to launch a massive reorganisation of the NHS (which was all planned pre-election, don't imagine it's a post-election thing, Lansley has been planning it long-term), then don't say 'no more top-down reorganisation of the NHS'.

If you know you are going to put up VAT, don't say 'no plans to raise VAT'.

And so on. I actually think in a Coalition there should be representatives of all 3 main parties in the Government, for a shortish time, because I don't see how it is democratic for the party that came 3rd to be in Government when the party who came 2nd isn't.

Or, there should be a minority Government.

But downright lies to get votes should have some repercussions.

And, tbh, if you are ideologically opposed, how the hell can you even conceive of going into coalition? If you believe the opposite to another party, you CANNOT agree to going into government with them and retain any integrity. Selling your soul to the devil and all that.

LilyBolero, can you possibly write a manifesto in the 12 months before an election and then stick to it? Not you can't nor should you.

Politics is fast moving and ever changing. Whilst I agree to a point that no it is true that both parties in the coalition didn't plan certain things, I also think its very fair to say they were not fully aware of the true financial position of the country (i'm thinking of the horrendous - "there's no money left" note) and it would be impossible for them to have written it planning for the Euro crisis. Or indeed things like the Arab Spring.

I think there is a certain amount of pure ideology rather than being willing to accept harsher realities in your thinking here.