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.

" You got the government the majority of your citizens voted for. "

Of course we didn't. In a 65% turnout 29,691,380 people voted and 10,726,614 voted Tory.

(I don't know how many LD voters wanted to align with the Tories but I suspect many were horrified by Clegg's decision - I certainly was).

The Torys won the largest percentage of the vote, with 36.05%. Labour won 28.99% and Lib Dem won 23.03%

So I beg to differ. More people voted for Tory than voted for anything else.

The majority of the electorate did not vote for the Tories. Only 65% of the electorate voted.

Even using your figures (I see you like percentages rather than people) 28.99% + 23.03% = 52.02% which, to most people is greater than 36.05%.

36.05% of anything is not a majority. The majority (63.95%) voted for parties other than Tory.

Dear, thats how elections work. The people who can be arsed to vote pick one, and whoever gets the most is the winner. Thats what majority means in this context

We had the chance to change the system. We declined it.

I think we would have a far better government if more people pointed out bollocks when they heard it.

Your post implied that in order for Lily to have a valid opinion (or as you put it "a whinge" about how the country is run she should become an MP.

That's bollocks.

I'm surprised there aren't more people agreeing with scaryteacher - I do.

No it isnt girlwithpointyshoes. its my opinion and it is as valid as yours and anyone elses for that matter. My point is that if people don't like the way the country is run or their local council or town council for that matter then rather than whinge about it they ought to use their time more effectively and get involved. Doing this has the potential to make a real difference to life and their communities - swearing gratuitously at strangers doesnt.

If the majority of the population were in favour of bringing back the death penalty(which I think opinion polls suggest), should we then do it?

That would be true democracy?

And what about banning all foreigners, castrating sex offenders, leaving the EU, bringing back the cane.

All these might views might have a populist attraction to them.

Should we have a referendum on every issue? Or just the ones that some people find important?

Who is to decide?

Just a side point, but the OP said AIBU to think we no longer live in a democracy?

I'm just wondering when she thought our country was more democratic than it is?

complexnumber, Churchill said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Wasn't he an old charmer ?

Fine, Fine. Sorry about the swearing.

Codswallop. The big guns at the top couldn't give a flying fig what town councils have to say and the potential to make real differences in out communities is becoming impossible due to cuts.

The voice of the public should count for something without status IMO.

YABU OP

Not read the rest of the thread, but if you really think this isn't a democracy, you need to go to a country that really ISN'T a democracy.

We don't get a say on individual policies, but there's a reason for that. For a start, it would taking for-fucking-ever.

I hate the Tories as much as the next normal human being, but to say we don't live in a democracy is a bit silly.

Ariel : Churchill said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

A fantastic quote, I have not come across that before. :)

I'm not really sure where that leaves me as I find it hard to disagree with, and I knw where that leaves me .

I my experience there are so many extreme and reactionary views expressed and supported throughout the country that a Parlimentary Democracy is our best bet for creating some sort of reasonable and rational government. It tends to knock the edges off the extreme view points.

'm not really sure where that leaves me as I find it hard to disagree with, and I knw where that leaves me .

...it leaves me looking like a plonker.

mummymeister, that's fine if you have time to get involved etc. As it is, with 4 children under 11, SAHM who also works part time from home, I have no time, nor SHOULD I get involved, as atm I would not be able to give 100%.

As far as being an MP goes - that is quite closed shop atm, as illustrated by the current crop of politicians (on all sides).

But that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. I do write to my MP quite a lot - I don't think she likes me very much! - but that's about all I can do atm.

And I do accept that not every policy can be voted on by the public.

I do however think that bare-faced lying is a problem. There is a difference between developing policy over the course of a parliament, and declaring on television that you 'have no plans to raise VAT' 8 weeks before doing so. Or that you are 'going to stop top-down reorganisation of the NHS' when you know your health secretary has drafted and is about to announce the biggest top-down re-organisation of the NHS in its history.

That's what is wrong.

The voice of the public should count for something without status IMO.

It should count for something, but I would hesitate before saying it should count for everything. I like and agree with the Churchill quote. The average person has limited knowledge on the vast majority of subjects even if they are well educated. They can have an opinion based on little fact (and heavily influenced by the media), but is that enough? I don't think it treats the electorate as children to let people who spend all their time working in one area and are privy to information that the public does not know make better informed decisions on our behalf. I don't think that lets them off the hook of not explaining the reasons behind those decisions adequately - they are still accountable. As much as we'd all like to be, we are not experts on everything.

It would be better still if we had more people from related careers in politics for that reason. There isn't enough expertise in any party really. Constantly changing departments and special interest, might be good for career progression, but not necessarily knowing what you are talking about.

I DO have a lot of time and respect for Andy Burnham's passion and knowledge on the NHS, and the fact he asked to go back to Health rather than stay in Education. I wish we had more politicians like him. I think he's a great example of how you can not have a background in the subject but learn it and really get involved in it but he is a rarity. I don't agree with him on everything but he really is a credit to the Labour Party and politics in general. He would have been a far better labour leader than Miliband the Muppet. But when it comes to other subjects in particular business, crucial in an economic crisis, the Labour party score poorly on the fact they haven't got a single member in the shadow cabinet who has experience in business nor seems to have the same passion/knowledge as Andy Burnham. The coalition are guilty of the same failings, but I don't think to the same degree and do have better business experience.

We are never going to have a perfect system imho. We are never going to have our views heard as much as we want and perhaps should. But there are other ways in which we can improve our representation, involvement and the decisions made on our behalf when we can't be heard.

There is no point coming into power without a plan though is there? If you hadn't got plans in place and fleshed them out, then you'd sit with your thumb up your bum for quite a lot of your time in office. You come in with plans and then refine them over the course of a parliament, or test the water and stop what you had planned, or carry on with it if you think you can get it through.

Politicians speak in their own language - what the late great Alan Clark called being economical with the actualité. You are a tad naive if you think otherwise.

scaryteacher - but what the Tories did was have a plan, but LIE ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WAS UNELECTABLE.

That is wrong. It's not using political language to say 'no more top-down reorganisations of the NHS' when you're planning the biggest top-down reorganisation ever. It's not using political language to say 'rise in VAT' and then 8 weeks later announce a rise.

It is lying to buy votes.

LilyBolero, you have enough time to sit on Mumsnet and get involved in discussions like this.

You COULD use the time to get involved in local or national campaigns on subjects you feel strongly about.

A simple letter to a newspaper or your MP may not get a reply or response, but it highlights a subject. The old adage that a letter of complaint represents a hundred people is taken seriously by political parties. They want your vote. They want to know which issues will make you vote for them.

The idea that we are powerless is just wrong. Your voice will be ignored a lot, but not all the time. Apathy is democracy's biggest enemy, not the system.

Having seen the books I expect they had to change a number of plans don't you? Labour promised not to raise tax, but increased NI - specious logic, much?

The NHS one, I think you have a point to a degree with - though they did say urgent reform needed to be made. However the VAT one I don't. I think they definitely were caught between the devil and the deep blue sea on that one.

The coalition clearly had no idea about the state of the public finances until AFTER they got into power. It was written all over the facts of the LDs who had more integrity when it became clear. Again the infamous "there is no money left" letter is disgraceful. The fact that coalition have made moves to make public finances more transparent in future says a lot. It was something that probably isn't perhaps in their interests to do. Its a move that was one that unlike a lot of others was done with the long term best interests of the country in mind.

AfterDinner - didn't you see the bit where I said I wrote to the MP lots - I think maybe 10+ times since the election?

I also ran a big Fairtrade campaign. I can certainly do small things, and I do. What I can't do is stand for Parliament(!), or even for a council, because I have a baby of 20 months, 3 other primary aged children, work nearly 20 hours a week, with no childcare or anything other help.

Every so often I get embroiled in something like this on MN, true, but that's not time that's free for anything else tbh! And it's really time when I am 'playing' with the baby!!!

I certainly don't think that because I am not directly involved in politics that I have no right to a view or to complain about things - I am very engaged in politics, and am bringing up my kids to be too, and to respect things like voting rights.

on the 'we didn't know how bad it was' - that may be true to some extent, though they must have had some inkling(!).

I still think the Darling plan was the best plan, and I think he is the current politician with the most credibility - I would very much like to see him come back to front bench politics, unhampered by Gordon Brown.