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.

Do we no longer live in a democracy?

This lady is not amused by your jokes and wishes to know at what time did we live in one?.

Not amused

LilyBolero Tue 21-Feb-12 11:59:00
Well I never have voted Conservative, never will.

Once upon a time I would have said that. I would have laughed in your face at the idea of voting Tory.

A lot of people feel the same way and would never vote for a party than the one that they have always voted for. So our democracy is effectively determined by a few floating voters who are willing to change their minds.

That would be me. Voted in 4 elections. Got the exact result I wanted in 3. Including the last election. I couldn't vote Labour after the Iraq War and its erosion of civil liberities. I might consider it again, but a lot of things would have to change first (Ed Balls and Ed Milliband being politically murdered for starters).

I did vote Tory this time, though under a certain amount of duress. I ideally wanted a mix of Lib Dem/Tory policies and I was very worried about voting the way I did. I thought the Tories too scary and right wing and the Lib Dems too away with the fairies on their own. So coalition suits me perfectly. Apparently the closest we are likely to ever get to a Liberation Government.

I would probably have voted Lib Dem this election, but felt forced to go blue after our local LD candidate's disgraceful campaign. I do feel that voting for the best candidate for your area is as important as how it affects things nationally. Two days before the election we complained about the scaremongering, misleading and disgusting leaflets to the local lib dem office. Only for us to get a mouthful of abuse and accused of being part of an organised Tory campaign as they had been getting similar calls all day! Needless to say, we weren't and I doubt a lot of other people were either. What she was doing was borderline illegal but all three parties dabbled in that type of campaigning in various places around the country. I find that worse than 'broken promises' from a manifesto.

I do think rules on campaigning need to be better enforced as the leaflets being pushed through letterboxes around the country were dubious and were an affront to democracy. Some of the propaganda was utterly outrageous. And everyone got away with it.

I don't believe in football supporter style voting these days. Its a mugs game. I did when I was in my early 20s. Now I generally believe that given how similar parties are, that after a party has been in power for a certain amount of time, they get too comfy and need to get kicked out. A fresh set of faces and opinions is good for everyone. Which is a big reason I find the idea of PR so awful as you tend to get coalitions with the same people in and you can't kick them out.

Power corrupts.

AfterDinner, I agree with so much of that post - especially the last 2 words.

One election, dh had to vote 4 different ways, because he was voting by proxy for a friend of our's, and we had local elections as well - he voted Labour in the general election, Green in the local, Tory for the proxy General, and LibDem for the proxy local!!!

People are absolutely right to complain that we don't live in a democracy, because we don't.

The two arguments put forth that we do are specious:

a) The claim the we don't live in a direct democracy, but a 'representative democracy'. Well, that's fine, but the people we elect are supposed to represent us. If they are failing to do that, they are failing in their role as representatives.

Part of participating in a 'representative democracy' is voting for representatives based on their platform and ideas. If the choices we have available to us are either or both indistinguishable or the people who are running don't stick to their manifesto, then our 'choice' of representative is meaningless.

b) The technical definition someone put for (scary teacher?) that we must live in a democracy simply because there were elections and we voted for representatives leads to the conclusion that Iraq and China and representative democracies.

In some countries, there are so-called 'elections', where the dictator gets 105% of the vote, or 95% of the vote, under veiled threat of violence or brutality if you don't vote the 'right' way. In other countries, like China for example, you have the chance to vote for one or two candidates from the Communist Party.

'Democracy' means 'rule by the people': Demos = people, kraty = rule. If people (the public) have no meaningful influence in deciding the the policies and direction the country takes with respect to political, economic and social policy, then it cannot be called a 'democracy'.

Lily, whilst you say you will never vote X, keep an open mind and judge on the current form of that party and not the past one. I think that blanket anti sentiment protects undemocratic behaviour.

I do think its terrible that people judge this government on the basis of Thatcher. Whilst there may be common ideology and indeed people who served in that government, its just insanity to think like that. There's been over 20 years in between.

The worst examples are certain councils which will never be voted out. Or the alternative becomes something like the BNP because "I'm never voting X".

I don't think I could ever vote Tory. I felt physically sick for 2 days after this election.

I'm not judging them on the basis of Thatcher - I grew up in the 70s & 80s in the north-east, through the miners' strikes, but my dad was a staunch Tory, and I remember seeing Kinnock and Scargill as the big baddies.

I AM judging them on the basis of their policies, and also the incompetence of Cameron and Osborne (in particular), and also Gove and Lansley. They are the 4 'big baddies' now.

I do keep an open mind about who to vote for, but I do think the Tories are toxic unfortunately.

You don't know whats going to happen in 20 years though do you? You quite clearly don't like this lot and it would be pointless to argue to the contrary on the subject about it. Which is fair enough and I respect that.

Just never say never.

I know OP it's so depressing. I keep thinking about what I could do to fight back in someway - but they seem to hold all the cards.

Then I read posts like scareyteacher and realise that there are actually people out there that still think what they are doing is ok, reasonable and for the good of the country.

I can't believe that you think anything else would work. Have you looked at what's happening to the PIIGS lately? Have you read what the EU is putting Greece through to get bail out funds? There but for the Coalition goes the UK.

If the Coalition was cutting the NMW by 22% to as is happening in Greece; cutting off benefits after 30 weeks, and then you're on your tod, then you might have something to complain about; but I don't think the Coalition has done that.

This www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/damianreece/9095290/Greece-welcome-to-your-lost-decade.html may give you pause for thought. If the UK can avoid that, and some austerity is the way to do it, then fine.

As for the Coalition being depressing; yes, I'd rather the Lib Dems weren't there. How you feel Malakadoush is how I felt from 1997-2010. Fun, isn't it?

And thats why we all vote differently and change is good...

Don't think it was me that used that definition Ttosca.

Yes times have changed. The GiuardianICM opinion poll shows the Tories only one point behind Labour in a time of austerity. It will be a long, long time before the public trusts the progressives again and votes them back in. Even though they have done a volte face and are now calling for tax cuts and have partially admitted mea culpa on many of their previous policies, the public will take a lot of convincing before they believe that Labour can change its spot.

Thank God we do live in a democracy and the public voted them out, otherwise we'd all be up twits creek without a saddle.

We should be thankful that we live in a democracy where the public can demand an end to hypocrisy, inadequacy, profligacy and misguidedl, crazy policies.

Thing is though, if we voted Labour out, how come the LibDems who came 3rd are in Government?

Nick Clegg decided who was going to be PM. Not the electorate. He could have gone with a Lib-Lab coalition, as a rainbow coalition, or as a minority government. Would have been bloody hard, but he, Nick Clegg made that decision. And somehow, by coming 3rd in the election, he is Deputy PM.

I am GLAD he did not form a coalition with Gordon Brown, that would have been a disaster for the country. But I do not believe what we have here is democratic in any way.

Actually this thread has galvanised my thinking on this - either an election should produce an outright majority, in which case it can be shown that the country has elected that government, or it should be a government representative of ALL major parties, in the proportions elected. That is the only real democratic way of doing it.

claig, scareyteacher et al, how would you have felt if it had been a Lib/Lab coalition as it nearly was? Would that have been an example of democracy in action?

If it had been a Lib/Lab coalition then I would have felt sad since it would have been bad for the country, its prosperity and its civil liberties. But if that is what the people wanted, then so be it, that is democracy. Ultimately it is the will of teh people that counts and they decide when it is time for a change.

The public swung towards the Tories which is why Clegg went with the Tories. He recognised that the public was asking for change, was asking for a breath of fresh air, and he respected the public's wishes and resolved to work in a government that reflected the public's wishes.

thing is claig you see, with the result being the same, it could have been LibLab, even without any votes being changed.

The LibDems so very nearly went with Labour - they were well into discussions with them. I suspect he went with the Tories because he quite like Dave tbh. They are much more similar characters, whereas Gordon Brown was v difficult.

I don't personally think one man (ie Nick Clegg) should be able to decide the next PM of Britain.

I think ultimately Clegg and his party understood teh mood of teh country. They realised it would have disappointed the nation greatly if they had propped up the progressives for another 5 years. They took the temperature of teh nation, saw which way the wind was blowing and followed the will f he public. They don't agree with the Tories on many things, but they were prepared to compromise to deliver good government for teh country.

The public wanted a new broom, an end to spin, doom and gloom. They didn't believe in "only 50 days left to save the planet", they longed for 50 days and ways to save the country.

Clegg didn't decide on his own. He listened to his party. The elected representatives have to decide policy and what to do. We can't decide, all we can do is throw our vote in the pot and choose our representatives. The system doesn't run like clockwork or via computer, it is people who make teh ultimate decisions, the people we choose to vote for.

That is why it is a democracy, we can have some say in who governs. We might not agree with them, but that is too bad, because we as individuals can't have our way, it is the people as a whole who have their way.

But the 75 year old woman who told Lansley "no you wait" is a great example of democracy; someone who cares enough to have her say, even if she never gets her way.

And Lansley understood that. He is always very polite and good-natured. He knows not everyone agrees with him and he respects that, because that is democracy. People can boo and jeer him and he understands that that is part of democracy.

We as Tories understand that some people think Labour are good and believe what they say. We never complain that it is not democracy if Labour are in power (via coalition or not).

'Then I read posts like scareyteacher and realise that there are actually people out there that still think what they are doing is ok, reasonable and for the good of the country'

That shouldn't come as a surprise. It is in fact the majority who think that. It is the majority who read right wing newspapers and the the Tories received the most votes of any single party.

'there are actually people out there that still think what they are doing is ok'

Even Labour agree that there needs to be welfare reform and NHS reform and pension reform and Miliband did not support the strikes and now Labour want tax cuts too. They agree with many of the things the Tories are doing, just not the pace with which they are doing them. It is a matter of degree, but I think that there are many of them who don't fundamentally disagree.

'claig, scareyteacher et al, how would you have felt if it had been a Lib/Lab coalition as it nearly was? Would that have been an example of democracy in action?'

I wouldn't have been happy, and would have cursed Cameron for not forming a minority govt; however, I accepted that people wanted Labour for 13 years however misguided I thought them, and accepted that as democracy, as I would have done under a Lib-Lab pact (and where have we heard that before?).

I think if you look at what the EU is doing, we can then start to talk about things being undemocratic with technocratic govts imposed in Greece and Italy, and the latest terms imposed upon Greece with the bail out.

But scarey, it can't be right, surely, that one man, (or one political party, if you take Claig's argument) can decide the government. That is not democracy.

A Lib-Lab pact would have been wrong imo. But it was possible. Looking at it another way, perhaps with a different LibDem leader, we might still have Gordon Brown as PM.

Coalitions are the problem not the solution.

Coalitions are not teh problem, they represent the combined will of the people and reflect teh views of more people than those who voted for only one party.

Politicians often don't like coalitions, because it is not so easy to get their individual way, they have to respect views that represent a greater portion of the electorate. In times of crisis such as war, we often have coalition governments, because in a crisis, the time for yah boo posturing is over and the people and establishment want a government that works for the common good. We are now in the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s, so yah boo is counterproductive.

I think it was the case that Labour and Peter Hain were worried that the small turnout at elections meant that Labour were not gaining a credible enough mandate. I think it was something like only about 25% of the population had voted for them. I think Hain even raised the idea of forcing people to vote at elections, so that non-voters would not adversely affect the mandate.

A coalition has a greater mandate from the electorate than a single party in many cases.