Body & Soul0 min ago
I Know I'm Quite Thick And Certainly No Political Animal But . . .
. . . why are we seeing so much forging of alliances between the various parties? Why do we need Political parties anyway? We're told it's so they can force through unpopular policies. Partnering of parties plus the 'big stick' of the three-line whip suggests to me that this is no democracy, merely a way of pushing through policies that only a small number want.
In a REAL democracy the leader of the party with the most seats should form the government - it shouldn't matter that they could be out-voted, that only matters if their policy is either selfish or not in the general public's interest - if it's generally accepted it's the correct path it'll be voted on be passed. Possibly having 650 independent MPs may be going too far but I think it'd be better than what we have now.
In a REAL democracy the leader of the party with the most seats should form the government - it shouldn't matter that they could be out-voted, that only matters if their policy is either selfish or not in the general public's interest - if it's generally accepted it's the correct path it'll be voted on be passed. Possibly having 650 independent MPs may be going too far but I think it'd be better than what we have now.
Answers
Lew, the working people only have a vote, which political parties want, because they fought and suffered to obtain the vote. Property (which includes wealth ) = Power and those with Property want to keep it and usually grow it; they would rather only people with Property had a vote. Unfortunatel
23:57 Mon 23rd Mar 2015
Its just that I have never heard (or seen) it said. I think that the problem with your ideas is that different people believe that different things are right and in the general public's interest. Party politics arises when people with the same ideas group together and I could even see that happening in your "everyone an independent MP" model. Once you get groups of people, then you get negotiation and trading off and you are back to a similar model to what we have now.
This has only happened three times since the end of WWII. The first was March - October 1974. There was no alliance, just a minority Labour government. The Tory leader, Heath, chickened out of voting the government down in case he was punished at the polls for forcing another election so early. The second time was 1975-1979, when the Labour government with a tiny majority became a minority one through bye-election losses. This time they were shored up by the Liberals who were terrified at the prospect of an election as the party was in the throes of the Thorpe scandal. The last time was 2010, when a coalition government was formed.
I don't doubt everything I have heard for the first time, although I don't believe everything either. What does sound alarm bells for me are phrases like "We are told" "It's what said whenever this particular topic is raise."
By me it joins the list of "everybody thinks" "its usually/often said" "we all know"
By me it joins the list of "everybody thinks" "its usually/often said" "we all know"
>>>In a REAL democracy the leader of the party with the most seats should form the government
So we have 650 MPs in the UK.
So suppose one party got 110 seats, and another five different parties got 108 seats each.
How on earth would a party with only 110 seats get ANY thing through parliament when there were 5 other parties with 108 seats each.
We would have 4 years of "stalemate", nothing would get done.
So we have 650 MPs in the UK.
So suppose one party got 110 seats, and another five different parties got 108 seats each.
How on earth would a party with only 110 seats get ANY thing through parliament when there were 5 other parties with 108 seats each.
We would have 4 years of "stalemate", nothing would get done.
it's not generally a Yes/No thing, though. For instance, some people might say throw out all immigrants, some might say leave them but don't let any more in, some might say let them in but don't let them claim benefits or bring in family members, some might say welcome tham all. I think each of those views would find support in at least one pollitical party. And if none of them get more than a 50% vote, how do you decide which party takes power and what policy they should proceed with?
Multiply that by the dozens of policies each party offers (and the fact that voters who support a policy from one party may support another policy from a different party)... and you've got a country with 45 million voters and about as many views.
Multiply that by the dozens of policies each party offers (and the fact that voters who support a policy from one party may support another policy from a different party)... and you've got a country with 45 million voters and about as many views.
Early in the Labour minority government an issue was debated by parliament (can't remember which}which Wilson could easily have lost. Heath ordered his MPs to abstain, for the reason I have mentioned above. His excuse was that winning the vote was not important but winning the argument was. Ever since then I have had an intense dislike of that man, even though I voted for his party. How mealy-mouthed can you get?
I think you're just trying to claw back some credibility now. How many times must I answer your totally ridiculous question? No, I CAN'T remember where I was at the time, what day it was, what colour socks I was wearing or what I'd just eaten. What I CAN remember is that I heard and saw it and as it was memorable I remembered it. I can't put it any simpler.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.