|
|
 | | From: | Old Codger | | Subject: | Re: Hunting is banned! | | Date: | Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:00:49 -0000 |
|
|
 | Rooney wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:40:11 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
> wrote:
>
>> In article <41a52244$0$43606$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>,
>> Old Codger wrote:
>>> Rooney wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:09:15 +0000, Oz
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rooney writes
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:25:08 +0000, Oz
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One function of a working democracy is to allow freedom for
>>>>>>> minorities within it, where what they do does not affect others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's nothing to do with the definition of democracy. It's just
>>>>>> majority rule - no more, no less.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't say definition, I said 'one function of a working'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The function of a working democracy is to enact majority rule - no
>>>> more, no less.
>>
>>> So we haven't got a working democracy. Young Tone did not get a
>>> majority vote, just a majority of the parliamentary seats.
>>
>> I think you're (deliberately?) misunderstanding the meaning of
>> 'majority vote'. The last time the majority vote didn't produce the
>> next government was in 1951.
>
>
> I think Old Codger means that there was no referendum.
No, I meant that the majority of the votes in the last election were cast
for MPs who were not* members of the Labour party.
> That's by the
> by. There was an enormous majority in the commons - and that's the
> system we've got. Some people are happy enough to praise our system
> until they get a result they don't like.
No, I was pointing out that by *your* definition of a democracy ("The
function of a working democracy is to enact majority rule") we do not have a
democracy (the majority of those who voted did *not* vote for a member of
the incoming government).
For as long as the second chamber is independent of any political party (the
members are not dependent on a party to *retain* their seats) I am quite
happy with our electoral system. It enables firm government. I am not
always happy with what the government (any party) does but that will be the
case whatever electoral system we have.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
|
|
| | From: | Rooney | | Subject: | Re: Hunting is banned! | | Date: | Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:23:51 +0000 |
|
|
| On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:00:49 -0000, "Old Codger"
wrote:
>No, I meant that the majority of the votes in the last election were cast
>for MPs who were not* members of the Labour party.
I see.
>
>> That's by the
>> by. There was an enormous majority in the commons - and that's the
>> system we've got. Some people are happy enough to praise our system
>> until they get a result they don't like.
>
>No, I was pointing out that by *your* definition of a democracy ("The
>function of a working democracy is to enact majority rule") we do not have a
>democracy (the majority of those who voted did *not* vote for a member of
>the incoming government).
You're right - we have 'class B democracy' - but it's better than
most. In our case, it's working when it enacts what the majority of
MPs decide.
>
>For as long as the second chamber is independent of any political party (the
>members are not dependent on a party to *retain* their seats) I am quite
>happy with our electoral system. It enables firm government. I am not
>always happy with what the government (any party) does but that will be the
>case whatever electoral system we have.
I don't see much point in a second chamber, whether elected or not.
--
R
o
o
n
e
y
|
|
| | From: | Old Codger | | Subject: | Re: Hunting is banned! | | Date: | Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:20:32 -0000 |
|
|
| Rooney wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:00:49 -0000, "Old Codger"
> wrote:
>
>> No, I was pointing out that by *your* definition of a democracy ("The
>> function of a working democracy is to enact majority rule") we do
>> not have a democracy (the majority of those who voted did *not* vote
>> for a member of the incoming government).
>
> You're right - we have 'class B democracy' - but it's better than
> most. In our case, it's working when it enacts what the majority of
> MPs decide.
Dangerous
>> For as long as the second chamber is independent of any political
>> party (the members are not dependent on a party to *retain* their
>> seats) I am quite happy with our electoral system. It enables firm
>> government. I am not always happy with what the government (any
>> party) does but that will be the case whatever electoral system we
>> have.
>
> I don't see much point in a second chamber, whether elected or not.
So you are very happy for Blair, or Thatcher in her time, to force through
everything he wants using the governments majority. That is just about
absolute power. We have seen that power corrupts, I do not want to see
absolute power corrupting absolutely.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
|
|
| | From: | Rooney | | Subject: | Re: Hunting is banned! | | Date: | Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:38:46 +0000 |
|
|
| On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:20:32 -0000, "Old Codger"
wrote:
>So you are very happy for Blair, or Thatcher in her time, to force through
>everything he wants using the governments majority.
Well, they are/were elected.
But in any case, the hunting thing demonstrates clearly that the
government can't *force* anything through against the wishes of the
majority of MPs.
--
R
o
o
n
e
y
|
|
| | From: | BAC | | Subject: | Re: Hunting is banned! | | Date: | Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:06:54 -0000 |
|
|
|
"Rooney" wrote in message
news:8bphq09ucv5mnhpq5ib2go4l6maunni1n8@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:20:32 -0000, "Old Codger"
> wrote:
>
>
> >So you are very happy for Blair, or Thatcher in her time, to force
through
> >everything he wants using the governments majority.
>
> Well, they are/were elected.
> But in any case, the hunting thing demonstrates clearly that the
> government can't *force* anything through against the wishes of the
> majority of MPs.
>
If the Government had put a three line whip on its compromise Bill, do you
think sufficient of its MPs would have rebelled to defeat it?
|
|
| | From: | Rooney | | Subject: | Re: Hunting is banned! | | Date: | Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:20:44 +0000 |
|
|
| On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:06:54 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:
>
>"Rooney" wrote in message
>news:8bphq09ucv5mnhpq5ib2go4l6maunni1n8@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:20:32 -0000, "Old Codger"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >So you are very happy for Blair, or Thatcher in her time, to force
>through
>> >everything he wants using the governments majority.
>>
>> Well, they are/were elected.
>> But in any case, the hunting thing demonstrates clearly that the
>> government can't *force* anything through against the wishes of the
>> majority of MPs.
>>
>
>If the Government had put a three line whip on its compromise Bill, do you
>think sufficient of its MPs would have rebelled to defeat it?
>
We'll never know. I suspect that the government wouldn't use a three
line whip if it knew it would get defeated.
--
R
o
o
n
e
y
|
|
| | From: | BAC | | Subject: | Re: Hunting is banned! | | Date: | Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:14:54 -0000 |
|
|
|
"Rooney" wrote in message
news:4jgjq0duiklafkb9had586g21h184e9tbe@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:06:54 -0000, "BAC"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rooney" wrote in message
> >news:8bphq09ucv5mnhpq5ib2go4l6maunni1n8@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:20:32 -0000, "Old Codger"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >So you are very happy for Blair, or Thatcher in her time, to force
> >through
> >> >everything he wants using the governments majority.
> >>
> >> Well, they are/were elected.
> >> But in any case, the hunting thing demonstrates clearly that the
> >> government can't *force* anything through against the wishes of the
> >> majority of MPs.
> >>
> >
> >If the Government had put a three line whip on its compromise Bill, do
you
> >think sufficient of its MPs would have rebelled to defeat it?
> >
>
> We'll never know. I suspect that the government wouldn't use a three
> line whip if it knew it would get defeated.
>
In which case, passage of the Bill would be unlikely to have been
facilitated.
|
|
|
