PM David Cameron

[D_Tim McGnaw]

The world does not have a single example of a perfect democracy - there are no true democracies. Rather it has flawed democracies. The UK system has its own specific flaws and its own specific strengths. It works so it is a functioning democracy.

I don't recall mentioning perfection, but I don't disagree with you that currently no perfect democracy exists. The definition of functional then becomes a measure of how imperfect a system is, the British system is so imperfect that it dramatically falls short of being functional.

 

[mitchymo]

Oh Superbot. Your truly unbelievable and seem to have a very narrow mind.
Winston Churchill being the greatest? Yes but for an obvious reason, the nation had a valid reason to feel togetherness despite of who the PM was at the time. War against them foreigners has a pulling together effect that transcends the actual performance of a prime minister, he only ever had to be capable of the job like say Tony Blair or John Major yet look at them now.
As for your anti-socialism, it shows you up. I recommend moving to a secluded little island somewhere in the pacific uninhabited and you can start your own community there. Population of 1, life expectancy of 6 months i imagine. You could name it Old Victoria as homage to a time where your outlook on life would best have suited.

 

[dandelion]

You forget that one reason Churchill was considered great was that he changed parties twice. How many of our current politicians are capable of that?

 

[mitchymo]

You forget that one reason Churchill was considered great was that he changed parties twice. How many of our current politicians are capable of that?

Mandelson is half way there....:smile:

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

in the interets of balnce perhaps I ought to point out that labour have their fair share of hereditary mps too who like to keep their seat in parliament in the family.

Well I don't disagree with that, but there's a fundamental difference between a family of people who have managed to get themselves elected on numerous occasions and a family which uses its landed wealth, social connections, privileged position in society and other non-democratic sources of influence to secure themselves in a ruling class. A member of this family or class of families who then uses this position to get themselves in to a position of power by election or other means cannot be said to be a legitimately democratic political leader.

 

[dandelion]

winston Churchill shamelessly used every political connection of his ex chancellor father and every titled relative to get into politics and zoom into the cabinet. Heck, he even got tips from his mothers lover a US congressman. Hasnt changed. Both sides.

But as I said, his greatness was his pragmatism and ability to change sides to best achieve his aims.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

A member of this family or class of families who then uses this position to get themselves in to a position of power by election or other means cannot be said to be a legitimately democratic political leader.

Hil, hil, hil ...
How can he be elected except on his own merits?
An aristocrat has as much right as a pleb to stand for election.
If he wins, that's democracy.
You have a certain point there, but it needs to me divided by ten.
*smoochie smoochie*

 

[dandelion]

Hil, hil, hil ...
How can he be elected except on his own merits?
An aristocrat has as much right as a pleb to stand for election.
If he wins, that's democracy.

Unfortunately no. To have any reasonable chance of becoming an MP in the Uk you have to stand as the official candidate of either the labour or conservative parties. If they place you in a safe seat, you will win. If they give you a bad seat, you might win. If they give you none, you will lose.

So its all down to what influenc you have with the party. Nothing to do with voters.

 

[Pretinho]

Re: Newly elected British PM David Cameron.
You need to get your facts stright. I can think of many U.S.Presidents who come into the same category. How about JFK for a starter.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Hil, hil, hil ...
How can he be elected except on his own merits?
An aristocrat has as much right as a pleb to stand for election.
If he wins, that's democracy.
You have a certain point there, but it needs to me divided by ten.
*smoochie smoochie*

Alright Hhuck :wink: But let me put it like this, Cameron went to the best schools in Britain because of his familial privilege and by that means and others made the best connections possible to put himself in a position of power within a party which is dominated by an Old Boys club of public school boys and gentry or aristocratic types. Add to this that the Tory campaign was financed extravagantly by a tax exile plutocrat (of admittedly middle class background) who was then made a Baron (?!) for his troubles and frankly the whole situation stinks of an alliance of the rich and the titled rich who by their wealth and influence were able to inveigle themselves in to power by using an electoral system which isn't even tremendously democratic and a massive public relations and advertising budget.

Edit; Oh and what Dandelion said too.


Smoochie smoochie right back atcha :redface:

 

[dandelion]

Though in Churchills case he did help himself by becoming a famous war correspondent and war hero against the Boers (well, he escaped from a prison camp, and as the son of a lord and cabinet minister, obviously everyone took special interest). Mind, took a lot of family influence to get permission for him to leave his army regiment and just wander about from war to war as he pleased becoming famous.

Eventually the professional soldiers got so sick of it they refused to let him go, so he asked the prime minister for permission. That didnt work either despite the pm saying yes, but luckily a general, er, another friend of his mothers, sneaked him in to the next one. Being a war hero did help in the elections. Although he relied totally on family connections, he was quite a rebel. Thats like labour throws out Blair, so he joins the conservatives and becomes PM again that way. Could do with a few more people like that using the system against itself. Any chance Cameron will?

 

[B_crackoff]

Just so everyone is reminded, we did have a sort of PR vote @ Euro 2009.

The Lib Dems came 4th! And were overrepresented in terms of seats.

Why they think they'd do better in a big ole free for all...

Interestingly, the so called Right polled 50%+.

Party %Seats
Conservatives - 27.7% 25 seats
UKIP - 16.5% 13 seats
Labour - 15.7% 13 seats
Lib Dems - 13.7% 11 seats
Greens - 8.6% 2 seats
BNP - 6.2% 2 seats
SNP - 2.1% 2 seats
PC - 0.8% 1 seat

It's amazing that the very people who'd campaign against the BNP, would also be the first to allow an electoral system that got them into Parliament - on the grounds of fairness.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Just so everyone is reminded, we did have a sort of PR vote @ Euro 2009.

The Lib Dems came 4th! And were overrepresented in terms of seats.

Why they think they'd do better in a big ole free for all...

Interestingly, the so called Right polled 50%+.

Party %Seats
Conservatives - 27.7% 25 seats
UKIP - 16.5% 13 seats
Labour - 15.7% 13 seats
Lib Dems - 13.7% 11 seats
Greens - 8.6% 2 seats
BNP - 6.2% 2 seats
SNP - 2.1% 2 seats
PC - 0.8% 1 seat

It's amazing that the very people who'd campaign against the BNP, would also be the first to allow an electoral system that got them into Parliament - on the grounds of fairness.

As much as I despise the BNP are you really saying that the electorate should be denied a better form of democracy because they can't be trusted to use it properly?

And to be clear, I'd be disappointed if this result had happened in an PR vote, but at least I could have consoled myself that it was actually a true and proportional reflection of the expressed will of the electorate. And the knowledge that the parliament consisted of a proper allotment of seats according to how the votes had been cast would make the whole thing more reasonable.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Unfortunately no. To have any reasonable chance of becoming an MP in the Uk you have to stand as the official candidate of either the labour or conservative parties. If they place you in a safe seat, you will win. If they give you a bad seat, you might win. If they give you none, you will lose.

So its all down to what influenc you have with the party. Nothing to do with voters.

Hmmm. Now, this rings a bell.
The party brass places candidates where they wish, without need for a nomination meeting. Have I got that right?
Unthinkable to a North American.
Hilaire was right.
Undemocratic and an extraordinary offense against all that might be good in human life.
Dang.
Blimey.
I eat my hat.

Alright Hhuck :wink: But let me put it like this, Cameron went to the best schools in Britain because of his familial privilege and by that means and others made the best connections possible to put himself in a position of power within a party which is dominated by an Old Boys club of public school boys and gentry or aristocratic types. Add to this that the Tory campaign was financed extravagantly by a tax exile plutocrat (of admittedly middle class background) who was then made a Baron (?!) for his troubles and frankly the whole situation stinks of an alliance of the rich and the titled rich who by their wealth and influence were able to inveigle themselves in to power by using an electoral system which isn't even tremendously democratic and a massive public relations and advertising budget.

Edit; Oh and what Dandelion said too.
Smoochie smoochie right back atcha :redface:

The Fartist Formerly Known As Rubi declares that democracy, now absent except in name, will one day come to the peoples of the British Isles.

 

[Drifterwood]

I have said before that ultimately I consider Gordon Brown a fundamentally decent man. However, he is also a complex and difficult man. His determination to bring about the change that his convitions dictated made him in some eyes a bully and control freak.

I also think of him as the tailor to Tony's new suit. The tailor who then had to wear the suit of his own making when it was exposed.

As Enoch Powell said, "all political careers end in failure".

 

[dandelion]

Just so everyone is reminded, we did have a sort of PR vote @ Euro 2009.

The Lib Dems came 4th! And were overrepresented in terms of seats.
Why they think they'd do better in a big ole free for all...

On that share of seats they would have got 103 at westminster this time round instead of the 57 they did get. On share of vote they would have had 89 seats. I expect they think they would do better because they would have done better.

You also know that Ukip did especially well, also the conservatives, because there was a mood to elect anti european parties.

Interestingly, the so called Right polled 50%+.

The real question is why is the right so afraid of pr when they would have won outright on this showing.

It's amazing that the very people who'd campaign against the BNP, would also be the first to allow an electoral system that got them into Parliament - on the grounds of fairness.

The electorate is just as content to act irresponsibly as are political parties in opposition when they have no power to do anything. Im pro europe but quite content that some ukip sceptics get into the european parliament. Very good thing they should be reminded that not everyone is happy. A couple of UKIP at westminster would be a very useful reminder to the others that they need to pay attention to the public. Id want them in for the good of the country.

 

[dandelion]

The party brass places candidates where they wish, without need for a nomination meeting. Have I got that right?
Unthinkable to a North American.

Not sure what you mean by a nomination meeting. There would be a meeting or meetings of the local branch of the party to decide who their candidate was. But the public has no input in this. I dont see much indication that anyone in the US can win office without endorsement of one or other party?

2/3 of the people running in the UK election just gone knew they would be MPs now the day they were confirmed as their party nomination. We live in an oligarchy, not a democracy.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

I dont see much indication that anyone in the US can win office without endorsement of one or other party?

Well, it can happen, but it's generally only on a local, or regional, and occasionally state basis. National elections require broader tents, which indies never have. See Ralph Nader and Ross Perot, who's only function was as a spoiler. Don't know that Clegg's function was so different in retrospect, save he got to choose whom he wanted to play let's make a deal with.

2/3 of the people running in the UK election just gone knew they would be MPs now the day they were confirmed as their party nomination. We live in an oligarchy, not a democracy.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Very sorry to hear this. I have soft spot for the UK, so to see it's system riddled with dysfunction and decrepitude is disturbing. All the more reason to implement some reforms, if only PR and SVT to begin with.

 

[superbot]

Oh Superbot. Your truly unbelievable and seem to have a very narrow mind.
Winston Churchill being the greatest? Yes but for an obvious reason, the nation had a valid reason to feel togetherness despite of who the PM was at the time. War against them foreigners has a pulling together effect that transcends the actual performance of a prime minister, he only ever had to be capable of the job like say Tony Blair or John Major yet look at them now.
As for your anti-socialism, it shows you up. I recommend moving to a secluded little island somewhere in the pacific uninhabited and you can start your own community there. Population of 1, life expectancy of 6 months i imagine. You could name it Old Victoria as homage to a time where your outlook on life would best have suited.

Your usual balls!... no doubt you're little island would be populated by would be full of 'diversity'... At least you got the anti socialist thing right.

 

[Bbucko]

We live in an oligarchy, not a democracy.

Thank you for confirming what I've long suspected.