Dav Posted December 5, 2005 Report Posted December 5, 2005 http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/328226.html Quite interesting, i had the pleasure of attending this debate as the debating sociaty at my university (of which i am a member) organised it . I think its an interesting subject and can be applied to many nations. Personally i am very much of the opinion that democroacy is on its back in the UK, sepically when considering the house of lords power when it is NOT democratically elected. Add to this government action without referendum on issues with high public interest and acting agains public interest e.g iraq. In addition elections do not use proportinal representation nor may you abstain. what are your opinions on this with the UK and other nations?
Aileron Posted December 5, 2005 Report Posted December 5, 2005 I think that the UK is democratic enough, and that every flaw in it is overpreportionalized. Remember how the "winner" was chosen in this poll. They polled the audience, which I would assume was a group of college students. A group with those demographics is almost certain to vote that "democracy is on its back" no matter what happened in the debate.
Spyed Posted December 14, 2005 Report Posted December 14, 2005 You wouldn't get this at Oxford or Cambridge.
Paine Posted December 14, 2005 Report Posted December 14, 2005 house of lords power when it is NOT democratically elected. House of lord's power is very limited, actually. Using the "Parliament acts" 1911 and 49 (have to check the years, this is off the top of my head) the House of Commons has the ability to completely byp!@#$%^&* the house of Lords and send it straight up to Royal !@#$%^&*ent in which it would become law. The Queen who signs the act has no power either and she has no choice but to sign the acts, in fact the last time a monarch tried to reject one of these acts was in the 1700s with the Scottish Militia Bill.
Dav Posted December 15, 2005 Author Report Posted December 15, 2005 this is true however the loirds can seriously delay a process and thus still have an influence. I personally like the idea of the lords reviewing a bill to ensure it is a good idea but they need to be democratically elected to better preform in the interests of the british public. as for the over proportionalised argument, that was a key argument put foward and that proportional representation would be a better way to put foward the views of the people. In the UK 30%ish of the vote gave 60% of the seats. Big parties gain and smaller parties lose out with the lib dems getting less influence in the commons then the votes they recieved. Very small parties like the green party dont even have a seat yet people did vote for them, its like a waste of votes and the voice of those that voted for them is wasted as it gets no further then the general election.
SeVeR Posted December 16, 2005 Report Posted December 16, 2005 There should be more of a proportional representation but then the Tories might win!
Recommended Posts