I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,345

Quote: Hannah G @ October 18 2013, 7:50 PM BST

But instead of someone making decisions with or without our approval, wouldn't it be better if their job was to recognise when we need a new policy or to do something and then persuade the public that we need to do it, telling us why? Also I really do think there would be a heck of a lot more interest in politics if everyone was that closely involved with it.

View original

Any attempt to micromanage governmental functions will lead to minority single interest groups taking over. In the US the NRA have created their loony gun laws by simply backing anyone, who ever that backs their stance.

You elect a government and then stand back and watch them do their job for 4 years, the alternative is dead lock or a government of multiple micro interests.

If you're interested in politics get involved, write petitions, join a party, write letters, protest believe in your voice and it will be heard.

From universal sufferage, to the NHS and grean energy, it all happened because of people making their voices heard and getting involved.

Don't look for some pseudo civil servant to hand you a bunch of meaningless choices to select on an app.

Quote: sootyj @ October 19 2013, 12:10 AM BST

Any attempt to micromanage governmental functions will lead to minority single interest groups taking over. In the US the NRA have created their loony gun laws by simply backing anyone, who ever that backs their stance.

You elect a government and then stand back and watch them do their job for 4 years, the alternative is dead lock or a government of multiple micro interests.

If you're interested in politics get involved, write petitions, join a party, write letters, protest believe in your voice and it will be heard.

From universal sufferage, to the NHS and grean energy, it all happened because of people making their voices heard and getting involved.

Don't look for some pseudo civil servant to hand you a bunch of meaningless choices to select on an app.

View original

I don't usually bother with politics Sootyj because there isn't a single party who I would vote for or who I trust. There are lots of things that bother me obviously, like unequal pay for example, which I think is massively unfair and doesn't even make any sense, but there is progress being made in things I have issues with thanks to people lobbying and pushing like you say, and I have given my support before though only online, so it's not that much but at least it was one extra voice for them.

I think with parties it's about hard work and bitter, compromise.

Take for example Blairite Labour, lots of awful decisions from PFI to needless wars.

But for those in at the beginning there was also big wins like much better benefits and the minimun wage.

And sometimes if you're voting for some more radical politicians, it's not the party but rather they're ability to affect it.

Excessive cynicisim over politics is the greatest folly of people under 30. Pensioners get none means tested benefits and state pensions that take up half the welfare pot, because they vote.
Because they vote, they get listened to.

Young people get massive tuition fees and slashed benefits.

If cats voted they'd be getting free cream.

They make you cynical though. Especially after all the corruption that keeps coming up. I work in a hospital and an old man on a ward told me he can't remember the country being this bad since after the war, so it's not just young people who are cynical. And you wouldn't believe the things that are happening inside the NHS to save money. It is getting ridiculous and I'm so worried we will end up losing it.

Every generation says the last was better

Nothing wring with being cynical

Just hold your nose when you vote

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/energy-bills-no10-wear-jumper-142810640.html

It's good that our leaders are so in touch with the concerns of the nation.

Quote: Horseradish @ October 18 2013, 1:31 PM BST

I genuinely feel that this doesn't happen, sadly, for many reasons, ie Governments are elected on low percentages of votes,

....

So I think the long-term solution has to be the abolition of Parliament and decisions taken by the public on individual policies via computers or in a weekly TV phone vote. The latter could take place before the Lottery show.

View original

That's a terrible idea and your first paragraph tells you why.

The apathy would also occur in the weekly voting so you would get wild swings & wild policies created by small numbers of people.

~~~~~~

Possibly the legendary old Celtish king method of Govt is best.

Kings are selected by random choice, the king has absolute power except that he reigns only for a fixed time (5 years? ) at the end of his term he is ceremonially killed. If he has been a good king he get a quick painless death, if he has been a bad king (determined by vote of the population ? ) he gets a slow painful lingering death.

Quote: Horseradish @ October 18 2013, 7:13 PM BST

Agreed but technology has moved on. Here's the challenge. To get 650 candidates to stand at the 2015 general election under the banner "IT Democracy". IT Democracy has only one policy. To immediately abolish Parliament and replace it with policy agreed weekly on the basis of IT voting by the general public. More frequent voting if quick decisions are required. Campaign to focus on the old fashioned and out of touch system. Do we really still do things in that way? I can't see why it isn't underway. It's only a matter of time!

View original

Really terrible idea.

Quote: billwill @ October 19 2013, 10:37 AM BST

That's a terrible idea and your first paragraph tells you why.

The apathy would also occur in the weekly voting so you would get wild swings & wild policies created by small numbers of people.

~~~~~~

Possibly the legendary old Celtish king method of Govt is best.

Kings are selected by random choice, the king has absolute power except that he reigns only for a fixed time (5 years? ) at the end of his term he is ceremonially killed. If he has been a good king he get a quick painless death, if he has been a bad king (determined by vote of the population ? ) he gets a slow painful lingering death.

Really terrible idea.

View original

But, Bill, you wouldn't be against 650 IT Democracy candidates standing in 2015 so that we could determine just how few would support it?

Quote: chipolata @ October 19 2013, 10:27 AM BST

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/energy-bills-no10-wear-jumper-142810640.html

It's good that our leaders are so in touch with the concerns of the nation.

View original

It's all part of their belief that anyone who isn't a millionaire must be poor because they are lazy and a bit dim.

Quote: billwill @ October 19 2013, 10:37 AM BST

Kings are selected by random choice, the king has absolute power except that he reigns only for a fixed time (5 years? ) at the end of his term he is ceremonially killed. If he has been a good king he get a quick painless death, if he has been a bad king (determined by vote of the population ? ) he gets a slow painful lingering death.

View original

They sort of get the slow lingering death business anyway, at least in terms of reputation. All political careers end in failure and all that.

Quote: Horseradish @ October 19 2013, 10:39 AM BST

But, Bill, you wouldn't be against 650 IT Democracy candidates standing in 2015 so that we could determine just how few would support it?

View original

Nah, pointless.

Vote for the Celtic King party..... Chip for King for 5 years.

Quote: billwill @ October 19 2013, 10:53 AM BST

Nah, pointless.

Vote for the Celtic King party..... Chip for King for 5 years.

View original

I have a choice here.

1. I could put forward detailed arguments against the Celtic King concept.

2. Decide not to be sidetracked.

........and magically the X has just gone into box 2 all of its own accord.

Just to add that I am not against a functioning Parliamentary democracy. However, the established system is being attacked daily from inside by those who have been elected and yet choose to believe they are above any requirement to represent us. That has damaged its functionality.

The general view is that nothing can be done about it. I am showing that it can - and very easily. The very idea that candidates could be fielded as I suggest, and an expectation that this would be done, should be sufficient to lawfully bring MPs very quickly into line with the British system.

A system that is based on long established principle rather than the arrogant self-interest and petulance of a few hundred unimpressive and actually destructive individuals. They, in the overall scheme of things, are merely passing through and, as such, should be granted minimal significance.

Quote: Horseradish @ October 19 2013, 10:58 AM BST

I have a choice here.

1. I could put forward detailed arguments against the Celtic King concept.

2. Decide not to be sidetracked.

........and magically the X has just gone into box 2 all of its own accord.

Just to add that I am not against a functioning Parliamentary democracy. However, the established system is being attacked daily from inside by those who have been elected and yet choose to believe they are above any requirement to represent us. That has damaged its functionality.

The general view is that nothing can be done about it. I am showing that it can - and very easily. The very idea that candidates could be fielded as I suggest, and an expectation that this would be done, should be sufficient to lawfully bring MPs very quickly into line with the British system.

A system that is based on long established principle rather than the arrogant self-interest and petulance of a few hundred unimpressive and actually destructive individuals. They, in the overall scheme of things, are merely passing through and, as such, should be granted minimal significance.

View original

But what makes you think that you would get a sensible selection of voters for on-line voting.

You would need to define a basic quorum, which would have to be quite high to avoid the nutcases bringing in all sorts of strange laws and all too often important decisions would simply fail to be made at all because there was not a quorum of voters.

Any urgent decisions would be virtually impossible to be made.

For example how would your system handle the situation if Argentina again invaded the Falklands.

On-line voting also discriminates massively against those not online. The old, the poor etc.

Quote: billwill @ October 19 2013, 10:53 AM BST

Chip for King for 5 years.

View original

I've been a member of the BCG for 7 years - 8, soon. Isn't that punishment enough?

Quote: billwill @ October 19 2013, 10:23 PM BST

But what makes you think that you would get a sensible selection of voters for on-line voting.

You would need to define a basic quorum, which would have to be quite high to avoid the nutcases bringing in all sorts of strange laws and all too often important decisions would simply fail to be made at all because there was not a quorum of voters.

Any urgent decisions would be virtually impossible to be made.

For example how would your system handle the situation if Argentina again invaded the Falklands.

View original

Manifestos don't go into detail about process. They just say what a party wants to do. The IT Democracy manifesto will be similar. And being only a page long, it will be read unlike the usual lengthy booklets.

It won't claim that IT Government will be easy. But people have had to get used to the idea that nothing ever is in politics. What it guarantees is public management of the UK directly with no need for middle men.

Being a new form of politics, it wouldn't be right to dictate how the new system should operate. Rather, options on the practicalities will be put to an early vote along with brief summaries of any implications.

Results will be computed within hours. Then it will be all systems go. Think Fantasy Football, X Factor and Strictly. Only in this case you will decide how much money is in your pocket and who wins in terms of bills.

What is sensible on policy is always down to personal viewpoint. All the public will have an equal right to decide on issues. It will be up to members of the public to decide when or whether they exercise that right.

Any fears about special interest groups being more active can be countered by greater participation. Cranky decisions aren't likely to prevail if they're economically detrimental. Naturally, more people will participate.

On any Falklands War, the system is likely to provide a far quicker decision than would be possible currently. There would be no need to recall Parliament in a fortnight's time on that matter or indeed anything else.