It’s time to stop kidding ourselves: we don’t live in a democracy

[srb7677]

We also have an unelected hereditary head of state for life, whose opinions none of us are allowed to know, yet to whom  our politicians have to swear allegiance and our leaders report.

This is the only part of your post i have serious problems with.

The monarchy remains so inexplicably (to me) popular at the moment that this is the part I knew many people might take issue with.

I sure as hell like it a whole lot better than our armed forces being sworn to follow President Blair.

That would indeed be a nightmare. Blair himself of course would have no chance of ever being elected because he has managed to become hated by both the left as well as the right, but I take your point. There are plenty of other unsuitables out there.

We would need systems in place to make sure that with any elected head of state we don't end up with just another career politician in the Blair mould. Perhaps barring anyone who has ever sat in the Commons or the Lords?

[johnofgwent]

We also have an unelected hereditary head of state for life, whose opinions none of us are allowed to know, yet to whom  our politicians have to swear allegiance and our leaders report.

This is the only part of your post i have serious problems with.

We tried republicanism when we cut charles the first's head off.

After a few years the people who bought into that realised JUST how much of a disaster it was. Admittedly the man who kicked it off decided to die and leave an ineffective heir to the presidency (sorry protectorate) and that allowed the royalists to chuck him out and restore thelong parliament, but hey ho.

The facts of Charles the second's constitutional monarchy mean that if anyone had a better idea of how to go about sending people to parliament to govern and those already there and their vested inrterests kick off violently, the army is required to shoot those violently refusing to alter the status quo

I like that.

I sure as hell like it a whole lot better than our armed forces being sworn to follow President Blair.

[srb7677]

We live in a phony, fake democracy, where our so called Freely elected leaders are no more than the fully bought and paid for shills of special interests, left right and center.

To understand how and why, you simply need to look at the candidate selection process for all the major parties, to see just who gets the safe seats and a guaranteed easy ride all the way to the top.

There is sadly a lot of truth in that. Politics in this country is far more corrupt than most people realise.

[Sampanviking]

We live in a phony, fake democracy, where our so called Freely elected leaders are no more than the fully bought and paid for shills of special interests, left right and center.

To understand how and why, you simply need to look at the candidate selection process for all the major parties, to see just who gets the safe seats and a guaranteed easy ride all the way to the top.

[srb7677]

We only live in a semi-democracy. Our primary legislative chamber is elected by a wholly disproportionate system which freezes out smaller parties and often gives large majorities to single parties supported by only a minority of the electorate. It pretty much guarantees that in most seats voting is a waste of time, whilst limiting effective choices. And it ensures that most votes never count. It also discourages voters from voting for whom they actually support in order to vote tactically instead just to have the slightest chance of actually making their vote count. Most votes end up being wasted votes.

Our second chamber is almost entirely a chamber of cronies appointed for life, whom none of us vote for and none of us can vote out. Apart of course from many dozen hereditaries who actually inherit their "right" to legislate over the rest of us.

We also have an unelected hereditary head of state for life, whose opinions none of us are allowed to know, yet to whom  our politicians have to swear allegiance and our leaders report.

How can we credibly claim in the world to be a champion of democracy when our own is so flawed and undemocratic?

[Good old]

The socialists really do have the hump at the moment . Democracy never works for them when the lose .

It does work for them because our  use of democracy allows for the debate to continue. The winner of an election isn't able to avoid scrutiny , dissent ,and opposition. And the Tories, use that system just as well as Labour.

[patman post]

I have fought for what I believe in over many years by changing the opinions of the democratic vote .  The socialists however want force change without public consent .

The Conservatives used to believe that a democratic society is organic to be nurtured and grown, while Labour seemed to think it was more like a machine that could be dissembled and rebuilt as required.
The Liberals since 1950, mostly contented themselves with being has-beens and irrelevant.
And that's without dredging the depths of Trade Unionism.
Now everything's been thrown up in the air because not enough people in the established parties understand what's motivating most of modern society. Some political establishment figures climb on bandwagons, but are rarely brave enough to be in at the beginning. The results of many actions are not thought through,  thus causing u-turns and cancellations and an increasing impression of floundering.
The fact that mass public demonstrations and entertainment and sporting celebrities are highlighting glaring problems that woke politicians should already be addressing might be, could be, should be, the start of a more relevant inclusive democracy that's in tune with today's UK, and not one with political leaders aping heroes and others still hankering after Empire...

[Streetwalker]

Democracy never works for anyone when they lose, every group goes nuts and fights it with everything they can.

That's the nature of the beast. You're telling me you wouldn't try to do what they did if it was the other way round? I find that in-credible, sorry.
[/quote]

I have fought for what I believe in over many years by changing the opinions of the democratic vote .  The socialists however want force change without public consent . 

[Borg Refinery]

The socialists really do have the hump at the moment . Democracy never works for them when the lose .

Democracy never works for anyone when they lose, every group goes nuts and fights it with everything they can.

That's the nature of the beast. You're telling me you wouldn't try to do what they did if it was the other way round? I find that in-credible, sorry.

[Streetwalker]

Oligarchy comes from the Greek 'oligarkhia,' meaning 'rule by the few'. It describes a nation in which power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite, elected or otherwise. Never has it been clearer than in recent weeks that this definition is a far better fit for Britain.

In Britain, a broken party funding system forces political parties to rely on big donations from corporate sponsors. Corporations hold undue sway over policy. Consequently, decisions are almost exclusively made in the interest of these big businesses.

We don't need to delve too far back into the news to find a prime example of this. In recent days, it has emerged that the housing minister, Robert Jenrick, overturned rejections by the local council and independent inspectors to grant property developer Richard Desmond permission to build 1,500 homes on east London's Isle of Dogs.

The decision came just a day before changes to the planning system which would have cost the developer's company Northern & Shell an extra £30-£50m. Two weeks later, Desmond donated £12,000 to the Tory party. Tory ministers have insisted that there has been no wrongdoing. [Ed: There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Mr Desmond]. But Labour have rightly said the affair raised "grave concerns about cash for favours".

We can find countless examples in the murky world of party funding: lucrative NHS contracts being given to party donors, or more recently, contracts to make ventilators being given to some of the Tory party's biggest backers. In Britain, the small fee of £50,000 will buy a CEO a nice, cosy dinner with the leader of the Conservative party.

The High Court has ruled that Jenrick's conduct was 'unlawful by reason of apparent bias,' but what change is likely to come of this ruling?
..
Time and again, ministers line the pockets of multi-millionaire supporters, and they get away with it. Britain's justice system is often held up as our saving grace, the one thing propping our broken democracy up. But what if politicians found a way to circumvent judges here in order to help them better serve the interests of big corporations?

After reading leaked documents giving details of the UK's planned post-Brexit trade deal with the US, it looks like this prospect isn't too far off.

The Trade Bill, which has now reached the committee stage in the House of Commons, makes no provision for parliamentary scrutiny of any post-Brexit deals. Parliament has no legal right under this bill to debate or vote on a trade deal, or even to know what it contains.

The bill also grants the government Henry VIII powers to change the law on trade agreements without full parliamentary approval. As George Monbiot writes in a recent Guardian column: "This is not democracy. This is elective dictatorship."

Even more worrying than these already terrifying details, however, is the fact that the US is all but certain to insist the deal is enforced by an offshore tribunal, which allows corporations to sue governments if domestic law affects their 'future anticipated profits'. Monbiot adds: "This mechanism has been used all over the world to punish nations for laws their parliaments have passed." In turn, that will warp our legislation in favour of corporate power.

If, and it seems more like when, such a demand is included in the deal, it would make oblige politicians to defend corporations against policies that impact on their 'future anticipated profits'.

Yes, in Britain, we can vote. But as we've seen yet again with the Robert Jenrick scandal, our ability to hold politicians and big businesses to account is already shaky.

The US-UK trade deal risks seeing our fragments of democracy crumble away entirely.

https://leftfootforward.org/2020/06/its-time-to-stop-kidding-ourselves-we-dont-live-in-a-democracy/

The flurry of anti-democratic trash this govt are trying to force through with zero or barely any scrutiny, is frankly scary.

They think they can endlessly flout the rules like Dom did with zero consequence; there no action without consequence. It may not be apparent immediately, but they will reap what they sow eventually.

The socialists really do have the hump at the moment . Democracy never works for them when the lose .

[Good old]

It can never be a democracy unless Leveson 2 is fully implemented.

And the electoral reform commission's proposals and so on and so forth...

That is highly unlikely to happen..... this stuff takes feckin centuries...........

This new troll bot thing is slightly irritating, can someone find the remote for it please.

Would you like to elaborate on the troll thing thats causing the irritation.?

[Borg Refinery]

It can never be a democracy unless Leveson 2 is fully implemented.

And the electoral reform commission's proposals and so on and so forth...

That is highly unlikely to happen..... this stuff takes feckin centuries...........

This new troll bot thing is slightly irritating, can someone find the remote for it please.

[Good old]

Our democracy has always been in question. There is no question about the vote that puts people in the seats of power, but there is a huge question  as to the people that have the  power behind those voted for.
As of yet every form of government known to us comes up against this group, whether supported by them or not. In recent times opposition to the Tory party has been obliterated , and now that's achieved , the Tory party itself is being reorganized. Parliament has been weakened in the brexit battle , and the new government  will try anything on, to satisfy the power behind them.

[papasmurf]

It can never be a democracy unless Leveson 2 is fully implemented.

[Borg Refinery]

Oligarchy comes from the Greek 'oligarkhia,' meaning 'rule by the few'. It describes a nation in which power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite, elected or otherwise. Never has it been clearer than in recent weeks that this definition is a far better fit for Britain.

In Britain, a broken party funding system forces political parties to rely on big donations from corporate sponsors. Corporations hold undue sway over policy. Consequently, decisions are almost exclusively made in the interest of these big businesses.

We don't need to delve too far back into the news to find a prime example of this. In recent days, it has emerged that the housing minister, Robert Jenrick, overturned rejections by the local council and independent inspectors to grant property developer Richard Desmond permission to build 1,500 homes on east London's Isle of Dogs.

The decision came just a day before changes to the planning system which would have cost the developer's company Northern & Shell an extra £30-£50m. Two weeks later, Desmond donated £12,000 to the Tory party. Tory ministers have insisted that there has been no wrongdoing. [Ed: There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Mr Desmond]. But Labour have rightly said the affair raised "grave concerns about cash for favours".

We can find countless examples in the murky world of party funding: lucrative NHS contracts being given to party donors, or more recently, contracts to make ventilators being given to some of the Tory party's biggest backers. In Britain, the small fee of £50,000 will buy a CEO a nice, cosy dinner with the leader of the Conservative party.

The High Court has ruled that Jenrick's conduct was 'unlawful by reason of apparent bias,' but what change is likely to come of this ruling?
..
Time and again, ministers line the pockets of multi-millionaire supporters, and they get away with it. Britain's justice system is often held up as our saving grace, the one thing propping our broken democracy up. But what if politicians found a way to circumvent judges here in order to help them better serve the interests of big corporations?

After reading leaked documents giving details of the UK's planned post-Brexit trade deal with the US, it looks like this prospect isn't too far off.

The Trade Bill, which has now reached the committee stage in the House of Commons, makes no provision for parliamentary scrutiny of any post-Brexit deals. Parliament has no legal right under this bill to debate or vote on a trade deal, or even to know what it contains.

The bill also grants the government Henry VIII powers to change the law on trade agreements without full parliamentary approval. As George Monbiot writes in a recent Guardian column: "This is not democracy. This is elective dictatorship."

Even more worrying than these already terrifying details, however, is the fact that the US is all but certain to insist the deal is enforced by an offshore tribunal, which allows corporations to sue governments if domestic law affects their 'future anticipated profits'. Monbiot adds: "This mechanism has been used all over the world to punish nations for laws their parliaments have passed." In turn, that will warp our legislation in favour of corporate power.

If, and it seems more like when, such a demand is included in the deal, it would make oblige politicians to defend corporations against policies that impact on their 'future anticipated profits'.

Yes, in Britain, we can vote. But as we've seen yet again with the Robert Jenrick scandal, our ability to hold politicians and big businesses to account is already shaky.

The US-UK trade deal risks seeing our fragments of democracy crumble away entirely.

https://leftfootforward.org/2020/06/its-time-to-stop-kidding-ourselves-we-dont-live-in-a-democracy/

The flurry of anti-democratic trash this govt are trying to force through with zero or barely any scrutiny, is frankly scary.

They think they can endlessly flout the rules like Dom did with zero consequence; there no action without consequence. It may not be apparent immediately, but they will reap what they sow eventually.