Democracy

[reohn2]

Interesting quotes from the latest book I'm reading called 'Rich Media Poor Democracy'

"Neoliberalism is a political theory, it posits that society works best when business runs things and there is as little possibility of government interference with business as possible. In short Neoliberal democracy is one where the political sector controls little and debates even less. In such a world political apathy and indifference are a quite rational choice for the bulk of the citizenry, especially for those who reside below the upper and middle classes"

and another:

"Very few people would argue that the US is remotely close to a democratic society (one in which the 'many' should and do make the core political decisions). Many key decisions are the province of the corporate sector and most decisions made by the government are influenced by powerful special interests with little public awareness or input.

I would add that the 'many' should be considered a minimum majority of 80% NOT 52%. I'm sure that obtaining an 80% majority on anything would freeze our parliament for many months until they realised that nothing will ever get done until a 'democratic' consensus i.e a VERY broad middle ground acceptable to most of the population is tabled.

I can't argue with any of that other than 80% is practically unachievable,personally I'd settle for a 66% majority,simple majorities leave no one happy and as we've seen leave the country split down the middle.

Or am suggesting a PR driven utopia that we'll never achieve?

Turkeys*,Christmas,etc......

*Those turkeys include big business interests.

[Ben@Forest]

I can't argue with any of that other than 80% is practically unachievable, personally I'd settle for a 66% majority,simple majorities leave no one happy and as we've seen leave the country split down the middle.

Well Nicola Sturgeon wouldn't be too happy, she's hoping for a pretty slim majority to get her political ambitions through.

On an 85% turnout (as in the 2014 referendum) to achieve just 60% of the votes she'd need more than 1 million extra votes than Alec Salmond got. In a country with about 4 million voters.

She would split the country down the middle though (horizontally-ish).

[reohn2]

I can't argue with any of that other than 80% is practically unachievable, personally I'd settle for a 66% majority,simple majorities leave no one happy and as we've seen leave the country split down the middle.

Well Nicola Sturgeon wouldn't be too happy, she's hoping for a pretty slim majority to get her political ambitions through.

On an 85% turnout (as in the 2014 referendum) to achieve just 60% of the votes she'd need more than 1 million extra votes than Alec Salmond got. In a country with about 4 million voters.

She would split the country down the middle though (horizontally-ish).

You are right and I can only agree.
I think we all know democracy in the UK FPTP system is broken

[mercalia]

The epitome of Democracy in action?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51605942

and the lies the establishemnt use to interpret it?


Iran has seen the lowest turnout in a parliamentary election since the 1979 revolution, with 42.6% of eligible voters casting their ballots.

Officials had banned thousands of contenders, many of them reformers.

Hardliners are set for big gains in the first vote since US sanctions resumed.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described Friday's turnout as stunning, as he said Iran's enemies had tried to put people off voting by exaggerating the coronavirus outbreak.

I cant help but think Trump's attitude to Iran is the right one. Bring down the regime, the previous deal to limit nuclear weapons is just sticking plaster.

[carpetcleaner]

The epitome of Democracy in action?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51605942

and the lies the establishemnt use to interpret it?


Iran has seen the lowest turnout in a parliamentary election since the 1979 revolution, with 42.6% of eligible voters casting their ballots.

Officials had banned thousands of contenders, many of them reformers.

Hardliners are set for big gains in the first vote since US sanctions resumed.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described Friday's turnout as stunning, as he said Iran's enemies had tried to put people off voting by exaggerating the coronavirus outbreak.

I cant help but think Trump's attitude to Iran is the right one. Bring down the regime, the previous deal to limit nuclear weapons is just sticking plaster.

Iran can't be that bad.

If it was then we'd have lots of left wing people demanding that we boycott it. Roger Waters would have something to say too. He's not a man to stay silent if he thinks anyone's human rights are being infringed.

[Mike Sales]

Iran can't be that bad.

If it was then we'd have lots of left wing people demanding that we boycott it. Roger Waters would have something to say too. He's not a man to stay silent if he thinks anyone's human rights are being infringed.

Do we sell arms to Iran?
Do we buy oil from them?
Do we welcome visits from the Ayatollah as we welcome Mohammed Bin Salman to the UK?

The answers are no, of course. We ban military exports to Iran, and we do boycott the country. So nobody needs to demand we do so!

[Stradageek]

I cant help but think Trump's attitude to Iran is the right one. Bring down the regime, the previous deal to limit nuclear weapons is just sticking plaster.

My problem is trying to work out what right we have to interfere. Does making a country a pariah state and imposing endless sanctions force a country to change or does it rather cement the incumbent power structure as the incumbents can then blame all the countries ills on 'The West' or whoever they can easily identify as an enemy. I'd give priority to diplomacy wherever possible.

I think intervention could be justified when genocide or ethnic cleansing is involved and would say that intervening to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Arab population that has been going on in Israel and Palestine since 1947 should be a priority. This would have the spin off of defusing a lot of the Middle Eastern conflicts centered on Israel's hegemony.

[reohn2]

I cant help but think Trump's attitude to Iran is the right one. Bring down the regime, the previous deal to limit nuclear weapons is just sticking plaster.

My problem is trying to work out what right we have to interfere. Does making a country a pariah state and imposing endless sanctions force a country to change or does it rather cement the incumbent power structure as the incumbents can then blame all the countries ills on 'The West' or whoever they can easily identify as an enemy. I'd give priority to diplomacy wherever possible.

I think intervention could be justified when genocide or ethnic cleansing is involved and would say that intervening to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Arab population that has been going on in Israel and Palestine since 1947 should be a priority. This would have the spin off of defusing a lot of the Middle Eastern conflicts centered on Israel's hegemony.

I'd say that's the right approach though the chances diminish with each passing day,especially with a moron like Trump in the White House.

[Cugel]

I cant help but think Trump's attitude to Iran is the right one. Bring down the regime, the previous deal to limit nuclear weapons is just sticking plaster.

My problem is trying to work out what right we have to interfere. Does making a country a pariah state and imposing endless sanctions force a country to change or does it rather cement the incumbent power structure as the incumbents can then blame all the countries ills on 'The West' or whoever they can easily identify as an enemy. I'd give priority to diplomacy wherever possible.

I think intervention could be justified when genocide or ethnic cleansing is involved and would say that intervening to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Arab population that has been going on in Israel and Palestine since 1947 should be a priority. This would have the spin off of defusing a lot of the Middle Eastern conflicts centered on Israel's hegemony.

I'd say that's the right approach though the chances diminish with each passing day,especially with a moron like Trump in the White House.

It's very easy to assume that our own attitudes and behaviours are not only the correct ones but the only correct ones. When we adopt the latter attitude then there is planted the seed of yet another crusade, genocide or other "cleansing" of the those with the unclean thoughts daring to think and behave other than in the only correct fashion which we ourselves have somehow come to realise.

Stradageek is right to point at "diplomacy" as the only alternative to dealing with difficult "others" with attitudes and behaviours that are not so much a "clear and present danger" to us but rather a bruising blow to our egos, pride or (to be most accurate) self-righteous hubris. Personally I find many attitudes and behaviours in various Arab, Yank, Korean and Home Counties places to be distasteful - sometimes very distasteful indeed. None of them are so bitter or sour as would be the aftertaste of taking part in or supporting some pompous crusade resulting in the death and destruction of large swathes of such people and places. Or of ourselves, as we go-a-war-ing-oh.

And, naturally, the distasteful attitudes and behaviours would only become rather more amplified and exaggerated within the survivors.

But so goes human history, of course. We're going to do it again; and again and again and ... FIN!

Cugel

PS As to the prevention of "genocide or ethnic cleansing"..... It went oh so well in Yugoslavia, eh? Of course, we could have prevented some of that genocide by imposing some war-death on the various perpetrators .... until all the humans were dead and so no more problem. (See 100 years war for details). Or perhaps the Iraq model could be used? Or the Afghanistan one? Or ......

[reohn2]

Yer not wrong!

[Oldjohnw]

I've just been reading on the BBC about Trump's visit to India. The BBC said the visit 'will focus on deepening ties between the world's two largest democracies [my italics].'

There is reasonable cause for doubt about how accurately this describes The US and India.

[mercalia]

I've just been reading on the BBC about Trump's visit to India. The BBC said the visit 'will focus on deepening ties between the world's two largest democracies [my italics].'

There is reasonable cause for doubt about how accurately this describes The US and India.

about right. Both have space programmes and lots of poor people

[Oldjohnw]

I've just been reading on the BBC about Trump's visit to India. The BBC said the visit 'will focus on deepening ties between the world's two largest democracies [my italics].'

There is reasonable cause for doubt about how accurately this describes The US and India.

about right. Both have space programmes and lots of poor people

And both have nuclear weapons. And both have unstable dictators.

[Mike Sales]

I've just been reading on the BBC about Trump's visit to India. The BBC said the visit 'will focus on deepening ties between the world's two largest democracies [my italics].'

There is reasonable cause for doubt about how accurately this describes The US and India.

about right. Both have space programmes and lots of poor people

And both have nuclear weapons. And both have unstable dictators.

Both are keen on fundamentalist religion and want to keep out muslims.

[Ben@Forest]

I've just been reading on the BBC about Trump's visit to India. The BBC said the visit 'will focus on deepening ties between the world's two largest democracies [my italics].'

There is reasonable cause for doubt about how accurately this describes The US and India.

about right. Both have space programmes and lots of poor people

And both have nuclear weapons. And both have unstable dictators.

According to The Economist's Intelligence Unit both the US and India are flawed democracies, but so are both France and Italy. The UK is a full democracy (though it doesn't score as high as the Nordic countries or NZ). Ironically the two recent referendums improve our standing in the Index.