Democracy

[Oldjohnw]

I wasn't excluding others from this discussion but the fact was the BBC was talking about these two states. I do think the UK's current claims are a little dubious given an invisible PM, a partially silenced press, plans to limit a free judiciary and to limit parliament.

[irc]

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

Nothing like a bit of perspective is there? It's a funny kind of dictator that can get voted out in the next election.

I wasn't excluding others from this discussion but the fact was the BBC was talking about these two states. I do think the UK's current claims are a little dubious given an invisible PM, a partially silenced press, plans to limit a free judiciary and to limit parliament.

I was sure I saw Boris in parliament last PMQs. Was I mistaken. As for his non appearance at the floods? Not sure a few PR visits to flood zones is any better than just getting the job done. I'd imagine any govt 2 months into a first term and dealing with Brexit has plenty to do already.

Free judicary? I'd rather have parliament make laws than unelected judges. Democracy?

[Ben@Forest]

I wasn't excluding others from this discussion but the fact was the BBC was talking about these two states. I do think the UK's current claims are a little dubious given an invisible PM, a partially silenced press, plans to limit a free judiciary and to limit parliament.

Maybe, but why are things better elsewhere? In 2014 l read a book about French politics and society which was 10 years old then but which was still largely relevant.

The centralist nature of French government, the elite of the Ecole Nationale d'Administration, the lack of prosecution of corrupt officials, the fact that French censuses made no provision for religion or race (it may have changed now but it was true then). There were plenty of issues which stuck out. It's simply notable that our European neighbours are often no better, and sometimes a good deal worse, than the UK.

It was a great book, co-written l think between a French person and a French- Canadian. It probably went to the charity shop, but a real gem.

[carpetcleaner]

I wasn't excluding others from this discussion but the fact was the BBC was talking about these two states. I do think the UK's current claims are a little dubious given an invisible PM, a partially silenced press, plans to limit a free judiciary and to limit parliament.

Maybe, but why are things better elsewhere? In 2014 l read a book about French politics and society which was 10 years old then but which was still largely relevant.

The centralist nature of French government, the elite of the Ecole Nationale d'Administration, the lack of prosecution of corrupt officials, the fact that French censuses made no provision for religion or race (it may have changed now but it was true then). There were plenty of issues which stuck out. It's simply notable that our European neighbours are often no better, and sometimes a good deal worse, than the UK.

It was a great book, co-written l think between a French person and a French- Canadian. It probably went to the charity shop, but a real gem.

Many of the people who moan about the the UK often know little or nothing about how other countries conduct their affairs, or of their histories. They quite like going on holiday to France and perhaps Spain, and seem to assume that praise for foreign countries and their cultures along with constant criticism of their own nation and its people is the epitome of sophistication.

I suspect it is a mark of their misanthropy, and if they did emigrate they'd soon find reasons to moan about the people around them and to continue to idealise those people who live too far away to annoy them.

[Oldjohnw]

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

Nothing like a bit of perspective is there? It's a funny kind of dictator that can get voted out in the next election.

I wasn't excluding others from this discussion but the fact was the BBC was talking about these two states. I do think the UK's current claims are a little dubious given an invisible PM, a partially silenced press, plans to limit a free judiciary and to limit parliament.

I was sure I saw Boris in parliament last PMQs. Was I mistaken. As for his non appearance at the floods? Not sure a few PR visits to flood zones is any better than just getting the job done. I'd imagine any govt 2 months into a first term and dealing with Brexit has plenty to do already.

Free judicary? I'd rather have parliament make laws than unelected judges. Democracy?

No PMQs last week as parliament wasn't sitting. AFAIK Johnson has not been seen for over 10 days. Given the various crises around that seems to me like neglect.

[Oldjohnw]

I wasn't excluding others from this discussion but the fact was the BBC was talking about these two states. I do think the UK's current claims are a little dubious given an invisible PM, a partially silenced press, plans to limit a free judiciary and to limit parliament.

Maybe, but why are things better elsewhere? In 2014 l read a book about French politics and society which was 10 years old then but which was still largely relevant.

The centralist nature of French government, the elite of the Ecole Nationale d'Administration, the lack of prosecution of corrupt officials, the fact that French censuses made no provision for religion or race (it may have changed now but it was true then). There were plenty of issues which stuck out. It's simply notable that our European neighbours are often no better, and sometimes a good deal worse, than the UK.

It was a great book, co-written l think between a French person and a French- Canadian. It probably went to the charity shop, but a real gem.

Many of the people who moan about the the UK often know little or nothing about how other countries conduct their affairs, or of their histories. They quite like going on holiday to France and perhaps Spain, and seem to assume that praise for foreign countries and their cultures along with constant criticism of their own nation and its people is the epitome of sophistication.

I suspect it is a mark of their misanthropy, and if they did emigrate they'd soon find reasons to moan about the people around them and to continue to idealise those people who live too far away to annoy them.

Another bit of whataboutery . If I comment on the UK and not, say, France, it's simply because I know the UK. Calling me a misanthrope does little for your argument.

[irc]

No PMQs last week as parliament wasn't sitting.

No problem. Its back on Wednesday. Your wish to see more Boris shall be granted.

[661-Pete]

Nothing like a bit of perspective is there? It's a funny kind of dictator that can get voted out in the next election.

It's a not-so-funny kind of 'elected' dictator who can milk the prejudices, the bigotry, the innate racism and xenophobia, of a sufficient number of his electorate, to ensure his re-election. Moreover, if the numbers don't quite add up, he can then still manipulate the electoral divisions ("Gerrymandering", I believe it's called) so as to contrive a result in his favour.

That is what happened in 2016. And I very much fear it will happen again in 2020.

If this is 'democracy', then away with 'democracy'! We've had enough....

[windmiller]

Nothing like a bit of perspective is there? It's a funny kind of dictator that can get voted out in the next election.

It's a not-so-funny kind of 'elected' dictator who can milk the prejudices, the bigotry, the innate racism and xenophobia, of a sufficient number of his electorate, to ensure his re-election. Moreover, if the numbers don't quite add up, he can then still manipulate the electoral divisions ("Gerrymandering", I believe it's called) so as to contrive a result in his favour.

That is what happened in 2016. And I very much fear it will happen again in 2020.

[b]If this is 'democracy', then away with 'democracy'! We've had enough.... :([/b]

Since 2016 events from both ends of the pond, up to the election of this Government and beyond - convinces me that you mean what you say regarding democracy.

[irc]

Nothing like a bit of perspective is there? It's a funny kind of dictator that can get voted out in the next election.

It's a not-so-funny kind of 'elected' dictator who can milk the prejudices, the bigotry, the innate racism and xenophobia, of a sufficient number of his electorate, to ensure his re-election.

But that is democracy. If 51% of the electorate are racists/xenophobes then they can vote in a racist PM.

Just like if 51% of the electorate were socialists we would have Corbyn as PM.

And if the racist xenophobic voters don't like the way Boris governs for the next 5 years they can vote him out.

But of course it is nohing to do with racism, it's about democracy. Boris got elected because the Tories were the only major party that was going to implement Brexit. Which (if you have forgotten) the democratic majority voted for. Calling the voters who disagreed with them racists hasn't worked so far for Labour.

I disagree with some of Boris' policies. But as the alternative was a Corbyn govt crashing the economy and no Brexit I'll take the bad with the good.

[Oldjohnw]

IRC wrote:
I disagree with some of Boris' policies. But as the alternative was a Corbyn govt crashing the economy and no Brexit I'll take the bad with the good

Looks like Johnson will crash the economy instead. National debt doubled since 2010. Way to go Boris!

And a new chancer/chancellor who made a cool £5m as a hedge fund manager from the collapse of RBS following the last crash.

[carpetcleaner]

Given Labour's current problems with racism a vote for Boris was the best way to avoid a racist government.

[Ben@Forest]

It's a not-so-funny kind of 'elected' dictator who can milk the prejudices, the bigotry, the innate racism and xenophobia, of a sufficient number of his electorate, to ensure his re-election. Moreover, if the numbers don't quite add up, he can then still manipulate the electoral divisions ("Gerrymandering", I believe it's called) so as to contrive a result in his favour.

Whatever the faults of the American electoral system Trump didn't invent them, if Clinton had won the presidency but not the popular vote would she also be responsible for gerrymandering?

Secondly a considerable number of people who voted for Obama twice then voted for Trump. So are they forward-looking, non-racist, lovely people or racist xenophobes? Or maybe they just saw three steel mills in their town close down during Obama's presidency and wanted something different?

[661-Pete]

Whatever the faults of the American electoral system Trump didn't invent them

I was told by someone on this forum (might have been you, can't remember now) that there was nothing 'undemocratic' about the winning candidate receiving 62,984,828 votes, while the losing candidate got 65,853,514 . In a fair system, how could that be 'democratic'. Of course Trump concentrated his efforts on those states which would be most to his advantage, and milked the undemocratic 'electoral college' system. If that's not gerrymandering, what is?

if Clinton had won the presidency but not the popular vote would she also be responsible for gerrymandering?

That's a purely hypothetical question. Nothing of the sort happened - and there was no way it could have happened.

Secondly a considerable number of people who voted for Obama twice then voted for Trump. So are they forward-looking, non-racist, lovely people or racist xenophobes? Or maybe they just saw three steel mills in their town close down during Obama's presidency and wanted something different?

Just illustrates how the rabble can be swung towards extremist views by a rabble-rousing populist. Sadly, the same seems to be happening here.

[661-Pete]

But that is democracy. If 51% of the electorate are racists/xenophobes then they can vote in a racist PM.

I already said, if that's the outcome of 'democracy', do away with 'democracy'. I'd sooner have Stalin.