Let the Gurkhas come home

**chankya** · 07 Jun 07,, 01:17

Originally Posted by glyn

I think we are supposed to vote for those having the nations good at heart. Now people seem to think it is about which party is going to do best for them personally

. No wonder we get confused.

Representative democracy is about electing someone who's views you like or espouse yourself. Your own or the nation's good (if there is such a monolithic thing) are as such irrelevant to that process even though one, both or neither may result from those choices.

**Ray** · 07 Jun 07,, 05:09

Bob and Chankya,

My take on this.

One feels he is is voting having the good of the nation at his heart.

But in most cases it turns out that the voter is voting for his own idea of what is good for the nation, and in most cases, it means what is good for him/ her.

Rare is the person who is the true idealist!

**bonehead** · 07 Jun 07,, 06:17

We can howl at the polititions all we want, but the the blame of what they do must fall on us as we are the people who put the polititions in office, and a politition is nothing more than an extention of the people's vote.

**Ray** · 07 Jun 07,, 09:44

But can we not howl when the people who are elected are not the ones we voted for and yet we get blamed for those guys who got elected without our having voted for them?

Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled pepper.........................................

**dave lukins** · 07 Jun 07,, 11:09

Hands Up, Who voted Brown to be Prime Minister?? It was'nt the Nation!!

**Ray** · 07 Jun 07,, 12:58

No citizen voted any PM of UK to office.

The Parties did!

Brown was without a peer!

**ExNavyAmerican** · 07 Jun 07,, 14:17

Originally Posted by Ray

No citizen voted any PM of UK to office.

The Parties did!

Brown was without a peer!

That's the problem with Parliamentry systems: no checks. Whichever party who gets a majority can appoint whoever the want to the premiership-and they can do it without any objections.

Britain needs a constitution.

**Ray** · 07 Jun 07,, 15:31

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Britain needs a constitution.

The British will see red at this suggestion.

A man word is more than adequate and all that.

If you take a wager, only one checks out the fact. It is taken that the 'checker' is a gentleman!

Having a written Constitution is ever so vulgar!

what ho?!

**bonehead** · 07 Jun 07,, 15:46

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

That's the problem with Parliamentry systems: no checks. Whichever party who gets a majority can appoint whoever the want to the premiership-and they can do it without any objections.

Britain needs a constitution.

Who gave the party the majority in the first place?

**ExNavyAmerican** · 07 Jun 07,, 17:18

Originally Posted by bonehead

Who gave the party the majority in the first place?

Granted, but did they vest that man (the Premier) with authority? They elect a parliament to legislate nd expect a group of men (the Government) chosen out of the parliament, to wield executive authority; but then it (parliament) turns into a rubber stamp. For example, in Britain, the House of Lords can't delay a bill that fulfills a promise in the "election manifesto". The PM is party leader in parliament; do you think that that his party will object to its very own promises? And though technically the queen can veto, convention says that "the monarch must sign every bill-even his/her death warrant." Where are the checks? Essentially, we have a warm bodied democracy where, with no constitution, a small group of citizens hold power: an oligarchy, if you will. Much akin to the ancient Greek "democracies".

I understand the British traditionalist attitude-I myself am traditionalist. But you have Blair doing the same things that a constitution would do, but to a much smaller degree. For example, It would respect the rights of The Lords, and would protect the monarchy from subversion that the Social Republican Party (Labour) is doing without any checks.