"When was the last time a monarch refused to grant their assent to a Bill?
(The answer might surprise you.)"
Well I'm the last one to stand up for a royal veto, but the checks and balances I had in mind were the committee stages, approval from the Lords, and legislative scrutiny. While these are all ultimately surmountable, they cannot be quietly surmounted - at the least they provide the function of making government happen as near to publicly as we can get it.
"How justified can such a mandate be when the Government appears to be doing its best to alienate the populace from the political process?"
What does this mean past rhetoric? That the government are actively discouraging voting? (As opposed to the passive discouragement given by watching any politician in action).
"There is comparatively little diversity in Parliament as is, and the monolithic parties we have are effectively untouchable as a result."
This is a sound argument against party politics, and also for proportional representation - I think abolishing the first is unlikely, while the second might be worth campaigning for (although first I'd look at its impact in Scotland, where it has effectively saved one of the monolithic parties from having no seats at all in the Parliament).
"When an individual like Murdoch has the power to inflict his political views on people as the 'correct view', then he is distorting the electoral landscape by virtue of his spending."
I'd argue with the 'correct view'. The view of The Sun, perhaps, but I'd say that the tabloids reflect the views of their readers rather than shaping them. I'm no fan of The Sun, and I will never buy a Murdoch paper, but to argue that they shape the minds of their readers, or that they can win an election, is an insult to the voters.
"Strict and enforceable limits on campaign spending would be a good start."
I worry about this, not least because I think it's unenforceable - I believe that the USA has strict guidelines on Party advertising. In theory, I agree. In practice, I don't see how it would ever work. For instance, would a Sun leader (not paid for by a political party) be covered? Or a Guardian article? Or a partisan blog? The abolition of a free press seems a large step to take.
"Revolutions have begun on individual opinions before now - vide the Spectre of Communism."
We'll have to differ on that - in my opinion Marx no more started the communist revolution than Gorbachov ended it.
"If a critical mass decide that a government is illegitimate, then it is illegitimate."
This is genuinely scary, although I don't believe you meant it that way. What is "a critical mass"? (apart from a Satanist rite conducted by the TLS). If you say it's a majority of the electorate, then obviously I agree. If it's some figure less than that, then I'm not too keen on having my choice of government overthrown by a bunch of highly motivated crackpots. Would, for instance, The Royal Highland Regiment constitute a critical mass? The Workers' International? The NUF or the TGWU?
"A government can only govern by consent of one form or another."
Quite. In this country we call it an election.
We have a range of legitimate tools to change government policy, and to change governments.
All of which are subject to modification by the government itself.
Apologies for taking so long to notice the "Quote" button.
Again, that's a good argument for legislative scrutiny - even though I believe the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill was an example of bad draftsmanship rather than anything more sinister.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: Part 1.
Date: 2006-05-30 08:41 pm (UTC)(The answer might surprise you.)"
Well I'm the last one to stand up for a royal veto, but the checks and balances I had in mind were the committee stages, approval from the Lords, and legislative scrutiny. While these are all ultimately surmountable, they cannot be quietly surmounted - at the least they provide the function of making government happen as near to publicly as we can get it.
"How justified can such a mandate be when the Government appears to be doing its best to alienate the populace from the political process?"
What does this mean past rhetoric? That the government are actively discouraging voting? (As opposed to the passive discouragement given by watching any politician in action).
"There is comparatively little diversity in Parliament as is, and the monolithic parties we have are effectively untouchable as a result."
This is a sound argument against party politics, and also for proportional representation - I think abolishing the first is unlikely, while the second might be worth campaigning for (although first I'd look at its impact in Scotland, where it has effectively saved one of the monolithic parties from having no seats at all in the Parliament).
"When an individual like Murdoch has the power to inflict his political views on people as the 'correct view', then he is distorting the electoral landscape by virtue of his spending."
I'd argue with the 'correct view'. The view of The Sun, perhaps, but I'd say that the tabloids reflect the views of their readers rather than shaping them. I'm no fan of The Sun, and I will never buy a Murdoch paper, but to argue that they shape the minds of their readers, or that they can win an election, is an insult to the voters.
"Strict and enforceable limits on campaign spending would be a good start."
I worry about this, not least because I think it's unenforceable - I believe that the USA has strict guidelines on Party advertising. In theory, I agree. In practice, I don't see how it would ever work. For instance, would a Sun leader (not paid for by a political party) be covered? Or a Guardian article? Or a partisan blog? The abolition of a free press seems a large step to take.
"Revolutions have begun on individual opinions before now - vide the Spectre of Communism."
We'll have to differ on that - in my opinion Marx no more started the communist revolution than Gorbachov ended it.
"If a critical mass decide that a government is illegitimate, then it is illegitimate."
This is genuinely scary, although I don't believe you meant it that way. What is "a critical mass"? (apart from a Satanist rite conducted by the TLS). If you say it's a majority of the electorate, then obviously I agree. If it's some figure less than that, then I'm not too keen on having my choice of government overthrown by a bunch of highly motivated crackpots. Would, for instance, The Royal Highland Regiment constitute a critical mass? The Workers' International? The NUF or the TGWU?
"A government can only govern by consent of one form or another."
Quite. In this country we call it an election.
Apologies for taking so long to notice the "Quote" button.
Again, that's a good argument for legislative scrutiny - even though I believe the was an example of bad draftsmanship rather than anything more sinister.