Harrystottle Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I'd did politics at A-level, I'm aware of the many alternatives, on paper at least. How do they work in practice? If you want someone to jump when you tell them, find somebody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 If you want someone to jump when you tell them, find somebody else. I was asking what your opinion was, what you thought was better. If you want to throw your toys out like a big baby knock yourself out, I don't give a toss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrystottle Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I apologise TFH, I thought you were having a go. The only other political system I have studied was the USA's, and that was some time since. The Swiss 'direct democracy' I quite like the look of. http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/ The USA /. Australian system of national and federal politics, with states being partially able to make their own laws, I don't think would work here as we are too small an island. Maybe I'm wrong but the idea of Lancashire having varying laws than Yorkshire just seems a bit odd. For the UK I would like a pr system which gets as close as possible a ratio of votes to seats in a single parliament. Ironically as an opponent of the EU I think that the Euro elections in the UK are fairer than our own. In the UK also I don't see the need for a second chamber like the House of Lords. It would also be good if somehow UK people got more interested in politics. Lastly I'd just like to say that the intentions and character of the people within any political system are as least as important as the system itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I apologise TFH, I thought you were having a go. The only other political system I have studied was the USA's, and that was some time since. The Swiss 'direct democracy' I quite like the look of. http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/ The USA /. Australian system of national and federal politics, with states being partially able to make their own laws, I don't think would work here as we are too small an island. Maybe I'm wrong but the idea of Lancashire having varying laws than Yorkshire just seems a bit odd. For the UK I would like a pr system which gets as close as possible a ratio of votes to seats in a single parliament. Ironically as an opponent of the EU I think that the Euro elections in the UK are fairer than our own. In the UK also I don't see the need for a second chamber like the House of Lords. It would also be good if somehow UK people got more interested in politics. Lastly I'd just like to say that the intentions and character of the people within any political system are as least as important as the system itself. Myself I have problems with a unicameral system. Unless you also have a separate election for the head of state. It's no good giving unmitigated authority to the majority or the head of government. I want a constituency MP. If were to go to PR, I might support it if it was done on the basis that party lists are used to top up the MPs to make them proportional and constituency MPs were selected using FPTP or STV/AV. Direct democracy is not something I like. I like referenda for constitutional matters, but when it comes to routine matters sometimes the right decision is not the short-term most popular one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I apologise TFH, I thought you were having a go. The only other political system I have studied was the USA's, and that was some time since. The Swiss 'direct democracy' I quite like the look of. http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/ The USA /. Australian system of national and federal politics, with states being partially able to make their own laws, I don't think would work here as we are too small an island. Maybe I'm wrong but the idea of Lancashire having varying laws than Yorkshire just seems a bit odd. For the UK I would like a pr system which gets as close as possible a ratio of votes to seats in a single parliament. Ironically as an opponent of the EU I think that the Euro elections in the UK are fairer than our own. In the UK also I don't see the need for a second chamber like the House of Lords. It would also be good if somehow UK people got more interested in politics. Lastly I'd just like to say that the intentions and character of the people within any political system are as least as important as the system itself. No worries Harry. I think the tories are sort of trying to push through an American state system with the whole northern powerhouse thing, or it could develope into something like it. I think that works because of the two party system (right wing and reallllly right wing) - our poltical landscape is a bit too diverse. I like the idea of the lords although not the makeup of it. Perversely I don't want former professional politicians gumming it all up as a sort of reward. Sadly, the only way you'll get more people into politics is by dumbing it down a lot - more than now. Then all you end up with is the likes of ukip, big standard, shouty single issue politics. I like the idea of some sort of PR but you just end up with coalitions which didn't work for me. The lib dems green-lit stuff they shouldn't and the few gains they made in certain areas the tories have mostly binned already. Waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Can't say I agree. Some things are imperfect everywhere, but this is a ban on preaching minority faiths. That's completely unacceptable. Have you got any links to information on this ban? Just noticed that Bhutan's got the 20th highest suicide rate in the world, so maybe there are some issues there- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Bhutan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Have you got any links to information on this ban? Just noticed that Bhutan's got the 20th highest suicide rate in the world, so maybe there are some issues there- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Bhutan Depends on the figures, and the number of countries that reliably collect them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Given the rise in religious fundamentalism. Is "Western Democracy" under serious and grave threat of being overthrown and replaced by Theocracy ? The enemies of secular society are many . in the time of the "Enlightenment ", they were representatives of the institutional Church who drew inspiration from, the likes of "Bossuet" who wrote, "I have the right to persecute you because I am right and you are wrong". In my opinion, the enemies of secularism are out there,and they are legion. "Modern European history from the, Renaissance to the Enlightenment , from Erasmus to Rousseau, is the history of the strengthening of the separation between public institutions and religious traditions, and the growth of individual freedom" (In Defence of The Enlightenment.Tzvetan Todoro)". Are "Western Democracies" in danger of being toppled -from without and within- and replaced and governed by "Theocratic" regimes, peddling a: moral and ethical belief system that predates the "Enlightenment" ? We had the clearest possible warning about the dire threat to liberal, Enlightenment values including freedom of speech at the time of the Rushdie incident. And the forces of law and order utterly failed to defend these values by failing to prosecute any of the thousands in our streets who were indulging in the serious criminality of inciting the murder of a fellow citizen. Oh and in a poll about 30% of uk Muslims supported the Fatwa. And how about this: the OIC's (an organisation of over 50 Islamic countries) attempts to get the UN Human Rights Council to declare that freedom from insult to one's religion should be a human right. With legal punishments for offenders. Translate all that to - make anything other than the mildest criticism of Islam a punishable offence world-wide. How's that for the criminalisation of blasphemy and the death of free speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemcewan Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 Bhutan became something resembling proper democracy in 2008. Before that it was an autocracy. Political parties were banned until 2007. Their pluralism leaves something to be desired as the ethnic minority Hindus in the state have rather a hard time. They enforce laws against Proselytism to defend the dominant Buddhist belief system. So they're not secular. I wouldn't want to live there. M. Just a question. I thought Bhutan was a "Constitutional Monarchy " for awhile ?Fred.M. Shelly, in his book "Comparative Government "has it listed in the index as a ,Constitutional Monarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 M. Just a question. I thought Bhutan was a "Constitutional Monarchy " for awhile ?Fred.M. Shelly, in his book "Comparative Government "has it listed in the index as a ,Constitutional Monarchy. I think it's fair to say that they had the rule of law for some decades before transitioning to democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now