Democracy - help me out here!

I agree that facts should be known.

growstuff perhaps I put it badly, I know you know, it was for the wider audience.

Democracy is "the Crown in Parliament" in this country. Democracy is Parliament, all else is politics.

For instance, it was decided in Parliament that we would have an advisory referendum on leaving or remaining in the EU. That is our democracy.

David Cameron then said something about the vote being carried out. That is politics.

If our parliament decided to have another vote that would be democracy too and all those standing around and shouting the odds about whether it was true democracy or not would just be politicking.

Parliament is the seat of our democracy. The MPs passing through are just today's politicians.

Dominic Cummings has said that he wants to undermine parliament and the civil service. We've already seen attacks on the judiciary and diplomatic service. It seems that the royal family is next in line.

Disgusted that anybody falls for all this!

Interesting article in the Irish Times, explaining how it will be difficult for No Deal to be prevented.
www.irishtimes.com/opinion/little-can-be-done-to-stop-johnson-crashing-uk-out-of-eu-1.3983067

I have just put an article on www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1264173-Johnson-and-Brexit that was in the Times growstuff that adds to what they have the power to do.

nonnie says: growstuff the rich do pay more taxes. It was only about a week ago we heard that the top 1% of earners pay about, was it 30%?

It has been pointed out that although 'the rich' appear to pay more this is based on earned income only.

Richard Murphy explains:

those on the last (I think he actually means 'lowest' here) levels of income in the UK very often have the highest overall tax rates because of the VAT, council tax, other indirect taxes and charges such as the BBC licence fee that they have to pay out of low incomes.


Those on the highest incomes also very often have the lowest overall rates of tax. This is partly because of the extraordinary range of allowances and reliefs that are available to them and because when you have very high income it is possible to divert large parts of your earnings to a company, and pay very low rates of tax as a result, and to generate capital gains, where rates are also far below those paid by most who work for a living.

I'm not too sure what the 30% figure represents. Is it that they contribute 30% of the tax take or is it that they apy 30% of their income in tax? If it is the latter, the highest tax rate on earned income is 45% so how come they are only paying 30%? (see why above)

If it is the former then that is only right as they have the largest proportion of wealth.

Murphy is suspicious:

Their (i.e rightwing media and commentators) agenda is to promote a falsehood, which is that the rich pay most tax when as a proportion of the incomes that is almost certainly not true. But, more worryingly, I think that they are now extrapolating that to not just a claim to unwarranted virtue, but a claim to sole participation in the control of society that is profoundly anti-democratic.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/08/07/beware-the-right-wings-claims-on-income-tax-payments-their-aim-is-profoundly-anti-democratic/

apy ? I think I meant 'contribute'....

This seems relevant to people's understanding of democracy.

m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR14XaoAiwlueuu8CEdaLioyfcRV9bXZiDrdpBF6um7Vxc_LrJS3Qa7wnJM&feature=youtu.be&v=_HDFegpX5gI#

Paddyann I think you should stop saying that the English do the bullying. it is inaccurate. It is the wealthy MP's and their wealthy friends. That they are English doesn't mean that they give a stuff about us ordinary people. We are just as stomped on as you think you are! We are all treated badly IMO..
We English ordinary people also feel as if we are ignored. because we are.
It is the wealthy ruling classes not "The English"

There are also many Scots folk living in other parts of the UK, who were never given a vote in the 2014 referendum, who deplore the nonsense of unrepresentative MPs in the HOC elected by FPTP dictating our future.

The appallingly undemocratic FPTP electoral system, unlike the PR system used for the Scottish Parliament, results in a ludicrous over-representation of the SNP, who end up with far more seats in the Westminster Parliament than the Liberal Democrats on the basis of far fewer votes.

In the 2017 general election it took more than seven times the votes to elect a Liberal Democrat MP as it did to elect an SNP MP. SO who is under-represented ? Not the SNP.

Yes Varian, I agree that we need to update our voting system, I'm very pro PR, but until we do FPTP is our democracy.

"The appallingly undemocratic FPTP electoral system"

This is exactly the misuse of the word democracy that I was highlighting earlier. FPTP is not "undemocratic", it is our form of democracy. That democracy can change and evolve but the idea that this, that and the other are all "undemocratic" devalues the meaning of 'democracy'.

What we need is the political will to change and we need to put the blame where it lies, with our politics and politicians who lie, obfuscate and try to manage our thinking.

Democracy should involve a good degree of fairness. When it is patently unfair, as FPTP clearly is, then it is a very flawed form of democracy - in fact undemocratic in any true sense.

Even when the great majority in the UK supported either the Conservative or Labour Party, as was the case in the 1950s, FPTP still disenfranchised many who lived in "safe seats" where they knew their vote would never count. In times where there are more well supported parties, as we have now, the distortion in the relationship between voted and numbers of MPs is quite grotesque.

We desperately need constitutional reform. If we can stop brexit, our next priority should be to replace FPTP with PR.

Democracy cannot make a judgement Varian, people do. I imagine the idea of FPTP felt okay when people had only just got the vote. To change our democracy is a political act and is not brought about by saying it isn't fair. We choose. We vote for politicians who choose. "Democracy" cannot choose. It is the overuse of the word that is distracting us.

Is politician A voting for a fairer system? That is the question. It is our system and our democracy.

Question

Lib Dems and other parties want to scrap the First Past the Post system for Proportional Representation.

Both systems can obviously return a party with no overall majority and hence the Coalition Government or Supply and Demand government is required.

If Gordon Brown for example had managed to get a coalition government with the Lib Dems and not the Conservatives the voices that perpetually cry foul over the Coalition Government / Supply and Demand would no doubt, hypocritically, have felt that government would be fit for purpose because it suited their politics.

We have a Conservative / DUP Supply and Demand government and that is not acceptable to many because it ' does not suit ' their politics. That is hypocrisy. It is only accepting '' The Principle ' of a Coalition /Supply and Demand government if and when it suits the individual and they ' like ' the outcome of the political parties involved.

Proportional Representation will inevitably lead to permant Coalition/Supply and Confidence governments so be careful what you wish for .

Those wanting Proportional Representation will have to accept a Coalition Government or Supply and Confidence government will be inevitable. If that Coalition were for the sake of agrguement a government formed between the Conservatives/Brexit Party they will still not accept Proportional Representation unless it returns their Political Party into Government. They might not like what Proportional Representation returns!

So my question is how would Proportional Representation give those who dislike, attack Coalition / Supply and Demand governments that ' do not suit them ' give them the answer to First Past the Post?

I'm not sure I've understood your question, POGS but I think those who campaign for PR have always accepted that it will tend to lead to coalitions as in a multi-party system it is very unlikely that one party will gain more than 50% of the vote.

Where the two coalition partners, or parties in an arrangement support a minority government have been elected by a majority of voters, that government would have a democratic legitimacy that the present Tory government with its DUP support, does not have.

It is not a case of whether people decide that a government "does not suit them", but whether it has been elected by a majority of those who voted.

Varian I think you make my point by saying:-

"Where the two coalition partners, or parties in an arrangement support a minority government have been elected by a majority of voters, that government would have a democratic legitimacy that the present Tory government with its DUP support, does not have.

It is not a case of whether people decide that a government "does not suit them", but whether it has been elected by a majority of those who voted.
---

The Conservative/DUP Supply and Confidence is perfectly legitimate but say it you say it is illigitimate because ' it does not suit you'.

Under Proportional Representation it does not follow that the 2/3 whatever number of political parties who can form a government have been elected by the 'majority of voters.'. The parties with the highest number of votes under PR could be polar opposites and refuse to work with each other and backroom deals will still take place with one party who has the most votes leading the negotiations. More or less Status Quo but it sounds more democratic.

Under PR there remains the same situation as with First Past The Post and voters could possibly still get a government that is polar opposite and ' will not suit them'.

The principle of either FPTP or PR will inevitably still cause ' some ' to moan about their vote counting for nothing or challenging the make up of the Coalition unless ' it sits them ' and hypocritically they will under those circumstances be happy, until the next time when the Coalition ' does not suit them'.

On and on it goes.

I say simply that the Tories votes (42.4%) combined with the votes of the DUP (0.9%) at the 2017 GE did not amount to 50% of the votes. Therefore they do not have claim to any real democratic legitimacy

"So my question is how would Proportional Representation give those who dislike, attack Coalition / Supply and Demand governments that ' do not suit them ' give them the answer to First Past the Post?"

It may not but it does seem that there is some political will to change it. I would see it as more grown-up politics but others will see it from a different perspective I have no doubt.

I say simply that the Tories votes (42.4%) combined with the votes of the DUP (0.9%) at the 2017 GE did not amount to 50% of the votes. Therefore they do not have claim to any real democratic legitimacy

I'm afraid I would have to disagree with you Varian. They have the legitimacy of our democracy even though, politically, the deal stank. It's the politics that are wrong and we may want to change some of the form our democracy takes but those are two different things.

We really do have to be careful not to destroy our democracy - it's all we have and this overuse of "it's not democratic" threatens it. Also, in my opinion, "I don't agree with their politics" is more truthful.

Whether I don't agree with their politics is neither here nor there. Our FPTP system of electing MPs more often than not results in what the late Lord Hailsham, Quentin Hogg termed "elective dictatorship", in which a government gaining less than half the votes gets more than half the seats and can more or less do whatever it likes until the next election.

Varian

That applies to both FPTP and PR.

How?