Is UK An Elite Dictaorship?

GrannyRose15

But as I said up thread I don’t actually believe that we live in a democratic society any longer. I would love it if we did but have no idea how to regain democracy now it has been lost.

We obviously don't live as they do in China, Russia, etc., were we can only say what the goverment allows. But why do you believe that a) that is in any way democracy or b) there has ever been a vote in this country, where people had to like the outcome and were not allowed to try an make changes to that outcome, democratically?

ThIs is very strange thinking in a democratic country.

My view is there has got to be a point where the outcome of a vote is accepted. That is true whether it goes my way or not. GrannyRose15

When has a vote not been accepted in this country? There is nothing undemocratic about not liking the outcome or thinking it was a "hand of God" win, or working towards a further democratic change.

So just when did we not leave the EU? Are you, perhaps, suggesting this is all a dream and we will all wake up and find it hasn't happened?

GrannyRose15

But as I said up thread I don’t actually believe that we live in a democratic society any longer. I would love it if we did but have no idea how to regain democracy now it has been lost.

In what ways do we no longer in a democratic society which existed a couple of decades ago?

FWIW I think the idea of democracy is flawed anyway. It's a reasonably simple ideal, but is interpreted differently over time and in different countries. It makes for a good battle cry, but what do those who claim democracy has been lost want?

GrannyRose15

Maize D

So what is your answer. Are you saying that there is no point in voting at all. I’ll admit there seems very little point in it at the moment but I thought that democracy was supposed to be a good thing and how can you have democracy with some sort of voting.

And bringing Hitler into to was a very low blow and suggests to me you think you are losing the argument.

I don't agree that bringing Hitler into the argument was a low blow. The way the Nazi Party seized power in 1930s Germany remains a classic example of how an authoritarian regime can come to power without a military take-over, but by deceiving the public to act against its own interests. The "will of the people" was used to justify all kinds of horror and people who objected were seen as traitors to their country.

GrannyRose15

GrannyGravy13

All legitimate citizens of the U.K. have a vote.

Sometimes the vote goes how we want, sometimes it doesn’t.

But do you accept that or try to change the vote? Cry foul and demand another vote. Do you try to persuade people that the vote was win simply because those who voted for didn’t know what they were doing and of course all those that voted against were fully conversant with all the facts? My view is there has got to be a point where the outcome of a vote is accepted. That is true whether it goes my way or not.

I had thought that that view was axiomatic in a democratic society but obviously not.

You're ignoring my post about 'the will of the people', and you are confusing 'acceptance' with 'consent'.

And since you can't move from the EU vote to the more usual 'democratic' questioning as to what people would prefer, a general election, I can tell you now that I, and many others can 'accept' that the vote happened and we have left the EU but we will never, ever consent to it.

Perhaps you should be a bit more precise with your language if you want a reasonable discussion.

But as I said up thread I don’t actually believe that we live in a democratic society any longer. I would love it if we did but have no idea how to regain democracy now it has been lost.

GrannyGravy13

All legitimate citizens of the U.K. have a vote.

Sometimes the vote goes how we want, sometimes it doesn’t.

But do you accept that or try to change the vote? Cry foul and demand another vote. Do you try to persuade people that the vote was win simply because those who voted for didn’t know what they were doing and of course all those that voted against were fully conversant with all the facts? My view is there has got to be a point where the outcome of a vote is accepted. That is true whether it goes my way or not.

I had thought that that view was axiomatic in a democratic society but obviously not.

Oreo

DaisyAnneReturns

MaizieD

growstuff

GrannyRose I don't accept that there is ever such a thing as a collective "will of the people".

It's a very useful concept for authoritarians of all shades of political belief, though....

I believe that nice Mr Hitler made good use of it...

A vote in favour of something is only ever a will of the people who voted in favour. That's not too difficult to understand, is it?

Do those who voted against immediately lose their 'peoplehood' and become alien beings?

"A vote in favour of something is only ever a will of the people who voted in favour. That's not too difficult to understand, is it?"

But that really is the very thing that some on here do believe, isn't it? It's really very worrying that people can think that having voted, under dubious circumstances and winning by very little, they should be able to influence how we think and what we say about our government and the outcome of that vote. It really is rather like Chinese thinking. Very worrying.

I still can't really understand why they think that's okay and democratic.

The slight majority of people who voted to leave the EU were told by the govt of the day that if only one more vote was for Brexit it would count, in fact it was over a million.
So it wasn’t what they, the ones who voted to leave said or thought or influenced it was the govt.Blame the govt not the people.
I voted to stay in the EU but won’t go down the road of bleating on about it, claiming it was undemocratic ( would it have been undemocratic if remain had won the day?)

Though it definitely comes into it, we're not specifically discussing vote to leave the EU. We could equally well be looking at the last general election, or, indeed any general election.

However, as the thread is about 'dictatorship' and democracy is definitely involved somewhere along the line I think we have every right to post examples of undemocratic behaviour and behaviour that leads to dictatorships.

Some EU referendum campaigns contravened our notions of democracy, which go a bit further than solely imposing the will of the majority, The manner in which the result was implemented tottered on the edge of being democratic. There was certainly no effort whatsoever to gain 'losers consent', which, contrary to popular belief, is not something that the 'losers' are obliged to give.

Like 'the will of the people', losers consent is used as a sort of fig leaf to make the 'winners' feel more comfortable about the gross things they have forced on the 'losers'. IMO...

GrannyRose15

Will someone please tell me why we vote?

We vote and accept that the majority vote will win, but no-one with any iota of intelligence surely believes that the 'will' of the majority represents the 'will' of the entire population?

I don't consider myself to be losing the argument by citing Hitler. If you are going to believe in a trope used by one of the most vile dictators of the 20th Century to justify the appalling exercise of his will I think you need to recognise that fact and have serious rethink.

As others have pointed out, our British concept of democracy includes consideration of minorities and opposition to the majority's view is not considered traitorous.

GrannyGravy13

All legitimate citizens of the U.K. have a vote.

Sometimes the vote goes how we want, sometimes it doesn’t.

This

DaisyAnneReturns

MaizieD

growstuff

GrannyRose I don't accept that there is ever such a thing as a collective "will of the people".

It's a very useful concept for authoritarians of all shades of political belief, though....

I believe that nice Mr Hitler made good use of it...

A vote in favour of something is only ever a will of the people who voted in favour. That's not too difficult to understand, is it?

Do those who voted against immediately lose their 'peoplehood' and become alien beings?

"A vote in favour of something is only ever a will of the people who voted in favour. That's not too difficult to understand, is it?"

But that really is the very thing that some on here do believe, isn't it? It's really very worrying that people can think that having voted, under dubious circumstances and winning by very little, they should be able to influence how we think and what we say about our government and the outcome of that vote. It really is rather like Chinese thinking. Very worrying.

I still can't really understand why they think that's okay and democratic.

The slight majority of people who voted to leave the EU were told by the govt of the day that if only one more vote was for Brexit it would count, in fact it was over a million.
So it wasn’t what they, the ones who voted to leave said or thought or influenced it was the govt.Blame the govt not the people.
I voted to stay in the EU but won’t go down the road of bleating on about it, claiming it was undemocratic ( would it have been undemocratic if remain had won the day?)

ronib

Doodledog the simple choice of stay or go was on the referendum ballot paper. Yes it was a hoax of epic proportions if you like but in the context of this post, arguably the elite ruling group whoever they are/were under David Cameron were strongly against exiting the EU. So in this rare instance government by referendum seems to have gone against the assumed wishes of the governing elites.

If Cameron was against Leaving the EU why did he promise to do whatever the referendum decided? He must have been a poor political decision maker.

All legitimate citizens of the U.K. have a vote.

Sometimes the vote goes how we want, sometimes it doesn’t.

Will someone please tell me why we vote?

Without some form of voting.

Maize D

So what is your answer. Are you saying that there is no point in voting at all. I’ll admit there seems very little point in it at the moment but I thought that democracy was supposed to be a good thing and how can you have democracy with some sort of voting.

And bringing Hitler into to was a very low blow and suggests to me you think you are losing the argument.

MaizieD

growstuff

GrannyRose I don't accept that there is ever such a thing as a collective "will of the people".

It's a very useful concept for authoritarians of all shades of political belief, though....

I believe that nice Mr Hitler made good use of it...

A vote in favour of something is only ever a will of the people who voted in favour. That's not too difficult to understand, is it?

Do those who voted against immediately lose their 'peoplehood' and become alien beings?

"A vote in favour of something is only ever a will of the people who voted in favour. That's not too difficult to understand, is it?"

But that really is the very thing that some on here do believe, isn't it? It's really very worrying that people can think that having voted, under dubious circumstances and winning by very little, they should be able to influence how we think and what we say about our government and the outcome of that vote. It really is rather like Chinese thinking. Very worrying.

I still can't really understand why they think that's okay and democratic.

It's also essential in any democracy that there is protection for minorities. Otherwise, minorities suffer the same fate as the sheep and two wolves discussing what to have for dinner.

People who don't accept the "will of the people" are smeared as traitors, rather than people who have different views.

growstuff

GrannyRose I don't accept that there is ever such a thing as a collective "will of the people".

It's a very useful concept for authoritarians of all shades of political belief, though....

I believe that nice Mr Hitler made good use of it...

A vote in favour of something is only ever a will of the people who voted in favour. That's not too difficult to understand, is it?

Do those who voted against immediately lose their 'peoplehood' and become alien beings?

I agree with you. I think the "elite" is some kind of strawman bogey, similar to lizards or the WEF. Imagining there's a controlling elite is straight out of populists' handbook. All we need is some kind of hero to save us from the "elite" and all will be well!

I have indeed heard of Matt Goodwin, there was a lot about him on twitter and in serious media when his last book, with its slightly unhinged thesis about 'the elite', was published.

The question remains unanswered, though. Just who, or what, is 'the elite'?

In Archaeological terms and 'elite' seems just to be people with wealth and large houses... I would say that did, quite accurately, describe our ruling elite until probably the early - mid 20th C but they were different from 'opinion formers' (such as those Heath and Goodwin are railing against). I'm wondering if 'opinion formers' can be counted as an 'elite' at all..

GrannyRose I don't accept that there is ever such a thing as a collective "will of the people".

MaizieD

Interesting analysis, DAR

I don't think that we are that far apart, it's just that mine was much shorter 😁

To me it sounds, from the title, like one of those absurd pieces where the fact that we're being ruled by a right wing authoritarian government, comprising a great many wealthy and privately educated people, is totally ignored and the 'elite' is all the middle class people who don't like what the government is doing.

To be fair, I hadn't read the whole article then, and could only get halfway through it when someone helpfully pasted it on the thread....

Have you read anything by Matt Goodwin? I haven't, but I've read reviews of his books and seen his numerous tweets. One reviewer wrote about his latest book "Values, Voice and Virtue", that its "argument is wearily familiar: that the UK's elite stratum has become divorced from the conservative instincts of the majority; that the commanding heights of our culture – media, universities, political parties – have been captured by cosmopolitans who impose their outlook on the rest of the country; and that this woke mob has cultivated a censorious political climate to silence its opponents." Goodwin suggests that left wing liberals have more influence over British society than – for example – landlords, billionaires or the right wing press.

He's become an ally of Toby Young and is forever going on about a "new elite".

If this is what is understood by "elite", I don't agree that it is controlling the country, although there are people who would like others to believe that it is.

Dickens and MaizieD
Ok I acknowledge that I over simplified my argument and accept that political opposition is a good and necessary part of democratic government. But surely the opposition should come before the vote and be clearly and rationally articulated. Stagnation results when every decision that is made is continually scuppered by those that don’t like the outcome of the vote. There must be some sort of acceptance that a vote represents the will of the people however much we dislike the result. Otherwise voting is a total waste of time and only offers an illusion of power.