I had an entertaining few hours yesterday discussing diverse issues with an MP. Nevertheless, it troubled me to find him displaying the usual naïvity of the elected official, in extolling the virtues of the "democratic" system of elections which had brought him to office.

In the cut and thrust of the discussion, I cannot quite recall how we came to be discussing this precise issue, but it may have emerged after the said MP had raised the idea of elected judges – elections being his idea of ensuring that officials were "accountable". Unless I am thoroughly mistaken, he seemed to have some vague nation that the process of election confers accountability, and was a superior form of achieving this desired state.

View full article here

I am just beginning to realise why the electorate voted in Labour three times on the trot (Fe)

Richard,
I think you need to cut down on the anti Cameron/Tory rhetoric,any new comer reading your posts might be get the impression that a British Parliament run by a British PM and British Party ( sorry Coalition) is not fit for purpose,and deduce from that that we need the EU to run the country instead ....just a suggestion

What is wrong with elected judges (and chief constables ) ?

That, of course, was the position taken by the late Auberon Waugh, who even in his time (he died just a few weeks over ten years ago) considered that the running of this country had become so incompetent, we would be better off ruled by a bunch of 'Belgian ticket inspectors'.
Any dispassionate observer would have to agree that we have a British Parliament so debauched and corrupted by years of devolution, subservience to the EU, and party manipulation that it is indeed unfit for purpose. However, it is a counsel of despair to suggest that therefore surrender is inevitable and preferable.

It was 'cutting down on the anti-Cameron/Tory rhetoric' that conned the electorate into supporting in just about sufficient numbers the party that, if it had been worth anything, should have annihilated Brown to total oblivion. If the BBC and the press had not fallen in love with Cameron, seeing him for the social liberal he truly is, from the time of his elevation as Tory leader, on the basis of vacuous content-free rhetoric we would not now be inflicted with him. What we need is more, not less, exposure of the fraud he represents.

RAEN,

I`ve just re read your main article and it still looks as though you dont like democracy .

If you dont , what do you want to replace it ?

I'm not Dr North, and would not presume to speak for him, but if I may offer a reply, I would say that 'democracy' is to a large degree illusory, and that by the time our wishes are translated into governmental actions, they are so attenuated that the link between what we want and what we get is often very difficult to perceive. I cannot know for certain, but I would guess that still, after all the years of propaganda, the majority of people in this country support capital punishment. But what electable party offers that? What electable party offers an exit from the EU? Which electable party offers us educaiton and health services that actually deliver what they are supposed to? What electable party stands up to the green agenda and subjects it to a robust examination?

Effectively we are governed by the same civil service that worked for the previous lot. Democracy? It might be nice if it existed.

We hear of the 'democratic deficit' represented by the EU, but frankly the differences of view between our major parties are so slight as to be largely negligible. Those differences have to be massaged and magnified by rhetoric, by the posturing of politicians and the (possibly) naive commentaries of the media in order to appear substantial. But they are not. So where is democratic choice?

"Eat your cabbage Johnny"
"I don't like it"
"Have you ever tried it?"

Have we ever had true democracy? Or have we been shown what and who to vote for with precious little control over what policies get chosen and passed by a minority who have one common aim - to control and make subservient a nation of peoples?

'But we voted for you on the basis of your election campaign!'
Lies.

Democracy only works if we can control the outcome, and even then, those who did not vote 'for' are left at a disadvantage. That should never be - but it always seems to have been so. The problem with democracy seems to grow exponentially with the numbers of people who vote, against the minimal choice of who or what to vote for. Once as large as it has become, it is no different than a dictatorship.

Now if I could vote for and achieve weekly bin collection, that would be good.

I assume this was tongue in cheek but still choose to use it as a hook to pick up on the 'treatment' of Cameron and Hague on this blog.

The incompotence needs MAXIMUM EXPOSURE. The msm kid gloves treatment Cameron had in late 2005 and 2006 bred the insanity of the global warming May 2007 launch...and the msm kid gloves treatment of that bred the breaking the cast-iron guarantee in Autumn 2009. He knew, really knew, he could say anything at that stage and would get kid gloves from the msm. He could even say VOTE LABOUR and he would have been given a free pass prior to the General Election. The gentle kid gloves treatment he had after his failure in the General Election Campaign (throwing away a 15% lead with the Lib Dems vote on the floor in Jan 2010) has bred even greater incompotence, irresponsibility, arrogance, and...just add your own adjectives.
Frankly Dr North is too merciful and gentle in his posts on the people selling our nation (and a once truly great party) for 30 pieces of silver.

(EDIT: Grammar is vitally important. Please read Shakassoc's post below which corrects an inexcusable mistake on my part in the above post).

Er... they're nouns.


You're right. He's a pussy-cat. Much less cash than that, though. And not even silver.

Nothing at all ... what is wrong is the easy assumption that election necessarily confers accountability, while those who are not elected somehow lack accountability. That said, I am going to start a campaign for all heart surgeons to be elected.

Then I shall start a counter campaign that protests against elitism in the choice and training of heart surgeons. Elitism is always wrong and should be purged out wherever it appears.

Quite agree ... we can't have surgeons selected on merit, on the basis of their training, qualifications, track record and general competence. That is quite undemocratic, and must be stopped.

If judges were elected they would be more accountable to the electorate than they are now , and those who are not elected seem to lack accountability .
Heart surgeons would be more accountable outside a National Health Service . A free market would help acountabilty there .

Other parties offer these choices .Some ballot papers had up to 15 candidates . You could have voted for them . Others obviously didn`t .

The problem with our elections are ;

1) Tribal loyalty .

2) Voting for one political party to keep another one out .

3) Coverage of the three main parties by the MSM to the almost exclusion of other choices .

4) Apathy of some people who felt their vote would make no difference.

And we still have to come to terms with the fact that some people actually do like the parties they vote for , even if we dont like them .

Now are there any suggestions about how we can overcome the points raised above ?