Sunday, 19 December 2010
What democracy?
While I respect Janet Daley, I rarely agree with her! She offers some great arguments, but assumes that we have democracy, and seems to believe that government is on our side, somehow.
As such, in my view, she negates many of her own arguments.
We get to vote every 5 years on manifestos that aren't worth the paper they're printed on. None of the parties have any legal obligation to honour manifesto pledges.
We get to vote for candidates selected by the parties. So we either vote for them, or let the evil party back in.
All the parties have 'safe' seats, which means a job for life for the favoured few.
For fear of letting the commies in, we are tempted to vote for the "other" party - such is the great system we have in FPTP.
What point is there in voting for any of the main three parties?
As such, in my view, she negates many of her own arguments.
We get to vote every 5 years on manifestos that aren't worth the paper they're printed on. None of the parties have any legal obligation to honour manifesto pledges.
We get to vote for candidates selected by the parties. So we either vote for them, or let the evil party back in.
All the parties have 'safe' seats, which means a job for life for the favoured few.
For fear of letting the commies in, we are tempted to vote for the "other" party - such is the great system we have in FPTP.
What point is there in voting for any of the main three parties?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)





6 comments:
Daley is so far to the extreme right she is in danger of being a parody.
Your statement about what is the point of voting for the three main parties is well understood, at least by some.
What I find irritating is how Daley, like so many 'journalists', seem to believe the choice is one out of three. I have yet to see any writing about what impact UKIP may have, especially in Oldham East & Saddleworth, where I believe more and more disillusioned Tories may well vote UKIP in protest at Cameron's redefining of his party.
There is also the point that how are the electorate to be fairly informed when the media do not give a reasonable amount of 'air time' to parties like UKIP but instead, when they do mention them, tend to categorize them as a lunatic fringe.
You and I both know that UKIP's policies are more 'Conservative' than the Coservatives!
Apols for having 'rambled'!
I think I saw Janet Daley attacking Wikileaks on Question Time, in a way which revealed her not to be a journalist, holding government to account on behalf of the people, but instead an establishment propagandist, protecting government from the people finding out about their crimes and misdemeanors.
Daley should have been with me the other day on Tottenham Court Rd where a poor hapless gyppo was playing the trumpet (with Santa hat). Two of London's "finest" swooped at which point I said loudly that they ought to catch some real criminals.
Trooper T.
Firstly, there is no evidence of "crimes" or "misdemeaners" from the Wikileaks documents released to date.
Secondly, the concept of free speech applies to those individuals engaging in their own conversations, particularly when of a private nature. Wikileaks does not support free speech but as a rule always breaches free speech rights of others.
Finally, there are potentially proper reasons why a govt may wish to keep information outside of the public domain, for example, in order to protect individuals and the nation itself from enemy attack.
Would you have supported Wikileaks releasing information that may have helped the Germans in WW2?
It's pretty much the same throughout the western world
Post a Comment