Topic: To what extent is the UK a liberal democratic system?
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc started this discussion 15 years ago #16,318
Liberal Democracy balances the principle of limited government against the idea of popular consent. Its ‘liberal’ features reflect a belief in limited government as well as a network of internal and external checks upon government which are designed to guarantee liberty and afford citizens protection against the state. Its ‘democratic’ character is based on a system of regular and competitive elections, conducted on the basis of universal suffrage and political equality. Whilst the UK has made great strides to having a more liberal democratic system, it is not correct to say it is one.
Some will argue that the UK system of politics is indeed liberal. Under Blair’s leadership following the 1997 general election victory, Labour brought in a series of reforms to fragment and spread power across the country. They did this with constitutional reforms; they devolved power in 1998 to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, and in 1999 to the Northern Ireland Assembly under the Good Friday Agreement. This showed a buck in tradition where power always resided with Westminster. The further devolution of power is highlighted with the election of a London Mayor and the London Assembly. The devolution of power to sub-national bodies have taken power away from central government and given more power to the people. The introduction of the Freedom of Information Act in 2005 allowed for greater transparency within the public sector; giving the public a ‘right of access’. Furthermore the Judiciary has become more independent of the other branches of government with the introduction of a new Supreme Court in 2009. This was important because it symbolizes the complete separation of the Judiciary from Parliament and together with the introduction of the Human Rights Act 2000; the rights of citizens have been enhanced. Measures introduced since 1997 has taken power away from the state and have given its citizens more rights, this matches up to liberal views, therefore the UK system could be considered liberal.
The UK system could also be considered ‘democratic’. With the introduction of new sub-national bodies (Wales, N.I, Scotland, London), who operate under fairer, more proportional electoral systems, it has allowed for more proportional representation; fewer wasted votes and more representation for smaller parties. It has also not only allowed for more power to local people but has allowed for greater representation of society; the Welsh Assembly is now the only democratically elected body in the world that that an equal representation of both men and women. In parliament, Blair appointed the first ever black cabinet minister; Paul Boateng, and Cameron the first ever Muslim cabinet minister, Baroness Warsi. Furthermore, there are now greater numbers of openly gay ministers. A Labour manifesto pledge in 1997 was the greater use of referenda, and these were used to decide whether power should be devolved to Wales, N.I, Scotland and London. More recent referendums include, under the Conservative-led coalition, the referendum on the Alternative Voting which took place in May, 2011. The greater use of referendum could be used to argue that the UK is democratic, and as a form of direct democracy, has certainly enhanced the electorate’s power to influence decisions; this has also taken power away from parliament. Increasingly, there has been a move towards greater political pluralism. Through social media and communications, there has been a huge increase in pressure group activity and this has enabled citizens to air their views more frequently, for example NUS protests in London against the rise in tuition fees in 2010 and 2011. The coalitions’ introduction of fixed term parliaments has also made the UK more democratic; no longer can governments decide to call ‘snap elections’ when opinion polls are more favourable, the next general election will be in May 2015, or if parliament loses confidence, but ultimately, the ability of government to choose when to hold them has been taken away.
However, whilst the current system shows signs of liberal democracy, it clearly does not conform to liberal democratic ideals. There is still no written constitution, one of their key objectives. The House of Lords remain unelected and despite Labour carrying out reform in 1999 to remove all but 92 hereditary peers, in October 2011 there were still 88. Peers are appointed by government and this sums up the undemocratic nature of the UK. Blair was very presidential in style, relying more on ‘spads’ like Alistair Campbell than elected politicians. This is backed up as cabinet meetings usually lasted as little as 45 minutes. His style illustrates an undemocratic style, whilst popular, he should be listening to fellow elected members of his cabinet. Additionally, First Past The Post remains distinctively undemocratic of the true wishes of voters and whilst there is greater representation of smaller parties in Europe, where sovereignty lies in the UK, in parliament, smaller parties are grossly underrepresented/ Conservatives and Labour overrepresented. As the previous explained, pressure groups form part of political pluralism, but in parliamentary terms, there is by no means a range of political representation, and it could be argued that for true democracy to exist, tolerance of rival parties and beliefs need to exist, especially in the legislature to ensure all groups are represented. Pressure Groups are not even listened to, millions marched through London in the ‘Stop the War’ coalition, but these protests were largely ignored. The status of the pressure group in question is also important, not all are listened to. The CBI can exert great power with any government due to their importance in business and their insider status; however the ‘Occupy’ movement are ignored. The media is controlled by a relatively small number of proprietors such as Rupert Murdoch who owns the Sun, Times and Sunday Times. It is not correct to call yourself a democracy if one person or organisation can have so much power over what people believe and a break up of this monopoly would enhance democracy. This greatly influences the public and restricts their ability to obtain a range of information with which to make judgements. One could argue however that we do not have much power over our affairs anyway. Global markets dictate economic policy and America dictates British foreign policy, it could be argued that the days of liberal democracy are numbered, and as seen in the eurozone debt crisis, countries need to act quickly without having the legitimacy from their people to make quick and contentious agreements on fiscal policy.
In conclusion, the UK is not a liberal democratic system. Whilst it has key features of a liberal democracy, the current system does not conform enough to liberal democratic ideals for it to be considered one. The steps introduced by Labour such as devolution, improving information and the greater use of referenda certainly gave more power to the people and reduced the power of central government; noticeably very liberal. However, the fact that the House of Lords is still unelected and contains 88 hereditary peers highlights the undemocratic nature of the UK system. We still have no written constitution or Bill of Rights, HRA 2000 simply brought the UK into line with the European Convention on Human Rights. The continued use of First Past the Post emphasises how the UK is undemocratic, and whilst one could argue that the rejection of AV in May 2011 legitimises AV, it is most likely that the electorate want a fairer system than AV; AV would not have been as proportionate as say, STV. Reforms of the weaknesses noted above would make the UK a liberal democratic system, however in its current form it is not one.
What do you guys think?
Some will argue that the UK system of politics is indeed liberal. Under Blair’s leadership following the 1997 general election victory, Labour brought in a series of reforms to fragment and spread power across the country. They did this with constitutional reforms; they devolved power in 1998 to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, and in 1999 to the Northern Ireland Assembly under the Good Friday Agreement. This showed a buck in tradition where power always resided with Westminster. The further devolution of power is highlighted with the election of a London Mayor and the London Assembly. The devolution of power to sub-national bodies have taken power away from central government and given more power to the people. The introduction of the Freedom of Information Act in 2005 allowed for greater transparency within the public sector; giving the public a ‘right of access’. Furthermore the Judiciary has become more independent of the other branches of government with the introduction of a new Supreme Court in 2009. This was important because it symbolizes the complete separation of the Judiciary from Parliament and together with the introduction of the Human Rights Act 2000; the rights of citizens have been enhanced. Measures introduced since 1997 has taken power away from the state and have given its citizens more rights, this matches up to liberal views, therefore the UK system could be considered liberal.
The UK system could also be considered ‘democratic’. With the introduction of new sub-national bodies (Wales, N.I, Scotland, London), who operate under fairer, more proportional electoral systems, it has allowed for more proportional representation; fewer wasted votes and more representation for smaller parties. It has also not only allowed for more power to local people but has allowed for greater representation of society; the Welsh Assembly is now the only democratically elected body in the world that that an equal representation of both men and women. In parliament, Blair appointed the first ever black cabinet minister; Paul Boateng, and Cameron the first ever Muslim cabinet minister, Baroness Warsi. Furthermore, there are now greater numbers of openly gay ministers. A Labour manifesto pledge in 1997 was the greater use of referenda, and these were used to decide whether power should be devolved to Wales, N.I, Scotland and London. More recent referendums include, under the Conservative-led coalition, the referendum on the Alternative Voting which took place in May, 2011. The greater use of referendum could be used to argue that the UK is democratic, and as a form of direct democracy, has certainly enhanced the electorate’s power to influence decisions; this has also taken power away from parliament. Increasingly, there has been a move towards greater political pluralism. Through social media and communications, there has been a huge increase in pressure group activity and this has enabled citizens to air their views more frequently, for example NUS protests in London against the rise in tuition fees in 2010 and 2011. The coalitions’ introduction of fixed term parliaments has also made the UK more democratic; no longer can governments decide to call ‘snap elections’ when opinion polls are more favourable, the next general election will be in May 2015, or if parliament loses confidence, but ultimately, the ability of government to choose when to hold them has been taken away.
However, whilst the current system shows signs of liberal democracy, it clearly does not conform to liberal democratic ideals. There is still no written constitution, one of their key objectives. The House of Lords remain unelected and despite Labour carrying out reform in 1999 to remove all but 92 hereditary peers, in October 2011 there were still 88. Peers are appointed by government and this sums up the undemocratic nature of the UK. Blair was very presidential in style, relying more on ‘spads’ like Alistair Campbell than elected politicians. This is backed up as cabinet meetings usually lasted as little as 45 minutes. His style illustrates an undemocratic style, whilst popular, he should be listening to fellow elected members of his cabinet. Additionally, First Past The Post remains distinctively undemocratic of the true wishes of voters and whilst there is greater representation of smaller parties in Europe, where sovereignty lies in the UK, in parliament, smaller parties are grossly underrepresented/ Conservatives and Labour overrepresented. As the previous explained, pressure groups form part of political pluralism, but in parliamentary terms, there is by no means a range of political representation, and it could be argued that for true democracy to exist, tolerance of rival parties and beliefs need to exist, especially in the legislature to ensure all groups are represented. Pressure Groups are not even listened to, millions marched through London in the ‘Stop the War’ coalition, but these protests were largely ignored. The status of the pressure group in question is also important, not all are listened to. The CBI can exert great power with any government due to their importance in business and their insider status; however the ‘Occupy’ movement are ignored. The media is controlled by a relatively small number of proprietors such as Rupert Murdoch who owns the Sun, Times and Sunday Times. It is not correct to call yourself a democracy if one person or organisation can have so much power over what people believe and a break up of this monopoly would enhance democracy. This greatly influences the public and restricts their ability to obtain a range of information with which to make judgements. One could argue however that we do not have much power over our affairs anyway. Global markets dictate economic policy and America dictates British foreign policy, it could be argued that the days of liberal democracy are numbered, and as seen in the eurozone debt crisis, countries need to act quickly without having the legitimacy from their people to make quick and contentious agreements on fiscal policy.
In conclusion, the UK is not a liberal democratic system. Whilst it has key features of a liberal democracy, the current system does not conform enough to liberal democratic ideals for it to be considered one. The steps introduced by Labour such as devolution, improving information and the greater use of referenda certainly gave more power to the people and reduced the power of central government; noticeably very liberal. However, the fact that the House of Lords is still unelected and contains 88 hereditary peers highlights the undemocratic nature of the UK system. We still have no written constitution or Bill of Rights, HRA 2000 simply brought the UK into line with the European Convention on Human Rights. The continued use of First Past the Post emphasises how the UK is undemocratic, and whilst one could argue that the rejection of AV in May 2011 legitimises AV, it is most likely that the electorate want a fairer system than AV; AV would not have been as proportionate as say, STV. Reforms of the weaknesses noted above would make the UK a liberal democratic system, however in its current form it is not one.
What do you guys think?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later[^] [v] #281,174
delicious copypasta
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #281,176
@previous (B)
Not really. I might be committing political suicide by saying this, and be accused of selling out, but here it goes: I want to get away from the Kimmo stylesheet altogether. I want to get away from the idea of being a chan altogether. I want to create a discussion board that is more like a social network than anything else. It would be like Facebook, with the focus being on the board and real discussion rather than it focusing on groups, likes, wall-posts, pokes, games, etc. It would give you the option to post anonymously rather than forcing you to register, but registering and having a profile would be an option. It would be like twitter, but would encourage intelligent conversation rather than 100 character "tweets" that seem to be dumbing down the nation. It would be like a blog, but people would actually care about it, because rather than being a blog in the sense that it's a single website about you, it's interactive and everyone is tied together through the social network. You could have a "friends" list, but it would be more like a list of favorite posters where you watch for their posts/threads, rather than a restrictive list. It will be like Facebook WAS, back when people actually joined groups and went into the discussion tab to have actual discussion, before they started putting ridiculous restrictions on groups and encouraging people to just "like" corporations instead and have you play mindless games so they can sell your information to advertisers. You'd still have the same freedom of speech, and be able to post anything from chan bullshit to legitimate reporters using it as a medium to post their news articles or blogs. It would be like youtube, but the focus would be on discussion rather than video, but the idea of it being user generated content is the same. Privacy would never be an issue, because you'd still have the option to post anonymously and no logging in would be required.
I warned you it was political suicide. I know some of you must think I'm joking and that I just don't get it. I know I probably sound like Kimmo several years ago, posting about stuff where it was obvious to everyone but him that only he thought his ideas were a good idea. The difference is, I'm not a sociopath, I don't want to do this because I think I deserve a billion dollars, I don't think it's guaranteed to be the next big thing, and I understand that it's not for everyone, so I have no intention of spamming my site all over the god damn place trying to attract attention from people who will obviously hate it. I just know there are a lot of people just like me out there who miss the old youtube, miss the old facebook, hate the teenage drama of myspace, and are sickened by the watered down content and pointless updates of twitter. There are people out there who love the free speech of blogs and chan sites, but hate the meaningless shit that fills most chans and the fact that most blogs are just people who only want to talk about themselves or think they're real reporters because they have a website. I know the internet market is already flooded with so many social networking and sharing sites that I might just be insane. Maybe I really am like Kimmo and I'm trying to reinvent the wheel just because there's not a site out there that's not EXACTLY what I want it to be. If that's the case, just say so. If there's a social networking site out there that's ridiculously close to what I'm describing here, just say so, and I'll leave you alone and I'll go there instead. I'm not going to be like Kimmo and go ahead with an idea when everyone tells me it's lame and refuse to take any advice and call anyone who disagree with me a troll, but if you read this and you feel the same way, if your're like me and feel like there are millions of people out there who feel the same way we do, if your're sick of settling for what's already out there and feel like the internet needs a new niche for everyone who is like us...
JOIN ME
Or don't because I realize that was a little over the top.
Not really. I might be committing political suicide by saying this, and be accused of selling out, but here it goes: I want to get away from the Kimmo stylesheet altogether. I want to get away from the idea of being a chan altogether. I want to create a discussion board that is more like a social network than anything else. It would be like Facebook, with the focus being on the board and real discussion rather than it focusing on groups, likes, wall-posts, pokes, games, etc. It would give you the option to post anonymously rather than forcing you to register, but registering and having a profile would be an option. It would be like twitter, but would encourage intelligent conversation rather than 100 character "tweets" that seem to be dumbing down the nation. It would be like a blog, but people would actually care about it, because rather than being a blog in the sense that it's a single website about you, it's interactive and everyone is tied together through the social network. You could have a "friends" list, but it would be more like a list of favorite posters where you watch for their posts/threads, rather than a restrictive list. It will be like Facebook WAS, back when people actually joined groups and went into the discussion tab to have actual discussion, before they started putting ridiculous restrictions on groups and encouraging people to just "like" corporations instead and have you play mindless games so they can sell your information to advertisers. You'd still have the same freedom of speech, and be able to post anything from chan bullshit to legitimate reporters using it as a medium to post their news articles or blogs. It would be like youtube, but the focus would be on discussion rather than video, but the idea of it being user generated content is the same. Privacy would never be an issue, because you'd still have the option to post anonymously and no logging in would be required.
I warned you it was political suicide. I know some of you must think I'm joking and that I just don't get it. I know I probably sound like Kimmo several years ago, posting about stuff where it was obvious to everyone but him that only he thought his ideas were a good idea. The difference is, I'm not a sociopath, I don't want to do this because I think I deserve a billion dollars, I don't think it's guaranteed to be the next big thing, and I understand that it's not for everyone, so I have no intention of spamming my site all over the god damn place trying to attract attention from people who will obviously hate it. I just know there are a lot of people just like me out there who miss the old youtube, miss the old facebook, hate the teenage drama of myspace, and are sickened by the watered down content and pointless updates of twitter. There are people out there who love the free speech of blogs and chan sites, but hate the meaningless shit that fills most chans and the fact that most blogs are just people who only want to talk about themselves or think they're real reporters because they have a website. I know the internet market is already flooded with so many social networking and sharing sites that I might just be insane. Maybe I really am like Kimmo and I'm trying to reinvent the wheel just because there's not a site out there that's not EXACTLY what I want it to be. If that's the case, just say so. If there's a social networking site out there that's ridiculously close to what I'm describing here, just say so, and I'll leave you alone and I'll go there instead. I'm not going to be like Kimmo and go ahead with an idea when everyone tells me it's lame and refuse to take any advice and call anyone who disagree with me a troll, but if you read this and you feel the same way, if your're like me and feel like there are millions of people out there who feel the same way we do, if your're sick of settling for what's already out there and feel like the internet needs a new niche for everyone who is like us...
JOIN ME
Or don't because I realize that was a little over the top.
Rainbow !DASHqGnDdc (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #281,180
@281,174 (B)
Goeiedag, my name is Pieter van den hoogenband
I'm a 27 year old American Dutchophile (Dutch fan for you buitenlanders). I make Cheese and spin Windmills on my tablet, and spend my days perfecting my art and playing superior Dutch games. (Suske & Wiske, Amsterdoom, and Killzone series)
I train with my Frikandel every day, this superior weapon can cut clean through broodje because it is made out of mushed cow eyes, and is vastly superior to any other weapon on earth. I earned my frikandel license two years ago, and I have been getting better every day.
I speak Dutch fluently, both Algemeen beschaafd Nederlands and the Brabant dialect, and I write fluently as well. I know everything about Dutch history and their Water-avoiding code, which I follow 100%
When I get my Dutch visa, I am moving to Amsterdam to attend a prestigious High School to learn more about their magnificent culture. I hope I can become a Windmall operator for a farmer or a canal designer!
I own several pieces of orange clothing, which I wear around town. I want to get used to wearing them before I move to Holland, so I can fit in easier. I disrespect my elders, always have my own opinion, and speak Dutch as often as I can, but rarely does anyone manage to respond.
Goeiedag, my name is Pieter van den hoogenband
I'm a 27 year old American Dutchophile (Dutch fan for you buitenlanders). I make Cheese and spin Windmills on my tablet, and spend my days perfecting my art and playing superior Dutch games. (Suske & Wiske, Amsterdoom, and Killzone series)
I train with my Frikandel every day, this superior weapon can cut clean through broodje because it is made out of mushed cow eyes, and is vastly superior to any other weapon on earth. I earned my frikandel license two years ago, and I have been getting better every day.
I speak Dutch fluently, both Algemeen beschaafd Nederlands and the Brabant dialect, and I write fluently as well. I know everything about Dutch history and their Water-avoiding code, which I follow 100%
When I get my Dutch visa, I am moving to Amsterdam to attend a prestigious High School to learn more about their magnificent culture. I hope I can become a Windmall operator for a farmer or a canal designer!
I own several pieces of orange clothing, which I wear around town. I want to get used to wearing them before I move to Holland, so I can fit in easier. I disrespect my elders, always have my own opinion, and speak Dutch as often as I can, but rarely does anyone manage to respond.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,197
Marxist bullshit.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,199
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,200
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,201
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,205
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,206
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,207
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,211
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,214
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,215
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,234
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,241
dw !AIy/L67q.s joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #281,247
414. That’s an error.
The requested URL /search... is too large to process. That’s all we know.
The requested URL /search... is too large to process. That’s all we know.