Crosswords3 mins ago
Referendums
Wouldn't it be a good idea to hold referendums instead of having politicians passing laws? We could solve the crime problem at a stroke, or several if the majority of our 60 million people had the say so.
I bet the illegal immigrants and asylum seekers would be gone tomorrow.
I bet the illegal immigrants and asylum seekers would be gone tomorrow.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Oakleaf51. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
shouldn't be answering this as the only reason I have been tied to the computer since 6.00 this morning is to do my OU assignment. However in order to have a break from some intellectual exercise I will respond to your in my opinion puerile question. No.
But I am interested to know what informs your thinking.
Are you proposing to do away with all Government to enter into anarchy?
Wouldn�t that defeat what you want because without any governance and the country being an anarchic state anyone would be able to wander in at will and possibly form their government and take over!
Or do you plan on keeping the current type of governance but just remove the powers of legislation. If so are you planning to rescind all current legislation � immediately back to lawlessness, might is right anarchy or just put all future legislation to the test by referendum?
Say everyone who can vote is so impressed with your idea we go for it. I assume you and some like minded friends want to pass some legislation that will make it illegal in this country to allow asylum seekers to be afforded asylum, yes? Any way you and your friends are in a position of writing a White paper that if ratified would not be illegal because of other existing legislation � ie you and your friends are lawyers. Then you place the paper before every person in the country entitled to vote. How are you going to do that, hand deliver, post or what? Then you have to collect all the votes back up and count them. I have probably missed a few hurdles but no doubt you or others on here will be able to supply the answers. Yes sarcasm is allegedly the lowest form of wit but I have been using my intelligence quota up on working for yet another academic award. It�s not at degree level, only certificate but as I already have two post grad awards I don�t think that matters does it.
But I am interested to know what informs your thinking.
Are you proposing to do away with all Government to enter into anarchy?
Wouldn�t that defeat what you want because without any governance and the country being an anarchic state anyone would be able to wander in at will and possibly form their government and take over!
Or do you plan on keeping the current type of governance but just remove the powers of legislation. If so are you planning to rescind all current legislation � immediately back to lawlessness, might is right anarchy or just put all future legislation to the test by referendum?
Say everyone who can vote is so impressed with your idea we go for it. I assume you and some like minded friends want to pass some legislation that will make it illegal in this country to allow asylum seekers to be afforded asylum, yes? Any way you and your friends are in a position of writing a White paper that if ratified would not be illegal because of other existing legislation � ie you and your friends are lawyers. Then you place the paper before every person in the country entitled to vote. How are you going to do that, hand deliver, post or what? Then you have to collect all the votes back up and count them. I have probably missed a few hurdles but no doubt you or others on here will be able to supply the answers. Yes sarcasm is allegedly the lowest form of wit but I have been using my intelligence quota up on working for yet another academic award. It�s not at degree level, only certificate but as I already have two post grad awards I don�t think that matters does it.
The existing policy, as far as I am aware, is for the public to contact their local MP to give their views on what they would like changed. The principle is OK but MP's have pressure put on them in the House of Commons by the Whips to conform with their party's line of action. I cannot see in the current set up how the public can alter official policy except huge outcries and sometimes demonstrations. Too many of us accept what others say instead of going on to the internet, writing letters or telephoning. If you look at some of subjects raised on AB there has been a huge amount of discussion and even petitions raised. We should protest more!
Well ruby - clever clogs - I think you missed the point. Lots of people wouldn't mind an additional question or two stuck on to the end of their voting slip at a general election, and decide if criminals are going to get punished or "Asboed" or maybe a day out to York?
Have a rest, you're working too hard.
Have a rest, you're working too hard.
We have had referendums in this country but when was the last, enter or not into the EU in the 70's? is there a reason that referendums are so rarely used, might it be because generally they are impractical?
Putting a question on to a ballot paper is not going to pas views just elicit opinions. Or are you genuinely suggesting that this becomes the new way of developing legislation? Or am I missing the point if so I apologise and can you spell it out for me.
Putting a question on to a ballot paper is not going to pas views just elicit opinions. Or are you genuinely suggesting that this becomes the new way of developing legislation? Or am I missing the point if so I apologise and can you spell it out for me.
Hugh Spencer - You are right that we should protest more. I have a good constituency M.P. and have written to hime quite a few time over the years, and even got results on local issues, and replies / explanations on other bigger issues. But people do feel powerless. Anyway, wouldn't it be a bit more democratic? Look at the EU constitution issue for example?
ruby -
Well I honestly thought that the ordinary people would like a more direct say in how we are governed. Most people are aghast at lenient sentencing for violent crime but are powerless to do anything except to vote every few years, and all pliticians seem to be of the same ilk.
Why not give them a chance ?
Of course, if I'm being too simplistic, I'm sorry.
God luck with your studies by the way. What subjects are you doing? Nosey aren't I?
Well I honestly thought that the ordinary people would like a more direct say in how we are governed. Most people are aghast at lenient sentencing for violent crime but are powerless to do anything except to vote every few years, and all pliticians seem to be of the same ilk.
Why not give them a chance ?
Of course, if I'm being too simplistic, I'm sorry.
God luck with your studies by the way. What subjects are you doing? Nosey aren't I?
There are a variety of theories about why we have government as all groups of humans end up with some sort of leadership. The social contract theory holds that governments are created by the people in order to provide for collective needs such as law and order, health/welfare, education managing the infrastructure etc and to do that the government can call upon experts in whatever field. That these needs cannot be properly satisfied using purely individual means. Therefore, freeing us up at an individual level, so we can have a family life, go to work, study or avoid studying by being on AB. Not perfect but best the human could come up with to date. This theory is the one I agree with most because it makes sense to my way of thinking. I do not want to be bothered about most of the laws that we need and wouldn�t have a sensible or informed opinion anyway. However for things that I do feel passionately about or have an expertise in I have the right to petition my MP and at grass roots level be a member of a political party.
I don�t think you are being nosey just human interest. I am studying or not when on AB, Management. It has been a fascinating course and I have learnt lots � never have done OU before but I am very impressed. My apologies for bad humor of my first post, debating brings out the worst in me.
I don�t think you are being nosey just human interest. I am studying or not when on AB, Management. It has been a fascinating course and I have learnt lots � never have done OU before but I am very impressed. My apologies for bad humor of my first post, debating brings out the worst in me.
The Scots elections were marred by folk being confused as to how to vote on their ballot papers. It is bad enough when folk don't get the candidate they want so imagine the outcry if those campaigning for the restoration of hanging or deportation of any immigrants, won only because of spoilt papers.
If a system was developed where it was relatively easy and pain free to vote on certain issues, then I think it would be a fantastic idea.
In an ideal world, the country would have the sense and honesty to be able to pass judgement on the result of important issues. This would, as you say, give the public a sense of accomplishment and a voice. On saying that, the idea of voting for a party candidate is supposed to be our means of doing just that. We trust (eek!) that the person we have put in power will carry out the wishes of the majority - which is why we study the manifesto of the party and then vote accordingly! However, power, personal ambition, misguided ideas and relationships with other countries all get in the way............ Don't know the answer, it sounds a wonderful concept on the face of it......you have made me think Oakleaf!
In an ideal world, the country would have the sense and honesty to be able to pass judgement on the result of important issues. This would, as you say, give the public a sense of accomplishment and a voice. On saying that, the idea of voting for a party candidate is supposed to be our means of doing just that. We trust (eek!) that the person we have put in power will carry out the wishes of the majority - which is why we study the manifesto of the party and then vote accordingly! However, power, personal ambition, misguided ideas and relationships with other countries all get in the way............ Don't know the answer, it sounds a wonderful concept on the face of it......you have made me think Oakleaf!
Question on referendum:
Would you like criminals to be locked up in Prison for longer
Yes / No.
I reckon that the majority of people will vote Yes.
Do they realise that tax would have to go up? Average cost of keeping prisoners in jail is �50,000 per year. There are currently around 80,000 prisoners. If we added 1 year on average to a sentence that would cost � 4 Billion. - the equivalent of putting income tax up by 1p. And of course, this doesn't even include thoughts about building and running new prisons etc.
Okay, lets try another question
Would you like all immigrants to be deported?
Yes / No.
If the vote is Yes - I'd like to ask where you expect all the Doctors (a great many from Asia), Dentists (from all over the world) and other medical staff are to come from.
Are people prepared to wait even longer for treatment on the NHS?
Unfortunately, referendums do not work. They are far to simplistic and unfortunately the great majority of people do not think through their thoughts / actions.
As Sir Winston Churchill once said "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"
Would you like criminals to be locked up in Prison for longer
Yes / No.
I reckon that the majority of people will vote Yes.
Do they realise that tax would have to go up? Average cost of keeping prisoners in jail is �50,000 per year. There are currently around 80,000 prisoners. If we added 1 year on average to a sentence that would cost � 4 Billion. - the equivalent of putting income tax up by 1p. And of course, this doesn't even include thoughts about building and running new prisons etc.
Okay, lets try another question
Would you like all immigrants to be deported?
Yes / No.
If the vote is Yes - I'd like to ask where you expect all the Doctors (a great many from Asia), Dentists (from all over the world) and other medical staff are to come from.
Are people prepared to wait even longer for treatment on the NHS?
Unfortunately, referendums do not work. They are far to simplistic and unfortunately the great majority of people do not think through their thoughts / actions.
As Sir Winston Churchill once said "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"
Not 100% voted.
There have actually multiple referenda in recent years, but they've mostly been to specific regions. There was on independance in Northern Ireland, for example, plus the devolution referenda in Scotland, Wales, and later the North East.
I have to say, referendums do have some problems, but I see some use for them. The EEC one for example, I consider one of the few accomplishments of Wilson's time in office (not to mention of the few promises he actually lived up to).
Oneyedvic's criticisms all hold true, but I think there are some issues from time to time which the populace simply should be consulted on (like the EEC one). Obviously not everything can, and it's fallacious to try - but I think there is a welcome place for referendums used correctly.
Governing by referendum though, would be an absolute disaster. The issues which people have pointed out (such as immigration) are actually highly divisive and could also lead to what Mill called the 'tyranny of the majority'. Oversimplifying on such issues wouldn't help the situation at all and might not be so clear-cut as people think. In which case, you'll have just wasted a load of money and time, and people - being people - will likely blame the government.
There is an interesting idea, however, for an oppurtunity for direct democracy to work in this day and age with heightened levels of instant communication allaying the demographic problems. To be honest, I personally think it would be a disaster (and I also think people wouldn't like to have to blame themsevles), but it's still interesting.
There have actually multiple referenda in recent years, but they've mostly been to specific regions. There was on independance in Northern Ireland, for example, plus the devolution referenda in Scotland, Wales, and later the North East.
I have to say, referendums do have some problems, but I see some use for them. The EEC one for example, I consider one of the few accomplishments of Wilson's time in office (not to mention of the few promises he actually lived up to).
Oneyedvic's criticisms all hold true, but I think there are some issues from time to time which the populace simply should be consulted on (like the EEC one). Obviously not everything can, and it's fallacious to try - but I think there is a welcome place for referendums used correctly.
Governing by referendum though, would be an absolute disaster. The issues which people have pointed out (such as immigration) are actually highly divisive and could also lead to what Mill called the 'tyranny of the majority'. Oversimplifying on such issues wouldn't help the situation at all and might not be so clear-cut as people think. In which case, you'll have just wasted a load of money and time, and people - being people - will likely blame the government.
There is an interesting idea, however, for an oppurtunity for direct democracy to work in this day and age with heightened levels of instant communication allaying the demographic problems. To be honest, I personally think it would be a disaster (and I also think people wouldn't like to have to blame themsevles), but it's still interesting.
