English Democracy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
English Democracy
I must be missing something, somewhere, as I believed that I lived in a democratic country, and have indeed served the crown many years (25) in the preservation of the said democracy.
So why when the nations public, and a significant ammount of democratically voted MPs state quite clearly that we cannot just march into another mans country, does the leader of the government believe he has the rightfull power to disregard public opinion and cow-tow to the United States.
Regardless of alleged military int, there are rules to be adhered to which appear to be placed conveniently under the carpet.
Is Tony Blair suffering from the "Red Mist Syndrome", or is he in need of a visit to an NHS Mental Health hospital?
It is time this nation rose above the reputation of being a US Aircraft Carrier just off the Eurpean coastline! ....and Israel lost all of my sympathies the day they shot dead the young boy cowering behind his father for protection.
So why when the nations public, and a significant ammount of democratically voted MPs state quite clearly that we cannot just march into another mans country, does the leader of the government believe he has the rightfull power to disregard public opinion and cow-tow to the United States.
Regardless of alleged military int, there are rules to be adhered to which appear to be placed conveniently under the carpet.
Is Tony Blair suffering from the "Red Mist Syndrome", or is he in need of a visit to an NHS Mental Health hospital?
It is time this nation rose above the reputation of being a US Aircraft Carrier just off the Eurpean coastline! ....and Israel lost all of my sympathies the day they shot dead the young boy cowering behind his father for protection.
To be strictly fair (and with nine posts you may not realise that I have a bit of a pro-Arab reputation on this forum - sufficient to be known to some as Abu Jacko) it must be pointed out that the Israelis have suffered attrocities as well as dealing them out.
Not to have some sympathy for a very brave and courageous bunch (who happen to be led by Donkeys) seems harsh, though like you (I suspect) I am completely out of sympathy with an Israeli Government which refuses to compromise and which seems to regard nothing as being too harsh to mete out to the indigenous Arab population of the land it occupies - much of it seized by force of arms.
Not to have some sympathy for a very brave and courageous bunch (who happen to be led by Donkeys) seems harsh, though like you (I suspect) I am completely out of sympathy with an Israeli Government which refuses to compromise and which seems to regard nothing as being too harsh to mete out to the indigenous Arab population of the land it occupies - much of it seized by force of arms.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: This week Reading, next week Barcelona ... and repeat
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more spot..... It makes me wonder how many arms companies sponsored dubbya during his presidential campaign.
I do agree with your stance on Israel too. The west bank situation reminds me of another dispute not too many years ago where a nation invaded another country under the guise of a need for 'lebensraum'.........
I do agree with your stance on Israel too. The west bank situation reminds me of another dispute not too many years ago where a nation invaded another country under the guise of a need for 'lebensraum'.........
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our (largely unwritten) constitution allows the Prime Minister (by invoking the 'Royal Prerogative') to deploy the UK armed forces however he chooses.
The democracy bit comes every 5 years.
The democracy bit comes every 5 years.
Last edited by Scud-U-Like; 7th Sep 2002 at 14:08.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scud has it right. We live in a representative democracy - not a mobocracy. We elect a governemnt every 5 years (max) and have to trust them to get on with it. El Presidente, Man-o- Straw and Buffhoon do have access to material and assessments which I doubt any one on this forum has.
There was no mention of war with Germany in the Conservative manifesto of 193(6?). I was at a prep school the day Chamberlain flew back from Munich with his piece of paper, signed by Adolf Hitler, guaranteeing "peace in our time". We were almost given a half-holiday! If there had been such things as polls in the '30s there would have been an overwhelming majority in favour of peace and reconciliation (appeasement). We went to war on 3 Sep 39 on account of a mutual treaty with the Poles - not because of public demand. Some perfectly respectable historians would argue that it was a wrong decision, but they would not have dared say so after Churchill took over in 1940. And at least the Jews should be eternally grateful. If we had not made a stand they would have been wiped out.
One of the reasons the Americans hang back until Dec 40 (and Roosevelt said this) was to bankrupt the British Empire. It was cash-and-carry for their kit until lease-lend kicked in, and in that period we liquidated our entire national investment portfolio in the USA. And, of course, after the war there was no Marshall Plan aid for the UK. Indeed, we introduced bread rationing in 1946 so as to feed the Germans!
Having said that, warts and all, the Americans are the best show in town for the defence of western civilisation. Viva the Pax Americana! And sod the UN!
There was no mention of war with Germany in the Conservative manifesto of 193(6?). I was at a prep school the day Chamberlain flew back from Munich with his piece of paper, signed by Adolf Hitler, guaranteeing "peace in our time". We were almost given a half-holiday! If there had been such things as polls in the '30s there would have been an overwhelming majority in favour of peace and reconciliation (appeasement). We went to war on 3 Sep 39 on account of a mutual treaty with the Poles - not because of public demand. Some perfectly respectable historians would argue that it was a wrong decision, but they would not have dared say so after Churchill took over in 1940. And at least the Jews should be eternally grateful. If we had not made a stand they would have been wiped out.
One of the reasons the Americans hang back until Dec 40 (and Roosevelt said this) was to bankrupt the British Empire. It was cash-and-carry for their kit until lease-lend kicked in, and in that period we liquidated our entire national investment portfolio in the USA. And, of course, after the war there was no Marshall Plan aid for the UK. Indeed, we introduced bread rationing in 1946 so as to feed the Germans!
Having said that, warts and all, the Americans are the best show in town for the defence of western civilisation. Viva the Pax Americana! And sod the UN!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought Kinloss was in the Independent People's Democratic Republic of Jockistan, Kipper?
............................................................ ...............
Tolerant English Democrats....
Archbishop of Canterbury. Welsh
Lord Chancellor. Scot
The Prime Minister. Scot
Speaker of the House of Commons. Scot
Lord Privy Seal. Scot
Chancellor of the Exchequer. Scot
The first English Democrat might be Jack Straw?
Or that nice Mister Blunkett
Thought Kinloss was in the Independent People's Democratic Republic of Jockistan, Kipper?
............................................................ ...............
Tolerant English Democrats....
Archbishop of Canterbury. Welsh
Lord Chancellor. Scot
The Prime Minister. Scot
Speaker of the House of Commons. Scot
Lord Privy Seal. Scot
Chancellor of the Exchequer. Scot
The first English Democrat might be Jack Straw?
Or that nice Mister Blunkett
Flatus,
Comparing Hitler and Saddam is perhaps tempting, but in 1938 Hitler had already re-taken the Rhineland, undertaken an illegal Anschluss with Austria and had re-taken the Sudetenland and then the rest of Czechoslovakia. His rhetoric made it clear that he was bent on further expansion by military means, not least in Poland.
By contrast, America thinks that Saddam may use his weapons of mass destruction against some unspecified target at some unspecified time in the future.
December 1940???
On another thread I've outlined my objections to getting behind the USA too readily. As a very junior partner we will associate ourselves with US positions which we do not necessarily share, which is why it is vital that America modifies its position on these issues.
That might even lead to an increase in public support for such an alliance and for military action, which the polls show to be very low right now.
Comparing Hitler and Saddam is perhaps tempting, but in 1938 Hitler had already re-taken the Rhineland, undertaken an illegal Anschluss with Austria and had re-taken the Sudetenland and then the rest of Czechoslovakia. His rhetoric made it clear that he was bent on further expansion by military means, not least in Poland.
By contrast, America thinks that Saddam may use his weapons of mass destruction against some unspecified target at some unspecified time in the future.
December 1940???
On another thread I've outlined my objections to getting behind the USA too readily. As a very junior partner we will associate ourselves with US positions which we do not necessarily share, which is why it is vital that America modifies its position on these issues.
That might even lead to an increase in public support for such an alliance and for military action, which the polls show to be very low right now.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flatus,
After the war there was Marshall Plan aid for the UK.
However our goverment at the time decided that the money would be better spent in India getting it ready for independence , rather than spend it in Britain. This was stated in a bbc documentary about a year ago, along with the American bewilderment at the British goverment atitude towards the British people.
Come to think of it, the goverments attitude is still the same today.
After the war there was Marshall Plan aid for the UK.
However our goverment at the time decided that the money would be better spent in India getting it ready for independence , rather than spend it in Britain. This was stated in a bbc documentary about a year ago, along with the American bewilderment at the British goverment atitude towards the British people.
Come to think of it, the goverments attitude is still the same today.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonico
Thanks for correcting my typing error! I agree that one can stretch historical analogies too far and that direct comparisons between Hitler and Saddam Hussein can be overdone. Nevertheless I only meant to demonstrate that conduct of foreign affairs, and even the declaration of war, are not subject to the ephemeral whims of public opinion in our tradition. In this instance, one cannot accuse El Presidente of being anti-democratic.
Cheezer
I stand corrected. I was not aware that we received any Marshall Aid. I DO remember, however, the terrible winter of 46/47, when rationing was at its most severe, and whatever gloss the Ministry of Food put on it, this country was actually starving. That winter and the following summer I was trying to do some serious rowing at College level. Breakfast, Lunch and dinner in Hall (water cress in mounds for protein!) supplemented by snacks at Joe Lyons whenever I could afford them and pints and pints of weak UAS beer, and I was still losing weight at an unacceptable rate. Luckily I was able to spend the Christmas and Easter Vacs with my parents in the Irish republic, where food was plentiful, and put some weight on again.
Thanks for correcting my typing error! I agree that one can stretch historical analogies too far and that direct comparisons between Hitler and Saddam Hussein can be overdone. Nevertheless I only meant to demonstrate that conduct of foreign affairs, and even the declaration of war, are not subject to the ephemeral whims of public opinion in our tradition. In this instance, one cannot accuse El Presidente of being anti-democratic.
Cheezer
I stand corrected. I was not aware that we received any Marshall Aid. I DO remember, however, the terrible winter of 46/47, when rationing was at its most severe, and whatever gloss the Ministry of Food put on it, this country was actually starving. That winter and the following summer I was trying to do some serious rowing at College level. Breakfast, Lunch and dinner in Hall (water cress in mounds for protein!) supplemented by snacks at Joe Lyons whenever I could afford them and pints and pints of weak UAS beer, and I was still losing weight at an unacceptable rate. Luckily I was able to spend the Christmas and Easter Vacs with my parents in the Irish republic, where food was plentiful, and put some weight on again.
FV,
As Cheezer says, we were recipients of Marshall Aid. We received $962 million. I'm not certain that we spent it on India, though - India had become independent before the aid package was authorised.
From what I recall, the prime cause of the 1946/47 probelms (other than the snow...) was incomptence - there was enough fuel to keep the power stations (and therefore industry) going, but the government failed to move the fuel to the power stations (failing to appreciate that it was a tad awkard to transport the fuel once the roads were under several inches of snow).
As Cheezer says, we were recipients of Marshall Aid. We received $962 million. I'm not certain that we spent it on India, though - India had become independent before the aid package was authorised.
From what I recall, the prime cause of the 1946/47 probelms (other than the snow...) was incomptence - there was enough fuel to keep the power stations (and therefore industry) going, but the government failed to move the fuel to the power stations (failing to appreciate that it was a tad awkard to transport the fuel once the roads were under several inches of snow).
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am diffident about correcting typos, particularly FV's, but when they concern matters of historical accuracy I'm prepared to butt in.
Chamberlain actually said "Peace for our...". I find the subtlety of the use of the word "for" instead of "in" to have significance. To bang on about it any more would risk corrupting the thread.
Google search shows this to be widely mis-quoted.
Oh, and yes, I'm British like Kippermate; that's much better than just plain old English. But, when I'm allowed to by the choices offered, I do insist on describing my country of residence as "England" rather than "United Kingdom".
The vexed question is "Who are the right/best people to decide whether to go to war?"
Politicians clearly are not. They depend upon mass appeal for their jobs and always have their voters to consider.
Serving military officers are not. They do not understand the political/economic/diplomatic considerations.
Neither do the proletariat or the chattering classes.
Industrialists? Vested interests again rule them out.
Clerics? Well, maybe as long as you can choose which ones are allowed to express their opinions. You wouldn't leave it to The Taliban or the Ayatollahs now, would you?
What about academics? Non-political, didactic, dispassionate, understanding the lessons of history etc etc.
Er, maybe not.
And, for Jacko, the Fourth Estate? Sorry, vested interests again.
But everyone has a vested interest, damn it. We all have the desire to be able to say afterwards " I was right, I told you so" when our proposed or actual decisions turn out to be right.
So we're left with the least worst choice and that, in our democracy, is the elected government. Back-benchers (especially ex-hereditary Peers) and those in marginal constituencies, Trade Union leaders (vote seekers again) and Church leaders simply cloud the issue. They need not apply.
We have to leave it to B & B and their advisers, some of who are mightily impressive. Think not of now or 5 years hence. Think 50 or 100 years ahead when your great-great-grandchildren and so on could well be saying "Why didn't they act back then in 2002 and sort this mess out before it got this bad".
We owe it to them.
Chamberlain actually said "Peace for our...". I find the subtlety of the use of the word "for" instead of "in" to have significance. To bang on about it any more would risk corrupting the thread.
Google search shows this to be widely mis-quoted.
Oh, and yes, I'm British like Kippermate; that's much better than just plain old English. But, when I'm allowed to by the choices offered, I do insist on describing my country of residence as "England" rather than "United Kingdom".
The vexed question is "Who are the right/best people to decide whether to go to war?"
Politicians clearly are not. They depend upon mass appeal for their jobs and always have their voters to consider.
Serving military officers are not. They do not understand the political/economic/diplomatic considerations.
Neither do the proletariat or the chattering classes.
Industrialists? Vested interests again rule them out.
Clerics? Well, maybe as long as you can choose which ones are allowed to express their opinions. You wouldn't leave it to The Taliban or the Ayatollahs now, would you?
What about academics? Non-political, didactic, dispassionate, understanding the lessons of history etc etc.
Er, maybe not.And, for Jacko, the Fourth Estate? Sorry, vested interests again.
But everyone has a vested interest, damn it. We all have the desire to be able to say afterwards " I was right, I told you so" when our proposed or actual decisions turn out to be right.
So we're left with the least worst choice and that, in our democracy, is the elected government. Back-benchers (especially ex-hereditary Peers) and those in marginal constituencies, Trade Union leaders (vote seekers again) and Church leaders simply cloud the issue. They need not apply.
We have to leave it to B & B and their advisers, some of who are mightily impressive. Think not of now or 5 years hence. Think 50 or 100 years ahead when your great-great-grandchildren and so on could well be saying "Why didn't they act back then in 2002 and sort this mess out before it got this bad".
We owe it to them.
Last edited by fobotcso; 9th Sep 2002 at 10:32.
Blimey, great post.
Only one problem.
I agree completely that the real question is "Who are the right/best people to decide (when and) whether to go to war?"
You then say that Politicians clearly are not. They depend upon mass appeal for their jobs and always have their voters to consider. I agree again. Especially the current PM, for whom opinion polls and focus groups seem so important - 'Do the popular thing and then argue that it's right' not 'Do the right thing and then argue the case for it'.
But you then go on to argue that "the least worst choice and that, in our democracy, is the elected government."
Having rightly castigated politicians we're back with them, especially now that the executive has so little accountability, and treats parliament with such contempt. In some respects the "Back-benchers (especially ex-hereditary Peers) and those in marginal constituencies, Trade Union leaders (vote seekers again) and Church leaders" are surely more useful because they are less controllable by Mr Blair's whips, and more accountable to their constituents than to Party leaders.
The answer must be that our elected government is the right choice, but only as long as it pays some heed to the other groups you describe, whether it be the electorate ('the proletariat and the chattering classes!'), the media (who can only ever reflect different public opinions - don't credit us with power, please!), industrialists (some of whose interests are our interests), and academics. I think that the government should listen especially hard to military officers, for obvious reasons.
Only one problem.
I agree completely that the real question is "Who are the right/best people to decide (when and) whether to go to war?"
You then say that Politicians clearly are not. They depend upon mass appeal for their jobs and always have their voters to consider. I agree again. Especially the current PM, for whom opinion polls and focus groups seem so important - 'Do the popular thing and then argue that it's right' not 'Do the right thing and then argue the case for it'.
But you then go on to argue that "the least worst choice and that, in our democracy, is the elected government."
Having rightly castigated politicians we're back with them, especially now that the executive has so little accountability, and treats parliament with such contempt. In some respects the "Back-benchers (especially ex-hereditary Peers) and those in marginal constituencies, Trade Union leaders (vote seekers again) and Church leaders" are surely more useful because they are less controllable by Mr Blair's whips, and more accountable to their constituents than to Party leaders.
The answer must be that our elected government is the right choice, but only as long as it pays some heed to the other groups you describe, whether it be the electorate ('the proletariat and the chattering classes!'), the media (who can only ever reflect different public opinions - don't credit us with power, please!), industrialists (some of whose interests are our interests), and academics. I think that the government should listen especially hard to military officers, for obvious reasons.
