To be honest whether iraq was the best course of action or not I am glad to see him sticking to his guns and not withdrawing as its "what most people want" and will help the party on election day. I don't like it when politics is played to what people want so you do better in polls. The public elect people as they are more qualified, and more knowledgable on these matters than most of us (dodgy intelligence or no ). I just feel that when they start giving in to public oppinion then there not neccessarily doing whats best for the country in THEIR oppinion (unless its stuff like making petrol 20000p per drop).
I dunno Bogo, I mean, in a representative democracy politicians shouldn't do "what the people want" because the masses are stupid and fickle and easily influenced by the media. What they're meant to do is whats right, and I guess that's only really sometimes visible to your average person in retrospect, not at the time of the events happening.
Yeah, but he still thinks its right - and while thats ok he could easily go back on his word and change it to make people vote republican again. It is of course a differant matter if he realises his mistake and doesn't go back on it - the best thing to take from mistakes is how to avoid doing it again and if you cant accept it when youve made that mistake then theres no learning curve.
A lot of the electorate are not stupid, they're ill-informed. If the elected representatives distort facts to suit their hidden agenda, then you've not got a democracy at all. And if the leader distorts the facts to other elected representatives to get their backing it starts to look like a dictatorship. Just what brand of "Freedom" are we exporting? A good manager would change the plan if events change its justification, not just change the justification for the old plan. To ignore hindsight is not a sensible option.
Er. But isn't that the whole definition of "democracy"? OK, so you think that a politician who does not listen to the people he governs is better? Vote Saddam. And what "better qualifications" do politicians possess? What makes them better equiped to run a country than other people just as bright, if not brighter? Apparently I can predict what will happen better than the average politician --in fact, many people can-- which is why we are all tearing our hair out in frustration over this whole "war on terror" thing or the Iraq occupation having gone pearshaped. It is not as if we did not see all this coming. People are dumb, but a politicians' job nonetheless is to represent the people. It is his/her job to translate the crude impulses and the uninformed desires of the people into reasoned, sensible and informed policy. In doing so, the politician is supposed to educate the people so that they can be better informed and make more sensible decisions on what they want. In short, a politician is supposed to be like our doctor, accountant, plumber, car mechanic, whatever. An expert in his particular field, who explains to us our options in an understandable manner, so that we can make informed decisions on what we want, which he then proceeds to execute. On a side note: it is interesting that Bush said: "Iraq is not the reason the terrorists are at war against us.", given that he has always implied that terrorism was the reason he invaded Iraq.
The majority of people want hanging to be brought back, show people enough stuff about muslim extremists and for a few weeks you could probably manage to vote in a ban on the immigration of muslims and get a policy of "renaturalisation" for those currently living here. "The People" care only about what the news brings to their attention, which is why we have idiots who honestly believe that we got rid of saddam while simultaniously supporting numerous totalitarian regiemes around the world in the name of freedom. I'm no fan of the old populist thing, but even people who do admire rule by the people, must realise it's rule by a certain group of intelligent people, not the masses. Mob rule gets no-one anywhere.
Then you don't support democracy (but a form of meritocracy, perhaps). Fine by me, and I'd even sign up to that. But let's call a spade a spade. People need to learn how to handle freedom of choice responsibly. As such, in a real democracy it is the politician's job to educate people, like a doctor would educate and advise you on your illness and treatment, so you can make the most informed choice. It is the people's job to listen and learn. If people are not interested, they will get the rule they deserve.
But anyone who thinks on it can easily understand that all representative democracy is, is a form of meritocracy. The intelligent, or wealthy, or photogenic get to be leader and force their beliefs on us all. True democracy in a full way hasn't been proved possible on a scale of a country like the UK, I don't think. It would require people to be putting forward constant suggestions, putting them up for votes that somehow a large proportion of the country would have to vote on, and this would have to happen at all levels from village and town council level up to national or even international, on a constant daily basis. It would cripple the society. Democracy means rule by the people, not by all the people. Your suggestion that it is a politicians job to educate is a nice one, in theory, but then people don't care to know do they? If everyone was after knowledge then public libraries would be full and cinema's would be empty, broadsheets would sell while tabloids would be relegated to hampster bedding. None of this happens though. I think the way you think of democracy Nexxo, may be a eutopian ideal. Then again I always was a pessimisitic sod
Democracy is an ideal. We can aspire to it, or we can abandon the pretence and settle for something more... pragmatic. Meritocracy certainly has its attractions in my opinion. I think that people need to earn citizenship, and the right to vote. The problem however, as always, is that if you put people in charge for the good of the people, who watches the watchers? Democracy is the most cumbersome and awkward way of running a country, but it is also the right way. The price of being the wise one...
I think a politician who does something against what he started to get better representation in the next set of polls isnt what you need. And yes, politicians are better than the majority of people at what they do, I would say. I'd never stand the drudgery and stress of being a high profile politician - making hard decisions which essentially kill people both friendly and hostile.
Personally, I prefer a politician who listens to feedback. There is a difference between being consistent and being foolhardy. I would strongly disagree. There are plenty of people who enjoy the stress of making tricky and complicated decisions that can affect people's lives pretty radically on a daily basis. Moreover, most of those people are much closer to the consequences of their decisions. Take doctors and nurses, for instance. Every day they get to make life-and-death decisions under stressful circumstances, balancing staff time, hospital resources and patient caseloads, trying not to get patients killed or traumatised in the process. If they screw up, they are held personally responsible. They get to administer CPR to the dying patient, get to see the body carted off, document a detailed account of their actions, explain them at a coroner's enquiry, and may incidentally also get to break the bad news to the patient's family. There are thousands of people who call tricky shots that affect people's lives, in hundereds of different jobs, and they get paid considerably less than a politician who will never get closer to, say, the soldier that got killed than signing a condolance letter to the family (actually, they don't even do that), and will never even have to know about people's lives affected by budget cuts, or explain the millions wasted in many mismanaged projects or privatisations. If a politician screws up badly, he may be made to resign (and enjoy a retirement scheme that is preposterous by most people's standards), possibly only to get another cushy appointment at the next reshuffle. He may get some bad press or be voted out. But he will have plenty of other sources of income in business. His career certainly won't be ruined and he will never have to stand up in court to account for his actions. Politicians are incredibly distant from the consequences of their actions. Those grey hairs you see is them worrying about how dead soldiers affect their own careers and ego. It is not worry about the soldiers themselves.
Erm, no actually. See Switzerland. Seems to work just fine. Whereas we and the USA bounce from one party to the other and one set of ideals to the opposite, with national government at loggerheads with local government. Government by extremes.
I know full well about Switzerland dude, and admire it greatly. However, the majority of their decisions are still going to be executed by the politicians. Yes, a referendum can be held if, IIRC 5% of the population sign a petition, but even if so that's hardly rule of the people. It's rule by the politicians with the odd veto and addition by the people.
At least the people have an opportunity to vote and veto if they so choose. What opportunity did we have to choose to follow Bush into war? The House of Commons didn't even get to vote on it. Blair just spun some lies and unilaterally decided to go for it. See what our senior citizens fought WWII for --Adolf Hitler would laugh himself a hernia right now.
