The truth of the matter is that there is no perfect way of governing a country. Human flaws like greed and biast will always will come into it.
The Hamish people and the like probably have the best system where everyone helps each other, this sort of life is not for everyone though.
Its like a see saw, you have to have poor people at the bottom to keep the well off at the top, and we in the west, no matter what job you do or what you earn, are well off compared to the starving millions in the world.
Another way would be to link everyone´s brains to each other, so everyone can see each others suffering, maybe that way people would help each other out more. Mind you most people don´t give a toss anyway so it probably won´t work.
Originally posted by BicnarokIts like a see saw, you have to have poor people at the bottom to keep the well off at the top, and we in the west, no matter what job you do or what you earn, are well off compared to the starving millions in the world.
apparently if you earn £100 a week ($200) you are in the top 1% richest people in the world...
Originally posted by Bicnarok
The truth of the matter is that there is no perfect way of governing a country. Human flaws like greed and biast will always will come into it.The Hamish people and the like probably have the best system where everyone helps each other, this sort of life is not for everyone though.
Its like a see saw, you have to have poor people at the bottom to keep the well off at the top, and we in the west, no matter what job you do or what you earn, are well off compared to the starving millions in the world.
Another way would be to link everyone´s brains to each other, so everyone can see each others suffering, maybe that way people would help each other out more. Mind you most people don´t give a toss anyway so it probably won´t work.
Really, the key to an ideal civilization deals more with the social construct than the government. When you can make sure people do not talk to each other and do not communicate then things will always occur as they have.
For example, (I only use this example because everyone knows this is true; it is not a bash) hardly any Christian has read the Bible in it's entirety yet they claim to understand "the word" by simply taking the word of the Church as the word of the Bible. People in poor neighborhoods tend to be selfish and strictly about incentive rather than attempting to help one another which would help alleviate some of the issues their neighborhoods may have. The biggest issue deals with incentive and it takes away the idea that the person adjacent to you would help you or even give a damn for that matter.
Funny you mention jobs also because I was having a discussion with someone about the Japanese economic system before they changed to the "American way" (this was because of "bubble economy"; basically, it's really similar to what happened in the U.S. before the Great Depression). At one point the Japanese had a job system where every adult was GUARNTEED A JOB WITH A PARTICULAR COMPANY UNTIL RETIREMENT. That seemed so wild to me when I first heard it. Of course, it's not that way now but that is one way to consider helping out citizens. In the U.S. it would be hard to put into legislation so it would likely never happen in this country. I can elaborate later on these points if needed.
Long story short, this is why people don't give a damn, because they are almost certain the person next to them is a snake. Complete anarchy is not what total freedom would be ideally, but in application, following the system of capitalism, this would easily be the case.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Hardly a crumbling democracy, at least not as flawed as a democracy founded with a strict ideology to adhere to. But I suppose things need to be amended among the principalities, better than chasin' you lot back into the hills after all.
someone a little bit bitter that England is run by Scots?
Gordon Brown...scot
John Reid...scot
Alistair Darling...scot
Des Browne...scot
Douglas Alexander...scot
just kidding
my point is the democratic system in Britain is wrong and completely undemocratic...see my original post as for why
Originally posted by jaden101
someone a little bit bitter that England is run by Scots?Gordon Brown...scot
John Reid...scot
Alistair Darling...scot
Des Browne...scot
Douglas Alexander...scotjust kidding
my point is the democratic system in Britain is wrong and completely undemocratic...see my original post as for why
It doesn't bother me at all, and I flirt with the pseudo-racist relationship between England and Scotland that both parties engage in. In fact, considering some of the most prominent, influential Britons of all are Scottish and Irish, I'd be a bit of a nut if I was serious. Not that I need to validate myself as a Briton, just I enjoy seeing Scotland lose at Rugby.
Anyway, as Ushgarak says, your first post a is tad rambling and unfocused, you can't help that alot of people are taking it as an opportunity to take a dig at the US or on the recieving end of said dig.
Labour gave you an ineffectual representation of government, which is a nice gesture, even if a little misguided; last time I looked you guys weren't so concerned with appearences. But I disgress, moving on, at least it was not the Wigs putting a collar around your neck.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, your original post is rambling and badly presented so few will do that.It also contains mistakes- Labour won the popular vote, so your comparison with the US elections is poor.
its not rambling at all...it contains everything you need to know about the absurd nature of the way the UK is governed...if the method is confusing (which to most people in the UK, never mind outside of the UK, it is) then the explanation will be also
how do you simplify and justify Scottish based MP's (not MSP's) being able to vote on devolved matters that will effect only England...yet will not effect their own constituencies?
how is it sensible to have 2 distinct methods of representation?
we are probably the most heavily governed country in the world what with the European parliment, UK parliment and devolved governments as well as local council government
it's a ridiculous state of affairs and the only reason the turnout at the last election was high was because of the war in Iraq fuelling people to go out and vote one both sides
and yes my mistake about the total votes...they won by 600,000 over the tories...yet somehow this equates to (because of the unfair boundary system) as having almot twice the number of seats
you can't help that alot of people are taking it as an opportunity to take a dig at the US or on the recieving end of said dig.
you're right...i cant...simply because the US contingent of this forum is the majority...but then if people bothered to read what the thread is about we wouldn't have that problem
Labour gave you an ineffectual representation of government, which is a nice gesture, even if a little misguided; last time I looked you guys weren't so concerned with appearences. But I disgress, moving on, at least it was not the Wigs putting a collar around your neck.
uuuhh...what?
I don't think his initial post was rambling really. It seems very clear to me. I am just wondering how accurate it is given that Ush now says that Labour did win the popular vote. I suppose there is some truth to it as those regional systems are outdated in my opinion and can certainly cause someone with the popular vote to lose an election.
Could anyone maybe give sources and statistics on how far this is the case in the UK?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Of course it was rambling, jaden. it was poorly laid out and jumped randomly from one point to another. You were not making a coherent point at all and that is why no-one is really paying attention to it. Re-write it to be MUCH more clear and you might get more of a look-in.
i cant help the structure of the UK electoral system...i've explained it as simply as possible...if people cant understand it in simple form doesn't that tell you something about the system
and at the time it was in the context of the general election so i had to fit the results of that in at the time
I am just wondering how accurate it is given that Ush now says that Labour did win the popular vote
irrelevant...the point is that if the 2 main parties had an equal share of the vote then labour would still have had a majority in parliment of over 120 seats....democratic?
Originally posted by Bardock42
But they won by 600 000 votes and only have 66 more. How would they get 120 if they were even?
they beat the next party by 600,000...not including all the votes that went to other parties...in total they got 36% of the vote...which was slightly over 9,000,000...the next party got 8,500,000 ish...the other parties got the rest shared amongst them...thus the other seats shared among them...reducing the total seats labour got
if all the votes had been equally split among tories and labour...labour would win due to boundary changes in 120 more constituencies