HM Government - 'Your Freedom' Website
As of today, a new website as has been launched in the UK where British people can put forward suggestions to government as to which laws they want repealed that that they feel besmirch their civil liberties, or put forward suggestions for new laws to be introduced.
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/
Do you think this may work? I thing the idea is great - and I hope it bears fruits.
Indeed. There is too much traffic on the website at the moment, however I managed to registrar.
There are multiple suggestions already on the site, considering it just got introduced tonight, and I think this will attract a lot of people.
I think they should take suggestions from the public and after put them out for an official vote, by the public.
If such occurred, I'd definitely go back to UK to vote - and if it does happen, it is the perfect opportunity for people to exercise democracy. Let's see if it happens, and let's see if people choose that right.
It's an idiotic idea. I'd rather laws were made and repealed by people who actually have a clue what they're doing rather than the reactionary idiot public. If there was a child abduction and murder tomorrow then the suggestions would be flooded with "castrate all paedophiles" and other such reactionary nonsense.
I'd rather the government listened to and acted on advisors who actually know what they're talking about even if it is politically damaging.
If this pans out as it is suggested then the government will ignore advisors and experts in their respective fields and bow to populism. Dangerous and stupid way to govern.
Originally posted by jaden101
It's an idiotic idea. I'd rather laws were made and repealed by people who actually have a clue what they're doing rather than the reactionary idiot public. If there was a child abduction and murder tomorrow then the suggestions would be flooded with "castrate all paedophiles" and other such reactionary nonsense.I'd rather the government listened to and acted on advisors who actually know what they're talking about even if it is politically damaging.
If this pans out as it is suggested then the government will ignore advisors and experts in their respective fields and bow to populism. Dangerous and stupid way to govern.
It's very arrogant and extremely ignorant to suggest all people are retards with zero education who would suggest such things.
If people live in a democracy, they should choose, by definition, how they wish to be governed, not by some pompous know it all prick. That's closer to dictatorship.
Second of all, this will go through a vetting process, not automatically put to action and even before being put into action it would have t be voted on. If majority says yes, then democracy has been implemented to maximum.
The problem is that people don't want to exercise their democratic rights - because they don't know how, or they're afraid of the true implication of what it means to be truly democratic.
Originally posted by jaden101
It's an idiotic idea. I'd rather laws were made and repealed by people who actually have a clue what they're doing rather than the reactionary idiot public. If there was a child abduction and murder tomorrow then the suggestions would be flooded with "castrate all paedophiles" and other such reactionary nonsense.I'd rather the government listened to and acted on advisors who actually know what they're talking about even if it is politically damaging.
If this pans out as it is suggested then the government will ignore advisors and experts in their respective fields and bow to populism. Dangerous and stupid way to govern.
I agree, for the most part: The average person is politically ignorant.
There are things such as static laws that grant the nations citizens or legal patrons guaranteed rights. In the US, cruel and unusual punishment is one of those things that are supposed to be static laws, meaning, reactionary movements that are the causes of majoritarianism will not affect that basic human rights protected by the static laws.
However, for the rest, I don't see a problem with. The news starts saying that too many people are dying from using their cell-phone while driving so it gets a ban while driving law made, so be it. That's what the people want and it doesn't infringe upon basic human rights (for the UK).
But, yeah, people could very quickly, especially the whiny bastards, create a nanny state (one even more of a nanny state than it is now.) You're definitely not one of those winjin poms, but I'm sure there are plenty of those in the UK that could ruin it for everyone...
And, yeah, I want laws made by professionals, not laymen. However, that website will definitely have a review process and not everything put on there will be considered. Sure, if enough people whine about something, it will get noticed, but if it infringes too much on human rights, they'll get in trouble by your higher courts (You have your own supreme court that has a legislative judicial review process for legislation that bitches don't like) and the EU.
I'm sure there will be some annoying things done, but it shouldn't get too out of hand.
I have no issue with a public consultation on bad laws- so long as we bear in mind that modern democracy is about picking who rules you rather than how you are ruled.
That being so, so long as it never becomes a reality show 'vote out the least popular law' system, it's fine. Making suggestions for the experts to look at, or bringing such issues to their attention- no problem.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It's very arrogant and extremely ignorant to suggest all people are retards with zero education who would suggest such things.If people live in a democracy, they should choose, by definition, how they wish to be governed, not by some pompous know it all prick. That's closer to dictatorship.
Second of all, this will go through a vetting process, not automatically put to action and even before being put into action it would have t be voted on. If majority says yes, then democracy has been implemented to maximum.
The problem is that people don't want to exercise their democratic rights - because they don't know how, or they're afraid of the true implication of what it means to be truly democratic.
Actuallly no, choosing HOW you are governed to the extent of the public choosing legislation isn't democracy. You choose parties who best represent your view and give them a mandate to legislate on your behalf. What you're suggesting is tantamount to having a refurendum on every piece of legislation proposed so that the people can decide...It wouldn't work because the majority of people are ignorant of politics.
As for this system in particular. Just go look at the suggestions under the"repeal unnecessary laws" section. Idiots randomly spouting "MORE POLICE ON THE STREET" because they have no clue what "repeal" means. The public as an entity really does fit the "empty can rattles the most" saying perfectly...What you'll end up with is either completely stupid but popular ideas coming into effect and the experts being ignored or the public realising that the government isn't doing what they say and so yet more voter apathy in politics.
There's also the problem that politicians just don't know how to interpret the publics ideas and would undoubtadly twist any actual decent idea into something completely unrecognisable.
Regardless...Isn't this just a rehash of Labour's "The big conversation" from 2003. Ironically something that the Tories and Lib-Dems were against back then.
Originally posted by jaden101This UK idea sounds like it's based on the premise that, overall, people tend to think and behave rationally, when actually, people tend to be emotional, shortsighted decision-makers (it's one of the reasons we're in the economic mess we're in). Populist sentiment could, possibly, be one factor to consider in formulating new laws, but I would not want it as dominant input.
It's an idiotic idea. I'd rather laws were made and repealed by people who actually have a clue what they're doing rather than the reactionary idiot public. If there was a child abduction and murder tomorrow then the suggestions would be flooded with "castrate all paedophiles" and other such reactionary nonsense.I'd rather the government listened to and acted on advisors who actually know what they're talking about even if it is politically damaging.
If this pans out as it is suggested then the government will ignore advisors and experts in their respective fields and bow to populism. Dangerous and stupid way to govern.
Originally posted by jaden101
Actuallly no, choosing HOW you are governed to the extent of the public choosing legislation isn't democracy. You choose parties who best represent your view and give them a mandate to legislate on your behalf. What you're suggesting is tantamount to having a refurendum on every piece of legislation proposed so that the people can decide...It wouldn't work because the majority of people are ignorant of politics.
Hah! No.
That is ''pure democracy'' or ''direct democracy''. Choosing a representative is, as the name suggests, a ''representative democracy''.
But perhaps you're right. If people don't know what democracy entails, then what chances are there on discussing more complex, more detrimental laws.
You made your point, that's for sure.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Hah! No.That is ''pure democracy'' or ''direct democracy''. Choosing a representative is, as the name suggests, a ''representative democracy''.
But perhaps you're right. If people don't know what democracy entails, then what chances are there on discussing more complex, more detrimental laws.
You made your point, that's for sure.
Hah, yes...You said people should have the right to choose how they are governed...Unless you're referring to the impending referendum on the voting system (which you're not and which we'll come back to in a second) then you must surely be suggesting the public dictating specific policies.
If I'm mistaken then how about clarifying your position before spouting out insults (and getting away with it because you're a moderator).
Back to the 2011 referendum. I find it very ironic that the public are getting to choose between the current 1st past the post system or an alternative vote system given that no amount of clarification on these 2 different methods of voting will make 90% of the voters any the wiser as to how they work (because the public just don't listen). They're not even difficult to understand yet it'll still be decided by people who don't have a clue what they are voting for. This is why I'd rather have panels of experts who research the issue and publish findings with the best ideas rather than leaving it to the ignorant masses to decide.
If your car was broken you wouldn't ask hundreds of random members of the public how to fix it...You'd ask a mechanic...Why is governing any different. You vote for a potential government with the same basic set of principles you have and want in a government and then they consult the experts on how to fix the issues of specific concern, be they the economy, climate change etc...I fail to see how this is a dictatorship.
The only positive in consulting the public is that someone might suggest an alternative way to look at a problem that might otherwise be overlooked...You'd still need the experts in that field to work out how to implement it properly though.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is a terrible idea. Internet polls are ridiculously easy to manipulate.I can't wait for the UK to demand that Parliment issue a new 500 page constitution consisting of nothing but graphic bestiality.
I felt I should respond to this, as everyone knows just how much I love my bestiality.