Lacking democratic tradition and procedures.

However convincing the results of the ICM poll and of the Daily Mail's
referendum* may be, there is no guarantee at all that a referendum on a
European constitution will be held. Until now the British parliament
and government have claimed the right to decide if the people may or
may not have a referendum on a particular issue. This is *not*
the case in some other countries, which arguably have better democracy.

We need to improve and develop our democratic tradition, and to
introduce procedures which would allow the electorate to demand a
legally binding referendum.

Which procedures do we need? For instance, citizens' initiative. This
is a way to put a proposal, supported by many voters, before
parliament. If parliament rejects the proposal, then a referendum
follows. Secondly, a citizen-initiated referendum may be used to veto a
law passed by parliament.

If we had these procedures, then we could compel the government of the
day to hold a referendum and to abide by the result.

* results are at Daily Mail web site.

Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org
From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:04 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!feed.news.nacamar.de!easynet-monga!easynet.net!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!not-for-mail
From: Gavin Whittaker <ah05@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:41:59 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Edinburgh University
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: holyrood.ed.ac.uk
X-Trace: scotsman.ed.ac.uk 1056033719 17573 129.215.16.14 (19 Jun 2003 14:41:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@scotsman.ed.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:41:59 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.7 (sun4u))
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32592 uk.politics.parliament:69135 alt.uk.law:63323 uk.politics.misc:1084676

In alt.uk.law Wallace-Macpherson <mm@withoutiniref.org> writted:

: Lacking democratic tradition and procedures.

: However convincing the results of the ICM poll and of the Daily Mail's
: referendum* may be,

They aren't. Self-selecting participants in an orchestrated PR stunt
do not equate with democracy.
 

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:05 2003
From: "Wotan" <wotan@valhalla.net>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:46:19 +0100
Lines: 32
Organization: Valhalla
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.78.90.35
Message-ID: <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135>
X-Trace: 19 Jun 2003 17:39:47 GMT, 213.78.90.35
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp1.phx1.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!212.67.96.135!213.78.90.35
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32595 uk.politics.parliament:69172 alt.uk.law:63329 uk.politics.misc:1084749
 

Gavin Whittaker <ah05@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> In alt.uk.law Wallace-Macpherson <mm@withoutiniref.org> writted:
>
> : Lacking democratic tradition and procedures.
>
> : However convincing the results of the ICM poll and of the Daily Mail's
> : referendum* may be,
>
> They aren't. Self-selecting participants in an orchestrated PR stunt
> do not equate with democracy.

You simply demonstrate your utter contempt for the
electorate and democracy.

And the meaningless propanda phrase "self selecting
participants" is fooling nobody ! It was trailed for a
month before hand - and anybody could vote. And I
suspect that there was a failed attempt to load it by the
Marxists.

When it comes to "orchestrated PR stunts that have
nothing to do with democracy" - who has pulled off more
of those (*in reality*) than your foul little upstart Marxist
liar, racketeer and dictator, Blair ?

Nobody I, or I suspect anybody else, can think of has
pulled off more - outside of the French !
 
 

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:05 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!easynet-quince!easynet.net!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!not-for-mail
From: Gavin Whittaker <ah05@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:54:18 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Edinburgh University
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135>
NNTP-Posting-Host: holyrood.ed.ac.uk
X-Trace: scotsman.ed.ac.uk 1056099258 23107 129.215.16.14 (20 Jun 2003 08:54:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@scotsman.ed.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:54:18 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.7 (sun4u))
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32598 uk.politics.parliament:69292 alt.uk.law:63348 uk.politics.misc:1085065

In alt.uk.law Wotan <wotan@valhalla.net> writted:

: Gavin Whittaker <ah05@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
: news:bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
:> In alt.uk.law Wallace-Macpherson <mm@withoutiniref.org> writted:
:>
:> : Lacking democratic tradition and procedures.
:>
:> : However convincing the results of the ICM poll and of the Daily Mail's
:> : referendum* may be,
:>
:> They aren't. Self-selecting participants in an orchestrated PR stunt
:> do not equate with democracy.

: You simply demonstrate your utter contempt for the
: electorate and democracy.

No, I express my contempt for a meaningless, non-rigorous, non-secure
self-selecting poll carried out to benefit the Daily Mail.
On the other hand, you clearly have no idea of the purpose or
mechanism of representative democracy.

: And the meaningless propanda phrase "self selecting
: participants" is fooling nobody ! It was trailed for a
: month before hand - and anybody could vote.

If you trail it primarily in a paper that is partisan in its approach
to the question, the odd advert in other papers is just a fob. Of
my work colleagues and friends that knew of the stunt, almost none knew
of it more than a day before the event, of thise that did, most were DM
readers. Those that didn't regarded it as meaningless, and so didn't
take part.

: And I
: suspect that there was a failed attempt to load it by the
: Marxists.

I suspect that a number of interest groups did the same - it wasn't in
any way a secure system. That's why it's meaningless. The largest
single loading was by indoctrinated DM readers.

: When it comes to "orchestrated PR stunts that have
: nothing to do with democracy" - who has pulled off more
: of those (*in reality*) than your foul little upstart Marxist
: liar, racketeer and dictator, Blair ?

Irrelevance, ad hominem and non sequiteur. Any other logical
fallacies you'd like to commit during the course of your 'argument'?
By what right do you dare to presume my political opinions from the
text of this thread? You do not know my political opinions, so keep
your juvenile accusations to yourself.
Let me explain. Just because I think the DM stunt was meaningless
crap, it does not follow that this has anything to do with my opinion of
Tony Blair or his policies.

And anyone who believes that Tony Blair is a Marxist really should be
prevented from voting on anything other than the colour of their room.
 

Gavin
 

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:05 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!194.168.222.61.MISMATCH!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "The Rifleman" <steve.day73@ntlworld.com>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Lines: 15
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:17:32 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.254.80.17
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com
X-Trace: newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net 1056100889 62.254.80.17 (Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:21:29 BST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:21:29 BST
Organization: ntlworld News Service
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32599 uk.politics.parliament:69297 alt.uk.law:63349 uk.politics.misc:1085080
 
 

> And anyone who believes that Tony Blair is a Marxist really should be
> prevented from voting on anything other than the colour of their room.
>
>
> Gavin
>
> Of course Tony Blair is not a marxist, he is just like all the labourites
in power todaty, A liar, A cheat, Dishonest, Immoral,devious, untrustworthy
Self Serving, a traitor at best, a Europhile, A typical Nu Labourite
actually, and a future undemocratically elected president of the first
EUSSR single party totalitarian state.
 

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:07 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!peernews-us.colt.net!newsfeed.news2me.com!elnk-pas-nf2!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: vonroach <vonroach@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Message-ID: <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 18
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:47:18 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.74.177.53
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1056113238 67.74.177.53 (Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:47:18 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:47:18 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32603 uk.politics.parliament:69326 alt.uk.law:63356 uk.politics.misc:1085162

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:17:32 +0100, "The Rifleman" <steve.day73@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>
>
>> And anyone who believes that Tony Blair is a Marxist really should be
>> prevented from voting on anything other than the colour of their room.
>>
>>
>> Gavin
>>
> Of course Tony Blair is not a marxist, he is just like all the labourites
>in power todaty, A liar, A cheat, Dishonest, Immoral,devious, untrustworthy
>Self Serving, a traitor at best, a Europhile, A typical Nu Labourite
>actually, and a future undemocratically elected president of the first
>EUSSR single party totalitarian state.
>
That is a summation of the problem. Any proposals for a solution?
From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:08 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "The Rifleman" <steve.day73@ntlworld.com>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Lines: 15
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:36:57 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.254.80.160
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com
X-Trace: newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net 1056116439 62.254.80.160 (Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:40:39 BST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:40:39 BST
Organization: ntlworld News Service
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32604 uk.politics.parliament:69339 alt.uk.law:63358 uk.politics.misc:1085186
 

> That is a summation of the problem. Any proposals for a solution?

No, cos its not worth the effort,Why you ask?? cos the people of this
country have exactly the type of government they deserve. The people did
not listen to reason or common sense they only watched the lies the Very
good from man called Tony Blair put out, and they did not remember the
lessons from history on how a labour govt screws up everything they touch.
Naaaa The British people have rising tax bills, poorer public services, ever
more anti freedom undemocratic laws, collpasing social, infrastructure,
increasing crime etc etc
They are getting exactly what they voted for and I have no sympathy for
them.
 

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:08 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!sea-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Joe" <fake@fake.fake>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Lines: 23
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:10:39 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 168.143.113.102
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net
X-Trace: sea-read.news.verio.net 1056449439 168.143.113.102 (Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:10:39 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:10:39 GMT
Organization: Verio
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32726 uk.politics.parliament:70166 alt.uk.law:63554 uk.politics.misc:1087751

"The Rifleman" <steve.day73@ntlworld.com> wrote in

> > That is a summation of the problem. Any proposals for a solution?
>
> They are getting exactly what they voted for and I have no sympathy for
> them.

except that we didn't vote Tony Blair as the prime minister, unlike the US
we don't get to vote for our leader.

and what choice do we have when voting? one bunch of idiots or another bunch
of idiots? or maybe in another 10 years or so we'll have the choice of three
lots of idiots...

the 'democratic' system in this country gives us no say on individual
policies, we just have to vote for the party that we think is 'best overall'
(or more often, 'least worst').

the least we should have is a system similar to the US where they have
'proposals' which allow the people to raise issues and vote on them (as I
understand it).
 

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:08 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!easynews.net!newsfeed3.easynews.net!easynet-melon!easynet.net!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!not-for-mail
From: Gavin Whittaker <ah05@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:43:37 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Edinburgh University
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <bd9a0p$j2h$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: holyrood.ed.ac.uk
X-Trace: scotsman.ed.ac.uk 1056451417 19537 129.215.16.14 (24 Jun 2003 10:43:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@scotsman.ed.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:43:37 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.7 (sun4u))
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32728 uk.politics.parliament:70179 alt.uk.law:63561 uk.politics.misc:1087769

In alt.uk.law Joe <fake@fake.fake> writted:

: the 'democratic' system in this country gives us no say on individual
: policies, we just have to vote for the party that we think is 'best overall'
: (or more often, 'least worst').

For the very good reason that most policies are interwoven with
others. I'll bet you could get the country to vote in favour of all of
the following: Lower tax burden, removal of petrol duty, improved road and
rail links, improved hospitals, more police, tighter privacy laws,
increased powers of surveillance of criminals.
Now, having enabled people to vote for all those things - and more -
how do you actually implement the mutually exclusive policies?

Gavin
From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:08 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!not-for-mail
From: Wallace-Macpherson <mm@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:12:02 +0200
Organization: Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R http://www.iniref.org
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <3EF831E9.F2F50C91@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net> <bd9a0p$j2h$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.eusc.inter.net 1056453101 5931 217.230.202.126 (24 Jun 2003 11:11:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eusc.inter.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32731 uk.politics.parliament:70190 alt.uk.law:63567 uk.politics.misc:1087779

Gavin Whittaker wrote:

> In alt.uk.law Joe <fake@fake.fake> writted:
>
> : the 'democratic' system in this country gives us no say on individual
> : policies, we just have to vote for the party that we think is 'best overall'
> : (or more often, 'least worst').
>
> For the very good reason that most policies are interwoven with
> others. I'll bet you could get the country to vote in favour of all of
> the following: Lower tax burden, removal of petrol duty, improved road and
> rail links, improved hospitals, more police, tighter privacy laws,
> increased powers of surveillance of criminals.
> Now, having enabled people to vote for all those things - and more -
> how do you actually implement the mutually exclusive policies?
>
> Gavin

So, the politicians always know best, and MPs (and they have been asked) are
fully informed about all bills which go through. Ha!

But we do not propose to abolish the system of parties, parliament and
government, although it is expensive and should do a better job.

If you have "citizens' initiative and referendum" (I and R) then most decisions
are still taken by parliament, government and civil service - "everyday business
of government".

I and R allows the electorate to intervene on selected, important issues, which
would be quite rare.

People are capable of understanding public affairs and of weighing priorities in
policy.

Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org
 
 
 

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:08 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!194.168.222.21.MISMATCH!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!easynet-quince!easynet.net!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!not-for-mail
From: Gavin Whittaker <ah05@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:48:59 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Edinburgh University
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <bd9drb$jce$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net> <bd9a0p$j2h$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3EF831E9.F2F50C91@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: holyrood.ed.ac.uk
X-Trace: scotsman.ed.ac.uk 1056455339 19854 129.215.16.14 (24 Jun 2003 11:48:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@scotsman.ed.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:48:59 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.7 (sun4u))
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32740 uk.politics.parliament:70205 alt.uk.law:63574 uk.politics.misc:1087811

In alt.uk.law Wallace-Macpherson <mm@without.iniref.org> writted:
: Gavin Whittaker wrote:

:> In alt.uk.law Joe <fake@fake.fake> writted:
:>
:> : the 'democratic' system in this country gives us no say on individual
:> : policies, we just have to vote for the party that we think is 'best overall'
:> : (or more often, 'least worst').
:>
:> For the very good reason that most policies are interwoven with
:> others. I'll bet you could get the country to vote in favour of all of
:> the following: Lower tax burden, removal of petrol duty, improved road and
:> rail links, improved hospitals, more police, tighter privacy laws,
:> increased powers of surveillance of criminals.
:> Now, having enabled people to vote for all those things - and more -
:> how do you actually implement the mutually exclusive policies?
:>
:> Gavin

: So, the politicians always know best, and MPs (and they have been asked) are
: fully informed about all bills which go through. Ha!

That's not what I said, and you know it.

: But we do not propose to abolish the system of parties, parliament and
: government,

But you will make major policy subservient

: although it is expensive and should do a better job.

Agreed, but then, name an organisation that couldn't.

: If you have "citizens' initiative and referendum" (I and R) then most decisions
: are still taken by parliament, government and civil service - "everyday business
: of government".

Which could get held up every time Rupert Murdoch, for example, decides that
he doesn't like the new law on media ownership, TV sports rights,
allocation of satellite channel frequencies, or any other subject over
which media owners have both an interest and the power to influence.

: I and R allows the electorate to intervene on selected, important issues, which
: would be quite rare.

And who decides what are the important issues? Rupert Murdoch? The DM?
We'll have a referendum every time a taboid whips up a frenzy over asylum
seekers or a "megan's law", or the Euro, or EU membership? In short,
those nice, obviously black and white issues that are either far more complex
than most of the public can understand, or that are more complex than they
are led to believe, or - more often - issues for which facts are noticeable
by their having been replaced by emotion.

: People are capable of understanding public affairs and of weighing priorities in
: policy.

Yegads - you really believe that? Many individuals may well be - no
doubt many of those you mix with, but work in a production faciility and
seen how much of the herd have herd instincts, don't think for
themselves, and follow the Sun/DM/Express blindly. How many of the 5000+
interviewees in the ICM/DM poll could actually give even a half-accurate
account of the issues, do you think?

ATB, Gavin
 
 

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:09 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!not-for-mail
From: Wallace-Macpherson <mm@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:57:45 +0200
Organization: Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R http://www.iniref.org
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <3EF84AA1.D727AD8B@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net> <bd9a0p$j2h$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3EF831E9.F2F50C91@WITHOUT.iniref.org> <bd9drb$jce$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.eusc.inter.net 1056459431 8012 217.230.204.42 (24 Jun 2003 12:57:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eusc.inter.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32747 uk.politics.parliament:70216 alt.uk.law:63582 uk.politics.misc:1087852

Gavin Whittaker wrote:

> In alt.uk.law Wallace-Macpherson <mm@without.iniref.org> writted:
> : Gavin Whittaker wrote:
>
> :> In alt.uk.law Joe <fake@fake.fake> writted:
> :>
> :> : the 'democratic' system in this country gives us no say on individual
> :> : policies, we just have to vote for the party that we think is 'best overall'
> :> : (or more often, 'least worst').
> :>
> :> For the very good reason that most policies are interwoven with
> :> others. I'll bet you could get the country to vote in favour of all of
> :> the following: Lower tax burden, removal of petrol duty, improved road and
> :> rail links, improved hospitals, more police, tighter privacy laws,
> :> increased powers of surveillance of criminals.
> :> Now, having enabled people to vote for all those things - and more -
> :> how do you actually implement the mutually exclusive policies?
> :>
> :> Gavin
>
> : So, the politicians always know best, and MPs (and they have been asked) are
> : fully informed about all bills which go through. Ha!
>
> That's not what I said, and you know it.

You implied that the existing system ES is far superior to that which we proposed, (I
and R) + ES.

>
> : But we do not propose to abolish the system of parties, parliament and
> : government,
>
> But you will make major policy subservient

Rightly so, on issues which are held by a large group to be important and not
adequately handled by their elected representatives. Finally, the whole electorate
may decide.

>
> : although it is expensive and should do a better job.
>
> Agreed, but then, name an organisation that couldn't.

We are talking about lack of; transparency, responsivity, feed-back, accuracy of
representation. And sometimes abuse of power (etc., etc.).

> : If you have "citizens' initiative and referendum" (I and R) then most decisions
> : are still taken by parliament, government and civil service - "everyday business
> : of government".

> Which could get held up every time Rupert Murdoch, for example, decides that
> he doesn't like the new law on media ownership, TV sports rights,
> allocation of satellite channel frequencies, or any other subject over
> which media owners have both an interest and the power to influence.

People are not as dumb as you think. Who really believes what s/he reads in the
papers or hears in the talk shows?

> : I and R allows the electorate to intervene on selected, important issues, which
> : would be quite rare.
>
> And who decides what are the important issues? Rupert Murdoch? The DM?
> We'll have a referendum every time a taboid whips up a frenzy over asylum
> seekers or a "megan's law", or the Euro, or EU membership? In short,
> those nice, obviously black and white issues that are either far more complex
> than most of the public can understand, or that are more complex than they
> are led to believe, or - more often - issues for which facts are noticeable
> by their having been replaced by emotion.

Anyone can suggest a proposal. Gathering support is painstaking and the citizenry is
unlikely to heed the media barons. It may be that sometimes decisions are called for
on big issues such as nuclear power, GM stuff or aspects of taxation. Complex issues
can be handled. See e.g. Kobach's book about Switzerland (reference at
www.iniref.org). The quality of public information and debate improves.

> : People are capable of understanding public affairs and of weighing priorities in
> : policy.
>
> Yegads - you really believe that? Many individuals may well be - no
> doubt many of those you mix with, but work in a production faciility and
> seen how much of the herd have herd instincts, don't think for
> themselves, and follow the Sun/DM/Express blindly. How many of the 5000+
> interviewees in the ICM/DM poll could actually give even a half-accurate
> account of the issues, do you think?
>
> ATB, Gavin

There were fifty thousand interviewees. The question was should there be a referendum
on an important named issue - everyone understood that.

Look, democracy in GB+NI is several hundred years out of date. New ways of doing
things will have to be learned. Experience shows that if you introduce I and R then
people (citizens) are grateful for the opportunities to participate and engage
themselves to learn about the issues. There are studies showing that complex
political issues can be handled sensibly by groups of "lay" people.

RegarDDs

Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:09 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!easynews.net!newsfeed3.easynews.net!195.40.0.160.MISMATCH!easynet-thlon3!easynet-quince!easynet.net!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!not-for-mail
From: Gavin Whittaker <ah05@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:34:29 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Edinburgh University
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <bdc1c5$p4p$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net> <bd9a0p$j2h$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3EF831E9.F2F50C91@WITHOUT.iniref.org> <bd9drb$jce$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3EF84AA1.D727AD8B@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: holyrood.ed.ac.uk
X-Trace: scotsman.ed.ac.uk 1056540869 25753 129.215.16.14 (25 Jun 2003 11:34:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@scotsman.ed.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:34:29 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.7 (sun4u))
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32761 uk.politics.parliament:70400 alt.uk.law:63669 uk.politics.misc:1088679

In alt.uk.law Wallace-Macpherson <mm@without.iniref.org> writted:
: Gavin Whittaker wrote:

:> In alt.uk.law Wallace-Macpherson <mm@without.iniref.org> writted:
:> : Gavin Whittaker wrote:

:> : So, the politicians always know best, and MPs (and they have been asked) are
:> : fully informed about all bills which go through. Ha!
:>
:> That's not what I said, and you know it.

: You implied that the existing system ES is far superior to that which we proposed, (I
: and R) + ES.

Which is not the same as saying that Politicians always know best or
are always fully informed. Given 600MPs and 600 average people, I know
who I would regard as more likely to make a reasonable and informed decision
on a given subject. All I am arguing is that MPs, who have at least
passed through *some* tests of their ability at local party level, are likely
to make fewer wrong decisions than the average person who does not have
to demonstrate any ability.
 

:> Which could get held up every time Rupert Murdoch, for example, decides that
:> he doesn't like the new law on media ownership, TV sports rights,
:> allocation of satellite channel frequencies, or any other subject over
:> which media owners have both an interest and the power to influence.

: People are not as dumb as you think.

Yes they are. It's why we have extended warranties, pyramid schemes,
double glazing salesmen, door-to-door selling, healing crystals,
and horoscopes. It's why we have a National Lottery, Ladbrokes and
Daily Mail readers.
It's also why we have paediatricians targetted by vandals, why we have
crowds baying for blood at the courts before a suspect is even tried,
and it's why we saw innocent child suspects driven from their homes
after James Bulger was killed.
Many individuals are capable of intelligence. Many are not capable of
thinking for themselves in a crowd situation. Many are not capable of
thinking under any circumstances. <emphatically> This does NOT devalue
them as people </emphatically>, but it does limit the influence that they
should have on important and far-reaching decisions that require detailed
analysis and consideration.

: Who really believes what s/he reads in the
: papers or hears in the talk shows?

So people read the Daily Mail because they know they're being
lied to? This sits uneasily with your argument that people are
intelligent.

: Anyone can suggest a proposal.
: Gathering support is painstaking and the citizenry is
: unlikely to heed the media barons.

This goes back to the argument above. Too many people are sheep, and
are happy to be herded.

: It may be that sometimes decisions are called for
: on big issues such as nuclear power, GM stuff

Excellent idea.

But: Can the majority of the population can explain how a
fast breeder reactor works? can they correctly judge whether it produces
more radioactive effluent than a coal-fired station? can the majority
of the population explain what a gene IS (let alone what splicing
one into a host chromosome involves)? Can they correctly judge which of
GM and the local garden centre is responsible for the greater genetic
pollution of the environment?

: or aspects of taxation.

Of which, what proportion of requested referenda do you think would
call for in increase in taxation?

: Complex issues
: can be handled. See e.g. Kobach's book about Switzerland (reference at
: www.iniref.org).

See the USA.

: The quality of public information and debate improves.

This is heavily dependent on the information media. From what I've
seen, I'd say that the UK is more akin to the USA in its newspaper
coverage than it is to Switzerland.
Even given that, there are plenty of programmes that cover important
issues on the BBC, but the public don't care. The day that the Iraq War
started, the BBC news got viewing figures of 7 million. Big Brother gets
over 5m viewers, Coronation Street and Emmerdale consistently get over
10m. On the evening of the 20th March an 8pm news and discussion
programme with David Dimbleby gets 4.7 million people, whilst on ITV, The
Bill gets 6.6 million. The 9pm ITV broadcast attracts 5 million viewers
whilst BBC's Match of the Day, sees 7 million watch Liverpool lose.
 

:> : People are capable of understanding public affairs and of weighing priorities in
:> : policy.
:>
:> Yegads - you really believe that? Many individuals may well be - no
:> doubt many of those you mix with, but work in a production faciility and
:> seen how much of the herd have herd instincts, don't think for
:> themselves, and follow the Sun/DM/Express blindly. How many of the 5000+
:> interviewees in the ICM/DM poll could actually give even a half-accurate
:> account of the issues, do you think?

: There were fifty thousand interviewees.

A typo. Doesn't alter the principle of the question.

: The question was should there be a
: referendum on an important named issue - everyone understood that.

Of course they understand that question, but do they understand what they
are calling for a referendum ON? How many could actually have given ICM a
reason why it was important? or why it was more important than the
Maastricht treaty? People are stopped on the street and will happily
agree to give their opinion on anything from washing powder to the West Bank,
because of course people love being asked. It's why game shows are so
popular.
Just because people like to express their opinion DOESN'T make them
qualified to implement that opinion.

It strikes me that we won't actually come to an agreement on this
because you have faith in people's reasoning and thinking abilities,
whereas I do not. Around half of people have below-average
intelligence. I say take this premise and discuss, say, the UK
taxation regime with a person of average intelligence. When you have
stopped weeping, ask yourself whether this person is actually ready to
determine the future of inhertance tax or petrol duty.
 

Gavin
 

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:09 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!not-for-mail
From: Wallace-Macpherson <mm@iniref.org>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:29:22 +0200
Organization: Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R http://www.iniref.org
Lines: 203
Message-ID: <3EF9E9EF.8004D47D@iniref.org>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net> <bd9a0p$j2h$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3EF831E9.F2F50C91@WITHOUT.iniref.org> <bd9drb$jce$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3EF84AA1.D727AD8B@WITHOUT.iniref.org> <bdc1c5$p4p$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.eusc.inter.net 1056565751 14026 217.230.205.212 (25 Jun 2003 18:29:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eusc.inter.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32763 uk.politics.parliament:70507 alt.uk.law:63684 uk.politics.misc:1089011

Gavin Whittaker wrote:

> In alt.uk.law Wallace-Macpherson <mm@without.iniref.org> writted:
> : Gavin Whittaker wrote:
>
> :> In alt.uk.law Wallace-Macpherson <mm@without.iniref.org> writted:
> :> : Gavin Whittaker wrote:
>
> :> : So, the politicians always know best, and MPs (and they have been asked) are
> :> : fully informed about all bills which go through. Ha!
> :>
> :> That's not what I said, and you know it.
>
> : You implied that the existing system ES is far superior to that which we proposed, (I
> : and R) + ES.
>
> Which is not the same as saying that Politicians always know best or
> are always fully informed.

But I did predict your opinion ...

> Given 600MPs and 600 average people, I know
> who I would regard as more likely to make a reasonable and informed decision
> on a given subject. All I am arguing is that MPs, who have at least
> passed through *some* tests of their ability at local party level, are likely
> to make fewer wrong decisions than the average person who does not have
> to demonstrate any ability.

We are discussing the possibility of citizens using I and R. All registered voters may
take part. We have not proposed using sortition from the general population as a way to
select MPs, so your comparison between 600 MPs and 600 citizens is baseless.

>
> :> Which could get held up every time Rupert Murdoch, for example, decides that
> :> he doesn't like the new law on media ownership, TV sports rights,
> :> allocation of satellite channel frequencies, or any other subject over
> :> which media owners have both an interest and the power to influence.
>
> : People are not as dumb as you think.
>
> Yes they are. It's why we have extended warranties, pyramid schemes,
> double glazing salesmen, door-to-door selling, healing crystals,
> and horoscopes. It's why we have a National Lottery, Ladbrokes and
> Daily Mail readers.
> It's also why we have paediatricians targetted by vandals, why we have
> crowds baying for blood at the courts before a suspect is even tried,
> and it's why we saw innocent child suspects driven from their homes
> after James Bulger was killed.
> Many individuals are capable of intelligence. Many are not capable of
> thinking for themselves in a crowd situation. Many are not capable of
> thinking under any circumstances. <emphatically> This does NOT devalue
> them as people </emphatically>, but it does limit the influence that they
> should have on important and far-reaching decisions that require detailed
> analysis and consideration.

Some MPs., government ministers, european commissioners, have committed crimes and/or are
corrupt. So we do not suggest abolishing the whole system of parties, parliament etc.,
because most actors seem to be honest and the system more or less works. You pick out a
few instances of weird or aberrant behaviour in an attempt to argue that the people of GB
and NI are unfit to decide on some public affairs which they regard as important and have
selected for referendum. Your case is unconvincing.

> : Who really believes what s/he reads in the
> : papers or hears in the talk shows?
>
> So people read the Daily Mail because they know they're being
> lied to? This sits uneasily with your argument that people are
> intelligent.
>
> : Anyone can suggest a proposal.
> : Gathering support is painstaking and the citizenry is
> : unlikely to heed the media barons.
>
> This goes back to the argument above. Too many people are sheep, and
> are happy to be herded.

Definitely not. Nowadays this may be proved by genetic profiling.

>
> : It may be that sometimes decisions are called for
> : on big issues such as nuclear power, GM stuff
>
> Excellent idea.
>
> But: Can the majority of the population can explain how a
> fast breeder reactor works? can they correctly judge whether it produces
> more radioactive effluent than a coal-fired station? can the majority
> of the population explain what a gene IS (let alone what splicing
> one into a host chromosome involves)? Can they correctly judge which of
> GM and the local garden centre is responsible for the greater genetic
> pollution of the environment?

Several times in this thread I mentioned that, according to experience and research, lay
people can come to understand complex issues. Steve Cooper conceded the point. In the I
and R process which we propose, an initiative will not be endorsed if it is not
understandable. If a technical question does go through to referendum, it will have been
extensively debated.

>
> : or aspects of taxation.
>
> Of which, what proportion of requested referenda do you think would
> call for in increase in taxation?

Such tax proposals have been passed. People want public services and are unlikely to
abolish these by removing funding.

> : Complex issues
> : can be handled. See e.g. Kobach's book about Switzerland (reference at
> : www.iniref.org).

I refer to Switzerland because the type of I and R which we propose http://www.iniref.org
resembles their system.

>
> See the USA.

I and R, and recall of elected officers, is by no means all bad in the USA. Generally, the
people of the areas which have these would prefer to keep them. They can be important
checks on government and corporations. For more detail visit the web site of the I and R
institute, IRI, director M. Dane Waters.

> : The quality of public information and debate improves.
>
> This is heavily dependent on the information media. From what I've
> seen, I'd say that the UK is more akin to the USA in its newspaper
> coverage than it is to Switzerland.
> Even given that, there are plenty of programmes that cover important
> issues on the BBC, but the public don't care. The day that the Iraq War
> started, the BBC news got viewing figures of 7 million. Big Brother gets
> over 5m viewers, Coronation Street and Emmerdale consistently get over
> 10m. On the evening of the 20th March an 8pm news and discussion
> programme with David Dimbleby gets 4.7 million people, whilst on ITV, The
> Bill gets 6.6 million. The 9pm ITV broadcast attracts 5 million viewers
> whilst BBC's Match of the Day, sees 7 million watch Liverpool lose.
>

If a citizens' initiative proposal gets enough endorsement to go forward, is considered by
parliament and then goes on to referendum then many hundreds of thousands of voters have
confronted the issue. The whole electorate will be asked to make up their mind. This gives
people a feeling of being asked, of having a stake. They are more likely to inform
themselves and to discuss the issue, to take the matter seriously and to try to come to a
decision.

>
> :> : People are capable of understanding public affairs and of weighing priorities in
> :> : policy.
> :>
> :> Yegads - you really believe that? Many individuals may well be - no
> :> doubt many of those you mix with, but work in a production faciility and
> :> seen how much of the herd have herd instincts, don't think for
> :> themselves, and follow the Sun/DM/Express blindly. How many of the 5000+
> :> interviewees in the ICM/DM poll could actually give even a half-accurate
> :> account of the issues, do you think?
>
> : There were fifty thousand interviewees.
>
> A typo. Doesn't alter the principle of the question.
>
> : The question was should there be a
> : referendum on an important named issue - everyone understood that.
>
> Of course they understand that question, but do they understand what they
> are calling for a referendum ON? How many could actually have given ICM a
> reason why it was important? or why it was more important than the
> Maastricht treaty? People are stopped on the street and will happily
> agree to give their opinion on anything from washing powder to the West Bank,
> because of course people love being asked. It's why game shows are so
> popular.
> Just because people like to express their opinion DOESN'T make them
> qualified to implement that opinion.

People are not too stupid to know that european constitution is a very important issue on
which they have been neither adequately informed nor consulted.

Other commentators, before the result of the ICM poll was available, opined that people
felt badly informed about the Convention's activities and its proposal for a
"constitution". The Belgian delegate to the convention, a former prime minister I think,
said that he felt badly informed partly because of d'Estaing's chairing style. So you can
hardly expect the person in the street to be well informed at this time. If a referendum
is "allowed" by our rulers, then hopefully the government will provide better information
and try to stimulate some public debate.
 

> It strikes me that we won't actually come to an agreement on this
> because you have faith in people's reasoning and thinking abilities,
> whereas I do not. Around half of people have below-average
> intelligence. I say take this premise and discuss, say, the UK
> taxation regime with a person of average intelligence. When you have
> stopped weeping, ask yourself whether this person is actually ready to
> determine the future of inhertance tax or petrol duty.
>
> Gavin

RegarDDs

Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org
http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
e-mail: info@WITHOUT.iniref.org
 

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:09 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!uio.no!news01.chello.no!amsnews01.chello.com!trev!easynet-melon!easynet.net!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!not-for-mail
From: Gavin Whittaker <ah05@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:33:21 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Edinburgh University
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <bg8kvh$8h7$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net> <bd9a0p$j2h$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3EF831E9.F2F50C91@WITHOUT.iniref.org> <bd9drb$jce$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3EF84AA1.D727AD8B@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: holyrood.ed.ac.uk
X-Trace: scotsman.ed.ac.uk 1059575601 8743 129.215.16.14 (30 Jul 2003 14:33:21 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@scotsman.ed.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:33:21 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.7 (sun4u))
X-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:33:21 MET DST (news01.chello.no)
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32978 uk.politics.parliament:72817 alt.uk.law:65217 uk.politics.misc:1115143

In alt.uk.law Wallace-Macpherson <mm@without.iniref.org> writted:
: Gavin Whittaker wrote:

:> In alt.uk.law Wallace-Macpherson <mm@without.iniref.org> writted:
:> : Gavin Whittaker wrote:
:>
:> :> In alt.uk.law Joe <fake@fake.fake> writted:
:> :>
:> :> : the 'democratic' system in this country gives us no say on individual
:> :> : policies, we just have to vote for the party that we think is 'best overall'
:> :> : (or more often, 'least worst').
:> :>
:> :> For the very good reason that most policies are interwoven with
:> :> others. I'll bet you could get the country to vote in favour of all of
:> :> the following: Lower tax burden, removal of petrol duty, improved road and
:> :> rail links, improved hospitals, more police, tighter privacy laws,
:> :> increased powers of surveillance of criminals.
:> :> Now, having enabled people to vote for all those things - and more -
:> :> how do you actually implement the mutually exclusive policies?
:> :>
:> :> Gavin
:>
:> : So, the politicians always know best, and MPs (and they have been asked) are
:> : fully informed about all bills which go through. Ha!
:>
:> That's not what I said, and you know it.

: You implied that the existing system ES is far superior to that which we proposed, (I
: and R) + ES.

Whilst I do think that, it does not imply that Politicians
always know best, nor do I believe that politicians are fully informed.
However, given a choice between 600MPs and 600 average people, I'd lay
the odds for an informed decision in favour of the first group. I don't
argue that they will always be right, just that they will be wrong less
often.

:> : But we do not propose to abolish the system of parties, parliament and
:> : government,
:>
:> But you will make major policy subservient

: Rightly so, on issues which are held by a large group to be important and not
: adequately handled by their elected representatives. Finally, the whole electorate
: may decide.
 

:> Which could get held up every time Rupert Murdoch, for example, decides that
:> he doesn't like the new law on media ownership, TV sports rights,
:> allocation of satellite channel frequencies, or any other subject over
:> which media owners have both an interest and the power to influence.

: People are not as dumb as you think.

Yes they are. That's why there are pyramid schemes, extended
warranties, double glazing salesmen, door to door salesmen, and Daily
Mail readers. It's why we had gangs picking on paediatricians, and
why innocent child suspects were driven from their homes when James Bulger
was murdered.

: Who really believes what s/he reads in the
: papers or hears in the talk shows?

So why do people read them and watch them?

: Anyone can suggest a proposal. Gathering support is painstaking and the citizenry is
: unlikely to heed the media barons.

You are joking, right? one phrase: 'would the last person to leave
Britain please turn off the light'.

: It may be that sometimes decisions are called for
: on big issues such as nuclear power,
: GM stuff

Now there are two subjects that most people have an excellent
understanding of. Go and ask 1024 people how a breeder reactor works,
or gene splicing technology, and see how far you get. Ask them which
out of a coal-fired plant and a nuclear reactor produces most radiation.
Ask them which generates the most genetic contamination, GM crops or the
imported plants from the local garden centre.

: or aspects of taxation.

On which

: Complex issues
: can be handled. See e.g. Kobach's book about Switzerland (reference at
: www.iniref.org). The quality of public information and debate improves.

:> : People are capable of understanding public affairs and of weighing priorities in
:> : policy.
:>
:> Yegads - you really believe that? Many individuals may well be - no
:> doubt many of those you mix with, but work in a production faciility and
:> seen how much of the herd have herd instincts, don't think for
:> themselves, and follow the Sun/DM/Express blindly. How many of the 5000+
:> interviewees in the ICM/DM poll could actually give even a half-accurate
:> account of the issues, do you think?
:>
:> ATB, Gavin

: There were fifty thousand interviewees. The question was should there be a referendum
: on an important named issue - everyone understood that.

: Look, democracy in GB+NI is several hundred years out of date. New ways of doing
: things will have to be learned. Experience shows that if you introduce I and R then
: people (citizens) are grateful for the opportunities to participate and engage
: themselves to learn about the issues. There are studies showing that complex
: political issues can be handled sensibly by groups of "lay" people.

: RegarDDs

: Wallace-Macpherson
: Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
: http://www.iniref.org

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:10 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!easynet-melon!easynet.net!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!not-for-mail
From: Gavin Whittaker <ah05@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:35:31 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Edinburgh University
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <bg8l3j$8h7$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net> <bd9a0p$j2h$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3EF831E9.F2F50C91@WITHOUT.iniref.org> <bd9drb$jce$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3EF84AA1.D727AD8B@WITHOUT.iniref.org> <bg8kvh$8h7$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: holyrood.ed.ac.uk
X-Trace: scotsman.ed.ac.uk 1059575731 8743 129.215.16.14 (30 Jul 2003 14:35:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@scotsman.ed.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:35:31 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.7 (sun4u))
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32979 uk.politics.parliament:72818 alt.uk.law:65218 uk.politics.misc:1115147
 

Apologies. This was a stored message that I was trying to delete.
Evidently I failed.

Gavin
 

In alt.uk.law Gavin Whittaker <ah05@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writted:

: Whilst I do think that, it does not imply that Politicians
: always know best, nor do I believe that politicians are fully informed.
: However, given a choice between 600MPs and 600 average people, I'd lay
: the odds for an informed decision in favour of the first group. I don't
: argue that they will always be right, just that they will be wrong less
: often.

: :> : But we do not propose to abolish the system of parties, parliament and
: :> : government,
: :>
: :> But you will make major policy subservient

: : Rightly so, on issues which are held by a large group to be important and not
: : adequately handled by their elected representatives. Finally, the whole electorate
: : may decide.
 

: :> Which could get held up every time Rupert Murdoch, for example, decides that
: :> he doesn't like the new law on media ownership, TV sports rights,
: :> allocation of satellite channel frequencies, or any other subject over
: :> which media owners have both an interest and the power to influence.

: : People are not as dumb as you think.

: Yes they are. That's why there are pyramid schemes, extended
: warranties, double glazing salesmen, door to door salesmen, and Daily
: Mail readers. It's why we had gangs picking on paediatricians, and
: why innocent child suspects were driven from their homes when James Bulger
: was murdered.
:
: : Who really believes what s/he reads in the
: : papers or hears in the talk shows?

: So why do people read them and watch them?

: : Anyone can suggest a proposal. Gathering support is painstaking and the citizenry is
: : unlikely to heed the media barons.

: You are joking, right? one phrase: 'would the last person to leave
: Britain please turn off the light'.

: : It may be that sometimes decisions are called for
: : on big issues such as nuclear power,
: : GM stuff

: Now there are two subjects that most people have an excellent
: understanding of. Go and ask 1024 people how a breeder reactor works,
: or gene splicing technology, and see how far you get. Ask them which
: out of a coal-fired plant and a nuclear reactor produces most radiation.
: Ask them which generates the most genetic contamination, GM crops or the
: imported plants from the local garden centre.

: : or aspects of taxation.

: On which

: : Complex issues
: : can be handled. See e.g. Kobach's book about Switzerland (reference at
: : www.iniref.org). The quality of public information and debate improves.

: :> : People are capable of understanding public affairs and of weighing priorities in
: :> : policy.
: :>
: :> Yegads - you really believe that? Many individuals may well be - no
: :> doubt many of those you mix with, but work in a production faciility and
: :> seen how much of the herd have herd instincts, don't think for
: :> themselves, and follow the Sun/DM/Express blindly. How many of the 5000+
: :> interviewees in the ICM/DM poll could actually give even a half-accurate
: :> account of the issues, do you think?
: :>
: :> ATB, Gavin

: : There were fifty thousand interviewees. The question was should there be a referendum
: : on an important named issue - everyone understood that.

: : Look, democracy in GB+NI is several hundred years out of date. New ways of doing
: : things will have to be learned. Experience shows that if you introduce I and R then
: : people (citizens) are grateful for the opportunities to participate and engage
: : themselves to learn about the issues. There are studies showing that complex
: : political issues can be handled sensibly by groups of "lay" people.

: : RegarDDs

: : Wallace-Macpherson
: : Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
: : http://www.iniref.org

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:10 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!not-for-mail
From: Wallace-Macpherson <mm@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:32:30 +0200
Organization: Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R http://www.iniref.org
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <3F27E50A.492C57EC@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net> <bd9a0p$j2h$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3EF831E9.F2F50C91@WITHOUT.iniref.org> <bd9drb$jce$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3EF84AA1.D727AD8B@WITHOUT.iniref.org> <bg8kvh$8h7$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <bg8l3j$8h7$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.eusc.inter.net 1059579145 6254 217.230.203.64 (30 Jul 2003 15:32:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eusc.inter.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32981 uk.politics.parliament:72821 alt.uk.law:65220 uk.politics.misc:1115199

Hoots the noo!

Gavin Whittaker wrote:

>
> Apologies. This was a stored message that I was trying to delete.
> Evidently I failed.
>
> Gavin

Wearing my amateur shrink's hat, I diagnose that you subconsciously wish
to resume
discussing how to improve Britain's democracy ;-)

Don't worry, a related thread, about our pressing need for citizens'
initiative and legally binding referendum, will be coming soon.

RegarDDs

Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org
e-mail: info@iniref.org

> In alt.uk.law Gavin Whittaker <ah05@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writted:
>
> : Whilst I do think that, it does not imply that Politicians
> : always know best, nor do I believe that politicians are fully informed.
> : However, given a choice between 600MPs and 600 average people, I'd lay
> : the odds for an informed decision in favour of the first group. I don't
> : argue that they will always be right, just that they will be wrong less
> : often.
>
> : :> : But we do not propose to abolish the system of parties, parliament and
> : :> : government,
> : :>
> : :> But you will make major policy subservient
>
> : : Rightly so, on issues which are held by a large group to be important and not
> : : adequately handled by their elected representatives. Finally, the whole electorate
> : : may decide.
>
> : :> Which could get held up every time Rupert Murdoch, for example, decides that
> : :> he doesn't like the new law on media ownership, TV sports rights,
> : :> allocation of satellite channel frequencies, or any other subject over
> : :> which media owners have both an interest and the power to influence.
>
> : : People are not as dumb as you think.
>
> : Yes they are. That's why there are pyramid schemes, extended
> : warranties, double glazing salesmen, door to door salesmen, and Daily
> : Mail readers. It's why we had gangs picking on paediatricians, and
> : why innocent child suspects were driven from their homes when James Bulger
> : was murdered.
> :
> : : Who really believes what s/he reads in the
> : : papers or hears in the talk shows?
>
> : So why do people read them and watch them?
>
> : : Anyone can suggest a proposal. Gathering support is painstaking and the citizenry is
> : : unlikely to heed the media barons.
>
> : You are joking, right? one phrase: 'would the last person to leave
> : Britain please turn off the light'.
>
> : : It may be that sometimes decisions are called for
> : : on big issues such as nuclear power,
> : : GM stuff
>
> : Now there are two subjects that most people have an excellent
> : understanding of. Go and ask 1024 people how a breeder reactor works,
> : or gene splicing technology, and see how far you get. Ask them which
> : out of a coal-fired plant and a nuclear reactor produces most radiation.
> : Ask them which generates the most genetic contamination, GM crops or the
> : imported plants from the local garden centre.
>
> : : or aspects of taxation.
>
> : On which
>
> : : Complex issues
> : : can be handled. See e.g. Kobach's book about Switzerland (reference at
> : : www.iniref.org). The quality of public information and debate improves.
>
> : :> : People are capable of understanding public affairs and of weighing priorities in
> : :> : policy.
> : :>
> : :> Yegads - you really believe that? Many individuals may well be - no
> : :> doubt many of those you mix with, but work in a production faciility and
> : :> seen how much of the herd have herd instincts, don't think for
> : :> themselves, and follow the Sun/DM/Express blindly. How many of the 5000+
> : :> interviewees in the ICM/DM poll could actually give even a half-accurate
> : :> account of the issues, do you think?
> : :>
> : :> ATB, Gavin
>
> : : There were fifty thousand interviewees. The question was should there be a referendum
> : : on an important named issue - everyone understood that.
>
> : : Look, democracy in GB+NI is several hundred years out of date. New ways of doing
> : : things will have to be learned. Experience shows that if you introduce I and R then
> : : people (citizens) are grateful for the opportunities to participate and engage
> : : themselves to learn about the issues. There are studies showing that complex
> : : political issues can be handled sensibly by groups of "lay" people.
>
> : : RegarDDs
>
> : : Wallace-Macpherson
> : : Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
> : : http://www.iniref.org
From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:10 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!fu-berlin.de!server1.netnews.ja.net!news.jet.efda.org!not-for-mail
From: Steve Cooper <src@jet.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:52 +0100
Organization: EFDA-JET Culham Science Centre
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <3EF84008.8F69CE37@jet.uk>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net> <bd9a0p$j2h$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3EF831E9.F2F50C91@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gen-off-5.jet.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: box-public-8.jet.uk 1056456713 2568 145.239.160.79 (24 Jun 2003 12:11:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.jet.efda.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:11:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32743 uk.politics.parliament:70208 alt.uk.law:63578 uk.politics.misc:1087830

Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
>
> Gavin Whittaker wrote:
>
> > In alt.uk.law Joe <fake@fake.fake> writted:
> >
> > : the 'democratic' system in this country gives us no say on individual
> > : policies, we just have to vote for the party that we think is 'best overall'
> > : (or more often, 'least worst').
> >
> > For the very good reason that most policies are interwoven with
> > others. I'll bet you could get the country to vote in favour of all of
> > the following: Lower tax burden, removal of petrol duty, improved road and
> > rail links, improved hospitals, more police, tighter privacy laws,
> > increased powers of surveillance of criminals.
> > Now, having enabled people to vote for all those things - and more -
> > how do you actually implement the mutually exclusive policies?
> >
> > Gavin
>
> So, the politicians always know best, and MPs (and they have been asked) are
> fully informed about all bills which go through. Ha!

They are a good deal better informed than most people on most
issues. By and large most people, and I include myself here,
get their information from the media. The broadcast media, in
the main, only skim over the surface of an issue, and the
print media are so heavily biased that they cannot be used as
a source of information for a considered opinion.

>
> But we do not propose to abolish the system of parties, parliament and
> government, although it is expensive and should do a better job.

No what we need is to get back to representative democracy,
where our representatives listen more to their constituents
than the party machine. For me this means bringing in multi-
member STV, where I not only get to choose which party I
want to support, but I get to rank the candidates so that
we can get rid of candidates without having to vote for
someone even worse.

>
> If you have "citizens' initiative and referendum" (I and R) then most decisions
> are still taken by parliament, government and civil service - "everyday business
> of government".

But you have still not answered the point, what happens if
two or more diametrically opposed decision are made by the
people. Do we just take it that the later referendum has
priority and flip-flop between high and low spending, or do
we give the government of the day an impossible job of trying
to govern within the opposed constraints.

>
> I and R allows the electorate to intervene on selected, important issues, which
> would be quite rare.

Not if the US is an example. I believe those states which
implement a similar option to this have around half a dozen
propositions on the ballot every year. In addition they
don't tend to be on the great important issues, but on issues
that have been hyped up by the local media, or which are of
great importance to a small minority, but to which the bulk
of the populace is indifferent.

>
> People are capable of understanding public affairs and of weighing priorities in
> policy.

I'm not, at least not in most area's where I don't have that
much interest, and I don't have the time to find out about all
of them. If we were to introduce citizens initiatives and
referenda then you'd have to fulfill 4 criteria for me, and I
hope the majority to give it any support.

1) The number of referenda each year would need to be limited
to at most two per year, preferably just the one. How this
is chosen I don't know, but I'd suggest an annual date, and
the initiative which has the largest number of signed up
supporters on that date would be put forward to the people.

But if limited to one or two a year, I think we could expect
people to learn about the issues and not just go on their gut
instinct.

2) The print media would have to be brought under the same even-
bias legislation as the broadcast media. they would no longer
be allowed to be the biased on issues, and would have to be
even-handed. This would need to be brought in several years
before the I&R legislation became active to allow the air
to clear.

3) There should be a good period of reflection and time for
people to read up on the issues, and for whatever government
of the day to put its case against the issues supporters
who would have been campaigning for some time earlier just
to get the issue on the ballot. I'd say 6 months minimum,
possibly even 12 months with the initiative day in point 1
being the day of the previous initiative referenda.

4) All ballots should have 3 options NO, YES, DON'T KNOW. So
that those of us who do not feel strongly enough on an issue
can put the issue to the back burner. A referenda decision
only being made is 50%+1 of those voting choose either YES
or NO. Otherwise the issue returns on the next ballot, giving
those of us who need it more time to make up our mind. Only
on this second ballot would the ballot be simply YES or NO.

Steve Cooper
From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:10 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!not-for-mail
From: Wallace-Macpherson <mm@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Cooper Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:01:13 +0200
Organization: Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R http://www.iniref.org
Lines: 190
Message-ID: <3EF980EE.FAA521DB@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net> <bd9a0p$j2h$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3EF831E9.F2F50C91@WITHOUT.iniref.org> <3EF84008.8F69CE37@jet.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.eusc.inter.net 1056538871 5667 217.230.202.113 (25 Jun 2003 11:01:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eusc.inter.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32760 uk.politics.parliament:70393 alt.uk.law:63667 uk.politics.misc:1088661

Steve Cooper wrote:

> Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
> >
> > Gavin Whittaker wrote:
> >
> > > In alt.uk.law Joe <fake@fake.fake> writted:
> > >
> > > : the 'democratic' system in this country gives us no say on individual
> > > : policies, we just have to vote for the party that we think is 'best overall'
> > > : (or more often, 'least worst').
> > >
> > > For the very good reason that most policies are interwoven with
> > > others. I'll bet you could get the country to vote in favour of all of
> > > the following: Lower tax burden, removal of petrol duty, improved road and
> > > rail links, improved hospitals, more police, tighter privacy laws,
> > > increased powers of surveillance of criminals.
> > > Now, having enabled people to vote for all those things - and more -
> > > how do you actually implement the mutually exclusive policies?
> > >
> > > Gavin
> >
> > So, the politicians always know best, and MPs (and they have been asked) are
> > fully informed about all bills which go through. Ha!
>
> They are a good deal better informed than most people on most
> issues. By and large most people, and I include myself here,
> get their information from the media. The broadcast media, in
> the main, only skim over the surface of an issue, and the
> print media are so heavily biased that they cannot be used as
> a source of information for a considered opinion.

In the participative process (initiative and referendum, I and R) which we
http://www.iniref.org suggest a proposal must attract a lot of interest in order to
go forward onto the public agenda. Through the information and debate, during which
all are free to refer to independent sources as well as biased, citizens can inform
themselves and form or "firm" opinions. It has been shown that "lay" people can
become as well informed as "experts", or better, on complex issues.

> > But we do not propose to abolish the system of parties, parliament and
> > government, although it is expensive and should do a better job.
>
> No what we need is to get back to representative democracy,
> where our representatives listen more to their constituents
> than the party machine. For me this means bringing in multi-
> member STV, where I not only get to choose which party I
> want to support, but I get to rank the candidates so that
> we can get rid of candidates without having to vote for
> someone even worse.

We are not suggesting that indirect (representative) democracy should be weakened. It
should be improved. But that would *not* be an adequate substitute for the elements
of direct democracy which we propose. These allow the electorate to intervene in
(their) politics and to decide upon selected issues, in between elections.

Your idea about single transferable vote is worthy of consideration but is a matter
separate from I and R.

Very importantly, if serious changes to the way we elect our MPs are to be made,
these reforms should be judged and decided upon by the electorate, in referendum if
we demand this.

> > If you have "citizens' initiative and referendum" (I and R) then most decisions
> > are still taken by parliament, government and civil service - "everyday business
> > of government".
>
> But you have still not answered the point, what happens if
> two or more diametrically opposed decision are made by the
> people. Do we just take it that the later referendum has
> priority and flip-flop between high and low spending, or do
> we give the government of the day an impossible job of trying
> to govern within the opposed constraints.

Maybe I missed this - don't recall having seen the question. The question reveals a
lack of familiarity with how I and R, especially the Swiss influenced form which we
favour, works. The system has plenty of built-in inertia which allows decisions to be
carefully considered. Decisions are alterable but there's no rapid flip-flop.
Government is indeed obliged to enact the law-proposal or veto which has been decided
upon by referendum. In a democracy, the party/parties in power and the government
have to live with that. If they don't want to, they can resign to allow an election.

> > I and R allows the electorate to intervene on selected, important issues, which
> > would be quite rare.
>
> Not if the US is an example. I believe those states which
> implement a similar option to this have around half a dozen
> propositions on the ballot every year. In addition they
> don't tend to be on the great important issues, but on issues
> that have been hyped up by the local media, or which are of
> great importance to a small minority, but to which the bulk
> of the populace is indifferent.

Half a dozen propositions per year does not seem too much to me. How many important
issues do *not* appear on the ballot? In order to allow a careful start along
unfamiliar paths we propose for the country a cautious introduction of I and R, with
a "three-step" model. An initiative proposal, which has gathered sufficient
endorsements (say one percent) goes before parliament which has, say, a year to
consider and may make a counter proposal. Both proposals go to referendum. If
parliament rejects the proposal, the proposers and supporters must collect many more
signatures (say five percent) in order to trigger a referendum.

> >
> > People are capable of understanding public affairs and of weighing priorities in
> > policy.
>
> I'm not, at least not in most area's where I don't have that
> much interest, and I don't have the time to find out about all
> of them.

See above.

> If we were to introduce citizens initiatives and
> referenda then you'd have to fulfill 4 criteria for me, and I
> hope the majority to give it any support.
>
> 1) The number of referenda each year would need to be limited
> to at most two per year, preferably just the one. How this
> is chosen I don't know, but I'd suggest an annual date, and
> the initiative which has the largest number of signed up
> supporters on that date would be put forward to the people.
>
> But if limited to one or two a year, I think we could expect
> people to learn about the issues and not just go on their gut
> instinct.

With I and R as we propose, it's difficult to take forward an initiative, and even
more difficult to go on to referendum (see above). The number of referendums would
probably be small. We could learn by experience and change the hurdles if there were
too many or too few. Recently the Swiss increased the hurdle for a country-wide
initiative from about one to about two percent of eligible voters. I'm not in favour
of restricting to one referendum per year - there may be more, pressing, issues.

> 2) The print media would have to be brought under the same even-
> bias legislation as the broadcast media. they would no longer
> be allowed to be the biased on issues, and would have to be
> even-handed. This would need to be brought in several years
> before the I&R legislation became active to allow the air
> to clear.

Print media bosses have successfully influenced governments and parties in the past
and may well do so in the future. Should we therefore suspend parliament until we
have reined them in a bit? I think not. There is no reason to change anything before
we start to use I and R. If the electorate then wished to make new media law, or to
elect MPs who promise to do this, they would be free to do so.

> 3) There should be a good period of reflection and time for
> people to read up on the issues, and for whatever government
> of the day to put its case against the issues supporters
> who would have been campaigning for some time earlier just
> to get the issue on the ballot. I'd say 6 months minimum,
> possibly even 12 months with the initiative day in point 1
> being the day of the previous initiative referenda.

This time frame seems similar to our proposed one. Deliberation of the issue(s) is
very important and can be aided by internet.

> 4) All ballots should have 3 options NO, YES, DON'T KNOW. So
> that those of us who do not feel strongly enough on an issue
> can put the issue to the back burner. A referenda decision
> only being made is 50%+1 of those voting choose either YES
> or NO. Otherwise the issue returns on the next ballot, giving
> those of us who need it more time to make up our mind. Only
> on this second ballot would the ballot be simply YES or NO.

A referendum is a decision-making process, not an opinion poll :-)
Those citizens who want to delay decision can vote "no".

A couple of remarks about the manner of voting in I and R.

Parliament may propose an alternative to a citizens' initiative-proposal. That's
o.k., as long as the voter is allowed to vote "yes" to *both* proposals. (To avoid
that governments try to split the supporters of a proposal by making a similar,
diluted one).

For constitutional matters, it may be wise to consider requiring a "supermajority",
and for some questions, to include a regional or country (England, N. Ireland,
Scotland, Wales) factor. But those (important) details should be decided upon by the
electorate.

> Steve Cooper

Cheers,

Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org
http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
e-mail: info@WITHOUT.iniref.org
 

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:10 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!fu-berlin.de!server1.netnews.ja.net!news.jet.efda.org!not-for-mail
From: Steve Cooper <src@jet.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cooper Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:24:27 +0100
Organization: EFDA-JET Culham Science Centre
Lines: 288
Message-ID: <3EF9A28B.F3F8CA7A@jet.uk>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net> <bd9a0p$j2h$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3EF831E9.F2F50C91@WITHOUT.iniref.org> <3EF84008.8F69CE37@jet.uk> <3EF980EE.FAA521DB@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gen-off-5.jet.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: box-public-8.jet.uk 1056547467 23785 145.239.160.79 (25 Jun 2003 13:24:27 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.jet.efda.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:24:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32762 uk.politics.parliament:70415 alt.uk.law:63672 uk.politics.misc:1088756

Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
>
> Steve Cooper wrote:
>
> > Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
> > >
> > > Gavin Whittaker wrote:
> > >
> > > > In alt.uk.law Joe <fake@fake.fake> writted:
> > > >
> > > > : the 'democratic' system in this country gives us no say on individual
> > > > : policies, we just have to vote for the party that we think is 'best overall'
> > > > : (or more often, 'least worst').
> > > >
> > > > For the very good reason that most policies are interwoven with
> > > > others. I'll bet you could get the country to vote in favour of all of
> > > > the following: Lower tax burden, removal of petrol duty, improved road and
> > > > rail links, improved hospitals, more police, tighter privacy laws,
> > > > increased powers of surveillance of criminals.
> > > > Now, having enabled people to vote for all those things - and more -
> > > > how do you actually implement the mutually exclusive policies?
> > > >
> > > > Gavin
> > >
> > > So, the politicians always know best, and MPs (and they have been asked) are
> > > fully informed about all bills which go through. Ha!
> >
> > They are a good deal better informed than most people on most
> > issues. By and large most people, and I include myself here,
> > get their information from the media. The broadcast media, in
> > the main, only skim over the surface of an issue, and the
> > print media are so heavily biased that they cannot be used as
> > a source of information for a considered opinion.
>
> In the participative process (initiative and referendum, I and R) which we
> http://www.iniref.org suggest a proposal must attract a lot of interest in order to
> go forward onto the public agenda. Through the information and debate, during which
> all are free to refer to independent sources as well as biased, citizens can inform
> themselves and form or "firm" opinions. It has been shown that "lay" people can
> become as well informed as "experts", or better, on complex issues.

I agree anyone can become informed on an issue, if they are prepared
to put the time and effort into it. But most people will not want to
spend any of there valuable leisure time researching an issue, and I
can't see employers giving time in the working day for them to do it
either. So most people will vote on the information they have picked
up in the course of their general day to day life. This means that
you have to ensure that this information is accurate and non biased.

I suppose you could have a national exam on the issue, agreed on by
both sides of the referendum, and only those that get a passing mark
say 40% plus would be given a vote on the issue. But that does put a
mighty big hurdle in the way of this form of democracy.

>
> > > But we do not propose to abolish the system of parties, parliament and
> > > government, although it is expensive and should do a better job.
> >
> > No what we need is to get back to representative democracy,
> > where our representatives listen more to their constituents
> > than the party machine. For me this means bringing in multi-
> > member STV, where I not only get to choose which party I
> > want to support, but I get to rank the candidates so that
> > we can get rid of candidates without having to vote for
> > someone even worse.
>
> We are not suggesting that indirect (representative) democracy should be weakened. It
> should be improved. But that would *not* be an adequate substitute for the elements
> of direct democracy which we propose. These allow the electorate to intervene in
> (their) politics and to decide upon selected issues, in between elections.

You are invariably weakening representative democracy, our politicians
are already too effected by popular demons whipped up by the media. If
this proposal was to go ahead without any changes, this will give even
more power to the totally unelected editors and publishers. You might
think that this improves democracy, but without the necessary controls
it will weaken the good government of the country.

>
> Your idea about single transferable vote is worthy of consideration but is a matter
> separate from I and R.
>
> Very importantly, if serious changes to the way we elect our MPs are to be made,
> these reforms should be judged and decided upon by the electorate, in referendum if
> we demand this.
>
> > > If you have "citizens' initiative and referendum" (I and R) then most decisions
> > > are still taken by parliament, government and civil service - "everyday business
> > > of government".
> >
> > But you have still not answered the point, what happens if
> > two or more diametrically opposed decision are made by the
> > people. Do we just take it that the later referendum has
> > priority and flip-flop between high and low spending, or do
> > we give the government of the day an impossible job of trying
> > to govern within the opposed constraints.
>
> Maybe I missed this - don't recall having seen the question. The question reveals a
> lack of familiarity with how I and R, especially the Swiss influenced form which we
> favour, works. The system has plenty of built-in inertia which allows decisions to be
> carefully considered. Decisions are alterable but there's no rapid flip-flop.
> Government is indeed obliged to enact the law-proposal or veto which has been decided
> upon by referendum. In a democracy, the party/parties in power and the government
> have to live with that. If they don't want to, they can resign to allow an election.

The sort of thing I'm thinking of is say one year there is a referenda
to
increase spending on the National Health & Education by 20%. This
results
in income tax being increased from 24-28p in the pound. This cause an
out
cry in the media and in year two you get a referendum resulting
demanding
that the tax burden is reduced. Government is then left with decision,
the
tax rises were caused by increase in H&E spending, do they cut it back,
or
cut elsewhere. They decide that the last referendum was only 12 months
ago
so cut else where. The only budget large enough here is Social Security,
and so benefits and state pensions are cut. Year three we get the next
referendum as the grey vote gets out and demands that pensions are
returned
to there year 2 real value. What does the government do now.

If you are to make it work, you can't have simple YES/NO referendums,
you'd
have to have a decision tree to cover all the different choices that
would
result from this one option to increase H&E spending. So it no longer
means
you have to research the need for increased spending, can they make good
use
of the extra money, but you have to research all the ramifications, so
you
have to become an expert on every area of government and the economy.

>
> > > I and R allows the electorate to intervene on selected, important issues, which
> > > would be quite rare.
> >
> > Not if the US is an example. I believe those states which
> > implement a similar option to this have around half a dozen
> > propositions on the ballot every year. In addition they
> > don't tend to be on the great important issues, but on issues
> > that have been hyped up by the local media, or which are of
> > great importance to a small minority, but to which the bulk
> > of the populace is indifferent.
>
> Half a dozen propositions per year does not seem too much to me. How many important
> issues do *not* appear on the ballot? In order to allow a careful start along
> unfamiliar paths we propose for the country a cautious introduction of I and R, with
> a "three-step" model. An initiative proposal, which has gathered sufficient
> endorsements (say one percent) goes before parliament which has, say, a year to
> consider and may make a counter proposal. Both proposals go to referendum. If
> parliament rejects the proposal, the proposers and supporters must collect many more
> signatures (say five percent) in order to trigger a referendum.

And what you'll get is referenda on issues whipped up by the media,
they'll just become new marketing tools for the newspapers. I agree
that a lot of what a government does was never put in its manifesto.
A lot cannot be because it was not an issue then, but a government
will by and large chose the option on these issues that meet its
own particular political beliefs. So we get decisions that match
the political flavor of the government we elected. The problem is
not that these decision are made, but that with our current electoral
system the flavor of government only matches the choice of some 40%
or so of the electorate.

>
> > >
> > > People are capable of understanding public affairs and of weighing priorities in
> > > policy.
> >
> > I'm not, at least not in most area's where I don't have that
> > much interest, and I don't have the time to find out about all
> > of them.
>
> See above.
>
> > If we were to introduce citizens initiatives and
> > referenda then you'd have to fulfill 4 criteria for me, and I
> > hope the majority to give it any support.
> >
> > 1) The number of referenda each year would need to be limited
> > to at most two per year, preferably just the one. How this
> > is chosen I don't know, but I'd suggest an annual date, and
> > the initiative which has the largest number of signed up
> > supporters on that date would be put forward to the people.
> >
> > But if limited to one or two a year, I think we could expect
> > people to learn about the issues and not just go on their gut
> > instinct.
>
> With I and R as we propose, it's difficult to take forward an initiative, and even
> more difficult to go on to referendum (see above). The number of referendums would
> probably be small. We could learn by experience and change the hurdles if there were
> too many or too few. Recently the Swiss increased the hurdle for a country-wide
> initiative from about one to about two percent of eligible voters. I'm not in favour
> of restricting to one referendum per year - there may be more, pressing, issues.

Its for the people to decide which is the most pressing, and the best
way to decide that is the one with the greatest support. But any more
than 2 per year would be too taxing on my time as an individual. To
research an issue to any extent would need 30-40 hours, allow that I
get about 1.5-2 hours a day of free time (when I'm not eating, sleeping,
working, washing etc.) this means I'd need at allocate around 20-30 days
per issue, multiply that by the 6-7 referenda that you don't think is
too much means I'd need to spend all my free time for 120-210 days a
year researching so I could make a sensible decision. I've not preparred
to do that, nor would many others, I have a life you know, and I don't
want my country run on the whim of people who haven't spent the time to
look into the issues.

>
> > 2) The print media would have to be brought under the same even-
> > bias legislation as the broadcast media. they would no longer
> > be allowed to be the biased on issues, and would have to be
> > even-handed. This would need to be brought in several years
> > before the I&R legislation became active to allow the air
> > to clear.
>
> Print media bosses have successfully influenced governments and parties in the past
> and may well do so in the future. Should we therefore suspend parliament until we
> have reined them in a bit? I think not. There is no reason to change anything before
> we start to use I and R. If the electorate then wished to make new media law, or to
> elect MPs who promise to do this, they would be free to do so.

Yes, but they influence the politicians, by influencing the
people, and most of the time the politicians will not be
influenced. But see above for why this would need to be
changed first. As for letting a referendum decided after
the fact, that is just rediculous, how an you pass a vote
to stop the media influencing the vote, when they are able
to influence the result of that vote.

>
> > 3) There should be a good period of reflection and time for
> > people to read up on the issues, and for whatever government
> > of the day to put its case against the issues supporters
> > who would have been campaigning for some time earlier just
> > to get the issue on the ballot. I'd say 6 months minimum,
> > possibly even 12 months with the initiative day in point 1
> > being the day of the previous initiative referenda.
>
> This time frame seems similar to our proposed one. Deliberation of the issue(s) is
> very important and can be aided by internet.
>
> > 4) All ballots should have 3 options NO, YES, DON'T KNOW. So
> > that those of us who do not feel strongly enough on an issue
> > can put the issue to the back burner. A referenda decision
> > only being made is 50%+1 of those voting choose either YES
> > or NO. Otherwise the issue returns on the next ballot, giving
> > those of us who need it more time to make up our mind. Only
> > on this second ballot would the ballot be simply YES or NO.
>
> A referendum is a decision-making process, not an opinion poll :-)
> Those citizens who want to delay decision can vote "no".

No, if you have a referndum, and you want to stop the flip-flooping
I talked abouy earlier, tou have to make the decisions stick for a
period of time. 5 years would seem correct, as this is the period
we have to stick by our decision of government for. So a NO vote
would kill the issue for 5 years, where as the NDON't KNOW brings
it back after a year when people will have had more time.

>
> A couple of remarks about the manner of voting in I and R.
>
> Parliament may propose an alternative to a citizens' initiative-proposal. That's
> o.k., as long as the voter is allowed to vote "yes" to *both* proposals. (To avoid
> that governments try to split the supporters of a proposal by making a similar,
> diluted one).
>
> For constitutional matters, it may be wise to consider requiring a "supermajority",
> and for some questions, to include a regional or country (England, N. Ireland,
> Scotland, Wales) factor. But those (important) details should be decided upon by the
> electorate.
>
> > Steve Cooper
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wallace-Macpherson
> Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
> http://www.iniref.org
> http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
> e-mail: info@WITHOUT.iniref.org
From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:11 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!not-for-mail
From: Wallace-Macpherson <mm@iniref.org>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:31:18 +0200
Organization: Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R http://www.iniref.org
Lines: 297
Message-ID: <3EF9EA63.75B10F14@iniref.org>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net> <bd9a0p$j2h$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3EF831E9.F2F50C91@WITHOUT.iniref.org> <3EF84008.8F69CE37@jet.uk> <3EF980EE.FAA521DB@WITHOUT.iniref.org> <3EF9A28B.F3F8CA7A@jet.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.eusc.inter.net 1056565867 14026 217.230.205.212 (25 Jun 2003 18:31:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eusc.inter.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32764 uk.politics.parliament:70509 alt.uk.law:63685 uk.politics.misc:1089014

Steve Cooper wrote:

> Wallace-Macpherson wrote:
> *snip*
> > In the participative process (initiative and referendum, I and R) which we
> > http://www.iniref.org suggest a proposal must attract a lot of interest in order to
> > go forward onto the public agenda. Through the information and debate, during which
> > all are free to refer to independent sources as well as biased, citizens can inform
> > themselves and form or "firm" opinions. It has been shown that "lay" people can
> > become as well informed as "experts", or better, on complex issues.
>
> I agree anyone can become informed on an issue, if they are prepared
> to put the time and effort into it. But most people will not want to
> spend any of there valuable leisure time researching an issue, and I
> can't see employers giving time in the working day for them to do it
> either. So most people will vote on the information they have picked
> up in the course of their general day to day life. This means that
> you have to ensure that this information is accurate and non biased.
>
> I suppose you could have a national exam on the issue, agreed on by
> both sides of the referendum, and only those that get a passing mark
> say 40% plus would be given a vote on the issue. But that does put a
> mighty big hurdle in the way of this form of democracy.

I showed in an earlier message that people do inform themselves about those major issues
which reach the public agenda in the I and R system. Hundreds of thousands have already
approved the proposal, demonstrating public interest. Mainly they do not sign if it's too
complexly formulated or too technical. Such a proposal usually fails.

> > > > But we do not propose to abolish the system of parties, parliament and
> > > > government, although it is expensive and should do a better job.
> > >
> > > No what we need is to get back to representative democracy,
> > > where our representatives listen more to their constituents
> > > than the party machine. For me this means bringing in multi-
> > > member STV, where I not only get to choose which party I
> > > want to support, but I get to rank the candidates so that
> > > we can get rid of candidates without having to vote for
> > > someone even worse.
> >
> > We are not suggesting that indirect (representative) democracy should be weakened. It
> > should be improved. But that would *not* be an adequate substitute for the elements
> > of direct democracy which we propose. These allow the electorate to intervene in
> > (their) politics and to decide upon selected issues, in between elections.
>
> You are invariably weakening representative democracy, our politicians
> are already too effected by popular demons whipped up by the media. If
> this proposal was to go ahead without any changes, this will give even
> more power to the totally unelected editors and publishers. You might
> think that this improves democracy, but without the necessary controls
> it will weaken the good government of the country.

A few examples of how an indirect system of governance is strengthened by having I and R:
More freedom and accessibility of public information, better feedback from MPs to
electorate, more attention paid by government to needs and wishes of the population, more
honesty (because more under scrutiny). Any person or group can make an
initiative-proposal, not only media magnates. These would indeed be more controllable
because they too are subject to citizen lawmakers.

>
> > Your idea about single transferable vote is worthy of consideration but is a matter
> > separate from I and R.
> >
> > Very importantly, if serious changes to the way we elect our MPs are to be made,
> > these reforms should be judged and decided upon by the electorate, in referendum if
> > we demand this.
> >
> > > > If you have "citizens' initiative and referendum" (I and R) then most decisions
> > > > are still taken by parliament, government and civil service - "everyday business
> > > > of government".
> > >
> > > But you have still not answered the point, what happens if
> > > two or more diametrically opposed decision are made by the
> > > people. Do we just take it that the later referendum has
> > > priority and flip-flop between high and low spending, or do
> > > we give the government of the day an impossible job of trying
> > > to govern within the opposed constraints.
> >
> > Maybe I missed this - don't recall having seen the question. The question reveals a
> > lack of familiarity with how I and R, especially the Swiss influenced form which we
> > favour, works. The system has plenty of built-in inertia which allows decisions to be
> > carefully considered. Decisions are alterable but there's no rapid flip-flop.
> > Government is indeed obliged to enact the law-proposal or veto which has been decided
> > upon by referendum. In a democracy, the party/parties in power and the government
> > have to live with that. If they don't want to, they can resign to allow an election.
>
> The sort of thing I'm thinking of is say one year there is a referenda
> to
> increase spending on the National Health & Education by 20%.

This sort of proposal would be very unlikely to attract support.

> This
> results
> in income tax being increased from 24-28p in the pound. This cause an
> out
> cry in the media and in year two you get a referendum resulting
> demanding
> that the tax burden is reduced. Government is then left with decision,
> the
> tax rises were caused by increase in H&E spending, do they cut it back,
> or
> cut elsewhere. They decide that the last referendum was only 12 months
> ago
> so cut else where. The only budget large enough here is Social Security,
> and so benefits and state pensions are cut. Year three we get the next
> referendum as the grey vote gets out and demands that pensions are
> returned
> to there year 2 real value. What does the government do now.

A scenario which is not convincing. I repeated that with initiative process a proposal
gets publicly dissected. The government and the proposers and others present the pros and
cons, including the financial implications, so that referendum voters can consider these.
To go a little way in your direction: recently the city of Amsterdam decided almost
certainly to introduce I and R. The citizens' proposing group, if their proposal has been
endorsed by the people, can get help from the council to work out a finance plan.

> If you are to make it work, you can't have simple YES/NO referendums,
> you'd
> have to have a decision tree to cover all the different choices that
> would
> result from this one option to increase H&E spending. So it no longer
> means
> you have to research the need for increased spending, can they make good
> use
> of the extra money, but you have to research all the ramifications, so
> you
> have to become an expert on every area of government and the economy.

When a complex bill is passed the MPs choose Yeah, Nay or abstain. It's the same with a
referendum, except that the electorate decides directly. Re. finance of proposals see
above remarks.

> >
> > > > I and R allows the electorate to intervene on selected, important issues, which
> > > > would be quite rare.
> > >
> > > Not if the US is an example. I believe those states which
> > > implement a similar option to this have around half a dozen
> > > propositions on the ballot every year. In addition they
> > > don't tend to be on the great important issues, but on issues
> > > that have been hyped up by the local media, or which are of
> > > great importance to a small minority, but to which the bulk
> > > of the populace is indifferent.
> >
> > Half a dozen propositions per year does not seem too much to me. How many important
> > issues do *not* appear on the ballot? In order to allow a careful start along
> > unfamiliar paths we propose for the country a cautious introduction of I and R, with
> > a "three-step" model. An initiative proposal, which has gathered sufficient
> > endorsements (say one percent) goes before parliament which has, say, a year to
> > consider and may make a counter proposal. Both proposals go to referendum. If
> > parliament rejects the proposal, the proposers and supporters must collect many more
> > signatures (say five percent) in order to trigger a referendum.
>
> And what you'll get is referenda on issues whipped up by the media,
> they'll just become new marketing tools for the newspapers. I agree
> that a lot of what a government does was never put in its manifesto.
> A lot cannot be because it was not an issue then, but a government
> will by and large chose the option on these issues that meet its
> own particular political beliefs. So we get decisions that match
> the political flavor of the government we elected. The problem is
> not that these decision are made, but that with our current electoral
> system the flavor of government only matches the choice of some 40%
> or so of the electorate.

Indirect representation, "virtual government", will never be perfect. Often it is
insufficient or bad. The checks and balances provide by I and R are good medicine.

> >
> > > >
> > > > People are capable of understanding public affairs and of weighing priorities in
> > > > policy.
> > >
> > > I'm not, at least not in most area's where I don't have that
> > > much interest, and I don't have the time to find out about all
> > > of them.
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > > If we were to introduce citizens initiatives and
> > > referenda then you'd have to fulfill 4 criteria for me, and I
> > > hope the majority to give it any support.
> > >
> > > 1) The number of referenda each year would need to be limited
> > > to at most two per year, preferably just the one. How this
> > > is chosen I don't know, but I'd suggest an annual date, and
> > > the initiative which has the largest number of signed up
> > > supporters on that date would be put forward to the people.
> > >
> > > But if limited to one or two a year, I think we could expect
> > > people to learn about the issues and not just go on their gut
> > > instinct.
> >
> > With I and R as we propose, it's difficult to take forward an initiative, and even
> > more difficult to go on to referendum (see above). The number of referendums would
> > probably be small. We could learn by experience and change the hurdles if there were
> > too many or too few. Recently the Swiss increased the hurdle for a country-wide
> > initiative from about one to about two percent of eligible voters. I'm not in favour
> > of restricting to one referendum per year - there may be more, pressing, issues.
>
> Its for the people to decide which is the most pressing, and the best
> way to decide that is the one with the greatest support.

Well, we agree on something!

> But any more
> than 2 per year would be too taxing on my time as an individual. To
> research an issue to any extent would need 30-40 hours, allow that I
> get about 1.5-2 hours a day of free time (when I'm not eating, sleeping,
> working, washing etc.) this means I'd need at allocate around 20-30 days
> per issue, multiply that by the 6-7 referenda that you don't think is
> too much means I'd need to spend all my free time for 120-210 days a
> year researching so I could make a sensible decision. I've not preparred
> to do that, nor would many others, I have a life you know, and I don't
> want my country run on the whim of people who haven't spent the time to
> look into the issues.

Many people take short cuts by giving weight to the advice of the government, a political
party, a newspaper - the serious press, not only the gutter press - or a trade union,
which present the pros and cons on a given referendum proposal. And, democracy takes
practice. We in GB+NI have no experience, except (40 percent of us) voting for an MP once
every few years. We could learn it.

> >
> > > 2) The print media would have to be brought under the same even-
> > > bias legislation as the broadcast media. they would no longer
> > > be allowed to be the biased on issues, and would have to be
> > > even-handed. This would need to be brought in several years
> > > before the I&R legislation became active to allow the air
> > > to clear.
> >
> > Print media bosses have successfully influenced governments and parties in the past
> > and may well do so in the future. Should we therefore suspend parliament until we
> > have reined them in a bit? I think not. There is no reason to change anything before
> > we start to use I and R. If the electorate then wished to make new media law, or to
> > elect MPs who promise to do this, they would be free to do so.
>
> Yes, but they influence the politicians, by influencing the
> people, and most of the time the politicians will not be
> influenced. But see above for why this would need to be
> changed first.

I disagree with your opinion that certain press laws must be introduced as a precondition
for I and R. Surveys suggest that many other people would also disagree with this.

> As for letting a referendum decided after
> the fact, that is just rediculous, how an you pass a vote
> to stop the media influencing the vote, when they are able
> to influence the result of that vote.

When engaged on a serious matter, as with I and R, people can make up their own minds.
They are not so malleable as you think.

>
> >
> > > 3) There should be a good period of reflection and time for
> > > people to read up on the issues, and for whatever government
> > > of the day to put its case against the issues supporters
> > > who would have been campaigning for some time earlier just
> > > to get the issue on the ballot. I'd say 6 months minimum,
> > > possibly even 12 months with the initiative day in point 1
> > > being the day of the previous initiative referenda.
> >
> > This time frame seems similar to our proposed one. Deliberation of the issue(s) is
> > very important and can be aided by internet.
> >
> > > 4) All ballots should have 3 options NO, YES, DON'T KNOW. So
> > > that those of us who do not feel strongly enough on an issue
> > > can put the issue to the back burner. A referenda decision
> > > only being made is 50%+1 of those voting choose either YES
> > > or NO. Otherwise the issue returns on the next ballot, giving
> > > those of us who need it more time to make up our mind. Only
> > > on this second ballot would the ballot be simply YES or NO.
> >
> > A referendum is a decision-making process, not an opinion poll :-)
> > Those citizens who want to delay decision can vote "no".
>
> No, if you have a referndum, and you want to stop the flip-flooping
> I talked abouy earlier, tou have to make the decisions stick for a
> period of time. 5 years would seem correct, as this is the period
> we have to stick by our decision of government for. So a NO vote
> would kill the issue for 5 years, where as the NDON't KNOW brings
> it back after a year when people will have had more time.
>

I showed that rapid reversal of decisions cannot occur with the sort of I and R which we
propose at I&R http://www.iniref.org I think that some country has a law which prevents a
government from reversing a referendum result before some years have elapsed. This could
be considered.

Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org
http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
e-mail: info@WITHOUT.iniref.org
 

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:11 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.xnet.com!dfw-peer!news.verio.net!sea-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Joe" <fake@fake.fake>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net> <bd9a0p$j2h$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Lines: 26
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <bMWJa.17413$Nf.44591@sea-read.news.verio.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:39:51 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 168.143.113.102
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net
X-Trace: sea-read.news.verio.net 1056454791 168.143.113.102 (Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:39:51 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:39:51 GMT
Organization: Verio
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32738 uk.politics.parliament:70203 alt.uk.law:63572 uk.politics.misc:1087803

"Gavin Whittaker" <ah05@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bd9a0p$j2h$2@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> In alt.uk.law Joe <fake@fake.fake> writted:
>
> : the 'democratic' system in this country gives us no say on individual
> : policies, we just have to vote for the party that we think is 'best
overall'
> : (or more often, 'least worst').
>
> For the very good reason that most policies are interwoven with
> others. I'll bet you could get the country to vote in favour of all of
> the following: Lower tax burden, removal of petrol duty, improved road
and
> rail links, improved hospitals, more police, tighter privacy laws,
> increased powers of surveillance of criminals.
> Now, having enabled people to vote for all those things - and more -
> how do you actually implement the mutually exclusive policies?
>
> Gavin

You would have to phrase the questions in the right way I guess - such as
'do you want more privacy OR increased survailence?' rather than 'do you
want more privacy' and separately 'do you want more survailence'...
 
 

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:12 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!not-for-mail
From: Wallace-Macpherson <mm@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum" (ballot proposals)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:57:32 +0200
Organization: Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R http://www.iniref.org
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <3EF82E85.A41A69B6@WITHOUT.iniref.org>
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.eusc.inter.net 1056452233 5698 217.230.202.126 (24 Jun 2003 10:57:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eusc.inter.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: news.eusc.inter.net uk.politics.constitution:32730 uk.politics.parliament:70183 alt.uk.law:63563 uk.politics.misc:1087776

Joe wrote:

> "The Rifleman" <steve.day73@ntlworld.com> wrote in
>
> > > That is a summation of the problem. Any proposals for a solution?
> >
> > They are getting exactly what they voted for and I have no sympathy for
> > them.
>
> except that we didn't vote Tony Blair as the prime minister, unlike the US
> we don't get to vote for our leader.
>
> and what choice do we have when voting? one bunch of idiots or another bunch
> of idiots? or maybe in another 10 years or so we'll have the choice of three
> lots of idiots...
>
> the 'democratic' system in this country gives us no say on individual
> policies, we just have to vote for the party that we think is 'best overall'
> (or more often, 'least worst').
>
> the least we should have is a system similar to the US where they have
> 'proposals' which allow the people to raise issues and vote on them (as I
> understand it).

A refinement of the "proposal" or ballot-issues system is citizens' initiative
and referendum. The initiative, if enough support can be demonstrated, puts a
proposal before council or parliament. If the proposal is rejected, then a
referendum may be demanded, and the results are legally binding. This is the
sort of procedure which we propose in our campaign I&R.

Cheers

Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org
 
 

From - Fri Aug 15 17:01:12 2003
Path: news.eusc.inter.net!eusc.inter.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!sea-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Joe" <fake@fake.fake>
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,uk.politics.parliament,alt.uk.law,uk.politics.misc
References: <190620031536117791%mm@WITHOUTiniref.org> <bcsi3n$h55$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <3ef1e753@212.67.96.135> <bcui3q$mi3$1@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <tmAIa.86$yw5.2379@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <6g06fv8kf9jnf4mbl2cq679pekoqf3f7pc@4ax.com> <r9EIa.231$yw5.7098@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <zsVJa.17313$Nf.44620@sea-read.news.verio.net>
Subject: Re: Daily Mail "referendum"
Lines: 25
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.0