British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Zaune
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7467
Joined: 2010-06-21 11:05am
Location: In Transit
Contact:

British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Zaune »

The Guardian
A study into the state of democracy in Britain over the last decade warns it is in "long-term terminal decline" as the power of corporations keeps growing, politicians become less representative of their constituencies and disillusioned citizens stop voting or even discussing current affairs.

The report by Democratic Audit shared exclusively with the Guardian notes there have been many positive advances over the last 10 years: stronger select committees of MPs holding ministers and civil servants to account; devolution of power to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and publication of much more information about politicians' expenses and party donors. But it found evidence of many other areas where Britain appeared to have moved further away from its two benchmarks of representative democracy: control over political decision-making, and how fairly the system reflects the population it represents – a principle most powerfully embedded in the concept of one person, one vote.

Among its concerns, identified from databases of official statistics and public surveys, were that Britain's constitutional arrangements are "increasingly unstable" owing to changes such as devolution; public faith in democratic institutions "decaying"; a widening gap in the participation rates of different social classes of voters; and an "unprecedented" growth in corporate power, which the study's authors warn "threatens to undermine some of the most basic principles of democratic decision-making".

In an interview with the Guardian, Stuart Wilks-Heeg, the report's lead author, warned that Britons could soon have to ask themselves "whether it's really representative democracy any more?"

Image

"The reality is that representative democracy, at the core, has to be about people voting, has to be about people engaging in political parties, has to be about people having contact with elected representatives, and having faith and trust in elected representatives, as well as those representatives demonstrating they can exercise political power effectively and make decisions that tend to be approved of," said Wilks-Heeg.

"All of that is pretty catastrophically in decline. How low would turnout have to be before we question whether it's really representative democracy at all?" The UK's democratic institutions were strong enough to keep operating with low public input, but the longer people avoided voting and remained disillusioned, the worse the problem would get, said Wilks-Heeg.

"Over time, disengagement skews the political process yet further towards those who are already more advantaged by virtue of their wealth, education or professional connections. And without mass political participation, the sense of disconnection between citizens and their representatives will inevitably grow."

Membership of political parties and election turnout has fallen significantly in the last decade, with only 1% of the electorate belonging to a party, and just over six out of 10 eligible voters going to the ballot box in the 2010 general election and barely one in three in European and local elections. But the depth of public disillusionment and the range of ways voters are turning away from politics revealed by the latest study could shock even those involved.

Sadiq Khan, shadow justice secretary and former chair of human rights group, Liberty, said: "What I find really troubling is there's no shortage of big issues which we must get to grips with – the economy, the future of our health, education and social care systems, our environment – many of which grab the attention of the public, but there's a disconnect when it comes to party politics."

For its fourth report in a series dating back to 1996, Democratic Audit examined dozens of data sets from Britain and other countries with democratic governments, legislation, public opinion surveys and research from other academics.

The report, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, found 74 "areas of improvement", ranging from the increasing use of the 1998 Human Rights Act to growing membership of smaller parties such as the Scottish Nationalist party and the Greens, which gained its first MP, Caroline Lucas, in 2010.

However, there were 92 areas in which the authors had "continuing concerns", such as the uncertainty over England's constitutional settlement as powers were increasingly devolved to the other three parts of the UK, and increasing evidence of press harassment; and a further 62 "new or emerging concerns", including electoral fraud and declining newspaper sales and audiences for TV news.

Britain also ranked below average compared with other wealthy democracies in the OECD and the EU, and even worse when measured against Nordic countries for issues from party membership and turnout to corruption, press freedom, income inequality and trade union membership.

This was "further evidence of the areas in which [the UK] falls short, not of an abstract ideal of democracy, but of what has been demonstrated to be possible," adds the report.

The exercise was not intended as a "scorecard" since the issues covered ranged from lowering the age at which candidates can stand in elections to setting up a supreme court; but the combined result is "fine grained", says the report.

"The sheer volume of qualitative and quantitative evidence we have collated, not just for our current audit but also for the previous ones, enables us to make informed judgments," it adds.

Recent attempts to rejuvenate democracy had not had much success: last year only 42% voted in a rare referendum on changing the voting system for general elections, and in May [2012] eight out of nine cities rejected the chance to have directly elected mayors like London. Among the changes that could stem or reverse the democratic drift would be stronger powers for MPs to hold ministers to account, and a written constitution to ensure institutions such as the Electoral Commission were not vulnerable to being abolished by future governments, said Wilks-Heeg.

A proposal to reform the Lords by having mostly elected members was also welcome, but would only work as part of a wider vision, not the usually "piecemeal" approach, said Wilkes-Heeg.
Democratic Audit's website

Not sure I agree with all their conclusions, but there's some really worrying figures in there.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)


Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin


Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon

I Have A Blog
Dr. Trainwreck
Jedi Knight
Posts: 834
Joined: 2012-06-07 04:24pm

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Dr. Trainwreck »

This could be said for Europe in general. How do you think fascists get elected in parliament? People lose faith in political parties, they view them as weak and corrupt, and search for those outside the traditional system -at this point, whoever is more militant in rhetoric (which means, whoever verbally projects the most strength) wins the votes. Fascism is right-wing, but fascists are not elected by self-professed right wingers. It is the centrist, the disillusioned and the apolitical who vote them in.
Ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμϐαίνουσιν, ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ. Δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης.

The seller was a Filipino called Dr. Wilson Lim, a self-declared friend of the M.I.L.F. -Grumman
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Darth Wong »

The mechanisms they describe appear to have progressed much further along in the US, where corporations are almost openly buying elections and people are surprisingly blasé about it. Rather than demanding reform, they just heap contempt upon the system and don't bother to vote (or they vote for "protest candidates", which is effectively the same thing as not voting). Even when people do protest, they have become so disengaged from the democratic system that they don't ask for any particular reform; they just protest the state of how things are, ie- the "Occupy" movement which protested the wealth concentration in America but did not ask for any particular government reform. The only non-corporate forces in the US who seem able to organize and pressure politicians with specific requests are to be found in the religious lobby, which is just as bad.

Other democratic countries should really take the US as a warning sign of where unchecked corporatism can lead to. This rot is spreading across the entire developed world.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Simon_Jester »

Wait a minute. The major political parties of Britain have a few hundred thousand members each in a nation of sixty million?


And Darth Wong, I don't think it's quite that simple.

In the US the problem is that the two parties have broadly similar goals, but are so deadlocked that they can't move fast enough to get anything done. The neo-Randists in the Republican ranks aren't willing to countenance government action, and will fight to paralyze the government rather than let it expand anything or create new programs.

In the UK the problem is that all three parties have fallen into a sort of technocratic consensus. Areas where you'd expect the parties to be in sharp angry disagreement become areas of agreement between the parties. So you get a rapid onset of things like mass surveillance, high unemployment not being seriously addressed, exploitation of people on public welfare (see Zaune's stories of the unpaid internships-for-welfare-recipients), austerity cutting the government to pieces, and so on. And, again, there doesn't seem to be much dispute about this among existing political leaders.

Instead, all three parties seem to have decided to agree on what's best for Britain, and never mind what the voters think. In the short term that makes it very hard to hold the Government accountable, since replacing Cameron won't necessarily change anything. In the long term that means people are going to get alienated from the political order, because their elected officials all seem to do the same


The US doesn't just have an exaggerated version of the same problem; it has an exaggerated version of a different problem.

The results, admittedly, are similar- deadlock and the helm of the state being left to drift. All that really changes is how you get there.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Starglider »

Simon_Jester wrote:Wait a minute. The major political parties of Britain have a few hundred thousand members each in a nation of sixty million?
The UK does not place the same importance on the election of candidates and party leaders as the US. The process for both main parties is complicated and less direct (votes by existing MPs count, and in Labour's case trade unions, are more important general party members). As such there is less obvious benefit to joining one.
The neo-Randists in the Republican ranks aren't willing to countenance government action, and will fight to paralyze the government rather than let it expand anything or create new programs.
The neo-Marxists in the Democrat ranks aren't willing to counternance encumbering future generations with even slightly less national debt, and will fight to force a default and economic collapse rather than let the government trim any spending or cut back unproductive programs.
austerity cutting the government to pieces
There has been absolutely no large-scale austerity in the United Kingdom, quite the reverse;

Image

There may have been some trivial and superficial local cuts, but they have been far overwhelmed by continuing increases in other parts of the budget. In fact the only part of Europe that has seen any real austerity is Greece (although Ireland and Spain have come close). The amount of screaming and wailing from the US and UK left about 'austerity' when they have experienced nothing of the sort is quite pathetic.
The results, admittedly, are similar- deadlock and the helm of the state being left to drift. All that really changes is how you get there.
Prior to the recent crisis, parties agreeing on the majority policy would be heralded as a triumph of consensus, rationality winning over polticial point scoring and non-partisan bridge-building. You just don't like the result because it has too much reality and not enough socialism for your taste. The US and to the lesser extent UK can maintain high deficits right now due to safe haven effects from the ongoing eurozone disintigration, but there will be a lot more reality leaking through the crumbling propaganda levees once that's done and gilts and treasuries come into the firing line.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Darth Wong »

Starglider wrote:There has been absolutely no large-scale austerity in the United Kingdom, quite the reverse;
Image
I admit I'm not an expert on UK politics, but since the austerity program was only announced in 2010 and its cuts will take many years to phase in, I don't see how this chart disproves any assertion about the austerity plan. Also, it's worth noting that part of the austerity plan (or any normal austerity plan for that matter) is increased taxes, which would also not be reflected in this kind of chart.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Pendleton
Padawan Learner
Posts: 163
Joined: 2011-03-17 03:36pm

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Pendleton »

If they implemented true austerity in the UK, as in cut ALL spending to within what the government brings in with tax receipts, then the riots of last year would look like the proverbial tea party in comparison to what we'd then get. Greece is a country on the brink, and Spain could go either way yet. When you look at the protestations so far over spending cuts (which are more like decreased increases in spending rates), I wonder how the populace would react to essentially cutting up the Britain, PLC. credit cards.
User avatar
Serafina
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5246
Joined: 2009-01-07 05:37pm
Location: Germany

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Serafina »

Wait a minute. The major political parties of Britain have a few hundred thousand members each in a nation of sixty million?
Figures for the major parties of Germany:
CDU: 450.000 members
FDP: 63.000 members (okay, they rapidly diminishing, but currently forming part of our government)
SDP: 485.000 members
Green Party: 60.000 members
Leftist Party: 70.000 members
with 82 million inhabitants, less than 1.5% are part of a major party.

Yet when you compare members to seats in our parliament:
CDU: 194 (2300:1 ratio)
FDP: 93 (680:1 ratio)
SPD: 146 (3300:1 ratio)
Green: 68 (880:1 ratio)
Leftist: 76 (945:1 ratio)
it becomes pretty clear that party membership is very much non-indicative of how people vote. Oh, of course you'll vote for a party you are a member of - but most people simply aren't members of any political parties. You pretty much only become a member of a political party if you are an active member of that party, or due to family tradition or such. The latter is much more pronounced with the two largest (and oldest) parties, which are Christian-conservative and socialist-liberal.
SoS:NBA GALE Force
"Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent." - Sir Nitram
"The world owes you nothing but painful lessons" - CaptainChewbacca
"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." - Wilhelm Stekel
"In 1969 it was easier to send a man to the Moon than to have the public accept a homosexual" - Broomstick

Divine Administration - of Gods and Bureaucracy (Worm/Exalted)
User avatar
Losonti Tokash
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2916
Joined: 2004-09-29 03:02pm

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Losonti Tokash »

I am fucking lolling here at "neo-Marxist Democrats" and how apparently the Republicans are the ones trying to stop a default and reduce the national debt. I mean sure, they are the ones who just stamped their feet and yelled "NO!" at the top of their lungs and refuse to cut any of the programs THEY like (or raise taxes to a reasonable level), but it's really the oft-cited-but-seldom-seen liberal Democrats who are really ruining the place.
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Bakustra »

Pendleton wrote:If they implemented true austerity in the UK, as in cut ALL spending to within what the government brings in with tax receipts, then the riots of last year would look like the proverbial tea party in comparison to what we'd then get. Greece is a country on the brink, and Spain could go either way yet. When you look at the protestations so far over spending cuts (which are more like decreased increases in spending rates), I wonder how the populace would react to essentially cutting up the Britain, PLC. credit cards.
What I want to know is why people think that governments are just bigass corporations and/or families, such that governmental debt is always bad. It's almost as if most people are ignorant of what the governmental role in the economy is, and the malevolent halfwit gamblers who call themselves "investment bankers" are using that ignorance to push an ideology that would further drain wealth into the 90th and especially 99th percentiles of society.
Losonti Tokash wrote:I am fucking lolling here at "neo-Marxist Democrats" and how apparently the Republicans are the ones trying to stop a default and reduce the national debt. I mean sure, they are the ones who just stamped their feet and yelled "NO!" at the top of their lungs and refuse to cut any of the programs THEY like (or raise taxes to a reasonable level), but it's really the oft-cited-but-seldom-seen liberal Democrats who are really ruining the place.
Hell, genuine Marxists rejected Keynesianism back in the Great Depression, which contributed to the austerity-generated collapse of the German economy and the rise of Hitler. As we can see from this, austerity proponents are big fans of genocides and fascism. This is actually more accurate than anything that hath vomited forth from Starglider's keyboard.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
Scrib
Jedi Knight
Posts: 966
Joined: 2011-11-19 11:59pm

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Scrib »

Darth Wong wrote:The mechanisms they describe appear to have progressed much further along in the US, where corporations are almost openly buying elections and people are surprisingly blasé about it. Rather than demanding reform, they just heap contempt upon the system and don't bother to vote (or they vote for "protest candidates", which is effectively the same thing as not voting). Even when people do protest, they have become so disengaged from the democratic system that they don't ask for any particular reform; they just protest the state of how things are, ie- the "Occupy" movement which protested the wealth concentration in America but did not ask for any particular government reform. The only non-corporate forces in the US who seem able to organize and pressure politicians with specific requests are to be found in the religious lobby, which is just as bad..
I'm not an expert in US politics but from what I can tell both parties are complicit in this current state of affairs. And seeing as there are only two really big parties, you can either vote for those that pay lipservice to your ideas, or go for a protest candidate, or stay home.
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Starglider »

Darth Wong wrote:I admit I'm not an expert on UK politics, but since the austerity program was only announced in 2010 and its cuts will take many years to phase in, I don't see how this chart disproves any assertion about the austerity plan. Also, it's worth noting that part of the austerity plan (or any normal austerity plan for that matter) is increased taxes, which would also not be reflected in this kind of chart.
'Austerity' claims begain with the 2009 budget, which among other things increased the top tax rate from 40% to 50% (excluding social security contributions and a band of 60% seemingly just to spite people who make it to the 100K/year threshold). Funding 'cuts' took effect through 2010, but in almost all cases what the left calls 'cuts' were just reductions in the rate of spending increase from prior Labour and Unison (public sector union) projections. To the best of my knowledge - which is not extensive, but I am a member of the Conservative party and get all their leaflets about the supposed future cuts - the most optimistic goal is simply restraining government spending as a % of GDP to the current level.
Also, it's worth noting that part of the austerity plan (or any normal austerity plan for that matter) is increased taxes, which would also not be reflected in this kind of chart.
I agree; for example, I would advocate eliminating the majority of US tax loopholes, on the condition that all of the extra revenue goes to deficit reduction. However I have never seen a socialist object to increased taxes, with the possible exception of the starting rate for low income earners (and even there, the vast majority of the left would prefer to mandate a much higher minimum wage, which can then be taxed). Since 'austerity' has negative connotations, and raising taxes is considered good, the two are almost never associated in the left wing press, and I doubt Simon was thinking of higher taxes when he complained about 'austerity'. Of course the right wing press tends not to use 'austerity' at all, preferring 'budget discipline' etc.

My basic objection to Simon's post is his initial characterisation of the situation as 'deadlock', followed by an instant and dishonest shift of all the blame onto Republican extremists. The Democrat side has fewer blatant loons, but they have just as many obstructionists who will not accept any compromise that includes reduced spending. Worse, the framing of the spending debate (can we afford to stimulate, is it ethically ok) is wrong; Keynsian policy is almost neutered by the current first world structural environment even if it was theoretically valid, ethically unimpeachable and national debt was not an issue. Even if the Republicans evaporated as a political force, no amount of government borrowing is going to definacialise the economy or address the yawning competitiveness gap created by globalisation. In fact at this point I don't think any amount of conventional taxation could put a dent in the rising US Gini coefficient, it's just too easy now to move income and assets offshore. If the Republicans disappeared you might well get functional national health care, but as Greece is now finding out that doesn't do much good if economic collapse leaves it completely defunded.
User avatar
UnderAGreySky
Jedi Knight
Posts: 641
Joined: 2010-01-07 06:39pm
Location: the land of tea and crumpets

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by UnderAGreySky »

Starglider wrote:
There has been absolutely no large-scale austerity in the United Kingdom, quite the reverse;
I know I might be asking for too much, but is there a graph showing how much money is spent on government purchases and how much is spent on welfare? If the government stops paying for services (i.e. employees) and has to pay for their benefits, spending can remain mostly the same and yet it would be an austere path.

I can show you in at least one way that austerity has been implemented. If you see this link:
Meanwhile, public sector net investment - spending on building roads, schools and hospitals - has been cut by about half over the last three years, and will be cut even further over the next two. Hardly surprising that the construction sector has been a heavy drag on output and jobs recently.

[Source: OBR, March 2012. Note 2012-13 adjusted for BT pension fund transfer: unadjusted figure is -0.2%]
Image
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Bakustra »

The basic problem here is that even if Keynesian economics are somehow ineffective in the current financial structure (PS: This is a lie put together by austerity advocates to justify themselves), austerity would actually make things worse and impoverish people generally. All this garbage about "definancializing" the economy and attempts to pretend that Greece is a general rule rather than an exception (and one largely created by the financial industry) are ultimately spoonfuls of sugar meant to help the "medicine", that is, the cyanide and curare cocktail, go down.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
Blayne
On Probation
Posts: 882
Joined: 2009-11-19 09:39pm

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Blayne »

There are no neomarxists within the Democratic Party, marxism of any form has no organized position or political power within the United States; it's one corporatist party versus another corporatist party, the difference being ones corporate buddies will profit from indirectly helping people while the other one profits from them indirectly starving.

The false equivalence that the Democrats are either equally or more so at fault for a potential default for insisting on the Republicans compromise on tax increases is absurd.
User avatar
D.Turtle
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1909
Joined: 2002-07-26 08:08am
Location: Bochum, Germany

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by D.Turtle »

Starglider wrote:There has been absolutely no large-scale austerity in the United Kingdom, quite the reverse;

Image

There may have been some trivial and superficial local cuts, but they have been far overwhelmed by continuing increases in other parts of the budget. In fact the only part of Europe that has seen any real austerity is Greece (although Ireland and Spain have come close). The amount of screaming and wailing from the US and UK left about 'austerity' when they have experienced nothing of the sort is quite pathetic.
Wow, that is a dishonest/useless graph.

Of course government spending rises with time, as the economy grows. A more useful comparison would have been to GDP. Now, even there government spending has increased in comparison to GDP, because the economy is in a recession. This means that GDP goes down, which automatically increases government spending as compared to GDP even if nothing else changes. However, in addition to that, government spending will of course go up, because there will be a lot more people depending on unemployment payments and other government spending in the form of the social safety net that is there precisely for such cases.

Now, what does British government spending and income look like accounting for some of that?
Image
Image

Why, it looks like a massive decrease in government spending and massive increase in government income aka austerity.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Darth Wong »

Starglider wrote:My basic objection to Simon's post is his initial characterisation of the situation as 'deadlock', followed by an instant and dishonest shift of all the blame onto Republican extremists. The Democrat side has fewer blatant loons, but they have just as many obstructionists who will not accept any compromise that includes reduced spending.
I'm not sure how to best respond to this other than to say it's a complete falsehood. During the most recent budget showdown, the Democrats offered a 10:1 ratio: $10 in spending cuts for every $1 of tax increase. The Republicans still said no. When one side is willing to go 90% of the way toward the other side in order to reach compromise, I think we can safely say that the obstructionism is one-sided.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Blayne
On Probation
Posts: 882
Joined: 2009-11-19 09:39pm

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Blayne »

My basic objection to Simon's post is his initial characterisation of the situation as 'deadlock', followed by an instant and dishonest shift of all the blame onto Republican extremists. The Democrat side has fewer blatant loons, but they have just as many obstructionists who will not accept any compromise that includes reduced spending.
Wrong, the Democrats have always been willing, and always working to reach a compromise with Republicans on virtually every issue, but every time they do, the Republicans move further to the Right. Because cooperating with the Democrats would send the wrong message that government can work and they won't have an easy a time campaigning on how government doesn't work than on their non existent differences between the two party platforms.

Worse, the framing of the spending debate (can we afford to stimulate, is it ethically ok) is wrong; Keynsian policy is almost neutered by the current first world structural environment even if it was theoretically valid, ethically unimpeachable and national debt was not an issue.
Aside from "Keysnian Economics" doesn't technically exist, and hasn't for a few decades now can you show what the ethical problems with government spending to stimulate the economy are and how government debt is an issue? It's economic fact that debt is fairly meaningless when you can print your own currency and extend your own credit at will.
Even if the Republicans evaporated as a political force, no amount of government borrowing is going to definacialise the economy or address the yawning competitiveness gap created by globalisation. In fact at this point I don't think any amount of conventional taxation could put a dent in the rising US Gini coefficient, it's just too easy now to move income and assets offshore. If the Republicans disappeared you might well get functional national health care, but as Greece is now finding out that doesn't do much good if economic collapse leaves it completely defunded.
So you are agreeing that Republicans are obstructionists here, but say that nothing can ever work and we shouldn't try to fix the economy? Additionally I'm not sure what stimulus has to do with anything you said in the above quote bloc; stimulus spending has nothing to do with arguments regarding the financialization or regulatory capture. Nor is globalism particularly relevant no matter how many idiot rich people go Galt on us. These issues maybe linked to current issues of American economic sluggishness aren't directly relevant to the matters at hand.

Solution to financialization? Regulations; Solution to people going Galt on us? Build a wall to keep them from moving to Mexico or seize their hard assets if they leave after giving them due process. Solution to globalization? Adapt a national economic policy and massively fund R&D and infrastructure, oh wait. That's what macroeconomists of the Keysnian mold would recommend, explain to me again why you think this wouldn't help at all?
User avatar
UnderAGreySky
Jedi Knight
Posts: 641
Joined: 2010-01-07 06:39pm
Location: the land of tea and crumpets

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by UnderAGreySky »

I would also like to see Starglider's graph on a scale that makes recent variations clearer, I want to know if it is indexed to any particular year or is the amount Nominal (which would mean it is dishonest). And lastly, a per capita cost if possible.

And I would also like a citation for
but [Democrats] have just as many obstructionists who will not accept any compromise that includes reduced spending.
How many such examples are there I wonder. It will be easy to show the Republican side - a simple graph of the number of filibusters threatened over the last five years (since 2007 when the Democrats took over Congress) should be enough. I'm trying to figure where exactly the Dems have said "no" to cutting spending.
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
User avatar
TimothyC
Of Sector 2814
Posts: 3793
Joined: 2005-03-23 05:31pm

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by TimothyC »

UnderAGreySky wrote:How many such examples are there I wonder. It will be easy to show the Republican side - a simple graph of the number of filibusters threatened over the last five years (since 2007 when the Democrats took over Congress) should be enough. I'm trying to figure where exactly the Dems have said "no" to cutting spending.
When they stopped passing budgets after 2009.

The last budget that was passed by the Democratic controlled Senate was in 2009. The last budget proposal that the Democratic Leadership in the Senate made was in 2009.

Now, that budget they passed was for FY09. Neither the House nor the Senate passed anything for FY10 (in either calendar year 2009 which is when FY10 starts or in 2010).

As an added note - Budget resolutions can not be filibustered and pass with simple majorities.

This means that the Democrats in the Senate have not even started to negotiate with the Republicans in the House at all for a compromise (wrong word, but I can't think of the correct one - conference and committee are not right either, but it's what happens when those passed by the House and the Senate are unified into a single budget) budget.

One final note, President Obama's proposed FY12 budget was voted on in the Senate back in 2011. The final vote tally was 0-97.
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Simon_Jester »

I would very much like to find a commentator capable of detachment who can explain the Senate Democrats' reasons for voting down the Obama budget. Unfortunately I have to leave for work relatively soon and can't afford to go fishing for it.

Personally, I think there comes a point at which trying to pass a budget becomes a transparent waste of time if you know that you can't solve any long term issue permanently except by giving the other man exactly what he wants. It is not a hallmark of maturity to sacrifice precious things after losing a game of chicken.

If the Senate Democrats pass a budget, how similar to the Ryan budget will it have to be to stand any chance of making it in the House?
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Blayne
On Probation
Posts: 882
Joined: 2009-11-19 09:39pm

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Blayne »

TimothyC wrote:
UnderAGreySky wrote:How many such examples are there I wonder. It will be easy to show the Republican side - a simple graph of the number of filibusters threatened over the last five years (since 2007 when the Democrats took over Congress) should be enough. I'm trying to figure where exactly the Dems have said "no" to cutting spending.
When they stopped passing budgets after 2009.

The last budget that was passed by the Democratic controlled Senate was in 2009. The last budget proposal that the Democratic Leadership in the Senate made was in 2009.

Now, that budget they passed was for FY09. Neither the House nor the Senate passed anything for FY10 (in either calendar year 2009 which is when FY10 starts or in 2010).

As an added note - Budget resolutions can not be filibustered and pass with simple majorities.

This means that the Democrats in the Senate have not even started to negotiate with the Republicans in the House at all for a compromise (wrong word, but I can't think of the correct one - conference and committee are not right either, but it's what happens when those passed by the House and the Senate are unified into a single budget) budget.

One final note, President Obama's proposed FY12 budget was voted on in the Senate back in 2011. The final vote tally was 0-97.
This seems false based on a cursory look at Wikipedia: Something something.
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Bakustra »

This should probably explain why people are abandoning the three major political parties of the UK:

Image
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
User avatar
LaCroix
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5194
Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by LaCroix »

Bakustra wrote:This should probably explain why people are abandoning the three major political parties of the UK:
*img*
Why?

According to Wiki results for 2010, the Conservatives, UKIP, BNP and Lib Dems were the ones to increase their percentages, and a total of 88% of all seats went to Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems. Turnout actually rose from 61 to 65%.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.
User avatar
Bakustra
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2822
Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!

Re: British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

Post by Bakustra »

LaCroix wrote:
Bakustra wrote:This should probably explain why people are abandoning the three major political parties of the UK:
*img*
Why?

According to Wiki results for 2010, the Conservatives, UKIP, BNP and Lib Dems were the ones to increase their percentages, and a total of 88% of all seats went to Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems. Turnout actually rose from 61 to 65%.
I'm talking about memberships in parties. People may vote strategically, but they're not going to associate with parties they disagree with, and all three of the big parties are right-wing, and the two major ones are right-wing and pretty damn authoritarian. When the only left-wing parties are regional parties (who are gaining ground in Wales, Scotland, and I believe in Ulster) and marginal parties like the Greens, then it's no wonder people are abandoning the Tory-Liberal-Labour trio and disliking current UK society.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums
Post Reply