|
|
Post by manchesterman on Dec 22, 2023 14:38:04 GMT
No, it is my opinion of where the bar should be set. Others will have an opinion for a lower or higher bar. Others still will have an opinion that there should be no bar ever. What a silly point
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,907 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 22, 2023 15:05:27 GMT
No, it is my opinion of where the bar should be set. Others will have an opinion for a lower or higher bar. Others still will have an opinion that there should be no bar ever. What a silly point Of course there should be 'No Bar' at all. Any Bar is anti-democratic by nature and it would need to be clearly defined what the 'nature of that bar was'. One has recourse to the Rules of the HOC and the precepts in Erskine May, the common Law of the Land, specific Statute Law relating to this narrow subject, and if seen to be necessary, expert legal opinion on those legal aspects of such laws that affect the position. Other than that there must be no bar of any sort. One's fears about what may happen; about what we assume may be being unstated; about a fairly obvious hidden agenda; about what the leaders of this faction have said and done in the past; and even fairly clear-cut assumptions of changes likely to follow ........ These are all quite irrelevant to a candidature for a person or party. If no embedded law or rule in place forbids it, who are you to forbid it? |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Dec 22, 2023 15:10:30 GMT
I dont know enough about WRP to comment. You state that "given the chance he would have..." , but that implies that you're implying intentions based on your interpretation of what he may do. That is clearly not the same as having a clear unambiguous policy to , for example, end elections, remove basic rights from everyone (as per the OP). If he did espouse such policies I would be in favour of banning Mr Healy from becoming PM, but I strongly suspect that the manifesto probably didnt say such things. You also mentioned the far-right before. I seem to recall the NF had a policy in the 70s/80s of effectively "paying foreigners £1000 to leave the country". Whilst I would find such a policy deeply disturbing and reprehensible, I would not say that it reached the threshold for an outright ban. Again, I reiterate, this was a discussion around absolutism. The bar for banning would be incredibly high, and I'm open to persuasion on exactly how high that bar should be raised, but the bar should not non-existent as some would prefer. "... I would not say it reached the threshold for an outright ban." That giveaway phasing suggests that you have an actual embedded anti-democratic agenda borne out of a moral superiority complex. You will not and cannot trust a majority decision if it conflicts with your own deeply held beliefs. I like the Swedish system where to change the constitution, parliament has to approve the change twice, with a general election in between. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,907
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 22, 2023 15:20:30 GMT
"... I would not say it reached the threshold for an outright ban." That giveaway phasing suggests that you have an actual embedded anti-democratic agenda borne out of a moral superiority complex. You will not and cannot trust a majority decision if it conflicts with your own deeply held beliefs. I like the Swedish system where to change the constitution, parliament has to approve the change twice, with a general election in between. I like that myself. But my opponents in this matter of 'democracy' would likely contend that once in power the 'wrong sort' of politicians would just ignore such a system or present legislation to overturn it, carefully prepared so that it is only legislation and not an actual change to the constitution itself. I see why the have such fears and I acknowledge that such fears are not groundless. But I suggest they are far less likely to be abused than would be their introduction of a convoluted system of possible banning with the intervention of a commission or the Supreme Court. I think that would be the far greater threat and intrusion. The dangerous extremists are not going to win here unless the public want them too : In which case it will happen anyway! |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Dec 22, 2023 15:22:21 GMT
Your opinion in the philosophical debate is noted. It is neither more nor less valid than anyone else's however.
Also I would not be forbidding anything! (that would make me the dictator I'm opposing). The proposal would be for a law to be passed with the approval of the relevant Parliament/Congress etc etc (so, very democractic).
I must admit, whilst I respect the opinion, I find it very hard to get my head around how anyone can square the circle of presumably agreeing that certain individuals are "unfit for office" in a comparatively minor jobrole (I assume you do agree that paedophiles should be barred from teaching, scout leader roles etc, I hope???) but for a far more important office, there should be absolutely NO ONE who is ever deemed "unfit for office" in being the leader of a whole nation!
|
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Dec 22, 2023 15:28:09 GMT
also, to quote polupolu fromthe previous page "there are already all sorts of limitations on who can vote or stand for elected office. Democracy isn't absolute." Various MPs from various parties over the years have been slung out of office, similarly in the USA [UK & US being my 2 main frames of reference] - these individuals are already not allowed to become PM or POTUS; so the absolutist position dosent actually apply even now. As I said in the OP, this was taken up in the spirit of a philosophical debate in terms of where democracy and basic freedoms clash head on, one is forced to support one or the other ultimately. We've just chosen different sides in the debate. no biggie! |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 22, 2023 16:33:18 GMT
I dont know enough about WRP to comment. You state that "given the chance he would have..." , but that implies that you're implying intentions based on your interpretation of what he may do. That is clearly not the same as having a clear unambiguous policy to , for example, end elections, remove basic rights from everyone (as per the OP). If he did espouse such policies I would be in favour of banning Mr Healy from becoming PM, but I strongly suspect that the manifesto probably didnt say such things. You also mentioned the far-right before. I seem to recall the NF had a policy in the 70s/80s of effectively "paying foreigners £1000 to leave the country". Whilst I would find such a policy deeply disturbing and reprehensible, I would not say that it reached the threshold for an outright ban. Again, I reiterate, this was a discussion around absolutism. The bar for banning would be incredibly high, and I'm open to persuasion on exactly how high that bar should be raised, but the bar should not non-existent as some would prefer. The trouble is that people aspiring to set up a dictatorship and not usually obliging enough to acknowledge that frankly. So if you really want an effective way of excluding them as candidates then you have to infer their intention from what they say and do.
Consider a few real-world examples.
According to Kremlin propagandists the constitution of the USSR, adopted in Stalin's time, was "the most democratic in the world".
Vladimir Putin claims to lead a democratic state. And to prove it, he'll be holding an election in a few months in which he will humbly submit himself to the judgment of the Russian people.
And Donald Trump (who kicked off this whole debate) supports democracy 100%. Why wouldn't he? Look at his record. He won in 2016. He won again in 2020, bigly - a huge national landslide, California and all, and so fervent is his belief in democracy that he's been telling us ever since that he was robbed of his triumph by a deep state conspiracy of east and west coast liberals, RINOs, corrupt judges and poll workers in Georgia.
I do agree with you, however, that unsuitable people shouldn't be elected to high political office. But in a democracy, the judgment about who is and who isn't suitable rests with the voters and no one else. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Dec 22, 2023 16:36:14 GMT
Your opinion in the philosophical debate is noted. It is neither more nor less valid than anyone else's however.
Also I would not be forbidding anything! (that would make me the dictator I'm opposing). The proposal would be for a law to be passed with the approval of the relevant Parliament/Congress etc etc (so, very democractic).
I must admit, whilst I respect the opinion, I find it very hard to get my head around how anyone can square the circle of presumably agreeing that certain individuals are "unfit for office" in a comparatively minor jobrole (I assume you do agree that paedophiles should be barred from teaching, scout leader roles etc, I hope???) but for a far more important office, there should be absolutely NO ONE who is ever deemed "unfit for office" in being the leader of a whole nation!
That trivial, superficial and pseudo-philosophical stance is unworthy of any response. That of course is a response, so why did you bother? |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 22, 2023 16:51:19 GMT
It is worth noting that several nations ban the promotion of fascism or dictatorships by any political party, notably Italy and Germany, via way of their constitutions.
|
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Dec 22, 2023 17:04:46 GMT
I dont know enough about WRP to comment. You state that "given the chance he would have..." , but that implies that you're implying intentions based on your interpretation of what he may do. That is clearly not the same as having a clear unambiguous policy to , for example, end elections, remove basic rights from everyone (as per the OP). If he did espouse such policies I would be in favour of banning Mr Healy from becoming PM, but I strongly suspect that the manifesto probably didnt say such things. You also mentioned the far-right before. I seem to recall the NF had a policy in the 70s/80s of effectively "paying foreigners £1000 to leave the country". Whilst I would find such a policy deeply disturbing and reprehensible, I would not say that it reached the threshold for an outright ban. Again, I reiterate, this was a discussion around absolutism. The bar for banning would be incredibly high, and I'm open to persuasion on exactly how high that bar should be raised, but the bar should not non-existent as some would prefer. The trouble is that people aspiring to set up a dictatorship and not usually obliging enough to acknowledge that frankly. So if you really want an effective way of excluding them as candidates then you have to infer their intention from what they say and do.
Consider a few real-world examples.
According to Kremlin propagandists the constitution of the USSR, adopted in Stalin's time, was "the most democratic in the world".
Vladimir Putin claims to lead a democratic state. And to prove it, he'll be holding an election in a few months in which he will humbly submit himself to the judgment of the Russian people.
And Donald Trump (who kicked off this whole debate) supports democracy 100%. Why wouldn't he? Look at his record. He won in 2016. He won again in 2020, bigly - a huge national landslide, California and all, and so fervent is his belief in democracy that he's been telling us ever since that he was robbed of his triumph by a deep state conspiracy of east and west coast liberals, RINOs, corrupt judges and poll workers in Georgia.
I do agree with you, however, that unsuitable people shouldn't be elected to high political office. But in a democracy, the judgment about who is and who isn't suitable rests with the voters and no one else.
It isnt about "unsuitable" people though. (I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall). I've already said prviously that WRP and NF candidates would pass pretty much any threshold and I would campaign against them being denied by those who would seek a lower threshold. On a scale of 0 to 1,000,000 999,999 would pass this threshold; the point is you always have to be wary of that minisculy, improbable set of circumstances which could lead to the scenario in the OP.
Essentially, in its kernel, it all comes down to which way do you turn when "the democratic rights of 1 person" collide headlong and non-negotiably with "the hard won freedoms gained by the whole of the populace over centuries".
So, coming back to the original debating point, the popularity of one man who on one day in one year managed to acquire the votes of say 42% of his electorate (circa 32% of the population?), and because of that large minority (not majority) support on that one particular day, the whole rights and freedoms of 100% of that population (and their future generations) - including you and yours, hypothetically - should be cast into the abyss forever? Seriously?
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 22, 2023 19:24:32 GMT
The trouble is that people aspiring to set up a dictatorship and not usually obliging enough to acknowledge that frankly. So if you really want an effective way of excluding them as candidates then you have to infer their intention from what they say and do.
Consider a few real-world examples.
According to Kremlin propagandists the constitution of the USSR, adopted in Stalin's time, was "the most democratic in the world".
Vladimir Putin claims to lead a democratic state. And to prove it, he'll be holding an election in a few months in which he will humbly submit himself to the judgment of the Russian people.
And Donald Trump (who kicked off this whole debate) supports democracy 100%. Why wouldn't he? Look at his record. He won in 2016. He won again in 2020, bigly - a huge national landslide, California and all, and so fervent is his belief in democracy that he's been telling us ever since that he was robbed of his triumph by a deep state conspiracy of east and west coast liberals, RINOs, corrupt judges and poll workers in Georgia.
I do agree with you, however, that unsuitable people shouldn't be elected to high political office. But in a democracy, the judgment about who is and who isn't suitable rests with the voters and no one else.
It isnt about "unsuitable" people though. (I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall). I've already said prviously that WRP and NF candidates would pass pretty much any threshold and I would campaign against them being denied by those who would seek a lower threshold. On a scale of 0 to 1,000,000 999,999 would pass this threshold; the point is you always have to be wary of that minisculy, improbable set of circumstances which could lead to the scenario in the OP.
Essentially, in its kernel, it all comes down to which way do you turn when "the democratic rights of 1 person" collide headlong and non-negotiably with "the hard won freedoms gained by the whole of the populace over centuries".
So, coming back to the original debating point, the popularity of one man who on one day in one year managed to acquire the votes of say 42% of his electorate (circa 32% of the population?), and because of that large minority (not majority) support on that one particular day, the whole rights and freedoms of 100% of that population (and their future generations) - including you and yours, hypothetically - should be cast into the abyss forever? Seriously?
Yes. For ever. Seriously.
If you don't want it to happen, you'd better take advantage of the - potentially final - opportunity of a free election to persuade your fellow citizens not to vote for it. If they're that fussed about their 'hard won freedoms gained ... over centuries', they'll be receptive to your argument. And if they aren't ... well, that's your answer.
As for 'suitability', you raised this issue by making the point about whether known paedophiles should be allowed to be schoolteachers or scout leaders. (Short answer: no.)
You haven't answered the point that in a real, as opposed to theoretical, situation it is very unlikely that any dictatorially-minded candidate will frankly avow his intentions. He's much likelier to proclaim what a true friend of democracy he is. So he'd elude your suggested ban anyway.
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,907
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 22, 2023 22:39:57 GMT
The trouble is that people aspiring to set up a dictatorship and not usually obliging enough to acknowledge that frankly. So if you really want an effective way of excluding them as candidates then you have to infer their intention from what they say and do.
Consider a few real-world examples.
According to Kremlin propagandists the constitution of the USSR, adopted in Stalin's time, was "the most democratic in the world".
Vladimir Putin claims to lead a democratic state. And to prove it, he'll be holding an election in a few months in which he will humbly submit himself to the judgment of the Russian people.
And Donald Trump (who kicked off this whole debate) supports democracy 100%. Why wouldn't he? Look at his record. He won in 2016. He won again in 2020, bigly - a huge national landslide, California and all, and so fervent is his belief in democracy that he's been telling us ever since that he was robbed of his triumph by a deep state conspiracy of east and west coast liberals, RINOs, corrupt judges and poll workers in Georgia.
I do agree with you, however, that unsuitable people shouldn't be elected to high political office. But in a democracy, the judgment about who is and who isn't suitable rests with the voters and no one else.
It isnt about "unsuitable" people though. (I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall). I've already said prviously that WRP and NF candidates would pass pretty much any threshold and I would campaign against them being denied by those who would seek a lower threshold. On a scale of 0 to 1,000,000 999,999 would pass this threshold; the point is you always have to be wary of that minisculy, improbable set of circumstances which could lead to the scenario in the OP.
Essentially, in its kernel, it all comes down to which way do you turn when "the democratic rights of 1 person" collide headlong and non-negotiably with "the hard won freedoms gained by the whole of the populace over centuries".
So, coming back to the original debating point, the popularity of one man who on one day in one year managed to acquire the votes of say 42% of his electorate (circa 32% of the population?), and because of that large minority (not majority) support on that one particular day, the whole rights and freedoms of 100% of that population (and their future generations) - including you and yours, hypothetically - should be cast into the abyss forever? Seriously?
Seriously Y - E - S! If you are a real democrat that is and has to be the answer. But, you probably are not one and neither am I. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Dec 22, 2023 22:57:25 GMT
It isnt about "unsuitable" people though. (I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall). I've already said prviously that WRP and NF candidates would pass pretty much any threshold and I would campaign against them being denied by those who would seek a lower threshold. On a scale of 0 to 1,000,000 999,999 would pass this threshold; the point is you always have to be wary of that minisculy, improbable set of circumstances which could lead to the scenario in the OP.
Essentially, in its kernel, it all comes down to which way do you turn when "the democratic rights of 1 person" collide headlong and non-negotiably with "the hard won freedoms gained by the whole of the populace over centuries".
So, coming back to the original debating point, the popularity of one man who on one day in one year managed to acquire the votes of say 42% of his electorate (circa 32% of the population?), and because of that large minority (not majority) support on that one particular day, the whole rights and freedoms of 100% of that population (and their future generations) - including you and yours, hypothetically - should be cast into the abyss forever? Seriously?
Yes. For ever. Seriously.
If you don't want it to happen, you'd better take advantage of the - potentially final - opportunity of a free election to persuade your fellow citizens not to vote for it. If they're that fussed about their 'hard won freedoms gained ... over centuries', they'll be receptive to your argument. And if they aren't ... well, that's your answer.
As for 'suitability', you raised this issue by making the point about whether known paedophiles should be allowed to be schoolteachers or scout leaders. (Short answer: no.)
You haven't answered the point that in a real, as opposed to theoretical, situation it is very unlikely that any dictatorially-minded candidate will frankly avow his intentions. He's much likelier to proclaim what a true friend of democracy he is. So he'd elude your suggested ban anyway.
I think you missed the point of it being purely an intellectual exercise. Of course, said dictator wouldnt come right out and say those things quite so directly. Oh and we'll brush over the bits about him controlling 90% of the media, and him not securing a majority mandate, but under the FPTP system used in this hypothetical nation, he dosent need a majority mandate. I introduced those points for a reason. In other words, his so-called "democratic mandate" is doubtful at best; he just happens to get enough support on one specific day and bingo.
Anyhow, I found it a fascinating psychological exercise. Let's hope it forever remains nothing more than that!
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Dec 23, 2023 0:14:06 GMT
For anyone who does think some candidates should be barred from standing, what about a candidate who isn't far right or far left, but just dislikes the present system. Maybe someone who supports an absolute monarchy, or government by a panel of experts instead of political ministers, or someone who favors government by referendum. Basically someone who doesn't want to oppress people, but just isn't a fan of representative democracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strontium Dog on Dec 23, 2023 7:45:22 GMT
Someone can only enjoy a democratic mandate while democracy exists. There should be no qualms about barring from election anyone who pledges to eradicate democracy, because they would by definition have no legitimacy should they succeed.
|
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,034
|
Post by nyx on Dec 23, 2023 8:37:21 GMT
Regarding the scenario in OP, outright barring Hitstalini from election would likely result in the large portion of the country which backs him resorting to civil disobedience and wouldn't be a good thing for the country's long-term stability. I would allow Hitstalini to still run for election but pass a bill that's more surreptitious in reinforcing checks and balances to thwart Hitstalini from being able to enact most of his agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 23, 2023 10:03:09 GMT
Someone can only enjoy a democratic mandate while democracy exists. There should be no qualms about barring from election anyone who pledges to eradicate democracy, because they would by definition have no legitimacy should they succeed. And equally by definition whoever is elected instead will have no legitimacy because they won a rigged election from which a popular rival was excluded. Seriously, if this candidate were banned, democracy in this country is finished anyway. It's highly likely that the excluded candidate and his supporters would resort to arms and (I'm going to be controversial here) in my view they would have every right to do so because the so-called democratic state has destroyed its own legitimacy. |
|
hengog
Conservative
Posts: 1,418
|
Post by hengog on Dec 23, 2023 11:05:03 GMT
In my lifetime there have been a few demagogues who have used ( and subsequently we might say abused) democratic processes to gain power- usually in countries with fairly shallow or youthful democratic structures. Some were clearly what we might call right wing and often closely associated with the military. Most though,I would guess, proclaimed socialist principles. They drew largely on Marxist theories which conveniently find intellectual justifications for disallowing the expression of views ( certainly through the ballot but usually at all) from those insufficiently informed of the true nature of society and power.
I’m not sure whether any of these explicitly stated prior to gaining power their intention to ‘dismantle democracy.’Even the Trots were not I think that explicit. By far the greater threat in established democracies has come from those who claim to want to redefine the term. By definition such thinking would include regarding any law passed to protect the existing structures as illegitimate and only adding further justification for revolutionary action. Or to encourage the conscious intention to use discredited electoral processes to seize the levers of power, and then force change disabling any opposition until some future , undefined point.
It would I think be unwise to offer some credibility to those arguments.
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,907
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 23, 2023 12:15:36 GMT
Someone can only enjoy a democratic mandate while democracy exists. There should be no qualms about barring from election anyone who pledges to eradicate democracy, because they would by definition have no legitimacy should they succeed. Logic and the meaning of words do not appear to be your strong suits? |
|
|
|
Post by Strontium Dog on Dec 23, 2023 17:11:54 GMT
Someone can only enjoy a democratic mandate while democracy exists. There should be no qualms about barring from election anyone who pledges to eradicate democracy, because they would by definition have no legitimacy should they succeed. Logic and the meaning of words do not appear to be your strong suits? You can't have a democratic mandate if democracy doesn't exist. Only an arrant simpleton would be unable to understand that logic. |
|
