Is Blair going to win it three straight?

[Toad]

Originally posted by -dead-
Not if the net result is the same, no.  

But of course the net result is not the same at all, although some will think themselves sophisticated and witty if they pretend it is.

Originally posted by -dead-
And let's not forget that one half of the UK parliament is not elected at all.

[/b]

At a minimum then, that's 50% better than China.

[Tumor]

Originally posted by Toad
Nor, I suspect, would you see the difference between having a government selected at all levels from amongst various and disparate political parties by voters freely exercising universal franchise and having a government selected from a single choice offered by a dictatorial and autocratic state by voters with no other recourse that only vote for the lowest political positions.

You got that from Michael Palin didn't you??!!

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by wipass
beet1e,

Nearly 50 % of my business turnover is handed over to the government in taxes, that is 50 % of turnover not 50 % of profits.

Gordon McBrown presides over an economy that grows on the back of rising house prices, consumer spending and borrowing.

The bubble will burst and quite soon too,

Roll on the next election when Labour will be thrown out ;

wipass

Robin Hood did not rob from the rich and give to the poor. He Robbed from the government that was taking outrages taxes from the people and returning their own money.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Toad
But of course the net result is not the same at all, although some will think themselves sophisticated and witty if they pretend it is.

 

At a minimum then, that's 50% better than China. [/B]

Actually, at a minimum, it's 50% worse than China - the NPC is 100% elected.

And as far as Hong Kong goes - rule from Beijing has been 100% more democratic than rule from Westminster.

But your ad hominem points on the state of China's government is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of whether the UK has a representative government or whether 35.2% of the vote represents a popular mandate for Tony Blair. Although the

I say no both cases, and if it's not representative of the people's wishes, it might as well be a communist government, no matter what method is used to get there.

And all the communist apparatus in China won't change that.

[Nashwan]

Much as I hate the Blair government, it might have only got 36% of the vote, but it got more votes than any other party, in totally free and fair elections where anybody was able to stand.

[Toad]

But of course the "multi-party cooperation and political consultation system" of the "100% elected NPC" is "under the leadership of the CPC (Communist Party of China) according to a Chinese government white paper.

Ad Hominem? Hardly. I merely pointed out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an individual and the remainder of his or her beliefs.

35% for Blair represents legitimate leadership in that political system, a system that allows for free election and is open to all parties. It is indeed representative of the people's wishes within that political system.

[lazs2]

It's all so predictable... you all like to think you are individuals and all but the truth is... You admire blair for being Bush's lapdog and enjoy a having a nice strong daddy figure like the U.S.

It's just the way you like things.   Lot's of authority telling you what you need and what you can and can't do.

lazs

[beet1e]

Another tale of woe for Blair. He was confirmed as re-elected PM only yesterday, and already the questions are being asked about how long he'll last, and, with the Daily Express running a headline "it's time to go".

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050507/325/fiaoz.html

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Much as I hate the Blair government, it might have only got 36% of the vote, but it got more votes than any other party, in totally free and fair elections where anybody was able to stand.

That would be a significant fact only if you have just two parties (although 36% of the vote would be tricky mathematically), because then if one party had more votes than the other party it would be at least a mandate of sorts.

But given that there is more than 3 parties involved, it doesn't really follow that the party with more votes than any other should get power. And it certainly doesn't follow that most people voted to re-elect that party .

Indeed in the problems with the first-past-the-post system are such that even your criteria of getting more votes than any other party (in totally free and fair elections where anybody is able to stand) doesn't necessarily ensure that the party will win.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Toad
But of course the "multi-party cooperation and political consultation system" of the "100% elected NPC" is "under the leadership of the CPC (Communist Party of China) according to a Chinese government white paper.

Ad Hominem? Hardly. I merely pointed out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an individual and the remainder of his or her beliefs.

Rather than addressing the truth or otherwise of the actual assertion made � which seemed to me to be pretty much a textbook ad hominem. Not sure what you think the inconsistency in my beliefs are, exactly �_or indeed what you think my beliefs are.

35% for Blair represents legitimate leadership in that political system, a system that allows for free election and is open to all parties. It is indeed representative of the people's wishes within that political system.

Hmm so we're back to the UK government is unrepresentative of the majority of people, but that's OK because that's the UK's system and the people of the UK put up with it. Whereas China's government is unrepresentative of the majority of people, and that's bad because that's China's system and the people of China put up with it.

I see both as unrepresentative and thus undemocratic. Both systems self-perpetuate, and neither is open to change due to the vested interests of the unrepresentative governments in question. Both governments, if pressed, will argue that the system shouldn't change because their country requires strong government.

It really doesn't matter if you can vote for who ever you like if the majority of people don't get actually a representative who will represent their views as they voted: their vote is rendered meaningless, regardless of how freely and fairly they get to use it. The system you use to obtain an unrepresentative government is pretty much irrelevant to the question of whether or not the government is unrepresentative of people's wishes. Blackmail, coercion, vote-rigging, first-past-the-post or dictatorship of the proletariat � as a famous old Chinese communist once said "if doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice."

[Pei]

With your 50% you are also assuming that both Houses of Parliament have equal power, which they do not: ultimately all the Lords can do is delay legislation.