Out of date & out of touch!

Bob FM · 29-04-2008, 09:38 AM

GC incredible, the real issue is 'Democracy'. That should be based on truth, honesty, integrity and above all the promotion of those things one has been elected on. The fundamental issue here is that 20 million people have had their right to choose taken away based on a Lie, any Government is found wanting if it knowingly enacts a law based on a fraud. Passive Smoking is a fraud, paid for by the Big Drug Companies who peddle virtually useless 'smoking cessation' products some of which had been known to kill, but despite this HMG have their snouts in the trough of Big D. NICE have licensed drugs for Big D knowing they are potential killers. UKIP stands for Democracy for all not just the vocal 'political elite'.

Geoffrey Collier · 29-04-2008, 11:23 AM

Bob FM: With respect, you do not understand the purpose of UKIP and its objectives. Democracy, like Heinz Soup, come in 57 Varieties. Our variety happens to be a, Representative Parliamentary Democracy, (RPD). Not as an opinion, but as a fact, legislation has to be lawful, but it does not have to be, 'professionally-approved' or, necessarily popular. Indeed proposals to abandon the Julian Calendar for the Gregorian one, resulted in street riots
(1752); the same happened when Robert Peel, established the Metropolitan Police Force (1829). To the list we can add riots to prevent thousands of tenements being demolished, without regard for the tenant interests, to establish the world's first railway system. The ending of public executions was bitterly opposed as a retrograde step: 'Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done'. Compulsory education, (Forster Act 1870), was to cause much economic hardship among the poor, understandably, unpopular where a child's earnings were vital for family survival. Secret Ballot (1872), was seen as the necessary evidence, that democracy was being blatently perverted. Nothing incredible about what I say; UKIP supports democracy, but RPD which, for all its faults, has served us well.

The agenda of 'Populist Democracy', which you implicitly support- delegates not representatives- has never been part of our Constitution. You are just making it up, as you go along. Vested interests have always existed, but our Constitution was able to exist, influence and modify excesses within a constitutional framework, both in peace and war. None of this is to your likeing, I presume?

mkpdavies · 29-04-2008, 11:34 AM

Sorry GC, but it looks like you are the one who doesn't know UKIP's purpose. It certainly does have a "populist" element to it, in the form of Direct Democracy. That means the people can trump the politicians, when they see fit.

Bob FM · 29-04-2008, 11:36 AM

I think it is you who is out of step with the modern democratic process, to highlight as you have done periods in history, that do not accurately reflects the 'here and now', is frankly bizarre. I am fully aware of what UKIP stand for. Having just organised a public meeting where this was spelled out by the party leader last night. Part of UKIP's policy is to re-visit the smoking ban. I ask you just one question. What do you think would happen if all smokers, and their smoking friends voted UKIP in a General Election. I'll give you a clue. Labour one last time with 8 million votes.

Bob FM · 29-04-2008, 11:37 AM

Well said mk.

Geoffrey Collier · 29-04-2008, 02:58 PM

Bob FM: The major objection to Britain joining political alliances in Europe, certainly since the time of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952, was the certain impact upon our own Constitution. People like Lord Denning, warned constantly of the danger resulting from extra-territorial intrusion upon the assumptions (e.g.presumption of innocence; Habeas Corpus) and the independence of our Judiciary. Recognising and reversing these processes provided the impetus for the creation of UKIP. The constitutional question was central to our message. The founding leader, Professor Alan Sked, had an encyclopaedic knowledge of his subject, and is quoted as a Learned authority. Without intending any disrespect to our current leader, our intellectual appeal to the professional classes is now on the wane.That is a consequence of deviating from the original case, and it has been to our disadvantage. Flirtations with Libertarianism, Poujardism and populism is serving us ill. This must now be clear for all to see.

As you feel that it is me, who is out of step with the democratic process,
can you explain what it is? What did our leader have to say on the subject last night? I endeavoured to explain that our system is a Representative Parliamentary Democracy, which has proved itself in peace and war for centuries. Founded on the Rule of Law, our legislators must be mindful of public opinion, but they must always place the interests of the Realm above the immediate approval of the electorate. I gave a list of examples, over a long period of time to illustrate the point; that appears to have been totally lost on you. Populist constitutions are invariably of short duration, and frequently bring disaster in thier wake. What do you know, for example, of the Weimar Republic? Talented people like Gustav Stresemann, who were a threat to Hitler's ambitions, were brought low by the mobs.

The very idea that reversing the smoking ban in public houses, will produce a
psephological consequence, advantageous to UKIP, is utterly eccentric. You are saying two things simultaneously: not only will the electorate agree with us, but it will also manifest itself as a voting determinant amonst them. I fear that voting determinants are more complex than that.

Anyway, tell me all about , '... the modern democratic process', with which I am out of step! I hope it doesn't revolve exclusively around smoking in pubs.

charlie endell · 29-04-2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

It certainly does have a "populist" element to it, in the form of Direct Democracy.

There is a huge difference the two concepts you mention...

Peron and Galtieri, for example, were both populists. (Indeed, Peron, it might be argued, defined the term). Both were also classical fascists. Not much evidence of pluralism, or "direct democracy" there.

mkpdavies · 29-04-2008, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie endell

There is a huge difference the two concepts you mention...

Peron and Galtieri, for example, were both populists. (Indeed, Peron, it might be argued, defined the term). Both were also classical fascists. Not much evidence of pluralism, or "direct democracy" there.

My statement still stands.

Bob FM · 30-04-2008, 07:52 AM

Forgive me putting things in simplistic terms, but however one divines an individual countries democratic process the one thing that is generic and that is the object of the exercise is to win more votes/seats than the opposition, we have seen in the UK single issue events leading to MP's being elected, on a very narrow platform, the Doctor in Wales for example. Put simply UKIP's intentions re the smoking ban, is not to overturn it as has been misrepresented, but to amend the regulations (this can be done by the Secretary of State under the provisions contained within the Act without reference to Parliament). My point has merely been that to ignore potentially 20 million voters is Political stupidity, and as for UKIP losing the Professional Classes, I would argue that is far from the truth given the expertise which now exists which has enabled the party to develop policies for the 21st century that appeal to the people. I'm afraid those who believe that Parliament should not represent the views of the people are 'closet' Europhiles. If people are not happy with a growing membership as has just been reported from UKIP HQ and more interest in the party as I have experienced during the current Local Campaign, then perhaps they are in the wrong party. I want to win elections, as does the Leadership.

The Bear · 30-04-2008, 08:22 AM

If there was even the possibility that passive smoking, or more properly the breathing of air that has been significantly polluted by proven carcinogens, would you allow any child of yours to be exposed to it?

I certainly wouldn’t.

So why then should we not extend the same protection to other people and their children?

29-04-2008, 11:34 AM	#83 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,604	Sorry GC, but it looks like you are the one who doesn't know UKIP's purpose. It certainly does have a "populist" element to it, in the form of Direct Democracy. That means the people can trump the politicians, when they see fit. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

29-04-2008, 11:36 AM	#84 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 1,126	RPD I think it is you who is out of step with the modern democratic process, to highlight as you have done periods in history, that do not accurately reflects the 'here and now', is frankly bizarre. I am fully aware of what UKIP stand for. Having just organised a public meeting where this was spelled out by the party leader last night. Part of UKIP's policy is to re-visit the smoking ban. I ask you just one question. What do you think would happen if all smokers, and their smoking friends voted UKIP in a General Election. I'll give you a clue. Labour one last time with 8 million votes.

30-04-2008, 08:22 AM	#90 (permalink)
The Bear Uber Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: East Anglia Posts: 2,178	If there was even the possibility that passive smoking, or more properly the breathing of air that has been significantly polluted by proven carcinogens, would you allow any child of yours to be exposed to it? I certainly wouldn’t. So why then should we not extend the same protection to other people and their children? __________________ I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

29-04-2008, 09:38 AM	#81 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 1,126	GC incredible, the real issue is 'Democracy'. That should be based on truth, honesty, integrity and above all the promotion of those things one has been elected on. The fundamental issue here is that 20 million people have had their right to choose taken away based on a Lie, any Government is found wanting if it knowingly enacts a law based on a fraud. Passive Smoking is a fraud, paid for by the Big Drug Companies who peddle virtually useless 'smoking cessation' products some of which had been known to kill, but despite this HMG have their snouts in the trough of Big D. NICE have licensed drugs for Big D knowing they are potential killers. UKIP stands for Democracy for all not just the vocal 'political elite'.

29-04-2008, 11:23 AM	#82 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,006	Bob FM: With respect, you do not understand the purpose of UKIP and its objectives. Democracy, like Heinz Soup, come in 57 Varieties. Our variety happens to be a, Representative Parliamentary Democracy, (RPD). Not as an opinion, but as a fact, legislation has to be lawful, but it does not have to be, 'professionally-approved' or, necessarily popular. Indeed proposals to abandon the Julian Calendar for the Gregorian one, resulted in street riots (1752); the same happened when Robert Peel, established the Metropolitan Police Force (1829). To the list we can add riots to prevent thousands of tenements being demolished, without regard for the tenant interests, to establish the world's first railway system. The ending of public executions was bitterly opposed as a retrograde step: 'Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done'. Compulsory education, (Forster Act 1870), was to cause much economic hardship among the poor, understandably, unpopular where a child's earnings were vital for family survival. Secret Ballot (1872), was seen as the necessary evidence, that democracy was being blatently perverted. Nothing incredible about what I say; UKIP supports democracy, but RPD which, for all its faults, has served us well. The agenda of 'Populist Democracy', which you implicitly support- delegates not representatives- has never been part of our Constitution. You are just making it up, as you go along. Vested interests have always existed, but our Constitution was able to exist, influence and modify excesses within a constitutional framework, both in peace and war. None of this is to your likeing, I presume?

29-04-2008, 11:37 AM	#85 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 1,126	Well said mk.

29-04-2008, 02:58 PM	#86 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,006	Bob FM: The major objection to Britain joining political alliances in Europe, certainly since the time of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952, was the certain impact upon our own Constitution. People like Lord Denning, warned constantly of the danger resulting from extra-territorial intrusion upon the assumptions (e.g.presumption of innocence; Habeas Corpus) and the independence of our Judiciary. Recognising and reversing these processes provided the impetus for the creation of UKIP. The constitutional question was central to our message. The founding leader, Professor Alan Sked, had an encyclopaedic knowledge of his subject, and is quoted as a Learned authority. Without intending any disrespect to our current leader, our intellectual appeal to the professional classes is now on the wane.That is a consequence of deviating from the original case, and it has been to our disadvantage. Flirtations with Libertarianism, Poujardism and populism is serving us ill. This must now be clear for all to see. As you feel that it is me, who is out of step with the democratic process, can you explain what it is? What did our leader have to say on the subject last night? I endeavoured to explain that our system is a Representative Parliamentary Democracy, which has proved itself in peace and war for centuries. Founded on the Rule of Law, our legislators must be mindful of public opinion, but they must always place the interests of the Realm above the immediate approval of the electorate. I gave a list of examples, over a long period of time to illustrate the point; that appears to have been totally lost on you. Populist constitutions are invariably of short duration, and frequently bring disaster in thier wake. What do you know, for example, of the Weimar Republic? Talented people like Gustav Stresemann, who were a threat to Hitler's ambitions, were brought low by the mobs. The very idea that reversing the smoking ban in public houses, will produce a psephological consequence, advantageous to UKIP, is utterly eccentric. You are saying two things simultaneously: not only will the electorate agree with us, but it will also manifest itself as a voting determinant amonst them. I fear that voting determinants are more complex than that. Anyway, tell me all about , '... the modern democratic process', with which I am out of step! I hope it doesn't revolve exclusively around smoking in pubs.

30-04-2008, 07:52 AM	#89 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 1,126	Forgive me putting things in simplistic terms, but however one divines an individual countries democratic process the one thing that is generic and that is the object of the exercise is to win more votes/seats than the opposition, we have seen in the UK single issue events leading to MP's being elected, on a very narrow platform, the Doctor in Wales for example. Put simply UKIP's intentions re the smoking ban, is not to overturn it as has been misrepresented, but to amend the regulations (this can be done by the Secretary of State under the provisions contained within the Act without reference to Parliament). My point has merely been that to ignore potentially 20 million voters is Political stupidity, and as for UKIP losing the Professional Classes, I would argue that is far from the truth given the expertise which now exists which has enabled the party to develop policies for the 21st century that appeal to the people. I'm afraid those who believe that Parliament should not represent the views of the people are 'closet' Europhiles. If people are not happy with a growing membership as has just been reported from UKIP HQ and more interest in the party as I have experienced during the current Local Campaign, then perhaps they are in the wrong party. I want to win elections, as does the Leadership.