Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

[Archery1969]

The only way to get consensus on anything and everything is to introduce the system they have in Switzerland. One of the richest countries in the world.

Examples:

- You want to increase taxes = National challenge and/or vote.
- You want to limit legal/illegal migration = National challenge and/or vote.
- You want to limit/restrict citizens owning firearms = National challenge and/or vote.

Basically, anything the government proposes, a Swiss citizen can challenge and force a regional or national vote if they can get 100,000 signatures.

Some time ago a number of people were killed by someone legally owning firearms. A citizen challenged the existing laws by gaining 176,000 signatures. That caused a national vote. The citizen lost but the thinking there is the system worked via the public overall to decide. While that’s not perfect, for the citizen in question and there supporters, they were given the chance to potentially change firearm laws in Switzerland.

Maybe the above way of running a country might make the majority feel more inclusive…..

[henbet22]

Not really.....

Voter turnout in parliamentary elections saw a continuous decline since the 1970s, down to an all-time low of 42.2% in 1995.[5] In recent years however, voter participation has been slowly growing again and was at 48.5% in 2011.[5]

The average turnout for referendums was at 49.2% in 2011.[6] Federal popular initiatives of little public appeal sometimes cause participation of less than 30% of the electorate, but controversial issues such as a proposed abolition of the Swiss army or a possible accession of Switzerland into the European Union have seen turnouts over 60%.

[Archery1969]

Not really.....

Voter turnout in parliamentary elections saw a continuous decline since the 1970s, down to an all-time low of 42.2% in 1995.[5] In recent years however, voter participation has been slowly growing again and was at 48.5% in 2011.[5]

The average turnout for referendums was at 49.2% in 2011.[6] Federal popular initiatives of little public appeal sometimes cause participation of less than 30% of the electorate, but controversial issues such as a proposed abolition of the Swiss army or a possible accession of Switzerland into the European Union have seen turnouts over 60%.

My point was that the Swiss model is far better than what the Uk has, assuming the Swiss people feel strongly on a particular issue.

Example: if the Swiss had an issue with water spills and raw sewage, then the government would be forced to act. Assuming a citizen raised it and got enough signatures.

[jamesedwards]

The only way to get consensus on anything and everything is to introduce the system they have in Switzerland. One of the richest countries in the world.

Examples:

- You want to increase taxes = National challenge and/or vote.
- You want to limit legal/illegal migration = National challenge and/or vote.
- You want to limit/restrict citizens owning firearms = National challenge and/or vote.

Basically, anything the government proposes, a Swiss citizen can challenge and force a regional or national vote if they can get 100,000 signatures.

Some time ago a number of people were killed by someone legally owning firearms. A citizen challenged the existing laws by gaining 176,000 signatures. That caused a national vote. The citizen lost but the thinking there is the system worked via the public overall to decide. While that’s not perfect, for the citizen in question and there supporters, they were given the chance to potentially change firearm laws in Switzerland.

Maybe the above way of running a country might make the majority feel more inclusive…..

Sounds all very well and good on the face of it, but the problem is that 'the people' are generally unintelligent and uninformed. Democratically choosing 650 representatives with (hopefully) greater than average intelligence and the inclination to inform themselves appropriately should significantly improve the quality of decisions taken and policies implemented.

When you rely on 'the people' to make decisions you end up with things like 'Boaty McBoatface' and Brexit. MPs would never have voted for Brexit because they were intelligent and informed enough to understand the negative implications were always likely to outweigh the positives.

[Archery1969]

The only way to get consensus on anything and everything is to introduce the system they have in Switzerland. One of the richest countries in the world.

Examples:

- You want to increase taxes = National challenge and/or vote.
- You want to limit legal/illegal migration = National challenge and/or vote.
- You want to limit/restrict citizens owning firearms = National challenge and/or vote.

Basically, anything the government proposes, a Swiss citizen can challenge and force a regional or national vote if they can get 100,000 signatures.

Some time ago a number of people were killed by someone legally owning firearms. A citizen challenged the existing laws by gaining 176,000 signatures. That caused a national vote. The citizen lost but the thinking there is the system worked via the public overall to decide. While that’s not perfect, for the citizen in question and there supporters, they were given the chance to potentially change firearm laws in Switzerland.

Maybe the above way of running a country might make the majority feel more inclusive…..

Sounds all very well and good on the face of it, but the problem is that 'the people' are generally unintelligent and uninformed. Democratically choosing 650 representatives with (hopefully) greater than average intelligence and the inclination to inform themselves appropriately should significantly improve the quality of decisions taken and policies implemented.

When you rely on 'the people' to make decisions you end up with things like 'Boaty McBoatface' and Brexit. MPs would never have voted for Brexit because they were intelligent and informed enough to understand the negative implications were always likely to outweigh the positives.

It doesn’t work with first past the post systems. Doesn’t matter how many vote nationally for Labour, Conservative or anyone else. Whoever wins means they run the country with little or no challenge in Parliament. Same as the US system, you win the college votes and swing states then your guaranteed the Oval Office.

You need PR. Yes, the likes of Reform UK would have 62 seats in Parliament, the Lib Dem’s with 110, Conservatives with 180 and Labour with around 310. But that means Labour would be more held to account and have to work with other parties to make changes. Therefore every citizens vote is more meaningful and therefore likely more would come out to vote. PR works so that the winner cannot have more seats/votes than the rest of the opposition combined. If all the others say no, legislation is not implemented etc

[henbet22]

AV referendum 2011? You are going round in circles.

[Archery1969]

AV referendum 2011? You are going round in circles.

Meaning ?

[henbet22]

An alternative voting system to FPTP was rejected. If accepted it would have paved the way for PR. Country rejected it.

[Archery1969]

An alternative voting system to FPTP was rejected. If accepted it would have paved the way for PR. Country rejected it.

So, what’s the amendment to FPTPS that allows any Swiss citizen to challenge legislation and/or laws by getting 100,000 signatures at regional or national level ?

[henbet22]

No idea.
The people would vote for...... if given the power. 36 bank holidays a year. At least. Retire at 50. Lower taxes. Universal income. Capital punishment. It would be great wouldn't it?

Back in the real world. Joe Root has just been run out.

[henbet22]

Not condoning capital punishment...... just an example.

[Archery1969]

No idea.
The people would vote for...... if given the power. 36 bank holidays a year. At least. Retire at 50. Lower taxes. Universal income. Capital punishment. It would be great wouldn't it?

Back in the real world. Joe Root has just been run out.

[firlandsfarm]

If Labour put some meat on the policies and I agree with them I could vote for them because Labour are not the Labour of old.

firlandsfarm last November on here, today Labour voters are mugs.

Oh dear you really do have a problem reading and understanding what is written. I didn't say Labour voters are mugs, I referred to the mugs who voted Labour ... they are not the same but let's not let a false interpretation get in the way of an unsubstantiated criticism shall we! BTW I stand by what I said on both occasions.

Thats a pretty thin distinction....vanishingly so. People that voted Labour are Labour voters, no? They may not be Labour Party members or even Labour supporters but they voted Labour in droves. The end result is years off now (short of a Truss-like meltdown). I wanted the Tories to succeed but they f**ked me and those around me. Well except for my cousin that married a consultant anaesthetist from an upper middleclass family.

I'm sorry you consider it "thin", I don't. In my world there is a vast difference between "+X" and "X+". Language is used to communicate and should be respected. I see a "Labour voter" as someone who always or usually votes Labour ... I was referring to those who were taken in by the "we can solve all problems immediately" rhetoric. Time will tell. I will be delighted if Labour achieve everything promised within a lower taxed economy.

[firlandsfarm]

Oh dear you really do have a problem reading and understanding what is written. I didn't say Labour voters are mugs, I referred to the mugs who voted Labour ... they are not the same but let's not let a false interpretation get in the way of an unsubstantiated criticism shall we! BTW I stand by what I said on both occasions.

Thats a pretty thin distinction....vanishingly so. People that voted Labour are Labour voters, no? They may not be Labour Party members or even Labour supporters but they voted Labour in droves. The end result is years off now (short of a Truss-like meltdown). I wanted the Tories to succeed but they f**ked me and those around me. Well except for my cousin that married a consultant anaesthetist from an upper middleclass family.

Thats a pretty thin distinction....vanishingly so.

+1

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave to Greenmark a few moments ago (and I do so without the need for textual shouting or effect).

[Derek27]

I was referring to those who were taken in by the "we can solve all problems immediately" rhetoric.

I spend a lot of time listening to the news, as you know, and I've never heard that line. Quite the opposite, it will take time, there is no quick fix to the mess we'll be left in, etc.