Originally Posted by david H:
If it was up to me it would be an aristocratic rule or even an absolute monarchy. We would of course need new Monarchs - there are relatives in Europe. Poor smidgey thinks that's Nazism! Brainwashed nowadays aren't they?

You then have the problem of working out their accountability. Take one good look at the likes of Boris Johnson and David Cameron and you'll see examples of what we can expect should the 'aristocracy' rule. An absolute monarch would be just as bad. It would be OK for a few years, perhaps even a couple of reigns, but eventually the arrogance would come to the forefront and it would soon be dungeons and beheadings.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Hunter:
Good in theory. However, Mugabe is a prime example of what can happen if the wrong people win a 'revolution'.

Yes.
I agree there is no copper bottomed guarantee in getting the correct outcome.

My concern is I'll be making the same points in twenty years or more - - if I'm not rotting in some EU gulag as an EU Denier, that is. Who knows, you could be in the cell next to mine.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Hunter:
What then, would replace it? There has to be a system that is answerable to the electorate. Anything else becomes anarchy or (may God forbid) Fascism/Communism. It is because this present Government has been so underhand in their dealing with our rights, by handing them over to a foreign power, that we have come to this mess. Everyone knows that the next General Election will see NuLabour swept from power.

In order for the Country to be run properly, there must be a mandate to the Politicians to act on our behalf. What has become clear now that, during his term in office as PM, Blair was selling us down the river. Brown, IMO, has been left with a can of worms that has been booby-trapped so that if he tries to change the plan, things will get worse for him thereby detracting him from fixing the situation.

The lot that are presently in Parliament (of all Parties) have shown their contempt for the electorate by making sure their own nests are feathered before the end of their time as MP's. If they had the power to do so, they would, I am certain, vote themselves for another term as MP's without going to the electorate.

Read this

Forget all that twaddle about the aristocracy and absolute monarchies coming from people who probably believe dragons still exist in some cave in Wales.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Populist Lee:
Yes.
I agree there is no copper bottomed guarantee in getting the correct outcome.

My concern is I'll be making the same points in twenty years or more - - if I'm not rotting in some EU gulag as an EU Denier, that is. Who knows, you could be in the cell next to mine.

Only if I can have one by the window...:-)

The present system is the best we have. Proportional Representation would finish off this country, ensuring there was never a fully elected Government, merely a coalition. Look at the mess of the Italian political system - 52 General Elections in the past 50 years. This is why it took them so long to clean the mess up in Naples....they couldn't agree on anything.

It is, as usual, a few who spoil it for the rest. The system has worked well for centuries, only falling down when Blair managed to get some of his cronies into positions that were highly influential. Once this lot go, there should be the chance to repair it, hopefully with the added factor that the Blair disease won't happen ever again.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Dissident Congress:
Read this

Forget all that twaddle about the aristocracy and absolute monarchies coming from people who probably believe dragons still exist in some cave in Wales.

I found the article quite interesting - initially. But the more I got into it, the more I realise that a great deal of it is (IMO) wishful thinking, if not downright dangerous.

For example - who would censor the information coming from abroad? A Mary Whitehouse type of character? Or would it be down to committee? Who would decide what the public should be allowed to see/hear?

Likewise with the press/media. I agree the Press should be accountable, but not to the extent of being an arm of the Government. It is due to the press, in some degree, that much of the corruption in present Political life is known to us. Should that be removed, who would tell us what they were up to?

It would be nice if much of the social improvements could be carried out, but there is not suggestion, anywhere, of these could be attained. That I would be interested in seeing.

Nevertheless, many thanks for the link. It really does make interesting reading.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Hunter:
I found the article quite interesting - initially. But the more I got into it, the more I realise that a great deal of it is (IMO) wishful thinking, if not downright dangerous.

For example - who would censor the information coming from abroad? A Mary Whitehouse type of character? Or would it be down to committee? Who would decide what the public should be allowed to see/hear?

Likewise with the press/media. I agree the Press should be accountable, but not to the extent of being an arm of the Government. It is due to the press, in some degree, that much of the corruption in present Political life is known to us. Should that be removed, who would tell us what they were up to?

It would be nice if much of the social improvements could be carried out, but there is not suggestion, anywhere, of these could be attained. That I would be interested in seeing.

Nevertheless, many thanks for the link. It really does make interesting reading.

I'm surprised you hadn't read it already. It's been on the DC website for about a year now. Perhaps Populist Lee can answer your concerns regarding PP.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Dissident Congress:
I'm surprised you hadn't read it already. It's been on the DC website for about a year now. Perhaps Populist Lee can answer your concerns regarding PP.

I've only had time for a cursory glance at the DC website. I promise to make a more detailed study of it soon as time permits.
[Rep]

If we get an independent England then we can sort out who rules.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by ANGLO-STAFFS:
If we get an independent England then we can sort out who rules.

It won't make any difference, as the only ones who rule are the global capitalist elite, with their yappy little poodles in government.

The poodles are fed little tit bits and occasionally brought to heel by a yank on the short lead.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Seasider:
It won't make any difference, as the only ones who rule are the global capitalist elite, with their yappy little poodles in government.

The poodles are fed little tit bits and occasionally brought to heel by a yank on the short lead.

Which is why there is a need for an elected government that puts the interests of the British people first. But to do so there must be a well defined set of policies that will outline how it will be done, when it will be done, and who will do it. Unlike the present bunch who are too busy chasing up their expenses claims to notice anything is wrong.
[Rep]