Comments by "Andrew Sainsbury" (@andyinsuffolk) on "Is democracy the best way of choosing those who govern us?" video.

Democracy has no fundamental requirement for parties. It is about people power not empowering political factions.
4
@spudinho1 - Politicians thrive on inequality and I would say probably are mostly responsible for the worst excesses. State fiat currency (the Pound £) has been responsible for massive wealth transfers to the asset rich in the last few years and politicians have done nothing to address the fundamantal problem because the currency system empowers Westminster - turkeys do not vote for Xmas.
3
I have suggested that all prospective candidates should pass an independent review panel (interview) that confirms they have statistical/maths skills, some historical knowledge, general critical thinking abilities etc. These panels could be run by competing bodies like universities. A Westminster Entrance exam that doesn't trust politicians to mark their own score and shows they can usefully contribute to decision making. Work experience is so broad that it probably doesn't indicate much direct capability except just doing something unrelated to politics for life experience - 18 year old politicians always seems ludicrous to me.
2
Westminster make it up as they go along - brand without different 'products' is pointless for the voter. Parties are just a system to maintain politicians and their careers, status, money with no responsibility accepted by the party for generational ineptitude. It's as close to aristocracy as they can risk keeping us without a revolution.
1
@eaglebeagle1408 - We didn't have a referendum on PR we had a referendum on whether to change to a convoluted AV system that few could get their head around. It was a constitutional crime - offering some politician's preferred model rather an open question.
1
@MarKeMu125 - MPs can declare their affiliations to anything they want for 'brand' recognition - but there's no reason that the brands should overrule the representatives. Parties, as they operate now, serve no democratic function.
1
Correct - the entire purpose of political parties is to concentrate power in special interest groups. But the role of president is also dubious. Why would a democratic nation of millions need a supreme leader narrowing their freedoms to his preferences? A nation is not a single purpose organisation it's not a a business.
1
Supreme leaders cannot exist in a democracy. The whole point of democracy is not empowering a ruler but widening sovereignty. Politicans like to concentrate power because they wish to rule not because it is necessary for society. No nation really needs an individual who can overrule everyone else - it is ludicrous.
1
@lonevoice - I suspect we mostly agree - but you are talking about the party models that grew mostly from aristocratic political factions competing for power to rule. People don't need restricted menus of pre-packed special interest to express their choice of representative. The idea that individuals once in power can 'push the boundary' is archaic right-to-rule confusion. We should define the authority of politicans not let them surprise us. Freedom for politicians is mostly a cost.
1
I would argue that politicians mostly do not have the critical thinking for those issues either. The idea that direct democracy has to mean unrestricted majoritism is unsound - politicians cause the analagous problem now by claiming that winning an election gives them absoulte power. The reason that rent controls would fail to succeed in a real democracy is that the people would have already ratified the level of property rights in their constitution - politicians setting the exchange rates for anything then becomes a constitutional issue undermining basic freedoms. We need fully implemented constitutional democracy that constrains politicians.
1
The conversation needs to be widened. Democracy is the optimum solution we can see at the moment - but democracy is all about shifting power away from the few - not empowering them or even deciding who governs us. The current model in the UK where Westminster makes its own rules is not democracy - it's 19th century aristocracy with an electoral hat. We've just had a sequence of supreme leaders imposed on us with virtually no popular input - it might as well be a monarchy or dictatorship.
1