German elections produce yet another democratic dead heat.

Does over-emphasis on party politics fail the fundamental idea of democracy now that modern parties appear essentially indistinguishable in practice?

Let alone the effects on the global economy such indicision inevitably produces, do you feel that your vote even counts any more?

No, I don't think my vote counts any more.

What I think harms politics more over here in the UK at the moment is indeciciveness over party politics. It's possibly the one of the only reasons Blair's remained in power. The Tories can't decide on a leader, and always seem to be bickering among themselves, whether to modernise themselves or keep the old ways. And Lib Dems have never seemed to have a constant policy, changing with the tide it seems, and now they're entering the first stanges of aforementioned Tory-style bickering.
Now as for Labour, I know it's what is always said, but they simply don't uphold any 'labour' ideals (you know, sticking up for the common working man, etc) - it's all about thes simoleans, unsurprisingly.

But is it even worth asking any more? Despite your apparent optimism over the power you can hold over politicians, Morningstar, my faith has been thoroughly battered, even at the sweet age of 18. I voted, and still will. But I won't foolishly fanatically dedicate myself to a single party, and I'll only go for what I think would benefit me and the local community the most.

I think indivdual's votes do still count. For those of you who do not belive they still count, there is a splended civil liberty out there called "freedom of speech." Instead of trusting your ballot to be your voice, you can take a stand and say something. Like Cindy Sheehan, or the thousands of anti-war protesters from the Viet Nam era.

The Declaration of Independence sates: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Meaning: If the people are not recieving their unalienable Rights (e.g. their right to vote), they have the right to form their own govenment and abolish the old corrupt one.

Of course, what the Declaration of Independece states, doesn't help the fine chaps in merry ole England. God Save the Queen!

Perhaps we have recently seen that there are limits to the freedom of speech, even in America?

For the benefits of constitutional monarchy, I offer the following proof: George W. Bush...



Party politics seem like a contradiction in terms now that so very few members of the public actually belong to a political party – certainly the number of voters at the last general election dwarfed the membership of all parties standing by a factor of 10, and it was possibly the worst turn out in history.

The days of teenagers joining the Conservative Party to get a date seem anathema: modern members are predominantly euro-sceptic geriatrics, almost exclusively living in the South East, totally unrepresentative of the average citizen, nor even the average Tory voter. Labour similarly has to contend with the loony left members of its Party: fossils who honestly believe that communism could be imposed across the UK. The Liberal Party is the only modern looking group among the lot – amazing given they last held any real power during Victorian times...

At the last election I felt like I was being asked to choose between the financial interests of big landowners or the prosperity of big corporations, or to a waste a vote. At no point did any of the candidates chosen by Party headquarters strike me as representing my constituency at all. The outcome was that I got stuck with Steven Byers, the disgraced former cabinet minister who gave the nod to releasing bad governmental news during the September 11th terrorist attacks so it would be buried in the news.



I think modern ballot papers need a "None of the above" option. If this null vote comes in second or first, then the election must be recast with all new candidates until we are given a real choice of a politician rather than a PR agent. Only then will I feel that I am not just going through the motions of democracy - i.e. that I have the power to chose who my political representative is, not just compelled to select from an unappetising set menu.

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies, where it is understood to outlaw censorship. Free speech is nowadays also protected by international human rights law, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries.

The right to freedom of expression is not considered unlimited; governments may still prohibit certain damaging types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law; pursue an aim recognized as legitimate; and they must be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals.

Free speech is given to everyone as an unalienable right. If someone's right to speech can damage someone else's unalienable right, then it is wrong.

Unalienable rights: right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property.

If someone's comments enfringe on personal liberty or security, i.e. the right to read things in a public forum without suffering insults about were one might live or come from, then it is a misuse of freedom and shouldn't be allowed.

Also, when you try to win an arguement with facts, don't throw in someone else's arguement of opinions.

A note to self? Wiki: the opinion encyclopaedia...

Concepts such as Isaiah Berlin's categorisations of freedom help shape arguments– without them we are back to talking cross-purposes, everyone insisting that a word means exactly what they want it to mean when they want to use it.


Ask yourself (a) who decided that these were inalienable i.e. who "granted" these rights? (b) who tacked on the last phrase - glaringly incongruous, as if the concept of non-private ownership is somehow at odds with a full and healthy life? What did our hunter-gather ancestors do all day with all that "oppression"? How does the rest of nature cope without legally-defined borders? Who benefits the most from having this idea that ownership is somehow "unquestionable"?


Please expand this statement. For example: do you not condemn activists such as Cindy Sheehan with this granny knot logic? Given that the occupation of Iraq stands legally unchallenged by the international community, the so-called inalienable rights of persons caught up in the war zone have been temporarily suspended: Sheehan cannot claim to be protecting security or liberty. As she is damaging the inalienable right of shareholders in Halliburton to acquire property through dividends, her protest must be wrong?

I say that this cannot be construed as a good thing, and those interpretations of free speech and human rights that permit such morally wrong conclusions should be discarded. The old adage of "no rights without responsibilities" is promoted as oppressive by the very people who stand to gain the most from irresponsible acquisition. The use of words such as inalienable are similarly encouraged most by property owners hoping that we won't notice that our slice is a single digit percentage of theirs. Without the law to protect them, do you think that they would be able to hold onto their monstrous slice?



Which brings us back neatly to the point of discussion: given that political parties accept gifts from individuals and corporations with definite financial aspirations that clearly have little to do with community, how can we as voters regain our influence on policy? Certainly, we can vote out a government, but if the other party is as bought and owned, what good does this achieve other than a superficial release of emotion at the time? Should party politics be re-labelled with the corporate logos and family crests that invest the most in their election so we can see who we are really voting for? Or should we abandon the concept of party politics altogether as a corrupt anachronism, and submit ourselves to the inconvenience of private candidates slowing down policy-making?






Scary Update: Questionable idea to boost party membership from the New Labour conference: learn from Bush and the Republicans?!

It's a sad day when I find myself agreeing with Blunkett...

The freedom of speech referred from the Bill of Rights, I believe, is commonly misconstrued. Many think it protects our right to say anything at any time to anyone should we feel so inclined. But what was the mindset of the body which wrote these 'rights' on paper? Once again I believe, they are all point toward an individuals right excercise rights against the government formed by this document.

So we made these 'rights' and then begins the onslaught of interpretation of various degrees of definition which boils down to an individuals opinion of 'well, that just is not right and is to far for my comfort'.

Let's answer the original question - does your vote count?

Yes, and I will use Morningstar's example: GW Bush. The last 2 US presidential elections were decided by the slimest of margins. How many did not cast that vote who would have cast against him given the chance again?

Age of Pain, sounds like the problems with the democratic party and the disarrayed green party. How did GW Bush get elected? The republican party became organized after the ego blow from Clinton and the whole Ross Perot issue. The democrats thought they could win on the tails of Clinton's popularity with Gore. After Gore lost, they could not rebound or come together to win over a comparitively unpopular president.

There are no democracies. That is an idealic term used to promote euphoria and to get people to agree. The US and UK are republics empowered by a democratic facade of majority or empowered win. The representatives of the populace become politicians and the only means of a politician's longevity is in the art of compromise.

Party politics fail democracy and republics; but so does not casting your vote or not excercising your voice.

Very succinctly put nuksaa, your assessment is as clear as it is depressingly accurate, I fear.

Would the inclusion of a "null" vote on the ballot address this problem, or might it create more trouble than it is worth?


INEFFECTIVENESS OF POLITICAL PARTY SYSTEM UPDATE: What does the ejection of an 82-year-old heckler say about the new Labour Party?

Tony Blair has apologised to an 82-year-old party member who was thrown out of the party's annual conference for heckling foreign secretary Jack Straw. Walter Wolfgang was led out by stewards after shouting "nonsense" during Mr Straw's speech defending Iraq policy. This on the same day as Tony called for more respect in society...

The Prime Minister told BBC Breakfast: "I am really sorry about it, it shouldn't have happened."

So that's alright then, Tony? To expel a party member for expressing their opinion at the party conference, let alone the fact that this was a frail old man?

What, exactly, is the purpose of the party conference if not to allow opinion to be voiced?

Sounds as if the UK political system is starting to align with the US system. Political rallies, conferences, debates, public forums, etc are nothing more than a staged, programmed venue where public opinion or the 'nay' voice is suppressed. Why can't the public see the thought process when our politicians are put on the spot? We will be able to see how they respond to that representative voice of the public, whether by true consideration, explaination, or tip-toing.

You should be concerned Morningstar and fight for the continuation of these 'nay' voice opportunities which still exist in the UK.

I am up to my neck in correspondence with my political representatives over this and many other incidences where the UK is clearly sleepwalking into a isolationist, anti-community open prison.

Hampering my attempts to access democracy is my MP Stephen Byers, who holds the distinction of perpetrating "the most clear example in history of a man being caught out lying" in British Parliamentary history. Not content with never, ever being in his North Tyneside constituency (indeed the House of Commons website on lists the palace of Westminster as his only contact address), he has acted as a sort of sleaze mop ever since his resignation from the cabinet. He has admitted to damn near every wrongdoing on behalf of the Party – we confidently expect him to be confirmed as the identity of Jack the Ripper if it becomes politically expedient for Tony to do so – and acts as a catch-all New Labour bogeyman while the real villains run amok.

He took the fall over the botched re-nationalisation of Railtrack, ironically at ideological odds with his proposals which effectively blackmail local social housing into privatisation, which raises the question how can you screw your ideals up so tightly as to mess them up whether you support them or oppose them? It's all in a days non-work for my MP.

I like to keep him busy with various local matters he misses in his absence, and any national matters that he might like to take the blame for – after all, if his constituents don't write to him, he has nothing to do all day but drink tea in the canteen until the subsidised bars open...

OK, what is going on here?

I'm all for coallition politics, but this is an odd appointment to make given the confusion still surrounding the German election.

A war-time style, cross-party coallition "cabinet" during peace-time? Can we all keep a close eye on this one please - the very last thing we need is Germany to start looking to its borders again...

The mainstream parties in most Western democracies were always functionally indistinguishable, all pursuing slightly different variants of the same ideology. The real dissenting voices have always been marginalized.

The real purpose of the coalition is to preserve the status quo. If politics get anymore unsettled in Germany, the far right and far left will start to have a voice approximating the actual level of support they have, which none of the centrist parties want.

Nor I suspect do the rest of the EU...

Besides, I was under the impression that for the most part Germany is still very, very wary about nationalism, effectively precluding anything other than central coalitions? We are talking about the country with the prime-time show "I'm Sorry" where members of the public phone up relatives to apologise for past arguments and disagreements... Perhaps a German goth might like to clarify the political atmosphere in their neighbourhood?
By "dissenting" do you mean "likely to go on the rampage if they don't get their own way" or "presenting a viable political alternative to governing the country"?

That's always the risk with real dissent. People that want stability tend to favor the status quo, dissenters tend to want to shake things up a bit more (which, when you get right down to it, is pretty much always a brutal political theory).

And there is significant support for nationalism in Germany, just as there is significant support for old-school Bolshevism. That both views are out of the mainstream does not change the fact that they appeal to fairly large groups of people.