Y Repwblic
Conversations with Wales' Republicans : Poblachiaethwyr - Repwbligwyr - Gweriniaethwyr

BBC Democracy Day 20/01/15

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Calendr o Digwyddiadau - Calendar of Events
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2853

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:34 pm    Post subject: BBC Democracy Day 20/01/15 Reply with quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/events/democracy_day_20jan15

The BBC marks the 750th Anniversary of the first elected parliament at Westminster with Democracy Day.


[ YET THE UNITED KINGDOM ONLY ACTUALLY LEGISLATED FOR THE PRINCIPLE OF ONE ADULT ONE VOTE IN 1948 -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1948 ]


A day of live events, discussions and debate, produced in collaboration with the House of Commons and the House of Lords, will be broadcast across the BBC from both inside Westminster and from the BBC Radio Theatre.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/date/events/does_democracy_work_20150120

http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/date/events/africa_reinventing_20150120

http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/date/events/democracy_islam_20150120

http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/date/events/dramatising_democracy_20150120

http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/date/events/hardtalk_20150120

http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/date/events/technology_democracy_20150120


Well, the Demoncrats in the United Kingdom are now getting desperate aren't they, that they are now having to plead the case for their faded failing futilely floundering factitiously flailing fantastically fictitious febrile Demockery.

Desperate to assert in the face of the fast accumulating heap of facts that the United Kingdom is a ' Democratic ' state the Democrats in the United Kingdom have instructed their client hierarchy in the Big Bible Church to preach their gospel for them and surely it was me, your Dear Uncle Dai, who has succeeded in getting them all so upset ... surely ? ... when I got fed up in 2013 and ripped up The Social Contract between Democracy and Republicanism, the ' shot-gun marriage ' made in the middle of the 18c where the two antagonistic political theories are held to keep each other in check. Why do that ? Because whereas in the United States of America they are still trying to make that marriage work, in the United Kingdom it was never even consumated : the United Kingdom has only ever imitated the external forms of ' Democratic Republicanism ' whilst refusing to implement the constitutional measures which make the USA and other normal modern political systems work.True, they work very badly of course but in the past it has worked better in the USA than in most of the other Republican political systems which people have tried to implement in Europe but failed because the economic equality that existed in the 18c American colonies and thus enabled the USA to be founded has simply never existed here in Britain and Ireland, France and Spain, Germany and Italy etc.

What we have in the political system called the United Kingdom is voting applied like lipstick to a pig of a political system which has evolved out of a series of historical excuses, built up layer upon layer upon the original brutal economic foundation which was created after the series of Norman invasions of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland : the ( dis- ) United Kingdom is literally a medieval kingdom still, a modern industrialised society which is yet still essentially feudal and where its subjects really are subjected. Everything that we think that we possess is de facto the property of the United Kingdom, including our lives for use of those who control it in the wars which are prosecuted in our name when we are stupid enough to still continue to support it when are only marginally more valued than those of the poverty stricken peoples of the countries subjected to their wars.

The United Kingdom is not however that thing most detested by the ancient Republicans, because a Pure Democracy is characterised by the pluralism of its ideologies ( i.e. the absence of Hierarchy ) its social practices which lead to peace ( i.e. the absence of Monarchy ) and the possession of the means to live lives free from distress ( i.e. the absence of Aristocracy ) in the pursuit of happiness ( i.e. the actual presence of Democracy.) Above all what is not present in the United Kingdom is John Adams' " The Rule of Laws not Men " i.e. the Republican ethos of The Public Interest being set above the private interests of those communities who would control the state for their own ends by various unjust means. Hence as a consequence - or rather this is a consequence of - these ' Ultraists ' using the methods of Hierarchy, Monarchy and Aristocracy have not only exercised a free reign for centuries during which they have had control of the state and have shaped it for their own ends, they have even learned to deploy others to use the outward forms of Democracy to deceive people into continue to vote for, pay for and act for their own enslavement to misrule and to call it ' Democracy.'

This is what I call " Demockery " or " Demoncracy " - and in 2013 I finally accepted that it is Democracy itself that will always end in misrule because Democracy itself is founded upon coercion by numbers is thus but another form of Ultraism which will then provide the fertile ground for all of the other Ultraisms because they will in turn be able to establish themselves through utilising any political system of Democracy, as we can now see happening in the United States of America where a Monarchy has declared itself to now be beyond The Rule of Law having established itself under the patronage of a succession of recent presidents who have enabled it to evade the civil authority of The People which under the original Constitution had been carefully and deliberately invested in The ( now un- ) Supreme Court of the USA to prevent exactly these circumstances from arising.

Thus in 2013, having already given up on Democratic Republicanism many years before, I was eventually compelled by the mounting evidence of pre-emptive wars, manufactured economic crises, the increasingly extremist electoral swings of Democrats and their demands for our ideological conformity to their definitions of what is and is not legitimate to think of them, to finally accept the original Republican argument. This is that Democracy is in fact not merely a defective political system but actually potentially an evil one, and thus I gave up on Democracy entirely and opted for ' Pure Republicanism.' If better people than me can not step forth and make these arguments better than I can, not only Wales but also the World is going to descend into a new Dark Ages where politics will be decided neither by what is just, as it is in Republicanism, nor by what is popular, as it ( theoretically ) is in Democracy. The Rule of Law is now, even as I write, shrinking away, in the United Kingdom and the United States of America but also in most countries deemed to be civilised, faster than it ever has done before in the past seventy years - but it is only receding as fast as the sphere of political debate is contracting before it. What is going to follow to fill up the vacuum will be wars abroad and at home, economic exploitation abroad and at home, emotional distress abroad and at home - and this sort of conjuring with ideologies that the BBC is about to do tomorrow, both abroad and at home, already abounds - so ... let us try to prepare to be just entertained ... but not justly entertained.

If this all sounds utterly weird to you, learn about the origins of Democracy - and Republicanism - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tmpg3A19Xg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 2402

PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:28 pm    Post subject: grad Reply with quote

Do you mean that before 1948 you could vote twice if you were a graduate in a university constituency?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2853

PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I HAVE DECIDED TO WORK UP A THREAD ABOUT " THE FOUR ESTATES THEORY " AND SO TO START THAT I HAVE POSTED THE FOLLOWING HERE -

http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=4308#4308


There were several conditions for decades in which certain ( wealthy ) people had more than one vote e.g. members of a university ( I am not sure how that was qualified ) owners of businesses ( could have a vote for their business whilst voting in another constituency - possibly several votes ? ) and possibly a few other kinds of double standards e.g. as the suffrage expanded it was given bit by bit to specific groups of men ( not women ) and when it finally became basically one person one vote the age for women to get the vote was still higher than for men ... some women however acquired the vote for certain kinds of elections before men ... it was all arbitrary and that as such reflects the fact that basically nobody has anything by right in " The United Kingdom " because of the non-political non-principle of " Sovereignty " by which everything that The People in Wales think is theirs by right is in fact nothing more that a temporarily granted privilege which can be withdrawn whenever those possessed of " Sovereignty " wish to : this is the difference between a Pure Democracy and a Pure Republic - the difference between an Ultraism and an Altruism - between The United Kingdom and The United Republic ...

... But less polemically most real modern political systems are a compromise with a bias towards one or the other e.g. " Democratic Republicanism " gets its name from Thomas Jefferson's " Democratic Republican Party " and is taken in general to be like The USA in which The People decide what The State will be like by electing their representatives as agents on their behalf excepting that The Supreme Court restricts the scope of what they can do : this has arguably proven to be the most successful model - except that in many cases suffrage was refused to many groups such as immigrants, women, blacks, natives etc ... In contrast there is what might be described as Napoleon Bonaparte's " Republican Democracy " which is taken to be like The First French Republic where in effect The Supreme Court decided the scope of what The State could do and on its behalf selected the potential representatives which The People could elect : this was the result of their problem of trying to dismantle the extraordinarily authoritarian society of The French Kingdom without The People in France possessing the skills of Democracy : they tried to copy The USA without understanding that The American Revolution was not so much a radical reaction but the re-assertion of the established norms of British-American society against the developing authoritarianism of The United Kingdom which during The Seven Years War had effectively become the mirror image of its main opponent - The French Kingdom ... in early 18c Britain being a Republican was not only normal but patriotic : when The Americans were disputing the behaviour of Parliament in its imposing taxes to pay for The Seven Years War without their having representatives in it they were citing the political doctrine which its existing members cited themselves - Republicanism ...

... This is why Edmund Burke supported the American revolutionaries and argued for their claims - and this is also why he opposed the French revolutionaries : because he viewed the American revolutionaries as defending The Rule of Law - and he viewed the French revolutionaries as overthrowing The Rule of Law ... Edmund Burke's attitude to The Democrats was ambivalent and distrustful : he is notable for asserting - against his own voters of which there were but a few score in those days - that he was not bound to do as they demanded i.e. he was not a delegate merely carrying out their commands but a representative who conveyed their wishes but had to consider the arguments of other elected representatives and so be trusted to make the best decision and if necessary to change his own mind if he came to a better understanding of the circumstances involved. He apparently did not agree with a one person one vote suffrage - but he did anticipate that it was immanent in his famous speech about ' The Representatives of The Fourth Estate ' when the journalists were first allowed to actually sit in a gallery over The House of Commons i.e. the modern usage of " The Fourth Estate " is a misquotation from that speech which equates that term with ' The Media ' when in fact Edmund Burke was citing the Republican argument of " The Theory of The Four Estates " in which " The Peasantry " or " The Democrats " are " The Fourth Estate " ( In the original theory ' The First Estate ' is " The Hierocrats," ' The Second ' is " The Monocrats," ' The Third ' is " The Aristocrats." ) ... BUT WHAT USE IS A DEMOCRACY FOR THE PEOPLE IGNORANCE ?

FEUDAL POLITICAL SYSTEMS AND RIGHTS TO VOTE IN THEM WERE BASED ON THE POSSESSION OF LAND : WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR CLAIMED ALL OF THE PEASANTS' LAND AND DEPRIVED THE FOURTH ESTATE OF ITS VOTING RIGHTS - HENRY VIII CLAIMED ALL OF THE CHURCH'S LAND AND DEPRIVED THE FIRST ESTATE OF ITS VOTING RIGHTS BY MAKING HIMSELF HEAD OF THE CHURCH. THIS LEFT THE SECOND ESTATE OF THE MONARCHY WHICH BECAME THE HOUSE OF LORDS ( WHERE THE THRONE IS ) AND THE THIRD ESTATE OF THE ARISTOCRACY WHICH BECAME THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ( WHERE THE SPEAKER'S CHAIR IS ) ... DOES THAT SOUND ODD ? ... LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT : THE UNITED KINGDOM IS STILL RULED BY THE ARISTOCRATS THROUGH THEIR PROXIES.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_the_realm

The estates of the realm were the broad orders of social hierarchy used in Christendom (Christian Europe) from the medieval period to early modern Europe. Different systems for dividing society members into estates developed and evolved over time.

The best known system is the French Ancien Régime (Old Regime), a three-estate system used until the French Revolution (1789–1799). This system was made up of clergy (the First Estate), nobility (the Second Estate), and commoners (the Third Estate). Some countries, notably Scandinavia and Russia, split burghers (the urban merchant class) and rural commoners into separate estates, creating a four-estate system with rural commoners ranking the lowest as the Fourth Estate. In England, a two-estate system evolved that combined nobility and bishops into one lordly estate with "commons" as the second estate. This system produced the two houses of parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In southern Germany, a three-estate system of nobility (princes and high clergy), ritters (knights), and burghers was used. ... Today the term "Fourth Estate" usually refers to forces outside the established power structure (evoking medieval three-estate systems), most commonly in reference to the independent press or media. Historically, in Northern and Eastern Europe, the Fourth Estate meant rural commoners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate

In Burke's 1787 coining he would have been making reference to the traditional three estates of Parliament: The Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons. If, indeed, Burke did make the statement Carlyle attributes to him, the remark may have been in the back of Carlyle's mind when he wrote in his French Revolution (1837) that "A Fourth Estate, of Able Editors, springs up; increases and multiplies, irrepressible, incalculable." In this context, the other three estates are those of the French States-General: the church, the nobility and the townsmen.

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/2010-11/Journalism/index7f0d.html?page_id=16

Journalism has long been regarded as an important force in government, so vital to the functioning of a democracy that it has been portrayed as an integral component of democracy itself. In 1841, Thomas Carlyle wrote, “Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all” (On Heroes and Hero Worship). Four years earlier, Carlyle had used the phrase in his French Revolution: “A Fourth Estate, of Able Editors, springs up, increases and multiplies; irrepressible, incalculable.” Carlyle saw the press as instrumental to the birth and growth of democracy, spreading facts and opinions and sparking revolution against tyranny. ... The fact of the matter is that democracy requires informed citizens. No governing body can be expected to operate well without knowledge of the issues on which it is to rule, and rule by the people entails that the people should be informed. In a representative democracy, the role of the press is twofold: it both informs citizens and sets up a feedback loop between the government and voters. The press makes the actions of the government known to the public, and voters who disapprove of current trends in policy can take corrective action in the next election. Without the press, the feedback loop is broken and the government is no longer accountable to the people. The press is therefore of the utmost importance in a representative democracy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Calendr o Digwyddiadau - Calendar of Events All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 :: 
PurplePearl_C 1.02 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games