Why does England have a better democracy than us?

[SGBL]

Did anyone else watch the debates and question times prior to the british election? (they ran some of them on cspan and may still be on the cspan site if you want to see them) The Daily Show also has some clips of them here which I STRONGLY recommend everyone watch for the comparison: http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos.jhtml

Click "a spot of..."

The debates were so open, and people were so informed. It was like NOTHING I've seen in american politics for the past 10 years. I blame the corporate media for it the most, but I'm afraid part of the blame must also fall on people who choose to pay no attention at all.

I was talking to some republicans the other day who were sold on the idea that social security would be gone a few years from now if nothing was done. They told me that the bush plan would need to be used. I wanted to avoid being confrontational as it was at work, but I asked some questions that were intended to make them think.

One of them was "So the bush plan lets you put money in the stock market right?" "yes" "So, how much money would go in to the stock market if everyone in the country paid in?" "Oh I don't know" "I bet it would be a lot huh" "Yeah probably" No light came on so I tried another series of questions.

"So under the bush plan if I invested in a stock that did poorly I would have nothing at retirement, correct" One of them went off on me at this point.

"Yes, but you can make so much money in the stock market. Let me tell you something I can only get maybe a couple hundred or thousand with the current social security or I can put it in stocks and maybe retire with 2 houses and boats blah blah blah" She was 40 years old and actually believed this. What fools these people are. They are so greedy the greed just destroys any common sense they may have.

So I went on "Well if it did poorly though I would have nothing" "Yes" "So if a million people invested poorly a million people would have nothing at retirement?" "yes". Their attitude at that point was "Sucks for them but I'm betting I'll have my two houses and boats" They didn't at all seem to grasp the problem of millions of people having nothing at retirement. After this there was an interruption and I didn't get to talk to them further about it.

It makes me wonder - they realized there was a problem with the "plan" - being millions would have nothing. But in their minds it seems it NEVER occurred to them that perhaps that might warrant a new "plan" that doesn't have such problems, or MAYBE working to fix whatever problem they seem to think exists now. (perhaps not blowing SS money on wars would work) But I swear to god it's like people just don't THINK in this country. Whatever options exist are brought to them by the corporate media and they are the only options that are viable.

It just makes me lose all hope for this country. I could picture these people in the UK at those question and answer times. They'd be laughed out of the building by those in the UK. Unfortunately it seems that here these people are far, far more populous than abroad. I think they've consolidated enough power now to the point of them being able to take us for the ride as long as they want or until the car crashes. If it wasn't for the corporate media this nation would be in such better shape.

I think the media is why the UK has such a better state of affairs. Their they get real what's happening in the world news. Here we get Run-away bride and Schiavo. Some god help us.

[Jack Rabbit]

1. They still have a free and independent press

It reports the news with multiple opinions perspectives.

[SGBL]

2. Exactly

That's the key. We've got to do something to fix the media. It's broken in a horrible way.

[Beelzebud]

5. You beat me to it. Our press is broken.

[Inland]

3. They've lost the ideology of exceptionalism

They no longer think their country so blessed, so unique, that it can do no wrong and that its head of government deserves a near worship.

[candy]

4. Completely different types of government.

[SGBL]

7. I'm afraid not

I'm referring to simply the questions being asked. It's apparent to me you must have never seen questions being asked of candidates in the UK vs here.

[Valerie5555]

6. What about AUSTRALIA'S democracy where your choices are

VOTE or PAY A FINE????????????????????????????????? For their election system is 2 WORDS: Or MANDATED VOTING.

[cprise]

10. Great incentive not to just let some idiot get control

...of your fined/taxed money.

[Valerie5555]

11. Maybe they should have an INCENTIVE for those who VOTED as well as a

PENALTY for those who DIDN'T.

[cprise]

22. So voting is "what do I get out of it"?

And why should the government bribe people for performing their public duty?

[Djinn]

23. wrong

there is NO compulsion to vote in Australia, it's a secret ballot how on earth could they compel you??

There is a compulsion to turn up on election day, you're free to not vote, and anyone can get out of the fine by simply saying "I was ill"

Every time people are polled about this they OVERWHELMINGLY support "compulsory" voting understanding that you have RESPONSIBILITIES in a democracy not just rights and if you ask anyone their response is almost always "don't want a system like the US where the government is chosen by only 30% of the population)

It also means people seek out information a little more because they figure if they have to vote they may as well be informed.

[cprise]

27. Responsibility to society == Speaking in a foreign tongue

Lapse into that mode of speech and even on DU the eyes start to glaze-over. I am afraid you may be barking up a dead tree.

[Maple]

8. Well they've been at it longer...

and they have a parliamentary system they've adapted to new methods over the years.

They don't have a written constitution, so they can be more flexible as well, although they certainly have tradition.

[cprise]

9. But the BBC is "corporate media" - a public corporation

The difference is that it is funded by a license fee from each and every TV owner. Therefore, it has a natural imperative in serving the public interest. NOT shareholders, and NOT the government. It helps to balance the whole news culture.

Contrast this with PBS in the states: Small and dependant on a politically-controlled budget, plus commercial sponsors and well-off donors. Hardly independant or public. That leaves the other 95% which is all commercial conglomerates who by nature always lean to the Right on economics (and Iraqi oil is economics). In other words, EVERYTHING that is broadcast nationally in the USA is commercial-interest programming.

The left and center will never be able to pursuede the commercial media into a balanced posture.. it is simply not in their nature. Media reform must be pursued, and it must start with the establishment of a true public broadcaster that can not only compare with or surpass the BBC, but bring large numbers of 'tuned-out' Americans back to the television audience.

[Tux]

12. Maybe

That is what we need. http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/ Get the crap off TV and get it the way it should be, little to no bias.

[cprise]

24. No, it is not meant to eliminate commercial TV.

It is meant to balance it out, and add populism to the competitive mix.

[Protagoras]

13. More mature culture?

They've been through equal or worse periods, but have a much more profound sense of what happens when you utterly alienate the populous. They've had their ass kicked several times over hundreds of years...might have taught them a few things.

Whereas we're still a young, cocky, and very adolescent society. We're drunk on our own power. The UK may be old enough to know how to hold it's liquor a bit better.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. I've known a lot of Brits over the years, and while there are obviously

exceptions, I find that they don't think that being intelligent, inquisitive, or verbally adept is a BAD thing, as some Americans seem to.

[Rex]

15. They've been at it for a longer period of time

They still see America as an immature nation and boy are they right!

[Dover]

16. what I can't figure out is why they are so far ahead in Big Brother

technology, and have so little protest about. There are cameras everywhere, etc.

[SGBL]

17. It's a small country

Think about it. It's not very hard to put cameras everywhere.

In some citys here in the US there are cameras at every street light. Think about all the cameras at damn near EVERY building public or private. You are being watched here just as much.... you just have to factor in the cameras that are installed by the corporations as well as the government.

Can you really go in to a public building and say you are not being watched on camera? No, you can not.

[Dover]

19. It's more than just cameras...they have slipped in a lot of BB legislation

Just ask an informed Brit about it.

[SGBL]

20. And they have here as well

Patriot act ring a bell? Not to mention all the patriot act 2 riders on other bills.

[Dover]

21. Well duh. My point was that for all the seemingly more open

characteristics of England, they are further along than the U.S. in the implimentation of BB technology. And I find it odd that they haven't protested that as much as other things.

Sorry I didn't come armed with all my proof, but that really wasn't my point.

[fujiyama]

25. Not to mention

email snooping as well.

While I believe their politicians are more accountable than our's their democracy has plenty of flaws as well. I personally don't like the absence of a formal constitution, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

Also their libel laws are absolutely idiotic and ridiculous. One Saudi prince was able to keep "House of Bush, House of Saud" off the shelves for weeks (or maybe permanently).

Also, their newspapers and TV media (while certainly more informative than the crap we are peddled here) is often filled with tabloid garbage as well (Murdoch owns several papers and news stations - Sky News, Times of London, etc).

[depakid]

18. How about paper ballots counter by hand

There's a good one, eh?

[Djinn]

26. Just so you don't all beat yourselves up too much

the UK system ain't perfect either (I'm a dual citizen Australia/UK) the media is better most likely because of the influence of public broadcasting but the politicians are much the same, what sort of choice was Tory Blair or the Tories??

they also get their fair share of "idiot news" most people in the UK could give you updates on the state of Jamie Oliver's marriage but plenty couldn't tell you what's going on in Iraq.

I sometimes think you're all a bit too hard on yourselves, the US has plenty of things other countries don't - the RIGHT to free speech for a start and the liable/defamation laws in the UK mean journalists/media outlets have to be REALLY careful, your "public interest" provisions are WAY more democratic, it's just a shame the media doesn't seem to take advantage of that.

[SGBL]

28. There is no right to free speech here

The fundamentalists destroyed it.

"the RIGHT to free speech for a start and the liable/defamation laws in the UK mean journalists/media outlets have to be REALLY careful"

You obviously were not around for the janet jackson breast. Unfortunately they censor a great deal. The fact that a 5 second clip of a breast from a distance sent the whole nation over the edge demonstrates just how bad it has gotten.

Also the right to speech is no good if no one can hear you. Voices contrary to the neocons are practically forbidden in the MSM. In other words, opposition has been silenced simply by being taken out of the media that the masses hear.

[Djinn]

29. yes there is

I beleive it comes under that Bill of Rights dealie - there is NO equivalent in the UK or Australia, working or otherwise.

I think you miss my point about censorship - in the US there is heavy SELF censorship because of the much more concentrated media ownership sitch, if US media outlets WANTED to publish a story about dodgy politicans they are much more free to do so than their UK counterparts, the corporate media doesn't really care because they wont publish those stories anyway but independant media does, try that in the UK and you need iron clad PROOF and even that may not be enough - truth ISN'T a defence neccesarily - get that - a newspaper can be sued even if a story is TRUE

And on the Janet's boob thing - guess what Aus & UK news also covered that ad naseum - sorry you might want it to be an affliction that you alone deal with but ridiculous "nufty" news is EVERYWHERE.

[NMMNG]

30. Maybe because they have a dem-ocracy and not a the-ocracy

Seriously-they don't have so much religion in the running of their government affairs.

[Taxloss]

31. It's the BBC's fault.

A huge, independent, unbiased public broadcaster. It really does keep our democracy on an even keel - if it wasn't for that, we'd be far less open and democratic than the US. It raises the standard of the rest of the media. No wonder every government since its inception has been out to get it. Also, there is less political advertising and less penetration of money into the system. Having the specific post of a "leader of the opposition" is a great counterbalance, too.

But there are huge, serious flaws in our system, big democratic deficits.