Can Britain really be said to be a democracy when 78% of the electorate didn't vote for New Labour?

Answer 1

Democracy seems to have a new meaning in today's times. It no longer means simply 'for the ppl by the ppl'. It seems to now mean, 'for the ppl by the dictators.'

Answer 2

Ah, great question mate.

It depends of course on how you define "democracy", but every definition I've seen involves the "will of the majority". In this sense the UK is patently not a democracy. The decisions made by the government in this country are made for the benefit of the corporations who bankroll the political parties, wear the trousers in the economy and employ retired politicians. In this system, people - voting or otherwise - are a PR consideration and a means to corporate profit: they have zero innate value.

The above being the case, the fact that a minority of voters elected Labour is irrelevant: neither of the electable UK parties represent people, they represent corporate power and must do so in order to survive.

There is also another side to this question: aside from the meaninglessness of the choice presented to voters, there is the question of who educates and informs the voters: a corporate-oriented education system and the corporate media industry. This is why you will only on very rare occasions see a discussion of this vital question in mainstream media.

Yahoo Answers is a good as it gets folks!

Answer 3

Of course not democracy is just nonsense in the modern world, for the UK to be a true democracy the people would have to have real power over the countires future and with Blair running around doing as he chooses against the will of most of the British people it's just a mockery.

Answer 4

No, and UK is controled by Free-Masons, a faction of the Illuminati !!


They are the Illuminatis, and they own you,
This is the New World Order, and it is your future if the world don't wake up :

And this is what Bush’s minions had to say in 2000;-
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"
Project for the New American Century (2000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Hermann Göring(Nazi) 1946 Confessions (Nuremberg Diary)
http://www.snopes2.com/quotes/goering.htm

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
David Rockefeller: Statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with other around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." David Rockefellers memoirs (2002)

Make you investigations about Jesuits, the New World Order, the Illuminatis, the Free-Masonery, the Death Clan. They plan a world reduction of population of 80%...Far worse than Hitler...

1. Monetary and sex bribery was to be used to obtain control of men already in high places in the various levels of all governments and other fields of endeavor. Once influential persons had fallen for the lies, deceits, and temptations of the Illuminati, they were to be held in bondage by application of political and other forms of blackmail, threats of financial ruin, public exposure, and physical harm, even death to themselves and loved members of their families.

2. The Illuminati who were on the faculty of colleges and universities were to cultivate students possessing exceptional mental ability and who belonged to well-bred families with international leanings, and recommend them for special training in Internationalism. Such training was to be provided by granting scholarships, like the Rhodes Scholarship, to those selected by the Illuminati. All such scholars were to be first persuaded and then convinced that men of special talent and brains had the right to rule those less gifted on the grounds that the masses do not know what is best for them physically, mentally, and spiritually.

Answer 5

It is a democracy of sorts - at least some people voted for new labour, although proportional representation would be 'fairer' we would probably end up with a parliament that never decided anything.

Answer 6

This kind of question makes you to think that the person behind it is not a democrat or has no idea about democracy.
If you dint vote left you are what? A dictatorship lover?
One thing I agree with is that democracy is still being apprehended.
We still have a long way to go.
Alcacovas

Answer 7

It's more of a republic because the people elect officials to make decisions for them, instead of voting on each option themselves (it's more efficient that way). The people have a right to vote, they could do it easily.

It's not a requirement for X% of the population to actually vote for a government to be a republic, as long as they have the right to do it, and they're not impeded in some way or another.

Answer 8

Nowadays, democracy probably has the same meaning as hypocracy.

We have to keep voting until the real power brokers get the required result (like the Euro, palestinian/lebanese elections etc).

Answer 9

Sort of ! yes !

- 1 they had the right to vote some one else
- 2 voting system in all countries, is so complicated and not so democratic.

US system is no better.

But third world countries are even worse!

So it is a question of " the best a man can get " !

Answer 10

Yes, because they had the most seats/votes of all the political parties. Are you suggesting that a political party with less votes should run the country...because that sounds like a dictatorship to me??