Is Direct Democracy the only way the smaller parties can make the Lib-Lab-Con see sense?

Question

Ideally, ALL the small parties would join together and put all their policy items in terms of promises to conduct referenda.

This means that EVERY fringe party who can in principle support Direct Democracy (as originally practiced by the Ancient Athenians) would put their manifestoes together, promise to allow the citizen to vote on whether to withdraw from the EU, bring back the death penalty, have lower taxes, withdraw from Iraq etc etc. They would NOT be compromising their principles if they agreed to let the voters to decide on their more controversial policies or by joining together to defeat the Lib-Lab-Con!

This proposed party would just be the "one-stop shop" where ALL policies offered by ALL parties would be on offer to the electorate.

Isn't this the only way to defeat the mainstream parties who are all saying the same thing (about taxes, education, the war in Iraq) and not giving the citizen any choice at all?

http://www.1party4all.co.uk

demonstrates this!

Answer 1

Its doubtful whether the main three parties can be defeated electorally under the current system even if all other parties joined together. Plus having a direct democracy would weaken if not completely sideline all political parties. Personally I'm a fan of Direct democracy and if you're interested it is certainly worth studying and campaigning for.

Answer 2

I can see where you are coming from, but there are literally hundreds of registered parties', even those considered to be of a similar vein cannot agree on very much. They are often formed as splinter groups from other parties.

You would have to get legislation to make it happen, I doubt the wording on many referenda would be easily agreed. The main parties would stop any legislation probably, but my main worry would be that we would end up having a referendum on whether we should have a referendum on something and then another referendum to agree the wording before the actual referendum of substance.

So, No I think we have to do it the hard way, build up our parties through hard work as has happened in the past and can happen again. Just maybe not in our lifetime!

Answer 3

I agree completely with questioner. no remember if each and every individual likes it or no longer the British inhabitants have rejected Cameron's request for him to have an well-known majority and rejected the return of a Labour government with am well-known majority, nor do they choose for the Libs to manage on their very own. that is sparkling that very many citizens needed there to be a hung parliament, so as that's what we ended up with because of the fact the democratic decision of the united kingdom inhabitants. that is definitely democratic in this type of undertaking everywhere interior the completed international that as quickly as that takes place there will be a coalition government and that is of course extra rational for this to be constituted of the two events that have the main MPs interior the Commons quite than with events having lots fewer seats. So that is time this petty minded squabbling between Brown and Cameron replaced into suspended until the extreme issues dealing with our economic gadget have been addressed via a central authority of national cohesion on behalf of the united kingdom inhabitants until our economic gadget is out of undertaking back.

Answer 4

I do not think that a 1 party anything will bring peace to the world.
Isn't that just another word for Dictatorship.
Like the Decider that the USA has had to endure his corrupt Administration, mismanagement, illegal wars and violations of other human rights in addition to the mass murders of our own citizens.

As JFK was said "a wise man once said an error is not a mistake until you refuse to correct they mistake." He said that in a speech to a Press Association where he asked the press to point out errors that they thought his administration made so that they would be able to correct them.
Here is a link to the entire speech, I wish I had a link to his audio but I don't.
http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/publicpapers/1961/jfk153_61.html

Please listen to this short music video regarding the 911 building 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVBd03ibziM

Answer 5

True democracy is when people elect good people.Unfortunately ,now what is prevalent party based democracy.People elect their choice party (not individual)based on policies.What is happening now is that there is no difference between major political parties and due to personal grievences,splinter parties are formed.These small parties serve no purpose,except the ego of their leaders.People should discard these small parties and there should be only two party politics.The voter has to choose one of the two only for restoration of meaningful democracy.

Answer 6

Good idea but it wouldn't work in principle because the rich and powerful wouldn't have the people putting a spoke in their wheel. As we know our present system puts the interests of the wealthy first and foremost

Answer 7

It seems to me the liberals merely help keep either a bad Tory or a bad New Labour government in power. They do this by drawing support away from the opposition party. Only when the party in power have finally exceeded their arrogance do people switch their allegience. In the interim the opposition seek power in place of true reform.

I agree the political system needs radical change!

Answer 8

until it is written that a politician as part of their job is they cannot lie , throughout the world, democracy is a myth. for in presenting a lie , free speech is taken away.

Answer 9

Right on...! I love that idea. That is the way democracy is supposed to work.

Answer 10

bring back the death penalty ? ????