Mike, are you winding me up (as if ;-) ? What I said was:

... If the boundary commission were politically biased and redrew your constituency so that the Labour Party had a permanent majority, would you consider that democratic? If not, why would you accept an accident (or design) of history doing the same thing?

Notice that starts with 'If'. It was a hypothetical question, designed to test Dung's attitude to seats with built-in bias. He seems happy that seats can have a huge bias one way or the other making them "safe" seats. I find this undemocratic and consider those in such seats who might as well not vote to be disenfranchised. The quote above doesn't imply that the commission IS biased, and I have no objection in principle to its current work (600 seats etc)

So when you said:

The implication in your comment about gerrymandering constituency boundaries would seem to imply that you consider it quite acceptable that the electoral map should have a built-in bias towards any one party. I could assume that you find that OK as long as the bias is towards the party you support...

you misunderstood.

Dung, yes, strictly speaking, you are correct. People do still have a vote, but when the result of that vote is predetermined, a wrong is committed; they are deprived of representation. The soviets had votes but it is hard to think of them being truly enfranchised.

Dung and others:
As an American I firmly believe in that right guaranteed by our second amendment to the Constitution.

That right, is a direct descendent of rights concepts born in England and first codified under the reign of King John (Magna Carta and the preliminary Assize of Arms). Followed by the English Bill of rights circa 1689). America's founding fathers took these historical documents along with their incentive causes and subsequent governmental actions (especially as how selective and often arbitrary enforcement that directly impinged the colonists) as major influences on the concepts in our "Bill of Rights".

Bluntly put, we Americans took our liberties and rights directly from England's groundbreaking breakthroughs in civil obedience and government. Our second amendment directly came from England's rights, only England's right was originally defined as a duty requirement before later becoming somewhat of a freeman's right. Those rights have been chipped away substantially over recent years. For your own good, of course.

The act of requiring sovereigns to abide by civil legalities and restrictions is prima facie for the acts of civil disobedience (e.g. Magna Carta). Acts that are not injurious to the realm generally, but are actually against unwise or injudicious government. The Magna Carta itself would have been unlikely if the Assize of Arms had not already placed arms in the hands of what were then freemen of station.

Pursuant to this concept, the United States was formed, (after some other somewhat looser affiliations) as a republic, not as a direct democracy. The idea being that only people who actually owned property could vote since they were both responsible and directly affected by their votes.Among many reasons for conversion from a republic to a democracy was also the rather abhorrent idea that a slave owner owned property and could vote, but a slave could not.

In the construction of America's governmental forms are the two houses of Congress and the executive branch. Representatives are elected for two year terms and their representation level places them much closer and more responsive to citizens. Senators are elected for six year terms and their are only two senators per state. While farther away from the everyday citizen, because of their longer terms they tend to be more sensitive to the long term issues and benefits. The Executive branch leader (President and his cabinet) is elected for four year terms forming a middle ground between the immediate and long term. While the Executive branch is responsible for enforcing the nation's laws, but can not make law. Congress can vote to pass law over the President's veto if they consider the issue important enough.

This rather ingenuous and frankly diabolical construct is designed to prevent ease of law making. Or in different terms, prevent as much as is possible tyranny of the majority in enforcing their views on the minority. No matter the odds, minorities eventually prevail in America if their cause is right and just. It just takes time to let the wheels and cogs of government to act.

When democracy always rules by the vote of the majority, what are the steps to prevent tyranny by that majority?

Citizens have the right to be free and remain so. Police/soldiers as guardians are terrific. When Police/military begin to believe they are guards and we are inmates to be controlled then citizens are no longer free. Arms are ever the thorn freemen can wield in their own defense and are amongst the first things confiscated before tyranny can be enforced. Wherever you read history, armed citizens are feared by those in power, especially if those in power are lacking basic human equality and brotherhood.

Whenever someone tells you that they're doing it for your own good, you have very strong reason to suspect their motives.

Mike, Dung, although we all enjoy an argument, I don't suppose we are in reality all that far apart. I imagine that there are not many people whose views are represented by one party alone, so there is always compromise in voting. I'm not looking for perfection, but I did believe the proposed changes to the voting system would improve the situation for voters in safe seats, removing the need to vote 'tactically'. As it happened, 80% of the population didn't care either way and the remaining 20% didn't support the changes. I was upset at the time, but since I don't live in the UK it is really of no consequence to me. I was rather surprised though - but maybe the changes were just badly sold.

Watching the case of the - in in Saginaw, Michigan - (reportedly) well known Milton Hall, who called the police, got "p***ed off" and then tried to walk away from six police officers while bearing a knife ...

Since the days when the right to bear arms protected one against a tyrannical state, things have changed that make the right to bear arms for such a purpose, ridiculous.

Your carrying a handgun, against a tank, a helicopter gunship, jet fighters, satellite controlled drones that launch missiles, various weapons of mass destruction, etc., etc., is a zero sum game, and you loose.

The world has changed, and your method of controlling the state needs to change as well.
Change your media. Change your political options. Change your financial enslavement.

BitBucket finally writes some sense. Hurrah!

Can I please also separate myself from Dung's views on gun ownership, which sound ludicrous to me. We're all safer if everybody has a gun instead of just one man is the most stupid logical fallacy ever invented. Can I further separate myself from his implication that if UKIP can't get us out of Europe that somehow justifies armed revolt by the populace. If anything illustrates exactly why people shouldn't have guns, that is it.

Not sure how the thread changed from gun control to revolution, but there it is. Stupid.

Due to technical issues beyond my control I've only just caught up with this topic, even then I've had to skim through some of it. This caught my eye:-

Dung
Voters who happen to live in a seat that is usually won by a different party to the one they would prefer are not disenfranchised they are just outvoted.
They had a vote, they used their vote, there was a candidate that represented their views but they didnt win, tough!

As an ex-resident of Derby South wher one M Beckett attained 50%+ of the vote on several occassions then I'm familiar with the tougn aspect of this. But even in Derby South there were avenues open (apart from moving), in the neighbouring ward an anti-speed hump candidate won a council seat, our ward had an independent councillour for a number of years. In my voting lifetime things have changed largely as a result of the electorate getting totally frustrated by what is happening in there area. Prior to moving to Derby I lived in Kinross & West Perthshire and my first experience of an election was when Sir Alec Douglas-Home was given the seat so he could become PM. At that time Scotland still returned a majority of Tory MPs. Winnie Ewing and the SNP were not regarded as a threat. Unpopular taxes and policies placed on only part of the country are a recipe for being unelectable for a couple of generations. Even Labour trying to fix a voting system can be outwitted by the electorate. At the same time the political map in England changed radically and as it turns out David Steel was only about 20years premature with his "prepare for government" speech.

What will happen at the next election is very interesting, although I feel that the electorate has had enough of coalitions for the time being and a Labour government will be the end result. It's the one after that which may cause a digital shift away from the current situation, as a new Labour government will just be more of the same. By the election after next many of the long term decisions taken by the previous government and this one will have reached their inevitable conclusion. It's my belief that this will be very much to the detriment of the majority of the population. If handled badly then the Poll Tax problems (both) may seem like a minor problem.

With regard to bearing arms, Dung is not stating anything new as far as I am aware under the 1689 Bill of Rights the British people are

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"

The reason for this was to prevent Tyranny and Oppression, obviously the Protestant bit was in keeping with the times and would require modification in the 21st century!

There are opinions and then there are opinions.

Dung,
I think the American Colonials (when they were colonials) got it right, No taxation without representation. In too many areas of both the UK and EU taxes are levied by unelected officials. Worse, there is no easy way of getting rid of them.

I have always been in favour of co-operation in Europe, 3000 years of wars isn't the best way to get along. Many nations still hanker after territory lost many centuries ago. However we let politicians and their cousins the administrators takeover and the last thing they want or need is to be kicked out of office.

So I think the EU has come too far too fast, each step along the way happens before we've had time to asses whether we liked the last one. What should have taken a couple of centuries has been done in a couple of decades. We live in an undemocratic country in Europe whichever part of the EU we're in. PR as practiced in many countries creates a worse situation, 1 or 2 members of a party which got a few percent of the vote dictating policy for a party which received 40% hardly seems like a better system.

Unfortunately most people don't notice or don't care about what is happening.

Dung, you keep re-iterating the point that "if not for the UKIP I'd need a gun" as if it's just a little throwaway statement. Basically you're threatening armed revolution if a purely non-humanitarian political question (EU relations) is not decided to your satisfaction. You keep grinning and adding smileys when you say it, but it's still a deeply serious and foolhardy thing to say under any circumstances.

This stupid thread caught my eye again on the side bar just as a right-wing crank and a gun-nutter on TV said words to the effect that arming teachers was the way to go to prevent gun violence in schools.

"Firstly I am too old and unfit to get involved in a revolution..."

Too young and unfit to even be talking about a revolution, perhaps, let alone be entrusted with a firearm.

[O/T]

Have a better year in 2003 for all our sakes.