"Only blinkered idealists believe in the "will of the people".

Says it all really, what happens should be decided by teenagers .I don't think so. Politicians should serve the people. Or do you believe that the people should serve the politicians Einstein? Is that what you're saying?

Geronimo, only the naive would misunderstand what I said. Apart from snide remarks and straw-men you have nothing to say...

Geoff, "... undergrad political science": join Geronimo in the queue for some original ad-homs. "Rhoda’s initial post echoed the famous Gandhi quote ...", is that so? I read it again and I don't see it somehow. Are you are arts graduate? You sound sort of arty, like Dicky Duck and Verbose Hillary from tar-sands-heaven (no offence meant, all).

I used to consider myself as on the right, by the way. I voted for Maggie in '79 and for the Conservatives ever since (except '97; could bring myself to vote for the b*****ds). But the right of the Tory party and the right of the Republicans make me more and more queasy with their actions and their lines of thought. I wont be voting Tory again...

"Only blinkered idealists believe in the "will of the people".

"Geronimo, only the naive would misunderstand what I said. Apart from snide remarks and straw-men you have nothing to say..."

What's to misunderstand? You don't believe politicians are there to serve the will of the people and only blinkered idealists believe that?

Well tell me what they're there for, or do you believe the people are there to serve the will of the politicians?

Something like representing their voters and governing in what they perceive to be the best interests of the country as a whole. That is not the same as doing "the will of the people", which one would have great difficulty determining on most issues (as opposed to the will of a few newspaper editors or of their proprietors).

I would agree with the definition,.... bu the reality is far from the definition!!

Something like representing their voters and governing in what they perceive to be the best interests of the country as a whole. That is not the same as doing "the will of the people", which one would have great difficulty determining on most issues (as opposed to the will of a few newspaper editors or of their proprietors)."

This is how it actually works. Political parties put together a manifesto on how they will rule the country. Tey then put their manifesto and themselves to the people who vote on their proposals. The people choose the one they like best and the politicians who get the most votes will carry out the manifesto the people have chosen. If they don't, or if they go off reservation, we can kick them out. They have no mandate to change their promises in their manifestos whatsoever, although from time to time during a government period issues will crop up outwith their manifestos which will require them to make a decision that they have not been mandated to make, and, of course they should do so with the best interests of the people at the heart of their decisions. In a democracy the people are supreme, and the House of Commons represents the people, I don't hold with wishy-washy statements like:

"Something like representing their voters and governing in what they perceive to be the best interests of the country as a whole."

Although I do accept that there are politicians who believe that's their brief, which, by the way is where we came into this discussion. The notion that they have a mandate to do anything they see as being in the best interests of the people without the consent of the people is precisely what makes them vulnerable to pressure groups and lobbyists,because these are the only way they have of judging what the people want outside of their own constituents.

What is the basis for your knowing that the people would vote for the death penalty, or hang bankers from lamposts? I know it is popularly supposed the people want to bring back the death penalty, but have no idea where the evidence for it was gathered.