A political concensus

[OpenMind]

I would be interested in learning how people feel about the current political structure. Do you think it represents and fulfills your needs? How do you envisage a political structure that would truly reflect the society it represents? Do you think that a political structure should be executed at a local, national or worldwide level? Should the electorate be more involved in the political decisions that are made or are you happy to leave this to an elected group? Should groups of individuals hold power over a society or should they be more responsive to its electorate?

[Accountable]

The more centralized the gov't becomes, the less likely that it will be able to service the population. A one-world gov't will satisfy about 28 people, 37 if the weather's nice.

The smaller the gov't and the smaller it's spere of service (note it should be 'service' not 'control') the more likely it will listen to it's constituents.

[OpenMind]

Thank you Acc. Your comments have been noted.

[gmc]

What do you think the role of govt should be ? There seems to be a considerable difference between europe & the US on the issue. Here most would accept the govt has a role in helping people out of poverty and making life better for the less fortunate and shou,d provide educaion, health services etc as a matter of right to the people electing them. I might be wrong but inthe US if you can't afford medical services they seem to leave you to die. At least every US medical drama seems to bring the ussie up.

If labour get back in looks like our political concensus might be in for a shake up.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/06336772-5d...0779e2340.html

Whitehall insiders predicted the review would tighten Gordon Brown’s grip on the levers of government once he succeeded Mr Blair as prime minister.

“Gus is preparing the way for a power-base for Gordon Brown that Tony Blair could only dream of,� a government member said on Friday, predicting that the report would lead to a “shaking down of the Cabinet Office to create something that is leaner and more powerful, making the cabinet secretary more powerful in government and giving the prime minister a bigger power-base in Whitehall as well�.

Maybe we should restrict the trem a prime minister can hold office. After two terms they seem to go power mad.

[LilacDragon]

I think that our government would work more toward taking care of actual constituents if big business wasn't allowed to bankroll candidates.

More affordable healthcare or free healthcare like they have in some countries will never happen in the U.S. so long as insurance money is used to elect candidates. Just like nothing will be done about any type of serious gun control so long as the NRA is spending big bucks on lobbying and getting their "people" in office.

Yes, smaller governments would be better. And even city governments should be held more accountable to it's citizens then it is. While I must admit, I haven't looked lately, but I don't even know where to start to look to see what is on the agenda of our next city council meeting. There isn't a city paper, so it sure isn't there.

Thanks. Now I feel the need to do some looking. Like I don't have enough to do already.

[OpenMind]

To GMC. Is this a question aimed at me, the thread starter, or are you adding to the thread to invoke opinion from the forum?

[OpenMind]

To LilacDragon. I see that you would have issues that you would like to air. I'm sorry if I have added to your burden of work. The purpose of this thread is to make people think about how things should be as opposed to power politics.

[LilacDragon]

Originally Posted by OpenMind

To LilacDragon. I see that you would have issues that you would like to air. I'm sorry if I have added to your burden of work. The purpose of this thread is to make people think about how things should be as opposed to power politics.

I am a woman - of course I have issues to air!

And it isn't really a matter of adding to my burden. It is just that getting anything done is so, for lack of a better word - political.

It seems to me that unless you have money and friends you have no place in the decision making process of our government.

[OpenMind]

Originally Posted by LilacDragon

I am a woman - of course I have issues to air!

And it isn't really a matter of adding to my burden. It is just that getting anything done is so, for lack of a better word - political.

It seems to me that unless you have money and friends you have no place in the decision making process of our government.

LilacDragon - so well put. This is the problem. We, the individuals, have no voice in today's politics other than a the opportunity to vote every four or five years. Personally, I think someone's extracting the urine.
If there is a way out of this predicament, I am willing to start the ball rolling. First, however, I must find out the opinions of my fellows.
I am British, but there is not a single Government that has had my vote.

[gmc]

posted by openmind

To GMC. Is this a question aimed at me, the thread starter, or are you adding to the thread to invoke opinion from the forum?

Both actually, What TB is up to probably only means anything to British posters, our electoral system is in need of reform, hopefully spineless our labour MP's will stop TB in his tracks before he does any more damage. People are showing their lack of belief in the political coinsensus by not voting because they don't think anybody listens or cares how they actually vote. Only a die-hard balirire would be able to convince themselves that TB has the trust of the electorate any more, at least in my increrasngly disenchanted opinion.

In the UK and europe in general we start out with the assumption that govt should take care of education, health etc as a main priority and it is our right as citizens to receive such things regardless of ability to pay for it at the point of need. It's one of the functions of government. It's not free remember, I've been paying for it for a long time without being ill so have millions of others. Do I feel hard done by? No, because if I need cancer treatment, heart surgery whatever I know I will not have to worry about how I'm going to pay for it. IMO only an idiot would want the private sector playing a greater role especially in health provision. You often get people complaining about cost, waiting lists etc but then expect to use the NHS when their private cover doesn't cover them or they want an ambulance in a hurry.

How true it is I know not, but I have an impression that in the states and you are ill long trem you are in serious financial stchook. Our system isn't perfect but I l know which general approach I prefer.