This may seem a strange thing to say: Democracy isn’t actually about finding out what the people want and just trying to do it. Democracy is about setting out a vision and a plan for the country and persuading people to follow it.
Blair is just a war criminal that continues to walk free.
I really hate how the word populist is used.
Simple fact, if an opinion is popular. Completely ignoring it is anti-democratic.
If as a leader, you think it is a bad opinion. Convince the voters of that. That is after all your job as a leader of a representative democracy.
When “populist opinion” is used to encourage an idea to be ignored entirely. It clearly paints your political opinion as non-democratic.
Far too many of our politicians seemed to have forgone the importance of convincing the public to follow there lead.
there was a time when popular opinion was that black people shouldn’t have any civil rights.
there’s a time now where popular opinion is that trans people shouldn’t have any rights.
majority rule governments never work.
No one said anything about following these opinions.
Try actually reading the comments.
Simple fact, if an opinion is popular. Completely ignoring it is anti-democratic.
This is an incredibly simplistic definition which describes delegates, not representatives.
A delegate must do what they are instructed - think of them as your hands - whereas a representative is someone who makes decisions on your behalf - a second brain.
Delegates are extremely susceptible to tyranny of the majority, whereas representatives - in theory - seek to balance actions across all the people they represent, as well as their expertise and knowledge.
Populism is that thing your mum was on about where if your friends all jumped off a cliff, would you?
It might absolutely be the right decision, depending on the context, but if it isn’t then you shouldn’t do the wrong thing just because it’s popular.
This is an incredibly simplistic definition which describes delegates, not representatives.
Only if you ignore every thing else I said.
Respectfully, I didn’t ignore the rest of what you said.
I agree that representatives need to explain to the electorate why they are best placed to elect them for what comes ahead.
But the key point is that we don’t actually know what comes ahead. They have a manifesto, etc, but there will always be unforeseen circumstances which arise.
In those moments in a representative democracy the representatives make the decisions. Your vote for them has allowed you to have your person at the table, but they don’t need to consult with the electorate again.
If they do, you’re moving towards direct democracy.
There are good arguments why governments should look to keep the electorate informed, explain actions, and justify decisions, but the popularity of a measure shouldn’t be the sole factor.
My statements in no way indicated our mps should do what popular opinion wants.
It said not to compleatly ignore.
Your comparisons of devastates and representatives has no value in the quote you copied.
We both agree depict democracy is not the solution. But my statement is true.
Representative democracy is less democratic then direct. And “completely ignoring” poplar opinion is anti democratic. By definition.
My comment was opposing the whole idea of politicians using the term populist to belittle ideas they disagree with. Rather then challenging them on merit.
Sorry lots of typos. I’m legally blind and using a tablet atm. Its difficult.
and that vision is … more austerity? more collapse for the poor and more champaign for the rich? fucking AI?
Classic Sir Tony. The Amol Rajan interview with him the other day on BBC was good though. Especially liked when Amol read out a very frank paragraph from his recent book about the allure of wielding power and asked him to comment on it.
the same tony blair that has been going on every show he can to peddle every anti trans and anti immigrant sentiment he can?
the same tony blair who demanded labour not sign the trans rights pledge?
