Ireland losing faith in democracy?

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

it is a contemptuous term. I suggest both you and Oscar read up a bit more on the use of the term before using it again.

Dictionary definition:
1. a large, disorderly, or riotous crowd of people.
2. the common people sometimes considered as having a low level of consciousness, taste, or the like; populace; masses.
3. (informal) a group or syndicate of criminals.


As I say its a contemptuous, disrespectful term to use.

And as I said that interpretation is fine, however you tried to equate the word mob to intelligence. Can you at least hold your hands up and admit that this was a mistake on your part please?

thehighground wrote: »

In the last couple of posts I've been accused of being lazy (for not setting up a political party / joining one ) and 'wilful misinterpretation' (several times - question - how do you know it is 'wilful misinterpreation'.

I realise this is a messageboard and not the High Court and that you and Oscar may think you are judge & jury, but you are not.

I don't think I'm anything other than a fellow poster like you. I have not called you lazy. I have said that if you have a problem with the system (which I'm picking up that you in fact don't really) then you have the mechanisms at your disposal to affect it. If you choose not to do so you're just being part of the problem. I have also suggested a possibility of willful misinterpretation, but not definitively accused you of it. Subtle difference, but very important. You have been putting words in my mouth that do not match with what I'm saying or my overall opinion and therefore there is misinterpretation going on, the only question is whether you are doing it on purpose or not. Given that you're refusing to admit that its even happening it does point towards intent.

thehighground wrote: »

What do you think of this post then from Turgon? Don't see Oscar jumping in to censor this particular poster.

One of the problems of democracy: the electorate are retards. It is a system where, in this country, Bin Men are to make decisions on international treaties effecting the EU.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055437689
Post No. 9

I think thats a ridiculous comment. I don't think the electorate are retards. In fact I don't make any generalisations on the electorate as a whole really. I can't speak for Oscar, but I can say that I don't get to read every thread. You'll see I wasn't involved in that particular one and in fact few people were after that comment. I'm not sure what the relevance of this is given that it doesn't match up to anything I've ever said. I hope your not implying that I share this view in any way????

thehighground wrote: »

I'm not the one claiming to be perfect and to know everything!

Nor am I. What's your point?

thehighground wrote: »

Most people actually can pick up on stuff without it having to be said/written. Every hear the phrase 'reading between the lines'. I believe Irish people are very good at this (according to Freud anyway) - something to do with our colonial past I believe.

Just because you "read between the lines" doesn't mean you do it correctly or to any degree of accuracy.

thehighground wrote: »

No, you don't like the present system.

Excuse me but I've already said I do. Are you calling me a liar now too? :rolleyes:

thehighground wrote: »

You have about 600 posts, most of which convey your displeasure at how the majority voted in the Lisbon Treaty referendum. If you liked the present system, you would accept the will of the electorate, whether you approved of what they voted for or not.

The system itself has no bearing on the result of the referendum I can disagree with the decision all I want, its my democratic right. The fact that I do disagree with the decision doesn't mean I'm at odds with the system, just that particular decision. You are making grand leaps of logic here that just don't hold up to any bit of scrutiny.

thehighground wrote: »

No. Irrelevant as to what way Turgon voted. Just a reflection of the standard of debate on this Message Board. Everyone is in on the (disrespectful) act now!

I'll tell you what, as soon as you stop putting words in my mouth and implying that I'm an undemocratic liar then I might start showing you some respect.

Anyway this thread is not the place for this carry on and its completely off topic. From here on out I will deal with your posts that relate to the topic and ignore any that are aimed at my character etc.

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

No you didn't. If you were to believe everything you read, the world would be perfect.

Splitting hairs.

The devil is in the detail you know!

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

Grand - so I'm free to criticise the electorate, then.

You are free to do what you like, but just don't be surprised if you don't win the vote.

If you've ever been in business for yourself, you'll realise the customer is often wrong. No, I don't see why I'm forbidden to criticise the electorate - for example, it's clear that some people vote on purely partisan lines, for no reason other than that they have a tribal relationship with a particular party - indeed, some people voted Yes to Lisbon because their party said so and for no other reason. I don't have any hesitation in criticising that, or the mentality behind it, since it constitutes a danger to democracy - and in a democracy, the people are usually the greatest threat to democracy.

I've been self-employed for about 15 years. Generally I've found that most of my customers know their own buiness very well and are very successful. I respect them. With the attitude you display above, you not going to last in any kind of employment.

The electorate is certainly not infallible, as people who wanted a No like to pretend since the electorate delivered a No. They are often uninterested in politics, for example, or put it well down their list of priorities. That's unarguable, so the pretence that the same uninterested and casual voters then deliver a sacred truth in voting is clearly a tactical ploy by those who prefer not to revisit questions settled to their personal satisfaction.

People will vote for what they think is best for them. For instance, in the last general election, people voted Fianna Fail as say opposed to Sinn Fein who were expecting to do great things. They voted FF because they thought that FF would be able to manage the economy better.

Yes, I can see the value in that, although I can also see circumstances where it would become a problem. However, you won't find it in Bunreacht either way.

But the thing is, despite all the threats etc. the EU is still operating as it did before Ireland voted No to the Lisbon Treaty. Sarkozy's is a bit annoyed because he didn't get his chance to become Emperor of Europe.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

You are free to do what you like, but just don't be surprised if you don't win the vote.

I've been self-employed for about 15 years. Generally I've found that most of my customers know their own buiness very well and are very successful. I respect them. With the attitude you display above, you not going to last in any kind of employment.

Hmm. Both of those are essentially personal comments. I've been self-employed very successfully for 12 years myself, which rather suggests that they are also inaccurate personal comments.

thehighground wrote: »

People will vote for what they think is best for them. For instance, in the last general election, people voted Fianna Fail as say opposed to Sinn Fein who were expecting to do great things. They voted FF because they thought that FF would be able to manage the economy better.

And you are saying they are right to have done so.

thehighground wrote: »

But the thing is, despite all the threats etc. the EU is still operating as it did before Ireland voted No to the Lisbon Treaty. Sarkozy's is a bit annoyed because he didn't get his chance to become Emperor of Europe.

Funny that, given the fuss that was made about them at the time.

regards,
Scofflaw

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

And as I said that interpretation is fine, however you tried to equate the word mob to intelligence. Can you at least hold your hands up and admit that this was a mistake on your part please?

If you makes you feel better (and you want to turn this into a court of law), I cannot find where you have written that those who voted No are less intelligent than those who voted 'Yes'. Happy now?

I still think though that Yes supporters are unbearable arrogant and mainly display nothing but contempt (particularly posts on this MB) for those who voted No. That's my opinion and I believe I'm allowed to have an opinion, even on this MB.

I don't think I'm anything other than a fellow poster like you. I have not called you lazy. I have said that if you have a problem with the system (which I'm picking up that you in fact don't really) then you have the mechanisms at your disposal to affect it. If you choose not to do so you're just being part of the problem. I have also suggested a possibility of willful misinterpretation, but not definitively accused you of it. Subtle difference, but very important. You have been putting words in my mouth that do not match with what I'm saying or my overall opinion and therefore there is misinterpretation going on, the only question is whether you are doing it on purpose or not. Given that you're refusing to admit that its even happening it does point towards intent.

I think it was Oscar that called me lazy - you hang out with Oscar on the yes side don't you?

I think thats a ridiculous comment. I don't think the electorate are retards. In fact I don't make any generalisations on the electorate as a whole really. I can't speak for Oscar, but I can say that I don't get to read every thread. You'll see I wasn't involved in that particular one and in fact few people were after that comment. I'm not sure what the relevance of this is given that it doesn't match up to anything I've ever said. I hope your not implying that I share this view in any way????

I'm glad to hear you don't think the electorate are retards.

Nor am I. What's your point?

Good that you realise that you don't know everything.

Just because you "read between the lines" doesn't mean you do it correctly or to any degree of accuracy.

I think you will find that most people's instincts are correct. Why do politicians do door-to-door canvassing - surely if they send a leaflet around the voter would know everything - or why would anyone go for a job interview - didn't they send in a cv with all the info on it.

Excuse me but I've already said I do. Are you calling me a liar now too? :rolleyes:

No, I would never call anyone a liar. (I don't think Brian Cowen, Enda Kenny etc. are liars).

The system itself has no bearing on the result of the referendum I can disagree with the decision all I want, its my democratic right. The fact that I do disagree with the decision doesn't mean I'm at odds with the system, just that particular decision. You are making grand leaps of logic here that just don't hold up to any bit of scrutiny.

My apologies - I must have got you mixed up with some other posters who seem to think that it would be better if our elected representatives in the Dail should not have to resort to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Thanks for clearing up that you think that holding a referendum is a good system and you don't want to change it, and of course you will accept the results (graciously :rolleyes:).

I'll tell you what, as soon as you stop putting words in my mouth and implying that I'm an undemocratic liar then I might start showing you some respect.

Where have I called you an undemocratic liar?
[/QUOTE]

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Both of those are essentially personal comments. I've been self-employed very successfully for 12 years myself, which rather suggests that they are also inaccurate personal comments.

It actually depends on the business you are in. For instance, if your business is based on scientific research (i.e., facts not opinion) you probably won't have too many problems. You could be in trouble though if its a business (like politics) where everyone has an opinion.

And you are saying they are right to have done so.

Who am I to judge whether they were right or not (and I did not give any votes to FF or SF in the last election).

Funny that, given the fuss that was made about them at the time.

Yep, and Ireland is not at the heart of Europe any more!

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

It actually depends on the business you are in. For instance, if your business is based on scientific research (i.e., facts not opinion) you probably won't have too many problems. You could be in trouble though if its a business (like politics) where everyone has an opinion.

Thank you for your kind words of advice. Still, this is not a thread about me. Or you. Or, indeed, any poster.

regards,
Scofflaw

Mrspinkbunny

Look I don`t think anyone here is incorruptible except me.
If you think you are incorruptable run for election!!
We don`t have any viable alternatives yet do we?

Anyone can run.......YOU CAN RUN! SO DO!
I have every intension of when I get a bit of sense knocked into me and am educated enough to defend my passions.
If your educated enough......RUN FOR ELECTION!!

I would think that maybe the salary should be dropped drastically and the level of transparence should be raise. Thats OK by me I have nothing to hide so I should be in that position. It would also keep me very honest and in touch with reality, our high flying government are lost we should ensure that doesn`t happen again. Maybe they went in with the right ideals but I doubt it. Its a popularity contest thats all which is why any honest, passionate hardworking and genuine person would never get it. I would never get in but I am all of the other things but I`m not popular.

So if you are honest, genuine, hardworking, down to earth, educated, popular, willing to accept an honest wage and transparency. RUN FOR ELECTION!!!!YOU COULDN`T DO A WORSE JOB COULD YOU?

ixtlan

Been away from reading this forum for several months and I see that things have not changed too much.

Anyhow getting back to the original question, yes, I think we are losing faith in democracy.

When a 53% turnout is considered good/respectable/hard to improve on...

When voters ignore the advice of the vast vast majority of their own elected representatives... and yet the issue on which they vote no (direction of Europe) is never a general election issue of any consequence.

Ix.

Eurosceptic2008

ixtlan wrote: »

Been away from reading this forum for several months and I see that things have not changed too much.

Anyhow getting back to the original question, yes, I think we are losing faith in democracy.

When a 53% turnout is considered good/respectable/hard to improve on...

When voters ignore the advice of the vast vast majority of their own elected representatives... and yet the issue on which they vote no (direction of Europe) is never a general election issue of any consequence.

Ix.

Defying the political Establishment is a healthy sign in a democracy. The tree of liberty thrives on the irrigant of dissent. Sometimes the political-class need to be brought down a peg or 2. There has been a disturbing tendency towards consensus in Dail Eireann on various issues, including the EU, and this is unhealthy for democracy where the consensus defies public opinion. Ireland, as a country requiring referenda on sovereignty-related matters, is the last line of defence for European democracy. Millions across Europe are relying on us to stop the Lisbon Treaty - not least the no voters in France and Holland, and those disenfranchised from a say in the fate of the treaty in the 26 member states that refused to put Lisbon to popular-vote. We are not losing faith in democracy per se - but I think our faith in the capacity of representative-democracy to reflect public-opinion has taken a battering as 95% of the Oireachtas has been exposed as being hopelessly out of touch. It underlines the wisdom of Dev's 1937 constitution with respect to requiring referenda to change. This has allowed the Constitution to move with the times while ensuring out political-class is kept on a short leash where the overall parameters in which they are free to take decisions on our behalf are constrained. The events of 1800 and 2008 underline why it should be so.

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

There has been a disturbing tendency towards consensus in Dail Eireann on various issues, including the EU, and this is unhealthy for democracy where the consensus defies public opinion.

When public opinion can be summed up as "um... I dunno, what was the question again?", I think it's no harm for the political consensus to defy it.

Millions across Europe are relying on us to stop the Lisbon Treaty...

That's why they've turned out in the streets in the tens of thousands, yes? That's why they've made it an election issue in every one of the twenty six member states?

Oh wait, they haven't. You blithely talk of what millions across Europe want: what evidence have you for this?

...not least the no voters in France and Holland, and those disenfranchised from a say in the fate of the treaty in the 26 member states that refused to put Lisbon to popular-vote.

You're arguing from your conclusion, as you always do, because you don't have first principles to argue from. You're starting with the assumption that the only valid way to ratify an international treaty is through a popular vote, despite the fact that for years sovereign states have entered into treaties without popular votes. In other words, you're criticising other EU member states for not conforming to your personal concept of democracy. That's arrogant in the extreme.

Eurosceptic2008

oscarBravo wrote: »

When public opinion can be summed up as "um... I dunno, what was the question again?", I think it's no harm for the political consensus to defy it. That's why they've turned out in the streets in the tens of thousands, yes? That's why they've made it an election issue in every one of the twenty six member states?

Oh wait, they haven't. You blithely talk of what millions across Europe want: what evidence have you for this? You're arguing from your conclusion, as you always do, because you don't have first principles to argue from. You're starting with the assumption that the only valid way to ratify an international treaty is through a popular vote, despite the fact that for years sovereign states have entered into treaties without popular votes. In other words, you're criticising other EU member states for not conforming to your personal concept of democracy. That's arrogant in the extreme.

The French and Dutch peoples told us what they think by turning out in their millions to vote no to the near identical (as admitted by Cowen and Bertie) EU Constitution. You are correct that ratification of treaties by referendum has not normally gone to referendum in the EU, but that's not the underlying issue here. The underlying issue is that 2 nations were asked their opinion and said no, and that without having changed their minds in a referendum, we are being asked to force it on them. I'm sorry OscarBravo if you are not uneasy about that, but I am, and so are the Irish people. This was constantly raised on the radio phone-in shows. The real arrogance is of those who would defy the democratically-expressed will of their peoples on matters of sovereignty, having asked them for that opinion.

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

The French and Dutch peoples told us what they think by turning out in their millions to vote no to the near identical (as admitted by Cowen and Bertie) EU Constitution.

And people turned out in their millions to vote "yes" to that Constitution as well. Also, some EU member states voted in referenda to ratify the treaty - why aren't you campaigning for their democratic choice to be respected?

The rejection of the Constitution in France and the Netherlands was largely down to protest votes against the respective governments, and/or concerns about specific aspects of the Constitution which were addressed in the changes reflected by Lisbon.

But you're still banging on about a "near identical" treaty, so for the nine hundred and twelfth time I'll ask the question: are you saying that no treaty that contains a single provision of the Lisbon treaty should ever again be put to the Irish people? Or is there a percentage of difference that would make it acceptable? If so, what basis do you use for arriving at that percentage, and what makes you confident that that basis is the correct one?

You are correct that ratification of treaties by referendum has not normally gone to referendum in the EU, but that's not the underlying issue here. The underlying issue is that 2 nations were asked their opinion and said no, and that without having changed their minds in a referendum, we are being asked to force it on them.

We're being asked to force a treaty on someone? Balls. We're being asked if we want to ratify the treaty. If the people of France don't want the French government to ratify the treaty, that's a matter for the people of France to take up with the French government.

I'm sorry OscarBravo if you are not uneasy about that, but I am, and so are the Irish people.

I'm uneasy about the arrogance of telling people that their democracies aren't good enough, and that they have to do things the way we think they should be done.

The real arrogance is of those who would defy the democratically-expressed will of their peoples on matters of sovereignty, having asked them for that opinion.

How exactly you defy the will of the people by asking them again is entirely beyond me.

Furious-Dave

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

I'm sorry OscarBravo if you are not uneasy about that, but I am, and so are the Irish people.

You speak as if the entirety of Irish people are united in their opinion, when in fact they aren't. What about all the people who do want another referendum? Should their voices be ignored because they had their turn, and now it's yours?

Eurosceptic2008

oscarBravo wrote: »

And people turned out in their millions to vote "yes" to that Constitution as well. Also, some EU member states voted in referenda to ratify the treaty - why aren't you campaigning for their democratic choice to be respected?

The rejection of the Constitution in France and the Netherlands was largely down to protest votes against the respective governments, and/or concerns about specific aspects of the Constitution which were addressed in the changes reflected by Lisbon.

This reminds me of the "No Divorce" campaign's Supreme Court challenge to the outcome of the Divorce referendum in 1995 when they argued that issues not pertaining to the question e.g. state funding for the yes campaign, influenced the result and that consequently, it should be struck down. Peoples' motives do not impinge (in my opinion) on the degree of respect a referendum result deserves. As I understand it, the turnout in the French and Dutch votes were quite high, and the EU Constitution was in the top ten publications in terms of sales in France during that campaign. That, to me, indicates the electorate made a decision based on information that they took the time to inform themselves of.

But you're still banging on about a "near identical" treaty, so for the nine hundred and twelfth time I'll ask the question: are you saying that no treaty that contains a single provision of the Lisbon treaty should ever again be put to the Irish people? Or is there a percentage of difference that would make it acceptable? If so, what basis do you use for arriving at that percentage, and what makes you confident that that basis is the correct one?

No I am not saying that. I can live with being asked again. The point I'm making is that at least we are being asked have we changed our minds, unlike the French and Dutch peoples who said no and are having this treaty forced on them anyway. They are not even being asked, OscarBravo, unlike us. And we are being asked to rubber-stamp what they are doing by voting to bring this Treaty into force. Well I'm sorry but in all conscience I can't vote to do that. If you are comfortable with the precedent that would be set by ratification of this treaty, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I cannot share it on this matter. This isn't just a legal issue - it is also a moral issue. Were we in the position of the French and Dutch electorates and had we a constitution that allowed for parliamentary ratification without a referendum, I wonder would you regard such behaviour by the Irish govt as okay? If so, then you are being consistent. But if not, why not? Are other nations less entitled to have their democratically-expressed wishes respected than us?

We're being asked to force a treaty on someone? Balls. We're being asked if we want to ratify the treaty. If the people of France don't want the French government to ratify the treaty, that's a matter for the people of France to take up with the French government. I'm uneasy about the arrogance of telling people that their democracies aren't good enough, and that they have to do things the way we think they should be done. How exactly you defy the will of the people by asking them again is entirely beyond me.

As far as I can see, we are being asked to be accomplices to the French and Dutch govt's decision to force a 95% identical treaty on their peoples who voted no to it. (Remember that Cowen and Bertie have said publicly that Lisbon is 90%+ the same as the rejected EU Constitution - they are on record as saying this). This has never happened in the history of EU treaties before, and leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths. You say it is a matter for the people of France what their govt does. That forgets that EU laws bind successor govts and parliaments, and that consequently, the French and Dutch electorates alone will not have the power to reverse this treaty without leaving the EU. It isn't like decisions made nationally which can be reversed by changing the govt.

Furious-Dave wrote:

You speak as if the entirety of Irish people are united in their opinion, when in fact they aren't. What about all the people who do want another referendum? Should their voices be ignored because they had their turn, and now it's yours?

There hasn't been a single poll that shows more people in favour than against a second referendum. Given that the proposal to be placed in front of us is going to be the same treaty with not a single letter changed, I don't see how the outcome could be different. If Cowen wants to destroy what little credibility he has with the Irish people, then he should go right ahead and hold another referendum. I am confident it will be defeated again, based in part on the relatively high turnout that exceeded Nice 2, and the huge increase in the no vote on Nice 2 of 300,000+. These variables strongly imply that general reservations about further European integration played a key role in the no vote. It can't be written off as just a low turnout like in 2001. I just think that this is a convenient distraction for a govt on the backfoot over the economy and the health-service, and that those opposed to the govt are giving them a get out of jail free card by colluding with the agenda. A second referendum is open to criticism on the basis that the economy should be the priority with tens of thousands of people losing their jobs each month, and also on grounds of cost and the short time elapsed since the first referendum, which contrasts sharply with the abortion and divorce referenda. The perception that the govt is doing this because of foreign-pressure will not help their case, not least in the absence of emotional-blackmail like Enlargement which persuaded people to vote yes in 2002.

Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008 wrote:

There hasn't been a single poll that shows more people in favour than against a second referendum.

That's an extraordinarily tendentious use of language. There has been no meaningful poll that shows anything either way. What there have been are text-in polls and online polls - both of which are self-selecting, and which allow multiple entries by the same people.

slight regards,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Peoples' motives do not impinge (in my opinion) on the degree of respect a referendum result deserves.

On that, we can never agree. As far as I'm concerned, the absolute limit of the respect our referendum result deserves is to accept that it's legally binding, and that the constitution can't be amended. The mere fact that a majority of those who vote express a particular view doesn't make that view correct, valid, intelligent, coherent, or anything of the kind: it simply makes it their expressed view, and that view is open to criticism, as are the reasons for arriving at it.

As I understand it, the turnout in the French and Dutch votes were quite high, and the EU Constitution was in the top ten publications in terms of sales in France during that campaign. That, to me, indicates the electorate made a decision based on information that they took the time to inform themselves of.

...and the concerns expressed in the aftermath of the referendum were taken into account, and the Constitution was modified accordingly.

But not enough, apparently. You have appointed yourself the unelected representative of the people of France, and have unilaterally decided that you must protect them from their government by persuading Irish people not to allow the implementation of a treaty which is different from the one they voted to reject.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

No I am not saying that. I can live with being asked again. The point I'm making is that at least we are being asked have we changed our minds, unlike the French and Dutch peoples who said no and are having this treaty forced on them anyway. They are not even being asked, OscarBravo, unlike us. And we are being asked to rubber-stamp what they are doing by voting to bring this Treaty into force.

No, we're being asked whether we want our government to ratify the treaty. I reiterate the point: whether or not France ratified the treaty is a matter for France. You are suggesting that we refuse to ratify the treaty in order to defy the will of the democratically elected governments of all the other member states, because you're not certain that the people of those countries are happy with the actions of their respective governments.

In other words, you've decided that there's a measure of democracy that's acceptable to you; you've unilaterally decided that our fellow member states don't measure up to your concept of democracy; and you want us to reject this treaty in order to impose your vision of democracy on other member states.

Well I'm sorry, but in all conscience I can't vote to do that.

If you are comfortable with the precedent that would be set by ratification of this treaty, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I cannot share it on this matter.

What precedent? This treaty is being ratified in precisely the same way as every other EU treaty: in accordance with the respective constitutional requirements of the individual member states, which is as it should be.

This isn't just a legal issue - it is also a moral issue. Were we in the position of the French and Dutch electorates and had we a constitution that allowed for parliamentary ratification without a referendum, I wonder would you regard such behaviour by the Irish govt as okay? If so, then you are being consistent. But if not, why not? Are other nations less entitled to have their democratically-expressed wishes respected than us?

If we were in the position where another member state was refusing to ratify the treaty because they were dissatisfied with our constitutional requirements for ratification, I'd be telling that member state to f*ck off and mind its own business. Other nations are entitled to express their democratic processes in ways that are different to ours.

Húrin

R3al wrote: »

It is not a loss of faith in democracy it is a loss of faith in the current government, the only problem is that there appears to be no viable alternative

This post is itself evidence of failing democracy. Even people who do not like the government believe its propaganda that "there's no alternative".

FF have been in power for 80% of the state's existence; knowing that power corrupts, I don't see how things would get any worse with a spell of FG. Or better yet, Irish people should lose faith in the competence of the civil war parties, and vote based on the way things are today rather than cling to outdated loyalties.

R3al

I agree with you that power corrupts, just look at the green party, they have only been in power 5 minutes and they appear to be prepared to sell out every principle they stand for, brings a new meaning to the phrase "politics is about compromise", roll on the incinerators