h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hey Kim,

have had a read of your entry, and enjoyed it... I won't rant and rave about writing styles or content but would like to ask

What style of government you would opt for?

I'm in favour of a Monarchy, It has work well for many centuries, with the best(?) candidate from the ruling family selected to become the next monarch. This system allows for some flexibility, whilst having a ruling class, bred to rule...

But I've started burbling now

I think ultimately it has to be democracy, personally - for all it's pitfalls, proper representation is the holy grail of civilised society. The problem is that we often don't have fully functioning democracy - for instance, here in the uk, our upper house is still unelected. That is not a democracy. I think out upper house should actually be elected on a jury system type thing (pulling names out of a hat...) - where members of the public, who have no financial interest in politics are given a role in government for an allowed period of time - long enough to effect change, not so long as to get a taste for it. The lower house would still be elected, but on proportional representation, so all the small parties would get represented.
And no kings and queens I'm afraid - I would abolish the monarchy totally - I'm sick of seeing their stupid faces on the front of the tabloids. They can be king and queen if they want but they wouldn't get any state money - the monarchy payroll is a shameful waste of taxpayers money. Let them eat brioche.

can the people of a country make the right decision in who to elect? Most people are swayed by popularity stunts and the dreaded spin thats put into every anouncement by an political organisation.

I think that representational democracy works against the people it is trying to represent. The elected members are also members of parties, who have specific agendas. In order to progress in British politics, a member would have to support his party, even if they believed it was a bad policy/law.

On the unelected House of Lords issue I'm not sure I agree either. The people given lifetime peerage into the system are generally specialists in their field, be it music, law or some other subject. They are a control system to stop the elected members making laws bad for the country as a whole. They have no other powers (that I am aware of).

The monarchy is one of Britains biggest tourist attractions. OK, so we give them some money, probably quite a large amount, but they also bring in millions in foreign money to the UK... I agree that they are plastered all over the papers far to often. More the fault of the papers than the monarchy itself!

whilst I agree that many people don't make good choices with regard to democracy - that assumes that my opinions are more valid than those of others. While it pains me to see 59 million americans vote for Bush, at least they did choose - as is their right. At least they will probably eventually vote his ilk out. My worst nightmare is a scenario whereby the likes of Bush get to take power and keep it. While I would agree that the likes of Victoria or Elizabeth displayed fantastic leadership, they are but two shining examples in a millenia of mediocrity and vanity with regards to monarchy.
I may not like the decisions others make but I would defend to the detah, their rights to do so. To do other is to offer free speach and then complain about what is said.
My article was intended as a satirical piece. Democracy has flaws but it's major flaw - it's transitory status - is also it's great virtue. The 19 years of conservative rule are but a blip in the grander scheme of things. Choice is a fundamental human right and monarchy does not allow for choice. I'm no bolshevik - they can keep their heirlooms and palaces - but no more titles and no more tax payers money.
regards
kim d

All fair comments. Thanks Kim, sorry to say I'm enjoying this...

I guess what needs to be worked on is the way forwards, not the present. What do you think of the regional assemblies that Labour are trying to push through?

Wales and Scotland have theirs in place, but I believe there are proposals to extend this idea to regions across England. Is this additional burocracy, or doy ou think it will be of benefit?

Ian

I think they're another useless layer of beurocracy - a waste of taxpayers money and I believe they are not wanted by the locals. Isn't this was local councils are for? I live in Edinburgh - and the lesson learned by the parliament fiasco here have taken their toll. We have enough politicians already - I'm not fond of them (as you may have guessed by my article)
I genuinly do think that an element of government ought to be like Jury service - that one house should be of people who are elected to serve for a short period of time - so that decisions could be reviewed without party predjudice - I do agree with you that there is an inherant problem with that.
Or maybe we should abolish the parties and make people stand on their own - so you had to decide about a candidate by what they had to say for themselves instead of what colour their rosette was. That would make people think - or stop them bothering to vote....

Maybe the regional assemblies would be the right arena for the jury service element - that's the only circumstance in which I would approve - if they were representative of real people.

and don't worry - I love a good bit of discourse too....
argue away.