A party puts forward its policies at an election and is given (or not) some amount of power to pursue them. The understanding is that they'll generally pursue those policies or similar ones to represent the views of the people who voted for them.
If they use the seats they won from the votes of people who oppose independence to assist independence . . . in what way would they be acting in good faith with the electorate?
Either most people don't vote for independence, in which case the LDP acts in keeping with their manifesto, or most people do, in which case it can go through without their support. I honestly cannot see what it is you think is inconsistent or undemocratic here. The LDP have said that if the electorate vote for it they won't get in the way - democracy does not demand that those who oppose a measure support it, but only that when a measure gets majority support it's proponents be allowed to proceed with it.
Would you say you respected Tony Blair for driving this country into war in Iraq despite the fact that a majority of the population were against it?
If he'd been right about WMD then the public might well have supported it, according to 2003 polls. MORI polls at the time found that with WMD findings and a second UN resolution about 75% of the British public would have been in favour. The big problem was that he was so convinced he was right that he supported action before finding proof.
No, I didn't and don't support action without the proof that was fairly obviously not going to arrive.
This is not the same, though, as the situation you're talking about. You're not saying that the LDP should allow independence to go ahead if a majority want it - they've already said that and it's not enough for you.
What you want is that they act to promote the policy, even if the majority of LDP voters oppose it. This is not representative democracy - according to the principles of representative democracy those in favour are represented by the representatives they elect, who are also in favour. Those against, even when in a minority, are also represented by their representatives, who still have a job to do in arguing the case of the minority, whose interests still need to be considered.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-19 01:13 pm (UTC)If they use the seats they won from the votes of people who oppose independence to assist independence . . . in what way would they be acting in good faith with the electorate?
Either most people don't vote for independence, in which case the LDP acts in keeping with their manifesto, or most people do, in which case it can go through without their support. I honestly cannot see what it is you think is inconsistent or undemocratic here. The LDP have said that if the electorate vote for it they won't get in the way - democracy does not demand that those who oppose a measure support it, but only that when a measure gets majority support it's proponents be allowed to proceed with it.
Would you say you respected Tony Blair for driving this country into war in Iraq despite the fact that a majority of the population were against it?
If he'd been right about WMD then the public might well have supported it, according to 2003 polls. MORI polls at the time found that with WMD findings and a second UN resolution about 75% of the British public would have been in favour. The big problem was that he was so convinced he was right that he supported action before finding proof.
No, I didn't and don't support action without the proof that was fairly obviously not going to arrive.
This is not the same, though, as the situation you're talking about. You're not saying that the LDP should allow independence to go ahead if a majority want it - they've already said that and it's not enough for you.
What you want is that they act to promote the policy, even if the majority of LDP voters oppose it. This is not representative democracy - according to the principles of representative democracy those in favour are represented by the representatives they elect, who are also in favour. Those against, even when in a minority, are also represented by their representatives, who still have a job to do in arguing the case of the minority, whose interests still need to be considered.