And punishment for tweeting mean things aside: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-...
And dragnet surveillance aside: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016?...
And the likely introduction of complete monetary surveillance and control aside: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-07/uk-plans-...
The slope is indeed slippery, and the UK is very far down it already.
Indeed it is ridiculous to arrest people for saying things on the internet where violence is no being incited or condoned.
if you don’t know how the UK system works, then yes, you are correct.
lived most of my life in such a system. it basically disenfranchised people from voting as whatever party they voted for never got enough votes and had to go into an alliance with other parties thus dropping their election pledges and thus removing any sort of democratic mandate. result: fewer and fewer people now go out to vote: https://www.statista.com/statistics/300427/eu-parlament-turn...
Democracies are best judged by how well they ensure minorities interests are allowed to influence policy.
exactly this is why voters simply don't turn up to vote any more. by "negotiating" those parties break their election pledges to their voters. voters thus become disenfranchised. we can see the end result today: very few people vote.
> Democracies are best judged by how well they ensure minorities interests are allowed to influence policy.
there are many ways to judge democracies. that's just one of the myriad of indicators.
i think you’re confusing democracy in general (and it’s many flaws) with whatever you’ve noticed in the UK. if you’d study other democratic countries you’d find huge issues as well.
(Somewhat related: Anyone who complains about the 'undemocratically elected' Tories is compelled by consistency to complain about the 'undemocratically elected' Labour government of Tony Blair and the likely forthcoming 'undemocratic' government of Kier Starmer. If they are quiet about that, then they haven't a leg to stand on. See also complaining about the results of the Brexit Referendum, which won a clear, although narrow, majority of the people who bothered to vote, and was therefore legitimate by the lights of people who prefer majority decisions.)
A government formed through negotiation is more democratic if you accept that a representative government can ever be democratic and that the parties actually represents the interests of their voters in as much as if neither party achieves a majority, then a compromise that provides for some of what is wanted by all is more democratic. If anything, I'd argue the broader coalition the more democratic - democracies are best measured by how well they ensure also the interests of the minorities are protected.
The social contract isn't to be "only be ruled by a strict majority" but to agree to be ruled by the party who wins by any workable system.
A system imposed on people which denies them representation has no claim to be considered democratic.
The primary goal isn't to represent, but to reduce misrepresentation to the point where we can literally live with it.
To me it's only illegitimate if this is coupled with unreasonable attempts to keep us from improving the system as technology and knowledge give us the means.
There is a guy named Assange who has been rotting in a UK dungeon for years who would beg to differ.
https://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-lydon-death-penalty-sex...