5 yearly Binding Referendums to Set Military Spending

5 yearly Binding Referendums to Set Military Spending

5 yearly Binding Referendums to Set Military Spending

Showing 11 reactions

  • Robert Powell
    tagged this with dislike 2016-11-30 11:25:37 +1300
  • Sue Rine
    tagged this with low priority 2016-11-29 19:16:27 +1300
  • Nathan Rattray
    tagged this with dislike 2016-11-29 11:57:04 +1300
  • Matt Walkington
    commented 2016-11-28 21:21:41 +1300
    On “direct” vs “representative” “democracy”. Our “representative democracy” is actually a hybrid system of which referendums are an established feature. The reality is that our system is (or has been) dominated by two rather similar parties that agree to agree on many issues. The agreed positions by definition suit the existing power structures but do not necessarily represent the will of the general population. Greater use of referendums on “big issues”, rather than detailed policy, gives a chance to actually test the will of people to see if they agree with the agreed positions of the dominant parties. Answer the questions: has there ever been a government not lead by either National or Labour? Are there big questions such as military spending that don’t seem to get aired and why would that be?
  • Tim O’Donnell
    commented 2016-11-28 14:33:34 +1300
    I’m with the other 2 comments
  • Tim O’Donnell
    tagged this with dislike 2016-11-28 14:33:33 +1300
  • duncan cairncross
    commented 2016-11-28 13:58:48 +1300
    Military spending like all of the other parts of governing should be set by parliament – we are a representative democracy which works a lot better than direct democracy
  • duncan cairncross
    tagged this with dislike 2016-11-28 13:58:48 +1300
  • Graeme Kiyoto-Ward
    commented 2016-11-28 06:59:35 +1300
    Mainly because I feel representative democracy is better than direct democracy. Ancient Athens highlights some of the dangers of direct democracy. Also, my concern here is that spending woukd be in part based on the level of threat, something the public may not see (as exposing sources of intelligence generally means losing them) so how would the public be able to make an informed decision?
  • Graeme Kiyoto-Ward
    tagged this with dislike 2016-11-28 06:59:34 +1300
  • Matt Walkington
    published this page in Suggestions 2016-11-28 00:28:53 +1300