Well what an intriguing thread this is.

There was a time when it made sense to express ones views via a ballot paper, but the implementation of the “user pays” full blown capitalism of Reagonomics and Thatcherism and its pervasive reach over some decades now has made electoral voting a waste of time. Global economics has happened and it is now stepping on my face.

Well Globalisation is real and it's happening. We're also in a World where Asia & Brazil will call most of the economic shots over the next century, nobody you vote for will change that. The curious flaw is that - much in the style of a Guardian columnist - you blame Thatcher & Reagan for this. The reality is all this stuff was true before either took office, they inherited the reality and adjusted policy accordingly.

It could therefore be argued that a benevolent dictator could achieve more, by not being constrained by the need for popularity and consensus.

Well that's a horrifically dangerous viewpoint. It's this mindset which the European Union believes in. The idea that an unelected Technocrat, largely immune to public opinion will make better decisions for the people. It's the same idealogy behind central economic planning, the idea that the state should control the economy. The obvious flaw of course is that the central planners & technocrats are no more or less likely to get their sums right than anybody else.

There is no such thing as an impartial third party. Don't believe in any banking regulator being smarter than banks. Don't believe in energy regulators doing any better than energy companies. Every human has their opinions, interests, self interests, prejudices and ideals.

perhaps it's a good reason for only property owners having the vote ,wasn't it the case many years ago that to be a voter you had to be a person of worth to vote ?

Yes, at the start of the 20th century the British establishment deemed no woman under 30 as being a person of worth. Article 1 of the US Constitution values a black person as three-fifths of a person.

I'm sorry Tony but I don't buy your narrative. You won't find a harsher critic of Brown Economics than myself, but the very idea that our problems were all caused by one Government since 1997 is quite stupid. The problem in terms of politics is the same in every party - Party/Government survival is more important than principle or the country.

Remember those brave Conservative rebels? In protest against John Major signing the Maastricht treaty, which surrendered our democracy to the European Union? When it came to a confidence vote in Parliament, most of them - Bill Cash and the likes - put Party before Country and voted to keep Major in office. In that regard, they're all the same.

Corporations have grown so big they have more money than countries and can wield incredible pressure on governments.

In fairness to the OP, I can sort of see the point. I think. I've said before that 'capitalist' and 'pro business' are not the same thing, even the biggest City shark is not really a capitalist. Every major business person, corperation & financier is a monopolist. They want the money & control for themselves. A free capitalist market should prevent them from having it and protect us from it.

Take these 'big six' energy firms, they're companies with connections. They have access to politicians and regularly lobby for more EU regulations - designed to put smaller competitors out of business. They're not what I'd call 'private sector' because they become so large, they're effectively State Institutions themselves.

The OP seems to want to live in a land where everything is decided by a politician who wins an election. Frankly, I can't think of anybody worse to be in charge of things.

You misunderstand ,the point I made was that voters can remove a government that they are unhappy with ,every 5 years ,democracy .

Well yes you're right but I'd argue democracy is about more than putting a cross in the box every few years. It's about more than things on paper. The Soviet Union had a very nice constitution, guaranteeing it's citizens human rights and prosperity. They even sort of had elections - of a fashion - but until Gorbachev there was no chance of electing anybody who would severely disrupt a status quo.

I feel we've got the same sort of problem here now, because if the choice really is between (or some combination of) the Conservatives, Labour & the Liberal Democrats, well there really is no point in voting. All of those parties support EU membership. They all support open borders to 27 other countries. They all support surrendering supremacy of law to foreign courts. They all support the big state. They all support Government interfearence in peoples lives. They all support the climate change agenda. They all support the Wind Farm agenda, which continues to rob from the poor to feed the rich.

Seriously, what's the difference? It doesn't matter to me whether Cameron or Miliband resides in Number 10. No matter which one wins, you'll still have what you had before. There's no real danger of a genuine opponent to it winning, because the professional elite class have control of the big political parties, they've got the connections with the media barons, they've got the big business friends with the ability to scare the public.

Take the recent veiled threat from the boss of Nissan for example that pulling out of the EU would not be looked upon favourably by his company. I hear what you say Carlos Ghosn.

Can I just remind you, Carlos Ghosn said about 15 years ago, when he took over Nissan that Nissan may have to close the Sunderland plant if Britain didn't join the Euro. His actual power, when it comes to the crunch is minimal. He may be a bit of an eco-freak, with his commitment to renewable energy and electric cars, but business is business. Nissan will carry on building cars here because it works for them.

Remember the Sunderland plant was originally opened as a means for Nissan to avoid tariffs when selling into the (what was) European Community. Cars made outside the EC were subject to import tariffs, so they started building them here to avoid that. They will continue to do so, as the big investment has already been made and Nissan keep lauding the performance of Sunderland.

I'd like to know how you envisage your life with no 'Government interference'. That means (literally) no government, i.e.anarchy - everyone does what he/she wants or can get away with. Not acceptably possible in a country of many millions.

Well that's just a silly thing to say, an example of the 0mph or 100mph approach to debating which winds me up. If you oppose the big state, you're therefore an anarchist who wants to murder baby children.

The key word is 'interference.' I subscribe to the classical liberal thinking of 'you can do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't harm me.' In terms of the economy, the State has proven itself to be pretty useless at almost everything. It couldn't build cars, it couldn't run phone lines and now it's proving it can't run banks, so I want the State out of most matters.

I'll give you a few examples; the Government spent many years drafting legislation to outlaw 'king sized' chocolate bars, but it took a Nestle lawyer about 13 seconds to notice it doesn't prohibit two smaller bars being sold in one packet. Then the Duo was born. Why was the Government getting involved in chocolate bar sizes in the first place?

The smoking ban, possibly the most draconian piece of legislation I have seen in my 29 year life. The way I see it is simple; it should be up to the Pub proprietor whether people are allowed to smoke in the Pub or not. Smoking is still a legal activity after all. If the Pub wants a seperate room for smokers, it should be free to have it.

I don't smoke, and nor do I hunt foxes, but I believe you should be free to do both if you wish.

I class practically all 'traffic calming' and other gerrymandering schemes to tax the motorist as Government interfearence. They want you to take the bus, so they'll spend your money on forcing you onto it. Though to be fair, Councils are even worse for this kind of nonsense.

Then you've got the never ending Quangos, public bodies and 'advisory commissions' on everything under the sun as Government continues to make more and more rules about what you can and can't do. Economically they interfere by taxing heavily and regulating too much.

It's very simple really.

Edited by jamie745 on 25/11/2013 at 17:04