« New Euro Slogan. | Main | Research Thursday »

July 02, 2006

Contempt for Democracy

Apparently I have the utmost contempt for democracy.

What Worstall fails to understand is that the electorate can get rid of the first two by voting New Labour out of office. We cannot get rid of Murdoch.

We are allowed a vote on New Labour once every four or five years. We are allowed a vote on Murdoch every time we jingle our change and decide to buy or not a newspaper, every time we turn on the TV and decide to watch Sky or not.

Which is more democratic? The highly restricted popular franchise or the near unconstricted market in which we vote every time we spend money?

July 2, 2006 in Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Contempt for Democracy:


Because voting is *explicit*

How many people (who, for example, read The Sun) know that (a) Murdoch owns it, or (b) that he holds such power over the government in this country?

You know what you are getting when you vote, but you don't buy a paper to keep someone in power - you buy it because you like looking at topless women.

Otherwise - why not have our government run by people who have the most money? If people buy/use their products then they must be most 'popular'.

Why restrict it to the UK alone in that case, for we are part of a global market. Bill Gates for Prime Minister?

(actually given his philanthropy, that might not be a bad idea...)

Posted by: Tom Reynolds | Jul 2, 2006 5:19:23 PM

You know what you are getting when you vote,

Oh, reeeeallly?

Posted by: Mgrump | Jul 2, 2006 6:09:02 PM


...more so than some business magnate at least.

At least you know what they *say* they are going to do in power as opposed to a business person who's general remit anyway is 'make money for me and my shareholders'.

Tim adds: Err, Tom. That’s what it says on the box about private companies. Profit. Only.

Now, politicians say many things and do other things.

The private company is at least consitent?

Posted by: Tom Reynolds | Jul 2, 2006 9:28:50 PM

Actually, Murdoch's papers represent something to his views, editorially, don't they? So, yeah, people do know what they're getting when they buy his papers.

Of course it would be more democratic if he sold papers by pandering to what people really think, while quietly spending the profits bribing politicians to do something much more genteel and left-wing, and with less popular support. But you can't win 'em all.

Posted by: P. Froward | Jul 3, 2006 12:45:28 AM