Isn’t it absurd that a debate can be decided like a flower show, with a show of hands.

This is effectively how our so called democratic parliament works. Things, ideas, concepts .. dare I say laws .. issues of the utmost importance to the common mass of the people within our society are decided by a small group of people – who in most cases have no more knowledge of the issues than the common man in the street and in many cases will not be directly affected by their decisions – in a partisan show of hands. Have you ever thought about this?

Instead of working through the issues and carefully considering them in all their parts, with relation to the whole of society, in the best interest of the whole of society .. what we like to refer to as parliamentary debates are nothing more than highly expensive flower shows. Worse than this even; these men and women participating in the judgement of this flower show – for the most part – have had their decisions made for them, on our behalf, prior to the debate taking place. Decisions made for these judges by a small minority of a small minority of our whole society. The debate is never really entered into. Our highly paid representatives to this debating club may as well sit about on the veranda smoking OPs, plugging their ears with fluff and other noise until it’s time to make the decision. A show of hands please gentleman, and ladies … And the winner is .. Da Da .. the side waving the most hands in the air! Wonderful. Democratically inclusive, and sure to be in the best interests of our society … As a whole. And expensive. Surely if we are going to keep allowing our decisions to be made for us in this way, then we can find a much cheaper way to do it.

Are we sure that this is Democracy? Now I know I’ve asked this question previously, and while I’m sure, by the reaction I get when I ask the question, that you all think I’m one helluva a dumb cunt .. but is this really democracy? And are you all very sure that it does benefit the whole of our society? Very sure? There is something in it, that for me, doesn’t seem to feel right.

Wouldn’t it be better, if we are going to have these debates, to carry the point through to the end? To win each point, rather than the debate as whole? Wouldn’t it be better not to have our representatives go into the debating club with their vote – their show of hand – previously decided by a minority of a minority regardless of the worth of the debate for the society as a whole?

It doesn’t sound like I imagined, nor what I was taught that it should be, to be a faithful representation of a democratic debate. It doesn’t sound like it can possibly be in the best interest of our society .. as a whole.