Debate: Should people trust their government?

[DeZmond]

3rd May 2006

Cited article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4965550.stm (source: BBC News Online)

I saw this news article and it got me thinking. If you follow the numbers and agree that the poll is representative of people then only 52% of people trust their government, while 61% trust the media.

But I ask you: is it right that so few of us should trust our elected leaders? If they are put in the position of power then do we not have a duty to trust their decisions and trust that they will act in our best interests?

Conversely, is it just a sign of the times, that we are all becoming cynical of everything (or, at least, authoritarian figures)?

Those living in the UK (and a fair number of those who aren't) will know of the scandals and controvesy the government has been mired in for the past 9 days. Affairs, criminal justice gone awry, and NHS redundancies don't exactly contribute to an atmosphere of trust.

Speak up and let's hear what you're got to say on this one.​

 

[thatbloke]

To be honest, I trust the media alot less than I trust the government. The media is out there to, ultimately, make money for the companies that own the newspapers, etc... the government, though in the eyes of the media and sometimes the general public it is not the case, are there to act in the best interests of the people... though they do sometimes get it wrong.

The media sensationalize things that I sasee as pretty trivial, especially when it comes into things like the royal family and the government... so what if John Prescott has had an affair or two? as long as he keeps his private life separate from his duties as whatever it is he does (home secretary? i cant remember, i'm hungover and quite possibly still ever so slightly drunk too ) it doesn't bother me.

When it comes to the Royal family in the UK (and I know this is probably an entirely separate debate) I personally don't feel that we need it anymore and should just be rid of it... plus the media attention they get is WAY WAY over-hyped... I can remember an example of when one of the princes (I think it was William) got a WHOLE PAGE in the Sun because... he was wearing odd socks while playing rugby in P.E at Eton. WOW. I mean FUCKING WOW. haven't the media got better things to do???

I really dislike the British media!!!

 

[Ronin Storm]

Just picking up on a few points in there:

so what if John Prescott has had an affair or two?

These men and women have rights to choose how I may live and operate in this country. They can demand more money from me, require me to drive slower, make things I might consider doing illegal, or support activities that I despise. These people are accountable to me, as an individual, even if only in principle. That's the point of a representative democracy -- they represent me.

If this guy cannot be trusted in his own family, perhaps I should consider not trusting him either. The media haven't told me what to think, or if they do I just ignore that. The fact that he or any politician has gone out and had an affair is a mark of his character and his life situation and I am to draw my own conclusions on that. Does this worry me? Has his family situation become unstable as a result? Does this mean that whatever governmental department that he heads-up is also going to go through a time of instability because he's tired and upset? I don't know for sure, but I sure want to know so that if it affects me directly I can start to do something about it.

haven't the media got better things to do?

As you say, media is a commercial organisation, but that doesn't necessarily make them corrupt. The Sun sells news about frivolity because their target audience buys frivolity. The BBC sells "hard" news because that's what their audience wants and expects. Sure, it's all part of ongoing promotion, but at least the BBC actually look at their reporting standards from time to time.

Getting one's news from multiple sources where you know that their funding comes from different powerbases can be an interesting way of cross referencing and validating news. I don't spend much time on that myself, but for anything really important to me I will read around to see what others have said on the subject.

But do they have better things to do? They're making money selling to the people they want to sell to. Treating The Sun in the same light as The Independent would be a mistake, I feel, as they want to tell different things to totally different people.

It's like we were taught in history classes at school; understand your sources and their context. News is no different.

As to whether we should trust our government? I don't trust them, I didn't vote for them, when I can I'll emigrate and be done with them. I think that probably says everything I can on the matter.

 

[Haven]

The origin of the americans the right to bear arms in the US is from the following:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men....are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In short it was thought when the US constitution was being formed that governments cannot be trusted with the powers they are given so a balancing factor is needed. In the UK we have always had three arms of power.

The Crown
Parliament
The Military

Unsurprisingly both the Crown and Parliament are agreed that weapons should not be given to the general populace - pretty obvious really since neither party has a vested interest in empowerment of the people (the miliatary obviously already have very big weapons and are always keen to test them out should the populace find some of their own to bring to the party).

As regards gathering power and ruling, I firmly believe that the more a population allows itself to be ruled, the more influence and power the rulers will take for themselves. Without a balancing force to keep this in check I firmly believe this will happen.

In short: "Can governments be trusted ?"

Only in so much that they will pursue power at the cost of the rights of the people. But then its worth noting that this is true of both the Military and The Crown as well.

 

[DeZmond]

Without a balancing force to keep this in check I firmly believe this will happen.

An interesting point, but I do wonder - what balancing force would you suspect here? Social trends? Alternative political parties? Essentially there could be a political vacuum...

 

[pHatBambi]

The idea is that the political competition keeps the balance by raising questions and finding fault within the current governments policies.

The main trouble being that the two major political parties are both trying to appease the middle ground and as such have lost any kind of identity.

In this situation it's a case of picking the lesser of two evils in the hope that one won't fuck up as badly as the other.

If there was ever a chance to start a new party and come into power, now is the best time to do it.

Anyone fancy starting the THN party. I'll put myself foward as a candidate for Prime Minister.

 

[DeZmond]

Anyone fancy starting the THN party. I'll put myself foward as a candidate for Prime Minister.

Can we trample the week and the poor as we ride off into the sunset with our mansions and ninja gaming rigs? If that's a yes, I'll be involved.

But Bambi as PM... erm... that's, er... "interesting"...

...and back to reality.

Well we do essentially have 3 centrist parties in the UK at the moment and it is ridiculous to be honest. Also no-one's really going to vote in a fringe party because voters typically perceive that the 'other' promises are non-existent - a political party with a single cause will not acheive anything because a party must have a view and a stance on everything.

 

[pHatBambi]

- a political party with a single cause will not acheive anything because a party must have a view and a stance on everything.

I disgree with you on that view.

I understand that a government has to run the country and all of the multiple sectors that need to be delt with but I think that it would be very beneficial for a party to focus on an area of the country that they feel requires improvement.

By doing this they are saying that we will keep things running but we WILL sort out the NHS or we WILL sort out the current school system. If by the end of our term we have fulfilled our promise then they can look to improve a different sector. If parties did that then at least things might get done.

I understand that the parties want to win over as many peoples vote but I also understand the fact that there's only so much you can spend the yearly budget on and I'd rather one thing got done instead of everything getting brushed over and not really being improved.

Does that make sense?

[Edit] Oh god the grammar in this post is awful. PIACULAR!

 

[DeZmond]

It does make sense, but unfortunately it's not practical. In the current environment the government is under pressure from many sides - the voters, the companies (large and small), nationalised services... the list goes on. You simply can't ignore something for a year (or four) and hope that it'll be okay - things change constantly and need constant review. I'd agree that if we lived in a utopia then sure, a single-issue party would be fine in power, but in this day and age I don't see how it could feasibly win over voters.

 

[Gopha]

do sometimes get it wrong.

The as long as he keeps his private life separate from his duties as whatever it is he does (home secretary?

I agree with this statement, John prescott=Dep. PM

 

[Wraith]

By doing this they are saying that we will keep things running but we WILL sort out the NHS or we WILL sort out the current school system. If by the end of our term we have fulfilled our promise then they can look to improve a different sector. If parties did that then at least things might get done.

The problem with this is that things are currently balance pretty precariously at the moment as it is. If the government were to decide to focus primarily on the NHS for example, they would have to get the extra funding from somewhere. This would require either higher taxes (which the voters wouldn't go for), or cutting funding of another area (e.g. education - which the voters would be unlikely to go for).

As for whether governments should be trusted, an apt quote is "power corrupts". I've heard people say that anyone who wants power is the last person who should be allowed to get it. While I think that opinion is a bit too much of a generalisation, I do feel most politicians are not overly concerned with their constituents needs any more than necessary to secure next year's vote. I would like to trust them, but trust is like respect - it needs to be earned.

Wraith

P.S.

Anyone fancy starting the THN party. I'll put myself foward as a candidate for Prime Minister.

Won't that get in the way of BF2?

 

[Fi$hy]

so what if John Prescott has had an affair or two?

Why should the tax payer employ him and his secretary to get busy in office hours?

 

[thatbloke]

Why should the tax payer employ him and his secretary to get busy in office hours?

who said it was necessarily during office hours? I think what I said after saying that needs to be taken into account aswell though... As long as he keeps his job and his private life separate, it really does not bother me...

 

[Ronin Storm]

As long as he keeps his job and his private life separate

I wonder how separate one can really keep these things, really. There is, in my opinion, inevitable bleed-over from one to the other.

 

[decky101]

well its a known fact that 90% of all russians don't trust their own police force so i would say they don't particularly trust their government either