Free Speech.....

[peterb]

However somewhat like gerrymandering, first past the post electoral system or the 'big 3' pre-election debate, the rules protect the established parties. Laws are not in themselves right, they are just the expression of the will of those in power.

Well, laws are an expression of those elected to power, and proposed major legislation is in the election manifesto. However, a manifesto is a basket of proposals, some of which may be considered by a voter, others less so. And if the major parties are in agreement on an issue (for example, European membership) then the electorate doesn't get a choice - and the proposed referendum in 2017 gives a very black and white choice.

But the only way round that would be a referendum on every piece of legislation, which would probably be unworkable. It would be possible to have electoral colleges, but the speed of decision making would be very slow. That may change at some point with online voting, but such a change is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

[Saracen]

But then , Peter, you might expect government's to do what's in their manifesto, and to get a mandate before doing something that isn't. But, no.

Also, I'd love to know whT percentage of voters read, or even flick through, a manifesto before voting? My guess? Tiny. In fact, I'd be astonished if as much as 10% have ever, at amy point in their lives, ever read a manifesto.

And, of course, what about a coalition? They have an 'agreement', reached after behind-closed-doors negotiations, where the joint programme has NO voter approval at all. For instance, how many LD student voters would have voted LD if they'd known what was coming? How many LD voters might have voted Labour rather than enthrone in Tory-led coalition?

And, what say did we get in this joint program?

[Amantus]

I generally let other people read the manifesto for me.

[aidanjt]

Which is scant consolation to the murder victim (although they won't care much) or any family. But you could extend that principle to leaving your car or house unlocked on the grounds that if you are burgled then just try the perpetrator for theft. I would suggest that prevention is better than cure in this instance.

And I would argue that governmental attempts to stifle dissent against the overly offended has created the very culture of enabling violent reaction to being offended, to the degree that many of them feel embolden to murder dissenters in broad daylight for whatever made up reason their delicate sensibilities invent as being offensive-worthy. When the government punishes people for speech, instead of protecting them, their detractors believe the government is on their side, and they're already obnoxious enough when they believe God is on their side.