Do you want to discuss boring politics? (113 Viewers)

Forums New posts
SkyBlueDom26

SkyBlueDom26

Well-Known Member
giphy.gif
 
David O'Day

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
I am quite enjoying Dom and Boosh aka the crayon
Boosh said:
With your track record on here🤣🤣 even the Barnsley fan knows you’re a muppet.
Click to expand...

Says the kid who gets laughed at by his own friends

At least Dom is only on the wum. Sadly you are being serious
 
D

Deleted member 11652

Guest
David O'Day said:
I am quite enjoying Dom and Boosh aka the crayon


Says the kid who gets laughed at by his own friends

At least Dom is only on the wum. Sadly you are being serious
Click to expand...

Jokes on you mate, I don’t have any friends
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
FPTP is fine, as long as it isn't the only way we have democratically elected parliament. We need a PR style upper house as well to oversee this rather than a heriditary system or one whereby the party in govt can elect new people to the upper chamber to gain control.

For me the benefit of FPTP is not necessarily strong govt but the election of a representative of a particular area in a constituency. Other systems can result in people not get the person/party most people actually want.

IMO on the larger scale it's our version of the electoral college, leading to skewed overall results. Plus a party that has control for a significant of time can also abuse their power. Gerry-mandering of boundaries to maximise your elected officials rather than represent the voters. Just this week in the Queen's Speech we've seen quite a few things that would consolidate power for the ruling party - voter ID for a non-existent problem that would only disenfranchise those less likely to vote for them. PM deciding when to hold an election so can pick and choose a time when they seem popular (like a footballer looking for a new contract in the middle of a purple patch). There were also parts about adding in further restrictions for protests and judicial reform. Plus in recent years the threat over the BBC funding that has resulted in far less scrutiny and criticism of the decisions or actions of the Tories plus the installation of a DG who is very much a follower of Tory ideals.

So basically, more power to govt, harder to vote for those who are less likely to vote for them, less opportunity to report or protest their actions or to take them to court. This is what 'strong governance' gets you in the end - autocracy and a shift towards extremes.
Click to expand...

Lords reform is needed without a doubt. But, an elected house to rival the authority of Parliament is not the optimal solution. Looking at the USA, having two houses can lead to deadlock which is why the US has struggled getting budgets through the house.

The Fixed Term Parliament was introduced by the Coalition and was broken twice in the space of 9 years. The reality is that the Government can hold an election whenever it wants, and that’s not a bad thing. As May found out in 2017 (and many occasions in the past) you cannot predict the electorate.

Strong majorities means the scrutiny of legislation is not particularly strong, especially with a majority as large as this Government and Blair’s. But, it doesn’t lead to extremism or autocracy - as evidenced by our distinctly centrist governance and peaceful exchange of Government.

After all, there’s a reason Halisham described the UK parliamentary system as an ‘elective dictatorship’.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
Expected that. tbf I'm also assuming you're not that keen on a voter registration ID card too however...
Click to expand...

No I don’t see why people aren’t forced to bring in the polling card thing and you surrender that but no that’s enough for me
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Grendel said:
No I don’t see why people aren’t forced to bring in the polling card thing and you surrender that but no that’s enough for me
Click to expand...
Yeah I have to admit, going in and telling someone my name and address doesn't seem overly secure...

This is drawn along team lines, and it's not a team issue. It really does strike me if you're for voter ID cards, you may as well go the whole hog with a national ID card and have your NI, NHS numbers in one place, along with driving license etc. Now, Blair didn't get that through as much because it didn't play overly well among some members of his own party, and certainly not the opposition. It's something of an about turn from a libertarian Prime Minister to want to introduce controls, however...

Personally, I'm not necessarily averse to a full-on ID card, that would cover everybody by definition, although I'd want to see how it was set up as it's not something you can go back from once it's there. To focus on this one particular issue ref: voting is pointless, needless, and to my mind impinges on certain of the liberties that are used to argue against a national ID card, without offering more than a fraction of the benefits. At least introduce the policy properly.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
Yeah I have to admit, going in and telling someone my name and address doesn't seem overly secure...

This is drawn along team lines, and it's not a team issue. It really does strike me if you're for voter ID cards, you may as well go the whole hog with a national ID card and have your NI, NHS numbers in one place, along with driving license etc. Now, Blair didn't get that through as much because it didn't play overly well among some members of his own party, and certainly not the opposition. It's something of an about turn from a libertarian Prime Minister to want to introduce controls, however...

Personally, I'm not necessarily averse to a full-on ID card, that would cover everybody by definition, although I'd want to see how it was set up as it's not something you can go back from once it's there. To focus on this one particular issue ref: voting is pointless, needless, and to my mind impinges on certain of the liberties that are used to argue against a national ID card, without offering more than a fraction of the benefits. At least introduce the policy properly.
Click to expand...

I just want to stop having to tell different bits of the government my address and DOB over and over. My aversion to Kafkaesque government has outweighed my aversion to Orwellian government.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
I just want to stop having to tell different bits of the government my address and DOB over and over. My aversion to Kafkaesque government has outweighed my aversion to Orwellian government.
Click to expand...

I agree how frustrating it is to not have it all in one place,for the left hand to know what the right hand is doing and to have some sense of efficiency between everything. Not sure I agree on the Orwellian govt though (even though we do seem to be getting some frightening similarities).
 
Ian1779

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
I see the DUP are now only one step away from adopting a ‘flat earth’ as official policy.
 
mrtrench

mrtrench

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
Yeah I have to admit, going in and telling someone my name and address doesn't seem overly secure...

This is drawn along team lines, and it's not a team issue. It really does strike me if you're for voter ID cards, you may as well go the whole hog with a national ID card and have your NI, NHS numbers in one place, along with driving license etc. Now, Blair didn't get that through as much because it didn't play overly well among some members of his own party, and certainly not the opposition. It's something of an about turn from a libertarian Prime Minister to want to introduce controls, however...

Personally, I'm not necessarily averse to a full-on ID card, that would cover everybody by definition, although I'd want to see how it was set up as it's not something you can go back from once it's there. To focus on this one particular issue ref: voting is pointless, needless, and to my mind impinges on certain of the liberties that are used to argue against a national ID card, without offering more than a fraction of the benefits. At least introduce the policy properly.
Click to expand...

Very balanced. It's a complex issue and I have no answer after a bottle of booze. I'll probably have no answer in the morning either. Let's see.
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
Freedom of speech = freedom to deplatform, there is no inherent right of anybody to be given time to speak to students. It is down to the freedom of the university to decide (with steer from students). More culture war drivel that you're lapping up.
Click to expand...
It's a bizarre piece of legislation. Surely its down to the university to decide who they want to invite to speak and who they don't.

Like you say, this is more about Tory posuring to stoke up the culture war.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 
mrtrench

mrtrench

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
It's a bizarre piece of legislation. Surely its down to the university to decide who they want to invite to speak and who they don't.

Like you say, this is more about Tory posuring to stoke up the culture war.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The culture war is stoked up just fine already. From my perspective they are retaliating or trying to limit the effects of the postmodernists.
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
I just want to stop having to tell different bits of the government my address and DOB over and over. My aversion to Kafkaesque government has outweighed my aversion to Orwellian government.
Click to expand...
I think there’s dangers to consider about all areas of government routinely sharing information with every other part
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
Very interesting and contrary to the Tory claims it is far from a ‘failed left wing policy’.

www.bbc.co.uk

Universal basic income to be tested in Wales

It means adults regardless of income, will be given money to cover essential living costs.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Will be interesting to see how they implement it and how it works out.

One interesting thing I've seen reported from trials elsewhere in the world is that it has virtually no impact on the number of people not working. The idea that people will stop working if they have a guaranteed income doesn't seem to hold up in the trials.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
Will be interesting to see how they implement it and how it works out.

One interesting thing I've seen reported from trials elsewhere in the world is that it has virtually no impact on the number of people not working. The idea that people will stop working if they have a guaranteed income doesn't seem to hold up in the trials.
Click to expand...
Well like a lot of progressive economic ideas they tend to get proven correct in reality whereas conservatives ones consistently fall flat.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete said:
I think there’s dangers to consider about all areas of government routinely sharing information with every other part
Click to expand...

That ship has sailed. GCHQ know everything there is to know about you. I’d argue the benefits from joined up services and enhanced data outweigh the risks anyway, but even if not we’re currently getting all the risks and none of the rewards of data sharing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 112 (members: 3, guests: 109)
Top