On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 23:46:50 +0100, Martin Barclay
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 22:58:01 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:25:25 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

So, I could ask my local councilor (that I didn't vote in for the same
reasons (I spoiled my paper)) to propose a change in the voting system
where you are obliged to answer correctly 10 simple political questions
and if you don't get them right you aren't allowed to vote because you
wouldn't have shown sufficient 'sills' in the subject matter. Exactly
the same way they hand out driving licences or nearly any other
indication that you are 'worthy' of such status.

That would be your MP, not your local councillor. Parliament has to
legislate to change the way we vote, which will be defined in the
various Representation of the People Acts (part of the British
Constitution).


Yeah, and that. ;-)

My point still stands ... we don't normally let untrained people make
important decisions, we expect them to have at least a rough idea what is
going on or ideally be 'skilled'. But for them to be able to get even
that 'rough idea' they have to be given, or have access to, the real
facts.

I kind of agree, but as always one has to ask - who sets the questions,
who marks them? And how do I get to bribe them on behalf of my party?

Interesting comment though "..we don't normally let untrained people make
important decisions..." I reckon that would disqualify about 3/4 of MPs in
Parliament, because you /don't/ need to have /any/ qualifications to be an
MP!

Exactly ... but it's no different to starting say a motorcycle club
and asking for volunteers from the few initial members for the
positions of social and financial sectary. *Someone* has to man those
roles no matter how unsuited they are or until someone goes out on
their own and does it all by themselves. The problem there is there
aren't the checks and balances that you get in the 'std' system.

Back on topic ... I think I'd rather take notice of someone *like*
Richard Branson, a businessman who is not generally considered to be
pure evil as the hope they would have a better viewpoint on the
'bigger picture' (being party to much higher level meetings than me)
and therefore more likely to backing the 'best thing' (as the chances
are no one choice will be 100% 'right').

I thought the above even before the flyer came though the door (today)
where I see Mr Branson is quoted as saying leaving the EU "would be
very damaging for Great Britain".

Cheers, T i m