In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
I then looked at the public face of the Leave campaign. Led by self
serving charlatans like Farage and BoJo. And at the right wing parts of
the meja which supported Leave. And it was obvious it was going to be a
disaster for the majority in this country.

You seem in utter denial that there might be more reasons to their
decision.

Not so. The vast majority - including me - vote for their own self
interests. And many who claim they vote for the good of the country are
simply lying. Or just deluded.

I was what you might call a floating vote and yet you still
seem to misunderstand why floating voters might vote in the way they did.

Because they were persuaded to do so by the press they read and the glib
tongued likes of Farage. Which was mainly lies, half truths and
predictions stated as facts.

I can add one further reason to the number I posted recently, simply
that remainers who still bleat on about losing are not a pleasant crowd.
Good example is various Lib Dems politician and councillor who used to
post her abusing those who didn't share their same policy. Your post
dismisses why the majority of 'floating' electorate voted for Brexit.

Ah - right. You could try actually reading my post.

Regarding certainty, there is no certainty. No economist has reliably
predicted the economy. What many voters wanted was a change from the
relentless promises from politicians they will build more houses and the
likes of David Cameron promising immigration down to 30,000 per year.

And do you honestly think damaging the economy of the country is going to
get more houses built? But it very likely will cut down on immigration. I
doubt any Pakistani wants to come to a country with no work.

Despite saying this I'm sure you will dismiss and forget these posts and
in a few months you will say, "All I ever heard was airy fairy 'bring
back control' and 'sovereignty' etc. And of course saving on the EU
membership fees", which will once again be a lie.

Thanks for proving me right. Yet again no tangible benefits given of why
we should have left the EU.

--
*Never test the depth of the water with both feet.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
So those fishermen that were protesting at Westminster were Scottish,
and so they were likely to be even less happy that they were dragged
out of the EU, putting their jobs and livelihoods in jeopardy for no
(as yet presented or accepted), 'good reason'.

There was a good reason. The vast majority of fishing communities voted
leave. On the basis they would get all 'their' fish back. But obviously
didn't think what they were going to do with it. Even those whose main
market was the EU. They believed the lies that selling to the EU would
continue as usual. Ie, have their cake and eat it.

It's easily explained. They'd been told by all how stupid foreigners are.
And believed it. The English the only clever people in the world. So we
could easily put one over on the EU and come out smiling. After all, we
won the war.

--
*IF A PARSLEY FARMER IS SUED, CAN THEY GARNISH HIS WAGES?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 18/01/2021 13:23, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 17:05:58 +0000, nightjar
wrote:

snip

However, I have yet to hear one give an argument for leaving that
wasn't either based upon emotion or not backed up by any facts.

I really do think most you decided to vote leave did so within seconds
of being given the option

You really don't have a clue why the floating voter might have voted for
Brexit.

I very much doubt many did in depth research before making up their minds.

When change is being offered, it is very easy to make claims about how
that change will benefit you. With the status quo, all you can do is
defend it.

And there are countless examples of when changes are made purely for the
sake of change, they end up making things worse.

--
*What happens when none of your bees wax? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 18/01/2021 13:43, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 23:16:38 +0000, Roger Mills
wrote:

On 17/01/2021 20:49, Chris Green wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:
On 17/01/2021 07:45, David P wrote:
Neuroscientists now claim that the human brain is not
fully developed until age 25-30. We should therefore
raise the voting age to that level. Military service is
different: obedience is valued over thoughtfulness.
With elections, the reverse, thoughtfulness rather than
obedience, should yield better outcomes.


How about a test of competence to vote rather than universal suffrage?
Some people may pass it at age 10 - others never.

How do you test?


The test would need to determine whether the person had a basic
understanding of the issues on which political parties usually campaign.

Quite. We are forcing 'foreigners' to understand (and live by?) 'our
way' via the Life in the UK' test to gain British Citizenship so why
not to be allowed to vote?

so why not
It will obviously never happen, but would be good if it could be made to
work -

You could do a pretty basic one at the polling station, multi
question, multiple choice, a randomly selected set (adaptive testing)
and if you pass you vote. Even if you learn all the answers to the
questions (like signs and stopping distances in the Highway Code) you
may well still be 'better informed' than before.

Feck, you have to take all sorts of tests to do all sorts of things
that are far less important than choosing the fact of the entire
population!

along with needing a licence to procreate.

;-)

So the EU vote test could start:

Q1. Do you know what might change and therefore impact you if we leave
the EU?

Q2. Do you believe all the things you have been told about the EU to
be fact?

Q3. Do you believe all the promises that have been made re the
benefits of us leaving the EU to be fact?

Q4. Do you care about concepts (like Sovereignty) than facts (how
having Sovereignty may or may not make a positive difference to us)?


Q5. Do you believe that the stock market will crash as soon as a
decision is made to leave?

Q6. Do you believe that a decision to leave will immediately result in
Armageddon and WW3?

etc.

But all the above is EU Referendum based. For covering all elections,
you'd need something far more general - based on a general understanding
of the differences between capitalism and socialism, the relationship
between government spending and taxation, etc.
--
Cheers,
Roger

On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:50:12 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

I very much doubt many did in depth research before making up their minds.

Quite, and even if they did, what facts (and more specifically 'actual
benefits') could they have determined about their futures out of the
EU by doing so?

When change is being offered, it is very easy to make claims about how
that change will benefit you. With the status quo, all you can do is
defend it.

Or question why you would want to move away from it.

And there are countless examples of when changes are made purely for the
sake of change, they end up making things worse.

Yup, but some people are just gamblers and will put their rent and
family food money on a 'dead cert' as s/told to them by someone down
the pub.

In general, these people don't have feelings ... as it's feelings
(compassion / empathy / benevolence) that allow them to *also*
consider the 'what if' stuff and not jump into something without 'good
reason'.

Cheers, T i m

On 18/01/2021 16:21, Roger Mills wrote:
On 18/01/2021 13:43, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 23:16:38 +0000, Roger Mills
wrote:

On 17/01/2021 20:49, Chris Green wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:
On 17/01/2021 07:45, David P wrote:
Neuroscientists now claim that the human brain is not
fully developed until age 25-30.Â* We should therefore
raise the voting age to that level.Â* Military service is
different: obedience is valued over thoughtfulness.
With elections, the reverse, thoughtfulness rather than
obedience, should yield better outcomes.


How about a test of competence to vote rather thanÂ* universal
suffrage?
Some people may pass it at age 10 - others never.

How do you test?


The test would need to determine whether the person had a basic
understanding of the issues on which political parties usually campaign.

Quite. We are forcing 'foreigners' to understand (and live by?) 'our
way' via the Life in the UK' test to gain British Citizenship so why
not to be allowed to vote?

so why not
It will obviously never happen, but would be good if it could be made to
work -

You could do a pretty basic one at the polling station, multi
question, multiple choice, a randomly selected set (adaptive testing)
and if you pass you vote. Even if you learn all the answers to the
questions (like signs and stopping distances in the Highway Code) you
may well still be 'better informed' than before.

Feck, you have to take all sorts of tests to do all sorts of things
that are far less important than choosing the fact of the entire
population!

along with needing a licence to procreate.

Â* ;-)

So the EU vote test could start:

Q1. Do you know what might change and therefore impact you if we leave
the EU?

Q2. Do you believe all the things you have been told about the EU to
be fact?

Q3. Do you believe all the promises that have been made re the
benefits of us leaving the EU to be fact?

Q4. Do you care about concepts (like Sovereignty) than facts (how
having Sovereignty may or may not make a positive difference to us)?


Q5. Do you believe that the stock market will crash as soon as a
decision is made to leave?

Stock market is booming
Only thing I am down on is shell oil - no demand / covid.


Q6. Do you believe that a decision to leave will immediately result in
Armageddon and WW3?

Hasn't yet

etc.

But all the above is EU Referendum based. For covering all elections,
you'd need something far more general - based on a general understanding
of the differences between capitalism and socialism, the relationship
between government spending and taxation, etc.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 18/01/2021 10:15, nightjar wrote:
On 17/01/2021 17:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2021 13:02, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/01/2021 11:01, nightjar wrote:
On 17/01/2021 07:45, David P wrote:
Neuroscientists now claim that the human brain is not
fully developed until age 25-30.Â* We should therefore
raise the voting age to that level.Â* Military service is
different: obedience is valued over thoughtfulness.
With elections, the reverse, thoughtfulness rather than
obedience, should yield better outcomes.

It didn't with Brexit. Leaving seems to have been driven by
emotion, rather than thought.

Are those the thoughts of a remainer? How do you know how all
leavers think?

I don't claim to. However, I have yet to hear one give an argument
for leaving that wasn't either based upon emotion or not backed up by
any facts.

Then you need a new hearing aid, bad.

The most obvious argument is that with the
UK out of the EU the voters will be free to pull
the plug on the govt at the ballot box if it does
something they dont agree with policy wise.
And they did that with Blair and Brown.

Thats not possible with the EU.

I never saw the differences in the political systems as anything more
than a side issue. Neither system is without its faults and both have
advantages. Choosing one over the other is an emotional choice.

This article sets out the factual arguments for and against the two
systems and reaches its own decision:

https://somethingnew.org.uk/news/201...emocratic.html

With a URL like that, there's no need to read it, eh?

--
Max Demian

On 18/01/2021 16:22, T i m wrote:

snip

In general, these people don't have feelings

Yep, typical fanatic remainer who knows how everyone thinks, especially
those with opposing views.

You are utterly myopic.

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Yep, typical fanatic remainer who knows how everyone thinks, especially
those with opposing views.


Err, you are lumping everyone together too. Don't you see that?

--
*Procrastinate now

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

nightjar wrote
Rod Speed wrote
nightjar wrote
Fredxx wrote
nightjar wrote
David P wrote

Neuroscientists now claim that the human brain is not
fully developed until age 25-30. We should therefore
raise the voting age to that level. Military service is
different: obedience is valued over thoughtfulness.
With elections, the reverse, thoughtfulness rather than
obedience, should yield better outcomes.

It didn't with Brexit. Leaving seems to have been driven by emotion,
rather than thought.

Are those the thoughts of a remainer? How do you know how all leavers
think?

I don't claim to. However, I have yet to hear one give an argument for
leaving that wasn't either based upon emotion or not backed up by any
facts.

Then you need a new hearing aid, bad.

The most obvious argument is that with the
UK out of the EU the voters will be free to pull
the plug on the govt at the ballot box if it does
something they dont agree with policy wise.
And they did that with Blair and Brown.

Thats not possible with the EU.

I never saw the differences in the political systems as anything more than
a side issue.

Irrelevant to your dishonest claim that you have yet to
hear one give an argument for leaving that wasn't either
based upon emotion or not backed up by any facts.

Neither system is without its faults and both have advantages. Choosing
one over the other is an emotional choice.

Nope, it can be a rational choice about which of the
faults and advantages you consider more important.

This article sets out the factual arguments for and against the two
systems and reaches its own decision:

https://somethingnew.org.uk/news/201...emocratic.html

Irrelevant to your dishonest claim that you have yet to
hear one give an argument for leaving that wasn't either
based upon emotion or not backed up by any facts.

The other obvious point is that EU policy is
decided by an unelected bureaucracy and
even the EU parliament cant initiate policy.

There is no equivalent of a private members bill.

Obviously, you are not familiar with the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty.

We'll see...

That created the Citizens' Initiative, which states that any proposal that
gets at least one million votes from the citizens of a majority of EU
states has to be considered by the EU Commission.

Thats nothing even remotely like the european parliament
being able to write legislation and have that voted on and
become law if it gets enough votes in the parliament.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
On 18 Jan 2021 at 10:15:32 GMT, nightjar wrote:

On 17/01/2021 17:56, Rod Speed wrote:
"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2021 13:02, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/01/2021 11:01, nightjar wrote:
On 17/01/2021 07:45, David P wrote:
Neuroscientists now claim that the human brain is not
fully developed until age 25-30. We should therefore
raise the voting age to that level. Military service is
different: obedience is valued over thoughtfulness.
With elections, the reverse, thoughtfulness rather than
obedience, should yield better outcomes.

It didn't with Brexit. Leaving seems to have been driven by emotion,
rather than thought.

Are those the thoughts of a remainer? How do you know how all leavers
think?

I don't claim to. However, I have yet to hear one give an argument for
leaving that wasn't either based upon emotion or not backed up by any
facts.
Then you need a new hearing aid, bad.
The most obvious argument is that with the
UK out of the EU the voters will be free to pull
the plug on the govt at the ballot box if it does
something they dont agree with policy wise.
And they did that with Blair and Brown.
Thats not possible with the EU.

I never saw the differences in the political systems as anything more
than a side issue.

It's the main issue.

Neither system is without its faults and both have advantages. Choosing
one over the other is an emotional choice.

No, it indicates whether you believe in democracy or not. In EU countries,
power derives from the state which graciously grants freedoms to citizens.

That is the reverse of how it is (at least supposed to) work here. What
d'ye
think the Glorious Revolution was all about? The French monarchy didn't
learn
that lesson and as a result had its head chopped off. After which they
replaced one absolute monarchy with another. Which seems to have been the
trend in the larger continental states, France, Russia, Germany, Italy,
Spain,
have all had their dictators and revolutions, some within living memory.

So did the UK.

Not that I think that we in this country are particularly special. We just
had the good fortune to be in a position to evolve our governmental system
rather than have it change by revolution.

It was in fact changed by revolution too.

The one exception being the civil war,
after which people saw sense.

Thats very arguable given that the monarchy returned.

The remaining hiccup was James II but that had a
good outcome too.

But could easily not have.

This article sets out the factual arguments for and against the two
systems and reaches its own decision:

https://somethingnew.org.uk/news/201...emocratic.html

The other obvious point is that EU policy is
decided by an unelected bureaucracy and
even the EU parliament cant initiate policy.
There is no equivalent of a private members bill.

Obviously, you are not familiar with the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty.
That created the Citizens' Initiative, which states that any proposal
that gets at least one million votes from the citizens of a majority of
EU states has to be considered by the EU Commission.

Ah, considered, eh? That must be a bit like what happens to the writer of
a
book upon which a screenplay is based. The contract says the writer has
the
right to be "consulted" about changes. After which he is told to **** off.

The writers of that provision to Lisbon knew very well it'd never be
invoked;
it would require cross-border organised political movements and parties to
exist, which they don't and are not likely to in the foreseeable future.
Clearly just a sop to fool people with.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
nightjar wrote:
On 17/01/2021 13:02, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/01/2021 11:01, nightjar wrote:
On 17/01/2021 07:45, David P wrote:
Neuroscientists now claim that the human brain is not
fully developed until age 25-30. We should therefore
raise the voting age to that level. Military service is
different: obedience is valued over thoughtfulness.
With elections, the reverse, thoughtfulness rather than
obedience, should yield better outcomes.

It didn't with Brexit. Leaving seems to have been driven by emotion,
rather than thought.

Are those the thoughts of a remainer? How do you know how all leavers
think?


I don't claim to. However, I have yet to hear one give an argument for
leaving that wasn't either based upon emotion or not backed up by any
facts.

From the very start I asked for concrete advantages of leaving
that would help me in some way. Or indeed others less fortunate.

An important change like that isnt just about you
or those less fortunate.

All I ever heard was airy fairy 'bring back control' and 'sovereignty'
etc. And of course saving on the EU membership fees.

That's a lie. You were also told that the UK would
be free to import whatever it liked from the rest
of the world tariff free if it chose to do that and
that would certainly benefit those less fortunate
with cheaper food and grog and stuff like that.

And I don't control this country.

But those who bother to vote do control who does.

Or have sovereignty.

But the govt does now.

If those we elected always made the right
decisions and the EU bad ones, that might
wash. But this simply isn't the case.

It isnt about always.

I then looked at the public face of the
Leave campaign. Led by self serving
charlatans like Farage and BoJo.

Corse that was never true of remainers, eh ?

And at the right wing parts of the meja which
supported Leave. And it was obvious it was going
to be a disaster for the majority in this country.

But it turns out that it isnt a disaster.

And regardless, the majority who bothered to vote
voted to leave and you get to like that or lump it.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
I don't claim to. However, I have yet to hear one give an argument for
leaving that wasn't either based upon emotion or not backed up by any
facts.

It depends on what you call emotion. Would that include increased demand
on housing? Suppression of wages, especially for the poorly paid.

And sweatshop UK is going to improve wages?

Stopping the dregs of the EU from moving to the UK may well do.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2021 02:05, Fred wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2021 17:05, nightjar wrote:
On 17/01/2021 13:02, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/01/2021 11:01, nightjar wrote:
On 17/01/2021 07:45, David P wrote:
Neuroscientists now claim that the human brain is not
fully developed until age 25-30. We should therefore
raise the voting age to that level. Military service is
different: obedience is valued over thoughtfulness.
With elections, the reverse, thoughtfulness rather than
obedience, should yield better outcomes.

It didn't with Brexit. Leaving seems to have been driven by emotion,
rather than thought.

Are those the thoughts of a remainer? How do you know how all leavers
think?


I don't claim to. However, I have yet to hear one give an argument for
leaving that wasn't either based upon emotion or not backed up by any
facts.

That doesn't mean that such a vote was bad per se.

All socialist votes, after all, are cast emotionally

Mindlessly silly. Attlee wasnt a socialist that way.

(often out of an emotional distaste for the fact that others seem to be
doing better)

But plenty arent.

and certainly in the face of all known facts as to which sorts of
society produce the highest living standards.

Pity about Norway.

Norway is an exception.

Nope, scandinavian living standards are amongst the highest too.

Please let us know the revenue from Statoil (state owned company),
petroleum taxes and how much that equates to each citizen. In fact so much
that the government has a surplus.

And the reason for that is because they
got the govt to do that stuff, socialism.

I'll even help you:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-G...llionaire.html

And that is without personal wealth.

Venezuela is a basket case, but most of that is from sanctions.

And there are plenty of failed capitalist economies too.
And some that worked very well like HongKong before
it was handed back to china.

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 05:33:47 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH more of the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
FredXX to Rodent Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
I then looked at the public face of the Leave campaign. Led by self
serving charlatans like Farage and BoJo. And at the right wing parts of
the meja which supported Leave. And it was obvious it was going to be a
disaster for the majority in this country.

You seem in utter denial that there might be more reasons to their
decision.

Not so. The vast majority - including me
- vote for their own self interests.

You don’t know that with the majority claim.

And many who claim they vote for the good of
the country are simply lying. Or just deluded.

Easy to claim.

I was what you might call a floating vote and yet you still
seem to misunderstand why floating voters might vote in the way they did.

Because they were persuaded to do so by the press they read

Most don’t read any press anymore.

and the glib tongued likes of Farage.

Corse there were never any glib tongues remainers, eh ?

Which was mainly lies, half truths
and predictions stated as facts.

Just as true of you and the remain campaign with claims that
brexit would guarantee economic disaster, all planes would
stop flying, no one would be able to holiday in the EU again etc.

I can add one further reason to the number I posted recently, simply
that remainers who still bleat on about losing are not a pleasant crowd.
Good example is various Lib Dems politician and councillor who used to
post her abusing those who didn't share their same policy. Your post
dismisses why the majority of 'floating' electorate voted for Brexit.

Ah - right. You could try actually reading my post.

Regarding certainty, there is no certainty. No economist has reliably
predicted the economy. What many voters wanted was a change from the
relentless promises from politicians they will build more houses and the
likes of David Cameron promising immigration down to 30,000 per year.

And do you honestly think damaging the economy of the country

You havent established that it will be damaged.

is going to get more houses built?

Fewer will need to be built with fewer EUians showing up.

But it very likely will cut down on immigration. I doubt
any Pakistani wants to come to a country with no work.

There will always be plenty of work.

Despite saying this I'm sure you will dismiss and forget these posts and
in a few months you will say, "All I ever heard was airy fairy 'bring
back control' and 'sovereignty' etc. And of course saving on the EU
membership fees", which will once again be a lie.

Thanks for proving me right. Yet again no tangible
benefits given of why we should have left the EU.

You are lying, again.

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 05:50:36 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


And sweatshop UK is going to improve wages?

Stopping the dregs of the EU from moving to the UK may well do.

NEITHER the UK NOR the EU is any of yours, you clinically insane 86-year-old
senile bull**** artist!

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rodent:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 05:57:06 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the senile cretin's latest troll****

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On 18/01/2021 18:57, Fred wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2021 02:05, Fred wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2021 17:05, nightjar wrote:
On 17/01/2021 13:02, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/01/2021 11:01, nightjar wrote:
On 17/01/2021 07:45, David P wrote:
Neuroscientists now claim that the human brain is not
fully developed until age 25-30.Â* We should therefore
raise the voting age to that level.Â* Military service is
different: obedience is valued over thoughtfulness.
With elections, the reverse, thoughtfulness rather than
obedience, should yield better outcomes.

It didn't with Brexit. Leaving seems to have been driven by
emotion, rather than thought.

Are those the thoughts of a remainer? How do you know how all
leavers think?


I don't claim to. However, I have yet to hear one give an argument
for leaving that wasn't either based upon emotion or not backed up
by any facts.

That doesn't mean that such a vote was bad per se.

All socialist votes, after all, are cast emotionally

Mindlessly silly. Attlee wasnt a socialist that way.

(often out of an emotional distaste for the fact that others seem to
be doing better)

But plenty arent.

and certainly in the face of all known facts as to which sorts of
society produce the highest living standards.

Pity about Norway.

Norway is an exception.

Nope, scandinavian living standards are amongst the highest too.

You have completely missed the point, I can only assume deliberately.
Norway's standard of living has been bolstered by oil revenue, something
enjoyed by some Middle Eastern countries.

Please let us know the revenue from Statoil (state owned company),
petroleum taxes and how much that equates to each citizen. In fact so
much that the government has a surplus.

And the reason for that is because they
got the govt to do that stuff, socialism.

No, because of oil revenue. Although wages are high in socialist
countries, typically so is the cost of living.

I'll even help you:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-G...llionaire.html


And that is without personal wealth.

Venezuela is a basket case, but most of that is from sanctions.

And there are plenty of failed capitalist economies too.
And some that worked very well like HongKong before
it was handed back to china.

On 18/01/2021 17:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Yep, typical fanatic remainer who knows how everyone thinks, especially
those with opposing views.


Err, you are lumping everyone together too. Don't you see that?

Would you describe yourself as a "fanatical remainer"?

They do say exceptions prove the rule :-)

FLUSH the senile cretin's latest troll**** unread

--
Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll."
"MID: .com"

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 23:16:38 +0000, Roger Mills
wrote:

On 17/01/2021 20:49, Chris Green wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:
On 17/01/2021 07:45, David P wrote:
Neuroscientists now claim that the human brain is not
fully developed until age 25-30. We should therefore
raise the voting age to that level. Military service is
different: obedience is valued over thoughtfulness.
With elections, the reverse, thoughtfulness rather than
obedience, should yield better outcomes.


How about a test of competence to vote rather than universal suffrage?
Some people may pass it at age 10 - others never.

How do you test?


The test would need to determine whether the person had a basic
understanding of the issues on which political parties usually campaign.

Quite. We are forcing 'foreigners' to understand (and live by?) 'our
way' via the Life in the UK' test to gain British Citizenship so why
not to be allowed to vote?

Because its not viable to stop those who always
vote for the same party and who never take any
interest in the news from voting.

so why not
It will obviously never happen, but would be good if it could be made to
work -

You could do a pretty basic one at the polling station,
multi question, multiple choice, a randomly selected
set (adaptive testing) and if you pass you vote.

See above.

Even if you learn all the answers to the questions
(like signs and stopping distances in the Highway Code)
you may well still be 'better informed' than before.

But being not so well informed isnt a viable way to
stop some from voting.

Feck, you have to take all sorts of tests to do all
sorts of things that are far less important than
choosing the fact of the entire population!

But its silly to say that those who arent well
informed shouldn't be allowed to vote.

along with needing a licence to procreate.

;-)

So the EU vote test could start:

Q1. Do you know what might change and
therefore impact you if we leave the EU?

No one does when we don't know the detail
of what trade deal will be agreed to.

Q2. Do you believe all the things you
have been told about the EU to be fact?

No one does.

Q3. Do you believe all the promises that have been
made re the benefits of us leaving the EU to be fact?

They can never be promises, at most predictions.

Q4. Do you care about concepts (like Sovereignty) than facts (how
having Sovereignty may or may not make a positive difference to us)?

Not viable to exclude voters on that basis. Plenty don't care
about sovereignty but do care about whether anyone in the
EU who decides that their prospects in the UK are better than
where they are coming from should be free to move to the UK.

etc

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 18/01/2021 13:23, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 17:05:58 +0000, nightjar
wrote:

snip

However, I have yet to hear one give an argument for leaving that
wasn't either based upon emotion or not backed up by any facts.

I really do think most you decided to vote leave did so within seconds
of being given the option

You really don't have a clue why the floating voter might have voted for
Brexit.

I very much doubt many did in depth research before making up their minds.

When change is being offered, it is very easy to make claims about how
that change will benefit you. With the status quo, all you can do is
defend it.

You can also make wild claims about that the change
will result in. And that is precisely what remainers did.

And there are countless examples of when changes are made
purely for the sake of change, they end up making things worse.

And countless examples of change made for a good reason which worked.

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 06:40:03 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 07:09:00 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 06:52:24 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the sick senile cretin's latest troll**** unread


--
JimK addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"I really feel the quality of your trolling has dropped in the last few
months..."
MID:

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2021 18:57, Fred wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2021 02:05, Fred wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 17/01/2021 17:05, nightjar wrote:
On 17/01/2021 13:02, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/01/2021 11:01, nightjar wrote:
On 17/01/2021 07:45, David P wrote:
Neuroscientists now claim that the human brain is not
fully developed until age 25-30. We should therefore
raise the voting age to that level. Military service is
different: obedience is valued over thoughtfulness.
With elections, the reverse, thoughtfulness rather than
obedience, should yield better outcomes.

It didn't with Brexit. Leaving seems to have been driven by
emotion, rather than thought.

Are those the thoughts of a remainer? How do you know how all
leavers think?


I don't claim to. However, I have yet to hear one give an argument
for leaving that wasn't either based upon emotion or not backed up by
any facts.

That doesn't mean that such a vote was bad per se.

All socialist votes, after all, are cast emotionally

Mindlessly silly. Attlee wasnt a socialist that way.

(often out of an emotional distaste for the fact that others seem to
be doing better)

But plenty arent.

and certainly in the face of all known facts as to which sorts of
society produce the highest living standards.

Pity about Norway.

Norway is an exception.

Nope, scandinavian living standards are amongst the highest too.

You have completely missed the point,

Nope.

I can only assume deliberately.

More of your mindless ****.

Norway's standard of living has been bolstered by oil revenue, something
enjoyed by some Middle Eastern countries.

Irrelevant to the claim about higher standard of living claim.

Please let us know the revenue from Statoil (state owned company),
petroleum taxes and how much that equates to each citizen. In fact so
much that the government has a surplus.

And the reason for that is because they
got the govt to do that stuff, socialism.

No, because of oil revenue.

Wrong, as always.

Although wages are high in socialist countries, typically so is the cost
of living.

But the standard of living is one of the highest in the
world, particularly for those at the bottom of society.

I'll even help you:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-G...llionaire.html

And that is without personal wealth.

Venezuela is a basket case, but most of that is from sanctions.

And there are plenty of failed capitalist economies too.
And some that worked very well like HongKong before
it was handed back to china.

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 07:36:49 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard about senile Rodent:
"Rod Speed, a bare faced pig and ignorant ****."
MID:

On 18/01/2021 10:51, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Jan 2021 at 10:15:32 GMT, nightjar wrote:
....
I never saw the differences in the political systems as anything more
than a side issue.

It's the main issue.

For some, no doubt. However, a post-referendum survey found that, for
people whose said they voted leave to regain sovereignty, the main
reason given was that they wanted Britain to be an independent nation;
i.e. isolationism. The second reason given by those who wanted to regain
sovereignty was that they believed the unsubstantiated claims that
Britain would be better off if it could make its own trade deals.
Dissatisfaction with the political system of the EU did not seem to
register highly, even among those who said they wanted to regain
sovereignty. Then, of course, others saw immigration as the main issue,
while around a third of leave voters said they believed that it would
get the NHS an extra £350m a week. For me, the main issue is the damage
that Brexit will do to the UK economy.

Neither system is without its faults and both have
advantages. Choosing one over the other is an emotional choice.

No, it indicates whether you believe in democracy or not.

Even choosing democracy over another political system is an emotional
choice. People who live in democracies tend to think it is the best
system, but democracy brought Hitler to power.

....
That is the reverse of how it is (at least supposed to) work here. What d'ye
think the Glorious Revolution was all about?

It was about a power grab by Parliament. They wanted more power and were
willing to conspire with a foreign power to depose the King to get it.
The Prince of Orange got local support for a pre-emptive strike against
a possible ally of France in the upcoming war. In return he granted
Parliament the power that it craved, but they didn't have many options
had he refused to give them that power.

The Bill of Rights is hailed as a great milestone in the rights of the
people. However, like Magna Carta before it, when written it was only
intended to give rights to a rich and powerful few. That others also
benefited was never part of the original plan.

....
Not that I think that we in this country are particularly special. We just had
the good fortune to be in a position to evolve our governmental system rather
than have it change by revolution....

Which means we have ended up with a system created by a few powerful
people for their own benefit, that has slowly, usually with great
resistance, been subject to some reforms.

Had the system been removed completely and re-written, we might have one
that actually reflects the will of the people. Instead, we have a system
where one party can hold 56.2% of the seats in the Commons with only
43.6% of the popular vote. We also have a completely unelected upper
house, whose members comprise some there by right of birth, those who
hold high rank in the clergy and the rest being political appointees.



--
Colin Bignell

On 20/01/2021 17:23, nightjar wrote:

snip

Which means we have ended up with a system created by a few powerful
people for their own benefit, that has slowly, usually with great
resistance, been subject to some reforms.

Had the system been removed completely and re-written, we might have one
that actually reflects the will of the people. Instead, we have a system
where one party can hold 56.2% of the seats in the Commons with only
43.6% of the popular vote.

If you can think of a way an accountable MP can be elected be my guest.
The alternative in countries that have PR is that it's jobs for the boys
with no accountability towards those who elected him or her.

I would far preferred STV, and I feel the referendum result signified
more a hatred towards the Lib Dems rather than actually understanding
the STV system.

We also have a completely unelected upper
house, whose members comprise some there by right of birth, those who
hold high rank in the clergy and the rest being political appointees.

I especially dislike the right religious figures having tenure, but feel
in many cases the upper house has shown more common sense than the
elected side. While I would like some reform I actually like the
present system, where the upper house can only delay a bill and pass it
back for reconsideration.

On 18/01/2021 14:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
I then looked at the public face of the Leave campaign. Led by self
serving charlatans like Farage and BoJo. And at the right wing parts of
the meja which supported Leave. And it was obvious it was going to be a
disaster for the majority in this country.

You seem in utter denial that there might be more reasons to their
decision.

Not so. The vast majority - including me - vote for their own self
interests. And many who claim they vote for the good of the country are
simply lying. Or just deluded.

Perhaps some of voted so our children can purchase affordable houses and
have respectable income. I suppose that could also be considered
borderline selfish.

I was what you might call a floating vote and yet you still
seem to misunderstand why floating voters might vote in the way they did.

Because they were persuaded to do so by the press they read and the glib
tongued likes of Farage. Which was mainly lies, half truths and
predictions stated as facts.

Therefore you were persuaded by mainly lies, half truths and predictions
of an impending Armageddon and economic meltdown.

I can add one further reason to the number I posted recently, simply
that remainers who still bleat on about losing are not a pleasant crowd.
Good example is various Lib Dems politician and councillor who used to
post her abusing those who didn't share their same policy. Your post
dismisses why the majority of 'floating' electorate voted for Brexit.

Ah - right. You could try actually reading my post.

I did thanks.

Regarding certainty, there is no certainty. No economist has reliably
predicted the economy. What many voters wanted was a change from the
relentless promises from politicians they will build more houses and the
likes of David Cameron promising immigration down to 30,000 per year.

And do you honestly think damaging the economy of the country is going to
get more houses built? But it very likely will cut down on immigration. I
doubt any Pakistani wants to come to a country with no work.

You seem to have forgotten that many have not enjoyed the success of the
booming economy over the past 15 years, however hard you try to make it so.

There would have been no need to build any houses, something both
parties have promised and failed to do, if the various treaties of
accession had not been agreed and signed.

Despite saying this I'm sure you will dismiss and forget these posts and
in a few months you will say, "All I ever heard was airy fairy 'bring
back control' and 'sovereignty' etc. And of course saving on the EU
membership fees", which will once again be a lie.

Thanks for proving me right. Yet again no tangible benefits given of why
we should have left the EU.

Did you read the section you were replying to? That's quite a leap in
believing it proves you right. It really does nothing of the sort.

If there were no benefits of staying for the masses, for those who work
and wish to buy a house, then the only alternative is leave.

We've seen wages rise and housing prices can only fall or rise more
slowly. Why is this so hard to accept as a benefit? Unless you wanted to
enjoy the value of your house increase further to the detriment of those
wanting to get on the housing ladder? As you announced, the reason you
voted to remain was purley selfish.

In article , Fredxx
writes
On 20/01/2021 17:23, nightjar wrote:

snip

Which means we have ended up with a system created by a few powerful
people for their own benefit, that has slowly, usually with great
resistance, been subject to some reforms.
Had the system been removed completely and re-written, we might have
one that actually reflects the will of the people. Instead, we have a
system where one party can hold 56.2% of the seats in the Commons
with only 43.6% of the popular vote.

If you can think of a way an accountable MP can be elected be my guest.
The alternative in countries that have PR is that it's jobs for the
boys with no accountability towards those who elected him or her.

I would far preferred STV, and I feel the referendum result signified
more a hatred towards the Lib Dems rather than actually understanding
the STV system.

We also have a completely unelected upper house, whose members
comprise some there by right of birth, those who hold high rank in
the clergy and the rest being political appointees.

I especially dislike the right religious figures having tenure, but
feel in many cases the upper house has shown more common sense than the
elected side. While I would like some reform I actually like the
present system, where the upper house can only delay a bill and pass it
back for reconsideration.
Well here's my stab at it

First we should clarify its purpose. What the HoL is supposed to do,
regardless of which flavour of government is in power, is to improve
bills, to make their meaning clearer, to remove ambiguities, and
identify possible unintended consequences.

A totally elected house, proposed by many, could lead to a challenge to
the authority of the Commons with Peers claiming to represent
constituents but this seems to be the only alternative which gets put on
the table. Yet there does not appear to be much appetite for such a
House but nevertheless there should be some element of public choice.

I suggest the following:-

a) Size
The overall size of the HOL should be capped somewhere about 600.

b) Hereditary Peers.
Do we still want them? How many? Should they be phased out?

c) Bishops
As long as we have an Established Church then it should be
represented, the number of representatives (currently 12) to be reviewed
perhaps reduced to the 5 Lords Spiritual.

d) Law Lords.
Scrap the Supreme Court and bring them back. Brexit has
shown that the SC is openly putting itself above Parliament. It is
deciding now what Parliament meant rather than what Parliament said. It
has become political as much as judicial.

e) Elected Peers
A portion of the HOL would be elected with each country of the UK
having a number representing its ratio of the total electorate (or
population) rounded down to the nearest integer. Devolved governments
could be involved in allocating their share geographically in their
area, They would simply be elected in order of preference. (Perhaps with
single transferable vote) Members would be elected for a fixed term say
10 years but could then stand for re-election

f) Party Nominees
within 3 months of a general election each party (recognised as such by
the Electoral Commission) could nominate a group of members in
proportion to the number of votes they received rounded down to the
nearest integer (meaning any party getting less than 1% would not get a
seat). These members would serve until three months after the next
General Election (when they could be re-nominated).

g) Other Expertise
How should we control the introduction others into the Lords with a
range of experience and expertise from areas such as business, public
services, foreign affairs, entertainment, other religions sport etc.?
(Note the Honours System exists to recognise them for achievement and
contribution). With a total cap on the size of the HOL this group would
also be capped. They could be for life which would restrict new blood
coming in, for a fixed term such as 15 years, or with a compulsory
retirement age. They could be nominated by public suggestion even voted
for or selected by an appropriate committee.

Reform along these lines would ensure we maintain an element of
tradition, introduce an element of election, keep political appointments
in line with overall party representation in the HOC and still provide
for the inclusion of specific expertise. It would also remove the
current right of party leaders to nominate whoever and as many as they
wish into the Upper House almost at random.

Constructive comments welcome.
--
bert

On 20/01/2021 18:49, bert wrote:
In article , Fredxx
writes
On 20/01/2021 17:23, nightjar wrote:

snip

Which means we have ended up with a system created by a few powerful
people for their own benefit, that has slowly, usually with great
resistance, been subject to some reforms.
Â*Had the system been removed completely and re-written, we might have
oneÂ* that actually reflects the will of the people. Instead, we have
a systemÂ* where one party can hold 56.2% of the seats in the Commons
with onlyÂ* 43.6% of the popular vote.

If you can think of a way an accountable MP can be elected be my
guest. The alternative in countries that have PR is that it's jobs for
the boys with no accountability towards those who elected him or her.

I would far preferred STV, and I feel the referendum result signified
more a hatred towards the Lib Dems rather than actually understanding
the STV system.

We also have a completely unelected upperÂ* house, whose members
comprise some there by right of birth, those whoÂ* hold high rank in
the clergy and the rest being political appointees.

I especially dislike the right religious figures having tenure, but
feel in many cases the upper house has shown more common sense than
the elected side.Â* While I would like some reform I actually like the
present system, where the upper house can only delay a bill and pass
it back for reconsideration.
Well here's my stab at it

First we should clarify its purpose. What the HoL is supposed to do,
regardless of which flavour of government is in power, is to improve
bills, to make their meaning clearer, to remove ambiguities, and
identify possible unintended consequences.

A totally elected house, proposed by many, could lead to a challenge to
the authority of the Commons with Peers claiming to represent
constituents but this seems to be the only alternative which gets put on
the table. Yet there does not appear to be much appetite for such a
House but nevertheless there should be some element of public choice.

I suggest the following:-

a) Size
The overall size of the HOL should be capped somewhere about 600.

Ok

b) Hereditary Peers.
Do we still want them? How many? Should they be phased out?

I think phased out.

c) Bishops
As long as we have an Established Church then it should be
represented, the number of representatives (currently 12) to be reviewed
perhaps reduced to the 5 Lords Spiritual.

No, with one exception. I would accept followers of any denomination,
Santa Claus or other as long as nominated members must come from a group
that profess their atheism. Atheism is supported far more than any
mythical deity. Even ones that are agnostic don't generally align to a
religion.

d) Law Lords.
Scrap the Supreme Court and bring them back. Brexit has
shown that the SC is openly putting itself above Parliament. It is
deciding now what Parliament meant rather than what Parliament said. It
has become political as much as judicial.

I would disagree, SC pulled in the reigns of a dictatorial PM. I accept
the final result was the same but hey.

e) Elected Peers
A portion of the HOL would be elected with each country of the UK
having a number representing its ratio of the total electorate (or
population) rounded down to the nearest integer. Devolved governments
could be involved in allocating their share geographically in their
area, They would simply be elected in order of preference. (Perhaps with
single transferable vote) Members would be elected for a fixed term say
10 years but could then stand for re-election

This is something I find abhorrent. The idea of politics entering a
second house means it will become playground for attention. The current
strength of the HOL is that it represent experience and not pandering to
the public. We have the HOC for that.

f) Party Nominees
within 3 months of a general election each party (recognised as such by
the Electoral Commission) could nominate a group of membersÂ* in
proportion to the number of votes they received rounded down to the
nearest integer (meaning any party getting less than 1% would not get a
seat). These members would serve until three months after the next
General Election (when they could be re-nominated).

I prefer this, and most people seem happy with the names put forward. It
is rare to see negative media attention towards a proposed candidate.

g) Other Expertise
How should we control the introduction others into the Lords with a
range of experience and expertise from areas such as business, public
services, foreign affairs, entertainment, other religions sport etc.?
(Note the Honours System exists to recognise them for achievement and
contribution). With a total cap on the size of the HOL this group would
also be capped. They could be for life which would restrict new blood
coming in, for a fixed term such as 15 years, or with a compulsory
retirement age. They could be nominated by public suggestion even voted
for or selected by an appropriate committee.

I see no reason why these cannot be appointed, perhaps ones that have
worked in an advisory capacity and not aligned to any party. We could
have political and non-political appointees.

Reform along these lines would ensure we maintain an element of
tradition, introduce an element of election, keep political appointments
in line with overall party representation in the HOC and still provide
for the inclusion of specific expertise. It would also remove the
current right of party leaders to nominate whoever and as many as they
wish into the Upper House almost at random.

As I said we have enough political bickering as it is. I'm tired of the
posturing that comes with (re)election.
Constructive comments welcome.

I don't feel the HOL is as important as the HOC. They do not formulate
policy, not can they stop bills being passed. There is also the
principle that any proposal in a manifesto is accepted.

At the very worst the HOL can delay legislation, they cannot stop it. It
is effective at weeding out extreme or ill conceived laws from knee-jerk
reactions to public outcries and pointing out deficiencies. That only
happens because of the tenure of its members, it would cease to play
that role as soon as you have elected members.

nightjar wrote
Tim Streater wrote
nightjar wrote

I never saw the differences in the political systems as anything more
than a side issue.

It's the main issue.

For some, no doubt. However, a post-referendum survey found that, for
people whose said they voted leave to regain sovereignty, the main reason
given was that they wanted Britain to be an independent nation;

But surveys are notoriously unreliable.

i.e. isolationism.

Thats dishonest, again.

The second reason given by those who wanted to regain sovereignty was that
they believed the unsubstantiated claims that Britain would be better off
if it could make its own trade deals.

No reason why that can't be true given that the range of national
interests are quite different with the UK and the whole EU as a whole.

Dissatisfaction with the political system of the EU did not seem to
register highly, even among those who said they wanted to regain
sovereignty.

But it's less clear how many felt that but the survey
question didnt actually put that alternative clearly.

Then, of course, others saw immigration as the main issue, while around a
third of leave voters said they believed that it would get the NHS an
extra £350m a week. For me, the main issue is the damage that Brexit will
do to the UK economy.

And that is again an unsubstantiated claim.

Neither system is without its faults and both have advantages. Choosing
one over the other is an emotional choice.

No, it indicates whether you believe in democracy or not.

Even choosing democracy over another political system is an emotional
choice.

Nope, a rational one.

People who live in democracies tend to think it is the best system, but
democracy brought Hitler to power.

It didnt actually. What brought Hitler to power was
Hindenburg being able to decide who was Chancellor
and the Reichstag being able to vote itself out of existence.

The Nazi party vote and the number of seats actually
dropped in the last general election before Hindenburg
decided to make Hitler Chancellor.

...
That is the reverse of how it is (at least supposed to) work here. What
d'ye think the Glorious Revolution was all about?

It was about a power grab by Parliament.

Bull****.

They wanted more power and were willing to conspire with a foreign power
to depose the King to get it.

That mangles the real story utterly.

The Prince of Orange got local support for a pre-emptive strike against a
possible ally of France in the upcoming war. In return he granted
Parliament the power that it craved, but they didn't have many options had
he refused to give them that power.

The Bill of Rights is hailed as a great milestone in the rights of the
people. However, like Magna Carta before it, when written it was only
intended to give rights to a rich and powerful few. That others also
benefited was never part of the original plan.

Irrelevant to the fact that some got real political power.

...
Not that I think that we in this country are particularly special. We
just had the good fortune to be in a position to evolve our governmental
system rather than have it change by revolution....

Which means we have ended up with a system created by a few powerful
people for their own benefit, that has slowly, usually with great
resistance, been subject to some reforms.

But means that when the voters are ****ed off enough about
what the current govt has got up to, they can be given the
bums rush at the ballot box. Not even possible with unelected
EU bureaucrats who mostly have **** all real world
experience in the field they make policy decisions about.

Had the system been removed completely and re-written, we might have one
that actually reflects the will of the people.

It still does.

Instead, we have a system where one party can hold 56.2% of the seats in
the Commons with only 43.6% of the popular vote.

And its done like that because the majority who bothered to vote in
the referendum on that issue said that thats what they wanted to keep.

We also have a completely unelected upper house, whose members comprise
some there by right of birth, those who hold high rank in the clergy and
the rest being political appointees.

But which has no capacity to decide policy whatever.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 07:18:47 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Fredxx
writes
On 20/01/2021 17:23, nightjar wrote:

snip

Which means we have ended up with a system created by a few powerful
people for their own benefit, that has slowly, usually with great
resistance, been subject to some reforms.
Had the system been removed completely and re-written, we might have
one that actually reflects the will of the people. Instead, we have a
system where one party can hold 56.2% of the seats in the Commons with
only 43.6% of the popular vote.

If you can think of a way an accountable MP can be elected be my guest.
The alternative in countries that have PR is that it's jobs for the boys
with no accountability towards those who elected him or her.

I would far preferred STV, and I feel the referendum result signified more
a hatred towards the Lib Dems rather than actually understanding the STV
system.

We also have a completely unelected upper house, whose members comprise
some there by right of birth, those who hold high rank in the clergy
and the rest being political appointees.

I especially dislike the right religious figures having tenure, but feel
in many cases the upper house has shown more common sense than the elected
side. While I would like some reform I actually like the present system,
where the upper house can only delay a bill and pass it back for
reconsideration.
Well here's my stab at it

First we should clarify its purpose. What the HoL is supposed to do,
regardless of which flavour of government is in power, is to improve
bills, to make their meaning clearer, to remove ambiguities, and identify
possible unintended consequences.

The reality is that it cant do that given those who sit there.

A totally elected house, proposed by many, could lead to a challenge to
the authority of the Commons with Peers claiming to represent constituents
but this seems to be the only alternative which gets put on the table.

The other obvious alternative is a
unicameral parliament, just the house.

Yet there does not appear to be much appetite for such a House but
nevertheless there should be some element of public choice.

I suggest the following:-

a) Size
The overall size of the HOL should be capped somewhere about 600.

b) Hereditary Peers.
Do we still want them? How many? Should they be phased out?

c) Bishops
As long as we have an Established Church then it should be
represented, the number of representatives (currently 12) to be reviewed
perhaps reduced to the 5 Lords Spiritual.

d) Law Lords.
Scrap the Supreme Court and bring them back. Brexit has
shown that the SC is openly putting itself above Parliament. It is
deciding now what Parliament meant rather than what Parliament said. It
has become political as much as judicial.

e) Elected Peers
A portion of the HOL would be elected with each country of the UK
having a number representing its ratio of the total electorate (or
population) rounded down to the nearest integer. Devolved governments
could be involved in allocating their share geographically in their area,
They would simply be elected in order of preference. (Perhaps with single
transferable vote) Members would be elected for a fixed term say 10 years
but could then stand for re-election

f) Party Nominees
within 3 months of a general election each party (recognised as such by
the Electoral Commission) could nominate a group of members in proportion
to the number of votes they received rounded down to the nearest integer
(meaning any party getting less than 1% would not get a seat). These
members would serve until three months after the next General Election
(when they could be re-nominated).

g) Other Expertise
How should we control the introduction others into the Lords with a range
of experience and expertise from areas such as business, public services,
foreign affairs, entertainment, other religions sport etc.? (Note the
Honours System exists to recognise them for achievement and contribution).
With a total cap on the size of the HOL this group would also be capped.
They could be for life which would restrict new blood coming in, for a
fixed term such as 15 years, or with a compulsory retirement age. They
could be nominated by public suggestion even voted for or selected by an
appropriate committee.

Makes more sense to scrap it completely.

Reform along these lines would ensure we maintain an element of tradition,
introduce an element of election, keep political appointments in line with
overall party representation in the HOC and still provide for the
inclusion of specific expertise. It would also remove the current right of
party leaders to nominate whoever and as many as they wish into the Upper
House almost at random.

Constructive comments welcome.

Too radical by far.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 07:30:31 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Bill Wright to Rodent Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

In article ,
nightjar wrote:
Which means we have ended up with a system created by a few powerful
people for their own benefit, that has slowly, usually with great
resistance, been subject to some reforms.

Had the system been removed completely and re-written, we might have one
that actually reflects the will of the people. Instead, we have a system
where one party can hold 56.2% of the seats in the Commons with only
43.6% of the popular vote. We also have a completely unelected upper
house, whose members comprise some there by right of birth, those who
hold high rank in the clergy and the rest being political appointees.


The real trick, of course, is the rich and powerful persuading the poorest
half that all their woes are caused by other poor. Preferably of another
race. Get them at one another's throats, and the rich and powerful keep
the status quo. And easier than ever to do now with social media.

--
*A nest isn't empty until all their stuff is out of the attic

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

David P wrote:
Neuroscientists now claim that the human brain is not
fully developed until age 25-30. We should therefore
raise the voting age to that level. Military service is
different: obedience is valued over thoughtfulness.
With elections, the reverse, thoughtfulness rather than
obedience, should yield better outcomes.



Right to vote should be linked to paying direct taxes, with a few
exceptions. Only those paying Council Tax ( actually paying it) should be
permitted to vote in Local Elections. For National elections, paying income
tax.