I have loved following Brexit but I can't watch the election campaign. It's like those horror movies where the dumb chick who hears a scream in the basement, goes to investigate in the dark by herself instead of calling the police or spending the night at a friend's house.
The Tories, the media, the underhand 'deals' for seats, Corbyn, Farage, Bojo, it's all just one big disingenious clusterfook. Quite appalling and amazing that the once supreme example of democracy has fallen so hard and so fast.
I do not understand how the Russian election interference report is not on the front page of every newspaper every day until they publish it. Our media is failing at their most basic role.
It's a stupid question anyway because loads of countries do democracy better than we do, but very few people are experts in the democratic systems of other countries and so capable of answering. And the ones we know the most about tend to be countries like the US (total clusterfook) and random tinpot dictatorships.
Anyone here know how the electoral system works in Finland? Probably not.
Yes, what dreadful bad faith, wanting voters to be informed about Russian interference in UK politics before they cast their votes. Totally unreasonable. They should totally just STFU.
I'm failing to get whipped in to frenzy about the 'delay' caused by following correct process pre-publication pancakes. It allows anti-Tory to spin every evil known to mankind to their advantage and any actions required to limit a repeat won't be of particular worth for the current election...
Lady P - what change in voting behaviour do you think will result from people knowing that their advertising on facebook may have been targeted by Russian bots/the billboard poster they've seen was financed by Russian money...
I think our democracy is actually pretty good. especially if you think about democracy more broadly than just election systems. eg media freedom and quality, corruption levels (we tend to do pretty well if you look at the material produced by people who try to measure corruption levels country to country).
I appreciate that if you don't like first past the post, then you might think our democracy inadequate.
Yes the Russia interference report will be completely empty and won't change any voting behaviour, that's why it definitely can't be published until after the election and everyone should just shut up and stop talking about it.
"I don't know, surely that is up to the voter to decide. I can't really see any reasonable argument for choosing not to inform people."
Voters don't get to dictate the process by which sensitive reports relating to intelligence are cleared and released. Getting it wrong can have serious human consequences for covert sources risking their lives to provide information. Precipitous publication risks exposing those who have already helped, and discouraging those who might help in future.
Any argument against FPTP by a remainer makes me lol. 3.88m votes for UKIP providing 1 seat; 2.41m votes for LD providing 8 seats; 1.45m cotes for SNP providing 56 seats; DUP 184k votes 8 seats. Could have been one hell of a hard Brexit...
Yeah, 2.41m votes for the Lib Dems = 8 seats, vs 11.33m votes for the Tories = 331 seats and 9.35m votes for Labour = 232 seats.
That means the Tories got one seat per 35,000 votes and Labour got one seat per 40,000 votes, whereas the Lib Dems got one seat per 301,000 votes.
I am pretty relaxed about UKIP getting seats in Parliament tbh, for three reasons. Firstly, if enough people vote for UKIP then they should have adequate representation. A full range of views should be properly represented in parliament. In England at least, voters essentially have a choice between the Tories and Labour (which makes it even more galling when millions of remain voters are told that if they voted for the Tories or Labour they voted in favour of Brexit). Secondly, if the electoral system changed people's voting patterns would change. I know loads of people who voted Labour in 2015 who would have voted Lib Dem or Green if it wasn't a "wasted vote" in their constituency. And thirdly, the "but but but what about UKIP!" argument doesn't really hold water when you have people like John Redwood and Mark Francois in parliament. Part of the reason why UKIP has collapsed is because the Tories are basically UKIP now.
Any argument about "but but but what about [insert MP name] in parliament when they have specifically garnered more votes in their local constituency than any other person...
Exactly how anyone can claim our democracy to be anything other than a sham is beyond me, we have an old woman whose family we keep in palaces and helicopters at great expense under a legend head of state badge.
Our second house contains grace and favour buddies of current and former prime ministers, not to mention the sky pixie botherers, totally unelected and undemocratic and realistically a choice of two utterly shit kinds of potential governments.
We have a bloody dreadful faux democracy and we are paying for it now by being completely deadlocked and polarised.
The thing the frothers (and indeed the general public) can't fathom is that maybe people like Grieve think the Russian report should be published because, whatever it says, it is important information which should not be suppressed.
They all go "aha! It's relatively innocuous, you have failed!" as if the point of pushing for publication was to damage the government.
It will be published Fosco - having passed exactly the same process as all such reports, in similar timescales. Grieve et al want to set aside process as they believe there is political ammunition to further their own personal agenda, not merely for the sake of the public (who on the whole wouldn't believe they are too simple to spot fake news and therein be hoodwinked in to voting in a particular way by external influence)...
Any argument about "but but but what about [insert MP name] in parliament when they have specifically garnered more votes in their local constituency than any other person...
1. Because of the way the system works.
2. Often fewer votes than those won by other parties whose views are more broadly aligned (see any rabid Brexiter in a remain constituency, for example).
3. We are entitled to question whether the system is fair and results in adequate representation for a majority of the electorate.
Does anyone believe that if the report completely debunked all allegations of russian interference with the referendum it wouldn't already have been published?
Nine Russian businessman named in the report are apparently recent donors to the Conservative Party but there is absolutely NOTHING in it that's relevant to this election and calls to accelerate* its publication are pure partisanship.
* It has actually been cleared by everyone and the decision to adhere to the "normal" timescale is entirely Downing Street's discretion
It will be published Fosco - having passed exactly the same process as all such reports, in similar timescales.
Do you actually think people listen to this bollocks and believe it? The people who actually know this process say that everything that needs to be done for its publication has been done. It is being blocked.
You presumably thought the 5 week prorogation was perfectly standard practice too.
I understood it was LD that favoured AV for the purposes of the 2011 ref (albeit AV+ and STV backed previously) - presumably as a better than nothing step in the right direction. Are you serious about another referendum on it?! EUref has proved that a large proportion of the electorate aren't particularly clued up...
Be interested to know the usual timescales on Intelligence and Security Committee Special Reports from being finalised, referred to PM and then published to the House...
As I was driving to the garage, there were people standing by the road with signs saying "Vote Halfon" "get Brexit done".... I couldn't help myself.... I gave them the finger as I went past :(
This is going to attract allt the peverts of Rof. Of which I am one.
Like sharks to blood.
Notice; almost most sharks are not dangerous. At all. however, You can swim with them without danger. However be aware that big sharks follow small sharks to food. Not food exactly. Sharks arei curious. So they bite to taste. For information. They have poor sight but good smell. This is why they sense when there is food from miles away. Sharks only ned to fees once ever few weeks.
However, as they are unpredictable (when was rhe last time you took a shark to the Savoy/) it is strongly advised that ou get out of the water when sharks are in the vicinity. Man eaters follow 'safe' sharks.
On a day trip in Kruger where my brother and I, we were doing it ourselves. But I got speaking to a guide in the evening and asked him if one was in the bush on foot what are the chances at making it to safety [edge of Kruger]? Afikaaner bushman. Carrying a rifle and a Berretta pistol. He looked at me (no money intended) and replied (in all seriousness)
'At night? Tonight? That would be about zero. I would not worry about the lions. But a leopard will probably get you.~
Are you serious about another referendum on it?! EUref has proved that a large proportion of the electorate aren't particularly clued up...
I don't know exactly what I think the best way of deciding should be. But one of the problems with referendums is that once you start having them, it's difficult to stop.
I blame Cameron for agreeing to hold the referendum if he got a majority when he never really thought he would have to go through with it, and for his failure to set any real ground rules. But I think we were heading towards a referendum anyway. Some people had been clamouring for one for years, and Tony Blair probably erred in suggesting that we would have a referendum around the time of the Lisbon Treaty and then not holding one. The Lib Dems previously supported a referendum on continued membership, and parliament had already legislated for any further transfer of power to the EU to be subject to a referendum.
So yeah, I think that we could not have avoided holding a referendum forever, and the biggest issue was the shoddy way in which it was done.
I certainly think that having voted to leave the EU, we cannot now remain in the EU without holding another referendum, and similarly, having voted to maintain the first past the post system, we cannot now change the electoral system without having a further referendum on an alternative. (And the disadvantage of putting the AV system specifically to a referendum is that people have already voted against that once.)
Our democratic system has historically been based on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, and the system itself has done a brilliant job of preserving itself by protecting that principle recently. But is the principle necessarily correct? Is parliamentary sovereignty necessarily the best lynchpin for democracy in the UK when so many people feel unrepresented?
I think we either need to change the electoral system so that the whole electorate is properly represented in parliament and people feel less of a burning need to be consulted on specific issues such as EU membership (but as I said above, such a move would probably need to be put to a referendum), or we need to move to more direct democracy but with better safeguards and more checks and balances. I think it works well in Ireland, and because people are used to voting in referendums and understand that their vote counts, they inform themselves properly and take their duty seriously. *
Of those two possibilities I favour the former, but wouldn't be averse to a combination of both if we can find a way to ensure that people are better informed about the issues they are voting on. Certainly any alternative to the status quo that is put to a referendum needs to have all the major details worked out first, which wasn't done prior to the EU referendum. Sure, the negotiations didn't (and couldn't) start untli after the result was known and Article 50 was triggered, but anyone with a reasonable understanding of EU law could have explained broadly what the possible options would be, and the advantages and drawbacks of each.
Queenie - no I meant UKIP because we were speculating about how many seats the various parties would have got in 2015 under a different electoral system. (Which is of course impossible to know because changing the electoral system would also change people's voting behaviour in unpredictable ways.)
"Does anyone believe that if the report completely debunked all allegations of russian interference with the referendum it wouldn't already have been published?"
If it did I am sure they could have pushed through publication.
I'm equally certain that Grieve would not have been pushing for it to be released before the election if it had debunked everything.
The fact that it hasn't been pushed through faster than any other report of this type doesn't so much point to some smoking gun as just that it isn't a high priority for the government.
I'm also deeply wary about the "everything that needs to be done for its publication has been done". The unredacted report is supposed to be sent to the Prime Minister and then it is for the government to liaise with the security services about the redactions that need to be made to the report. I'm sure the security services signed off on the veracity of the report - but either the ISC has chosen not to follow the process laid down in legislation over redactions or there is a bit of a half truth in their public statements.
Either way, we all know there has been Russian interference, or at least anyone who was ever going to be convinced by the report already believes there has been Russian interference.
"According to the EIU Democracy Index, the UK is ranked 14th, just one place ahead of Uruguay (which outscores the UK in all categories apart from political participation and political culture). The UK is also just 4 places above Malta (which outscore the UK in functioning of government and political culture). That's Malta where the govt (allegedly) kills investigative journalists."
And the only country with a higher GDP than us that ranks higher in the index is Germany which is a single place above.
The Irish state has used state agents to murder fellow citizens. I'm not sure that a handful of actions by the security services is a barometer of democracy in a country
What is clear is that Britain is an insular, uncultured, mono-lingual, racist (to a great extent) country and is the laughing stock of Europe. Having lived, worked and travelled on the Continent I am ashamed at what is happening to the this country.
Boris Johnson and his cabinet are security risks, having been recruited, knowingly or not, as agents by the Russian secret services.
Corbyn is also a security risk as he supports Islamic terrorists, the IRA and Marxist-Leninist South and Central American dictators and is an old tankie.
The country is in decline and it sadly looks like we are leaving the EU to become a third-world off-shore tax haven.
How one should vote is an individual choice, but a vote for the Tories is like voting for the NSDAP in the 1930s in Germany.
How one should vote is an individual choice, but a vote for the Tories is like voting for the NSDAP in the 1930s in Germany.
100% this.
And I voted Cameron twice.
Farage was hilariously being all “Is this Venezuela?” today without realising the U.K. is the example of a drunk driver these days for every democratic society across the world.
Why shouldn't MPs be able to speak in the event of a conflict, provided they give disclosure? If it were any other way then it could be used as a tool to shut debate down, by claiming an MP could not participate in a debate because of a tangential conflict.
0
0
I have loved following Brexit but I can't watch the election campaign. It's like those horror movies where the dumb chick who hears a scream in the basement, goes to investigate in the dark by herself instead of calling the police or spending the night at a friend's house.
The Tories, the media, the underhand 'deals' for seats, Corbyn, Farage, Bojo, it's all just one big disingenious clusterfook. Quite appalling and amazing that the once supreme example of democracy has fallen so hard and so fast.
0
0
The big trick was ever making anyone think Britain was a beacon of democracy and good government. It never was
0
0
which countries do you think do democracy better?
0
0
don't forget it was looking good last time as well.
0
0
what clubbers said.
i have faith in JRM, IDS, etc to deliver a clusterfook in the near future before the voting day.
0
0
Ireland for sure.
New Zealand.
Probably France as well (although it has plenty of corrupt politicians, like most places).
0
0
What a bizarre response diceman
Why do any of them need to do it better for this country not to be a feudal society masquerading as a functioning 21st century democracy?
0
0
I do not understand how the Russian election interference report is not on the front page of every newspaper every day until they publish it. Our media is failing at their most basic role.
0
0
this is a generous way of describing pretty much every one of his posts, rather than this specific whataboutery one
0
0
It's a stupid question anyway because loads of countries do democracy better than we do, but very few people are experts in the democratic systems of other countries and so capable of answering. And the ones we know the most about tend to be countries like the US (total clusterfook) and random tinpot dictatorships.
Anyone here know how the electoral system works in Finland? Probably not.
0
0
Heh @ "bad actors".
Yes, what dreadful bad faith, wanting voters to be informed about Russian interference in UK politics before they cast their votes. Totally unreasonable. They should totally just STFU.
Can you even hear yourself?
0
0
I'm failing to get whipped in to frenzy about the 'delay' caused by following correct process pre-publication pancakes. It allows anti-Tory to spin every evil known to mankind to their advantage and any actions required to limit a repeat won't be of particular worth for the current election...
0
0
Lady P - what change in voting behaviour do you think will result from people knowing that their advertising on facebook may have been targeted by Russian bots/the billboard poster they've seen was financed by Russian money...
0
0
I think our democracy is actually pretty good. especially if you think about democracy more broadly than just election systems. eg media freedom and quality, corruption levels (we tend to do pretty well if you look at the material produced by people who try to measure corruption levels country to country).
I appreciate that if you don't like first past the post, then you might think our democracy inadequate.
0
0
I agree with Diceman.
0
0
I don't know, surely that is up to the voter to decide. I can't really see any reasonable argument for choosing not to inform people.
Duh. Obviously.
0
0
Yes the Russia interference report will be completely empty and won't change any voting behaviour, that's why it definitely can't be published until after the election and everyone should just shut up and stop talking about it.
0
0
"I don't know, surely that is up to the voter to decide. I can't really see any reasonable argument for choosing not to inform people."
Voters don't get to dictate the process by which sensitive reports relating to intelligence are cleared and released. Getting it wrong can have serious human consequences for covert sources risking their lives to provide information. Precipitous publication risks exposing those who have already helped, and discouraging those who might help in future.
0
0
Any argument against FPTP by a remainer makes me lol. 3.88m votes for UKIP providing 1 seat; 2.41m votes for LD providing 8 seats; 1.45m cotes for SNP providing 56 seats; DUP 184k votes 8 seats. Could have been one hell of a hard Brexit...
0
0
Yeah, 2.41m votes for the Lib Dems = 8 seats, vs 11.33m votes for the Tories = 331 seats and 9.35m votes for Labour = 232 seats.
That means the Tories got one seat per 35,000 votes and Labour got one seat per 40,000 votes, whereas the Lib Dems got one seat per 301,000 votes.
I am pretty relaxed about UKIP getting seats in Parliament tbh, for three reasons. Firstly, if enough people vote for UKIP then they should have adequate representation. A full range of views should be properly represented in parliament. In England at least, voters essentially have a choice between the Tories and Labour (which makes it even more galling when millions of remain voters are told that if they voted for the Tories or Labour they voted in favour of Brexit). Secondly, if the electoral system changed people's voting patterns would change. I know loads of people who voted Labour in 2015 who would have voted Lib Dem or Green if it wasn't a "wasted vote" in their constituency. And thirdly, the "but but but what about UKIP!" argument doesn't really hold water when you have people like John Redwood and Mark Francois in parliament. Part of the reason why UKIP has collapsed is because the Tories are basically UKIP now.
0
0
Any argument about "but but but what about [insert MP name] in parliament when they have specifically garnered more votes in their local constituency than any other person...
0
0
Exactly how anyone can claim our democracy to be anything other than a sham is beyond me, we have an old woman whose family we keep in palaces and helicopters at great expense under a legend head of state badge.
Our second house contains grace and favour buddies of current and former prime ministers, not to mention the sky pixie botherers, totally unelected and undemocratic and realistically a choice of two utterly shit kinds of potential governments.
We have a bloody dreadful faux democracy and we are paying for it now by being completely deadlocked and polarised.
0
0
The thing the frothers (and indeed the general public) can't fathom is that maybe people like Grieve think the Russian report should be published because, whatever it says, it is important information which should not be suppressed.
They all go "aha! It's relatively innocuous, you have failed!" as if the point of pushing for publication was to damage the government.
0
0
It will be published Fosco - having passed exactly the same process as all such reports, in similar timescales. Grieve et al want to set aside process as they believe there is political ammunition to further their own personal agenda, not merely for the sake of the public (who on the whole wouldn't believe they are too simple to spot fake news and therein be hoodwinked in to voting in a particular way by external influence)...
0
0
1. Because of the way the system works.
2. Often fewer votes than those won by other parties whose views are more broadly aligned (see any rabid Brexiter in a remain constituency, for example).
3. We are entitled to question whether the system is fair and results in adequate representation for a majority of the electorate.
0
0
I totally agree with your point 3 Lady P - we should all question whether the system is fit for purpose. I am all for electoral reform and AV...
0
0
Does anyone believe that if the report completely debunked all allegations of russian interference with the referendum it wouldn't already have been published?
0
0
Nine Russian businessman named in the report are apparently recent donors to the Conservative Party but there is absolutely NOTHING in it that's relevant to this election and calls to accelerate* its publication are pure partisanship.
* It has actually been cleared by everyone and the decision to adhere to the "normal" timescale is entirely Downing Street's discretion
0
0
My main bugbear with AV is that it was proposed as the alternative without any real consideration being given to other options.
I would like to see a process of electoral reform where all the available options are thoroughly explored, in consultation with the electorate.
AV just feels like it was proposed by the Tories as being less likely to harm their electoral prospects than any other system.
0
0
anotherday...13 Nov 19 10:19
Reply |
Report
It will be published Fosco - having passed exactly the same process as all such reports, in similar timescales.
Do you actually think people listen to this bollocks and believe it? The people who actually know this process say that everything that needs to be done for its publication has been done. It is being blocked.
You presumably thought the 5 week prorogation was perfectly standard practice too.
0
0
I understood it was LD that favoured AV for the purposes of the 2011 ref (albeit AV+ and STV backed previously) - presumably as a better than nothing step in the right direction. Are you serious about another referendum on it?! EUref has proved that a large proportion of the electorate aren't particularly clued up...
0
0
What pancakes and Fosco said FFS
PS heh at UKIP. You meant BXP, right?
I don't even know who the UKIP leader is this week. Thought they'd given up.
0
0
No Queenie - I meant UKIP.
Be interested to know the usual timescales on Intelligence and Security Committee Special Reports from being finalised, referred to PM and then published to the House...
0
0
was referring to anna's 10.05
0
0
As I was driving to the garage, there were people standing by the road with signs saying "Vote Halfon" "get Brexit done".... I couldn't help myself.... I gave them the finger as I went past :(
0
0
"this election?
This is going to attract allt the peverts of Rof. Of which I am one.
Like sharks to blood.
Notice; almost most sharks are not dangerous. At all. however, You can swim with them without danger. However be aware that big sharks follow small sharks to food. Not food exactly. Sharks arei curious. So they bite to taste. For information. They have poor sight but good smell. This is why they sense when there is food from miles away. Sharks only ned to fees once ever few weeks.
However, as they are unpredictable (when was rhe last time you took a shark to the Savoy/) it is strongly advised that ou get out of the water when sharks are in the vicinity. Man eaters follow 'safe' sharks.
On a day trip in Kruger where my brother and I, we were doing it ourselves. But I got speaking to a guide in the evening and asked him if one was in the bush on foot what are the chances at making it to safety [edge of Kruger]? Afikaaner bushman. Carrying a rifle and a Berretta pistol. He looked at me (no money intended) and replied (in all seriousness)
'At night? Tonight? That would be about zero. I would not worry about the lions. But a leopard will probably get you.~
0
0
I don't know exactly what I think the best way of deciding should be. But one of the problems with referendums is that once you start having them, it's difficult to stop.
I blame Cameron for agreeing to hold the referendum if he got a majority when he never really thought he would have to go through with it, and for his failure to set any real ground rules. But I think we were heading towards a referendum anyway. Some people had been clamouring for one for years, and Tony Blair probably erred in suggesting that we would have a referendum around the time of the Lisbon Treaty and then not holding one. The Lib Dems previously supported a referendum on continued membership, and parliament had already legislated for any further transfer of power to the EU to be subject to a referendum.
So yeah, I think that we could not have avoided holding a referendum forever, and the biggest issue was the shoddy way in which it was done.
I certainly think that having voted to leave the EU, we cannot now remain in the EU without holding another referendum, and similarly, having voted to maintain the first past the post system, we cannot now change the electoral system without having a further referendum on an alternative. (And the disadvantage of putting the AV system specifically to a referendum is that people have already voted against that once.)
Our democratic system has historically been based on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, and the system itself has done a brilliant job of preserving itself by protecting that principle recently. But is the principle necessarily correct? Is parliamentary sovereignty necessarily the best lynchpin for democracy in the UK when so many people feel unrepresented?
I think we either need to change the electoral system so that the whole electorate is properly represented in parliament and people feel less of a burning need to be consulted on specific issues such as EU membership (but as I said above, such a move would probably need to be put to a referendum), or we need to move to more direct democracy but with better safeguards and more checks and balances. I think it works well in Ireland, and because people are used to voting in referendums and understand that their vote counts, they inform themselves properly and take their duty seriously. *
Of those two possibilities I favour the former, but wouldn't be averse to a combination of both if we can find a way to ensure that people are better informed about the issues they are voting on. Certainly any alternative to the status quo that is put to a referendum needs to have all the major details worked out first, which wasn't done prior to the EU referendum. Sure, the negotiations didn't (and couldn't) start untli after the result was known and Article 50 was triggered, but anyone with a reasonable understanding of EU law could have explained broadly what the possible options would be, and the advantages and drawbacks of each.
0
0
Queenie - no I meant UKIP because we were speculating about how many seats the various parties would have got in 2015 under a different electoral system. (Which is of course impossible to know because changing the electoral system would also change people's voting behaviour in unpredictable ways.)
0
0
To the OP, that’s what Cameron thought when he agreed to the Brexit referendum.
He thought that the Leave lobby wouldn’t stand a chance. He got that badly wrong.
I hope Johnson hasn’t made the same error.
0
0
"Does anyone believe that if the report completely debunked all allegations of russian interference with the referendum it wouldn't already have been published?"
If it did I am sure they could have pushed through publication.
I'm equally certain that Grieve would not have been pushing for it to be released before the election if it had debunked everything.
The fact that it hasn't been pushed through faster than any other report of this type doesn't so much point to some smoking gun as just that it isn't a high priority for the government.
I'm also deeply wary about the "everything that needs to be done for its publication has been done". The unredacted report is supposed to be sent to the Prime Minister and then it is for the government to liaise with the security services about the redactions that need to be made to the report. I'm sure the security services signed off on the veracity of the report - but either the ISC has chosen not to follow the process laid down in legislation over redactions or there is a bit of a half truth in their public statements.
Either way, we all know there has been Russian interference, or at least anyone who was ever going to be convinced by the report already believes there has been Russian interference.
0
0
I agree with diceman.
Rayh8ers gonna h8.
0
0
As do all major nations. Easy to swipe from the side whilst sucking at the teat.
0
0
"According to the EIU Democracy Index, the UK is ranked 14th, just one place ahead of Uruguay (which outscores the UK in all categories apart from political participation and political culture). The UK is also just 4 places above Malta (which outscore the UK in functioning of government and political culture). That's Malta where the govt (allegedly) kills investigative journalists."
And the only country with a higher GDP than us that ranks higher in the index is Germany which is a single place above.
0
0
So it’s easier to have democracy in a small country. Likely to be more homogenous and voters feel closer to leaders. That’s not saying much.
What about on a GDP/capita basis?
0
0
How did this go all Tom Clancy without my involvement??
0
0
Naughty, naughty - not what you said, Ray, not what you said...
Keep on disingenuously swiping from the side whilst sucking at that teat though.
0
0
The Irish state has used state agents to murder fellow citizens. I'm not sure that a handful of actions by the security services is a barometer of democracy in a country
0
0
Ireland, really? Differently, yes. Better, no. If you want to see how corruption properly works search Healy-Rae or anything to do with FF.
0
0
Yes, I do think it's better. (I never claimed there was no corruption.)
They know how to hold a referendum without plunging the entire country into long-term, apparently unresolvable chaos, for a start.
0
0
Germany does democracy quite nicely these days much to my pleasure
only a certain % of East Germans doubt whether it confers actual advantages
not quite sure what to do with the zonies
0
0
Teclis
13 Nov 19 13:34
How did this go all Tom Clancy without my involvement??
=
Heh!
0
0
What is clear is that Britain is an insular, uncultured, mono-lingual, racist (to a great extent) country and is the laughing stock of Europe. Having lived, worked and travelled on the Continent I am ashamed at what is happening to the this country.
Boris Johnson and his cabinet are security risks, having been recruited, knowingly or not, as agents by the Russian secret services.
Corbyn is also a security risk as he supports Islamic terrorists, the IRA and Marxist-Leninist South and Central American dictators and is an old tankie.
The country is in decline and it sadly looks like we are leaving the EU to become a third-world off-shore tax haven.
How one should vote is an individual choice, but a vote for the Tories is like voting for the NSDAP in the 1930s in Germany.
0
0
100% this.
And I voted Cameron twice.
Farage was hilariously being all “Is this Venezuela?” today without realising the U.K. is the example of a drunk driver these days for every democratic society across the world.
0
0
Which countries do democracy better?
Holy cow.
1. Unelected chamber stuffed with cronies.
2. No accountability for the PM if he is a liar and cheat.
3. FPTP which creates outcomes which bear little relation to voting and causes many peoples' vote to be worth nothing
4. The lack of teeth with the Electoral Commission making cheating a risk worth running.
5. A media owned by a few oligarchs who publish propaganda to suit their own interests.
6. No effective accountability for MP misconduct.
7. A constitution which can be manipulated for political reasons.
8. Lobbyists
9. MPs being able to speak when they are conflicted, simply by making the conflict known.
10. Possible foreign meddling in UK elections with no come back - because it suits one party to suppress a report.
The list goes on.
We're practically living in a banana republic.
0
0
Why shouldn't MPs be able to speak in the event of a conflict, provided they give disclosure? If it were any other way then it could be used as a tool to shut debate down, by claiming an MP could not participate in a debate because of a tangential conflict.
Join the discussion