Two points .. First delighted to welcome a new face or logo into this space... . Although I kind of suspect its old wine in new bottles.It's only because they infect adults - children by and large hardly are affected at all. Apart from "Covid Toes". Actually, some are affected very badly.... but it is very rare. Basically, the government are desparate.
Thank you - I'm certainly old wine. Not all improve with age! I corked some time ago.Two points .. First delighted to welcome a new face or logo into this space... . Although I kind of suspect its old wine in new bottles.
The other alternative is to have large multseat constituencies and single transferrable vote. . That would force the successful candidates to work together in coalitions. It would also ensure that the full mixture in Parliament represented more closely the will of the people ,with none of the winner takes all. Many would say it makes for weak Government ..which is true , but is that a bad thing?. Another feature is that one would concentrate more on the character of the individual representative than how they will vote on a specific issue.Sometimes I wonder if democracy would work better if every party was single issue only, and if voters simply were presented with a lengthy questionnaire at the ballot box.
I don't think that would convince the many people who are dissillusioned with politics, who generally don't vote unless they're moved by a small set of issues they feel strongly about. I'd like to see a technological feedback mechanism via continuous input from voters - it'd probably be as wasteful of resources, and as short term and weak, as the coalitions that you describe... but voters would get more of what they vote for?The other alternative is to have large multseat constituencies and single transferrable vote. . That would force the successful candidates to work together in coalitions. It would also ensure that the full mixture in Parliament represented more closely the will of the people ,with none of the winner takes all. Many would say it makes for weak Government ..which is true , but is that a bad thing?. Another feature is that one would concentrate more on the character of the individual representative than how they will vote on a specific issue.
Democracy works better if there is only one party of the people and those people are voted for to implement its policies. As in China which runs very efficiently.Sometimes I wonder if democracy would work better if every party was single issue only,
For rather a lot of people, Democracy is "Not working". It's very much top down in China, just as a continuous direct feedback mechanism, controlled at intervals (or at pivotal moments) as interventions by the populace could be, with a technological solution - remove personality, remove any set ideology; if everyone has a hand in everything that happens, they have nobody in government to blame. And there are a lot of unhappy people in China...Democracy works better if there is only one party of the people and those people are voted for to implement its policies. As in China which runs very efficiently.
.
If I have a choice I'd rather live in a democracy as defined by its institutions - rule of law, freedom of speech, universal equal access to education, protection of minority rights, effective impartial policing, health care - than one defined by the right to vote. The snag with this is that it looks more like sweden or Norway- a country with high taxes administered by specialists who occasionally consider public opinion - than a trump rally (a mob whose sentiment of the moment make them want to suspend democracy by overthrowing an election result).For rather a lot of people, Democracy is "Not working". It's very much top down in China, just as a continuous direct feedback mechanism, controlled at intervals (or at pivotal moments) as interventions by the populace could be, with a technological solution - remove personality, remove any set ideology; if everyone has a hand in everything that happens, they have nobody in government to blame. And there are a lot of unhappy people in China...
The Chinese people overall are better off and happier that at any time in their long history, because their government now works so well.For rather a lot of people, Democracy is "Not working". It's very much top down in China, just as a continuous direct feedback mechanism, controlled at intervals (or at pivotal moments) as interventions by the populace could be, with a technological solution - remove personality, remove any set ideology; if everyone has a hand in everything that happens, they have nobody in government to blame. And there are a lot of unhappy people in China...
They might do better by calling up the Home GuardThe need to move them from current deployments to, for example, ambulances, fuel and medicines distributions, if it comes to it, is already making them falter.
Time to say "Bring back National Service". It is a tradition to do so whenever things don't look as if they are working.
No good for me, I drink coffee.Good to see the relaxation of reversing tests for HGV and Caravans, any body can do this, no bother at all
Except me!!!
And you blame me for negativity!No good for me, I drink coffee.
that was JC, RLB and John McDonnell's Labour party.I think the Tories are stuffed, or they would be if the opposition wasn't so hapless, inept and lacking in direction and purpose.
I use instant, cant be bothered by all the pretensions surrounding coffee drinking.And you blame me for negativity!
Replace tea bag by, umm, let's think about this for a minute, coffee bag? Or plunger of cafetière.
The genuine article.that was JC, RLB and John McDonnell's Labour party.
I, d agree with you were it not for the "scum" comments from their deputy.Reckon each word she uttered despatched a million voters. Folk don't want this. She, s playing into Tory hands. Don't forget insulting Boris is insulting the folk that put him there. Even if she really thought it... She should keep her mouth closed. The line should be... Well they are Tories what policies did you expect, we are far better, more tolerant and caring... This smacks of the opposite and desperation.I believe Labour may have turned the corner from this conference.
Kier does not make himself more electable but by giving Rachel Reeves the finance job, he's made Labour more attractive to industries. Reeves believes in QE but not nationalisation.
I fear Labour front bencher Andy McDonald resigning with a letter savagely critical of Starmer has rather blown this conference for him. Rachel is a page 2 subject now.I believe Labour may have turned the corner from this conference.
Kier does not make himself more electable but by giving Rachel Reeves the finance job, he's made Labour more attractive to industries. Reeves believes in QE but not nationalisation.