Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This isn’t a Brexit related question! Are you generally in favour of referendums or are you against them? The government are about to change the voting age down to 16. I personally think this is a good example of something that should go to a referendum. But having said that, in their current form, referendums are incredibly expensive and a massive logistical nightmare to organise. Then there’s the question of what constitutes a win. Some think 2/3 should be the required level, some think anything over 50% is a win. Your thoughts? " The issues with referendums occur when they're around complex issues and when people don't understand the impacts of what they're voting for. This is compounded with advisory referendum rules on the results being valid, even when one of the official campaign groups broke funding rules. On a simple subject like voting age that's not a problem. But what's the cost of running a referendum? Is it worth it, maybe, maybe not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think it would be an easier path to travel if constituents held their MP's to task over important issues that have a parliamentary vote? 2 things of benefit, those who are political aware will be making their voices heard and MP's will start to become more accountable to their constituents. Right now we vote for a person to express their thoughts on matters, not the constituents they represent, which in my opinion has significantly widened the gap in poor performance from MP's over the last 20 years. " The whole of politics has moved away from actually being representative. The vast majority of MPs have simply gone to uni and then worked "in politics" until they get the opportunity. They are mostly not from the area they are representing, and certainly have not experienced the lived lives of those they are representing. Both major parties (though I guess it's debatable who are the major parties now) are drawing on the same pool of people as candidates. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think it would be an easier path to travel if constituents held their MP's to task over important issues that have a parliamentary vote? 2 things of benefit, those who are political aware will be making their voices heard and MP's will start to become more accountable to their constituents. Right now we vote for a person to express their thoughts on matters, not the constituents they represent, which in my opinion has significantly widened the gap in poor performance from MP's over the last 20 years." I agree with this, but then lots of MPs either ignore the constituents that don't vote for them, or worse spend their time on twitter attacking the people they are supposed to be representing (IE Lee Anderson). The PMs are supposed to work for their constituents, not for the person/corporation that donated the most to their election campaign. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think it would be an easier path to travel if constituents held their MP's to task over important issues that have a parliamentary vote? 2 things of benefit, those who are political aware will be making their voices heard and MP's will start to become more accountable to their constituents. Right now we vote for a person to express their thoughts on matters, not the constituents they represent, which in my opinion has significantly widened the gap in poor performance from MP's over the last 20 years." MPs have to follow the party line. You might think you’re voting for a voice in parliament, but in reality you’re voting for the leader of their political party. Lose the whip and you’re out of a job at the next election. Most people don’t vote with the contents of a manifesto, a good section of the middle ground just vote to get rid of the last lot and vote for the most likely candidate what will achieve that. I think it’s hilarious that if an issue is really important, such as the assisted dying bill or the death penalty, MPs say the issue is too important to let the public decide. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issues with referendums occur when they're around complex issues and when people don't understand the impacts of what they're voting for." You make a valid point. But you could say the same about a general election. With a general election the people in power can do pretty much anything they want for 5 years, especially if they have a big majority like Starmer has or Boris had. With a referendum the focus is on a single issue. One could argue that 16 and 17 year olds have far less experience of politics so are less likely to be able to make informed choices. But you could also argue that many 16 and 17 year olds spend their lives on social media so are exposed to politics more than I was when I was their age. But you could argue from that, that the party with the biggest budget and best social media marketing will hold sway of them. They can’t buy cigarettes or alcohol but they will be indirectly deciding what the tax on those things will be. They can join the army so should have a say on who sends them to battle and why. Both are valid points. But the bottom line is Starmer will decide for his own reasons. Nobody else has a say. They have a voice, but he has a majority of MPs who will face punishment if they don’t agree with him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issues with referendums occur when they're around complex issues and when people don't understand the impacts of what they're voting for. You make a valid point. But you could say the same about a general election. With a general election the people in power can do pretty much anything they want for 5 years, especially if they have a big majority like Starmer has or Boris had. With a referendum the focus is on a single issue. One could argue that 16 and 17 year olds have far less experience of politics so are less likely to be able to make informed choices. But you could also argue that many 16 and 17 year olds spend their lives on social media so are exposed to politics more than I was when I was their age. But you could argue from that, that the party with the biggest budget and best social media marketing will hold sway of them. They can’t buy cigarettes or alcohol but they will be indirectly deciding what the tax on those things will be. They can join the army so should have a say on who sends them to battle and why. Both are valid points. But the bottom line is Starmer will decide for his own reasons. Nobody else has a say. They have a voice, but he has a majority of MPs who will face punishment if they don’t agree with him. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unfortunately the behaviour of the Remoaners in the EU referendum means that the UK will probably never have a referendum again. Which is a shame as in principle more frequent direct democracy is a good thing." Those damn pests who keep asking when they will see the Brexit benefits? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In principle I am all in favour of Referendums. They work well in places like Switzerland and the US where people have a more ingrained sense of democracy, community cohesion, and respect for their fellow citizens. In the UK it didn’t really work because the losing side in the EU referendum wasn’t mature enough to accept the result. The UK response to the EU referendum was for the losing side to behave like they were in a tinpot African dictatorship. Immediately accuse the winners of cheating, refuse to accept the result and demand that it be run again until they got their way. This behaviour caused years of unnecessary turbulence and strife. In Switzerland and the US referendums are common so people are used to being on the winning and losing side on different issues. If they lose they just accept the decision of their neighbours and move on. Unfortunately the behaviour of the Remoaners in the EU referendum means that the UK will probably never have a referendum again. Which is a shame as in principle more frequent direct democracy is a good thing. " The biggest problem with that "referendum" is that is was not setup properly as a referendum. It was setup as advisory, and because of this a lot of the rules and safeguards required to make it work, were not implemented. Therefore, the result was never a RESULT as such, i.e. not something that should have been used to form government policy of such scale. If it had been setup as an actual referendum then at various stages it would have been shutdown due to illegal actions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In principle I am all in favour of Referendums. They work well in places like Switzerland and the US where people have a more ingrained sense of democracy, community cohesion, and respect for their fellow citizens. In the UK it didn’t really work because the losing side in the EU referendum wasn’t mature enough to accept the result. The UK response to the EU referendum was for the losing side to behave like they were in a tinpot African dictatorship. Immediately accuse the winners of cheating, refuse to accept the result and demand that it be run again until they got their way. This behaviour caused years of unnecessary turbulence and strife. In Switzerland and the US referendums are common so people are used to being on the winning and losing side on different issues. If they lose they just accept the decision of their neighbours and move on. Unfortunately the behaviour of the Remoaners in the EU referendum means that the UK will probably never have a referendum again. Which is a shame as in principle more frequent direct democracy is a good thing. The biggest problem with that "referendum" is that is was not setup properly as a referendum. It was setup as advisory, and because of this a lot of the rules and safeguards required to make it work, were not implemented. Therefore, the result was never a RESULT as such, i.e. not something that should have been used to form government policy of such scale. If it had been setup as an actual referendum then at various stages it would have been shutdown due to illegal actions. " And there you go, proving my point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In principle I am all in favour of Referendums. They work well in places like Switzerland and the US where people have a more ingrained sense of democracy, community cohesion, and respect for their fellow citizens. In the UK it didn’t really work because the losing side in the EU referendum wasn’t mature enough to accept the result. The UK response to the EU referendum was for the losing side to behave like they were in a tinpot African dictatorship. Immediately accuse the winners of cheating, refuse to accept the result and demand that it be run again until they got their way. This behaviour caused years of unnecessary turbulence and strife. In Switzerland and the US referendums are common so people are used to being on the winning and losing side on different issues. If they lose they just accept the decision of their neighbours and move on. Unfortunately the behaviour of the Remoaners in the EU referendum means that the UK will probably never have a referendum again. Which is a shame as in principle more frequent direct democracy is a good thing. The biggest problem with that "referendum" is that is was not setup properly as a referendum. It was setup as advisory, and because of this a lot of the rules and safeguards required to make it work, were not implemented. Therefore, the result was never a RESULT as such, i.e. not something that should have been used to form government policy of such scale. If it had been setup as an actual referendum then at various stages it would have been shutdown due to illegal actions. And there you go, proving my point." So convince him Brexit was right for the country, and how Boris stopped illegal immigration and fixed the NHS with the billions saved ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In principle I am all in favour of Referendums. They work well in places like Switzerland and the US where people have a more ingrained sense of democracy, community cohesion, and respect for their fellow citizens. In the UK it didn’t really work because the losing side in the EU referendum wasn’t mature enough to accept the result. The UK response to the EU referendum was for the losing side to behave like they were in a tinpot African dictatorship. Immediately accuse the winners of cheating, refuse to accept the result and demand that it be run again until they got their way. This behaviour caused years of unnecessary turbulence and strife. In Switzerland and the US referendums are common so people are used to being on the winning and losing side on different issues. If they lose they just accept the decision of their neighbours and move on. Unfortunately the behaviour of the Remoaners in the EU referendum means that the UK will probably never have a referendum again. Which is a shame as in principle more frequent direct democracy is a good thing. The biggest problem with that "referendum" is that is was not setup properly as a referendum. It was setup as advisory, and because of this a lot of the rules and safeguards required to make it work, were not implemented. Therefore, the result was never a RESULT as such, i.e. not something that should have been used to form government policy of such scale. If it had been setup as an actual referendum then at various stages it would have been shutdown due to illegal actions. And there you go, proving my point. So convince him Brexit was right for the country, and how Boris stopped illegal immigration and fixed the NHS with the billions saved ?" The thread isn’t about Brexit. It’s about Referendums. Your ranting about Brexit just proves my point. For Referendums to work the losers have to be prepared to accept the result. They may disagree with the result. But they have to accept that there are bigger issues at play than their own narrow opinions. Countries like Switzerland have referendums on all sorts of topics all the time and the country continues to function on a civilised and respectful manner. It doesn’t collapse into angry ranting and internecine division and squabbling. Your ranting just proves my point that the UK just isn’t politically mature enough to handle them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In principle I am all in favour of Referendums. They work well in places like Switzerland and the US where people have a more ingrained sense of democracy, community cohesion, and respect for their fellow citizens. In the UK it didn’t really work because the losing side in the EU referendum wasn’t mature enough to accept the result. The UK response to the EU referendum was for the losing side to behave like they were in a tinpot African dictatorship. Immediately accuse the winners of cheating, refuse to accept the result and demand that it be run again until they got their way. This behaviour caused years of unnecessary turbulence and strife. In Switzerland and the US referendums are common so people are used to being on the winning and losing side on different issues. If they lose they just accept the decision of their neighbours and move on. Unfortunately the behaviour of the Remoaners in the EU referendum means that the UK will probably never have a referendum again. Which is a shame as in principle more frequent direct democracy is a good thing. The biggest problem with that "referendum" is that is was not setup properly as a referendum. It was setup as advisory, and because of this a lot of the rules and safeguards required to make it work, were not implemented. Therefore, the result was never a RESULT as such, i.e. not something that should have been used to form government policy of such scale. If it had been setup as an actual referendum then at various stages it would have been shutdown due to illegal actions. And there you go, proving my point. So convince him Brexit was right for the country, and how Boris stopped illegal immigration and fixed the NHS with the billions saved ? The thread isn’t about Brexit. It’s about Referendums. Your ranting about Brexit just proves my point. For Referendums to work the losers have to be prepared to accept the result. They may disagree with the result. But they have to accept that there are bigger issues at play than their own narrow opinions. Countries like Switzerland have referendums on all sorts of topics all the time and the country continues to function on a civilised and respectful manner. It doesn’t collapse into angry ranting and internecine division and squabbling. Your ranting just proves my point that the UK just isn’t politically mature enough to handle them. " The point I was making, is that in a thread about referendums, the Brexit "event" is interesting because it wasn't a full referendum. It effectively failed to deliver something people could accept, because it was not setup correctly. The result is irrelevant, I can guarantee if it had gone the other way, the arguments against it would have been the same... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In principle I am all in favour of Referendums. They work well in places like Switzerland and the US where people have a more ingrained sense of democracy, community cohesion, and respect for their fellow citizens. In the UK it didn’t really work because the losing side in the EU referendum wasn’t mature enough to accept the result. The UK response to the EU referendum was for the losing side to behave like they were in a tinpot African dictatorship. Immediately accuse the winners of cheating, refuse to accept the result and demand that it be run again until they got their way. This behaviour caused years of unnecessary turbulence and strife. In Switzerland and the US referendums are common so people are used to being on the winning and losing side on different issues. If they lose they just accept the decision of their neighbours and move on. Unfortunately the behaviour of the Remoaners in the EU referendum means that the UK will probably never have a referendum again. Which is a shame as in principle more frequent direct democracy is a good thing. The biggest problem with that "referendum" is that is was not setup properly as a referendum. It was setup as advisory, and because of this a lot of the rules and safeguards required to make it work, were not implemented. Therefore, the result was never a RESULT as such, i.e. not something that should have been used to form government policy of such scale. If it had been setup as an actual referendum then at various stages it would have been shutdown due to illegal actions. And there you go, proving my point. So convince him Brexit was right for the country, and how Boris stopped illegal immigration and fixed the NHS with the billions saved ? The thread isn’t about Brexit. It’s about Referendums. Your ranting about Brexit just proves my point. For Referendums to work the losers have to be prepared to accept the result. They may disagree with the result. But they have to accept that there are bigger issues at play than their own narrow opinions. Countries like Switzerland have referendums on all sorts of topics all the time and the country continues to function on a civilised and respectful manner. It doesn’t collapse into angry ranting and internecine division and squabbling. Your ranting just proves my point that the UK just isn’t politically mature enough to handle them. The point I was making, is that in a thread about referendums, the Brexit "event" is interesting because it wasn't a full referendum. It effectively failed to deliver something people could accept, because it was not setup correctly. The result is irrelevant, I can guarantee if it had gone the other way, the arguments against it would have been the same..." Why do you say it wasn't setup correctly? One question, 2 answers to choose your 1 response from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In principle I am all in favour of Referendums. They work well in places like Switzerland and the US where people have a more ingrained sense of democracy, community cohesion, and respect for their fellow citizens. In the UK it didn’t really work because the losing side in the EU referendum wasn’t mature enough to accept the result. The UK response to the EU referendum was for the losing side to behave like they were in a tinpot African dictatorship. Immediately accuse the winners of cheating, refuse to accept the result and demand that it be run again until they got their way. This behaviour caused years of unnecessary turbulence and strife. In Switzerland and the US referendums are common so people are used to being on the winning and losing side on different issues. If they lose they just accept the decision of their neighbours and move on. Unfortunately the behaviour of the Remoaners in the EU referendum means that the UK will probably never have a referendum again. Which is a shame as in principle more frequent direct democracy is a good thing. The biggest problem with that "referendum" is that is was not setup properly as a referendum. It was setup as advisory, and because of this a lot of the rules and safeguards required to make it work, were not implemented. Therefore, the result was never a RESULT as such, i.e. not something that should have been used to form government policy of such scale. If it had been setup as an actual referendum then at various stages it would have been shutdown due to illegal actions. And there you go, proving my point. So convince him Brexit was right for the country, and how Boris stopped illegal immigration and fixed the NHS with the billions saved ? The thread isn’t about Brexit. It’s about Referendums. Your ranting about Brexit just proves my point. For Referendums to work the losers have to be prepared to accept the result. They may disagree with the result. But they have to accept that there are bigger issues at play than their own narrow opinions. Countries like Switzerland have referendums on all sorts of topics all the time and the country continues to function on a civilised and respectful manner. It doesn’t collapse into angry ranting and internecine division and squabbling. Your ranting just proves my point that the UK just isn’t politically mature enough to handle them. The point I was making, is that in a thread about referendums, the Brexit "event" is interesting because it wasn't a full referendum. It effectively failed to deliver something people could accept, because it was not setup correctly. The result is irrelevant, I can guarantee if it had gone the other way, the arguments against it would have been the same..." I disagree. I can think of loads of issues a mature democracy should be having referendums on. Immigration, monarchy, drugs, voting age, capital punishment etc etc. no doubt everyone could come up with lots of examples. In principle for me the more the merrier, if there is a threshold level of support (which for me would be a few hundred thousand signatories). On some of those issues I may be on the winning side, and some the losing side. But whatever the result for the system to work requires the losers accept the result. In a way this is academic because the UK has clearly demonstrated that for whatever reason it isn’t capable of dealing with referendums. Which is a shame because other countries run them very effectively. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can we please not turn this into yet another pointless Brexit debate! The thread is about referendums!"
Generally a bad idea for complex issues.
Generally an additional cost for non-complex issues. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think they’re a MARVELLOUS way of solving complex issues, with a history of great success. For example: “Do you, German man, and you, German woman, approve of the arrangement that the powers of the President shall pass to the Chancellor, Adolf Hitler. He appoints his deputy. Answer YES or NO” (for anybody who doesn’t know how it turned out, YES got 90% of the votes)" If the population has reached that point, not having a referendum wasn't going to stop Hitler from happening. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think they’re a MARVELLOUS way of solving complex issues, with a history of great success. For example: “Do you, German man, and you, German woman, approve of the arrangement that the powers of the President shall pass to the Chancellor, Adolf Hitler. He appoints his deputy. Answer YES or NO” (for anybody who doesn’t know how it turned out, YES got 90% of the votes)" A great success for a fascist intent on butchering millions perhaps.. And as said he would have gone ahead without it.. Almost like every election Putin has won.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think they’re a MARVELLOUS way of solving complex issues, with a history of great success. For example: “Do you, German man, and you, German woman, approve of the arrangement that the powers of the President shall pass to the Chancellor, Adolf Hitler. He appoints his deputy. Answer YES or NO” (for anybody who doesn’t know how it turned out, YES got 90% of the votes)" Switzerland has around four referendums per year and it is literally like being in Nazi Germany. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Countries like Switzerland have referendums on all sorts of topics all the time and the country continues to function on a civilised and respectful manner. It doesn’t collapse into angry ranting and internecine division and squabbling." Ah yes, Switzerland, that bastion of democracy where women didn't get the right to vote until 1971. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wouldn't such a system be open to abuse or manipulation plus not everyone has access and or will take part possibly? " So exactly like the present system! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wouldn't such a system be open to abuse or manipulation plus not everyone has access and or will take part possibly? So exactly like the present system!" I don't think there's any system that isn't but happy to be corrected.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I could just imagine the smiles of sheer enthusiasm and enjoyment in certain foreign states at such a prospect.." I was being a bit factious further up, as you say there are flaws in most systems. But the lack of engagement in our present system is quite possibly down to the majority view that whatever we vote, we get the same. Actually something that felt like our views were at least being taken into account might help. Or there's the Aussie method of forcing people to vote by law. In regard to security, do you do online banking, fill in tax returns online, etc. Things can be made secure (obviously there is no such thing as entirely secure, but neither is the present system), 2/3 factor authentication with strong cyphers on the communication is pretty hard to overcome. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An MP who has not attended any of the debates or been part of the committee stage, still gets to vote in parliament, despite being ill informed. Is that any different to a member of the public voting in a referendum on a topic they haven’t heard all sides of the debate? I do think in the Internet age, we could be more involved in determining government policy. I can go to a polling both and vote with minimal checks on who I am. " They're supposed to be attending debates and learning about their topics instead of shit like. Brand ambassador TV presenter Public speaking Personalised video messages Journalist Influencer Yet people not only vote for these clowns, but actively defend them doing other jobs when they're supposed to be being MPs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I could just imagine the smiles of sheer enthusiasm and enjoyment in certain foreign states at such a prospect.. I was being a bit factious further up, as you say there are flaws in most systems. But the lack of engagement in our present system is quite possibly down to the majority view that whatever we vote, we get the same. Actually something that felt like our views were at least being taken into account might help. Or there's the Aussie method of forcing people to vote by law. In regard to security, do you do online banking, fill in tax returns online, etc. Things can be made secure (obviously there is no such thing as entirely secure, but neither is the present system), 2/3 factor authentication with strong cyphers on the communication is pretty hard to overcome." I agree the lack of engagement is an issue, two cheeks of the same arse has been my thinking for several elections.. I'm not up to speed on how anything of the scale required for a general election could be run without interference from the usual suspects but respect the technology might work to limit that.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This isn’t a Brexit related question! Are you generally in favour of referendums or are you against them? The government are about to change the voting age down to 16. I personally think this is a good example of something that should go to a referendum. But having said that, in their current form, referendums are incredibly expensive and a massive logistical nightmare to organise. Then there’s the question of what constitutes a win. Some think 2/3 should be the required level, some think anything over 50% is a win. Your thoughts? " Maybe a referendum to decide on having referendums is required | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know the OP wasn't using this as a Brexit thing but that's where it's gone. My question is this, if we'd voted to remain does anyone really think we'd have any chance of another vote in their lifetime? Of course we wouldn't " The Scottish Independence Party have made it quite clear that they will keep going until they get another independence referendum. Kinda defeats the object of a referendum if you’re gonna keep demanding more of them on the same topic until you get the result you want. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know the OP wasn't using this as a Brexit thing but that's where it's gone. My question is this, if we'd voted to remain does anyone really think we'd have any chance of another vote in their lifetime? Of course we wouldn't The Scottish Independence Party have made it quite clear that they will keep going until they get another independence referendum. Kinda defeats the object of a referendum if you’re gonna keep demanding more of them on the same topic until you get the result you want. " ...a problem solved where a supermajority is required to change the status quo! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I know the OP wasn't using this as a Brexit thing but that's where it's gone. My question is this, if we'd voted to remain does anyone really think we'd have any chance of another vote in their lifetime? Of course we wouldn't The Scottish Independence Party have made it quite clear that they will keep going until they get another independence referendum. Kinda defeats the object of a referendum if you’re gonna keep demanding more of them on the same topic until you get the result you want. ...a problem solved where a supermajority is required to change the status quo!" But would it? If 65% voted for independence and so the vote wasn’t carried, how is that solving the problem? If anything it gives fuel to the demands for another vote. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This isn’t a Brexit related question! Are you generally in favour of referendums or are you against them? The government are about to change the voting age down to 16. I personally think this is a good example of something that should go to a referendum. But having said that, in their current form, referendums are incredibly expensive and a massive logistical nightmare to organise. Then there’s the question of what constitutes a win. Some think 2/3 should be the required level, some think anything over 50% is a win. Your thoughts? " The Greeks tried direct democracy. Terrible, having to consult the people every time a decision needs to be made. Imagine the time and cost! You can't educate enough people to an adequate standard on every single thing. I do like constituency, that your mo is directly answerable. Not sure how I feel about the changes in Wales yet. I'll see how it goes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In principle I am all in favour of Referendums. They work well in places like Switzerland and the US where people have a more ingrained sense of democracy, community cohesion, and respect for their fellow citizens. In the UK it didn’t really work because the losing side in the EU referendum wasn’t mature enough to accept the result. The UK response to the EU referendum was for the losing side to behave like they were in a tinpot African dictatorship. Immediately accuse the winners of cheating, refuse to accept the result and demand that it be run again until they got their way. This behaviour caused years of unnecessary turbulence and strife. In Switzerland and the US referendums are common so people are used to being on the winning and losing side on different issues. If they lose they just accept the decision of their neighbours and move on. Unfortunately the behaviour of the Remoaners in the EU referendum means that the UK will probably never have a referendum again. Which is a shame as in principle more frequent direct democracy is a good thing." I know we're not supposed to get into it on this thread, but honestly anyone who thinks that the reason the Brexit referendum didn't go well is "the response of the losing side" must have been on holiday up Dominic Cummings' arsehole since 2016. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
