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 |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course not. Scotland and England, joined in union by a shotgun wedding with an English army assembled ready to invade if the wrong answer was delivered by Scotland's parliament of nobles.....supposedly a union of equals.....hah! The larger bully will always dominate his smaller neighbour, particularly when that neighbour has a centuries-old history of looking to conquer his neighbours. The citizens of the UK do not have the right to elect their head of state....undemocratic. No citizen may ever become the head of state.... undemocratic Parliamentary boundaries are gerrymandered by the party in power for self-interest.... anti-democratic Most politicians represent party and self-interest rather than the best interests of their constituents... a distortion of the notion of voter representation....yet another corruption of democratic principles. The UK allows its government ministers, with the consent of the monarch by means of orders in council, to usurp the rulings of the judiciary, such as when Brenda approved Jack Straw's rejection of the dispossessed Chagos Islanders' right to return to their homeland. As far as I'm concerned, where you break the law, as stated by the highest court in the land - and thereby committing a gross violation of human rights - you are a criminal, Mr Straw, and the system of government which conspires in that crime is just rotten to the core. As for rendition and complicity in torture... Government secrecy, not to maintain integrity of defence or diplomatic effectiveness, but to cover up the incompetence and malfeasance of the establishment....when government cover-up triumphs, democracy suffers. The palace of Westminster - leave your principles at the door. " I would reply but usually there is absolutely not point point out any truths to an angry Scottish nationalist  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course not. Scotland and England, joined in union by a shotgun wedding with an English army assembled ready to invade if the wrong answer was delivered by Scotland's parliament of nobles.....supposedly a union of equals.....hah! The larger bully will always dominate his smaller neighbour, particularly when that neighbour has a centuries-old history of looking to conquer his neighbours. The citizens of the UK do not have the right to elect their head of state....undemocratic. No citizen may ever become the head of state.... undemocratic Parliamentary boundaries are gerrymandered by the party in power for self-interest.... anti-democratic Most politicians represent party and self-interest rather than the best interests of their constituents... a distortion of the notion of voter representation....yet another corruption of democratic principles. The UK allows its government ministers, with the consent of the monarch by means of orders in council, to usurp the rulings of the judiciary, such as when Brenda approved Jack Straw's rejection of the dispossessed Chagos Islanders' right to return to their homeland. As far as I'm concerned, where you break the law, as stated by the highest court in the land - and thereby committing a gross violation of human rights - you are a criminal, Mr Straw, and the system of government which conspires in that crime is just rotten to the core. As for rendition and complicity in torture... Government secrecy, not to maintain integrity of defence or diplomatic effectiveness, but to cover up the incompetence and malfeasance of the establishment....when government cover-up triumphs, democracy suffers. The palace of Westminster - leave your principles at the door. I would reply but usually there is absolutely not point point out any truths to an angry Scottish nationalist " was james I who created the union a Scottish king - reason Scotland was broke as usual as the elders of Scotland had just lost all the kitty of Scotland trying to establish a colony in America.
But still history doesn't count as it never
existed for some who love to twist the facts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course not. Scotland and England, joined in union by a shotgun wedding with an English army assembled ready to invade if the wrong answer was delivered by Scotland's parliament of nobles.....supposedly a union of equals.....hah! The larger bully will always dominate his smaller neighbour, particularly when that neighbour has a centuries-old history of looking to conquer his neighbours. The citizens of the UK do not have the right to elect their head of state....undemocratic. No citizen may ever become the head of state.... undemocratic Parliamentary boundaries are gerrymandered by the party in power for self-interest.... anti-democratic Most politicians represent party and self-interest rather than the best interests of their constituents... a distortion of the notion of voter representation....yet another corruption of democratic principles. The UK allows its government ministers, with the consent of the monarch by means of orders in council, to usurp the rulings of the judiciary, such as when Brenda approved Jack Straw's rejection of the dispossessed Chagos Islanders' right to return to their homeland. As far as I'm concerned, where you break the law, as stated by the highest court in the land - and thereby committing a gross violation of human rights - you are a criminal, Mr Straw, and the system of government which conspires in that crime is just rotten to the core. As for rendition and complicity in torture... Government secrecy, not to maintain integrity of defence or diplomatic effectiveness, but to cover up the incompetence and malfeasance of the establishment....when government cover-up triumphs, democracy suffers. The palace of Westminster - leave your principles at the door. I would reply but usually there is absolutely not point point out any truths to an angry Scottish nationalist
was james I who created the union a Scottish king - reason Scotland was broke as usual as the elders of Scotland had just lost all the kitty of Scotland trying to establish a colony in America.
But still history doesn't count as it never
existed for some who love to twist the facts "Shhhh don t let any truth get in the way of a Scottish nationalist on a grievance trip !!!!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the uk union democratic? With an unelected head of state, an unelected house of Lords and a first past the post voting system? All carefully designed to keep power in the hands of the elite. 45% of Tory MPs were privately educated. 24% of MP Graduates went to Oxford or Cambridge Because of first past the post the majority of people's votes (52.8% of those cast in 2010) went to candidates that were not elected. In addition to this, around 380 seats are "safe" seats, which means that a party will get elected regardless of who the candidate is. Therefore the number of candidates that meaningfully undergo an election every 5 years is just 268, and the number of people who actually decide those results is less than half a million. Democratic? If you think so you have a different definition of democratic to me." Are there people out there who actually think we live in a democracy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the uk union democratic? With an unelected head of state, an unelected house of Lords and a first past the post voting system? All carefully designed to keep power in the hands of the elite. 45% of Tory MPs were privately educated. 24% of MP Graduates went to Oxford or Cambridge Because of first past the post the majority of people's votes (52.8% of those cast in 2010) went to candidates that were not elected. In addition to this, around 380 seats are "safe" seats, which means that a party will get elected regardless of who the candidate is. Therefore the number of candidates that meaningfully undergo an election every 5 years is just 268, and the number of people who actually decide those results is less than half a million. Democratic? If you think so you have a different definition of democratic to me." Would you say there are any democratic countries in the world? If so, which ones. If the UK doesn't meet your definition of "democratic", then what definition would you give to the UK political system? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the uk union democratic? With an unelected head of state, an unelected house of Lords and a first past the post voting system? All carefully designed to keep power in the hands of the elite. 45% of Tory MPs were privately educated. 24% of MP Graduates went to Oxford or Cambridge Because of first past the post the majority of people's votes (52.8% of those cast in 2010) went to candidates that were not elected. In addition to this, around 380 seats are "safe" seats, which means that a party will get elected regardless of who the candidate is. Therefore the number of candidates that meaningfully undergo an election every 5 years is just 268, and the number of people who actually decide those results is less than half a million. Democratic? If you think so you have a different definition of democratic to me. Would you say there are any democratic countries in the world? If so, which ones. If the UK doesn't meet your definition of "democratic", then what definition would you give to the UK political system? " Constitutional monarchy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" was james I who created the union a Scottish king - reason Scotland was broke as usual as the elders of Scotland had just lost all the kitty of Scotland trying to establish a colony in America.
But still history doesn't count as it never
existed for some who love to twist the facts "You are conflating the Union of the Crowns with the Act of Union. They were 100 years apart. 1606 and the crowns of the two countries were worn by one person. Both remained independent. 1707 was political, economic and monetary union. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the uk union democratic? With an unelected head of state, an unelected house of Lords and a first past the post voting system? All carefully designed to keep power in the hands of the elite. 45% of Tory MPs were privately educated. 24% of MP Graduates went to Oxford or Cambridge Because of first past the post the majority of people's votes (52.8% of those cast in 2010) went to candidates that were not elected. In addition to this, around 380 seats are "safe" seats, which means that a party will get elected regardless of who the candidate is. Therefore the number of candidates that meaningfully undergo an election every 5 years is just 268, and the number of people who actually decide those results is less than half a million. Democratic? If you think so you have a different definition of democratic to me. Would you say there are any democratic countries in the world? If so, which ones. If the UK doesn't meet your definition of "democratic", then what definition would you give to the UK political system? Constitutional monarchy. " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy "Nowadays a parliamentary democracy that is a constitutional monarchy is considered to differ from one that is a republic only in detail rather than in substance"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the uk union democratic? With an unelected head of state, an unelected house of Lords and a first past the post voting system? All carefully designed to keep power in the hands of the elite. 45% of Tory MPs were privately educated. 24% of MP Graduates went to Oxford or Cambridge Because of first past the post the majority of people's votes (52.8% of those cast in 2010) went to candidates that were not elected. In addition to this, around 380 seats are "safe" seats, which means that a party will get elected regardless of who the candidate is. Therefore the number of candidates that meaningfully undergo an election every 5 years is just 268, and the number of people who actually decide those results is less than half a million. Democratic? If you think so you have a different definition of democratic to me. Would you say there are any democratic countries in the world? If so, which ones. If the UK doesn't meet your definition of "democratic", then what definition would you give to the UK political system? Constitutional monarchy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy "Nowadays a parliamentary democracy that is a constitutional monarchy is considered to differ from one that is a republic only in detail rather than in substance" "Wikipedia? Righto then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When it comes to having its countries a say and with voting? I dont think so as its decided by what country have the biggest area and population, which means, ireland, scotland and wales will never have a say on things, to compare with eus system where all the 27 countries can decide, whats your view?" We vote as individuals, not as nations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the uk union democratic? With an unelected head of state, an unelected house of Lords and a first past the post voting system? All carefully designed to keep power in the hands of the elite. 45% of Tory MPs were privately educated. 24% of MP Graduates went to Oxford or Cambridge Because of first past the post the majority of people's votes (52.8% of those cast in 2010) went to candidates that were not elected. In addition to this, around 380 seats are "safe" seats, which means that a party will get elected regardless of who the candidate is. Therefore the number of candidates that meaningfully undergo an election every 5 years is just 268, and the number of people who actually decide those results is less than half a million. Democratic? If you think so you have a different definition of democratic to me. Would you say there are any democratic countries in the world? If so, which ones. If the UK doesn't meet your definition of "democratic", then what definition would you give to the UK political system? Constitutional monarchy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy "Nowadays a parliamentary democracy that is a constitutional monarchy is considered to differ from one that is a republic only in detail rather than in substance"
Wikipedia?
Righto then.""Links to other sites We have restrictions on where you can link to because otherwise people end up posting spam or links to places that host malware/spyware and it's bad for our users. You can link to: Any well recognised news site (bbc, times, telegraph, sun, notw, cnn and all the rest) Youtube Lovehoney Wikipedia" https://www.fabswingers.com/content/forum-rules | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the uk union democratic? With an unelected head of state, an unelected house of Lords and a first past the post voting system? All carefully designed to keep power in the hands of the elite. 45% of Tory MPs were privately educated. 24% of MP Graduates went to Oxford or Cambridge Because of first past the post the majority of people's votes (52.8% of those cast in 2010) went to candidates that were not elected. In addition to this, around 380 seats are "safe" seats, which means that a party will get elected regardless of who the candidate is. Therefore the number of candidates that meaningfully undergo an election every 5 years is just 268, and the number of people who actually decide those results is less than half a million. Democratic? If you think so you have a different definition of democratic to me. Would you say there are any democratic countries in the world? If so, which ones. If the UK doesn't meet your definition of "democratic", then what definition would you give to the UK political system? Constitutional monarchy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy "Nowadays a parliamentary democracy that is a constitutional monarchy is considered to differ from one that is a republic only in detail rather than in substance"
Wikipedia?
Righto then.
"Links to other sites
We have restrictions on where you can link to because otherwise people end up posting spam or links to places that host malware/spyware and it's bad for our users.
You can link to:
Any well recognised news site (bbc, times, telegraph, sun, notw, cnn and all the rest)
Youtube
Lovehoney
Wikipedia"
https://www.fabswingers.com/content/forum-rules
"Yeah. That wasn't my point. Try having a thought of your own once in a while maybe? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the uk union democratic? With an unelected head of state, an unelected house of Lords and a first past the post voting system? All carefully designed to keep power in the hands of the elite. 45% of Tory MPs were privately educated. 24% of MP Graduates went to Oxford or Cambridge Because of first past the post the majority of people's votes (52.8% of those cast in 2010) went to candidates that were not elected. In addition to this, around 380 seats are "safe" seats, which means that a party will get elected regardless of who the candidate is. Therefore the number of candidates that meaningfully undergo an election every 5 years is just 268, and the number of people who actually decide those results is less than half a million. Democratic? If you think so you have a different definition of democratic to me. Would you say there are any democratic countries in the world? If so, which ones. If the UK doesn't meet your definition of "democratic", then what definition would you give to the UK political system? Constitutional monarchy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy "Nowadays a parliamentary democracy that is a constitutional monarchy is considered to differ from one that is a republic only in detail rather than in substance"
Wikipedia?
Righto then.
"Links to other sites
We have restrictions on where you can link to because otherwise people end up posting spam or links to places that host malware/spyware and it's bad for our users.
You can link to:
Any well recognised news site (bbc, times, telegraph, sun, notw, cnn and all the rest)
Youtube
Lovehoney
Wikipedia"
https://www.fabswingers.com/content/forum-rules
Yeah.
That wasn't my point.
Try having a thought of your own once in a while maybe?"You mean think more like you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the uk union democratic? With an unelected head of state, an unelected house of Lords and a first past the post voting system? All carefully designed to keep power in the hands of the elite. 45% of Tory MPs were privately educated. 24% of MP Graduates went to Oxford or Cambridge Because of first past the post the majority of people's votes (52.8% of those cast in 2010) went to candidates that were not elected. In addition to this, around 380 seats are "safe" seats, which means that a party will get elected regardless of who the candidate is. Therefore the number of candidates that meaningfully undergo an election every 5 years is just 268, and the number of people who actually decide those results is less than half a million. Democratic? If you think so you have a different definition of democratic to me." Agree it needs to change. UK politics is so out of date. Just because it's always been this way doesn't make it right for today. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the uk union democratic? With an unelected head of state, an unelected house of Lords and a first past the post voting system? All carefully designed to keep power in the hands of the elite. 45% of Tory MPs were privately educated. 24% of MP Graduates went to Oxford or Cambridge Because of first past the post the majority of people's votes (52.8% of those cast in 2010) went to candidates that were not elected. In addition to this, around 380 seats are "safe" seats, which means that a party will get elected regardless of who the candidate is. Therefore the number of candidates that meaningfully undergo an election every 5 years is just 268, and the number of people who actually decide those results is less than half a million. Democratic? If you think so you have a different definition of democratic to me. Agree it needs to change. UK politics is so out of date. Just because it's always been this way doesn't make it right for today. " Would you be asking for change if the UK voted to remain in the EU referendum? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is the uk union democratic? With an unelected head of state, an unelected house of Lords and a first past the post voting system? All carefully designed to keep power in the hands of the elite. 45% of Tory MPs were privately educated. 24% of MP Graduates went to Oxford or Cambridge Because of first past the post the majority of people's votes (52.8% of those cast in 2010) went to candidates that were not elected. In addition to this, around 380 seats are "safe" seats, which means that a party will get elected regardless of who the candidate is. Therefore the number of candidates that meaningfully undergo an election every 5 years is just 268, and the number of people who actually decide those results is less than half a million. Democratic? If you think so you have a different definition of democratic to me. Agree it needs to change. UK politics is so out of date. Just because it's always been this way doesn't make it right for today. Would you be asking for change if the UK voted to remain in the EU referendum?" The referendum has nothing to do with it. I'm totally against BREXIT but don't see that result as a good reason to change how we do democracy in this country. In fact, if anything, the referendum and other moves to so call democratise further the system are the problem. I'll happily accept changes to the voting system to make it more proportional, as long as that doesn't result in a system like the European list systems that take all the real power to choose representatives from the people and puts it into the hands of the parties alone. I'm also willing to accept reform of the Lord's but would like to still see some way of getting genuine expertise into the legislative process. I'm not in favour of direct democracy at all. In my opinion we need to choose people to represent us via democratic election, pay them well and let them do the job we're paying them to do, which is to scrutinize legislation, govern and make important decisions on our behalf and in our best interests. It's called a representative democracy and it provides over time the best and most stable governments and societies. Direct democracy, as was formily in Gaddafi's Libya, Hitler's plebesite in the Sudentlan & Putin's in Crimea, the Scotish indy referendum and the EU one, generally cover issue that are far too complex for a simple yes or no type answer and to which the general public has little knowledge of the full implementation; are always extremely divisive; and either never actually resolve the issue or lead to resolutions that results in far worse consequences than would have been the case if the issue had never been raised. Our representative democracy may not be perfect, in dead it has many flaws, but the representative democracy model of government is far better than any other. And the UK's implementation of that model is still, despite the current BREXIT fiasco, one of the few things that most of the rest of the world still envies us for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course not. Scotland and England, joined in union by a shotgun wedding with an English army assembled ready to invade if the wrong answer was delivered by Scotland's parliament of nobles.....supposedly a union of equals.....hah! The larger bully will always dominate his smaller neighbour, particularly when that neighbour has a centuries-old history of looking to conquer his neighbours. The citizens of the UK do not have the right to elect their head of state....undemocratic. No citizen may ever become the head of state.... undemocratic Parliamentary boundaries are gerrymandered by the party in power for self-interest.... anti-democratic Most politicians represent party and self-interest rather than the best interests of their constituents... a distortion of the notion of voter representation....yet another corruption of democratic principles. The UK allows its government ministers, with the consent of the monarch by means of orders in council, to usurp the rulings of the judiciary, such as when Brenda approved Jack Straw's rejection of the dispossessed Chagos Islanders' right to return to their homeland. As far as I'm concerned, where you break the law, as stated by the highest court in the land - and thereby committing a gross violation of human rights - you are a criminal, Mr Straw, and the system of government which conspires in that crime is just rotten to the core. As for rendition and complicity in torture... Government secrecy, not to maintain integrity of defence or diplomatic effectiveness, but to cover up the incompetence and malfeasance of the establishment....when government cover-up triumphs, democracy suffers. The palace of Westminster - leave your principles at the door. I would reply but usually there is absolutely not point point out any truths to an angry Scottish nationalist
was james I who created the union a Scottish king - reason Scotland was broke as usual as the elders of Scotland had just lost all the kitty of Scotland trying to establish a colony in America.
But still history doesn't count as it never
existed for some who love to twist the facts "James 1/VI was King of England and Scotland from 1603. The Darien scheme that you quote was established in 1698 and the Act of Union was 1707. If you're going to be precious about history, it helps rather to get your facts and chronology right.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I Would you be asking for change if the UK voted to remain in the EU referendum?" Imagine if the result had been 52 per cent to stay. How much of the 48 per cent would coalesce around UKIP at the next General Election. That could be a landslide. It's what happened in Scotland. The 45 per cent leave vote stayed with the SNP at the next General Election. Their normal vote share was 28-30. In a first past the post system, you'll win every seat with a 45 per cent share - and they virtually did,. UKIP may well have done the same. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I Would you be asking for change if the UK voted to remain in the EU referendum? Imagine if the result had been 52 per cent to stay. How much of the 48 per cent would coalesce around UKIP at the next General Election. That could be a landslide. It's what happened in Scotland. The 45 per cent leave vote stayed with the SNP at the next General Election. Their normal vote share was 28-30. In a first past the post system, you'll win every seat with a 45 per cent share - and they virtually did,. UKIP may well have done the same. " This is the problem - when it's so close either side is going to feel a "grudge". For example if the vote to leave had been 63% - 37% -( the result to join), then people would have been more acceptable of the result. A second referendum which provided a slim victory would only make matters worse! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I Would you be asking for change if the UK voted to remain in the EU referendum? Imagine if the result had been 52 per cent to stay. How much of the 48 per cent would coalesce around UKIP at the next General Election. That could be a landslide. It's what happened in Scotland. The 45 per cent leave vote stayed with the SNP at the next General Election. Their normal vote share was 28-30. In a first past the post system, you'll win every seat with a 45 per cent share - and they virtually did,. UKIP may well have done the same. This is the problem - when it's so close either side is going to feel a "grudge". For example if the vote to leave had been 63% - 37% -( the result to join), then people would have been more acceptable of the result. A second referendum which provided a slim victory would only make matters worse!" The 48% Remain had a chance to vote for an expressed anti Brexit party at the last general election in 2017, the Lib dems. The 48% didn't vote for them though, and the Lib dems got less than 15% share of the overall vote. 85% of the vote share went to parties with Brexit manifesto's at the last general election. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I Would you be asking for change if the UK voted to remain in the EU referendum? Imagine if the result had been 52 per cent to stay. How much of the 48 per cent would coalesce around UKIP at the next General Election. That could be a landslide. It's what happened in Scotland. The 45 per cent leave vote stayed with the SNP at the next General Election. Their normal vote share was 28-30. In a first past the post system, you'll win every seat with a 45 per cent share - and they virtually did,. UKIP may well have done the same. This is the problem - when it's so close either side is going to feel a "grudge". For example if the vote to leave had been 63% - 37% -( the result to join), then people would have been more acceptable of the result. A second referendum which provided a slim victory would only make matters worse! The 48% Remain had a chance to vote for an expressed anti Brexit party at the last general election in 2017, the Lib dems. The 48% didn't vote for them though, and the Lib dems got less than 15% share of the overall vote. 85% of the vote share went to parties with Brexit manifesto's at the last general election. " Because the rest of the Lib Dem’s manifesto is shite  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When it comes to having its countries a say and with voting? I dont think so as its decided by what country have the biggest area and population, which means, ireland, scotland and wales will never have a say on things, to compare with eus system where all the 27 countries can decide, whats your view?" You must mean Northern Ireland as Ireland isn't in the UK just so you know | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
