Corruption rewarded

[wreckedit]

I expect the state to trust me, and not treat me as a criminal all the time. I also extend that courtesy to the government, and let them do the biz unmolested for 5 years.

I have to admit that the Lincsbodger has a vast knowledge and is worth listening to.
But statements like this should not go unchallenged.

Q. Why should a government of,not wholly bunch of reprobates, go unchallenged, to create havok, disgrace, international embarassment to hard working British people.

There is no way that any Government, Authority, Business, Media, etc., should go unchallenged.

That is not a democratic stance to take and is a recipe for disaster.

here comes the onslaught!!!

 

[Lincsbodger]

Well, the system USED to work fine, pre John Major. Theres no reason it cant work fine again, now weve booted out the shower of corrupt immoral thieves Labours Ruling Incompetance turned out to be.

I have infinite faith that the LibCons will not be even one tenth as bad as Labour was for lying, corruption, nepotism, skulduggery and thievery - after all, they dont have the slimy toad Mandelson, and hes worth 12 other politicians for that sort of thing on his own. I also agree 100% that any UNELECTED bodies need to be accountable on a microscale, most certainly, and I also agree that anything that affects the basic fundamental sovereignty and governance of the nation (like the Lisbon Treaty) DEMANDS a referendum, but otherwise having 20 question referendums every 3 bloody months is just a waste of time and money.

Most people wouldn't even bother voting in them, we can only get 60% of the electorate to turn up every 5 years for a general election (sometimes only 30%), if you started getting them to vote every 3 months it would resolve down to only 10% voting after voter fatigue set in, and then you're into something VERY undemocratic, where 10% of the population are affecting governmental decisions, unless you are going to make voting in them legally compulsory, and THEN your going to start criminalising the populace big time.

All the above, as i see, represents a MASSIVE flaw in the idea, so im afraid ill have to give it only 3 out of 10

 

[imamartian]

Most people wouldn't even bother voting in them, we can only get 60% of the electorate to turn up every 5 years for a general election (sometimes only 30%), if you started getting them to vote every 3 months it would resolve down to only 10% voting after voter fatigue set in, and then you're into something VERY undemocratic, where 10% of the population are affecting governmental decisions, unless you are going to make voting in them legally compulsory, and THEN your going to start criminalising the populace big time.

All the above, as i see, represents a MASSIVE flaw in the idea, so im afraid ill have to give it only 3 out of 10

In your opinion you think people wouldn't vote.
I think a lot of people don't vote in the elections because of the current voting system. They feel their votes are worthless. Secondly you vote for a manifesto which is virually torn up as soon as a party gets in power.

But a regular referendum on a specific individual subjects would be of huge significance to interested parties... and of course you wouldn't be forced to vote. You'd vote on what you were interested in... e.g. fox hunting, immigration, the Euro etc.

And ok, 5 questions every 4 months... or whatever... it'll need people more acedemic than me to sort out the details.

 

[Lincsbodger]

you would still end up with a small percentage of vocal and active people engineering votes, and it would be highly undemocratic. Unless at least 80% of the population vote, and 51% vote one way, its a recipe for various forms of fairly sinister political manipulation, and we had a demonstration of that atthe last election, 51 cases of postal vote fraud (and all by labour supporters, unsurprisingly)

Nope, you'll never convince me, i would be vehemently opposed to this except for the instances previously mentioned.

 

[imamartian]

you would still end up with a small percentage of vocal and active people engineering votes, and it would be highly undemocratic. Unless at least 80% of the population vote, and 51% vote one way, its a recipe for various forms of fairly sinister political manipulation, and we had a demonstration of that atthe last election, 51 cases of postal vote fraud (and all by labour supporters, unsurprisingly)

Nope, you'll never convince me, i would be vehemently opposed to this except for the instances previously mentioned.

I find it hard to believe you 'know' what would happen. Surely, that's only your opinion? And besides i'm not arguing about the detail, but the principle of more referendums.
And you say you'd need 80% to make it work? when you said yourself that sometimes the election only gets 30% turnout.
I think you'd find lots of interested people. Look at how many people can be bothered to march over things like the Poll Tax, and foxhunting.

It needs trialling... i know, lets have a referendum !!

But i don't have hopes of convincing you Lincs, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[oompah]

But i don't have hopes of convincing you Lincs, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Maybe thats what is wrong on this forum at the moment with topics locked and post deleted,its not about trying to convince any one,its about offering an opinion and if agreement is reached all well and good and if not, move on.Not a dig at you imamartian just how I see the site at the moment.

 

[imamartian]

But i don't have hopes of convincing you Lincs, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Maybe thats what is wrong on this forum at the moment with topics locked and post deleted,its not about trying to convince any one,its about offering an opinion and if agreement is reached all well and good and if not, move on.Not a dig at you imamartian just how I see the site at the moment.

I thought a debate was about trying to convince others that your argument is right?
What's wrong with this site at the mo is that some people let their big egos get in the way, and can't even entertain the idea that someone else might have a single valid point.
And then you get a battle of egos not a debate. That then leads to throwing insults... and then posts getting locked.

 

[oompah]

I thought a debate was about trying to convince others that your argument is right?
What's wrong with this site at the mo is that some people let their big egos get in the way, and can't even entertain the idea that someone else might have a single valid point.
And then you get a battle of egos not a debate. That then leads to throwing insults... and then posts getting locked.

Then there is the other side of trying to convince others that that the point is right even if it is not.Theres none so blind as those that cannot see.