May as Prime Minister ?

Clarky

I don't know much about May
but given the situation the UK finds itself in, and looking at those available to take the helm
I reckon [with my very limited knowledge of these things] she must be pretty much are only / best option..

Clarky

Myranda said:

Cirrus said:

See, to me it reads more like you have a problem with uninformed idiots than democracy.

The world would be a better place all round if there were less idiots. I suggest that's a question of decent education, a fundamentally decent society, and better parenting choices.

I admit we're unlikely to get any of that, because we're just a bunch of animals running round.

But uninformed idiots still get a vote... And it's counted as equal to the vote of the informed... 

Now. A moron cull would be nice, but even the morons would not vote for the Cull-The-Moron party... So we're left with a system that allows morons to vote. 

The press don't help... Freedom ofof the press should stop at opinion pieces being presented as fact. 

There should be an entrance exam to vote - nothing like higher level maths... But the ability to recognise the policies you're voting for and against. Get a good enough score and you're allowed to vote, otherwise you're told try again next year.

We live in an information age where facts are at our finger tips... There's no excuse any more  

if there actually was a moron cull, just think how easy with would be to find a parking space..
great suggestion I'm all for it..

octatonic

Bogwhoppit said:

The point is, a significant amount of the electorate vote and react to perceptions, not facts or events.  Whilst the LD's may have had good intentions, they should also have been aware that any perception they had screwed up was going to cause them problems in the future. Ergo, they should have remained true to their principles and avoided any coalition with a large yellow bargepole.

That is a bit of a strident interpretation you have there.
They took one for the team and helped to ensure a period of stability.
I don't see how avoiding coalition and plugging the country into economic and political turmoil would have won them any favours with the electorate either.

The party membership grew by several thousand immediately following the 2015 election and following the recent referendum, so they can't be doing such a terrible job at it.
Feel free to disagree of course.

Chalky

Myranda said:

Chalky said:

@Myranda said "Democracy can only truly work if the people voting vote for the greater good and understand what that is".

Wow! So much stupidity in one sentence!

Er, who defines the greater good? 

Wow. 

It's what's best for the most people... And as individuals we can't fully appreciate it... Which is why democracy can never be fixed. Though your instant jump to name calling hardly presents you as the ideal candidate to show that democracy can be saved after all... 

But saying stuff like "It's what's best for most people" is equally stupid.

What is best for you is certainly not what is best for every other person. You are trying to summate disparate things. The best for person A may be increased social support whereas the best for person B may be increased social independence, for example.

Myranda

Chalky said:

Myranda said:

Chalky said:

@Myranda said "Democracy can only truly work if the people voting vote for the greater good and understand what that is".

Wow! So much stupidity in one sentence!

Er, who defines the greater good? 

Wow. 

It's what's best for the most people... And as individuals we can't fully appreciate it... Which is why democracy can never be fixed. Though your instant jump to name calling hardly presents you as the ideal candidate to show that democracy can be saved after all... 

But saying stuff like "It's what's best for most people" is equally stupid.

What is best for you is certainly not what is best for every other person. You are trying to summate disparate things. The best for person A may be increased social support whereas the best for person B may be increased social independence, for example.

You're making my point with every post. Democracy cannot work unless everyone votes for what is best for most people but we can't know whats best for most people... 

And best for most people might be a compromise for individuals... Why are you still talking about what individuals want? 

marantz1300

Oink ,oink. One out ,one in.

ICBM

Myranda said:

 Democracy cannot work unless everyone votes for what is best for most people but we can't know whats best for most people... 

Democracy works well enough when everyone votes purely in their own self-interest, or what they perceive to be it. Which is more or less what happens in most democracies.

It doesn't work perfectly when the system allows a better-organised minority to overrule a less-well-organised majority (as it tends to in a FPTP system), but the rules just need to be devised to prevent that as much as possible.

Chalky

Myranda said:

Chalky said:

Myranda said:

Chalky said:

@Myranda said "Democracy can only truly work if the people voting vote for the greater good and understand what that is".

Wow! So much stupidity in one sentence!

Er, who defines the greater good? 

Wow. 

It's what's best for the most people... And as individuals we can't fully appreciate it... Which is why democracy can never be fixed. Though your instant jump to name calling hardly presents you as the ideal candidate to show that democracy can be saved after all... 

But saying stuff like "It's what's best for most people" is equally stupid.

What is best for you is certainly not what is best for every other person. You are trying to summate disparate things. The best for person A may be increased social support whereas the best for person B may be increased social independence, for example.

You're making my point with every post. Democracy cannot work unless everyone votes for what is best for most people but we can't know whats best for most people... 

And best for most people might be a compromise for individuals... Why are you still talking about what individuals want? 

Read again. I didn't use the word 'want'. I said "the best for".

I wondered when the word 'compromise' would appear. So your plan has failed - some people will get what is best for them and other people get a compromise instead. So immediately you've created a two tier society. Societal design is nowhere near as easy as you think.

hungrymark

Myranda said:

Cirrus said:

Myranda said:

But I don't want the people who vote for a faith healing type to have representation... I've spoken to the Peace Party rep... My local Green Party rep... These are people who positively should not be in government... PR puts the morons voted in by morons in the driving seat of the country... Under PR the UKIP party would have nearly as much power as the SNP in the last election. 

As for doing it all twice... One for the government and one for pm... No thanks. The country is largely apathetic about voting once in general elections... I'd not trust us as a country to bother twice 

So you don't believe in democracy? Or you do believe in democracy, as long as people who hold marginal views are disproportionately marginalised?

I don't like the implications for increased UKIP power if we had PR either, but if a certain percentage of the country want UKIP to represent them, then the makeup of parliament should represent those people.

However!

In practice, if we had PR and UKIP had got many more seats in parliament, they'd still be in the minority. And if they'd been part of a governing coalition, what's the worst that could have happened? A vote to leave the EU? lol!

If we had proper PR, the need for a protest vote in the first place would be reduced, and nobody would feel disenchanted from the current system, or that their vote didn't matter if they live in safe seats. Tactical voting would be less of an issue. I think PR would increase interest and engagement with the process across the board, as every vote would actually count equally. And I think that in time that would reduce the sway of UKIP, so that particular threat would reduce.

What we'd have instead is a parliamentary body who's makeup actually adequately represented the country, and most likely coalition governments that would overall represent more than 50% of the voters.

As for that list bit of your post about holding two elections, I think you've gone and read a lot more into my vague suggestion than you should have in order to find something to disagree with. I didn't make any proposal as to how it'd work in practice! If you want specifics, give me a few years to study law and politics so I can draft a comprehensive and unassailable proposal for a total overhaul of the UK's governing institutions.

Of course I don't believe in democracy. 

The stupid cunts who vote EDL because they don't like Muslamic laws,  who can barely read have the same amount of say in who governs as someone who understands our constitution, who reads the election pledges of their local candidate and compares them to those of the political party they are part of. 

Democracy would be fine if the majority werent too lazy or too dumb (or both) to actually take time to understand what and who they were voting for. 

EDL, UKIP, BNP etc supporters get as much say in PR system as rational human beings who don't hate Sanjai down the street just because he's brown. Why should I believe in democracy when there are flat earthers out there? Or anti-vaxxers? Holocaust deniers? Neonazis? 

Democracy can only truly work if the people voting vote for the greater good and understand what that is... Rather than self interest especially when bigotry is so easy for people 

So what's your alternative to democracy? Democracy but only if we can prove that we're as clever as you are? What if the powers that be decided that we can vote but only if we're slightly more intelligent than you, thereby disenfranchised you? Would that be OK? 

digitalscream

Just to derail things earlier...had this from the government petitions site about the referendum petition:

The Petitions Committee has decided to schedule a House of Commons debate on this petition. The debate will take place on 5 September at 4.30pm in Westminster Hall, the second debating chamber of the House of Commons. The debate will be opened by Ian Blackford MP.

The Committee has decided that the huge number of people signing this petition means that it should be debated by MPs. The Petitions Committee would like to make clear that, in scheduling this debate, they are not supporting the call for a second referendum. The debate will allow MPs to put forward a range of views on behalf of their constituents. At the end of the debate, a Government Minister will respond to the points raised.

A debate in Westminster Hall does not have the power to change the law, and won’t end with the House of Commons deciding whether or not to have a second referendum. Moreover, the petition – which was opened on 25 May, well before the referendum – calls for the referendum rules to be changed. It is now too late for the rules to be changed retrospectively. It will be up to the Government to decide whether it wants to start the process of agreeing a new law for a second referendum.

Interesting wording there in bold.

hungrymark

How is it interesting? Not having a dig, I just thought that was the general idea with pretty much any petition. 

Chalky

I think @digitalscream is reading the wording optimistically. I read it as confirmatory that the debate means nothing.

digitalscream

Chalky said:

I think @digitalscream is reading the wording optimistically. I read it as confirmatory that the debate means nothing.

Nope, not being optimistic at all - at this point, more uncertainty is the last thing we need. I read it as them deliberately leaving the outcome open-ended, but spelling out what one of the cases would be. They don't normally do that with these things.

Myranda

hungrymark said:

Myranda said:

Cirrus said:

Myranda said:

But I don't want the people who vote for a faith healing type to have representation... I've spoken to the Peace Party rep... My local Green Party rep... These are people who positively should not be in government... PR puts the morons voted in by morons in the driving seat of the country... Under PR the UKIP party would have nearly as much power as the SNP in the last election. 

As for doing it all twice... One for the government and one for pm... No thanks. The country is largely apathetic about voting once in general elections... I'd not trust us as a country to bother twice 

So you don't believe in democracy? Or you do believe in democracy, as long as people who hold marginal views are disproportionately marginalised?

I don't like the implications for increased UKIP power if we had PR either, but if a certain percentage of the country want UKIP to represent them, then the makeup of parliament should represent those people.

However!

In practice, if we had PR and UKIP had got many more seats in parliament, they'd still be in the minority. And if they'd been part of a governing coalition, what's the worst that could have happened? A vote to leave the EU? lol!

If we had proper PR, the need for a protest vote in the first place would be reduced, and nobody would feel disenchanted from the current system, or that their vote didn't matter if they live in safe seats. Tactical voting would be less of an issue. I think PR would increase interest and engagement with the process across the board, as every vote would actually count equally. And I think that in time that would reduce the sway of UKIP, so that particular threat would reduce.

What we'd have instead is a parliamentary body who's makeup actually adequately represented the country, and most likely coalition governments that would overall represent more than 50% of the voters.

As for that list bit of your post about holding two elections, I think you've gone and read a lot more into my vague suggestion than you should have in order to find something to disagree with. I didn't make any proposal as to how it'd work in practice! If you want specifics, give me a few years to study law and politics so I can draft a comprehensive and unassailable proposal for a total overhaul of the UK's governing institutions.

Of course I don't believe in democracy. 

The stupid cunts who vote EDL because they don't like Muslamic laws,  who can barely read have the same amount of say in who governs as someone who understands our constitution, who reads the election pledges of their local candidate and compares them to those of the political party they are part of. 

Democracy would be fine if the majority werent too lazy or too dumb (or both) to actually take time to understand what and who they were voting for. 

EDL, UKIP, BNP etc supporters get as much say in PR system as rational human beings who don't hate Sanjai down the street just because he's brown. Why should I believe in democracy when there are flat earthers out there? Or anti-vaxxers? Holocaust deniers? Neonazis? 

Democracy can only truly work if the people voting vote for the greater good and understand what that is... Rather than self interest especially when bigotry is so easy for people 

So what's your alternative to democracy? Democracy but only if we can prove that we're as clever as you are? What if the powers that be decided that we can vote but only if we're slightly more intelligent than you, thereby disenfranchised you? Would that be OK? 

Of course that would be fine. If someone knows more about situations than I do they are better equipped to make decisions resulting from that situation. 

Why do we need to enfranchised? Its leading the country not choosing what colour to paint the living room. I also think that politicians shouldn't be allowed to run in the first place if they can't demonstrate some understanding of events (and no science ministers who think homeopathy should be available on the NHS... Unless we are back to the moron cull). 

Why do our opinions matter when we don't understand the question? I'm not a rocket scientist so don't expect NASA to ask me to vote on rocket designs... Why should my lack of knowledge in economics be considered during debate on tax reform? 

The world was simpler when democracy was invented. It was still possible to know all the current knowledge. Now something as simple as economics is too complicated for most of us to grasp without doing a course on economics - and even then economists don't agree on lots of things. 

Cirrus

Myranda said:

Why do our opinions matter when we don't understand the question? I'm not a rocket scientist so don't expect NASA to ask me to vote on rocket designs... Why should my lack of knowledge in economics be considered during debate on tax reform? 

The world was simpler when democracy was invented. It was still possible to know all the current knowledge. Now something as simple as economics is too complicated for most of us to grasp without doing a course on economics - and even then economists don't agree on lots of things. 

Well, consider this; voters aren't asked to design rockets. They're not even asked to draft tax legislation - because they both require a depth of knowledge and understanding of their respective subjects that most don't possess.

Instead, they're asked to make a generalised decision between MPs who hold different views as to what society should be about, and what the end goal is. And the great thing about that is that most people, clever to stupid, can have perfectly valid opinions as to what matters in society.

Should it be about protecting those who are less well off through circumstances beyond their control? Should people who are ahead in life, either through their own hard work or by being born into better circumstances, have money taken from them to pay for that? Or should society be a little more Darwinian? Should people be left to survive or starve/freeze on their own merits and abilities?

That stuff is pretty simple, and you'll get a valid opinion from anyone because there's no right answer. Humans as a species haven't set themselves actual objectives - we each just bumble about for a few decades thinking about ourselves and our loved ones, then we die and pretty soon no one cares what we thought. If we had a set goal - like "make sure everyone is happy and no one is starving", then we'd construct a very different society and government than if the goal was "Establish a colony in another star system, whatever the cost to individual human life".

So everyone can chose a place on the political spectrum with equal validity, since there's no overarching plan. And the more you care, the more you can research and hone your opinions based on a detailed understanding. But that doesn't make the choices of anyone else any less valid.

That's how I see it, anyway.

DesVegas

^Amen

edenfield99

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-prime-minister-andrea-leadsom-policies-voting-record-human-rights-what-did-she-mean-a7130961.html

Clarky

just saw a really nice pic of Theresa May and George Formby outside number 10
they look so happy..

Ro_S

Clarky said:

just saw a really nice pic of Theresa May and George Formby outside number 10
they look so happy..

No, no.   I was Alan Greenspan.   Or was it Woody Allen?

And his trousers were too long.

Ro_S

I see that May attended the palace dressed as a wasp.  

Prince Philip thought the entertainer had turned up for a children's party.