Well thats quite a falling out...Wetherspoon no longer will sell Heineken, Fosters, John Smiths, Strongbow or Murphy's. Some will say good riddance to bad beer, but I bet that forms a huge % of their current customers preferred cheapo options.
This might've been mentioned, but Isee that BES guy said he puts little store in the Ashcroft polling in LD seats which shows implausibly large boosts for the Lib Dems on the second question. Could it possibly be that the second question makes people think they're answering about local elections, where the Lib Dems reliably perform much better than in Westminster elections?
My youngest lad is 15, and is so politically aware, that we call him Trotsky! He got into politics at the start of the strike, he's always hung around when work colleagues have been over, watching football or parties and BBQs and likes to get involved, asking questions and making comments. His interest really took off when we were discussing cuts. He sees things in black and white, and was worried when he found out that my, and people who I work with and he likes and respects, jobs, were under threat, but also confused as to why cuts were necessary. He's researched a lot, and has joined us on rallies, meetings, and on the picket line. He's young, idealistic (gets his musical kick from young, leftwing bands like Enter Shikari or ecolefties like 30 Seconds To Mars), naive and a little politically unformed, but so what? He's got to live in this chaotic world that we're creating, why shouldn't he get a say in who runs it, once he hits 16, and has rights and responsibilities that that age now brings?
Try telling him you can't spend what you don't have on an indefinite basis. I'm sure he'll be able to discern the black and white logic in that statement.
Clearly TwistedFireStopper your 15 yr old son is a believer in the socialist Magic Money Tree. Just make sure he does not ever borrow any money himself.
My youngest lad is 15, and is so politically aware, that we call him Trotsky! He got into politics at the start of the strike, he's always hung around when work colleagues have been over, watching football or parties and BBQs and likes to get involved, asking questions and making comments. His interest really took off when we were discussing cuts. He sees things in black and white, and was worried when he found out that my, and people who I work with and he likes and respects, jobs, were under threat, but also confused as to why cuts were necessary. He's researched a lot, and has joined us on rallies, meetings, and on the picket line. He's young, idealistic (gets his musical kick from young, leftwing bands like Enter Shikari or ecolefties like 30 Seconds To Mars), naive and a little politically unformed, but so what? He's got to live in this chaotic world that we're creating, why shouldn't he get a say in who runs it, once he hits 16, and has rights and responsibilities that that age now brings?
Try telling him you can't spend what you don't have on an indefinite basis. I'm sure he'll be able to discern the black and white logic in that statement.
Then try telling him "paying bond-market traders in Shanghai is more important than improving the lives of British people" and see how he reacts.
Grayling next out? He certainly should be - apparently the man doesn't even understand his own bill. That's a bill designed to restrict judicial reviews which determine whether ministers have acted illegally.
My youngest lad is 15, and is so politically aware, that we call him Trotsky! He got into politics at the start of the strike, he's always hung around when work colleagues have been over, watching football or parties and BBQs and likes to get involved, asking questions and making comments. His interest really took off when we were discussing cuts. He sees things in black and white, and was worried when he found out that my, and people who I work with and he likes and respects, jobs, were under threat, but also confused as to why cuts were necessary. He's researched a lot, and has joined us on rallies, meetings, and on the picket line. He's young, idealistic (gets his musical kick from young, leftwing bands like Enter Shikari or ecolefties like 30 Seconds To Mars), naive and a little politically unformed, but so what? He's got to live in this chaotic world that we're creating, why shouldn't he get a say in who runs it, once he hits 16, and has rights and responsibilities that that age now brings?
Try telling him you can't spend what you don't have on an indefinite basis. I'm sure he'll be able to discern the black and white logic in that statement.
And suggest he gets an alternative viewpoint, to the one from those who might be affected by any cuts.
This might've been mentioned, but Isee that BES guy said he puts little store in the Ashcroft polling in LD seats which shows implausibly large boosts for the Lib Dems on the second question. Could it possibly be that the second question makes people think they're answering about local elections, where the Lib Dems reliably perform much better than in Westminster elections?
The 2010 and 2005 libdem GE shares were almost exactly the same as the previous two years local election results.
My youngest lad is 15, and is so politically aware, that we call him Trotsky! He got into politics at the start of the strike, he's always hung around when work colleagues have been over, watching football or parties and BBQs and likes to get involved, asking questions and making comments. His interest really took off when we were discussing cuts. He sees things in black and white, and was worried when he found out that my, and people who I work with and he likes and respects, jobs, were under threat, but also confused as to why cuts were necessary. He's researched a lot, and has joined us on rallies, meetings, and on the picket line. He's young, idealistic (gets his musical kick from young, leftwing bands like Enter Shikari or ecolefties like 30 Seconds To Mars), naive and a little politically unformed, but so what? He's got to live in this chaotic world that we're creating, why shouldn't he get a say in who runs it, once he hits 16, and has rights and responsibilities that that age now brings?
Try telling him you can't spend what you don't have on an indefinite basis. I'm sure he'll be able to discern the black and white logic in that statement.
Then try telling him "paying bond-market traders in Shanghai is more important than improving the lives of British people" and see how he reacts.
Damn right. We should just default. Obviously we'd need to cut the deficit to zero with immediate effect, or just tell the BoE to start printing and run up some nice inflation numbers trying to buy foreign goods with funny money. But at least the British people would know we meant well.
Yeah, good job no factories or offices were operating to lower the percentage figure, wasn't it?
I take the view that it doesn't matter how we generate our energy as long as it stops us being dependent on various fundamentalist regimes around the world.
My youngest lad is 15, and is so politically aware, that we call him Trotsky! He got into politics at the start of the strike, he's always hung around when work colleagues have been over, watching football or parties and BBQs and likes to get involved, asking questions and making comments. His interest really took off when we were discussing cuts. He sees things in black and white, and was worried when he found out that my, and people who I work with and he likes and respects, jobs, were under threat, but also confused as to why cuts were necessary. He's researched a lot, and has joined us on rallies, meetings, and on the picket line. He's young, idealistic (gets his musical kick from young, leftwing bands like Enter Shikari or ecolefties like 30 Seconds To Mars), naive and a little politically unformed, but so what? He's got to live in this chaotic world that we're creating, why shouldn't he get a say in who runs it, once he hits 16, and has rights and responsibilities that that age now brings?
Try telling him you can't spend what you don't have on an indefinite basis. I'm sure he'll be able to discern the black and white logic in that statement.
Then try telling him "paying bond-market traders in Shanghai is more important than improving the lives of British people" and see how he reacts.
Are they the ones supplying the money to the British people?
The problem with mandatory jail sentences is that juries will acquit if the mandatory sentence seems too harsh.
My understanding is that if a judge deviates from sentencing guidelines he will be (a) hauled in front of the Lord Chancellor, and if it continues then (b) he will lose his job.
That doesn't seem like a bad compromise.
You think juries will let off a child rapist because they don't want him to go to prison for several decades?
Yes, of course they will. In the same way they let murderers off when they thought the death penalty was inapproporiate.
Let me give you an example. A 13 year old girl, sexually active with her 15 year old boyfriend, gets drunk one evening on the estate and sleeps with a 25 year old guy. He says he thought she was 16 (and to the jury she looks like she could be). Some witnesses claim she initiated it. She says she was too drunk to consent.
Is a jury going to acquit or send the man to jail for 50 years? I'd bet the latter.
On the other hand, if they thought he'd get five years, they'd probably convict.
The 50 year sentence I was talking about was if they were part of a gang that repeatedly raped the girl. If you were one of those rapists that knew what was going on, then you deserve 50 years and juries would surely not let that prevent them from sending such bastards down.
Are you going to have hundreds of very specific laws as regards child rape?
Which will, of course, end up with a game between defence lawyers and the prosecution about what exactly people get charged with. "Yeah, this might definitely be a gang related child rape thing... if you're thinking about pleading guilty, then maybe we could prosecute you for x"
No, not hundreds. Just clear ones for the most vile crimes.
This might've been mentioned, but Isee that BES guy said he puts little store in the Ashcroft polling in LD seats which shows implausibly large boosts for the Lib Dems on the second question. Could it possibly be that the second question makes people think they're answering about local elections, where the Lib Dems reliably perform much better than in Westminster elections?
The 2010 and 2005 libdem GE shares were almost exactly the same as the previous two years local election results.
I'm committing the cardinal sin of relying on Wikipedia here, but this states the Lib Dems got 28% in the 2009 locals (a whole 5% better than they got a year later, and that was after they'd been artificially inflated by Cleggmania).
Ah, I get it. You don't want people voting who don't understand politics to the extent that you do. Maybe I should flog my house, send him to do PPE at OxBridge and join the Conservatives? Or just beat his idealism out of him?
The problem with mandatory jail sentences is that juries will acquit if the mandatory sentence seems too harsh.
My understanding is that if a judge deviates from sentencing guidelines he will be (a) hauled in front of the Lord Chancellor, and if it continues then (b) he will lose his job.
That doesn't seem like a bad compromise.
You think juries will let off a child rapist because they don't want him to go to prison for several decades?
Yes, of course they will. In the same way they let murderers off when they thought the death penalty was inapproporiate.
Let me give you an example. A 13 year old girl, sexually active with her 15 year old boyfriend, gets drunk one evening on the estate and sleeps with a 25 year old guy. He says he thought she was 16 (and to the jury she looks like she could be). Some witnesses claim she initiated it. She says she was too drunk to consent.
Is a jury going to acquit or send the man to jail for 50 years? I'd bet the latter.
On the other hand, if they thought he'd get five years, they'd probably convict.
The 50 year sentence I was talking about was if they were part of a gang that repeatedly raped the girl. If you were one of those rapists that knew what was going on, then you deserve 50 years and juries would surely not let that prevent them from sending such bastards down.
I certainly wouldn't want you on my jury If I had committed an offence. You belong to the hangem and flogem brigade and no sentence in your mind is harsh enough.
You're conflating two entirely independent things: the objectivity of someone in assessing guilt, and the their support for severe punishments for the guilty. Also, you are simply incorrect: I oppose both capital and corporate punishment. I just support very long punishments for torturing and repeatedly raping children.
This might've been mentioned, but Isee that BES guy said he puts little store in the Ashcroft polling in LD seats which shows implausibly large boosts for the Lib Dems on the second question. Could it possibly be that the second question makes people think they're answering about local elections, where the Lib Dems reliably perform much better than in Westminster elections?
The 2010 and 2005 libdem GE shares were almost exactly the same as the previous two years local election results.
Ah, I get it. You don't want people voting who don't understand politics to the extent that you do. Maybe I should flog my house, send him to do PPE at OxBridge and join the Conservatives? Or just beat his idealism out of him?
Or you could just continue doing your job as a parent, and when he is an adult and running his own life, he will begin having practical experience of the real world upon which he can make more mature decisions.
Natasha Bolter was a member of the Labour Party not long ago. I always thought it was a bit of an odd decision to parachute her into one of UKIP's best prospects instead of a locally selected candidate.
Maybe UKIP have dodged a bullet in Basildon South.
If they have, they've walked in to another if they've parachuted in Neil Hamilton instead....
But do you think most ordinary people even remember the 1994 Neil Hamilton cash for questions affair? I'd be surprised if they do.
When I asked about whether there should be a limit on the wilderness years for a politician, Richard Tyndall suggested a sine die ban.
Ah, I get it. You don't want people voting who don't understand politics to the extent that you do. Maybe I should flog my house, send him to do PPE at OxBridge and join the Conservatives? Or just beat his idealism out of him?
Or you could just continue doing your job as a parent, and when he is an adult and running his own life, he will begin having practical experience of the real world upon which he can make more mature decisions.
No, we're grooming him for power. I want a nice comfy Dacha by a lake.
That's NOT true according to the BBC, its was because his offence was in 2004 and not in 2005 (might have got the dates wrong) but the essence is was that his crime was committed before the law came in so can't be held indefinitely, I feel sure they is a PB lawyer who can set the scene.
Must be Cameron's fault.
I always thought an "indefinite" jail term was an affront to English justice. By all means sentence people for life, but you should not be held at the whim of the Executive.
Why not?
They were used instead of death sentences to indicate that your life was no longer yours, but the property of society to do as it wish as far as detention was concerned.
Or do you think the death penalty should be brought back?
The problem with mandatory jail sentences is that juries will acquit if the mandatory sentence seems too harsh.
Indeed, in many cases of say pedo offences the jury wont mind the key being thrown away.
However when informed that a 21 year old faces 50 years inside for having sex with someone 15 years and 364 days old they might be a tad reluctant to convict.
The solution is surely to have first second and third degree offences like wot they do in USA, with first degree having the mandatory sentence and let the jury decide?
This might've been mentioned, but Isee that BES guy said he puts little store in the Ashcroft polling in LD seats which shows implausibly large boosts for the Lib Dems on the second question. Could it possibly be that the second question makes people think they're answering about local elections, where the Lib Dems reliably perform much better than in Westminster elections?
The 2010 and 2005 libdem GE shares were almost exactly the same as the previous two years local election results.
I'm committing the cardinal sin of relying on Wikipedia here, but this states the Lib Dems got 28% in the 2009 locals (a whole 5% better than they got a year later, and that was after they'd been artificially inflated by Cleggmania).
You are making the cardinal error of mixing up actual vote share in the 2009 locals with projected national vote share as calculated per the BBC and the figures given in WIKI . I have pointed out previously that in 2009 in particular the BBC's PNV share was for some reason and almost certainly wrongly much higher than the actual vote share .
Ah, I get it. You don't want people voting who don't understand politics to the extent that you do. Maybe I should flog my house, send him to do PPE at OxBridge and join the Conservatives? Or just beat his idealism out of him?
Nothing to do with understanding politics. Just basic common sense. Earn more than you spend. Kids with pocket money do it. Companies do it. Individuals do it. Countries need to do it. If you're spending more than you earn, on an ongoing basis, then something's wrong at the mill. End of. If you haven't taught him that, you've done him a disservice.
This might've been mentioned, but Isee that BES guy said he puts little store in the Ashcroft polling in LD seats which shows implausibly large boosts for the Lib Dems on the second question. Could it possibly be that the second question makes people think they're answering about local elections, where the Lib Dems reliably perform much better than in Westminster elections?
If that's correct then my Solihull/Hallam match charity spread bet will romp home. But not too sure it is.
This might've been mentioned, but Isee that BES guy said he puts little store in the Ashcroft polling in LD seats which shows implausibly large boosts for the Lib Dems on the second question. Could it possibly be that the second question makes people think they're answering about local elections, where the Lib Dems reliably perform much better than in Westminster elections?
The 2010 and 2005 libdem GE shares were almost exactly the same as the previous two years local election results.
I'm committing the cardinal sin of relying on Wikipedia here, but this states the Lib Dems got 28% in the 2009 locals (a whole 5% better than they got a year later, and that was after they'd been artificially inflated by Cleggmania).
You are making the cardinal error of mixing up actual vote share in the 2009 locals with projected national vote share as calculated per the BBC and the figures given in WIKI . I have pointed out previously that in 2009 in particular the BBC's PNV share was for some reason and almost certainly wrongly much higher than the actual vote share .
The Lib Dems got a more modest 25% in 2009. However, in 2004 they got 27%, a full 5% higher than their GE performance a year later.
In the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections, the LDs performed considerably worse than their average in local elections in the years preceding. The 2010 election they matched up more closely with their local elections in the previous years, but I would argue this was because of the last-minute Cleggmania boost; without that, I think the Lib Dems would've kept to the pattern of majorly underperforming their local election scores in the GE.
Whether people aged 16 should be allowed to commit to serving 6 years is an open question and one perhaps more correctly linked to responsibility for voting.
Incidentally, how do they make that commitment, when as a minor you are supposedly not competent to sign a binding contract ?
Contracts of service and apprenticeship are exceptions to that rule.
There are loads of exceptions.
When I studied it most of the case law was when age of competence was 21.
This might've been mentioned, but Isee that BES guy said he puts little store in the Ashcroft polling in LD seats which shows implausibly large boosts for the Lib Dems on the second question. Could it possibly be that the second question makes people think they're answering about local elections, where the Lib Dems reliably perform much better than in Westminster elections?
The 2010 and 2005 libdem GE shares were almost exactly the same as the previous two years local election results.
I'm committing the cardinal sin of relying on Wikipedia here, but this states the Lib Dems got 28% in the 2009 locals (a whole 5% better than they got a year later, and that was after they'd been artificially inflated by Cleggmania).
You are making the cardinal error of mixing up actual vote share in the 2009 locals with projected national vote share as calculated per the BBC and the figures given in WIKI . I have pointed out previously that in 2009 in particular the BBC's PNV share was for some reason and almost certainly wrongly much higher than the actual vote share .
The Lib Dems got a more modest 25% in 2009. However, in 2004 they got 27%, a full 5% higher than their GE performance a year later.
In the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections, the LDs performed considerably worse than their average in local elections in the years preceding. The 2010 election they matched up more closely with their local elections in the previous years, but I would argue this was because of the last-minute Cleggmania boost.
The paper you refer to also has PNV shares not actual vote shares but not the BBC calculated figures . Remember in 2009 there were only elections in the English county councils and a few unitaries , no elections in Scotland , Wales , London and the Met districts so the actual vote share ( IIRC just over 25% ) can only be compared to the GE LD vote in those parliamentary seats . Similar considerations apply in the other years you give .
Natasha Bolter was a member of the Labour Party not long ago. I always thought it was a bit of an odd decision to parachute her into one of UKIP's best prospects instead of a locally selected candidate.
Maybe UKIP have dodged a bullet in Basildon South.
If they have, they've walked in to another if they've parachuted in Neil Hamilton instead....
But do you think most ordinary people even remember the 1994 Neil Hamilton cash for questions affair? I'd be surprised if they do.
When I asked about whether there should be a limit on the wilderness years for a politician, Richard Tyndall suggested a sine die ban.
Personally, I think 17 years is plenty.
I did indeed. Although not for any crime, just for those that actually involve corruption or abuse of power in public office. I am not inclined to think that someone who has acted in a corrupt manner when previously in a position of power is likely to have changed their tune no matter how long they have been in the wilderness.
Edit. It is of course a system we already follow without much comment when it comes to teachers or doctors who are regularly banned from their chosen profession for life.
Natasha Bolter was a member of the Labour Party not long ago. I always thought it was a bit of an odd decision to parachute her into one of UKIP's best prospects instead of a locally selected candidate.
Maybe UKIP have dodged a bullet in Basildon South.
If they have, they've walked in to another if they've parachuted in Neil Hamilton instead....
But do you think most ordinary people even remember the 1994 Neil Hamilton cash for questions affair? I'd be surprised if they do.
When I asked about whether there should be a limit on the wilderness years for a politician, Richard Tyndall suggested a sine die ban.
Personally, I think 17 years is plenty.
I did indeed. Although not for any crime, just for those that actually involve corruption or abuse of power in public office. I am not inclined to think that someone who has acted in a corrupt manner when previously in a position of power is likely to have changed their tune no matter how long they have been in the wilderness.
A rather bleak view of human nature. Leopard and lack of control over the pattern of its coat springs to mind.
But what about Socrates' favourite subject, paedophiles? Human sexuality is an awful lot more difficult to change than character.
Ah, I get it. You don't want people voting who don't understand politics to the extent that you do. Maybe I should flog my house, send him to do PPE at OxBridge and join the Conservatives? Or just beat his idealism out of him?
Nothing to do with understanding politics. Just basic common sense. Earn more than you spend. Kids with pocket money do it. Companies do it. Individuals do it. Countries need to do it. If you're spending more than you earn, on an ongoing basis, then something's wrong at the mill. End of. If you haven't taught him that, you've done him a disservice.
He obviously knows that, we're not a rich family. He just doesn't like the fact that successive governments have spent all the cash, and now we can't afford the basics that those same governments have convinced us that they would supply, and him and his mates are going to be the ones who suffer. He thinks if governments can't fund enough coppers, firemen, if we have an Armed Forces that is struggling (we're very pro forces in our gang), then those governments have failed. I can't really fault his logic on that. He's ideaistic, he's never going to be a Tory at 15, is he? I doubt he'll be one at 18, either.
The real problem with prison is it's too expensive. This is surely (as I keep saying) one thing that *should* go overseas. What is the point of putting up a child killer in maximum security for the rest of their days at a crippling cost to the state? Board them in Africa for a fraction of the cost. Then life could really mean life.
Natasha Bolter was a member of the Labour Party not long ago. I always thought it was a bit of an odd decision to parachute her into one of UKIP's best prospects instead of a locally selected candidate.
Maybe UKIP have dodged a bullet in Basildon South.
If they have, they've walked in to another if they've parachuted in Neil Hamilton instead....
But do you think most ordinary people even remember the 1994 Neil Hamilton cash for questions affair? I'd be surprised if they do.
When I asked about whether there should be a limit on the wilderness years for a politician, Richard Tyndall suggested a sine die ban.
Personally, I think 17 years is plenty.
I did indeed. Although not for any crime, just for those that actually involve corruption or abuse of power in public office. I am not inclined to think that someone who has acted in a corrupt manner when previously in a position of power is likely to have changed their tune no matter how long they have been in the wilderness.
A rather bleak view of human nature. Leopard and lack of control over the pattern of its coat springs to mind.
But what about Socrates' favourite subject, paedophiles? Human sexuality is an awful lot more difficult to change than character.
Indefinite sentences for paedophiles?
No and that is not what I am suggesting for Politicians either. But certainly the current system of having paedophiles on the sex offenders register and banning them for life from working with children is a more accurate comparison. As I mentioned, Doctors can be struck off and teachers banned from teaching so I don't see why politicians should get a second chance.
Michael Crick is asking questions on Twitter about Natasha Boulter's first class degree in PPE from Oxford. Seems no one has ever heard of her. No doubt the Times will now present UKIP as a party of fantasists without vetting procedures. Plus ca change.
Personally I think all degree results, particularly from publicly-funded universities, should be held on a register that can be checked simply by employers and the like. I bet there are loads of people in high office who've bullshitted their qualifications.
The problem with mandatory jail sentences is that juries will acquit if the mandatory sentence seems too harsh.
My understanding is that if a judge deviates from sentencing guidelines he will be (a) hauled in front of the Lord Chancellor, and if it continues then (b) he will lose his job.
That doesn't seem like a bad compromise.
You think juries will let off a child rapist because they don't want him to go to prison for several decades?
Yes, of course they will. In the same way they let murderers off when they thought the death penalty was inapproporiate.
Let me give you an example. A 13 year old girl, sexually active with her 15 year old boyfriend, gets drunk one evening on the estate and sleeps with a 25 year old guy. He says he thought she was 16 (and to the jury she looks like she could be). Some witnesses claim she initiated it. She says she was too drunk to consent.
Is a jury going to acquit or send the man to jail for 50 years? I'd bet the latter.
On the other hand, if they thought he'd get five years, they'd probably convict.
The 50 year sentence I was talking about was if they were part of a gang that repeatedly raped the girl. If you were one of those rapists that knew what was going on, then you deserve 50 years and juries would surely not let that prevent them from sending such bastards down.
I certainly wouldn't want you on my jury If I had committed an offence. You belong to the hangem and flogem brigade and no sentence in your mind is harsh enough.
You're conflating two entirely independent things: the objectivity of someone in assessing guilt, and the their support for severe punishments for the guilty. Also, you are simply incorrect: I oppose both capital and corporate punishment. I just support very long punishments for torturing and repeatedly raping children.
You may well so, but since you were unable to get a basic fact right eg the EU nonsense you posted upthread, I would not trust you to make any judgement, as it would be knee jerk.
"The irony of this all is that a Labour victory in Scotland means ..."
My contacts in Scotland tell me that though there is limited enthusiasm for Murphy's politics among his own supporters he's considered head and shoulders above any of the current crop of Scottish politicians and they expect quite a bounce for Labour
Are they what's left of the Labour Party, or a true cross-section of the electorate? That is an important qualification.
Have a look at that Gary Gibbons report I flagged up earlier this evening.
Anyway, this country truly is fecked if what I heard on R4 this evening about bricklayers is true. There's a shortage of brickies in that there London, and they're bringing in foreign gangs to fill the contracts. Big firms turn down work because they can't fill posts. They had two representatives from trade colleges, and they confirmed that they can't get youngsters interested in the trades. One guy said he hardly knew any brickies under 30, and that aprenticeships were too short, at about 18-24 months, leading to inexperienced workers not getting jobs, and leaving the trade. What the hell are we doing to this country?
Ah, I get it. You don't want people voting who don't understand politics to the extent that you do. Maybe I should flog my house, send him to do PPE at OxBridge and join the Conservatives? Or just beat his idealism out of him?
Nothing to do with understanding politics. Just basic common sense. Earn more than you spend. Kids with pocket money do it. Companies do it. Individuals do it. Countries need to do it. If you're spending more than you earn, on an ongoing basis, then something's wrong at the mill. End of. If you haven't taught him that, you've done him a disservice.
He obviously knows that, we're not a rich family. He just doesn't like the fact that successive governments have spent all the cash, and now we can't afford the basics that those same governments have convinced us that they would supply, and him and his mates are going to be the ones who suffer. He thinks if governments can't fund enough coppers, firemen, if we have an Armed Forces that is struggling (we're very pro forces in our gang), then those governments have failed. I can't really fault his logic on that. He's ideaistic, he's never going to be a Tory at 15, is he? I doubt he'll be one at 18, either.
Well, I would tend to agree with him. But no point in keeping on digging is there?
The real problem with prison is it's too expensive. This is surely (as I keep saying) one thing that *should* go overseas. What is the point of putting up a child killer in maximum security for the rest of their days at a crippling cost to the state? Board them in Africa for a fraction of the cost. Then life could really mean life.
Given how good local election polling has been at predicting GE vote shares in recent elections, I am surprised at how high the odds are for UKIP in a range of seats in the Midlands and South where they polled extremely well in the 2013 & 2014 local elections.
For example, in Aldridge-Brownhills UKIP polled over 5,000 votes in the local election in 2014, nearly 1,800 more than Labour and nearly 3,500 more than the Tories.
The real problem with prison is it's too expensive. This is surely (as I keep saying) one thing that *should* go overseas. What is the point of putting up a child killer in maximum security for the rest of their days at a crippling cost to the state? Board them in Africa for a fraction of the cost. Then life could really mean life.
Anyway, this country truly is fecked if what I heard on R4 this evening about bricklayers is true. There's a shortage of brickies in that there London, and they're bringing in foreign gangs to fill the contracts. Big firms turn down work because they can't fill posts. They had two representatives from trade colleges, and they confirmed that they can't get youngsters interested in the trades. One guy said he hardly knew any brickies under 30, and that aprenticeships were too short, at about 18-24 months, leading to inexperienced workers not getting jobs, and leaving the trade. What the hell are we doing to this country?
I wrote a long answer to this, and then just scrapped it. Instead I'd say: too many people want sexy, easy jobs that will make them a fortune and get them a WAG wife / Ferrari / big house. Bricklaying, like so many trades, is hard work, and just not sexy.
Which is a shame, as a couple of bricklayers I knew found it an immensely interesting job. Then again, they were speciality and restoration bricklayers rather than yet-another-house bricklayers.
Anyway, this country truly is fecked if what I heard on R4 this evening about bricklayers is true. There's a shortage of brickies in that there London, and they're bringing in foreign gangs to fill the contracts. Big firms turn down work because they can't fill posts. They had two representatives from trade colleges, and they confirmed that they can't get youngsters interested in the trades. One guy said he hardly knew any brickies under 30, and that aprenticeships were too short, at about 18-24 months, leading to inexperienced workers not getting jobs, and leaving the trade. What the hell are we doing to this country?
I wrote a long answer to this, and then just scrapped it. Instead I'd say: too many people want sexy, easy jobs that will make them a fortune and get them a WAG wife / Ferrari / big house. Bricklaying, like so many trades, is hard work, and just not sexy.
Which is a shame, as a couple of bricklayers I knew found it an immensely interesting job. Then again, they were speciality and restoration bricklayers rather than yet-another-house bricklayers.
One of the problems must be that it is hard to get full time, permanent, salaried work as a bricklayer - unlike other trades such as plumbing. Brickies are mostly casual labour, going from job to job - good rewards when the demand is there, but no security.
My youngest lad is 15, and is so politically aware, that we call him Trotsky! He got into politics at the start of the strike, he's always hung around when work colleagues have been over, watching football or parties and BBQs and likes to get involved, asking questions and making comments. His interest really took off when we were discussing cuts. He sees things in black and white, and was worried when he found out that my, and people who I work with and he likes and respects, jobs, were under threat, but also confused as to why cuts were necessary. He's researched a lot, and has joined us on rallies, meetings, and on the picket line. He's young, idealistic (gets his musical kick from young, leftwing bands like Enter Shikari or ecolefties like 30 Seconds To Mars), naive and a little politically unformed, but so what? He's got to live in this chaotic world that we're creating, why shouldn't he get a say in who runs it, once he hits 16, and has rights and responsibilities that that age now brings?
Sure. We whinge that teenagers aren't interested in politics. If some are interested enough to want to vote, they should be encouraged. The only counter-argument is that there is some unique sense of judgment that one acquires at 18 but doesn't have at 16. Not my impression - there are far more significant factors in ability to assess public affairs sensibly than two years of age.
Natasha Bolter was a member of the Labour Party not long ago. I always thought it was a bit of an odd decision to parachute her into one of UKIP's best prospects instead of a locally selected candidate.
Maybe UKIP have dodged a bullet in Basildon South.
If they have, they've walked in to another if they've parachuted in Neil Hamilton instead....
But do you think most ordinary people even remember the 1994 Neil Hamilton cash for questions affair? I'd be surprised if they do.
When I asked about whether there should be a limit on the wilderness years for a politician, Richard Tyndall suggested a sine die ban.
Personally, I think 17 years is plenty.
I did indeed. Although not for any crime, just for those that actually involve corruption or abuse of power in public office. I am not inclined to think that someone who has acted in a corrupt manner when previously in a position of power is likely to have changed their tune no matter how long they have been in the wilderness.
A rather bleak view of human nature. Leopard and lack of control over the pattern of its coat springs to mind.
But what about Socrates' favourite subject, paedophiles? Human sexuality is an awful lot more difficult to change than character.
Indefinite sentences for paedophiles?
No and that is not what I am suggesting for Politicians either. But certainly the current system of having paedophiles on the sex offenders register and banning them for life from working with children is a more accurate comparison. As I mentioned, Doctors can be struck off and teachers banned from teaching so I don't see why politicians should get a second chance.
Much as I dislike politicians, they are not involved in the care of children or proscribe medical treatment.
Also, as Neil Hamilton knows all too well, they have to be elected by us!
The real problem with prison is it's too expensive. This is surely (as I keep saying) one thing that *should* go overseas. What is the point of putting up a child killer in maximum security for the rest of their days at a crippling cost to the state? Board them in Africa for a fraction of the cost. Then life could really mean life.
Papillon lives !
?
Google it, its a true story about a French Convict in French Guyana pre WW2.. in fact here u are It was a superb film too.
Anyway, this country truly is fecked if what I heard on R4 this evening about bricklayers is true. There's a shortage of brickies in that there London, and they're bringing in foreign gangs to fill the contracts. Big firms turn down work because they can't fill posts. They had two representatives from trade colleges, and they confirmed that they can't get youngsters interested in the trades. One guy said he hardly knew any brickies under 30, and that aprenticeships were too short, at about 18-24 months, leading to inexperienced workers not getting jobs, and leaving the trade. What the hell are we doing to this country?
Most white British people, rightly or wrongly, think that type of work is beneath them.
Natasha Bolter was a member of the Labour Party not long ago. I always thought it was a bit of an odd decision to parachute her into one of UKIP's best prospects instead of a locally selected candidate.
Maybe UKIP have dodged a bullet in Basildon South.
If they have, they've walked in to another if they've parachuted in Neil Hamilton instead....
But do you think most ordinary people even remember the 1994 Neil Hamilton cash for questions affair? I'd be surprised if they do.
When I asked about whether there should be a limit on the wilderness years for a politician, Richard Tyndall suggested a sine die ban.
Personally, I think 17 years is plenty.
I did indeed. Although not for any crime, just for those that actually involve corruption or abuse of power in public office. I am not inclined to think that someone who has acted in a corrupt manner when previously in a position of power is likely to have changed their tune no matter how long they have been in the wilderness.
A rather bleak view of human nature. Leopard and lack of control over the pattern of its coat springs to mind.
But what about Socrates' favourite subject, paedophiles? Human sexuality is an awful lot more difficult to change than character.
Indefinite sentences for paedophiles?
No and that is not what I am suggesting for Politicians either. But certainly the current system of having paedophiles on the sex offenders register and banning them for life from working with children is a more accurate comparison. As I mentioned, Doctors can be struck off and teachers banned from teaching so I don't see why politicians should get a second chance.
Much as I dislike politicians, they are not involved in the care of children or proscribe medical treatment.
Also, as Neil Hamilton knows all too well, they have to be elected by us!
No they are not doing the things you mentioned. They are doing what should be an equally important job of making decisions that directly affect the lives of every person living in this country. As such if they are found to be taking bribes or acting in a corrupt manner in the execution of their duties they should be banned for life. If it is fitting for public servants like doctors or teachers (or police officers) then it should also be fitting for politicians.
That's NOT true according to the BBC, its was because his offence was in 2004 and not in 2005 (might have got the dates wrong) but the essence is was that his crime was committed before the law came in so can't be held indefinitely, I feel sure they is a PB lawyer who can set the scene.
Must be Cameron's fault.
I always thought an "indefinite" jail term was an affront to English justice. By all means sentence people for life, but you should not be held at the whim of the Executive.
Why not?
They were used instead of death sentences to indicate that your life was no longer yours, but the property of society to do as it wish as far as detention was concerned.
Or do you think the death penalty should be brought back?
They weren't. The sentence was Life, much like the current sentence. in practice you were mostly let out on licence after 12-13 years unless you happened to kill a copper.
I am not so fussed about Life for the severest of crimes, the problem about indeterminate sentences as they were introduced in the UK was that the minimum tariff could be very short (a quick google brings up a BBC story about someone on a 17-month tariff ending up being detained for 8 years on an indeterminate sentence, which seems way disproportionate), the fact that release was determined by the Parole Board, effectively an arm of the Executive, with little judicial oversight, and the rationale for them. Anyone can reoffend, surely everyone should be on an indeterminate sentence? I am not sure if they can be handed down any more, if they can I think they were certainly reformed a bit in about 2012.
I am not opposed to the death penalty, I just don't think it would ever be operated fairly. In the 60s we hanged about 4 people a year, and it was a bit of a lottery who got the rope. Personally I would make it fair by hanging all murderers, but no-one would be comfortable with that level of carnage, I don't think there are even states in the US that apply a mandatory death penalty to all murders.
Anyway, this country truly is fecked if what I heard on R4 this evening about bricklayers is true. There's a shortage of brickies in that there London, and they're bringing in foreign gangs to fill the contracts. Big firms turn down work because they can't fill posts. They had two representatives from trade colleges, and they confirmed that they can't get youngsters interested in the trades. One guy said he hardly knew any brickies under 30, and that aprenticeships were too short, at about 18-24 months, leading to inexperienced workers not getting jobs, and leaving the trade. What the hell are we doing to this country?
You might ask your colleagues whom I saw on strike today. The days of the gravy train or over. They might replace you with Portuguese firefighters and then what would you do?
Whatever ones thoughts on RT, it would be a disaster for free speech and plurality of media provision if it were to be driven from our screens.
Not really, the TV rules already don't allow free speech and plurality. If RT is not allowed, it is because it falls foul of the rules that already hamstring all other TV channels, not because it is being singled out.
Sure. We whinge that teenagers aren't interested in politics. If some are interested enough to want to vote, they should be encouraged. The only counter-argument is that there is some unique sense of judgment that one acquires at 18 but doesn't have at 16. Not my impression - there are far more significant factors in ability to assess public affairs sensibly than two years of age.
There is of course nothing that means you are fit to vote at any particular age, 18 made sense when the majority didnt go on to university but instead went out into the real world but I am not sure it does now.
Frankly I think universal sufferage is wrong in any case and we should move to a contribution based system. You contribute to society you get a say in how it runs. Sit on your arse in front of Jeremy Kyle then don't complain.
Contributions would of course include tax, but also could include voluntary work etc.
Contribution is probably a better measure of fitness to vote than age because it teaches you something at least about the world as you can't contribute in most cases while sitting at home watching TV.
Anyway, this country truly is fecked if what I heard on R4 this evening about bricklayers is true. There's a shortage of brickies in that there London, and they're bringing in foreign gangs to fill the contracts. Big firms turn down work because they can't fill posts. They had two representatives from trade colleges, and they confirmed that they can't get youngsters interested in the trades. One guy said he hardly knew any brickies under 30, and that aprenticeships were too short, at about 18-24 months, leading to inexperienced workers not getting jobs, and leaving the trade. What the hell are we doing to this country?
I wrote a long answer to this, and then just scrapped it. Instead I'd say: too many people want sexy, easy jobs that will make them a fortune and get them a WAG wife / Ferrari / big house. Bricklaying, like so many trades, is hard work, and just not sexy.
Which is a shame, as a couple of bricklayers I knew found it an immensely interesting job. Then again, they were speciality and restoration bricklayers rather than yet-another-house bricklayers.
One of the problems must be that it is hard to get full time, permanent, salaried work as a bricklayer - unlike other trades such as plumbing. Brickies are mostly casual labour, going from job to job - good rewards when the demand is there, but no security.
Indeed, if I had a son that wanted to get into the construction industry. Plumber or sparks would be my recommendation. I worked for a construction company for 5 years and they were the best jobs to have overall earning wise. One of my mates got a job being a sparks for a pole dancing club and would be working while new girls were being auditioned. What a lovely perk of a job to have.
Anyway, this country truly is fecked if what I heard on R4 this evening about bricklayers is true. There's a shortage of brickies in that there London, and they're bringing in foreign gangs to fill the contracts. Big firms turn down work because they can't fill posts. They had two representatives from trade colleges, and they confirmed that they can't get youngsters interested in the trades. One guy said he hardly knew any brickies under 30, and that aprenticeships were too short, at about 18-24 months, leading to inexperienced workers not getting jobs, and leaving the trade. What the hell are we doing to this country?
5 years ago after Labour ran the country off a cliff a bricky couldn't pay to work so few were the number of construction projects in play. So Brickies retired, bought taxis and pubs etc. Now you can't get enough building materials such is the boom. Market forces - something firefighters are sheltered from - be thankful.
My youngest lad is 15, and is so politically aware, that we call him Trotsky! He got into politics at the start of the strike, he's always hung around when work colleagues have been over, watching football or parties and BBQs and likes to get involved, asking questions and making comments. His interest really took off when we were discussing cuts. He sees things in black and white, and was worried when he found out that my, and people who I work with and he likes and respects, jobs, were under threat, but also confused as to why cuts were necessary. He's researched a lot, and has joined us on rallies, meetings, and on the picket line. He's young, idealistic (gets his musical kick from young, leftwing bands like Enter Shikari or ecolefties like 30 Seconds To Mars), naive and a little politically unformed, but so what? He's got to live in this chaotic world that we're creating, why shouldn't he get a say in who runs it, once he hits 16, and has rights and responsibilities that that age now brings?
Sure. We whinge that teenagers aren't interested in politics. If some are interested enough to want to vote, they should be encouraged. The only counter-argument is that there is some unique sense of judgment that one acquires at 18 but doesn't have at 16. Not my impression - there are far more significant factors in ability to assess public affairs sensibly than two years of age.
Unlike the Scots, whose laws appear to be different, we generally fix the age of adulthood at 18. So it seems a reasonable place to start.
Anyway, this country truly is fecked if what I heard on R4 this evening about bricklayers is true. There's a shortage of brickies in that there London, and they're bringing in foreign gangs to fill the contracts. Big firms turn down work because they can't fill posts. They had two representatives from trade colleges, and they confirmed that they can't get youngsters interested in the trades. One guy said he hardly knew any brickies under 30, and that aprenticeships were too short, at about 18-24 months, leading to inexperienced workers not getting jobs, and leaving the trade. What the hell are we doing to this country?
You might ask your colleagues whom I saw on strike today. The days of the gravy train or over. They might replace you with Portuguese firefighters and then what would you do?
Go to college on the taxpayers quid, on a bricklaying course.
Anyway, this country truly is fecked if what I heard on R4 this evening about bricklayers is true. There's a shortage of brickies in that there London, and they're bringing in foreign gangs to fill the contracts. Big firms turn down work because they can't fill posts. They had two representatives from trade colleges, and they confirmed that they can't get youngsters interested in the trades. One guy said he hardly knew any brickies under 30, and that aprenticeships were too short, at about 18-24 months, leading to inexperienced workers not getting jobs, and leaving the trade. What the hell are we doing to this country?
5 years ago after Labour ran the country off a cliff a bricky couldn't pay to work so few were the number of construction projects in play. So Brickies retired, bought taxis and pubs etc. Now you can't get enough building materials such is the boom. Market forces - something firefighters are sheltered from - be thankful.
Yer killing me, my chest hurts! Maybe we should create our own market, charge for our services?
Anyway, this country truly is fecked if what I heard on R4 this evening about bricklayers is true. There's a shortage of brickies in that there London, and they're bringing in foreign gangs to fill the contracts. Big firms turn down work because they can't fill posts. They had two representatives from trade colleges, and they confirmed that they can't get youngsters interested in the trades. One guy said he hardly knew any brickies under 30, and that aprenticeships were too short, at about 18-24 months, leading to inexperienced workers not getting jobs, and leaving the trade. What the hell are we doing to this country?
I wrote a long answer to this, and then just scrapped it. Instead I'd say: too many people want sexy, easy jobs that will make them a fortune and get them a WAG wife / Ferrari / big house. Bricklaying, like so many trades, is hard work, and just not sexy.
Which is a shame, as a couple of bricklayers I knew found it an immensely interesting job. Then again, they were speciality and restoration bricklayers rather than yet-another-house bricklayers.
One of the problems must be that it is hard to get full time, permanent, salaried work as a bricklayer - unlike other trades such as plumbing. Brickies are mostly casual labour, going from job to job - good rewards when the demand is there, but no security.
Whatever ones thoughts on RT, it would be a disaster for free speech and plurality of media provision if it were to be driven from our screens.
Not really, the TV rules already don't allow free speech and plurality. If RT is not allowed, it is because it falls foul of the rules that already hamstring all other TV channels, not because it is being singled out.
There's a spectrum of freedom; this would make it worse. Of course they're being singled out. Any organisation that departs from the NATO line is being singled out.
Anyway, this country truly is fecked if what I heard on R4 this evening about bricklayers is true. There's a shortage of brickies in that there London, and they're bringing in foreign gangs to fill the contracts. Big firms turn down work because they can't fill posts. They had two representatives from trade colleges, and they confirmed that they can't get youngsters interested in the trades. One guy said he hardly knew any brickies under 30, and that aprenticeships were too short, at about 18-24 months, leading to inexperienced workers not getting jobs, and leaving the trade. What the hell are we doing to this country?
You might ask your colleagues whom I saw on strike today. The days of the gravy train or over. They might replace you with Portuguese firefighters and then what would you do?
Go to college on the taxpayers quid, on a bricklaying course.
There was a construction employer on PM this evening, he was saying that the average 1-2 year college NVQ course for spotty 16-18 year old herberts in no way trains you do be a bricklayer, he was harking back to the days of 3-5 year apprenticeships and learning on the job. Not sure how that would work now building is done through subcontractors and sub-subbies, but there you go.
So a college course would probably only qualify you to build a wall in your back garden, and getting funding for college courses when you are over 24 is almost impossible (and difficult once you are over 19) as Governments talk the talk about lifelong learning but do feck all to make it happen.
Anyway, this country truly is fecked if what I heard on R4 this evening about bricklayers is true. There's a shortage of brickies in that there London, and they're bringing in foreign gangs to fill the contracts. Big firms turn down work because they can't fill posts. They had two representatives from trade colleges, and they confirmed that they can't get youngsters interested in the trades. One guy said he hardly knew any brickies under 30, and that aprenticeships were too short, at about 18-24 months, leading to inexperienced workers not getting jobs, and leaving the trade. What the hell are we doing to this country?
You might ask your colleagues whom I saw on strike today. The days of the gravy train or over. They might replace you with Portuguese firefighters and then what would you do?
Go to college on the taxpayers quid, on a bricklaying course.
Which comes to an interesting paradox, the government imposes tuition fees and gives student loans (which are never paid back) to pay said fees. The original system might have been better from a pure point of simplicity.
Whatever ones thoughts on RT, it would be a disaster for free speech and plurality of media provision if it were to be driven from our screens.
Not really, the TV rules already don't allow free speech and plurality. If RT is not allowed, it is because it falls foul of the rules that already hamstring all other TV channels, not because it is being singled out.
There's a spectrum of freedom; this would make it worse. Of course they're being singled out. Any organisation that departs from the NATO line is being singled out.
Anyway, this country truly is fecked if what I heard on R4 this evening about bricklayers is true. There's a shortage of brickies in that there London, and they're bringing in foreign gangs to fill the contracts. Big firms turn down work because they can't fill posts. They had two representatives from trade colleges, and they confirmed that they can't get youngsters interested in the trades. One guy said he hardly knew any brickies under 30, and that aprenticeships were too short, at about 18-24 months, leading to inexperienced workers not getting jobs, and leaving the trade. What the hell are we doing to this country?
5 years ago after Labour ran the country off a cliff a bricky couldn't pay to work so few were the number of construction projects in play. So Brickies retired, bought taxis and pubs etc. Now you can't get enough building materials such is the boom. Market forces - something firefighters are sheltered from - be thankful.
Yer killing me, my chest hurts! Maybe we should create our own market, charge for our services?
Go back to your roots and be employed by insurance companies?
I would be in favour of raising the age to 21. Experience and maturity are vital to informed decisions, plus the development time of the human brain all argue in favour.
On balance, I'm in favour of giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote. The idea that it's going to correct the current disengagement with democracy is, however, far-fetched.
I can't understand the ludicrous whining about it. It's an excellent proposal: if they are old enough to have sex and serve in the military, they are old enough to have a say in the government. We no doubt had the same whining when the age was reduced from 21.
I think almost everyone would freely admit that they were an idiot, or at least more idiotic, at the age of 16, in a sane world the voting age would be raised to 25.
Interesting debate.
There's fairly robust neuroscientific research suggesting that full physical brain maturity isn't reached until about 25. This isn't just pie-in-sky either. The research is already having a real, practical effect on services. For example, there's growing pressure to reconfigure child/adolescent mental health services to extend beyond 18, with some psychological services theoretically being asked to go right up to 25.
Of course, society as a whole doesn't need to use neuroscientific evidence to base its own decisions about when adulthood is reached, but the law at the moment has quite a few different cut-offs even within a single field of practice. That inconsistency could probably do with tidying up.
Personally, I would generally be in favour of raising thresholds (both the protective & restrictive ones) rather than reducing them. Given that the rate of brain development slows after 18, going all the way to 25 would be a step too far. I think harmonsing everything to either 18 or to 21 would be a reasonable balance.
Younger than that, and it really is arguable whether - on average - there is sufficient maturity to fully process decision-making in the way an adult would. Of course, some will indeed have that maturity, just as some adults don't. But on average, the younger you are below 25, and especially below 18, the less likely it is that you will have it.
Leaving scientific evidence aside, anyone who's taught 14, 16, 18, and 21+ year olds already knows there are vast differences in their ability to cognitively process problems. Selecting a government is almost the ultimate wicked problem.
Given that voting is (at least ostensibly) about something important enough to be given mature reflection, then voting younger than 18 is pushing credibility, and there's a not-insubstantial theoretical argument for going back to 21. It's strongly arguable that 16 year olds voting devalues the meaning of a vote rather than enhancing it.
My youngest lad is 15, and is so politically aware, that we call him Trotsky! He got into politics at the start of the strike, he's always hung around when work colleagues have been over, watching football or parties and BBQs and likes to get involved, asking questions and making comments. His interest really took off when we were discussing cuts. He sees things in black and white, and was worried when he found out that my, and people who I work with and he likes and respects, jobs, were under threat, but also confused as to why cuts were necessary. He's researched a lot, and has joined us on rallies, meetings, and on the picket line. He's young, idealistic (gets his musical kick from young, leftwing bands like Enter Shikari or ecolefties like 30 Seconds To Mars), naive and a little politically unformed, but so what? He's got to live in this chaotic world that we're creating, why shouldn't he get a say in who runs it, once he hits 16, and has rights and responsibilities that that age now brings?
Sure. We whinge that teenagers aren't interested in politics. If some are interested enough to want to vote, they should be encouraged. The only counter-argument is that there is some unique sense of judgment that one acquires at 18 but doesn't have at 16. Not my impression - there are far more significant factors in ability to assess public affairs sensibly than two years of age.
There's plenty of things we can do to get teenagers interested in politics without screwing with our constitution. There is a crucial difference between 16 year olds and 18 year olds. The vast majority of 18 year olds have lived away from their parents and been in charge of their own lives while most 16 year olds have their lives run by their parents and teachers.
Your absurdly stupid argument could be extended. What do 16 year olds have that 14 year olds don't? What do 14 year olds have that 12 year olds don't? That makes it clear how absurd votes for kids are. You're not doing this out of any sense of decency. You're doing this as a naked grab for votes because the adult population of the country doesn't like your party much any more. I didn't think I would consider voting for the Conservatives again after all they've screwed up, but the sheer appallingness of these proposals are making me reconsider. You people have no appreciation of the history and importance of suffrage, and you're willing to play with it for partisan advantage, as you did with postal voting. And what's worse, you're planning to force this through on England with Scottish votes.
Whatever ones thoughts on RT, it would be a disaster for free speech and plurality of media provision if it were to be driven from our screens.
Not really, the TV rules already don't allow free speech and plurality. If RT is not allowed, it is because it falls foul of the rules that already hamstring all other TV channels, not because it is being singled out.
There's a spectrum of freedom; this would make it worse. Of course they're being singled out. Any organisation that departs from the NATO line is being singled out.
Horseshit.
I always think it's a sign of such strength when expletives are used instead of an argument.
I would much rather judges set stiff punishments of their own accord.
Judges have increasingly limited discretion regarding sentencing. The guidelines (guidelines is a bit of a misnomer; if you don't follow them, appeals are likely to succeed) keep getting tightened by the legislature.
It is of course a system we already follow without much comment when it comes to teachers or doctors who are regularly banned from their chosen profession for life.
With doctors & teachers, the bans generally come from the professional regulator (GMC in case of doctors and - I think - the National College for Teaching) rather than a court. I'm not sure if there is an equivalent regulator for politicians generally. It would be an interesting and endlessly entertaining development to have one though. I suspect the number of cases they'd have to investigate would be quite large!
Anyway, this country truly is fecked if what I heard on R4 this evening about bricklayers is true. There's a shortage of brickies in that there London, and they're bringing in foreign gangs to fill the contracts. Big firms turn down work because they can't fill posts. They had two representatives from trade colleges, and they confirmed that they can't get youngsters interested in the trades. One guy said he hardly knew any brickies under 30, and that aprenticeships were too short, at about 18-24 months, leading to inexperienced workers not getting jobs, and leaving the trade. What the hell are we doing to this country?
5 years ago after Labour ran the country off a cliff a bricky couldn't pay to work so few were the number of construction projects in play. So Brickies retired, bought taxis and pubs etc. Now you can't get enough building materials such is the boom. Market forces - something firefighters are sheltered from - be thankful.
Yer killing me, my chest hurts! Maybe we should create our own market, charge for our services?
You'd never do that, you wouldn't be able to go on strike!
My youngest lad is 15, and is so politically aware, that we call him Trotsky! He got into politics at the start of the strike, he's always hung around when work colleagues have been over, watching football or parties and BBQs and likes to get involved, asking questions and making comments. His interest really took off when we were discussing cuts. He sees things in black and white, and was worried when he found out that my, and people who I work with and he likes and respects, jobs, were under threat, but also confused as to why cuts were necessary. He's researched a lot, and has joined us on rallies, meetings, and on the picket line. He's young, idealistic (gets his musical kick from young, leftwing bands like Enter Shikari or ecolefties like 30 Seconds To Mars), naive and a little politically unformed, but so what? He's got to live in this chaotic world that we're creating, why shouldn't he get a say in who runs it, once he hits 16, and has rights and responsibilities that that age now brings?
Sure. We whinge that teenagers aren't interested in politics. If some are interested enough to want to vote, they should be encouraged. The only counter-argument is that there is some unique sense of judgment that one acquires at 18 but doesn't have at 16. Not my impression - there are far more significant factors in ability to assess public affairs sensibly than two years of age.
Nope, there comes a limit on the age of voting and that comes at the end of secondary education or else we will have kids voting on the promise of cake for lunch. People need a minimum of maturity and knowledge to be trusted to do their civic duties.
Whatever ones thoughts on RT, it would be a disaster for free speech and plurality of media provision if it were to be driven from our screens.
Not really, the TV rules already don't allow free speech and plurality. If RT is not allowed, it is because it falls foul of the rules that already hamstring all other TV channels, not because it is being singled out.
There's a spectrum of freedom; this would make it worse. Of course they're being singled out. Any organisation that departs from the NATO line is being singled out.
Horseshit.
I always think it's a sign of such strength when expletives are used instead of an argument.
I would normally agree with you, but it seems the only possible response to unsupported assertions like "Any organisation that departs from the NATO line is being singled out"
(In any case, it wasn't an expletive, it was a simile)
My youngest lad is 15, and is so politically aware, that we call him Trotsky! He got into politics at the start of the strike, he's always hung around when work colleagues have been over, watching football or parties and BBQs and likes to get involved, asking questions and making comments. His interest really took off when we were discussing cuts. He sees things in black and white, and was worried when he found out that my, and people who I work with and he likes and respects, jobs, were under threat, but also confused as to why cuts were necessary. He's researched a lot, and has joined us on rallies, meetings, and on the picket line. He's young, idealistic (gets his musical kick from young, leftwing bands like Enter Shikari or ecolefties like 30 Seconds To Mars), naive and a little politically unformed, but so what? He's got to live in this chaotic world that we're creating, why shouldn't he get a say in who runs it, once he hits 16, and has rights and responsibilities that that age now brings?
Sure. We whinge that teenagers aren't interested in politics. If some are interested enough to want to vote, they should be encouraged. The only counter-argument is that there is some unique sense of judgment that one acquires at 18 but doesn't have at 16. Not my impression - there are far more significant factors in ability to assess public affairs sensibly than two years of age.
There's plenty of things we can do to get teenagers interested in politics without screwing with our constitution. There is a crucial difference between 16 year olds and 18 year olds. The vast majority of 18 year olds have lived away from their parents and been in charge of their own lives while most 16 year olds have their lives run by their parents and teachers.
Your absurdly stupid argument could be extended. What do 16 year olds have that 14 year olds don't? What do 14 year olds have that 12 year olds don't? That makes it clear how absurd votes for kids are. You're not doing this out of any sense of decency. You're doing this as a naked grab for votes because the adult population of the country doesn't like your party much any more. I didn't think I would consider voting for the Conservatives again after all they've screwed up, but the sheer appallingness of these proposals are making me reconsider. You people have no appreciation of the history and importance of suffrage, and you're willing to play with it for partisan advantage, as you did with postal voting. And what's worse, you're planning to force this through on England with Scottish votes.
They're not. They're planning to force it through for the UK on UK votes.
The 16 and 17 year olds can't vote in Scottish elections either.
My youngest lad is 15, and is so politically aware, that we call him Trotsky! He got into politics at the start of the strike, he's always hung around when work colleagues have been over, watching football or parties and BBQs and likes to get involved, asking questions and making comments. His interest really took off when we were discussing cuts. He sees things in black and white, and was worried when he found out that my, and people who I work with and he likes and respects, jobs, were under threat, but also confused as to why cuts were necessary. He's researched a lot, and has joined us on rallies, meetings, and on the picket line. He's young, idealistic (gets his musical kick from young, leftwing bands like Enter Shikari or ecolefties like 30 Seconds To Mars), naive and a little politically unformed, but so what? He's got to live in this chaotic world that we're creating, why shouldn't he get a say in who runs it, once he hits 16, and has rights and responsibilities that that age now brings?
Sure. We whinge that teenagers aren't interested in politics. If some are interested enough to want to vote, they should be encouraged. The only counter-argument is that there is some unique sense of judgment that one acquires at 18 but doesn't have at 16. Not my impression - there are far more significant factors in ability to assess public affairs sensibly than two years of age.
Nope, there comes a limit on the age of voting and that comes at the end of secondary education or else we will have kids voting on the promise of cake for lunch. People need a minimum of maturity and knowledge to be trusted to do their civic duties.
Well we currently have a system where oldies are voting themselves a larger and larger slice of the overall cake.
That is not good for democracy IMO.
i prefer compulsory voting but age 16s to vote helps mend the bias a little.
My youngest lad is 15, and is so politically aware, that we call him Trotsky! He got into politics at the start of the strike, he's always hung around when work colleagues have been over, watching football or parties and BBQs and likes to get involved, asking questions and making comments. His interest really took off when we were discussing cuts. He sees things in black and white, and was worried when he found out that my, and people who I work with and he likes and respects, jobs, were under threat, but also confused as to why cuts were necessary. He's researched a lot, and has joined us on rallies, meetings, and on the picket line. He's young, idealistic (gets his musical kick from young, leftwing bands like Enter Shikari or ecolefties like 30 Seconds To Mars), naive and a little politically unformed, but so what? He's got to live in this chaotic world that we're creating, why shouldn't he get a say in who runs it, once he hits 16, and has rights and responsibilities that that age now brings?
Sure. We whinge that teenagers aren't interested in politics. If some are interested enough to want to vote, they should be encouraged. The only counter-argument is that there is some unique sense of judgment that one acquires at 18 but doesn't have at 16. Not my impression - there are far more significant factors in ability to assess public affairs sensibly than two years of age.
Nope, there comes a limit on the age of voting and that comes at the end of secondary education or else we will have kids voting on the promise of cake for lunch. People need a minimum of maturity and knowledge to be trusted to do their civic duties.
Well we currently have a system where oldies are voting themselves a larger and larger slice of the overall cake.
That is not good for democracy IMO.
i prefer compulsory voting but age 16s to vote helps mend the bias a little.
Compulsory voting always seems to me to be the answer to the following line of thought:
Politician 1: Hmm, people don't seem to be interested in politics these days, do they?
Politician 2: No, they don't turn out to vote, and want to join pressure groups instead of proper political parties.
Politician 1: You're right, there seems to be something wrong with the voters.
My youngest lad is 15, and is so politically aware, that we call him Trotsky! He got into politics at the start of the strike, he's always hung around when work colleagues have been over, watching football or parties and BBQs and likes to get involved, asking questions and making comments. His interest really took off when we were discussing cuts. He sees things in black and white, and was worried when he found out that my, and people who I work with and he likes and respects, jobs, were under threat, but also confused as to why cuts were necessary. He's researched a lot, and has joined us on rallies, meetings, and on the picket line. He's young, idealistic (gets his musical kick from young, leftwing bands like Enter Shikari or ecolefties like 30 Seconds To Mars), naive and a little politically unformed, but so what? He's got to live in this chaotic world that we're creating, why shouldn't he get a say in who runs it, once he hits 16, and has rights and responsibilities that that age now brings?
Sure. We whinge that teenagers aren't interested in politics. If some are interested enough to want to vote, they should be encouraged. The only counter-argument is that there is some unique sense of judgment that one acquires at 18 but doesn't have at 16. Not my impression - there are far more significant factors in ability to assess public affairs sensibly than two years of age.
Nope, there comes a limit on the age of voting and that comes at the end of secondary education or else we will have kids voting on the promise of cake for lunch. People need a minimum of maturity and knowledge to be trusted to do their civic duties.
Well we currently have a system where oldies are voting themselves a larger and larger slice of the overall cake.
That is not good for democracy IMO.
i prefer compulsory voting but age 16s to vote helps mend the bias a little.
Then I am sure you would support private sector workers getting two votes each to counteract the bias of public sector workers voting themselves an ever larger slice of the pie as well
I think the time has come to apologize to Roger Bird, especially Jon Snow after what he wrote yesterday about the sex scandal that wasn't.
Wasn't it? Did The Times get it wrong? I think I might have missed something. Link please.
I don't think we can tell either way at the moment. Both sides have put carefully selected information into the public domain.
What we can say is that a very senior employee of UKIP has had allegations of a sexual nature made against him by a prospective parliamentary candidate. UKIP seem to have suspended him immediately and are investigating. that seems to be way ahead of what might have happened in certain other parties in the immediate past.
Sure. We whinge that teenagers aren't interested in politics. If some are interested enough to want to vote, they should be encouraged. The only counter-argument is that there is some unique sense of judgment that one acquires at 18 but doesn't have at 16.
Well, quite. And there are other groups within our country who can with similar justification be included in this liberalisation.
Clearly some parties will need to modify their programs more than others to cater for the new voters interests, but the Labour Party is obviously a good fit for the emancipation of the clinically insane.
My youngest lad is 15, and is so politically aware, that we call him Trotsky! He got into politics at the start of the strike, he's always hung around when work colleagues have been over, watching football or parties and BBQs and likes to get involved, asking questions and making comments. His interest really took off when we were discussing cuts. He sees things in black and white, and was worried when he found out that my, and people who I work with and he likes and respects, jobs, were under threat, but also confused as to why cuts were necessary. He's researched a lot, and has joined us on rallies, meetings, and on the picket line. He's young, idealistic (gets his musical kick from young, leftwing bands like Enter Shikari or ecolefties like 30 Seconds To Mars), naive and a little politically unformed, but so what? He's got to live in this chaotic world that we're creating, why shouldn't he get a say in who runs it, once he hits 16, and has rights and responsibilities that that age now brings?
Sure. We whinge that teenagers aren't interested in politics. If some are interested enough to want to vote, they should be encouraged. The only counter-argument is that there is some unique sense of judgment that one acquires at 18 but doesn't have at 16. Not my impression - there are far more significant factors in ability to assess public affairs sensibly than two years of age.
Nope, there comes a limit on the age of voting and that comes at the end of secondary education or else we will have kids voting on the promise of cake for lunch. People need a minimum of maturity and knowledge to be trusted to do their civic duties.
Well we currently have a system where oldies are voting themselves a larger and larger slice of the overall cake.
That is not good for democracy IMO.
i prefer compulsory voting but age 16s to vote helps mend the bias a little.
Then I am sure you would support private sector workers getting two votes each to counteract the bias of public sector workers voting themselves an ever larger slice of the pie as well
They are getting a smaller piece of the Pie arent they?
Its simple vote Tory get 1930s style public services like no free healthcare.
Oh and worse and worse living standards for our children whilst the golden generation keep everything, is what the current voting power of oldies is producing.
Natasha Bolter was a member of the Labour Party not long ago. I always thought it was a bit of an odd decision to parachute her into one of UKIP's best prospects instead of a locally selected candidate.
Maybe UKIP have dodged a bullet in Basildon South.
If they have, they've walked in to another if they've parachuted in Neil Hamilton instead....
But do you think most ordinary people even remember the 1994 Neil Hamilton cash for questions affair? I'd be surprised if they do.
When I asked about whether there should be a limit on the wilderness years for a politician, Richard Tyndall suggested a sine die ban.
Personally, I think 17 years is plenty.
I did indeed. Although not for any crime, just for those that actually involve corruption or abuse of power in public office. I am not inclined to think that someone who has acted in a corrupt manner when previously in a position of power is likely to have changed their tune no matter how long they have been in the wilderness.
A rather bleak view of human nature. Leopard and lack of control over the pattern of its coat springs to mind.
But what about Socrates' favourite subject, paedophiles? Human sexuality is an awful lot more difficult to change than character.
Indefinite sentences for paedophiles?
No and that is not what I am suggesting for Politicians either. But certainly the current system of having paedophiles on the sex offenders register and banning them for life from working with children is a more accurate comparison. As I mentioned, Doctors can be struck off and teachers banned from teaching so I don't see why politicians should get a second chance.
Much as I dislike politicians, they are not involved in the care of children or proscribe medical treatment.
Also, as Neil Hamilton knows all too well, they have to be elected by us!
No they are not doing the things you mentioned. They are doing what should be an equally important job of making decisions that directly affect the lives of every person living in this country. As such if they are found to be taking bribes or acting in a corrupt manner in the execution of their duties they should be banned for life. If it is fitting for public servants like doctors or teachers (or police officers) then it should also be fitting for politicians.
Do you elect your doctors or teachers in Newark?
Mind you, we elect our police commissioners and look what that got us in South Yorks!
Michael Crick is asking questions on Twitter about Natasha Boulter's first class degree in PPE from Oxford. Seems no one has ever heard of her. No doubt the Times will now present UKIP as a party of fantasists without vetting procedures. Plus ca change.
Well, that could be deadly. It was Crick's expose of Iain Duncan Smith's bogus claims to have attended the University of Perugia that wrecked his leadership and kept the Tories in the wilderness for nearly another decade.
Michael Crick is asking questions on Twitter about Natasha Boulter's first class degree in PPE from Oxford. Seems no one has ever heard of her. No doubt the Times will now present UKIP as a party of fantasists without vetting procedures. Plus ca change.
Well, that could be deadly.
Yes, I think Natasha's Ukip career beyond salvation.
My youngest lad is 15, and is so politically aware, that we call him Trotsky! He got into politics at the start of the strike, he's always hung around when work colleagues have been over, watching football or parties and BBQs and likes to get involved, asking questions and making comments. His interest really took off when we were discussing cuts. He sees things in black and white, and was worried when he found out that my, and people who I work with and he likes and respects, jobs, were under threat, but also confused as to why cuts were necessary. He's researched a lot, and has joined us on rallies, meetings, and on the picket line. He's young, idealistic (gets his musical kick from young, leftwing bands like Enter Shikari or ecolefties like 30 Seconds To Mars), naive and a little politically unformed, but so what? He's got to live in this chaotic world that we're creating, why shouldn't he get a say in who runs it, once he hits 16, and has rights and responsibilities that that age now brings?
Sure. We whinge that teenagers aren't interested in politics. If some are interested enough to want to vote, they should be encouraged. The only counter-argument is that there is some unique sense of judgment that one acquires at 18 but doesn't have at 16. Not my impression - there are far more significant factors in ability to assess public affairs sensibly than two years of age.
Nope, there comes a limit on the age of voting and that comes at the end of secondary education or else we will have kids voting on the promise of cake for lunch. People need a minimum of maturity and knowledge to be trusted to do their civic duties.
Well we currently have a system where oldies are voting themselves a larger and larger slice of the overall cake.
That is not good for democracy IMO.
i prefer compulsory voting but age 16s to vote helps mend the bias a little.
Seriously? From someone who retired from the NHS in their early 50s? You couldn't make it up.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2009
Personally, I think 17 years is plenty.
They were used instead of death sentences to indicate that your life was no longer yours, but the property of society to do as it wish as far as detention was concerned.
Or do you think the death penalty should be brought back?
However when informed that a 21 year old faces 50 years inside for having sex with someone 15 years and 364 days old they might be a tad reluctant to convict.
The solution is surely to have first second and third degree offences like wot they do in USA, with first degree having the mandatory sentence and let the jury decide?
I have pointed out previously that in 2009 in particular the BBC's PNV share was for some reason and almost certainly wrongly much higher than the actual vote share .
The correct figures are here (on pg.7):
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/RP14-33/local-elections-2014
The Lib Dems got a more modest 25% in 2009. However, in 2004 they got 27%, a full 5% higher than their GE performance a year later.
In the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections, the LDs performed considerably worse than their average in local elections in the years preceding. The 2010 election they matched up more closely with their local elections in the previous years, but I would argue this was because of the last-minute Cleggmania boost; without that, I think the Lib Dems would've kept to the pattern of majorly underperforming their local election scores in the GE.
When I studied it most of the case law was when age of competence was 21.
Similar considerations apply in the other years you give .
Edit. It is of course a system we already follow without much comment when it comes to teachers or doctors who are regularly banned from their chosen profession for life.
But what about Socrates' favourite subject, paedophiles? Human sexuality is an awful lot more difficult to change than character.
Indefinite sentences for paedophiles?
He just doesn't like the fact that successive governments have spent all the cash, and now we can't afford the basics that those same governments have convinced us that they would supply, and him and his mates are going to be the ones who suffer. He thinks if governments can't fund enough coppers, firemen, if we have an Armed Forces that is struggling (we're very pro forces in our gang), then those governments have failed. I can't really fault his logic on that. He's ideaistic, he's never going to be a Tory at 15, is he? I doubt he'll be one at 18, either.
Personally I think all degree results, particularly from publicly-funded universities, should be held on a register that can be checked simply by employers and the like. I bet there are loads of people in high office who've bullshitted their qualifications.
Have a look at that Gary Gibbons report I flagged up earlier this evening.
They had two representatives from trade colleges, and they confirmed that they can't get youngsters interested in the trades. One guy said he hardly knew any brickies under 30, and that aprenticeships were too short, at about 18-24 months, leading to inexperienced workers not getting jobs, and leaving the trade.
What the hell are we doing to this country?
For example, in Aldridge-Brownhills UKIP polled over 5,000 votes in the local election in 2014, nearly 1,800 more than Labour and nearly 3,500 more than the Tories.
Which is a shame, as a couple of bricklayers I knew found it an immensely interesting job. Then again, they were speciality and restoration bricklayers rather than yet-another-house bricklayers.
Also, as Neil Hamilton knows all too well, they have to be elected by us!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papillon_(book)
Whatever ones thoughts on RT, it would be a disaster for free speech and plurality of media provision if it were to be driven from our screens.
I am not so fussed about Life for the severest of crimes, the problem about indeterminate sentences as they were introduced in the UK was that the minimum tariff could be very short (a quick google brings up a BBC story about someone on a 17-month tariff ending up being detained for 8 years on an indeterminate sentence, which seems way disproportionate), the fact that release was determined by the Parole Board, effectively an arm of the Executive, with little judicial oversight, and the rationale for them. Anyone can reoffend, surely everyone should be on an indeterminate sentence? I am not sure if they can be handed down any more, if they can I think they were certainly reformed a bit in about 2012.
I am not opposed to the death penalty, I just don't think it would ever be operated fairly. In the 60s we hanged about 4 people a year, and it was a bit of a lottery who got the rope. Personally I would make it fair by hanging all murderers, but no-one would be comfortable with that level of carnage, I don't think there are even states in the US that apply a mandatory death penalty to all murders.
Frankly I think universal sufferage is wrong in any case and we should move to a contribution based system. You contribute to society you get a say in how it runs. Sit on your arse in front of Jeremy Kyle then don't complain.
Contributions would of course include tax, but also could include voluntary work etc.
Contribution is probably a better measure of fitness to vote than age because it teaches you something at least about the world as you can't contribute in most cases while sitting at home watching TV.
One of my mates got a job being a sparks for a pole dancing club and would be working while new girls were being auditioned. What a lovely perk of a job to have.
So a college course would probably only qualify you to build a wall in your back garden, and getting funding for college courses when you are over 24 is almost impossible (and difficult once you are over 19) as Governments talk the talk about lifelong learning but do feck all to make it happen.
Breaking news for you young whipper snappers Google for Neil, young ones, sick and sneeze... that's me that is.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30396237
There's fairly robust neuroscientific research suggesting that full physical brain maturity isn't reached until about 25. This isn't just pie-in-sky either. The research is already having a real, practical effect on services. For example, there's growing pressure to reconfigure child/adolescent mental health services to extend beyond 18, with some psychological services theoretically being asked to go right up to 25.
Of course, society as a whole doesn't need to use neuroscientific evidence to base its own decisions about when adulthood is reached, but the law at the moment has quite a few different cut-offs even within a single field of practice. That inconsistency could probably do with tidying up.
Personally, I would generally be in favour of raising thresholds (both the protective & restrictive ones) rather than reducing them. Given that the rate of brain development slows after 18, going all the way to 25 would be a step too far. I think harmonsing everything to either 18 or to 21 would be a reasonable balance.
Younger than that, and it really is arguable whether - on average - there is sufficient maturity to fully process decision-making in the way an adult would. Of course, some will indeed have that maturity, just as some adults don't. But on average, the younger you are below 25, and especially below 18, the less likely it is that you will have it.
Leaving scientific evidence aside, anyone who's taught 14, 16, 18, and 21+ year olds already knows there are vast differences in their ability to cognitively process problems. Selecting a government is almost the ultimate wicked problem.
Given that voting is (at least ostensibly) about something important enough to be given mature reflection, then voting younger than 18 is pushing credibility, and there's a not-insubstantial theoretical argument for going back to 21. It's strongly arguable that 16 year olds voting devalues the meaning of a vote rather than enhancing it.
Your absurdly stupid argument could be extended. What do 16 year olds have that 14 year olds don't? What do 14 year olds have that 12 year olds don't? That makes it clear how absurd votes for kids are. You're not doing this out of any sense of decency. You're doing this as a naked grab for votes because the adult population of the country doesn't like your party much any more. I didn't think I would consider voting for the Conservatives again after all they've screwed up, but the sheer appallingness of these proposals are making me reconsider. You people have no appreciation of the history and importance of suffrage, and you're willing to play with it for partisan advantage, as you did with postal voting. And what's worse, you're planning to force this through on England with Scottish votes.
People need a minimum of maturity and knowledge to be trusted to do their civic duties.
(In any case, it wasn't an expletive, it was a simile)
The 16 and 17 year olds can't vote in Scottish elections either.
That is not good for democracy IMO.
i prefer compulsory voting but age 16s to vote helps mend the bias a little.
I think I might have missed something.
Link please.
'Not my impression - there are far more significant factors in ability to assess public affairs sensibly than two years of age.'
So why not make it 15 or even 14?
Politician 1: Hmm, people don't seem to be interested in politics these days, do they?
Politician 2: No, they don't turn out to vote, and want to join pressure groups instead of proper political parties.
Politician 1: You're right, there seems to be something wrong with the voters.
So members of the Windsor family and aged Jacobites appear in the frame.
What we can say is that a very senior employee of UKIP has had allegations of a sexual nature made against him by a prospective parliamentary candidate. UKIP seem to have suspended him immediately and are investigating. that seems to be way ahead of what might have happened in certain other parties in the immediate past.
Clearly some parties will need to modify their programs more than others to cater for the new voters interests, but the Labour Party is obviously a good fit for the emancipation of the clinically insane.
Its simple vote Tory get 1930s style public services like no free healthcare.
Oh and worse and worse living standards for our children whilst the golden generation keep everything, is what the current voting power of oldies is producing.
Mind you, we elect our police commissioners and look what that got us in South Yorks!
Perhaps she has other work lined up.