Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don’t you wish that this is how we should do politics in th
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don’t you wish that this is how we should do politics in the UK?
Follow @MSmithsonPB
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Thirst?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4uivPpzCGo
But in all seriousness, that last article from Brind was derisory. It does not belong amongst the high-quality articles that appear regularly on PB. Many of which put the traditional media to shame.
As to the header question, No, No, No. We get by just fine (or not) without them, I cannot see what would be improved with it.
Anonymous protesters who refused to reveal identities to the courts set free
Protesters who were among almost 50 people arrested following attacks on police and their horses have been told by magistrates to return to court next year - despite refusing to reveal their identities to police or the courts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11981438/Anonymous-protesters-who-refused-to-reveal-identities-to-the-courts-set-free.html
http://tinyurl.com/ph8xld5
Not sure if it is fair but it seemed memorable and quite clever.
Don's background is as a professional political journalist and Labour campaigner and he brings a lot.
I want as broad a range of guest slot writers as possible.
I'm sure that as we approach the S.E.C. Primary I'll be subjected to a torrent of them. So far not so much.
Firstly, I don't like the fact that our top politicians have no or very little experience in anything except politics.
Secondly, I think that public service, whether in the armed forces or the NHS or in Education is something that deserves credit.
Thirdly, I think that sleezebags should get called out and named and shamed. We frankly deserve better.
Fourthly, I thought it was quite funny. Our PEBs are just stunningly dull and pointless. I can't remember a half decent one since Kinnock.
In our country we take notice more of the posters than the PEBs.
I think the poster of Ed Miliband in the pocket of Alex Salmond was more devastating than any attack ad ever could be.
Attack adverts should be allowed in the UK. It's an utter disgrace that so many people who claim to espouse freedom of speech deny it as part of the political process.
David Cameron will issue a dramatic warning to fellow EU leaders this week that he may have to recommend a UK exit from the European Union if they reject his demands for reform.
Turning up the pressure on the other 27 EU heads of state, the prime minister will formally table his list of demands – including a four-year ban on EU migrants claiming in-work benefits after entering the UK – in a letter to European Council president Donald Tusk on Tuesday. It will mark the start of months of detailed negotiations involving senior representatives of all EU governments, ahead of the promised in/out referendum on UK membership before the end of 2017.
http://bit.ly/1MhKaX3
Oh, and the Green party musical number one, which was definitely not boring. I loved that one. "It's sweeter, when we all agree, a party political harmony".
Given they are able to make attacking points in many other ways, I think not having them on one medium at least is a reasonable compromise between permitting bombardment of people with crap while still allowing the parties to be negative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RnbLqM1EUE
Serious UK only reform is not possible. We will be offered associate membership whilst the Eurozone integrates further.
Ok, odd start, but I'm listening...what the...transcendental meditation?...is that man doing gymnastic yoga?...well, maybe it's not too craz...what's that..."only the natural law party can strengthen the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and at the same time create a real union of the european nations"? Nutters
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTLR8R9JXz4
The notion that there aren't attack ads in 21st Century Britain is just denial. The amount of vitriol and bile that can be shared on Facebook or Twitter without any nod to Ofcom or anyone else and then we pretend Party Election Broadcasts are all that exist.
Allow American style free speech.
I'd hate to see that happen over here.
The money isn't used as a race to the top, but sadly as a race to the bottom.
The other difference is that TSE and David engage below the line. I don't see Don engaging, he just writes his spin and disappears whereas David and TSE (and other guests) generally engage with responses to what they have written.
It is an interesting development. It suggests a lot more progress than has been apparent to date.
The only drawback is that to purchase commercial time on TV will increase the cost of campaigns.
Otherwise it's all positive.
I'm really worried if a four year ban is all we get on immigration. I'm not convinced it would make much effect - Eastern Europeans I know often plan to spend a decade here or more. I'd really like to hear someone argue the case that it'll make the sort of reduction we need. I'm glad we're keeping in the push to get some sort of double QMV system for protecting non-EU members from the Eurozone. That's absolutely essential.
The votes for 16 year olds is a joke though. We absolutely should not give way on that, especially when the Lords pushing it are from parties that lost the last election, including one that got decimated. The proposal was put in manifestos and lost an election. What's even more unreasonable is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats didn't even support a referendum, so why they should be deciding the electorate for it is beyond me.
It would be also giving away the argument for 16 year olds voting in general elections in future, and would seriously harm conservative prospects for a long, long time. Complete madness if Cameron signs up for it to get a bigger pro-EU majority. I might even resign my membership of the conservative party if he adopts it.
Hey: maybe that's the niche for the LibDems.
So if we legalised it, of course there would be some use by the parties, I just see no benefit to our politics in doing so, and since they can be negative elsewhere, no negatives to not allowing it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11664399/Letting-16-year-olds-vote-in-the-EU-referendum-would-be-a-car-crash.html
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Ehh...why?
Winston S Churchill.
If it were already allowed on TV, it would be hard to defend stopping it just because it happens elsewhere. Since it doesn't happen on TV, and it is defended for what has been considered good reasons to do so, what benefit is there to permitting it? And it is then that it happening elsewhere is relevant, because a free speech argument falls flat.
We are not diminished by it not being permitted at present. Therefore, to change, the case needs to be made, I think, as to how it will advance us.
I also think this call for 16 year olds voting is bizarre as we seem to infantilize young people more and more.
However, the door was opened with the IndyRef. If they could vote in that, I see no reason they cannot vote in everything.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
They shamed some of their elders
By that logic we should have never granted women the vote.
Some 14 year olds are probably eloquent too. Should we lower the vote for them?
Can't sign up for a credit card, can't sign a contract without parental consent, can't vote. Entirely consistent and sensible to set the age of voting as being the age of maturity.
Used to be able to smoke too.
I wonder if it wouldn't be simpler to have a "single age of adulthood". (And we can then discuss what it should be.) It seems bizarre to have several different ones.
I think there is maybe an argument that yes no issues are easier than other elections but I think we need to encourage our young to take part if our politics is going to engage the next generation.
The status quo has been legally defended as acceptable. Therefore to change it one needs to make a very good case as to why changing it would benefit us. But if the status quo were that it was permitted, as you postulated, then I accept 'it happens elsewhere' would not be enough to justify taking it away. But your scenario is not the one we have, and lacking the free speech argument, 'I prefer attack ads', is not much of a case on its own. If a majority voted for it I'd argue but accept it though.
So the only one you've got is having children, and I don't exactly think those having kids at 16 are a great example of rational decision making that the vote should be entrusted with.
For goodness sake, we've had a summer of kids this age going off to fight for ISIS, and us being told that they're victims too, because they're easily brainwashed at such a young age.
I'd imagine that many wealthy northern, western European nations will be keen.
If that leads to a labour shortage, business will relocate work to cheaper areas, and then we will end with a European Minimum Wage as the wealthier countries seek redress for lost employment.
Ultimately, all roads lead to harmonisation.