Sponsored Links
2.5 years. I also lived in Slough for many years maybe as many as 9. And I grew up in Leicester, for 18 years I lived there, most of my friends were Anglo Asians. In my experience Anglo Asians are peaceful, friendly, don't get drunk outside pubs, don't abuse you etc etc.
I disagree. First past the post results in the country swinging backwards and forwards between the two 'main parties'. Currently, neither are worth their salt in my opinion.
It would also solve the disgraceful situation where nearly 4 million people vote for UKIP and get one MP. The same, I suppose, applies to the Green party (although they're all nutters, of course!)
Yes that is a problem. However, you can't have the situation where you vote for the party, with candidates ordered by the party, and 1 gets (potentially) elected first, 2 second etc. It destroys the link to the consituency. I would vote Labour if the person was good even though I am more Tory by nature.
As you say, there is a problem, but the PR voted for in the last referendum was in my view worse. We have a bad system, but I can't see better. A bit like so called democracy really. It's more a big business influenced small clique, but at least we can kick them out. In a way that's all it is, a form of dictatorship, with a limited term. They dictate, but if they misbehave, we can vote in other dictators.
Yes, you're right. Nothing is perfect.
However, I have a solution (which I'm sure I've explained before on this forum).
We have two houses of parliament, and I believe most people regard the Lords an expensive, corrupt and unnecessary waste. My suggestion is that the Lords be removed and replaced by a different, democratically elected house.
The Commons could continue as it is: populated by, theoretically at least, representatives for each constituency. These are MPs to whom every voter can communicate to make their feelings felt and to (hopefully) support the needs of their local constituents.
The 'Lords' ('Senate'?) could be elected by PR; the number of MPs (limited to a far lower number than the present 800 or more) selected by their own political party in direct proportion to the total number of votes cast.
As to which house proposes new bills and which is required to pass them is debatable. Similarly, which house houses (!) the Prime Minister is another consideration.
However, I have a solution (which I'm sure I've explained before on this forum).
We have two houses of parliament, and I believe most people regard the Lords an expensive, corrupt and unnecessary waste. My suggestion is that the Lords be removed and replaced by a different, democratically elected house.
The Commons could continue as it is: populated by, theoretically at least, representatives for each constituency. These are MPs to whom every voter can communicate to make their feelings felt and to (hopefully) support the needs of their local constituents.
The 'Lords' ('Senate'?) could be elected by PR; the number of MPs (limited to a far lower number than the present 800 or more) selected by their own political party in direct proportion to the total number of votes cast.
As to which house proposes new bills and which is required to pass them is debatable. Similarly, which house houses (!) the Prime Minister is another consideration.
Sponsored Links
Immigration in the UK is like Greece and the Euro.
Greeks don't want austerity, but they don't want to leave the Euro.
The UK doesn't want large-scale immigration, but doesn't want to leave the EU.
Does not compute.
Greeks don't want austerity, but they don't want to leave the Euro.
The UK doesn't want large-scale immigration, but doesn't want to leave the EU.
Does not compute.
Sorry Aron, I have to correct you there. The UK government don't want to leave the EU. That's not exactly the same as the UK electorate, not wanting to leave the EU.. However , seeing as we've been promised a referendum on the matter, we'll just have to wait and see (won't we)
I agree. Absolutely!
Sorry Aron, I have to correct you there. The UK government don't want to leave the EU. That's not exactly the same as the UK electorate, not wanting to leave the EU.. However , seeing as we've been promised a referendum on the matter, we'll just have to wait and see (won't we)
I've said it before, but I very much doubt we'll get a straight, in/out referendum without any whys and wherefores.
As you say, we'll just have to wait and see.
L
longdogs
Sorry Aron, I have to correct you there. The UK government don't want to leave the EU. That's not exactly the same as the UK electorate, not wanting to leave the EU.. However , seeing as we've been promised a referendum on the matter, we'll just have to wait and see (won't we)
Spot on!
Have you not learned yet that to argue with me is futile?
Uh uh
You can find plenty of polls with similar or worse results, and this is before any fearmongering hyperbole that will be pumped out prior to an actual vote.
At best any vote to leave the EU would be won by a slim margin, people don't vote for the scary options, leaving the EU *is* a risk even if you agree that we are best out of it.
Staying in the EU (as it is at present) is a bigger risk. We are in a dictatorship as far as the EU is concerned. France tells us the immigrant problem in Calais is "ours" not "theirs" Germany presses the UK to accept our "share" of immigration quotas, when these people should be claiming asylum in the first EU country they enter. Such is the desperation of EU countries, that they guide them towards the Channel ports, where suddenly we're told they are our problem (even though they remain on French soil)
PS , your graph is hopelessly out of date. You could at least have put up a more recent one.
PS , your graph is hopelessly out of date. You could at least have put up a more recent one.
You should have just kept quiet.
Now eat your humble pie and accept the reality, most of the UK public would vote to stay IN.
But that is not the perception that most people hold, voting out is a risk, and people will vote for the perceived safe option.
If anyone wants to see what is in store look up the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It sounds good until you realise it is basically a way for American corporations to control our politics as they do American. We could be taken to court if we do not import American beef reared on growth hormones, violating our current farming regs. The EU is a huge bureacracy, favouring big companies, not us, with jobs for the boys, and hidden agendas.
We already have half the land per person compared to France, skyrocketing house prices, huge immigration, no control over EU laws etc. I bet we vote to stay in, fear uncertainty and doubt will win that.
We already have half the land per person compared to France, skyrocketing house prices, huge immigration, no control over EU laws etc. I bet we vote to stay in, fear uncertainty and doubt will win that.
Dismal reading. I have to say I suspected as much, although I still hope that such polls are likely to be way out.You should have just kept quiet.
On the other hand, I'm convinced that the British electorate is even more stupid than they look. If, at the end of the day, they vote to stay in the European Empire then they will have no-one else to blame when the ordure hits the fan. Things are already looking bleak as a direct consequence of our membership. I only hope that before the time I and my wife pop our clogs there will still be hospital places available.
Let's just see what transpires "IF" we get a vote on our future in the EU.
L
longdogs
By the time we get to vote, there will be enough 'Europeans' living here to keep us in.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
