British Politics

For which act of treason would you be hanging Nigel Farage?

Let me guess: Brexit.

You need to get one of the statues to give you a definition of treason because you obviously have no idea what the word means. How about this article: High treason in the United Kingdom

If anybody is going to be hung for treason these days, it is much more likely to be a crazed Leftie as they generally hate the Crown and the sovereign, preferring instead some sort of authoritarian regime with a handful of crazed Lefties in charge, hypocritically enriching themselves while the masses dwindle to poverty.

 

Me or him?

 

It's hanged btw. Hung= Brexiteer English.

 

As I have always stated on here what we need is a completely new Party based on common sense and decency and definitely not woke.

There is not one party in the UK Isles that offers this.

 

Here’s our Nige on Russia Today, just after the Brexit vote…

 

there's no death penalty for treason any more
crazed lefties dont do reality

 

What a lovely picture.

 

Sensible Party

 

RT is probably more balanced and trustworthy than our equivalent BBC or America's CNN

 

I'd scrap all political parties, so MP's represent their electorate, rather than their party.

 

In this instance, I will concede that “be hanged” would have been more correct; however, “hung” is the past tense and past participle of hang.

So it is reasonable to conclude that you are still a desperate Remainer determined to blame Brexit for almost anything because Brexiteers bothered to turn out and vote for what they wanted whilst complacent Remainers took the result for granted. Many of them only became Remainers after the Referendum (especially brainwashed young Lefties) when Remoaners started spreading more Project Fear fantasies.

 

That is definitely what should happen in local government elections. The turnout for local elections is often around 25 to 30 per cent so nearly three quarters of people choose ‘none of the above’ (sounds like an idea for a film comedy).

The rules in local elections should be that everyone stands as an independent and must live in the ward/borough that they wish to represent. The person elected would then have to represent the views of the people that elected them or they would elect somebody else at the next election. That was how democracy originally worked.

Local government would then become a collective responsibility so the only measures that would be enacted would be the sensible, moderate ones as a particular ideology would only operate in places where a majority of people actually agreed with it.

The obvious example I can give is Hull City Council, where the Official Raving Loony Party hold 31 of the 57 seats based upon 11 per cent of the available votes (44 per cent of a turnout of 24.99 per cent).

 

I agree, and would take it a step further by scrapping MP's, and having a system where the Councillors elected as you suggest, vote to decide which of them represents us in national Parliament.

 

You

 

I am not sure that would work in reality.

For example, East Yorkshire has five MPs whilst Kingston Upon Hull has three MPs; however, one of those MPs – the Hull West and Hessle constituency – is in both groups. So would East Yorkshire send four councillors to Westminster and Hull three (more people in West Hull than Hessle)?

Plus the 650 MPs would spend most of their time arguing about who was going to be Prime Minister this week. Also that would effectively create weak proportional representation government that would be easily manipulated by the Establishment (unelected civil servants).

 

All fair points. There must be some sort of mid ground between the two somewhere though, especially if it reduces the influence of civil servants. For me, any system that reduces bureaucracy and party politics would be better than the choice of two cheeks from the same arse, duplicated at various levels we currently have.

It'd reduce the opportunities for bribes and bungs for a kick off.