The EU debate - Part III

Sorry, it didn't come across as clear.

The only way you could have any certainty in increasing your likely voters is to to what Blair did.

 

Is this the new thing now?
Where we just make up/decide what employment other posters have and insist thats what they do, even though we haven't a ****ing clue?
(Unless, Like Pete, you reveal your entire life to the internet).
And keep making jokes about it?
Like HIAG is a lawyer, Stan is an estate agent, Matth is a rent boy etc

 

In those countries with PR there are frequently coalition governments, made up of groups that have broadly similar policies. It means that extreme measures do not get enacted, and that a majority of the population are in favour the measures carried out. In a system like that of the UK it is very rare that the government has the support of the majority of the population.

 

Brexit is the exception

But yeah, unless we held a referendum on every policy idea that was put to the vote, they couldn't possibly please the majority with EVERY decision.

 

Although the difference is that HIAG claimed to be a lawyer.

I think wetchair is a burglar. He once said that his job takes him into people's homes and he's completely illiterate which narrows the possibilities down pretty quickly. Also you'll notice that he only really posts from late afternoon onwards when he starts waking up from his hangover and getting ready for an early hours shift and another celebratory post thieving piss up. Finally, he strongly objects to foreigners as he thinks they're all thieves and therefore views them as competition.

I think I've hit the nail on the head.

 

Even with PR, by definition the ruling party does not enjoy majority support.

Coalition Gvt's, as I'm sure you know, are highly fragile and liable to fall apart at any time. I think at one stage Italy had had as many Gvt's as years since the war!..that creates massive instability as the ruling Gvt keeps changing.

So there is no perfect solution. It's just the best we've got unless and until somebody comes up with a better idea.

 

He's my accountant.

 

No income tax, no VAT, no money back, no guarantee.

 

We are both well aware of the problems of coalitions but I think that is better to have those problems than have government representing only 25% of the electorate.

 

Donald Tusk has said UK has two choices. Hard Brexit or no Brexit.

 

A pretty good article about were we are at
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...t-housing-crash-voted-out-worth-a7358896.html

 

Interesting point about the Yanks. With the exception of Nixon, history appears to show that they almost invariably pick the better of the two options - even if the two options aren't that great. In fact I'd argue that, whatever the politics of rezpecrive presidents, they've frequently been far better leaders than many other democracies could boast. Even Reagan, who might have been a bit intellectually challenged, was an enormously charismatic leader. And the West basically won the cold war on his watch.

 

My condolences on your impending bankruptcy.

 

I'm not so sure Paul. In the end, some form of stability is always best for a country. Some certainty for a number of years ahead, that allows a Gvt to plan.

It's difficult to formulate any kind of longer term strategy if you're liable to be voted out of power at the next vote on a bill.

 

****ing depressing, but unfortunately almost certainly what's in store!...

 

The Belgians had no government for nearly two years and by the end of it were wondering what the fuss was. It just means you have a reactive process that deals with issues as they arise.

Having seen our government's spend billions on pet projects it doesn't seem so bad to just stick with status quo for a while.

Imagine a system were one fifth of MPs are elected each year. It would be hilarious to watch them run around and might even force a bit more cooperation instead of opposition, just to get anything done.

 

Actually I meant that more diverse groups make better decisions. A group of people with a shared background are more likely to miss important information when making decisions. So the EU council of ministers is more likely to make the right decision than a single government.
There is a huge problem with the interaction of this with democracy though. It's very hard to measure political decisions so people will complain that they haven't been listened too even when objectively the decision is correct.

 

That's because people don't actually want to be listened to, they want to be in charge.
If you listen to them, decide that they're talking bollocks and do something else, then it doesn't satisfy them.
Lots of people seem to agree with utter ****wits about major issues though, unfortunately.

Why does this happen?
Because people like to think that they're good judges of situations, even when they're demonstrably not.
Show people a model that works and they'll object to it because it doesn't feel right or some similar nonsense.
It's not about what's true, but about what they'd like to be true.

 

Or, to put it in a way that is less likely to confuse people, Leave or Remain...