Coronavirus
- Thread starter brb
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Was it? Cryptic.
I wasn't proposing everyone is forced to vote for one party.
You’re entitled to your opinion, Dugster. Don’t see why Starmer evokes mistrust. Boring, arguably, but I see him as trustworthy.
On June 4th, 1963, President Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110. In short, it was an order for the Treasury to issue certificates backed by silver bullion, as well as to mint silver dollars that would be considered money. These silver certificates took the form of dollars for the most part, and the notes would say that whatever the denomination on the bill was, it would be repaid in silver “to the bearer on demand.” Simply put: if you had $1, it was worth $1 in silver.
Unfortunately, the executive order didn’t stand the test of time. That November, President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas
Jus sayn
We dont ****in want it
You must log in or register to see images
He's saying you should have say bro
As long a we vote for ya
We dont ****in want it
You must log in or register to see images
You’d happily take the 82 large plus huge expense account and never turn up, you could even put it in your manifesto.
I don't disagree. But that depends on the PR system under which the party received the votes to gain the seat. The number of seats would be porportionate to the number of votes. My post earlier was about having a minimum threshold before being able to have a seat. This is where Israel for example fcked up when they set up their minimum threshold which has created instability for decades.
Instability requires cooperation to form a Govt, and then create policy. I think that’d be a great thing, as we’d get less central Govt, as they’d never be able to agree on most ****, so we’d lose the 5 yr political football **** we have now.
When they formed a coalition with the Tories, didn't they break some promise to the students - tbh can't remember what it was all about now, might have been student fees?
I just googled it...
You must log in or register to see media
I'm all for that sort of pragmatism, thrash it out until you get something that works.
Not tired old party pledges and kicking the can
Central Govt should be responsible for defence and making ****s pay their ****ing dues - all of them.
Beyond that, most issues are ultimately local imo. If our local schools are falling down we shouldn’t have to wait for central Govt to recognise it, we should be able to allocate our share of the tax pot locally. I’m sick to the back teeth of centralised ****e and issues being used as political footballs, give the power back to regions to make their own decisions.
Funny how I remembered that from 10 years ago, maybe it was relevant at the time to my family. I also remember them being remain. So broken promises and decisions which were against my own personal best interests. I accept though we could say that about every party. I just think those two either were or are quite biggies to me.
- Status