Some good points. Some I agree with and some I don't as is usually the case with politics
Any test for eligibility for voting was always going to be contentious.
One idea I would hope would get more agreement would be that politics should be a bigger part of the education curriculum and at an earlier stage than it currently is.
You surely cant be suggesting this as a serious proposition? Would we even be able to call ourselves a democracy, if we didn't allow all our citizens to vote. Are you saying we should have people employed, sitting in offices all over the country, testing the whole of the population that is qualified to vote. How many people would we need? Then continue to test everyone that reaches their 18th birthday, on an annual basis. Who would set the questions? How often would you change the questions? How would you stop the answers being posted online? How much would all this cost? If the test was really basic, it would be of limited value. If the test was more difficult, a much larger percentage would fail, and alienate many more people. Imagine the indignity of those having to admit to their friends and family that they weren't allowed to vote. Could people swat up and retake the test? How many times would you be allowed to sit the test? How many more people would you have to employ to cope with the resits? I cant think of anything more divisive than removing one of our current basic rights. Education is a good thing, but would you wish to force students to study politics. I think that you are either interested in politics, or you are not. You cant force people to be interested. This debate belongs in another era, long ago, but could never be justified. All this to prepare people for an important vote, which is likely to occur one or twice in a lifetime. Surely its our politicians responsibility to inform the electorate of the pros and cons of any issue to be voted on. When it comes to General Elections, people would usually vote according to how they are personally doing, rather than on their political knowledge. If they are doing well they would support the current government, and if doing badly vote for the opposition.
You surely cant be suggesting this as a serious proposition? - To have a very basic test, yeah. I can certainly understand that it may not be viable and might not gather support as mentioned previously. I do however think it is a reasonable question to ask.
Would we even be able to call ourselves a democracy, if we didn't allow all our citizens to vote. - Just my opinion but, IMO yes. I think asking people to know the utter basics about politics is a reasonable ask if they then get to cast a vote which is part of determining our future.
Are you saying we should have people employed, sitting in offices all over the country, testing the whole of the population that is qualified to vote. How many people would we need? Then continue to test everyone that reaches their 18th birthday, on an annual basis. - No, don't think I mentioned any of that. If I had to think of a way it could be done... Simple 4-5 multiple choice question sheet at the polling station. 4-5 ticks needed in relevant boxes, don't think that would be overly time consuming.
How often would you change the questions? - They could be generic and therefore not need to be changed. I.e. - Who is the prime minister? etc
How often would you change the questions? - You wouldn't. That would sort of be the point... They would be online researching what the correct answers are = job done!
How much would all this cost? - If done something along the lines of the above suggestion then not a lot.
If the test was really basic, it would be of limited value. - I would say the reverse. If it was moderately difficult it would marginalise a lot of people from the political system.
Imagine the indignity of those having to admit to their friends and family that they weren't allowed to vote. - Which may incentivise them to learn the complete basics. If someone really cannot name the current prime minister, do we really need them to be voting? If they cannot name the current prime minister then it is highly unlikely they understand any of their policies and would likely have difficulty making any sort of informed political choice.
I cant think of anything more divisive than removing one of our current basic rights. - This wouldn't be a permanent removal. It would only be for that vote and would possibly send the message that the opportunity to vote is something that should be valued and come with a small iota of responsibility.
Could people swat up and retake the test? How many times would you be allowed to sit the test? Test taken once before entering the both.
Education is a good thing, but would you wish to force students to study politics. In the same way they are 'forced' to study Maths, English, Science etc? Yes, absolutely! If the population are better informed they can properly hold our elected representatives to account.
I think that you are either interested in politics, or you are not. You cant force people to be interested. - Again, if people are 'forced' to learn a raft of core subjects I would say politics should be one of them.
This debate belongs in another era, long ago, but could never be justified. All this to prepare people for an important vote, which is likely to occur one or twice in a lifetime. - I must be as old as Tikay, there have been a lot more votes than 1 or 2 in my lifetime.
Surely its our politicians responsibility to inform the electorate of the pros and cons of any issue to be voted on. - Ah yes, our politicians, the shining examples of objectivity. Not like they have an agenda or party line to tow or anything like that.
Sorry Marky its an absolute abysmal failure, I will get back to you later, when I have finished playing.
No rush
Just thanking my lucky stars you are not one of my students haha. I mean the debate would be great but I might need a few stiff vodkas after class each day
You surely cant be suggesting this as a serious proposition? - To have a very basic test, yeah. I can certainly understand that it may not be viable and might not gather support as mentioned previously. I do however think it is a reasonable question to ask.
If it wasn't viable, how could it be a suggestion
Would we even be able to call ourselves a democracy, if we didn't allow all our citizens to vote. - Just my opinion but, IMO yes. I think asking people to know the utter basics about politics is a reasonable ask if they then get to cast a vote which is part of determining our future.
Don't you think we should be encouraging people to vote rather than the opposite. In this country, and many others voting has been restricted to the few, rather than the many. People have fought, and even killed themselves for the right to vote.
Are you saying we should have people employed, sitting in offices all over the country, testing the whole of the population that is qualified to vote. How many people would we need? Then continue to test everyone that reaches their 18th birthday, on an annual basis. - No, don't think I mentioned any of that. If I had to think of a way it could be done... Simple 4-5 multiple choice question sheet at the polling station. 4-5 ticks needed in relevant boxes, don't think that would be overly time consuming.
So we have to bouncers in the polling stations to tell the people that failed that they cant vote. I wouldn't go in on my own, and come out and tell my wife the answers so she could vote. Or maybe stand at the end of the street just telling all and sundry the answers. If you failed what would stop you coming back later in the day when you know the answers. As soon as voting started the answers would be available online.
How often would you change the questions? - They could be generic and therefore not need to be changed. I.e. - Who is the prime minister? etc
That's one, what would the other 4 be, presumably equally as challenging. Do you think that knowing who the current Prime Minister is, really gives someone a bigger insight in regard to politics.
How often would you change the questions? - You wouldn't. That would sort of be the point... They would be online researching what the correct answers are = job done!
So if I was prepared to look online to find that people have posted the answers, would make me more qualified to vote.
How much would all this cost? - If done something along the lines of the above suggestion then not a lot.
You would need the bouncers for the people that got the hump.
If the test was really basic, it would be of limited value. - I would say the reverse. If it was moderately difficult it would marginalise a lot of people from the political system.
Too basic makes it pointless.
Imagine the indignity of those having to admit to their friends and family that they weren't allowed to vote. - Which may incentivise them to learn the complete basics. If someone really cannot name the current prime minister, do we really need them to be voting? If they cannot name the current prime minister then it is highly unlikely they understand any of their policies and would likely have difficulty making any sort of informed political choice.
People who knew who the Prime Minister is, voted for the Monster Raving Loony Party, and the National Front etc, now that's informed choice.
I cant think of anything more divisive than removing one of our current basic rights. - This wouldn't be a permanent removal. It would only be for that vote and would possibly send the message that the opportunity to vote is something that should be valued and come with a small iota of responsibility.
People didn't fight to get a vote sometimes.
Could people swat up and retake the test? How many times would you be allowed to sit the test? Test taken once before entering the both.
Then bodily remove them if they fail. The staff would need headguards and gumshields.
Education is a good thing, but would you wish to force students to study politics. In the same way they are 'forced' to study Maths, English, Science etc? Yes, absolutely! If the population are better informed they can properly hold our elected representatives to account.
Then suggest it.
I think that you are either interested in politics, or you are not. You cant force people to be interested. - Again, if people are 'forced' to learn a raft of core subjects I would say politics should be one of them.
Then why do you think it isn't.
This debate belongs in another era, long ago, but could never be justified. All this to prepare people for an important vote, which is likely to occur one or twice in a lifetime. - I must be as old as Tikay, there have been a lot more votes than 1 or 2 in my lifetime.
There have been 2 in my lifetime on Europe, and two important ones on Wales. So that is 4 in my voting life of 43 years. The first two happened when I was 19 and 23, and I cant remember if I voted as I had no interest in politics at the time. But the 4 could have been life changing votes. I wouldn't count general elections, as I feel that however much I knew, or didn't know about politics, if I felt let down by the current government I should have the right to vote for the opposition, without any qualification, or jumping through any hoops. That is my right, and nobody should be able to remove it.
Surely its our politicians responsibility to inform the electorate of the pros and cons of any issue to be voted on. - Ah yes, our politicians, the shining examples of objectivity. Not like they have an agenda or party line to tow or anything like that.
That is the point, if you don't like what one party stands for, you can vote for another.
This could go on for a while and be extremely messy. I have answers for every point you have made but, I am sure you have answers for these answers, which I will have answers for, and so on and so forth.
One point I would make is that...
When I put the proposition forward I said from the outset that I understood it was contentious and possibly not viable. I asked the question as I thought it was interesting and might encourage some good debate. Which I think it has.
I also highlighted that I understood that people have fought for our right to vote etc. I also have taken opportunities in the past to encourage people to be politically active.
However, after seeing the result of populist politics in recent prominent votes I have began to question the merits of mobilising massive sections of society to become politically active when some of them are voting whimsically.
I studied a lot of politics and, after 18 months, still had trouble forming a position on what was in the best interests of the country with regards to the EU. Yet some voters will saunter down and vote to leave without hesitation because 'they' (the EU) want to 'take our bendy bananas away' or for some similarly ludicrous reason. What is the value in that?
I am still not saying that there should be a test of eligibility prior to voting. I am merely asking the question.
Sorry Marky its an absolute abysmal failure, I will get back to you later, when I have finished playing.
No rush
Just thanking my lucky stars you are not one of my students haha. I mean the debate would be great but I might need a few stiff vodkas after class each day
Marky's clearly had a few tonight-as if anyone is as old as Tikay
On a more serious note, I kind of agree with both of you. On the 1 hand, I don't think that Government should abdicate the responsibility to govern to a largely uneducated (as in uninformed) populace. However, there should be an inalienable right to choose who governs, but there should not be majority rule on every single subject.
It bugs me that leavers say there should/shouldn't be a "2nd" vote-the last 1 WAS the 2nd vote. The 1975 one was as unsatisfactory as the last 1, albeit with a different result.
I can see what you are saying and understand your reason for bringing it up. I just think it is the wrong solution. Many people who take no interest in politics don't vote, and it is probably best left that way, as they don't affect any results. I also believe that people should take an interest in politics as it affects their daily lives. We should hold the Government accountable for what they spend our taxes on. Instead of doing PFI deals at 18.3%, they could have offered the electorate a Local Authority, or Government bond. There would have been a massive queue if they had guaranteed 5%. This would have saved them billions, and they would have owned the school at the end. Practically every department is short of funds, particularly the NHS, yet we can apparently afford to spend 30 or 40 billion, or whatever it ends up at, on HS2. This will save 20 minutes on some journeys up north. Great value for money This debate seems to have started over your disappointment over the EU referendum result. I don't think this is all over yet, but it was a very poorly thought out plan. The leave side lied all the way through, and are still lying. The remain side had an awful pitch which did not include most of the importance aspects. Anything as life changing as this should have required a 65% majority. Had this been the case, we would still be members, and everyone could keep their vote. The government are making excuses for not being able to fund anything adequately, almost on a daily basis, yet they seem happy to put our biggest trading partner in jeopardy. There is definitely a long way to go in the negotiations, and it is not all over yet.
Boris Johnson, despite outward appearances & popular opinion, is a very bright fella indeed.
Yesterday, he was reprimanded for speaking out of turn in saying that the NHS must be given more money.
It was poor political etiquette, of course - he's the Foreign Minister not the Health Minister. Later, the Health Minister agreed with him.
Boris may, of course, have had an ulterior motive - to lobby against Mrs May & eventually unseat her - but do you think he was right to say what he did?
"A pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde" - Boris Johnson.
Nope, not a fan after that. The mission should be to develop neglected parts of the UK and not simply strengthen the SE. All in IMO of course.
I do get where @Tikay10 is coming from though. Despite my instinctual reaction to hate him, I do see some likable qualities. His speech around the time London had the olympics was rather rousing. I do think however that he is ultimately driven by 'what is good for Boris' rather than 'what is good for the country'.
I think Boris would be probably good fun to go and have a pint with, but as a politician he is an absolute idiot, although he is apparently academically very clever. In comparison to previous Foreign Secretarys, he lacks class, and has caused embarrassment on many occasions due to his silly comments. He was very sheepish when he had to meet the Turkish President. His limerick was written and published prior to his appointment as Foreign Secretary, and he probably had no expectation of meeting the man. The limerick started off "There was a young man from Ankara" His Garden Bridge cost the taxpayer £46million, before it was scrapped. His bridge to France would apparently cost £120billion. During the EU Referendum he was probably the most prominent politician on the "£350million per week to the NHS" bus, and knew it was a lie. Last week he chose to take the mickey and say that the figure on the bus was underestimated and in fact it should have been £430 million per week, a bigger lie. This week he has called for the government to give the NHS an extra £100 million per week, so whats happening to the other £330million. This money is supposed to paid out of savings made from our EU payments. The problem is that we are still members of the EU, and we will continue to pay in full until the end of the transition period. So we wont stop paying until 2021. Then we have the £39billion exit bill to pay. On top of this Michael Gove has promised our farmers £10 billion to replace the EU subsidies they currently receive. So there are no savings from our EU payments anytime soon. Everyone knows the NHS needs more money, fortunately its not going to be down to Boris. He was sacked from his job as a reporter, for making up quotes and lying. One of the quotes he invented, he attributed to his Godfather and the furore over it stopped the man getting an important job in Oxford University. Michael Howard sacked him for lying about an affair he was having. He is a barefaced liar. He himself said that his mistakes are too numerous to list. At least that's true. He also has no respect for the team he works in. He constantly lets them down. Boris only cares about one person He is a despicable character, but he has a cheeky smile, and seems to take so many people in.
"A pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde" - Boris Johnson.
Nope, not a fan after that. The mission should be to develop neglected parts of the UK and not simply strengthen the SE. All in IMO of course.
I do get where @Tikay10 is coming from though. Despite my instinctual reaction to hate him, I do see some likable qualities. His speech around the time London had the olympics was rather rousing. I do think however that he is ultimately driven by 'what is good for Boris' rather than 'what is good for the country'.
That line caused me a sharp intake of breath, Marky.
Since when has "likeable" got anything to do with what politicians we should or should not vote for?
"Likeable" should be at the bottom of the list of qualities we seek in people on power.
The best politicians & Prime Ministers in my lifetime were not likeable - but they did what needed to be done.
To watch Theresa May, & before her, David Cameron, squirm & react weakly to those who opposed their ideas was a terrible thing.
A good politician needs intellect, savvy & the courage to stick to their views, no matter how unpopular they may be. They do NOT need to be likeable.
Give me an unlikeable but strong Prime Minister. It's not a Popularity Contest.
Assuming you don't live in a cave, and have no contact with the outside world, you will be aware that the NHS is currently suffering some problems. There was a Cabinet Meeting planned for Tuesday, where the NHS problem was to be discussed. Boris wrote an article regarding the NHS which was published on Sunday. He is neither the Health Minister, the Chancellor, nor the Prime Minister. The purpose of writing the article was to preempt the Cabinet Meeting, promote Boris, and undermine the Prime Minister. He has a number of previous convictions for the same offence. He has yet again not followed protocol, and annoyed his Cabinet colleagues in addition to the Prime Minister. This is the equivalence of another own goal and a gift for the opposition. Jeremy Corbyn clearly took advantage at PMQs on Wednesday. Boris unusually appeared to absent from PMQS, and you might assume that he was pouting, didn't have the bottle to turn up, or the Prime Minister told him not to bother. All this was nothing to do with the NHS, it was all to do with Boris. I am no fan of Theresa May, but do appreciate that she is under tremendous pressure, due to Brexit, and the lack of a majority, which is admittedly her own fault. She has many plates to keep spinning, and Boris is a liability rather than an asset in this respect. She the DUP to keep happy, the different factions of her own party, fighting the opposition, as well as keeping an eye on Boris. I think it is therefore difficult to look strong, when in a position of such weakness. If Boris was strong he would challenge Theresa May for the leadership. He would do it face to face, and not be sneaking around, being underhanded, undermining, and letting his colleagues down. If Boris was Prime Minster now, I think it would be for the shortest period ever. We would crash out of the EU next March, and he would fall out with the DUP, causing an election that he would lose.
"A pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde" - Boris Johnson.
Nope, not a fan after that. The mission should be to develop neglected parts of the UK and not simply strengthen the SE. All in IMO of course.
I do get where @Tikay10 is coming from though. Despite my instinctual reaction to hate him, I do see some likable qualities. His speech around the time London had the olympics was rather rousing. I do think however that he is ultimately driven by 'what is good for Boris' rather than 'what is good for the country'.
That line caused me a sharp intake of breath, Marky.
Since when has "likeable" got anything to do with what politicians we should or should not vote for?
"Likeable" should be at the bottom of the list of qualities we seek in people on power.
The best politicians & Prime Ministers in my lifetime were not likeable - but they did what needed to be done.
To watch Theresa May, & before her, David Cameron, squirm & react weakly to those who opposed their ideas was a terrible thing.
A good politician needs intellect, savvy & the courage to stick to their views, no matter how unpopular they may be. They do NOT need to be likeable.
Give me an unlikeable but strong Prime Minister. It's not a Popularity Contest.
Point taken. Although someone having the qualities you mentioned would make them 'likable' to me. I guess it depends on what each of us feel would personally make someone likable to us. Watching Cameron and May squirm to try and be likable to potential voters instantly made them not likable to me.
I did admire the way Thatcher had a strong backbone and stuck to her principles. I just disliked most of her policies.
Comments
Would we even be able to call ourselves a democracy, if we didn't allow all our citizens to vote. - Just my opinion but, IMO yes. I think asking people to know the utter basics about politics is a reasonable ask if they then get to cast a vote which is part of determining our future.
Are you saying we should have people employed, sitting in offices all over the country, testing the whole of the population that is qualified to vote. How many people would we need? Then continue to test everyone that reaches their 18th birthday, on an annual basis. - No, don't think I mentioned any of that. If I had to think of a way it could be done... Simple 4-5 multiple choice question sheet at the polling station. 4-5 ticks needed in relevant boxes, don't think that would be overly time consuming.
How often would you change the questions? - They could be generic and therefore not need to be changed. I.e. - Who is the prime minister? etc
How often would you change the questions? - You wouldn't. That would sort of be the point... They would be online researching what the correct answers are = job done!
How much would all this cost? - If done something along the lines of the above suggestion then not a lot.
If the test was really basic, it would be of limited value. - I would say the reverse. If it was moderately difficult it would marginalise a lot of people from the political system.
Imagine the indignity of those having to admit to their friends and family that they weren't allowed to vote. - Which may incentivise them to learn the complete basics. If someone really cannot name the current prime minister, do we really need them to be voting? If they cannot name the current prime minister then it is highly unlikely they understand any of their policies and would likely have difficulty making any sort of informed political choice.
I cant think of anything more divisive than removing one of our current basic rights. - This wouldn't be a permanent removal. It would only be for that vote and would possibly send the message that the opportunity to vote is something that should be valued and come with a small iota of responsibility.
Could people swat up and retake the test?
How many times would you be allowed to sit the test? Test taken once before entering the both.
Education is a good thing, but would you wish to force students to study politics. In the same way they are 'forced' to study Maths, English, Science etc? Yes, absolutely! If the population are better informed they can properly hold our elected representatives to account.
I think that you are either interested in politics, or you are not. You cant force people to be interested. - Again, if people are 'forced' to learn a raft of core subjects I would say politics should be one of them.
This debate belongs in another era, long ago, but could never be justified. All this to prepare people for an important vote, which is likely to occur one or twice in a lifetime. - I must be as old as Tikay, there have been a lot more votes than 1 or 2 in my lifetime.
Surely its our politicians responsibility to inform the electorate of the pros and cons of any issue to be voted on. - Ah yes, our politicians, the shining examples of objectivity. Not like they have an agenda or party line to tow or anything like that.
Feel like I am a student again
Just thanking my lucky stars you are not one of my students haha. I mean the debate would be great but I might need a few stiff vodkas after class each day
You surely cant be suggesting this as a serious proposition? - To have a very basic test, yeah. I can certainly understand that it may not be viable and might not gather support as mentioned previously. I do however think it is a reasonable question to ask.
If it wasn't viable, how could it be a suggestion
Would we even be able to call ourselves a democracy, if we didn't allow all our citizens to vote. - Just my opinion but, IMO yes. I think asking people to know the utter basics about politics is a reasonable ask if they then get to cast a vote which is part of determining our future.
Don't you think we should be encouraging people to vote rather than the opposite. In this country, and many others voting has been restricted to the few, rather than the many. People have fought, and even killed themselves for the right to vote.
Are you saying we should have people employed, sitting in offices all over the country, testing the whole of the population that is qualified to vote. How many people would we need? Then continue to test everyone that reaches their 18th birthday, on an annual basis. - No, don't think I mentioned any of that. If I had to think of a way it could be done... Simple 4-5 multiple choice question sheet at the polling station. 4-5 ticks needed in relevant boxes, don't think that would be overly time consuming.
So we have to bouncers in the polling stations to tell the people that failed that they cant vote. I wouldn't go in on my own, and come out and tell my wife the answers so she could vote. Or maybe stand at the end of the street just telling all and sundry the answers. If you failed what would stop you coming back later in the day when you know the answers. As soon as voting started the answers would be available online.
How often would you change the questions? - They could be generic and therefore not need to be changed. I.e. - Who is the prime minister? etc
That's one, what would the other 4 be, presumably equally as challenging. Do you think that knowing who the current Prime Minister is, really gives someone a bigger insight in regard to politics.
How often would you change the questions? - You wouldn't. That would sort of be the point... They would be online researching what the correct answers are = job done!
So if I was prepared to look online to find that people have posted the answers, would make me more qualified to vote.
How much would all this cost? - If done something along the lines of the above suggestion then not a lot.
You would need the bouncers for the people that got the hump.
If the test was really basic, it would be of limited value. - I would say the reverse. If it was moderately difficult it would marginalise a lot of people from the political system.
Too basic makes it pointless.
Imagine the indignity of those having to admit to their friends and family that they weren't allowed to vote. - Which may incentivise them to learn the complete basics. If someone really cannot name the current prime minister, do we really need them to be voting? If they cannot name the current prime minister then it is highly unlikely they understand any of their policies and would likely have difficulty making any sort of informed political choice.
People who knew who the Prime Minister is, voted for the Monster Raving Loony Party, and the National Front etc, now that's informed choice.
I cant think of anything more divisive than removing one of our current basic rights. - This wouldn't be a permanent removal. It would only be for that vote and would possibly send the message that the opportunity to vote is something that should be valued and come with a small iota of responsibility.
People didn't fight to get a vote sometimes.
Could people swat up and retake the test?
How many times would you be allowed to sit the test? Test taken once before entering the both.
Then bodily remove them if they fail. The staff would need headguards and gumshields.
Education is a good thing, but would you wish to force students to study politics. In the same way they are 'forced' to study Maths, English, Science etc? Yes, absolutely! If the population are better informed they can properly hold our elected representatives to account.
Then suggest it.
I think that you are either interested in politics, or you are not. You cant force people to be interested. - Again, if people are 'forced' to learn a raft of core subjects I would say politics should be one of them.
Then why do you think it isn't.
This debate belongs in another era, long ago, but could never be justified. All this to prepare people for an important vote, which is likely to occur one or twice in a lifetime. - I must be as old as Tikay, there have been a lot more votes than 1 or 2 in my lifetime.
There have been 2 in my lifetime on Europe, and two important ones on Wales. So that is 4 in my voting life of 43 years. The first two happened when I was 19 and 23, and I cant remember if I voted as I had no interest in politics at the time. But the 4 could have been life changing votes.
I wouldn't count general elections, as I feel that however much I knew, or didn't know about politics, if I felt let down by the current government I should have the right to vote for the opposition, without any qualification, or jumping through any hoops. That is my right, and nobody should be able to remove it.
Surely its our politicians responsibility to inform the electorate of the pros and cons of any issue to be voted on. - Ah yes, our politicians, the shining examples of objectivity. Not like they have an agenda or party line to tow or anything like that.
That is the point, if you don't like what one party stands for, you can vote for another.
One point I would make is that...
When I put the proposition forward I said from the outset that I understood it was contentious and possibly not viable. I asked the question as I thought it was interesting and might encourage some good debate. Which I think it has.
I also highlighted that I understood that people have fought for our right to vote etc. I also have taken opportunities in the past to encourage people to be politically active.
However, after seeing the result of populist politics in recent prominent votes I have began to question the merits of mobilising massive sections of society to become politically active when some of them are voting whimsically.
I studied a lot of politics and, after 18 months, still had trouble forming a position on what was in the best interests of the country with regards to the EU. Yet some voters will saunter down and vote to leave without hesitation because 'they' (the EU) want to 'take our bendy bananas away' or for some similarly ludicrous reason. What is the value in that?
I am still not saying that there should be a test of eligibility prior to voting. I am merely asking the question.
On a more serious note, I kind of agree with both of you. On the 1 hand, I don't think that Government should abdicate the responsibility to govern to a largely uneducated (as in uninformed) populace. However, there should be an inalienable right to choose who governs, but there should not be majority rule on every single subject.
It bugs me that leavers say there should/shouldn't be a "2nd" vote-the last 1 WAS the 2nd vote. The 1975 one was as unsatisfactory as the last 1, albeit with a different result.
Many people who take no interest in politics don't vote, and it is probably best left that way, as they don't affect any results.
I also believe that people should take an interest in politics as it affects their daily lives.
We should hold the Government accountable for what they spend our taxes on. Instead of doing PFI deals at 18.3%, they could have offered the electorate a Local Authority, or Government bond. There would have been a massive queue if they had guaranteed 5%. This would have saved them billions, and they would have owned the school at the end. Practically every department is short of funds, particularly the NHS, yet we can apparently afford to spend 30 or 40 billion, or whatever it ends up at, on HS2. This will save 20 minutes on some journeys up north. Great value for money
This debate seems to have started over your disappointment over the EU referendum result. I don't think this is all over yet, but it was a very poorly thought out plan.
The leave side lied all the way through, and are still lying. The remain side had an awful pitch which did not include most of the importance aspects.
Anything as life changing as this should have required a 65% majority. Had this been the case, we would still be members, and everyone could keep their vote.
The government are making excuses for not being able to fund anything adequately, almost on a daily basis, yet they seem happy to put our biggest trading partner in jeopardy.
There is definitely a long way to go in the negotiations, and it is not all over yet.
ps what about Swansea beating Liverpool.
https://youtu.be/byaKQrIawq8
Boris Johnson, despite outward appearances & popular opinion, is a very bright fella indeed.
Yesterday, he was reprimanded for speaking out of turn in saying that the NHS must be given more money.
It was poor political etiquette, of course - he's the Foreign Minister not the Health Minister. Later, the Health Minister agreed with him.
Boris may, of course, have had an ulterior motive - to lobby against Mrs May & eventually unseat her - but do you think he was right to say what he did?
I do.
For balance, I'm something of a Boris Fanboy.
Nope, not a fan after that. The mission should be to develop neglected parts of the UK and not simply strengthen the SE. All in IMO of course.
I do get where @Tikay10 is coming from though. Despite my instinctual reaction to hate him, I do see some likable qualities. His speech around the time London had the olympics was rather rousing. I do think however that he is ultimately driven by 'what is good for Boris' rather than 'what is good for the country'.
In comparison to previous Foreign Secretarys, he lacks class, and has caused embarrassment on many occasions due to his silly comments. He was very sheepish when he had to meet the Turkish President. His limerick was written and published prior to his appointment as Foreign Secretary, and he probably had no expectation of meeting the man.
The limerick started off "There was a young man from Ankara"
His Garden Bridge cost the taxpayer £46million, before it was scrapped. His bridge to France would apparently cost £120billion.
During the EU Referendum he was probably the most prominent politician on the "£350million per week to the NHS" bus, and knew it was a lie. Last week he chose to take the mickey and say that the figure on the bus was underestimated and in fact it should have been £430 million per week, a bigger lie. This week he has called for the government to give the NHS an extra £100 million per week, so whats happening to the other £330million. This money is supposed to paid out of savings made from our EU payments.
The problem is that we are still members of the EU, and we will continue to pay in full until the end of the transition period. So we wont stop paying until 2021. Then we have the £39billion exit bill to pay. On top of this Michael Gove has promised our farmers £10 billion to replace the EU subsidies they currently receive. So there are no savings from our EU payments anytime soon.
Everyone knows the NHS needs more money, fortunately its not going to be down to Boris.
He was sacked from his job as a reporter, for making up quotes and lying. One of the quotes he invented, he attributed to his Godfather and the furore over it stopped the man getting an important job in Oxford University. Michael Howard sacked him for lying about an affair he was having.
He is a barefaced liar.
He himself said that his mistakes are too numerous to list. At least that's true.
He also has no respect for the team he works in. He constantly lets them down. Boris only cares about one person
He is a despicable character, but he has a cheeky smile, and seems to take so many people in.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/king-of-gaffes-a-list-of-almost-everyone-boris-johnson-has-insulted/story-LG6N0GzeHPix5fg04yU50L.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/14/boris-johnson-life-xenophobic-gaffes
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnsons-most-cringeworthy-gaffes-10440606?service=responsive
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnsons-foreign-office-faux-pas-so-far-10678692
He is wearing an orange turban when the Sikh woman beats him up.
That line caused me a sharp intake of breath, Marky.
Since when has "likeable" got anything to do with what politicians we should or should not vote for?
"Likeable" should be at the bottom of the list of qualities we seek in people on power.
The best politicians & Prime Ministers in my lifetime were not likeable - but they did what needed to be done.
To watch Theresa May, & before her, David Cameron, squirm & react weakly to those who opposed their ideas was a terrible thing.
A good politician needs intellect, savvy & the courage to stick to their views, no matter how unpopular they may be. They do NOT need to be likeable.
Give me an unlikeable but strong Prime Minister. It's not a Popularity Contest.
There was a Cabinet Meeting planned for Tuesday, where the NHS problem was to be discussed.
Boris wrote an article regarding the NHS which was published on Sunday. He is neither the Health Minister, the Chancellor, nor the Prime Minister. The purpose of writing the article was to preempt the Cabinet Meeting, promote Boris, and undermine the Prime Minister. He has a number of previous convictions for the same offence.
He has yet again not followed protocol, and annoyed his Cabinet colleagues in addition to the Prime Minister. This is the equivalence of another own goal and a gift for the opposition. Jeremy Corbyn clearly took advantage at PMQs on Wednesday. Boris unusually appeared to absent from PMQS, and you might assume that he was pouting, didn't have the bottle to turn up, or the Prime Minister told him not to bother. All this was nothing to do with the NHS, it was all to do with Boris.
I am no fan of Theresa May, but do appreciate that she is under tremendous pressure, due to Brexit, and the lack of a majority, which is admittedly her own fault. She has many plates to keep spinning, and Boris is a liability rather than an asset in this respect. She the DUP to keep happy, the different factions of her own party, fighting the opposition, as well as keeping an eye on Boris. I think it is therefore difficult to look strong, when in a position of such weakness.
If Boris was strong he would challenge Theresa May for the leadership. He would do it face to face, and not be sneaking around, being underhanded, undermining, and letting his colleagues down.
If Boris was Prime Minster now, I think it would be for the shortest period ever. We would crash out of the EU next March, and he would fall out with the DUP, causing an election that he would lose.
I did admire the way Thatcher had a strong backbone and stuck to her principles. I just disliked most of her policies.