Radio Times Prize Crossword 2 Monday...
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Referendum UK
If we were to have areferendum tomorrow on the following how do you think the results as a percentage would come out.
1. Bring back hanging for murder (judge to make decision, appeal to Sovereign)
2. Leave the European Union
3. Join the Euro currency
4. Give Scotland to the Scots.
5. Seriously restrict all immigration.
For me, Yes, no, no, yes,yes.
What do you think.
1. Bring back hanging for murder (judge to make decision, appeal to Sovereign)
2. Leave the European Union
3. Join the Euro currency
4. Give Scotland to the Scots.
5. Seriously restrict all immigration.
For me, Yes, no, no, yes,yes.
What do you think.
Answers
“
Very possibly true, rojash. In fact it is government by the very people that matter – the electorate. Of course it is impractical to hold plebiscites on every issue. Nothing would ever get done (but in some cases doing nothing is often better than doing something for the sake...
Very possibly true, rojash. In fact it is government by the very people that matter – the electorate. Of course it is impractical to hold plebiscites on every issue. Nothing would ever get done (but in some cases doing nothing is often better than doing something for the sake...
14:15 Tue 10th May 2011
If capital punishment were ever reintroduced I would be vehemently against the judge making the decision. Its use when in force was codified by s 61 of The Offences Against The Person Act of 1861 which stated, "All persons convicted of murder shall be sentenced to death" (as amended by the Homicide Act 1957), giving the judge no discretion. It was then up to the powers that be to decide whether or not such sentence should be carried into effect.
1/ Yes, only for certain crimes and those should include terrorism and for traitors.
2/ Yes. Just retain a common market, so that they would not have any power over our own justice system, laws, etc.
3/ No. It has been a complete failure.
4/ Yes. Never mind what the Scots want, it would be beneficial to England.
5/ Yes. Our infrastructure cannot cope with any more, only those to be allowed in that have something valuable to contribute to this nation, and that they will be no threat to English jobs.
2/ Yes. Just retain a common market, so that they would not have any power over our own justice system, laws, etc.
3/ No. It has been a complete failure.
4/ Yes. Never mind what the Scots want, it would be beneficial to England.
5/ Yes. Our infrastructure cannot cope with any more, only those to be allowed in that have something valuable to contribute to this nation, and that they will be no threat to English jobs.
-- answer removed --
/// No country with any pretentions to call it's self 'civilised ' can have the death penalty. ///
Obviously your own personal opinion Eddie, and nothing wrong with that, but how far would you go with your liberal thinkings?
Although I would like to see it returned, I would not wish to pull the lever, pull the trigger or administer the fatal dose.
Do you also agree with locking someone away for the rest of their lives?
And to take it to the extreme, would you agree for a dangerous dog, who had just mauled a child, to be 'put down'?
Obviously your own personal opinion Eddie, and nothing wrong with that, but how far would you go with your liberal thinkings?
Although I would like to see it returned, I would not wish to pull the lever, pull the trigger or administer the fatal dose.
Do you also agree with locking someone away for the rest of their lives?
And to take it to the extreme, would you agree for a dangerous dog, who had just mauled a child, to be 'put down'?
1. I would vote no, but I think it would just about get a yes (but not by much)
2. I would vote no, but I think it would get a resounding yes
3. I would abstain, but I think it would get a resounding no.
4. I'm assuming only Scots would vote in this one? If so, then it would get a no. If everyone voted on it, I would abstain and I honestly don't know what the outcome would be.
5. I would vote no, but I think it would get a resounding yes (depending on definition of 'seriously restrict', which would need quite a bit of discussing.)
2. I would vote no, but I think it would get a resounding yes
3. I would abstain, but I think it would get a resounding no.
4. I'm assuming only Scots would vote in this one? If so, then it would get a no. If everyone voted on it, I would abstain and I honestly don't know what the outcome would be.
5. I would vote no, but I think it would get a resounding yes (depending on definition of 'seriously restrict', which would need quite a bit of discussing.)
-- answer removed --
“Government by referendum is government by by the stupid and ignorant.”
Very possibly true, rojash. In fact it is government by the very people that matter – the electorate. Of course it is impractical to hold plebiscites on every issue. Nothing would ever get done (but in some cases doing nothing is often better than doing something for the sake of it). However, Party Politics has let the UK down badly. So entrenched are the parties with their dogma and philosophy that they often neglect to consider that the electorate may not be aligned with their proposals – even those that voted them in. Occasionally all the parties need to be held to account.
You might be surprised if you held a referendum along the lines you suggest. Most people are not so stupid or ignorant to believe that a 100% pay rise would actually be of any benefit. These would be the same people who realise that simply printing money (aka “Quantitative Easing”) is a disastrous course of action which serves only to fuel inflation. The more erudite, of course, dismissed those claims as stupid and ignorant and went ahead with it anyway. (March 2009 QE begins. Inflation measured by RPI - just over 1%. March 2011, inflation measured by RPI almost 5.5%).
You are making the same mistake many politicians (of all persuasions) make. You believe that only a chosen few have the necessary acumen to decide what is best for everybody else. And now and again they are the very worst people to make such decisions.
Very possibly true, rojash. In fact it is government by the very people that matter – the electorate. Of course it is impractical to hold plebiscites on every issue. Nothing would ever get done (but in some cases doing nothing is often better than doing something for the sake of it). However, Party Politics has let the UK down badly. So entrenched are the parties with their dogma and philosophy that they often neglect to consider that the electorate may not be aligned with their proposals – even those that voted them in. Occasionally all the parties need to be held to account.
You might be surprised if you held a referendum along the lines you suggest. Most people are not so stupid or ignorant to believe that a 100% pay rise would actually be of any benefit. These would be the same people who realise that simply printing money (aka “Quantitative Easing”) is a disastrous course of action which serves only to fuel inflation. The more erudite, of course, dismissed those claims as stupid and ignorant and went ahead with it anyway. (March 2009 QE begins. Inflation measured by RPI - just over 1%. March 2011, inflation measured by RPI almost 5.5%).
You are making the same mistake many politicians (of all persuasions) make. You believe that only a chosen few have the necessary acumen to decide what is best for everybody else. And now and again they are the very worst people to make such decisions.
"You are making the same mistake many politicians (of all persuasions) make. You believe that only a chosen few have the necessary acumen to decide what is best for everybody else. "
Not just a chosen few, NJ, but the problem is that all votes carry the same weight, but due to the way that intelligence is distributed through the population, there will always be more "not so bright" voters than bright ones. This means that decisions by referendum are always weighted in favour of the not so bright. Simples!
Not just a chosen few, NJ, but the problem is that all votes carry the same weight, but due to the way that intelligence is distributed through the population, there will always be more "not so bright" voters than bright ones. This means that decisions by referendum are always weighted in favour of the not so bright. Simples!
So you assume, then, that “intelligence” (leaving aside the problem of how you might measure it) is distributed unevenly throughout the population. That may well be the case (though statistically it is impossible if distribution around “mean average intelligence” is considered). But even if it is, it is not only the intelligent who should have a say any more than only those over six feet tall should have a say. Parliament’s job is to reflect, as far as possible, the wishes of the majority of the electorate. If the majority want something which the intelligentsia find unpalatable or not to their liking Parliament’s function is to facilitate their wishes, not to stifle them.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|