Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There have been some interesting suggestions abut poltical reform and reform of parliament.

We need to keep in mind that elected politicians are representatives of the general political will of the people. They are not actually supposed to formulate technical solutions. That is the job of the civil service. The government is meant to formulate political/social policy.

I think part of what's gone wrong in the UK since Thatcher is politicians downgrading the civil service and putting their own policies into action with a lot of direct control by unelected, non-civil servants like Cabinet Office advisors.

One example of this is the policy on drugs, which is completely at odds with the expert panel's advice.

Another important area is the role of different levels of local government.

In short, I'm in favour of various ideas of reforming parliament, but I don't think they will work without consideration of the other parts of the British governing structure.

"As far as I can tell, electing mp's is a terrible way to decide on much, because most of the public don't know enough to elect properly( the most competetent person that will represent them) and it's not worth everyone becoming experts on the live of a MP."

Kind of the same as why I hire a plumber/electricial/mechanic/plasterer instead of doing it myself; I'm capable of doing it but I don't have the time to learn all of the skills.

Herzlos, pls read the first statement. That is an argument against all democratic systems, ever. Period. If you don't trust the people to make an informed decision, then you can't trust them to elect personell that is competent, ergo that argument is self contradictory. Additionally democracy is not about competence or good rule. No that is not the seller of a democratic system.
Democracy is about legitimisation, and a parlamentary system, which does exclude policy from people loses legitimisation depending on the behaviour of MP's regardless of their position if they vote against the will of the people they represent, that includes Coalitions which are one of the main reasons especially in germany why a big part of the population began voting for far left/right parties.

Secondly: Your plumber argument makes no sense. Why? Because i don't need to live with your plumbing with the rest of the people in a country. I however need to live under the rules and laws and policy under a country. I should have a say in it no? Else why not reeimplement monarchy/ dictartorship?

Thirdly: "Because the public does not know....etc" Those arguments are common, and a missconception when we regard the numbers of Switzerland.
Voting turnout is around 45-55% of the population. Yet the remaining 55-45% answered to have no problem with the politics, in fact most of them answered that they did not vote because they were not directly impacted from the policy, had a neutral outlook on the policy or regarded the consequences for their vote as not predictable.
In a parlamentary system there would be a large part of the population that would say that they don't trust policy making. --> those are the same people that flock populist parties if they get desilusioned with the policy making.

I will cede the point that it would require a whole new structure of the system, in many cases a whole new perception of the system but frankly you voted on "competent" personell that messed up since Cameron and seems to have no plan at all, whilest party internally there is the constant threat of sabotage for personal gains.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6747231/ministers-plan-to-stockpile-processed-food/


so we're going to live on Pot Noodles then ?

https://twitter.com/donnyc1975/status/1016959957802110982

I don’t want to put a dampener on this story but ....Processed food has flavourings - flavourings come in from Europe - they are also hazardous in their pure form - you need an ADR licence to transport them . The licence won’t be valid post brexit - we have a problem

Like this ? This is hot x bun flavouring .. class 3 UN 1203 - nasty stuff - same classification as petrol

flavourless noodles too.

this is fine.

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6747231/ministers-plan-to-stockpile-processed-food/


so we're going to live on Pot Noodles then ?

https://twitter.com/donnyc1975/status/1016959957802110982

I don’t want to put a dampener on this story but ....Processed food has flavourings - flavourings come in from Europe - they are also hazardous in their pure form - you need an ADR licence to transport them . The licence won’t be valid post brexit - we have a problem

Like this ? This is hot x bun flavouring .. class 3 UN 1203 - nasty stuff - same classification as petrol

flavourless noodles too.

this is fine.

That comment about using those flavourings again that have carcinogenes in it......

Not Online!!! wrote:

If you don't trust the people to make an informed decision, then you can't trust them to elect personell that is competent, ergo that argument is self contradictory.

Not at all. I can have enough understanding to select a good plumber, based on how they present themselves and past work, without having had to spend years training to be a plumber. Electing representatives works the same way - you can make a reasonable decision based on their track record and policies with a minimal understanding of the details.

Secondly: Your plumber argument makes no sense. Why? Because i don't need to live with your plumbing with the rest of the people in a country. I however need to live under the rules and laws and policy under a country. I should have a say in it no? Else why not reeimplement monarchy/ dictartorship?

That's why it's an example. They have a trained skill I don't, thus I outsource the work to them instead of learning it myself. There's no practical difference between that and an MP, beyond the effect is more global (where my MP isn't ignored due to being in a smaller 'partner' country).

Herzlos wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

If you don't trust the people to make an informed decision, then you can't trust them to elect personell that is competent, ergo that argument is self contradictory.

Not at all. I can have enough understanding to select a good plumber, based on how they present themselves and past work, without having had to spend years training to be a plumber. Electing representatives works the same way - you can make a reasonable decision based on their track record and policies with a minimal understanding of the details.

Secondly: Your plumber argument makes no sense. Why? Because i don't need to live with your plumbing with the rest of the people in a country. I however need to live under the rules and laws and policy under a country. I should have a say in it no? Else why not reeimplement monarchy/ dictartorship?

That's why it's an example. They have a trained skill I don't, thus I outsource the work to them instead of learning it myself. There's no practical difference between that and an MP, beyond the effect is more global (where my MP isn't ignored due to being in a smaller 'partner' country).

See but here's the problem, their representation means nothing in regards to their competence.
Secondly how can you have enough understanding of plumbing, if you never have seen proper infrastucture?
See the problem, the argument is authoritharian. Also you relly on informed decisions if you formulate the voting pocess like that, which you stated can't be trusted for the majority of the people. There is virtually no difference between an election and a vote in such a case. Ergo why should you be allowed to elect / vote in the first place. Instead we just should nominate Technocrats.
Thirdly: No just no. Power corrupts, no matter how good a person is. You have no idea how a person is going to behave in a parlament, and you have no influence about their decision which will lead to selfprofiting policy.

Again, a plumber has experience, can that be said about your MP's or your ministers? I don't think so, however their decisions affect the whole country, so still you want to get competent personell, which ultimately gets put in via PM for their ministries, yet they have potentially no clue about what they do.
Basically in the end it matters little if you allow the masses to vote or the parliament. Except the legitimisation is far superior if all people have a right to vote on policy.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We've got an election coming up this year in Sweden, we've got proportional representation and there's still around 20% of the population being willing to vote for a party that explicitly believes that culture is biologically inherited. PR alone clearly isn't enough to keep people away from the dumbest ideas we've ever tried, so what else would be required?

Democracy is all good and fun until the other team wins

Not Online!!! wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

If you don't trust the people to make an informed decision, then you can't trust them to elect personell that is competent, ergo that argument is self contradictory.

Not at all. I can have enough understanding to select a good plumber, based on how they present themselves and past work, without having had to spend years training to be a plumber. Electing representatives works the same way - you can make a reasonable decision based on their track record and policies with a minimal understanding of the details.

Secondly: Your plumber argument makes no sense. Why? Because i don't need to live with your plumbing with the rest of the people in a country. I however need to live under the rules and laws and policy under a country. I should have a say in it no? Else why not reeimplement monarchy/ dictartorship?

That's why it's an example. They have a trained skill I don't, thus I outsource the work to them instead of learning it myself. There's no practical difference between that and an MP, beyond the effect is more global (where my MP isn't ignored due to being in a smaller 'partner' country).

See but here's the problem, their representation means nothing in regards to their competence.
Secondly how can you have enough understanding of plumbing, if you never have seen proper infrastucture?
See the problem, the argument is authoritharian. Also you relly on informed decisions if you formulate the voting pocess like that, which you stated can't be trusted for the majority of the people. There is virtually no difference between an election and a vote in such a case. Ergo why should you be allowed to elect / vote in the first place. Instead we just should nominate Technocrats.
Thirdly: No just no. Power corrupts, no matter how good a person is. You have no idea how a person is going to behave in a parlament, and you have no influence about their decision which will lead to selfprofiting policy.

Again, a plumber has experience, can that be said about your MP's or your ministers? I don't think so, however their decisions affect the whole country, so still you want to get competent personell, which ultimately gets put in via PM for their ministries, yet they have potentially no clue about what they do.
Basically in the end it matters little if you allow the masses to vote or the parliament. Except the legitimisation is far superior if all people have a right to vote on policy.

It's a trade off between reward and effort. For any decision that needs to be made, you can run a referendum and hope that all the voters will spend a reasonable amount of time researching it before voting (which we know doesn't happen), or you can outsource that to a representative that is elected every 5 years, and hope that all the voters will at least spend a reasonable amount of time researching before voting (which still doesn't happen).

No system is perfect, so it's just down to how much effort you expect the public to put in to getting something decided. Referendi for everything means the public will easily need to spend a day a week learning about the subject. It's just not practical in the same way it's not practical to expect everyone to know how to do everything around the house.

If it was not practical or workable it would literally lead to the complete failure of Switzerland.

Secondly i never said Referendi on everything. That would be outright idiotic, no instead there should always be a looming threat of Referendi, in order to discipline MP's and give the opposition a tool to force a more compromise heavy solution. Or basically bringing the Parler into parliament back.

The point is that neither the general public nor politicians should be deciding how to run the country because they don't have the skills and knowledge needed.

They should be deciding the direction they want the country to go. The way of getting there should be planned by technocrats (civil servants) and approved (or not) by parliament.

dyndraig wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We've got an election coming up this year in Sweden, we've got proportional representation and there's still around 20% of the population being willing to vote for a party that explicitly believes that culture is biologically inherited. PR alone clearly isn't enough to keep people away from the dumbest ideas we've ever tried, so what else would be required?

Democracy is all good and fun until the other team wins

In a scenario where 1/5th of the population of a country is willing to vote for old-fashioned racism, no one wins.

Perhaps we have to rely on the 4/5ths of the population not voting for racism.

It’s that time of year again; The Twelfth. The bonfires don’t seem as big this year, but there has been trouble. I believe the worst was coming out of Derry. Shootouts with the police and so on:

https://www.derryjournal.com/news/woman-stoned-in-head-two-police-injured-car-torched-and-26-petrol-bombs-thrown-in-third-night-of-derry-disorder-1-8562120

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/shots-fired-at-police-officers-in-derry-during-fourth-night-of-trouble-1.3561133?mode=amp

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There have been some interesting suggestions abut poltical reform and reform of parliament.

We need to keep in mind that elected politicians are representatives of the general political will of the people. They are not actually supposed to formulate technical solutions. That is the job of the civil service. The government is meant to formulate political/social policy.

I think part of what's gone wrong in the UK since Thatcher is politicians downgrading the civil service and putting their own policies into action with a lot of direct control by unelected, non-civil servants like Cabinet Office advisors.

One example of this is the policy on drugs, which is completely at odds with the expert panel's advice.

Another important area is the role of different levels of local government.

In short, I'm in favour of various ideas of reforming parliament, but I don't think they will work without consideration of the other parts of the British governing structure.

When it comes to drugs, I get it when people point to the evidence and say that X is not as harmful as previously believed and thus should be made illegal.

But people always forget there's a moral and a political element to these kind of decisions, and sometimes that has to trump science.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It’s that time of year again; The Twelfth. The bonfires don’t seem as big this year, but there has been trouble. I believe the worst was coming out of Derry. Shootouts with the police and so on:

https://www.derryjournal.com/news/woman-stoned-in-head-two-police-injured-car-torched-and-26-petrol-bombs-thrown-in-third-night-of-derry-disorder-1-8562120

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/shots-fired-at-police-officers-in-derry-during-fourth-night-of-trouble-1.3561133?mode=amp

From a purely military history perspective and a historical wargames perspective, the Battle of the Boyne is a fascinating and interesting period of history. And of course, there are some great miniatures out there to collect and paint for the period.

But for the rest of the stuff you highlight, we can do without that kind of thing.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But people always forget there's a moral and a political element to these kind of decisions, and sometimes that has to trump science.

Nothing should trump science.

Experts: These drugs aren't actually that bad for you, do useful things, would raise a fortune in tax and making them illegal doesn't work; it just makes them dangerous.
Politicians: But they are immoral, so they are staying illegal (though my husbands company is making a fortune from them).

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But people always forget there's a moral and a political element to these kind of decisions, and sometimes that has to trump science.

Nothing should trump science.

Experts: These drugs aren't actually that bad for you, do useful things, would raise a fortune in tax and making them illegal doesn't work; it just makes them dangerous.
Politicians: But they are immoral, so they are staying illegal (though my husbands company is making a fortune from them).

Naturally, I disagree

When I talk about morality and politics, I'm not going on about drugs or hypocritical politicians like the one you reference in your post.

There are some decisions where morals, ethics and politics must always trump science. Eugenics being a prime example of this.

Cannabis.

People smoke it anyway. Why not legalise it, tax it, and still undercut the illegal dealers?

Sure, I find people off their Tits on weed crushing bores, but then so are people so drunk their teeth are floating.

Seriously. Industrial production would provide the weed at a price smaller scale, illegal farms just cannot compete with.

Drive them out of that market, and who knows? You may see a reduction in other drug use, as the lower level dealers go out of business.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It’s that time of year again; The Twelfth. The bonfires don’t seem as big this year, but there has been trouble. I believe the worst was coming out of Derry. Shootouts with the police and so on:

https://www.derryjournal.com/news/woman-stoned-in-head-two-police-injured-car-torched-and-26-petrol-bombs-thrown-in-third-night-of-derry-disorder-1-8562120

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/shots-fired-at-police-officers-in-derry-during-fourth-night-of-trouble-1.3561133?mode=amp

It's horrifying and disappointing that things like that seem acceptable to some :(

I’ve never touched weed in my life. I really don’t care for it, and personally I find stoners to be absolute donkey-caves. And I say we should legalise it and tax the gak out of it. There’s got to be a few billion at least to be clawed back there.

I'm obviously no expert on this, but what does the science say about cannabis?

You always seem to hear these stories about cannabis damaging people's mental health.

Is there any truth to this?

I’ve dabbled, but no more. It either does nothing to me, or major ‘head out the window for the foreesable future’ whitey.

Yet I also smoke ciggies, and consider 6 pints a quiet drinky.

The worst thing for me is the kids dabbling who still consider it the height of rebellion. It’s not. And it hasn’t been for at least my lifetime!

Legalise it. Challenge the criminal element and all that comes with it. You’ll also remove the market for far more dangerous ‘legal highs’. Yes, we’ll still see nobbers monged out in the street - but at least the NHS and the country as a whole will see some kind of benefit from it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm obviously no expert on this, but what does the science say about cannabis?

You always seem to hear these stories about cannabis damaging people's mental health.

Is there any truth to this?

Basic weed is no more harmful than stuff like alcohol. But, modern stuff is sprayed with other substances to increase the high, and I believe the consensus is that that’s what’s doing the damage.

I only mentioned the drugs point because it was a classic example where the government set up an expert committee to advise on a specific topic -- which is a very good idea -- then completely ignored the advice because they didn't like it.

You can put that down to moral or political reasons. As an elector, you can prioritise things according to different criteria.

Reality may have different ideas about things, though.

There should always be room for experts at the top table.

But experts advise and politicians decide, and that's how it always should be.

Even when the science is saying this is the right thing, a political leader sometimes has to juggle the politics and the morals as well.

After all, scientists are not accountable to the public as our MPs are.

Except morals are fluid. Facts, less so.

Not so long ago, it was ‘moral’ for homosexuality to be illegal and a time serving offence.

It was ‘moral’ to post openly racist political leaflets during a campaign.

It was ‘moral’ to drink and drive.

It was ‘moral’ to deny all but the wealthy an education.

The War On Drugs is an ideological campaign. Not a moral one.

You want to shut down organised drug cartels? Legalise it, grow it, sell it, tax it. Take away their incentive for doing it - massive profits.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Except morals are fluid. Facts, less so.

Not so long ago, it was ‘moral’ for homosexuality to be illegal and a time serving offence.

It was ‘moral’ to post openly racist political leaflets during a campaign.

It was ‘moral’ to drink and drive.

It was ‘moral’ to deny all but the wealthy an education.

The War On Drugs is an ideological campaign. Not a moral one.

You want to shut down organised drug cartels? Legalise it, grow it, sell it, tax it. Take away their incentive for doing it - massive profits.

As a libertarian, I have no problem with people taking the stuff.


But I'm always uneasy with people being drugged up or drunk, for the sole reason that a sedated population is not a population that gets angry or pays attention to what the government is doing. Bread and circuses and all that.


That some politicians support this is reason enough to make uneasy about their ulterior motives.

From both a personal and professional stand point I've seen the effects cannabis can have on people's mental health and the things it can do to people is scary but they same could be said for a lot of things. One of the problems surrounding it however is the stigma meaning institutions are less likely to do research on it.

I do still feel however that legalisation is the way forward, not only would it allow for taxation and a level of quality control but I think it would help cut down some of it's usage I've always felt that a lot of people seem to smoke too try and make themselves look a bit hard that they're breaking the law. There's also the question that should the government really be stopping people doing something if they aren't hurting anyone else, a person can chose what other drugs they take so why is this one?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It’s that time of year again; The Twelfth. The bonfires don’t seem as big this year, but there has been trouble. I believe the worst was coming out of Derry. Shootouts with the police and so on:

https://www.derryjournal.com/news/woman-stoned-in-head-two-police-injured-car-torched-and-26-petrol-bombs-thrown-in-third-night-of-derry-disorder-1-8562120

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/shots-fired-at-police-officers-in-derry-during-fourth-night-of-trouble-1.3561133?mode=amp

I've got a horrible feeling that this marching season in particular is going to be a grim one, as someone described it on twitter loyalists have gone full 'No Surrender' with the amount of paramilitary flags going up even more than normal and the attack in Portadown last week.

But as someone from Derry I'd just like to say that the wee sh*ts out attacking the fountain don't represent the people of the city and I've been proud to see a similar reaction by the rest of the city in coming out to condemn the actions of these hoods and protesting in solidarity. I'm also hoping that out of this relations between the fountain's residents and others within the city can improve as the violent exchanges across this interface have been going on for far too long!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

As a libertarian, I have no problem with people taking the stuff.

So you agree it's an expensive waste of time to try and prevent/incarcerate them for it? That it doesn't make sense to force the purchase through illegal means where there's no brakes, tax or quality control?

Lots of other places have legalised cannabis and are reaping the rewards. It seems to have genuine medical advantages. It makes a great environmentally friendly alternative to all sorts of things. Stoners tend to be dull but not particularly violent.

Just think what we could do if we mass-produced cannabis and charged the same tax as cigarettes, didn't waste police time on cannabis possesion and took money away from the dealers?
It'd easily pay for rehab facilities and any health problems caused by cannabis, and then some.

But I'm always uneasy with people being drugged up or drunk, for the sole reason that a sedated population is not a population that gets angry or pays attention to what the government is doing. Bread and circuses and all that.

So you'd be all for making alcohol illegal too then, on the basis that a sedated population is a compliant one?

That alcohol is moral but cannabis is immoral is a broken argument - it just doesn't make sense.

I'm against people being drugged up or drunk, because they leave themselves vulnerable, prone to doing stupid things or harming their health. I've never once considered the Orwellian nature of it. I still think it's a non-issue.

That some politicians support this is reason enough to make uneasy about their ulterior motives.

That's a bit tinfoil hat. But are you saying that because some politicians agree with a thing you're automatically against it? How does that work is one politiican is for it and the other isnt'?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It’s that time of year again; The Twelfth. The bonfires don’t seem as big this year, but there has been trouble. I believe the worst was coming out of Derry. Shootouts with the police and so on:

https://www.derryjournal.com/news/woman-stoned-in-head-two-police-injured-car-torched-and-26-petrol-bombs-thrown-in-third-night-of-derry-disorder-1-8562120

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/shots-fired-at-police-officers-in-derry-during-fourth-night-of-trouble-1.3561133?mode=amp

It's not Northern Ireland, but a few people are of the same mind as you:

https://www.change.org/p/glasgow-call-time-on-the-orange-walk

Meanwhile, Mogg and the DUP have put their heads together and come up with this...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/11/brexit-hardliners-demand-amendments-to-trade-bill

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:



As a libertarian, I have no problem with people taking the stuff.


But I'm always uneasy with people being drugged up or drunk, for the sole reason that a sedated population is not a population that gets angry or pays attention to what the government is doing. Bread and circuses and all that.


That some politicians support this is reason enough to make uneasy about their ulterior motives.

While I cannot speak to UK culture on marijuana, living in Portland, where we have more marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks coffee shops, the city definitively remains one of the most politically active cities in the US, if anything its become even more politically active over the issue.