blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 10:34:45 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2272476 Posts in 66752 Topics by 16945 Members
Latest Member: Zula
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Community Forums
| |-+  The Lounge
| | |-+  The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged
0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Poll
Question: How will you vote on December 12th 2019
Conservative - 19 (33.9%)
Labour - 12 (21.4%)
SNP - 2 (3.6%)
Lib Dem - 8 (14.3%)
Brexit - 1 (1.8%)
Green - 6 (10.7%)
Other - 2 (3.6%)
Spoil - 0 (0%)
Not voting - 6 (10.7%)
Total Voters: 55

Pages: 1 ... 1444 1445 1446 1447 [1448] 1449 1450 1451 1452 ... 1533 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged  (Read 2180591 times)
Pokerpops
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1423


View Profile
« Reply #21705 on: October 24, 2019, 01:45:38 PM »

if "maturity" (whatever that means) means you need to be 25 years old to vote, how about we disenfranchise those with dementia and similar illnesses, Daily Mail readers and anyone else who can reasonably said not to be of sound mind. How about an IQ test before being allowed to vote? Menstruating women are out because they could be hysterical and can't be said to be 'mature' enough.

The only reason people don't want to enfranchise the young is because they think they'll vote the 'wrong' way. Take that argument to its limit and then ad absurdium and you come up with something like the above.

Ridiculous. If you're taxable, you should be represented. Simple as that.

Taking your argument to the limit and ad absurdism we give the vote to babies...

I’m sure we agree that there is an age, below which people aren’t ready to vote. Is your line firmly drawn at 16?

my line would be broadly similar to the well established principle in the law surrounding medial procedures, Gillick competence.
It doesn't have to be 16, it could be 14, or 10, or whatever.

And I do believe that if politicians were forced to engage with younger votes (because they vote) then they'd have more competence.

fwiw, the conservatives allow those members 15 and older to vote in their leadership elections.  but they won't allow the general public to do so. I wonder why that is.... :rolleyes:


Being competent to decide what happens to yourself is hardly the same thing as being competent to make a decision as to how, or indeed whether, to vote.

In any event, Gillick doesn’t seem to set an age at which competence is acquired.
Lord Scarman said
As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed.

So are we now going to have a test to see if people have ‘sufficient understanding’.
Logged

"More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."
mulhuzz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3022



View Profile
« Reply #21706 on: October 24, 2019, 02:14:31 PM »

if "maturity" (whatever that means) means you need to be 25 years old to vote, how about we disenfranchise those with dementia and similar illnesses, Daily Mail readers and anyone else who can reasonably said not to be of sound mind. How about an IQ test before being allowed to vote? Menstruating women are out because they could be hysterical and can't be said to be 'mature' enough.

The only reason people don't want to enfranchise the young is because they think they'll vote the 'wrong' way. Take that argument to its limit and then ad absurdium and you come up with something like the above.

Ridiculous. If you're taxable, you should be represented. Simple as that.

Taking your argument to the limit and ad absurdism we give the vote to babies...

I’m sure we agree that there is an age, below which people aren’t ready to vote. Is your line firmly drawn at 16?

my line would be broadly similar to the well established principle in the law surrounding medial procedures, Gillick competence.
It doesn't have to be 16, it could be 14, or 10, or whatever.

And I do believe that if politicians were forced to engage with younger votes (because they vote) then they'd have more competence.

fwiw, the conservatives allow those members 15 and older to vote in their leadership elections.  but they won't allow the general public to do so. I wonder why that is.... :rolleyes:


Being competent to decide what happens to yourself is hardly the same thing as being competent to make a decision as to how, or indeed whether, to vote.

In any event, Gillick doesn’t seem to set an age at which competence is acquired.
Lord Scarman said
As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed.

So are we now going to have a test to see if people have ‘sufficient understanding’.

it's absolutely the same thing, unless you think all voters over the age of X are completely altruistic and not self-interested, or that the distribution of self-interest and altruism is substantially different in those above X and below X.

And I'm not saying that I want to test every voter (as I'm in favour of wider-enfranchisement in general) but rather I'm interested in setting the line for enfranchisement at the age at which the overwhelming majority of electorate are capable of understanding what a vote is, and why they should do it and what the consequences of voting are.

I don't care if they understand the issues, because most adult voters don't either. I think the limit is probably much lower than 16, actually, but I'm prepared to compromise.
Logged
Woodsey
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15846



View Profile
« Reply #21707 on: October 24, 2019, 02:21:52 PM »

if "maturity" (whatever that means) means you need to be 25 years old to vote, how about we disenfranchise those with dementia and similar illnesses, Daily Mail readers and anyone else who can reasonably said not to be of sound mind. How about an IQ test before being allowed to vote? Menstruating women are out because they could be hysterical and can't be said to be 'mature' enough.

The only reason people don't want to enfranchise the young is because they think they'll vote the 'wrong' way. Take that argument to its limit and then ad absurdium and you come up with something like the above.

Ridiculous. If you're taxable, you should be represented. Simple as that.

Taking your argument to the limit and ad absurdism we give the vote to babies...

I’m sure we agree that there is an age, below which people aren’t ready to vote. Is your line firmly drawn at 16?

my line would be broadly similar to the well established principle in the law surrounding medial procedures, Gillick competence.
It doesn't have to be 16, it could be 14, or 10, or whatever.

And I do believe that if politicians were forced to engage with younger votes (because they vote) then they'd have more competence.

fwiw, the conservatives allow those members 15 and older to vote in their leadership elections.  but they won't allow the general public to do so. I wonder why that is.... :rolleyes:


Being competent to decide what happens to yourself is hardly the same thing as being competent to make a decision as to how, or indeed whether, to vote.

In any event, Gillick doesn’t seem to set an age at which competence is acquired.
Lord Scarman said
As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed.

So are we now going to have a test to see if people have ‘sufficient understanding’.

it's absolutely the same thing, unless you think all voters over the age of X are completely altruistic and not self-interested, or that the distribution of self-interest and altruism is substantially different in those above X and below X.

And I'm not saying that I want to test every voter (as I'm in favour of wider-enfranchisement in general) but rather I'm interested in setting the line for enfranchisement at the age at which the overwhelming majority of electorate are capable of understanding what a vote is, and why they should do it and what the consequences of voting are.

I don't care if they understand the issues, because most adult voters don't either. I think the limit is probably much lower than 16, actually, but I'm prepared to compromise.

I see you didn’t stop being an expert on everything 
Logged
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #21708 on: October 24, 2019, 02:37:27 PM »

...

I don't care if they understand the issues, because most adult voters don't either. I think the limit is probably much lower than 16, actually, but I'm prepared to compromise.

So the biggest problem with democracy is that so many people don't fully understand the implications of what they're voting for - and your solution to this is to add even more people who don't understand.

You're basically aiming for whatever the opposite of a meritocracy is I guess.
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
DungBeetle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4925


View Profile
« Reply #21709 on: October 24, 2019, 02:38:10 PM »

if "maturity" (whatever that means) means you need to be 25 years old to vote, how about we disenfranchise those with dementia and similar illnesses, Daily Mail readers and anyone else who can reasonably said not to be of sound mind. How about an IQ test before being allowed to vote? Menstruating women are out because they could be hysterical and can't be said to be 'mature' enough.

The only reason people don't want to enfranchise the young is because they think they'll vote the 'wrong' way. Take that argument to its limit and then ad absurdium and you come up with something like the above.

Ridiculous. If you're taxable, you should be represented. Simple as that.

Taking your argument to the limit and ad absurdism we give the vote to babies...

I’m sure we agree that there is an age, below which people aren’t ready to vote. Is your line firmly drawn at 16?

my line would be broadly similar to the well established principle in the law surrounding medial procedures, Gillick competence.
It doesn't have to be 16, it could be 14, or 10, or whatever.

And I do believe that if politicians were forced to engage with younger votes (because they vote) then they'd have more competence.

fwiw, the conservatives allow those members 15 and older to vote in their leadership elections.  but they won't allow the general public to do so. I wonder why that is.... :rolleyes:

I am agnostic to if 16 year olds vote to be honest.  But the driver is from the left who need more votes.  The Left have largely been rejected by the adult electorate over many decades.  It’s no surprise they seek more voters with a more childlike idealistic outlook.  I’m fine with letting them vote but the Left shouldn’t disguise their intentions here.
Logged
mulhuzz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3022



View Profile
« Reply #21710 on: October 24, 2019, 03:01:05 PM »

...

I don't care if they understand the issues, because most adult voters don't either. I think the limit is probably much lower than 16, actually, but I'm prepared to compromise.

So the biggest problem with democracy is that so many people don't fully understand the implications of what they're voting for - and your solution to this is to add even more people who don't understand.

You're basically aiming for whatever the opposite of a meritocracy is I guess.

I agree with the first part - that is arguably the biggest issue with representative democracy.

My proposed solution aims to address that by creating habitual voters from an early age. If politicians are forced to engage with younger people because they vote then understanding of the issues will increase over generational scale. If younger people also vote in numbers which is possible because voting becomes habitual the earlier you do it for the first time (c.f. experience of Austria...) then you also address the other big problem with representative democracy -- apathy and low turnout.

I recognise it's not a perfect solution, but I think on balance adding more voices and forcing engagement is a better solution than disenfranchising people.

Taking both positions to their extremes, disenfranchisement ends in dictatorship and enfranchisement ends in 'perfect' democracy. I know which extreme I'd like to move further towards, although obviously we're far away from both sides.
Logged
mulhuzz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3022



View Profile
« Reply #21711 on: October 24, 2019, 03:03:12 PM »

if "maturity" (whatever that means) means you need to be 25 years old to vote, how about we disenfranchise those with dementia and similar illnesses, Daily Mail readers and anyone else who can reasonably said not to be of sound mind. How about an IQ test before being allowed to vote? Menstruating women are out because they could be hysterical and can't be said to be 'mature' enough.

The only reason people don't want to enfranchise the young is because they think they'll vote the 'wrong' way. Take that argument to its limit and then ad absurdium and you come up with something like the above.

Ridiculous. If you're taxable, you should be represented. Simple as that.

Taking your argument to the limit and ad absurdism we give the vote to babies...

I’m sure we agree that there is an age, below which people aren’t ready to vote. Is your line firmly drawn at 16?

my line would be broadly similar to the well established principle in the law surrounding medial procedures, Gillick competence.
It doesn't have to be 16, it could be 14, or 10, or whatever.

And I do believe that if politicians were forced to engage with younger votes (because they vote) then they'd have more competence.

fwiw, the conservatives allow those members 15 and older to vote in their leadership elections.  but they won't allow the general public to do so. I wonder why that is.... :rolleyes:

I am agnostic to if 16 year olds vote to be honest.  But the driver is from the left who need more votes.  The Left have largely been rejected by the adult electorate over many decades.  It’s no surprise they seek more voters with a more childlike idealistic outlook.  I’m fine with letting them vote but the Left shouldn’t disguise their intentions here.

fine with that if you also insist that 'the Right' (or very specifically, Boris Johnson/Dominic Cummings) shouldn't disguise their intentions in bringing forward legislation to insist on ID to vote in order to tackle the totally non-existent issue of 'voter fraud'.
Logged
nirvana
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7804



View Profile
« Reply #21712 on: October 24, 2019, 04:07:06 PM »

if "maturity" (whatever that means) means you need to be 25 years old to vote, how about we disenfranchise those with dementia and similar illnesses, Daily Mail readers and anyone else who can reasonably said not to be of sound mind. How about an IQ test before being allowed to vote? Menstruating women are out because they could be hysterical and can't be said to be 'mature' enough.

The only reason people don't want to enfranchise the young is because they think they'll vote the 'wrong' way. Take that argument to its limit and then ad absurdium and you come up with something like the above.

Ridiculous. If you're taxable, you should be represented. Simple as that.

Taking your argument to the limit and ad absurdism we give the vote to babies...

I’m sure we agree that there is an age, below which people aren’t ready to vote. Is your line firmly drawn at 16?

my line would be broadly similar to the well established principle in the law surrounding medial procedures, Gillick competence.
It doesn't have to be 16, it could be 14, or 10, or whatever.

And I do believe that if politicians were forced to engage with younger votes (because they vote) then they'd have more competence.

fwiw, the conservatives allow those members 15 and older to vote in their leadership elections.  but they won't allow the general public to do so. I wonder why that is.... :rolleyes:

I am agnostic to if 16 year olds vote to be honest.  But the driver is from the left who need more votes.  The Left have largely been rejected by the adult electorate over many decades.  It’s no surprise they seek more voters with a more childlike idealistic outlook.  I’m fine with letting them vote but the Left shouldn’t disguise their intentions here.

fine with that if you also insist that 'the Right' (or very specifically, Boris Johnson/Dominic Cummings) shouldn't disguise their intentions in bringing forward legislation to insist on ID to vote in order to tackle the totally non-existent issue of 'voter fraud'.

True that. Well, I've certainly enjoyed an old new voice around here.. Hope you stick around between Czech lessons
Logged

sola virtus nobilitat
BigAdz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8152



View Profile
« Reply #21713 on: October 24, 2019, 04:59:58 PM »

if "maturity" (whatever that means) means you need to be 25 years old to vote, how about we disenfranchise those with dementia and similar illnesses, Daily Mail readers and anyone else who can reasonably said not to be of sound mind. How about an IQ test before being allowed to vote? Menstruating women are out because they could be hysterical and can't be said to be 'mature' enough.

The only reason people don't want to enfranchise the young is because they think they'll vote the 'wrong' way. Take that argument to its limit and then ad absurdium and you come up with something like the above.

Ridiculous. If you're taxable, you should be represented. Simple as that.

Taking your argument to the limit and ad absurdism we give the vote to babies...

I’m sure we agree that there is an age, below which people aren’t ready to vote. Is your line firmly drawn at 16?

my line would be broadly similar to the well established principle in the law surrounding medial procedures, Gillick competence.
It doesn't have to be 16, it could be 14, or 10, or whatever.

And I do believe that if politicians were forced to engage with younger votes (because they vote) then they'd have more competence.

fwiw, the conservatives allow those members 15 and older to vote in their leadership elections.  but they won't allow the general public to do so. I wonder why that is.... :rolleyes:


Being competent to decide what happens to yourself is hardly the same thing as being competent to make a decision as to how, or indeed whether, to vote.

In any event, Gillick doesn’t seem to set an age at which competence is acquired.
Lord Scarman said
As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed.

So are we now going to have a test to see if people have ‘sufficient understanding’.

it's absolutely the same thing, unless you think all voters over the age of X are completely altruistic and not self-interested, or that the distribution of self-interest and altruism is substantially different in those above X and below X.

And I'm not saying that I want to test every voter (as I'm in favour of wider-enfranchisement in general) but rather I'm interested in setting the line for enfranchisement at the age at which the overwhelming majority of electorate are capable of understanding what a vote is, and why they should do it and what the consequences of voting are.

I don't care if they understand the issues, because most adult voters don't either. I think the limit is probably much lower than 16, actually, but I'm prepared to compromise.

I see you didn’t stop being an expert on everything 

I chuckled.

Maybe you should also be a resident?
Logged

Good evenink. I wish I had a girlfriend.......
neeko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1762


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21714 on: October 24, 2019, 05:18:42 PM »

This is an eye opening read

"Battle raging between Dominic Cummings, other senior Number 10 advisers, ministers and MPs over whether to push for an election or try to bring their Brexit Bill back again"

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/boris-johnson-top-team-war-election

I liked the bit where the plan backfired due to Corbyn not backing an election, which they assumed he'd never do.  Undone by the unwitting tactical genius of JC.

The most revealing part, for me, is that the worst case scenario for No10 is a 2nd referendum, because they fear this is how Brexit will be lost.  No-one can be certain of this, because you can't assume the outcome, yet there policy is based an an underlying assumption that they would lose (backed by all the recent polling on this).

It puts us in the rather absurd situation of the most logical solution to the Brexit stalemate, a 2nd Ref, being strategically avoided at all cost by a party intent on delivering hard Brexit based on 'the will of the people', because they expect the 'will of the people' would be to stop Brexit, if tested.

A GE, on the other hand, muddies the water so that pretty much anything can be interpreted from the outcome (as Theresa May did in 2017).

It looks like we're diving headlong into the GE now, which is ultimately playing into BoJo and Cummings' hands.

I saw some wag asking why they bothered with anyone other than Cummimgs and Milne at the meeting. 

A meeting of Boris WAGs and ex WAGs would need a conference room.
Logged

There is no problem so bad that a politician cant make it worse.

http://www.dec.org.uk
tikay
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: I am a geek!!



View Profile
« Reply #21715 on: October 24, 2019, 05:54:14 PM »


Boris is going to make us an offer we can't refuse;


Brexit PM says he will try for 12 December election


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50174402
Logged

All details of the 2016 Vegas Staking Adventure can be found via this link - http://bit.ly/1pdQZDY (copyright Anthony James Kendall, 2016).
DungBeetle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4925


View Profile
« Reply #21716 on: October 24, 2019, 05:55:25 PM »

if "maturity" (whatever that means) means you need to be 25 years old to vote, how about we disenfranchise those with dementia and similar illnesses, Daily Mail readers and anyone else who can reasonably said not to be of sound mind. How about an IQ test before being allowed to vote? Menstruating women are out because they could be hysterical and can't be said to be 'mature' enough.

The only reason people don't want to enfranchise the young is because they think they'll vote the 'wrong' way. Take that argument to its limit and then ad absurdium and you come up with something like the above.

Ridiculous. If you're taxable, you should be represented. Simple as that.

Taking your argument to the limit and ad absurdism we give the vote to babies...

I’m sure we agree that there is an age, below which people aren’t ready to vote. Is your line firmly drawn at 16?

my line would be broadly similar to the well established principle in the law surrounding medial procedures, Gillick competence.
It doesn't have to be 16, it could be 14, or 10, or whatever.

And I do believe that if politicians were forced to engage with younger votes (because they vote) then they'd have more competence.

fwiw, the conservatives allow those members 15 and older to vote in their leadership elections.  but they won't allow the general public to do so. I wonder why that is.... :rolleyes:

I am agnostic to if 16 year olds vote to be honest.  But the driver is from the left who need more votes.  The Left have largely been rejected by the adult electorate over many decades.  It’s no surprise they seek more voters with a more childlike idealistic outlook.  I’m fine with letting them vote but the Left shouldn’t disguise their intentions here.

fine with that if you also insist that 'the Right' (or very specifically, Boris Johnson/Dominic Cummings) shouldn't disguise their intentions in bringing forward legislation to insist on ID to vote in order to tackle the totally non-existent issue of 'voter fraud'.

Yes agreed.
Logged
TightEnd
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: I am a geek!!



View Profile
« Reply #21717 on: October 24, 2019, 08:31:54 PM »

Peston

It’s done. Labour has instructed its MPs tonight to block @BorisJohnson’s attempt on Monday to have 12 Dec election. So @BorisJohnson will shelve the Withdrawal Agreement Bill. He will cancel the budget. There will be no government worth the name. Parliament will become...a zombie Parliament, unless and until the opposition find a way to wrest control from @BorisJohnson or hold an election. This deadlock is without modern precedent.
Logged

My eyes are open wide
By the way,I made it through the day
I watch the world outside
By the way, I'm leaving out today
ripple11
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6330



View Profile
« Reply #21718 on: October 24, 2019, 08:47:02 PM »

This is an eye opening read

"Battle raging between Dominic Cummings, other senior Number 10 advisers, ministers and MPs over whether to push for an election or try to bring their Brexit Bill back again"

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/boris-johnson-top-team-war-election

I liked the bit where the plan backfired due to Corbyn not backing an election, which they assumed he'd never do.  Undone by the unwitting tactical genius of JC.

The most revealing part, for me, is that the worst case scenario for No10 is a 2nd referendum, because they fear this is how Brexit will be lost.  No-one can be certain of this, because you can't assume the outcome, yet there policy is based an an underlying assumption that they would lose (backed by all the recent polling on this).

It puts us in the rather absurd situation of the most logical solution to the Brexit stalemate, a 2nd Ref, being strategically avoided at all cost by a party intent on delivering hard Brexit based on 'the will of the people', because they expect the 'will of the people' would be to stop Brexit, if tested.

A GE, on the other hand, muddies the water so that pretty much anything can be interpreted from the outcome (as Theresa May did in 2017).

It looks like we're diving headlong into the GE now, which is ultimately playing into BoJo and Cummings' hands.

I saw some wag asking why they bothered with anyone other than Cummimgs and Milne at the meeting. 

A meeting of Boris WAGs and ex WAGs would need a conference room.


....... with a creche for the kids.
Logged
aaron1867
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3659



View Profile
« Reply #21719 on: October 24, 2019, 09:01:03 PM »

I’d brought myself to voting for Labour in the next GE, but this is too much. Labour going to get ruined.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 1444 1445 1446 1447 [1448] 1449 1450 1451 1452 ... 1533 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.445 seconds with 23 queries.