• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The British Politics Thread

StephenZA

StephenZA

Well-known member
Tom Halsey said:
I completely agree that democracy is the best of the options but don't really see that as an argument in favour of needless referendums, because we already have democratically elected politicians making the decisions. And frankly I would trust a politician, whatever their colour of politics, to make a more reasoned judgement on decisions than 95% of the electorate for a wide variety of reasons.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree but close to 50% of the population where not happy with the current state of affairs with EU (wrongly or rightly) many are still not. None of the main parties wanted to leave the EU, it was never a real option for the public to decide. UKIP is vile and forced the referendum but that does not mean the referendum was a bad thing. For all those wanting to leave it was good. The problem came in with the misinformation and lack of proper respect given to the public to talk about their very real concerns. Much like many elections nowadays it comes down to marketing and soundbites rather than informed decisions. Or else we just don't give a chance for people to make a decision at all.
 
StephenZA

StephenZA

Well-known member
Furball said:
No dumber than Boris 'be a dick to anyone not British' Johnson was for Foreign Secretary.
Click to expand...
Not any stupider but at least Boris is a known buffoon who acted as a distraction..... if she wanted Gove in the cabinet she could have either put him into a better portfolio or made a new one up. No need to make him environment secretary; that is directly contradictory and insulting.
 
vogue

vogue

Well-known member
StephenZA said:
Not any stupider but at least Boris is a known buffoon who acted as a distraction..... if she wanted Gove in the cabinet she could have either put him into a better portfolio or made a new one up. No need to make him environment secretary; that is directly contradictory and insulting.
Click to expand...
Why do you think she has any power at the moment to choose what/who she wants? The control isnt coming from her right now,there are other things/people at play.
 
D

Daemon

Well-known member
StephenZA said:
I am very much in favour of this line of thinking, and not just on Brexit including many other ideas and opinions portrayed in the general populace. But it has its inherent problems as well, and is a basic problem with democracy as a whole.... everybody has an equal vote but not everybody has your same opinions, experiences and understanding. So which experts/leaders get listened to, the one who knows his stuff the best or the most charismatic, or the one who has the ear of the people in power?

In the end it is up to individuals to educate themselves on the 'truths' and make the decision with thought. The fact that the general populace does not do this is not the fault of the referendum or the system, it is the fault of the people for not really trying but hoping to be spoonfed. So we can condescendingly say that people should get no choice on certain matters (taking democratic choice away) or you can give people the choice and try educate people enough not to make rash uninformed decisions. A side issue is should the system try to debunk myths and falsehoods and should there possibly be repercussion for people who portray fiction as truths? Which currently is not done under the idea of 'free speach' .

I live in a country where due to lack of education and understanding a despot rules in a pseudo-democracy, who uses falsehoods and lies to keep the majority population in check, but should those people due to the lack of understanding and education not be given the vote? I have heard that argument to many times not to know where it leads. Democracy is ultimately the best of some very bad options to try give everybody a say. Cause in reality what the majority believe is not necessarily true, but you have to show that to them not stop them from making what is considered poor decisions.
Click to expand...
There absolutely should be repercussions for lies. Not doing so allows people like anti-vaxxers and certain hate groups exist. There needs to be a balance between America's fetish with free speech and Singapore persecuting anyone (even a child) who spreads lies or hate that could disturb peace in the country.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Daemon said:
There absolutely should be repercussions for lies. Not doing so allows people like anti-vaxxers and certain hate groups exist. There needs to be a balance between America's fetish with free speech and Singapore persecuting anyone (even a child) who spreads lies or hate that could disturb peace in the country.
Click to expand...
That sounds good in theory but theres an immense danger when the government becomes the judge of what is considered a lie and what's considered the truth. Imagine someone like Trump deciding what the truth is.
 
F

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Daemon said:
There absolutely should be repercussions for lies. Not doing so allows people like anti-vaxxers and certain hate groups exist. There needs to be a balance between America's fetish with free speech and Singapore persecuting anyone (even a child) who spreads lies or hate that could disturb peace in the country.
Click to expand...
A lot of 'muh free speech' activists seem to be under the impression that 'free speech' actually means 'say whatever you like, particularly on the internet which isn't real, and suffer no consequences for it.'
 
StephenZA

StephenZA

Well-known member
Furball said:
A lot of 'muh free speech' activists seem to be under the impression that 'free speech' actually means 'say whatever you like, particularly on the internet which isn't real, and suffer no consequences for it.'
Click to expand...
100% The concept of "free speech" has been corrupted... it was never intended to allow anybody to sprout vile rhetoric, it was to allow the public (particularly newspapers) to question the government without repercussion. Not for anybody to say whatever they feel like in public.

And while I fully believe that differing opinions should be open for discussion, those should be based on solid factual foundations not on sprouted garbage and speculation for convenient sound bites.
 
D

Daemon

Well-known member
silentstriker said:
That sounds good in theory but theres an immense danger when the government becomes the judge of what is considered a lie and what's considered the truth. Imagine someone like Trump deciding what the truth is.
Click to expand...
Due process in courts?

I suppose it wouldn't be feasible in many corrupt countries where you generally have to accept second best policies.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Furball said:
A lot of 'muh free speech' activists seem to be under the impression that 'free speech' actually means 'say whatever you like, particularly on the internet which isn't real, and suffer no consequences for it.'
Click to expand...
What do you mean by consequences?
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Daemon said:
Due process in courts?

I suppose it wouldn't be feasible in many corrupt countries where you generally have to accept second best policies.
Click to expand...
So someone can threaten to sue you just to shut you up? You wouldn't even want to say true things because of the time and cost of litigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top