'Parliament makes decisions, not the people' - anger as Peers say public cannot be trusted on EU vote

First topic message reminder :

If this doesn't sum it up I don't know what does. What was the point of fighting the Nazis and then the Soviets in a cold war if the left are to eradicate democracy through dictat from the EU with compliance from the traitors in the left wing parties.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/10564931/Parliament-makes-decisions-not-the-people-anger-as-Peers-say-public-cannot-be-trusted-on-EU-vote.html

No doubt Scatman and Dobbin will seek to defend this act but hey what will they not defend if its Labour orientated.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:Re read what I put.  I put UKIP deliver better democracy not UKIP deliver proper democracy.  I described proper democracy to demonstrate that UKIP does not deliver it and nor does any other party.

I am not in favour of absolute proper democracy - because it would not work.  I do not believe in votes for prisoners (do you see me voting Tory here?)

I believe that UKIP offer the widest ranging closest to proper democracy with best protections.

I am not asking you to believe what I believe.

Oh well that's that cleared up then. Doesn't matter who I vote for I'm not going to get proper democracy from any of them.

BTW, you said proper democracy means everyone gets a vote regardless of age.

So if people can vote regardless of age at what point in someone's life should that kick in?

Yes it does matter who you vote for because you should be concerned with firstly who is going to to the best for your constituency and secondly who is going closest to proper democracy.

Yes I did say proper democracy is regardless of age I then immediately said that proper democracy is an ideal not an actuality and would actually be a bad thing anyway.

Look you want me to either tell you who to vote for so you can give me reasons not to - and I will not tell people who to vote for or you want to argue that voting is worthless so you can vote for whoever you want without considering it properly and that behaviour is the exact reason why democracy does not work.

To quote Robert A Heinlein Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that can honestly be said in its favor is that it is eight times as good as any other method the human race has ever tried

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Oh well that's that cleared up then. Doesn't matter who I vote for I'm not going to get proper democracy from any of them.

BTW, you said proper democracy means everyone gets a vote regardless of age.

So if people can vote regardless of age at what point in someone's life should that kick in?

Yes it does matter who you vote for because you should be concerned with firstly who is going to to the best for your constituency and secondly who is going closest to proper democracy.

Yes I did say proper democracy is regardless of age I then immediately said that proper democracy is an ideal not an actuality and would actually be a bad thing anyway.

Look you want me to either tell you who to vote for so you can give me reasons not to - and I will not tell people who to vote for or you want to argue that voting is worthless so you can vote for whoever you want without considering it properly and that behaviour is the exact reason why democracy does not work.

To quote Robert A Heinlein Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that can honestly be said in its favor is that it is eight times as good as any other method the human race has ever tried

Yes, I know it is important who I vote for but when you asked me if I could vote for Labour knowing that they do not really believe in proper democracy and that you voted UKIP I just thought that you were onto something and that I may get that with them. It';s clear now that I won't so I'll rule them out on that score and just vote for the party that best represents what I believe is right.

veya_victaous wrote:@Irn Bru
I think kids have more rigth to vote than old people. (I would not let retired people vote, no point, they aren't contributing and Baby Boomers onwards have taken more than they gave during their working lives so any argument that they deserve it for past work is false)
 

That's bullshit and you know it.  Name the school you went to...it was built by the social security funds your grandfather paid for.  Or the Street you live on.  Or, the City Hall.  Or the highways, or streets and sidewalks, or the sewer pipes.   Or the electrical systems that power your computers.

You probably hated your father, and made up stories about how he molested you.  Then, you resented your mother because she wouldn't believe you.  And Toto was killed by your sister's car, driven by her pimply, ugly boyfriend, eh?

@quill
nope
the road I live on is about 35years old, School is about the same. It was a Farm that was bought by developers that made it a suburb, and profited at every step of the way.

AND it is true you are right it was my Grandfathers (pre-boomer) generation not my Parents (I love my parents very much by the way but it doesn't change facts) My Grandfathers Generation Paid to Build the Roads and the Electric Grid that... My PARENTS generation has sold off!!!!

Australia used to own most of it's infrastructure, But My Parents Generation NEEDED free University and tax cuts and so they sold the infrastructure off to cover it. That is until they were no longer in University then we moved to a USER pays system, In fact once My Grandfather generation was no longer paying taxes and my Parents generation was supposed to take on the burden, they started making toll roads, sold off water electricity providers and any other Public asset that the generations before them had built. Basically move to a User pays system Once THEY were expected to pay. even though they had everything covered by the public purse up until then. So they Not only Spent More than they paid, they Also Spent Most of our nations saving that had been acquired over generations. They also Reduced Old age pensions, making life more difficult for the previous generation that had actually built our free or subsidized systems that the baby boomers got full advantage of as young adults.

Ironically the Office I am currently in (with my powered computer) was STATE owned the whole site was it used to be the train yards..... that is until the Baby boomers Sold it to Developers (they also so the state owned company Freight Rail that utilised it)  so Now Current generations have to pay a 3rd party(who turns a profit) to keep our trains going, the state used to fix them. They have Sold off So many Public assets and all we have to show for it are some Users pays Systems.


SO Your assertion that it is Bullshit is Actually Bullshit, every single point you made is incorrect. I don't even have a sister  

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yes it does matter who you vote for because you should be concerned with firstly who is going to to the best for your constituency and secondly who is going closest to proper democracy.

Yes I did say proper democracy is regardless of age I then immediately said that proper democracy is an ideal not an actuality and would actually be a bad thing anyway.

Look you want me to either tell you who to vote for so you can give me reasons not to - and I will not tell people who to vote for or you want to argue that voting is worthless so you can vote for whoever you want without considering it properly and that behaviour is the exact reason why democracy does not work.

To quote Robert A Heinlein Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that can honestly be said in its favor is that it is eight times as good as any other method the human race has ever tried

Yes, I know it is important who I vote for but when you asked me if I could vote for Labour knowing that they do not really believe in proper democracy and that you voted UKIP I just thought that you were onto something and that I may get that with them. It';s clear now that I won't so I'll rule them out on that score and just vote for the party that best represents what I believe is right.

I have told you exactly how UKIP believes in democracy far more than Lord Mandleson does. I have also made it clear that nationalist parties may have better understand of your area.

If you cannot understand the difference between a party that has a high ranking member stating ordinary people should not be consulted on major constitutional issues (Labour) and one that wishes to use referendums for as much as possible (UKIP) then that is your problem and you will have to deal with the results.

Or maybe it is just a case of you are not used to political honesty from parties - you have got used to parties claiming they are the best by promoting themselves as being able to do things perfectly even when everyone knows perfectly is impossible. You ask about "proper" democracy and obviously expect glowing claims that UKIP is the only party that can deliver it etc etc rather than the honest statement that UKIP is comes far closer to it than the traditional 3 main parties because is is a theoretical ideal. Just consider it in a smaller chunk if it helps - when it comes to thinks like smoking, building new roads, building solar farms or wind farms, how children are going to be educated would you prefer a party that just does what it thinks best - even when what it thinks best now is different from what it promised at the election 6 months ago - even if what it thinks best is something the majority of the people disagree with or would you prefer a party that gives a referendum to find out what the majority of people prefer and then does that? Thinks like smoking ban would be done at national level, thinks like wind farms would be done at local level among the people directly affected.

If you prefer a party that is going to do what it thinks best at the time even when that is different from what it promised and different from what people want then you cant go far wrong with one of the traditional 3 parties
If you prefer a party that offers referendums and they does what the majority of people have said they want done then UKIP is definitely doing that - I dont know about smaller parties.

If you are worried about whether UKIP will like the 3 traditional parties say one thing and do another you can find out for yourself by doing a little bit of research. It is now quite common to see people making the suggestion of a UKIP and Tory election pact and the response from the senior members of UKIP always seems a bit indefinite (translation Nigel Farage is always reported as it being something that might be considered - the press have an unwritten rule that they will try not to feature any senior UKIP member other than Nigel because that helps maintain the myth UKIP is a one trick pony). The reason senior members seem a bit indefinite is because with the way UKIP works it is not up to them - local branches will decide at local level if they want to make a pact with the Tories, (and in case you are interested the vote has always been an overwhelming NO). You can prove this for yourself so you dont have to take my word for it by checking around small local news outlets who do sometimes cover these things - although would cover it a lot more I suspect if local branches were voting to work with the Tories. Or you could look up your local UKIP branch if you have one and go along to one of their meetings - and see for yourself.

veya_victaous wrote:@quill
nope
the road I live on is about 35years old, School is about the same. It was a Farm that was bought by developers that made it a suburb, and profited at every step of the way.

AND it is true you are right it was my Grandfathers (pre-boomer) generation not my Parents (I love my parents very much by the way but it doesn't change facts) My Grandfathers Generation Paid to Build the Roads and the Electric Grid that... My PARENTS generation has sold off!!!!

Australia used to own most of it's infrastructure, But My Parents Generation NEEDED free University and tax cuts and so they sold the infrastructure off to cover it. That is until they were no longer in University then we moved to a USER pays system, In fact once My Grandfather generation was no longer paying taxes and my Parents generation was supposed to take on the burden, they started making toll roads, sold off water electricity providers and any other Public asset that the generations before them had built. Basically move to a User pays system Once THEY were expected to pay. even though they had everything covered by the public purse up until then. So they Not only Spent More than they paid, they Also Spent Most of our nations saving that had been acquired over generations. They also Reduced Old age pensions, making life more difficult for the previous generation that had actually built our free or subsidized systems that the baby boomers got full advantage of as young adults.

Ironically the Office I am currently in (with my powered computer) was STATE owned the whole site was it used to be the train yards..... that is until the Baby boomers Sold it to Developers (they also so the state owned company Freight Rail that utilised it)  so Now Current generations have to pay a 3rd party(who turns a profit) to keep our trains going, the state used to fix them. They have Sold off So many Public assets and all we have to show for it are some Users pays Systems.


SO Your assertion that it is Bullshit is Actually Bullshit, every single point you made is incorrect. I don't even have a sister  

I gather your real beef is with your parents' generation, not every generation before yours.  I can single out specific generations that I look upon with disfavor as well.  So I sympathize to that extent.

I am particularly peeved at the "Me" generation.  This is the generation that--for the most part--created the tea party group...Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Sarah Palen, Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, and that Canadian Senator--what's his name?--Oh, Ted Cruz.  There was definitely a strain of exteme selfishness that ran through that generation.  It takes a special type of evil to gorge yourself with all that money from tax breaks, and at the same time try to deny another person healthcare and food.

@quill
Correct, it is not every generation, in fact the 3 generations before baby boomers are well respected (apart from the racsim   ) there in no denying they built a lot of the Infrastucture and really set Australia quite well with a lot of State owned companies, they suffered through both World Wars and the great depression, and still achieved a lot.
a lot changed with the baby boomers (My parents Generation) they are STILL the largest voting block this country has ever had, so the laws have shifted to suit what ever age they are. They spent so much when they were young (voting to give themselves free Uni and other subsidies) then when it came time to pay taxes to replace what was taken out (which was a lot because they are such a large generation) they cut taxes, So the only way to pay the debt was to sell public assets (which they have done everytime they need more money) Plus they have just wasted the money on things that have since failed and been torn down (we had a Monorail, the simpsons was fairly accurate). And Now they are costing A Fortune in Pensions and old age care (Pensions much better than Gen x and Gen Y will get, no politican is willing reduce pensions for the baby boomers even though they are the reason the nation can't afford it, but they have passed legisation to increase the retirement age for the post baby boomer generations)  

It is not 100% their fault over their generation the USA has greatly increased their influence on Australia (Granddad's generation was the one that switched out Military loyalty from England to USA) so we have seen changes  that make us More similar to the USA. Like privitization of public assets, many of which were bought up by US interests, they now demand to be profitable which has had a negative impact on the wider community.

then to make the culutre/politics here more confusing Generation X (in their 40's now) started tying us to China so Generation Y (my gen) are sort of Torn between Chinese and American culture/economics.    there are advantages and disadvantages to both.

BUT.. the Baby Boomers DID make the move towards ending Racism and Sexism and ended the White Australia Policies, so they are not all bad    (Smelly hippies are just terrible at economics  :<:i}:  )

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Yes, I know it is important who I vote for but when you asked me if I could vote for Labour knowing that they do not really believe in proper democracy and that you voted UKIP I just thought that you were onto something and that I may get that with them. It';s clear now that I won't so I'll rule them out on that score and just vote for the party that best represents what I believe is right.

I have told you exactly how UKIP believes in democracy far more than Lord Mandleson does.  I have also made it clear that nationalist parties may have better understand of your area.

If you cannot understand the difference between a party that has a high ranking member stating ordinary people should not be consulted on major constitutional issues (Labour) and one that wishes to use referendums for as much as possible (UKIP) then that is your problem and you will have to deal with the results.

Or maybe it is just a case of you are not used to political honesty from parties - you have got used to parties claiming they are the best by promoting themselves as being able to do things perfectly even when everyone knows perfectly is impossible. You ask about "proper" democracy and obviously expect glowing claims that UKIP is the only party that can deliver it etc etc rather than the honest statement that UKIP is comes far closer to it than the traditional 3 main parties because is is a theoretical ideal.    Just consider it in a smaller chunk if it helps - when it comes to thinks like smoking, building new roads, building solar farms or wind farms, how children are going to be educated would you prefer a party that just does what it thinks best - even when what it thinks best now is different from what it promised at the election 6 months ago - even if what it thinks best is something the majority of the people disagree with or would you prefer a party that gives a referendum to find out what the majority of people prefer and then does that?  Thinks like smoking ban would be done at national level, thinks like wind farms would be done at local level among the people directly affected.  

If you prefer a party that is going to do what it thinks best at the time even when that is different from what it promised and different from what people want then you cant go far wrong with one of the traditional 3 parties
If you prefer a party that offers referendums and they does what the majority of people have said they want done then UKIP is definitely doing that - I dont know about smaller parties.

If you are worried about whether UKIP will like the 3 traditional parties say one thing and do another you can find out for yourself by doing a little bit of research.  It is now quite common to see people making the suggestion of a UKIP and Tory election pact and the response from the senior members of UKIP always seems a bit indefinite (translation Nigel Farage is always reported as it being something that might be considered - the press have an unwritten rule that they will try not to feature any senior UKIP member other than Nigel because that helps maintain the myth UKIP is a one trick pony).  The reason senior members seem a bit indefinite is because with the way UKIP works it is not up to them - local branches will decide at local level if they want to make a pact with the Tories,  (and in case you are interested the vote has always been an overwhelming NO).  You can prove this for yourself so you dont have to take my word for it by checking around small local news outlets who do sometimes cover these things - although would cover it a lot more I suspect if local branches were voting to work with the Tories.  Or you could look up your local UKIP branch if you have one and go along to one of their meetings - and see for yourself.

I've read all that and it's just another tidal wave of meaningless mumbo jumbo based on nothing but your views. You have already explained that there will be no proper democracy from UKIP or any other party and if you had just said that right at the outset rather than focusing on Labour and to some extent the Tories then you could have saved us both a lot wasted time taking it further.

I'll just vote for the party that I believe offers the best solution for the country. Always the best way I would say.

is the monster raving loony party still in operation  

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I have told you exactly how UKIP believes in democracy far more than Lord Mandleson does.  I have also made it clear that nationalist parties may have better understand of your area.

If you cannot understand the difference between a party that has a high ranking member stating ordinary people should not be consulted on major constitutional issues (Labour) and one that wishes to use referendums for as much as possible (UKIP) then that is your problem and you will have to deal with the results.

Or maybe it is just a case of you are not used to political honesty from parties - you have got used to parties claiming they are the best by promoting themselves as being able to do things perfectly even when everyone knows perfectly is impossible. You ask about "proper" democracy and obviously expect glowing claims that UKIP is the only party that can deliver it etc etc rather than the honest statement that UKIP is comes far closer to it than the traditional 3 main parties because is is a theoretical ideal.    Just consider it in a smaller chunk if it helps - when it comes to thinks like smoking, building new roads, building solar farms or wind farms, how children are going to be educated would you prefer a party that just does what it thinks best - even when what it thinks best now is different from what it promised at the election 6 months ago - even if what it thinks best is something the majority of the people disagree with or would you prefer a party that gives a referendum to find out what the majority of people prefer and then does that?  Thinks like smoking ban would be done at national level, thinks like wind farms would be done at local level among the people directly affected.  

If you prefer a party that is going to do what it thinks best at the time even when that is different from what it promised and different from what people want then you cant go far wrong with one of the traditional 3 parties
If you prefer a party that offers referendums and they does what the majority of people have said they want done then UKIP is definitely doing that - I dont know about smaller parties.

If you are worried about whether UKIP will like the 3 traditional parties say one thing and do another you can find out for yourself by doing a little bit of research.  It is now quite common to see people making the suggestion of a UKIP and Tory election pact and the response from the senior members of UKIP always seems a bit indefinite (translation Nigel Farage is always reported as it being something that might be considered - the press have an unwritten rule that they will try not to feature any senior UKIP member other than Nigel because that helps maintain the myth UKIP is a one trick pony).  The reason senior members seem a bit indefinite is because with the way UKIP works it is not up to them - local branches will decide at local level if they want to make a pact with the Tories,  (and in case you are interested the vote has always been an overwhelming NO).  You can prove this for yourself so you dont have to take my word for it by checking around small local news outlets who do sometimes cover these things - although would cover it a lot more I suspect if local branches were voting to work with the Tories.  Or you could look up your local UKIP branch if you have one and go along to one of their meetings - and see for yourself.

I've read all that and it's just another tidal wave of meaningless mumbo jumbo based on nothing but your views. You have already explained that there will be no proper democracy from UKIP or any other party and if you had just said that right at the outset rather than focusing on Labour and to some extent the Tories then you could have saved us both a lot wasted time taking it further.

I'll just vote for the party that I believe offers the best solution for the country. Always the best way I would say.

How about voting for the individual who offers the best solution for your constituency? Why has it got to be a party? I have said from the start about looking at independent candidates.

veya_victaous wrote:@Irn Bru
I think kids have more rigth to vote than old people. (I would not let retired people vote, no point, they aren't contributing and Baby Boomers onwards have taken more than they gave during their working lives so any argument that they deserve it for past work is false)
After all the Kids have to live with the Consequences the Old People will die soon enough so they wont even see the long term affects of their stupidity.

As a 30 years old
I think its still 50/50 on whether I am made into Soylent Greens instead of getting to retire     

THAT would be fine...except.....just like driving...anyone under 40 aint got a clue about anything, and the under 30's are too busy thinking with their reproductive gear rather than their brains.....

veya_victaous wrote:@quill
Correct, it is not every generation, in fact the 3 generations before baby boomers are well respected (apart from the racsim   ) there in no denying they built a lot of the Infrastucture and really set Australia quite well with a lot of State owned companies, they suffered through both World Wars and the great depression, and still achieved a lot.
a lot changed with the baby boomers (My parents Generation) they are STILL the largest voting block this country has ever had, so the laws have shifted to suit what ever age they are. They spent so much when they were young (voting to give themselves free Uni and other subsidies) then when it came time to pay taxes to replace what was taken out (which was a lot because they are such a large generation) they cut taxes, So the only way to pay the debt was to sell public assets (which they have done everytime they need more money) Plus they have just wasted the money on things that have since failed and been torn down (we had a Monorail, the simpsons was fairly accurate). And Now they are costing A Fortune in Pensions and old age care (Pensions much better than Gen x and Gen Y will get, no politican is willing reduce pensions for the baby boomers even though they are the reason the nation can't afford it, but they have passed legisation to increase the retirement age for the post baby boomer generations)  

It is not 100% their fault over their generation the USA has greatly increased their influence on Australia (Granddad's generation was the one that switched out Military loyalty from England to USA) so we have seen changes  that make us More similar to the USA. Like privitization of public assets, many of which were bought up by US interests, they now demand to be profitable which has had a negative impact on the wider community.

then to make the culutre/politics here more confusing Generation X (in their 40's now) started tying us to China so Generation Y (my gen) are sort of Torn between Chinese and American culture/economics.    there are advantages and disadvantages to both.

BUT.. the Baby Boomers DID make the move towards ending Racism and Sexism and ended the White Australia Policies, so they are not all bad    (Smelly hippies are just terrible at economics  :<:i}:  )

Think you have a funny idea what pensioners do Veya. In this country at least, we wouldn't be able to run local authorities without them because they are practically the only ones who have time to become councillors. Then you have them manning the charities, raising money for causes and loads of other things.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

I've read all that and it's just another tidal wave of meaningless mumbo jumbo based on nothing but your views. You have already explained that there will be no proper democracy from UKIP or any other party and if you had just said that right at the outset rather than focusing on Labour and to some extent the Tories then you could have saved us both a lot wasted time taking it further.

I'll just vote for the party that I believe offers the best solution for the country. Always the best way I would say.

How about voting for the individual who offers the best solution for your constituency?  Why has it got to be a party?  I have said from the start about looking at independent candidates.

I actually did that at the last election.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

How about voting for the individual who offers the best solution for your constituency?  Why has it got to be a party?  I have said from the start about looking at independent candidates.

I actually did that at the last election.

So did I lol. As I'm in a different constituency it will be different.