Who from HxF would you back in a campaign for Government?

[Black_Apalachi]

And if he became PM back in 2007 he could have made a law, banning anyone posting news within 2 seconds of it bing release, except him.

OMG if that was your 6000th post it was so worthy!!!!!!!!

[AgnesIO]

OMG if that was your 6000th post it was so worthy!!!!!!!!

LOL

Not sure if it was, if not must of been VERY close

[Mentor]

..then the only solution following this logic would be to haver a dictatorship. It amazes me the way people can argue that elections for electing a government are fine, but referendums on single-issues are not. The only reason alexxx and so on do not want referendums is because the country would swing to the right overnight, death penalty would stand a good chance of coming back, the European Union would be finished before you could hold the vote and many other common sense issues would be implemented, much to the distate of the elitist left.

I disagree, firstly rather than a dictatorship I'd suggest scrapping the lords and replacing it with something useful, in my opinion a body of respected researches/scientists/sociologists and economists - who gain there positions via merit of there academic achievements rather than through voting. These should then be given a proper amount of power. So that the opinions both the opinion of the country (reflected by the house of commons) and then reality's of the issue born from true and detailed understanding of them from the scientific house (which would be required to submit the details of all decisions made for peer review to ensure the academic integrity of the group)

By this method you could in theory balance the mass opinion against the facts and come to decisions which are beneficial to the country in the long run, without being swayed by idiotic claims made purely in a bid to get votes.

Equally, i think referendum should be an option, but again, this should override the elected portion (commons) since the elected portion is supposed to be representing the views of these voters anyway. but not the potential scientific portion who would still be able to review and reject and change the proposal before allowing it to be passed through (again with agreement from the voting public)

This way snap decisions, like death penalty would be weighed against facts such asthe death penalty costing more than imprisonment, has no noticeable effect in reducing crime, stops any chance of setting miscarriages of justice right and in many case's is getting off easier. I'd rather die painlessly than spent the entirety of the rest of my life in prison. I do believe though that sentencing lengths need to be rethought. You can get longer for hacking a computer system than you can for murdering a few kids which is pretty ****** up in my opinion.

Then again, i'm not a criminologist, i'd rather a few professors of the subject who know far more than i, were involved in the government (such as with my concept of a scientific body being given powers to veto and change legislation), and thus able to choose the better solution to such issues, that would reduce re offending and act as a better deterrent to offending to start with.

Do I trust this government or the public when it comes to deciding on the EU, death penalty and so on? - the public.

I trust nether, i trust actual experts on the subject with proper knowledge of the issue. Oddly enough though, this seems to be the one group not involved in the decision making process at all...

[The Professor]

I'm no so sure.

Say your in a room with 5 people, 4 are just your average joe's and 1 is leading professor of biology. Now your all really hungry and on the table is a selection of some unknown fruit.

The professor says its poisonous, but the other 4 guys just want to eat them?

According to you, those other guys are just as qualified to make the decision ?, so its 4v1, obviously the fruit must be fine to eat?

I personally would trust the guy who knows what he's talking about, rather than the majority simply because they are the majority.

Are you honestly saying you wouldn't. And yes this is exactly the same as what you described above with referendums. You asking a million people with no real interest in the wider issues who only know what the media has told them, and say a few 100 people who have a deep understanding of the issue its sociological impacts and much more, then expecting the intelligent answer to result?

There's a definite case for expert knowledge when makeing policical decisions, i'd rather leave decisions on matters i dont understand to people who do understand them. not just to whos got the bigger majority. I'd trust the advice of a doctor over the advice of a poll on a forum, if i were ill. Equally with often even more important matters such as foreign policy and say the death penalty, id rather leave that to the sociologists, economists and politicians. Not to a poll of the country, who dont even have the prerequisite of being smart enough to use a computer.



I'd say bad for everyone, other than the most short sighted and foolish of us. As explained above. I''d rather be ruled by a smart minority than a stupid majority.

I said no such thing

No-one loves me

[FlyingJesus]

tru dat

[The Professor]

h8 u loads