Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
UK Political System
#41
(05-10-18, 03:09 PM)Dodgy Geezer Wrote: "... the archaic feudal land ownership, corrupt British political elites deciding to give a lot of EU money to large landowners (rather than small farmers) and inability of the British people to hold their politicians to account..."??????

Someone should explain to Adja that the role of a moderator is to act as an independent arbiter of disagreements - it is not an opportunity to try to denigrate one side of the argument.  But I suspect that it would fall on deaf ears...

Ajda is entitled to post opinions on here. We all are. We don't get paid for our time, and we are certainly not babysitters. 
We are all here because we are passionate about items we wish to debate. 

If you disagree with the above-quoted statement, rather than telling someone who dedicates more time and efforts in this forum than anyone else that it is not their place to speak here,  post something meaningful and evidence it yourself. 

We are here to debate properly, not just take snotty shots at posts/members that we feel indignant about. If you are unable to contest a claim with evidence of your own then this quickly devolves into self-righteous bickering. It won't stand on here. So please, if you disagree, post something enlightening to the contrary, don't just spit on the ground like that.
Reply
#42
(07-10-18, 07:57 PM)Pando Wrote: Ajda is entitled to post opinions on here. We all are. We don't get paid for our time, and we are certainly not babysitters. 
We are all here because we are passionate about items we wish to debate. 

If you disagree with the above-quoted statement, rather than telling someone who dedicates more time and efforts in this forum than anyone else that it is not their place to speak here,  post something meaningful and evidence it yourself. 

We are here to debate properly, not just take snotty shots at posts/members that we feel indignant about. If you are unable to contest a claim with evidence of your own then this quickly devolves into self-righteous bickering. It won't stand on here. So please, if you disagree, post something enlightening to the contrary, don't just spit on the ground like that.

You have completely misunderstood my comment - I suspect, intentionally. 

Where have I said that Ajda should not be entitled to post opinions on here?  Nowhere.  Though, for what it's worth, all other blogs require the moderators not to post opinions, since this is likely to encourage a feeling of bias.

What I complained about was the use of  "snotty shots at posts/members that we feel indignant about".  Adja provided no evidence for the claim that Britain has "archaic feudal land ownership, corrupt British political elites ..." . It was just a spit on the ground.  While I provided evidence that the EU considers the British system to be the LEAST corrupt in Europe.

I am here to debate, which is why I post meaningful statements and evidence them. But modern political discourse has sunk so low that people make groundless accusations - often blaming the victim for something that they are doing themselves - and then act as if an accusation is enough to prove truth. We see this with the many 'No Platforming' instances in current politics - we had a masterly example of it with the recent Kavanaugh election. It is a shame to see the same failing here.
Reply
#43
Dodgy Geezer.

I believe you have misunderstood the situation here. Ajda is the main reason this forum is host to a small but growing community. As it's Ajda's work that brought people here in the first place, having worked very hard on compiling research into thought-provoking (or in your case maybe often just provoking) posts. 

Anyone is entitled to a soapbox on here to air opinions as they see fit. That goes for moderators as well as members (and admins too I hope). We can all invest a bit of time and put together a thought-provoking thread. If you yourself spent a few hours doing this yourself, I'm sure you'd feel disappointed if the response you got was a someone who paraphrased you (sometimes out leaving out the context) and denounced you for having the audacity to have made the effort in the first place. 
Can you see how this would discourage debate and promote an atmosphere of one-upmanship? 

In regards to Adja " provided no evidence for the claim that .." You can't rightly expect someone to backup everything mentioned within an initial statement.  Nothing would ever get posted if we first had to research and back-up every single point we make. However, if someone disagrees with a point then we ask that they refute it with something. This is practical and prevents threads from becoming "no its isn't", "yes it is" (oversimplified but you get it).

I really do welcome perspectives from all corners here and was interested to see that you support adversarial politics, with all of its gimmicks and slogans designed to appeal to the masses - I had never considered that there might be any appreciation for this outside of closed political circles. You seemed to make the claim that this situation was more conducive of truth which sounded potentially logical, but as did not provide any evidence I had to go looking myself to learn about it (and I found that support for adversarial politics is pretty thin on the ground). 
The debate stopped with that statement however. Not of fact or backed up claim, but essentially of your opinion. 

While many of our posters are demonstrating points with useful information - with an attitude of What can I show people 
You busy gunning down comments on behalf of king and country. 
So a warning to you - post to educate, not simply to show disdain towards what you perceive as unwelcome criticism. No more gunning, please. If you want to enlighten people stick around, if this is just a place to vent however - I'm afraid you will have to find somewhere else to do it.
Reply
#44
[Image: attachment.php?aid=20]


Moderation: Discussion about CAP moved to new location

At  Albion and others who discussed the CAP here: I moved the CAP comments to a new location (no comments were deleted) because this thread is about the UK political system and CAP is largely a separate issue. I moved the CAP posts to a new location to separate two discussions (both interesting) - about the UK political system and about CAP - which were running in parallel here.

The new location of the CAP comments:

EU budget (including MFF 2021-2027), the CAP and other funding issues
http://debateuncensored.x10host.com/foru...php?tid=73

Please continue the CAP debate at the above link.
Reply
#45
What does "mps are On the government pay roll" mean please?

Every MP , including the PM and the speaker and AG receive annual salary and the entire elected and unelected house members do receive salary? Who doesn't  ?
Reply
#46
(15-12-18, 04:26 PM)Ravi Iyer Wrote: What does "mps are On the government pay roll" mean please?

Every MP , including the PM and the speaker and AG receive annual salary and the entire elected and unelected house members do receive salary? Who doesn't  ?

You are correct that every MP receives a salary but many receive supplementary salaries for being Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, Parliamentry private secretaries, select committee chairmen, etc. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_o...nal_Salary

This explains why many would not vote against government for fear of losing their supplementary salary
Reply
#47
I was going to ask but Ravi beat me to it. Thank you for clarification.
Reply
#48
(17-12-18, 12:47 PM)Blackbeard's Ghost Wrote: Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, Parliamentry private secretaries, select committee chairmen, etc. 

Are only MP's elegible for those jobs?
Reply
#49
(17-12-18, 05:03 PM)SwaziKing Wrote: Are only MP's elegible for those jobs?

In the UK, only members of parliament can be cabinet ministers, but that includes the Lords, as well as the members of the House of Commons. Since the Crown may appoint Lords, it is entirely possible to just make someone a Lord, thus making him a member of the House of Lords, in order to make him eligible for a cabinet post.
Reply
#50
(19-12-18, 09:55 PM)Forsete Wrote: In the UK, only members of parliament can be cabinet ministers, but that includes the Lords, as well as the members of the House of Commons. Since the Crown may appoint Lords, it is entirely possible to just make someone a Lord, thus making him a member of the House of Lords, in order to make him eligible for a cabinet post.

In Ireland, some ministers may be drawn from the senate which is an indirectly elected house with a handful of appointed seats. In theory, a minister could be appointed off the street to the senate and then to the cabinet. This was used once, in 1981/2, during an unstable period in Irish politics to appoint Jim Dooge to the senate and then to Foreign Affairs. Dooge had at that stage largely withdrawn from active politics but had previously been elected to the senate and served as the chair. It was felt that with the tight lower house, it would be safer to have a senator doing the frequent flyer duty. He was an extremely able and thoughtful individual.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)