Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Descan]

On the other hand, if we do manage immortality (or at least 200+ year old people who are fit to govern) one wants to balance the benefit of 150+ years of political experience and the desire to not have a never-dying political cadre rotating in and out of office, with no room for people with a different voice or different experience to have a shot (ha, like that's how it works now )

So, like, no maximum age, but have something akin to the 2-term limit of presidency for other offices. Either exactly that, a limit on how many terms per person, or a more lenient "no more than 2-5 terms in a 10-25-50-100 year period [subject to change as human lifespan changes]"

[Sheb]

So it seems the LibDem are getting their own SNP-like post-defeat membership surge, with 10000 new members since the Election, up to 55000 members. Granted, a lot of these seems to be members that left during the coalition, and they're not up to their pre-coalition total of 65000, but it's still funny how defeat seems the best way to swell a party's numbers.

[Zangi]

So it seems the LibDem are getting their own SNP-like post-defeat membership surge, with 10000 new members since the Election, up to 55000 members. Granted, a lot of these seems to be members that left during the coalition, and they're not up to their pre-coalition total of 65000, but it's still funny how defeat seems the best way to swell a party's numbers.

Rally! The reinforcements are here!
... 
Where were you guys?

[notquitethere]

minimum age to run for presidency

I never understood why this isn't something like 5 everywhere around the world.
Sure, the bar being set so high might seem dismissive of the part of the population under 5, but it is dictated by the pragmatic requirements of the office. The candidates must be old enough to develop object permanence, so that they remember who gave them their bribesdonations.

If a five year old gets enough votes to usher them in then they're clearly the right person for the job.

[scrdest]

minimum age to run for presidency

I never understood why this isn't something like 5 everywhere around the world.
Sure, the bar being set so high might seem dismissive of the part of the population under 5, but it is dictated by the pragmatic requirements of the office. The candidates must be old enough to develop object permanence, so that they remember who gave them their bribesdonations.

If a five year old gets enough votes to usher them in then they're clearly the right person for the job.

Never underestimate the combined, volatile power of cute and dumb.

[palsch]

So it seems the LibDem are getting their own SNP-like post-defeat membership surge, with 10000 new members since the Election, up to 55000 members. Granted, a lot of these seems to be members that left during the coalition, and they're not up to their pre-coalition total of 65000, but it's still funny how defeat seems the best way to swell a party's numbers.

I've considered joining up this time. The new cabinet, Conservative manifesto and statements since the election like this new one are making me think we need more and louder liberal voices, and Labour are simply shit on most such issues. Given the party is going to be rebuilding itself in the coming years now is probably the most effective time to sign up. I'll probably wait and see who declares for the leadership election then pay dues if there is someone worth voting for.

Also, that Independent article... fuck.

Britain is too “passively tolerant” and should not leave people to live their lives as they please as long as they obey the law, David Cameron has said.

At the National Security Council today Mr Cameron unveiled a series of measures that he said would crack down on people holding minority “extremist” views that differed from Britain’s consensus.

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',” he said. “It's often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that's helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.”

In more amusing news, there is some serious infighting between UKIP leadership (or at least someone close to Farage) and their one sitting MP. The party is due substantial money for their MP and votes, but there are arguments over who controls the money and whether they should even claim it. Some vague rumours that Carswell could even leave the party over it, although that has been denied by both sides to my knowledge.

Also some rumours of fraud in Farage's election turned out to be someone reading rumours and sour grapes on Twitter and sending them to the police.

Also Prince Charles' letters to the previous government have now been published. Nothing shocking other than his being pro-farms, pro-army, pretty anti-science and liking old buildings, which was all already well known.

[Sergarr]

...I thought that this "aggressive tolerance" thing was a myth of Russian propaganda and didn't actually spread out outside of Tumblr...

[Grim Portent]

Eh, the problem with Labour and the Conservatives on tolerance/multiculturalism is that they think it means accepting that people of any skintone can be British, which in their minds means drinking tea, upholding 'traditional values' and supporting the national sporting teams when it should mean not giving a shit if the people next door consider themselves British, Chinese, Nigerian or Klingon and live according to their own culture.

Add in that they perceive 'Britishness' as something to protect and uphold and stuff like this is inevitable.

[Nick K]

So it seems the LibDem are getting their own SNP-like post-defeat membership surge, with 10000 new members since the Election, up to 55000 members. Granted, a lot of these seems to be members that left during the coalition, and they're not up to their pre-coalition total of 65000, but it's still funny how defeat seems the best way to swell a party's numbers.

I've considered joining up this time. The new cabinet, Conservative manifesto and statements since the election like this new one are making me think we need more and louder liberal voices, and Labour are simply shit on most such issues. Given the party is going to be rebuilding itself in the coming years now is probably the most effective time to sign up. I'll probably wait and see who declares for the leadership election then pay dues if there is someone worth voting for.

Likewise. It seems that the Tory win is going to let people see exactly what the Libdems were holding them back from in the coalition, and that doesn't look like a good thing.
Pretty much every day since the election I'm seeing stuff about them increasing censorship, surveillance and general government meddling into people's personal lives. It'll start with crackdowns for "national security" and "to protect the children", but who knows where things will end up?

I thought about getting involved with Labour, but a bit of pre-election internet research has convinced me that their record on civil liberties isn't much better than the Conservatives. It's a shame really, because I'm in an ultra-safe safe Labour seat, so my vote is essentially meaningless - although I did vote in the election. Getting involved with the local Labour party and having a say in who their candidate is would be a way I could actually have an influence, but unless things really change under their next leadership I'm just not convinced I can trust them to do better than the Tories.

[mainiac]

If a five year old gets enough votes to usher them in then they're clearly the right person for the job.

Or they are a pawn of someone else like countless underage rulers in history.

[ChairmanPoo]

If a five year old gets enough votes to usher them in then they're clearly the right person for the job.

Or they are a pawn of someone else like countless underage rulers in history.

Hey, what could possibly go wrong with having a kid as head of state?

[mainiac]

Hey, what could possibly go wrong with having a kid as head of state?

He takes the throne when too young for you to realize he's mentally deficient and emotionally unstable.  He is manipulated by a changing set of regents.  Eventually he grows resentful at everyone pushing him around and talking about how great his father is that he stabs to death the head of the army to death in front of the court in a fit of jealousy.  The head of the army had earned this jealousy for personally raising an army and saving the empire from the huns.  After the murder the soldiers defending the empire suddenly become it's enemies.  As Rome is looted and pillaged the halfwit is confused because he had named a chicken Rome and thought people were talking about the chicken.

When the idiot is finally killed off there are still loyalists around who remembered his father.  They revolt against the usurper, splitting the realm.  This causes the otherwise unassailable heartland of the empire to fall to barbarians after a failed loyalist conspiracy.  The territory that was the last thing giving the empire a strategic advantage against it's enemies in the form of cold hard cash is lost.  The allies who might help the empire recover it are ruled by... the older brother of the idiot child ruler.  As a result the empire can't recover it's crown jewel territory and is unable to fund a new army to defend things.  Thus the western half of the roman empire falls, barbarianism replaces Pax Romana in Europe and soon after religious war in the medieval sense first breaks out in the middle east.

All because they thought it would be a good idea to put a kid on the throne because he had the right father.

[palsch]

I thought about getting involved with Labour, but a bit of pre-election internet research has convinced me that their record on civil liberties isn't much better than the Conservatives. It's a shame really, because I'm in an ultra-safe safe Labour seat, so my vote is essentially meaningless - although I did vote in the election. Getting involved with the local Labour party and having a say in who their candidate is would be a way I could actually have an influence, but unless things really change under their next leadership I'm just not convinced I can trust them to do better than the Tories.

The last Labour government was pretty ugly when it came to civil liberties, yeah.

They are now talking about having their new leader elected in September (membership rolls close in August), while the Lib Dems are holding their in July with the nominee's in by early June. I wonder how many people are going to try to vote in both?

[Sheb]

So the Commission has unveiled its plan for dealing with refugees. . It would take in 20,000 refugees a year from refugees camp, triple the funds available to Frontex, send military to try to disrupt the smuggler network and, more importantly, dispatch refugees across the EU, rather than letting countries of entry (aka Italy, Spain and Greece) deal with most of them. The UK, as well as a few other countries are up in arm about it though.

[Sergarr]

So I guess that means more votes for UKIP in the future?