Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Is it time for Parliamentary Reform?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Is it time for Parliamentary Reform?

Old 8th Oct 2019, 22:54
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Perth, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Age: 69
Posts: 817
I am not in favour of reintroduction of the death penalty.
However the argument that you can never be 100% sure of guilt is flawed.

e.g. Anders Breivik, Martin Bryant, Dylann Roof

Please explain where there is any room for doubt in those cases.
WingNut60 is online now  
Old 8th Oct 2019, 23:57
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Small cog View Post
I think we need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
I name you Vroomfondel and claim my prize.

Or was it Majikthies?
TURIN is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2019, 23:59
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by WingNut60 View Post
I am not in favour of reintroduction of the death penalty.
However the argument that you can never be 100% sure of guilt is flawed.

e.g. Anders Breivik, Martin Bryant, Dylann Roof

Please explain where there is any room for doubt in those cases.

Death's too good for some. Let them rot.
TURIN is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 00:43
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Perth, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Age: 69
Posts: 817
Originally Posted by TURIN View Post
Death's too good for some. Let them rot.
I don't disagree.

I was pointing out the fallacy of the "you can never be 100% sure" argument.
It gets used a lot and should not. Doing so undermines the overall stance.
That there have been some shameful blunders in administration of the death penalty does not mean that each and every one of them is subject to reasonable doubt or to doubt at all.
WingNut60 is online now  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 08:39
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 55
Posts: 864
Originally Posted by WingNut60 View Post
I am not in favour of reintroduction of the death penalty.
However the argument that you can never be 100% sure of guilt is flawed.

e.g. Anders Breivik, Martin Bryant, Dylann Roof

Please explain where there is any room for doubt in those cases.
It depends whether you think the mentally ill should be executed. Not saying that any of those mentioned fall into that category, but diagnosis of mental illness is again a human judgement, and so cannot be guaranteed to be 100% correct.

To develop my earlier question- if you had a psychotic episode and ran amok with a machete killing people would you be prepared to be executed because a court refused to accept the diagnosis, or those assessing you didnít think you had had one.
Curious Pax is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 08:51
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,271
Originally Posted by back to Boeing View Post


Probably a large number of people that support the re-introduction of the death penalty are also people that are incensed at a recent decision of the U.K. Supreme Court.
If, by that you are inferring that the death penalty should be applied to the judges who had the audacity to rule on the law then that would be out of order.

If however you are suggesting that those who are incensed at the verdict of the supreme court may also be in favour of bringing the death penalty back, then fair enough; however I don't think I'd necessarily jump to that conclusion myself.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 08:51
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 152
Originally Posted by Grayfly View Post
Likely to be replaced by yet another 'gravy train' stalemate mob unless you make some reforms.
That will only happen if the same people are re-elected.

I suspect that there are many, many of the existing 'gravy train' stalemate mob who will find themselves down at the Jobcentre after the next election. And the scale of the removals will be a warning to the new incumbents not to behave the same way as the electorate are 'not impressed'.

One 'reform' that the next Parliament itself can do is remove the Fixed Term Gravy Train Act. That would keep the new MPs more on their toes. After all, those arriving at the Jobcentre will be discovering that they won't be able to block their benefits ending before a fixed term of five years has passed in the same way that they have managed to do so twice in the recent month or so.
NoelEvans is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 09:01
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunnydale
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by ATNotts View Post
If, by that you are inferring that the death penalty should be applied to the judges who had the audacity to rule on the law then that would be out of order.

If however you are suggesting that those who are incensed at the verdict of the supreme court may also be in favour of bringing the death penalty back, then fair enough; however I don't think I'd necessarily jump to that conclusion myself.
it was definitely the latter.

inferring that many of those that believe in the right wing of politics would favour the re-introduction of the death penalty and that many on the right wing of
politics (the daily mail faithful etc) are adamant that the supreme courts were wrong. So judges are fallible unless they agree with the outcome
back to Boeing is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 09:18
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunnydale
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by WingNut60 View Post
I don't disagree.

I was pointing out the fallacy of the "you can never be 100% sure" argument.
It gets used a lot and should not. Doing so undermines the overall stance.
That there have been some shameful blunders in administration of the death penalty does not mean that each and every one of them is subject to reasonable doubt or to doubt at all.
i donít agree thatís the argument. Of course there are people that you are 100% sure of their.

however in the case of the ultimate sanction in our western society with its morals you have to be 100% certain 100% of the time.

there have been plenty of cases to prove that you just canít.
back to Boeing is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 09:27
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Perth, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Age: 69
Posts: 817
Originally Posted by Curious Pax View Post
It depends whether you think the mentally ill should be executed. Not saying that any of those mentioned fall into that category, but diagnosis of mental illness is again a human judgement, and so cannot be guaranteed to be 100% correct.

To develop my earlier question- if you had a psychotic episode and ran amok with a machete killing people would you be prepared to be executed because a court refused to accept the diagnosis, or those assessing you didnít think you had had one.
That was not my point.
I was talking quite explicitly about the use of the "you can't be 100% sure of guilt" argument.
You seem to have just done what everyone does when called on that point, you have thrown in the "mental state" argument and that is circular.

What you are suggesting is that because someone has committed murder (guilty) they MUST therefore be victims of mental illness and therefore not guilty.
That's one way to achieve the result that you want.

WingNut60 is online now  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 09:32
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 152
"Parliamentary Reform" discussion appears to have diverted to 'the death penalty'. Surely no-one is suggesting that as a method of Parliamentary Reform?!!
NoelEvans is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 09:33
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Perth, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Age: 69
Posts: 817
Originally Posted by back to Boeing View Post

...however in the case of the ultimate sanction in our western society with its morals you have to be 100% certain 100% of the time.
Not in most of Europe, no.
But in 29 of 50 US states that is not so. In fact, in no US states if you consider offenses under federal law.
WingNut60 is online now  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 09:36
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Perth, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Age: 69
Posts: 817
Originally Posted by NoelEvans View Post
"Parliamentary Reform" discussion appears to have diverted to 'the death penalty'. Surely no-one is suggesting that as a method of Parliamentary Reform?!!
Correct. Let's get back on track.

I always liked this one.
WingNut60 is online now  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 09:41
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 172
Originally Posted by NoelEvans View Post

I suspect that there are many, many of the existing 'gravy train' stalemate mob who will find themselves down at the Jobcentre after the next election. And the scale of the removals will be a warning to the new incumbents not to behave the same way as the electorate are 'not impressed'.

One 'reform' that the next Parliament itself can do is remove the Fixed Term Gravy Train Act. That would keep the new MPs more on their toes. After all, those arriving at the Jobcentre will be discovering that they won't be able to block their benefits ending before a fixed term of five years has passed in the same way that they have managed to do so twice in the recent month or so.
I wish I was as optimistic as your good self as it seems to me that in some constituencies the so called major parties could
enter a monkey and the party sheep would still vote for it.

.
Nervous SLF is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 09:57
  #75 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: England
Posts: 33
Just a thought and I know it's off the wall.

How about abolish traditional parties and instead a citizens assembly in each constituency produces an MP to represent their interests. Once at Parliament the MPs decide on who holds what office based and votes for a particular individual. They can be replaced at any time if not performing. Then fix the length of the term of the Parliament.

Gets rid of ideology driven stuff and is possibly more in tune with what the country sees as the important stuff.
Grayfly is online now  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 10:04
  #76 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 57
Posts: 9,077
We have it here, Grayfly. PPRuNe.

People's Parliament for Rules and National Executive.
treadigraph is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 10:11
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 152
Special interest groups would very quickly take control of those 'citizens assemblies'. What should we call those 'special interest groups'? Maybe 'parties'?

Back to square one.

I think that treadigraph has solved all of this!
NoelEvans is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 10:34
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,271
That is very true.

A couple of years ago I went along to a meeting of residents around this area to discuss some kind of local forum to get involved in decision making on a planned development of housing on a current, soon to be closed, Army base. It didn't take long for a clique of former councilors to successfully take control of the meeting, and listening to the collective "wisdom" of those windbags convinced me to take no further part in the whole affair.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 10:43
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,321
As for MPs listening to the will of the people one of the largest majorities if not the largest in any direction was Walton on Thames 75% remain. MP Dominic Raab who in any case is a Czech , completely ignoring them as a champion of Brexit-and a bit of an idiot not knowing where Calais is.

In the constituency I live in -MP Michael- white powder -Gove is the MP. brexit vote 50 50 , tiny leave majority and he is rabildly pro Brexit. or perhaps just Rabid if you watch the video of him standing next to the speaker last week swaying around unsteadily

So what is democracy-it certainly isnt a vote without responsibility. And in the Uk it is Parliamentary Democracy meaning Westminster not Whitehall is Supreme
pax britanica is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2019, 10:59
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 3,206
Reforming the House of Lords would be a good start.

I posted something similar to this on PPRuNe years ago, I even sent it to the government in power at the time during their 'big conversation'. Some time later Billy Bragg published an article in the Guardian quoting almost word for word 'my' idea. Ho hum.

Anyway, for what its worth, here it is.

The Second House would be made up of members appointed by the relevant parties based on the proportion of votes cast in the General Election of the House of Commons.
EG. For the 2017 election
Con 42.4%
Lab 40%
Lib 7.4%
SNP 3%
UKIP 1.8%
Grn 1.6%
Others 3.8%

The current HofL is made up of nearly 800 members which is ridiculous. A cap of 600 or less would be more appropriate.

So, based on the percentages above we would have...

Con 255
Lab 240
Lib 44
SNP 18
UKIP 11
Grn 9
Others 23

It's a start towards PR. Bring it on because the current system is broken.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ov/05/lords.uk

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...eb/09/lords.uk
TURIN is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.