Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It makes some sense, but it's mostly the usual rubbish, peddled by those who are unable to comprehend history.
Examples:
Quote:
Are Westminster politicians today more “out of touch” than in the great age of parliament, when hundreds of MPs were local notables who were returned unopposed
Ermm yes they are, 120 years ago only a small minority had the vote, so the politians back then only had to be "in touch" with a very small circle. There was no health service, no health & safety, no free housing, no welfare ( from the state ) etc etc.
There is nowadays no excuse for politians, how hard is it to type "news" in google.
Quote:
The largest ever turnout in a British general election (86.8 per cent) was in January 1910, the height of the struggle of “the peers against the people”.
Yes, but see above, still the majority of people ( compared to 2015 ) did not have the vote. So it was really peers vs some of the people.
Now people have all of there comforts, so don't care, why should they vote? There is no way in hell, you will ever see the like of a "peoples budget" ever again.
People will vote if the cause is one they belive in, ( see Scotish yes or no ) so modern politians do their best never ever to give people a cause.
Quote:
Radical populist movements have become an increasing presence, notably in France, the US, Holland and Germany. In several countries experiencing a strong sense of crisis or grievance, there has been massive political mobilisation of this kind; the outstanding cases are Spain, Greece and Scotland.
Lol, most stupid part of the article, there are no "populist movements" excluding a very tame effort in Greece, if you want populist movements try Germany in 1928, or Spain in the 1930s, or go back to 1790 in France.
You won't ever see any "movements" in western Europe, the people are just too thick, lazy, rich, fat etc to give a damm.
WHy doesn't the UK federalize? Have England, Wales, and scotland, and northern ireland as 4 states. Make a London like Washington, dc. Get rid of the house of lords and elect senators.
Also, write down a written constitution. Always get it in writing!
WHy doesn't the UK federalize? Have England, Wales, and scotland, and northern ireland as 4 states. Make a London like Washington, dc. Get rid of the house of lords and elect senators.
Also, write down a written constitution. Always get it in writing!
Because a federal country where one 'state' has 85% of the population will not work.
Before the UK goes down that road, there needs to be a conversation in England about what they want independent of the other constituent countries.
As to the other stuff, that will depend on the outcome of the above. Personally, I'm not in favour of written constitution because they are too hard to change and too rigid.
I don't think the English have ever been really asked what they want. Scots called Scots, Welsh Welsh, Irish Irish, Whilst English called British, few have tried, like This England Mag, a few flag flyers, is St. Georges Day celebrated as a national day like St Andrews, or St David, Why? because it would be probably be thought to be non PC. I rest my case.
Most people in England just want to be left alone to live their lives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
