![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
keddaw
33p
17 comments posted · 1 followers · following 1
15 years ago @ And another thing... - The absurdity of Yasmi... · 0 replies · +6 points
Unwise, certainly.
Threat, not so much.
We live in a country where people are not put to death therefore we can joke, unwisely, about having people put to death and no reasonable person could ever see that as intimidating or threatening. Which is kinda the basis of law...
15 years ago @ And another thing... - A battle of wits betwe... · 0 replies · 0 points
Ignorance at this level should have the member thrown out and a new election held.
There will be the same amount of sunlight regardless of where the member's watch is!
15 years ago @ And another thing... - Believe me, I'm just a... · 0 replies · +5 points
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56
Tom, your voting record does not put you below the middle line. You are an authoritarian, police state, anti-civil liberties, new labour, anti-terrorism fascist.
Okay, that might be hyperbolic, but your voting record suggests that you are much more comfortable in the authoritarian side, you and the previous 5 or so home secretaries...
15 years ago @ And another thing... - Behold! The perfect ar... · 1 reply · +1 points
Your reasoning is right, but I know how quickly you deviate from logic when it comes to something you're emotionally invested in.
NB. When was our Monarchy-ruled country ever sovereign to the people?
15 years ago @ And another thing... - Behold! The perfect ar... · 0 replies · +1 points
All parties who claim to be hard on crime are not going to be popular amongst this particular constituency. Given that the tories and labour have traded our rights over the past 50 years in exchange for looking tough on crime then it is no surprise neither wants to look 'weak' on crime.
I'd thank you to look at my apolitical view (Tom, you too) before declaring me a nitwit. I may be, but a reason why would not be too much to ask. I am more than aware that tories are against this. And, as I point out in another comment, I don't actually care too much. I can make an argument either way, but what I really want is consistency, logic and fairness. Exactly what we don't have, not helped by Tom Harris' posting of such an emotive video.
15 years ago @ And another thing... - The case for the defence · 2 replies · +3 points
To deny that is not immoral, simply stupid.
Besides, your idea that MAD worked is somewhat in opposition to Tom's reasoning for invading Iraq. Your reasoning suggests we should arm every country with nuclear weapons to make war a no-win scenario for all countries. But that's not what you want, is it?
15 years ago @ And another thing... - It's not easy being blue · 0 replies · +2 points
Whose fault is that? You had over a decade to sort out unelected people in power and failed.
And we need less [Muslim, Christian etc.] MPs who believe in things without evidence, not more. Maybe then we can shut down the homeopathic drain on the NHS (which should increase its effect, no?) And reduce the number of policies that go against the available evidence (drug laws, morality based crimes etc.)
15 years ago @ And another thing... - The eejit · 0 replies · -1 points
We, the people you ostensibly represent, should be having a say in how long we want our elected representatives to serve. Never mind AV, where's the referendum on this?
Otherwise, what's to stop David (either of them), if he gets a majority next time deciding Parliament should be for life, like the Lords. And don't get me started on the Lords...
In what other profession in the world do people get to decide not only how long their contract is but how much they're paid? (IPSA not withstanding.)
15 years ago @ And another thing... - The New Politics, Part 24 · 1 reply · 0 points
How dare any of you think that it is within your remit to decide how long (or short) the term you serve is without our explicit agreement?
Once the parliamentarians get in it is no longer the people that have a say, they no longer feel obligated to their principles (as will have been pointed out by many commentators) so the idea that a coalition restricting the reactionary wing of their respective parties seems like a good thing.
Maybe, just maybe, we can have a document that says what the government can and can't do, what rights of the people are inalienable and exactly how the governors do the governing. Imagine that...
15 years ago @ And another thing... - When is a commitment n... · 2 replies · +3 points
LAB: 16,000
LIB: 15,000
CON: 15,500
GRN: 4,000
BNP: 16,500
Now, do you think the BNP should be elected? If you asked the 50,000 people who didn't vote for the BNP who they would least like to be represented by I dare say 90+% would say the BNP.
Hence my support for a reverse AV, a negative alternate vote: Here's who I DON'T want in most, then them, then them, and finally, if I must have someone, then he's least worst.
Ruckus