Sadly I think you may be right Klaas. But you have 10 times as many beers, eh?

Hmm... don't know that. We have around 2.000 different beers here, but you guys in England have been catching up the last couple of years.

I know... let's just say our quality is 10 times better.

Nothing to do with anything Klaas, but I spent some time in Holland working as a welder. At the weekends some of us paid a visit to your welcoming country & among other things we sampled the beers Much brawness

Well if you're over next I believe some kind of cross-monetary-union amicabilities are in order.

I'll buy you a beer, or do you have some other idea, remember I've already sampled/ no let's not go there.....

The beer will be on me (exchange eates will kill you - keeping this OT). 'Sample' is not the right word for what I'm known for, as Joe & Joe will confirm.

Ok Klaas beers aside,I will bring this thread kicking & screaming back to why things have come to this discussion one way or another.
Cameron saw how things were panning out in Europe & nobody was really listening to him , the electorate were not happy because nobody were listening to them. Cameron obviously envisaged a no win situation so threw the ball firmly in the hands of the nation, all covered up as a big call down to MR/MRS on the street. Simplistic yes. Where is Cameron now? He's lending his name to who ever pays him......

The problem with that is it was either yes or no. So you have a very strong split now, which isn't good for how the UK used to work. Especially when it goes all independent, you need to be pulling at the same end of the rope.

That's the problem with any electoral system, but is worst with the party system: I can't vote for someone to represent my views, only those which his party happens to espouse.

To quote that acute observer W.S. Gilbert, a mere hundred years ago or so:

Indeed, but I don't think that the voting public envisioned what's going on now after Cameron buggered off into the wide blue yonder.

Just one thing on this, whilst your point is absolutely correct about recognising the next generation as they are your future customers* I couldn't help thinking it was ironic that the Tories get accused of being selfish but Labour are all heart so by offering free university education they are generous, leading to a lot of people voting based on the promise as it was very favourable to them personally - that fits my definition of being selfish! Hey-ho.

*As this is a motoring forum I'll relate a car story - I remember very well that as a teenager living in Cheshire the local Ferrari dealer was Strattons, the owner, Ron Stratton, was very happy for school kids to go in the showroom and look at the cars and sit in them on the basis that if they could later afford a Ferrari they would be more likely to go back to him. If he was still in business and I could afford a Ferrari I would get it from him!

Yes that's why 'changing times' are so hard. If your previous aim was caring for the elderly because they live longer so have to live on post-wirk income longer and afford all the illnesses and pains that belong to being older, and then suddenly shift to supporting the younger because they can't zfford college and a house or a family, you will have a generation that has been left out in both systems.

Fact of the matter is: you have to try and find a system that drives economy and innovation and not just have systems that redistribute wealth or cover those that are left out at a certain time, because you'll always be too late to introduce it and you can't anticipate change. But hey that's the problem with any government that tries to make things fair. Yes you get rid of medieval shit and pre-industrial stuff like child labour or extreme poverty, but it's not like you can be fair to anyone.

But hey...
- I don't like people that do shit but get money
- I don't like cowboy builders
- I don't like serial entrepreneurs that let their companies go bankrupt after taking the money out
- I don't like super conservative people who are opposed to changing times

... but I'm sure many don't mind abusing the system and get more than they deserve.

I'd very much like a system that equally rewards 'hours of work' and on top of that rewards innovation / efforts that have a great impact on the long term economy.

Now all that's left is find such a system.

Tories haven't been in smith sq for at least ten years. Just for info ;-)

Jeez, you're right. Now I remember there were these great photographs taken after they left
Will that woman never leave us alone

One thing I'm still trying to work out is that when Banksie says 'vote labour and I'll give you a free picture' to his fans, that's interference with the political process, bribery and corruption... but when Corbyn says 'vote labour and I'll give you thirty grand' that's politics in action.

And as an aside: for a lot of this campaign, politicians of all flavours have been banging on about 'fully costed' budget promises and yet not one has actually published anything that might allow an electorate to work out whether their promises mean anything.

All the time one hears 'this will cost two hundred million, that will cost a billion, this will cost ten billion...' with no indication of whether 'this' is a large or a small number in the context of the overall budget.

The information is vaguely discoverable, but never in the current year, and definitely never at the same time as promises are being made: a very cynical attempt to deceive.

You are spot on Neil.

What I would like to see are figures printed on paper showing each party's promises with all the calculations there for all to see.

Then at least the voters could have some kind of idea to help them make a decision.

I guess they would just baffle it though and would we trust them?

It's at the point of very serious decision making being carried out by an uniformed majority of voters.

Well it's to late really!

I think the current democratic process is a bit broken in this day and age. Ours was designed how long ago? Certainly in a time when a horse was the fastest mode of transport and the only significant change was giving women the vote. In this era, there ought to be a much better and sophisticated way of determining policy.

I agree MRS. For one thing, I think finding a secure way to enable voting online is an inevitable goal if current and future generations are to be encouraged to take part in the democratic process.

Online voting will probably be here in the future, but you can't get much easier than postal voting at the moment, so no excuses really.

Postal votes can be obviously posted or dropped off at the polling station on polling day.

People do like the 'experience' of going into a polling station though and as a Poll Clerk at a polling station, I like the extra money too, so hope online voting doesn't happen too soon

I understand your point, T, but I know how difficult it is to get teenagers to do anything at all that isn't online. The idea of using the post would send them into a total tailspin.

Here's an idea. Raise the voting age limit.
So that we don't get a repeat of Corbyn's education fee skullduggery!

Call me reactionary or whatever, but I think there's more scope for vote-rigging or even crashes by introducing online voting.

It's not being reactionary, it is currently how the technology is. But electronic voting will come at some point.
Joe - I don't know about raising the voting age, but I certainly wouldn't be lowering it to 16.

I wonder about limiting political terms to ten years. Get rid of career politicians.

Indeed. If you were keeping up with the full details of the Snowden leaks you'd see that the NSA and GCHQ have already developed systems specifically for manipulating the results of online polls.

The latest poll predicts Labour would easily win a second election. Theresa May is bonkers to seek an alliance with the DUP, if a recent Liverpool riot caused by an Orangemen's parade (quickly organised to celebrate their new-found power) is anything to go by. It goes against the Good Friday Agreement to favour one side. Peace in NI is in jeopardy just to save May's skin! The DUP is also implicated in the Sainsbury's car park murder. If the Queen's speech is rejected, Corbyn gets a chance to form a government. If his speech is also rejected, a new General Election is automatically triggered. So it's win-win for Corbyn. Hooray!

Annie - the only way Corbyn can form a government is with the support of the DUP, May only needs them to not vote against her. In terms of support from the DUP it also has to be remembered that Labour wanted to set up a deal with them in 2010 to keep Brown in power so they all are the same as each other when their backs are against the wall. If there is another election Corbyn would not be fighting May which could change things.

The first criteria has to be that anyone who wants to be a politician should be barred from being involved! As that may be impractical maybe they should have fixed limits but any income they receive for life afterwards being directly related to the ongoing success of the policies they implement to avoid short term thinking.

Well maybe, but no point in inviting Sinn Fein along too since they won't take up their 7 seats in Parliament?

Labour are deluded to thing they can take over without a new election!
The Tory's got substantially more votes than any other party as well as more seats so they are the nations favoured choice at the time of voting

The torys have left a mess but corbyn taking over is the last think this country needs "win win" for labour is "lose lose" for the uk

We just need stability and continuity and then get brexit sorted, hopefully a bit more pragmatic now we have a government without a majority

But as soon as the brexit deal or no deal is done we need a new election to set this countries future on course to a successful future with the younger generation at the heart of it

My feelings are corbyn only announced the tuition fees in a desperate attempt to win and I still believe he needs to be replaced to win over more labour supporters as I know quite a few that could not vote labour because of him