Covid travel restrictions and Police fines etc.

mikem

Well-known member
For prize chumps indeed - competent individuals (& even incompetent investment bankers) can get paid far more elsewhere, without needing security guards to protect them from the public.
 

mikem

Well-known member
That's allowed if they are family or in a bubble, so doubtful. Police quoted as saying the fine was because the trip was "unnecessary".
 

Fishes

New member
mikem said:
who'd want to go into politics nowadays?

Most likely those who are least suitable.

We have got a big enough bunch of idiots in the UK but when you compare them to the likes of Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene maybe they aren't so bad
 

mikem

Well-known member
Unfortunately most people assumed it wouldn't make much difference, so allowed them to "take power" - they've now realised they don't actually have any!
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
mikem said:
That's allowed if they are family or in a bubble, so doubtful.

What's doubtful - that they are from the same family/bubble, or they aren't?

The police up here have been driving around and 'sending people away' from sites like Ribblehead, Storrs Common and even Kingsdale if they aren't 'local' (they are using 10 miles as a guideline); I think I have heard that often these cars are breaching the rules in some actually illegal way (like having more than one household/two people in).
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
Couldn't edit my previous post for some reason following edit to quote:

>> Police quoted as saying the fine was because the trip was "unnecessary".

I guess either the police decided the trip wasn't for exercise or the offenders never tried to claim it was.
 

al

Member
mikem said:
Unfortunately most people assumed it wouldn't make much difference, so allowed them to "take power" - they've now realised they don't actually have any!

Most people - didn't vote for them.
 

mikem

Well-known member
Only 2/3 of population actually voted, so they also didn't vote against them. The opposition were practically unelectable. If you don't do anything about it then you do end up with the representation you deserve (as a community, rather than an individual).
 

JoshW

Well-known member
mikem said:
Only 2/3 of population actually voted, so they also didn't vote against them. The opposition were practically unelectable. If you don't do anything about it then you do end up with the representation you deserve (as a community, rather than an individual).

The system is rigged to not allow fair representation.

2% of those who voted, get 0% representation in parliament (brexit party), yet 43% of those who vote can get a 56% majority, based on our existing first past the post system.

I've never voted blue, and never will, but it makes absolutely no difference in my constituency, and I can understand people's apathetic views towards voting.
 

MarkS

Moderator
JoshW said:
I can understand people's apathetic views towards voting.

It's a shame (and pretty ironic) that less than half the electorate could be bothered to vote in 2011 for which system they wanted to use.
 

JoshW

Well-known member
PeteHall said:
And those who did vote roundly rejected PR...

The 2011 referendum had nothing to do with PR. it was alternative vote vs FPTP

Edit: and that kind of stumbles upon a possible reason for low voter turnout - lack of understanding over what was voted for. I don't think alternative voting actually offers any better representation than FPTP and has some of the same stumbling blocks.
 

badger

Active member
first past the post you end up with UKIP (not my choice by any means) end up with more votes in what ever election cant remember, more votes but only 2 seats as opposed the SNP who had less votes but 30 seats number of seats may not be quite correct, but you get the picture.
Time for this country to evolve to Proportional representation, I know it also has its downfalls but better than first past the post,
but all of this is getting away from the original post, which would be easy to sort by government putting a distance to what they think is reasonable distance to travel for exercise.  But whatever guidence/legal is in place, there is always people who will push the limits
 

PeteHall

Moderator
JoshW said:
PeteHall said:
And those who did vote roundly rejected PR...
The 2011 referendum had nothing to do with PR. it was alternative vote vs FPTP
Sorry my mistake, AV, not PR, it was a long time ago and much beer has been consumed since... But either way, the electorate seemed to favour the status quo.
 

JoshW

Well-known member
PeteHall said:
JoshW said:
PeteHall said:
And those who did vote roundly rejected PR...
The 2011 referendum had nothing to do with PR. it was alternative vote vs FPTP
Sorry my mistake, AV, not PR, it was a long time ago and much beer has been consumed since... But either way, the electorate seemed to favour the status quo.

Or they had no interest in endorsing a shoddily worded referendum (shock horror another one!).

The wording of that referendum should have been:
Should Westminster consider replacing FPTP with another system of voting, including but not limited to alternative voting and proportional representation?
[] Yes
[] No

You'd then hope that the majority would vote yes, the government would put forwards information on each of the possible options, with pros and cons, and put forwards to a secondary referendum.

What we actually got was a straight choice between the status quo and a system marginally better in some ways, but that doesn't fundamentally alter the key issue of representation.
 

mikem

Well-known member
Not wanting to sidetrack this discussion (even more!) but Brexit actually had the highest turnout since the 1992 election - although only slightly above 1997:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1050929/voter-turnout-in-the-uk/

The Tories did at least get more votes overall than Labour, unlike Trump, who got less than Hilary.
 

JoshW

Well-known member
mikem said:
Not wanting to sidetrack this discussion (even more!) but Brexit actually had the highest turnout since the 1992 election - although only slightly above 1997:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1050929/voter-turnout-in-the-uk/

reckon that'll roughly correlate with the amount of money spent on "election" campaigns? got no stats to back that up, just a thought.
 

mikem

Well-known member
Seems there is a parliamentary paper on that subject:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07152/SN07152.pdf

& https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/election-spend-2000-half-1997-contest/50121
 

JoshW

Well-known member
mikem said:
Seems there is a parliamentary paper on that subject:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07152/SN07152.pdf

& https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/election-spend-2000-half-1997-contest/50121

Interesting, unfortunately doesn't cover up to the date of B-Day, but some cool stats in there.
 
Top