• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Was bored. Watched some of the covid enquiry stuff on joe.

Is there a case for any prospective cabinet minister (including pm) having to sit an exam to show they have sufficient intelligence for the job? (Or extend that to anyone seeking election to public office?)

When Patrick Vallance says the response in a pan-European telecon of science advisers when one said their leader couldn't understand exponential curves was a laugh as most* of the politicians they were advising couldn't wrap their little heads around it - that is alarming!

*safe to say most as Angela Merkel would definitely have got her head around it.
 
SG59_ said:

30p?
Click to expand...

Far too high. I honestly don't see any Tory MP jumping unless reform suddenly surge in the polls. Look what happened to the ones who defected to UKIP. Interestingly there are probably many in the party who would like to split from other parts of the party, but they all want to keep the Tory brand, so they stick it out.
 
SG59_ said:

30p?
Click to expand...

I think if you are old enough to leave home, get a job and fundamentally live by yourself, you're old enough to vote. I think there should be a single age at which you are deemed an adult legally and get all your rights at that single age. Drinking and driving both set to this same age as well (not a great juxtaposition I know). There shouldn't be different ages for different things.

Also: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67508331

Kinda shows what a farce these things are, along with some of the largest delegations being from the fossil fuel industry.
 
SG59_ said:

30p?
Click to expand...

Just trying to motivate tory voters.
young voters are the least likely demographic to actually turn out and vote. Lowering the voting age by 2 years won't make a difference anyway, but especially if most of them wouldn't even vote.

But it'll create "fear of labour" and mobilise his own voters.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
I think if you are old enough to leave home, get a job and fundamentally live by yourself, you're old enough to vote. I think there should be a single age at which you are deemed an adult legally and get all your rights at that single age. Drinking and driving both set to this same age as well (not a great juxtaposition I know). There shouldn't be different ages for different things.

Also: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67508331

Kinda shows what a farce these things are, along with some of the largest delegations being from the fossil fuel industry.
Click to expand...
At the moment you have to be 18 to be tried as an adult. Personally i think 18 should be the starting point for everything. It's mainly based on what prison you go to, what sentencing guides they use. There are plenty of switched on 16 year olds but there are also plenty who couldn't cope in an adult prison on general population. I was a soldier at 16 but couldn't go to a war zone till i was 18.

I'd be more in favour of things staying as they are than lowering them.
 
On the actual age itself - IIRC you reach neurological / psychological maturity around 22-23 YOA
Anatomically it's somewhere in the early-mid 20s as well (long bones finish lengthening around 18-19, but don't fully fuse until 20ish, still adding bone density until late 20s.
 
Quel Carreleur said:
On the actual age itself - IIRC you reach neurological / psychological maturity around 22-23 YOA
Anatomically it's somewhere in the early-mid 20s as well (long bones finish lengthening around 18-19, but don't fully fuse until 20ish, still adding bone density until late 20s.
Click to expand...
This sounds about right I remember in my early 30's having conversations where I talked about hitting maturity stability in my early to mid 20's.

I'm unsure if that should be the limit though especially as typically governmental decisions are made that could have a direct impact on you. I'm sure its been other things for other generations but I had tuitions fees introduced on me with no way to influence the government except through my parents.

I've long felt 16 is correct you don't need to be at full maturity to make decisions, age of consent and all that if your supposed to be able to make informed life decisions by then you should be allowed to vote.

But this is definitely one for psychologists not political/general public.
 


This is part of why nobody has faith in Parliament. Cleverly insults the constituency of a Labour MP, he is caught on audio saying it, he then brazenly gets up and lies about it and the speakers biggest concern is that Cleverly is called a liar. This bullshit of calling someone a liar being deemed the more serious offense than being a liar must change. Also the idea that the deputy speaker could claim Cleverly apologised to the MP is ridiculous, he did the equivalent of saying "I'm sorry you were offended." He didn't apologise at all and added getting away with lying on top of it.

Parliament needs to have the rule book ripped apart and re-written for the modern era, not the pathetic archaic system they currently have. **** "tradition", it's useless.

Also Cleverly is such a scumbag, perfectly fitting for his post then.
 
Quel Carreleur said:
www.spottednews.uk

Jacob Rees Mogg Makes Health Claim & Its Gone Up In Smoke

Jacob Rees Mogg Makes Health Claim which has been ridiculed on-line as he claims saying Rosary in Latin will help you.
www.spottednews.uk www.spottednews.uk
Click to expand...

I'd love to know what value Rees Mogg has added in his various roles in Government (including Business Secretary). I'm not aware of one thing he has delivered. All he has done is stand up in the HoC and quote Erskine May like a complete bell end. He probably still gets nursed by nanny.
 
BrokenWing said:
So, he hasn't said he didn't lie, just that there's no proof.
Click to expand...
He said he was not a liar. It's up to the inquest to put the evidence and proof to him. There's been a considerable amount of mud slinging and @rse covering by various witnesses.

In a way he's right people should provide the proof and evidence. Or does not guilty simply mean people are guilty, just there wasn't enough proof or evidence. We could say everyone at courts guilty just the 12 people on the jury didn't see it that way.
 
Saintjay said:
A] Or does not guilty simply mean people are guilty, just there wasn't enough proof or evidence.
B] We could say everyone at courts guilty just the 12 people on the jury didn't see it that way.
Click to expand...
A] Correct, "not guilty" =/= "innocent", just that guilt cannot be determined to the standard required (eg civil vs criminal)
B] We could, but that'd be silly. We're all allowed to come to our conclusions, and act upon them - it's "just" the state who is bound by the conclusions of the jury (and even then, it can be bumped up to a higher court)
 

Similar threads

Bada-Bing!
Antisocial, societal issues thread
3 4 5
Replies
96
Views
3K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Biking thread
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
3K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Ukraine War thread
23 24 25
Replies
481
Views
17K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
T
Is anyone using a club management system for their local club?
Replies
0
Views
682
Try-Hard Tackler
T
M
Had to stare someone down at a red light
Replies
6
Views
1K
Al Bangor
Al Bangor

Latest posts

Top