I was annoyed I heard zero arguments from the right about it

nothing said from sargon, nothing from anyone else.

makes me think it might have had a point

first past the post system removes most of the risk, storin

I agree that needs to go

And the house of the lords while we are it

agreed

the moment they stopped being heridatory peers, their usefulness evaporated

though they would't be useful in a global age anyway

The problem is most people who become lords generally speaking own businesses or other forms of wealth, they are only ever going to vote in favour of themselves, and as far as i'm aware we don't elect them either- so they are incumbent till whenever the PM or Queen wants to change them

lords are just political appointees at this point, they're just an entrenchment of the establishment

Exactly the problem

Getting rid of first past the post and the HoL would be a start, then like I said hold the politicians in the HoC legally accountable for what they promise

If they fail to deliver public tribunal to see why- if its fair ok walk along, if it was them just using it for points fine/prison

when there's choice at elections, that'll happen naturally

doesnt' need trials and prison

People with power often get into power.... kinda the way it works....

The referendum was on the ballot since Blair

Imagine voting

What a cuck

To be fair punishment should be levied if they continue to try and usurp the will of the people

The bottom line is all BRexit has shown is how contemptable they view the British people- both the UK parliament and the EU

You cant run a country where the elected hate the electors nd try to usurp them 🤷

Indeed it they continue to pursue this path then I say the public has all rights to go after them

Both civil and non civil

Słoma in z butów wystaje, a oni by chcieli głosować!

Ye

Which naturally is coming from the weighted element that is the question being asked and was already answered

Rights lol

The pleb has right to remain silent and work

Dude my biggest question is why terrorists always attack the common man, dark waters I know but look at 9/11, did anyone in those towers really have a say in the foreign policy of America? Nope, the people who did were in the senate and the white house- should of gone for them instead of the common man just trying to get his way through life, but that is my 2 cents

People would argue the domestic populace represent the governmental will. Which is not true universally but has merit to it.

Terrorism is about creating political change via violence, or the fear of it

Of course they target the common man

The attack was very effective

I would argue the other way, that we live in a democratic oligarchy, where the few elite rule over the serfs and the class system is still very much what divides everybody 🤔

And we get just enough bread crumbs to keep playing the game

Because if we stopped- well, Hello French and Russian revolutions where people were executed...

I mean perhaps in the UK but in the US there is reason we keep our guns to our chests

Daily reminder that, strictly speaking, republics claim that it is their voting population that is sovereign. Thus terrorism makes perfect sense as an act of war proper. The US bombs the ME, Middle Easterners retaliate against the US sovereign. 🙂

There is an obviously balance of power in terms of checks and balance within the system. Should it fail to uphold the balance then the populace are the ones who are levied to correct said imbalance