revolution saint

It’s linked because it shows that there are plenty of things that are undemocratic. The fact is you seem to only be bothered about one element that would serve to protect lazy MPs. You also don’t seem much concerned with having a working democracy, one where everyone regardless of how they voted has a representative that works for them.

Pretty simple really. I listed a load of things that are without question undemocratic. As someone who believes in democracy in everything you must also be up for correcting those things as well. Didn’t really think that needed explaining. Maybe I phrased it wrong. As for what I was proposing see my earlier post where I go into a bit more detail.

I presume the 'democracy brigade' will be tackling the problems of an unelected head of state, the right to stand as an MP regardless of nationality, voting rights for under 18s, the right to share the job of MP, a directly elected house of lords, abolition of the 50%+1 anti union law and abolition of the oath of loyalty next. They're all anti democratic. Otherwise it's just an excuse to defend lazy, disinterested and incompetent MPs.

OK, so here's how it works. MPs have to clock so many parliamentary sessions, votes and constituency hours into each parliamentary year. If they've got other parliamentary business like being a minister or prime minister, select committee member then that's fine - that's a valid reason for not attending and is taken into consideration. Sickness and compassionate reasons are too cos I ain't a heartless bastard. If you haven't clocked in your hours because you simply can't be arsed or you've got other outside jobs then you go before something like the standards committee to explain why. It'll be cross party with a neutral chair. If you fail to convince them then you're subject to a by election and barred from standing for the lifetime of the parliament. It's a check see? What it does is ensure that each constituency has a member who isn't just on one big old gravy train and couldn't give a toss. In fact it's really not that different to the standards committee so I'm not sure why anyone would be particularly against it - all it would do is weed out those MPs who aren't devoting enough time to their main job. Hopefully that's clear but if you've got any more questions then give me a shout and I'll see what I can do.

No, the more I think about it the more I feel you could be right. I mean if a cross comes in and Adam Armstrong is in prime position but he's more concerned about kicking off the war of the roses again then it's hardly surprising if he misses. Trouble is I'm not sure how you would eliminate this from his game. I bet our black box doesn't highlight strikers who become convinced of their noble heritage. Probably needs an upgrade.

is that where they suddenly have delusions of grandeur and think they're part of the nobility? I've never thought about it before but I suppose that could explain a lack of goals. I'm assuming there's a stat for this 😏

Exactly, this concern for democracy doesn't seem to extend to concern that elected representatives are actually participating in the democratic process. There's issues with democracy as I've pointed out. Not just anyone can stand but there's no concern about that. Technically MPs can't sit in the House of Commons without taking the oath of allegiance to the Queen - not concerned about that. The House of Lords is not directly elected - not bothered about that either. All they seem to be concerned about is preserving the right of MPs to shirk their duties. Being an MP is a privilege and there should be a check to ensure that democratically elected members actually do their job.

You can't stand if you're not a British citizen or of the commonwealth or the ROI. You can't stand if you're under 18. The electoral commission prevents people doing the job as a job share. There's already limits on who can and can't stand as an MP. You're right that people are elected to the job but they're employed by the state - they should have a contract that stipulates what their responsibilities are and if they breach them then they're sacked.

There are terms and conditions applied to all jobs - it's in yours and my contracts of employment. I'd make it the same for MPs so it's part of the job description to attend unless of other business I've previously mentioned. Since you're on the subject of democracy though I would also apply the same rule for votes in parliament as to unions when balloting for strike action - it doesn't pass unless they have have a certain % actually turn up and vote.

Jeez, we'll agree to agree. I really can't see what you're finding to disagree with - we've agreed that parliamentary attendance can sometimes be put aside if other work as an MP takes precedence. If they're skipping sessions because they can't be arsed or because they've got other jobs then sure we can agree to disagree if that's what you're advocating. Anyway, I'm leaving it here because just like some MPs - I can't be arsed.

Never claimed they should be judged on purely parliamentary attendance. I said they should attend unless there were other constituency or parliamentary business. You appear to be arguing that they can't always attend because they have other business as stated above so we're not really in disagreement there. What I do feel is that it's a full time job. If they have time for a second job then they're not devoting enough time to their MP job. If they miss parliamentary sessions without having constituency work etc reasons then they're again not doing their job (basically just skipping those sessions without anything more important with regard to their job as an MP replacing them). As I said, fundamentally I think it's a full time job and not something they can pick and choose on.

Exactly. If you're claiming that parliamentary attendance is compromised by other more important parliamentary and constituency work then it doesn't really leave much time for anything else.

Granted there are other considerations which is why I mentioned other parliamentary business but if they've got time for second jobs then I suspect that certainly isn't representing their constituents interests.

I'd treat them like paid employees (which they are). They're obliged to attend each session just like everyone is obliged to attend work. Obviously there's exceptions - sickness, and other parliamentary work but they wouldn't be allowed to not attend without a decent reason. Failure to attend a certain % without sufficient reason triggers a by election. Same goes for constituency hours. It makes a mockery of democracy when half of these buggers (from whichever side they're on) can't be arsed to attend. It's their job and shouldn't be optional.

Lyanco the difference for me. Different class. Reminds me of every single ballon d’or winner ever. He’s probably the future of football.

I don't think we need more than that so I'd give the other two Lyancos the night off. I'm also playing a false Lyanco formation.

I would play: Lyanco Lyanco Lyanco Lyanco Lyanco Lyanco Lyanco Lyanco Lyanco Just to wind up TWAR 😆 I'd probably have a bench consisting of Lyanco as well. With McGinn suspended I think this is a risk we can afford to take.

All about opinions. Diallo always looks to move the ball forwards quicker than JWP does (is there a stat for that)?

I think if you’re going to do that then you need to sacrifice one of the 10s or one of the two strikers. Also point out that Diallo comes off worse in your stats but he was playing the more defensive role and it coincided with the whole team underperforming (at least in part due to injuries) Diallo replacing JWP will make those stats look better for him. Anyway, as for the OP question, I’m not sure we’re better without JWP so I would probably play him most of the time but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t sell him if we got a decent offer.

Appreciate that you’re answering a question over whether Romeu is better than JWP but they play different roles so the data isn’t really relevant (because the question isn’t relevant). It’s a bit like comparing Adams and Lyanco (just used him cos I know you’re a big fan). Obviously that’s an extreme example to illustrate a point. Romeu is better defensively because there’s more of an emphasis on that in his role and JWP better offensively for the same reason.

Didn’t he have COVID last season? Not that he can’t catch it twice but would have thought it unlikely

Great, thanks for confirming. Feeling quite confident now

Are you sure? I’ve heard McGinn is suspended

OK, didn’t know that. At least McGinn is suspended though. I think that’ll make real difference.

Absolutely. McGinn being out is a real game changer