How would I vote to remove the influence of Bill Gates, Ursula von der Leyen, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Agustín Carstens or Larry Fink? (to name but a few).

Your arguments are childish in the extreme.

Influence rests with many people. Just look at the power people with an active mind, or savvy presentation, can earn big money on the internet these days as "influencers". Would you like to remove them too? Presumably so your "influence" dominates. I'd vote against that.

For someone who makes the kind of arguments you do, to call mine "childish" is probably the most ridiculous claim I have read from you. And it has some fierce competition!

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

As we are all affected by it, and all subject to the law, I don't get the point you are trying to make.

I would certainly like us to change our system to a STV version of PR, which would encourage the growth of a greater number of local parties and independents, and for our MPs to vote with their consciences more often, reducing the power of the whips. Doubtless this would result in many more coalitions, in which compromises would be necessary, but it would also stop any one party dominating for too long and ensure we adopted a middle of the road approach with no big lurches to the left or right.

If people knew their vote counted and that there was always someone in their area who shared their views who they could approach, then the current level of cynicism about politics ought to diminish and engagement increase.

Getting it done isn't so easy. It's not in the interests of either major party, especially the Tories. However, with every prospect of a hung Parliament after the next GE I would not be surprised if the Lib Dems and the SNP included a move to PR in their manifestos as their price for joining a coalition. We'll see.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

My Euros are on home- but for how long? To be sure to be sure!

The GOP would overturn the filibuster to impose a national abortion ban if it wins the midterms, ex-RNC chief suggests - [Link]

Sounds farfetched on the surface but isn't particularly. The professed intention to leave this to the States has already been put in doubt by several saying how they intend to push for a national aproach. Talk of freedoms and privacy by those would would strip them away from others is hardly a rarity, and you'll see how brazenly little they care about such things when they have the option to act.

Let's not forget that McConnell stopped Obama's last Supreme Court nomination for a year in order to allow Trump to fill that vacancy because it was'an election year'. and the voters should have a say. Then 'a week' prior to the 2020 presidential election McConnell installed a Trump court pick. it's all about pushing through their agenda come what may, while dems just endlessly pontificate.

The US Congressional hearings are turning up some pretty devastating evidence linking Trump directly to the violence. Today, a WH insider testified that Trump knew some rioters were armed and made no attempt to stop them. Prior to this, some senior lawyers had testified they had repeatedly counselled Trump that his claims of election fraud had no factual basis and had threatened to resign en-masse when Trump attempted to install a new AJ, with no experience, who would comply. This guy has refused to testify, but had his house raided by the FBI. Bill Barr said Trump was detached from reality. 5 members of Congress requested pardons to protect them from prosecution for their involvement in the scheme.

Today's evidence could be the tipping point.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.