Systems without juries have many other differences; I doubt its possible to get evidence for the silly suggestion to keep the rest of our system unchanged while removing juries.
A single judge can be bribed, threatened, have prejudices - more so than a jury.

I mean I hated Munich, as I thought the take on Chamberlain daft, but it was fun as a read.

Ghost was great; also the Dreyfus affair one was magnificent. Second sleep was mediocre

Its essential to the process. No reasons means a less articulate jurors voice counts equally, as it should. The democracy would be damaged by some professional otherwise. The professionals have their go to explain in the courtroom

Process of law needs to have democratic safeguards. That is good. Leftist 'deference' to authority is not liberal.

No they are good. Yes conditions of jury service should be modernised. But the basics are long tested and true.
No reasons is key to Juries success. In the US, abandonment of the no comment post trial rule has been bad

A genuine case here of liberalism vs authoritarianism, is the support of juries.

They don't give reasons as, if they did, the reasons would be like "the cops investigation was incompetent" and the establishment would say "totally wrong fools" and lock the accused up. A democratic check on the abuse of power; and the most drastic power of the state.

Also: tuition is already a tax, in that international students subsidise local students and the local area. So, a tax on a tax? Vs tourists - both foreign and domestic who pay nothing.

Hmm. Not usual for Quebecers to be culturally illiterate. "Americano" meaning diluted, weak.

My fathers old passport has stamps authorising him to export a very small sum for a holiday to France. Let's not bring that back please.

Also Glasman's bitterness about a decision taken by Thatcher to convert the Polys to Unis, again, growing up time. It was so long ago.

Peter Pan Labourism.

People shouldn't grow up and go to uni?

Peter-Pan Labourism call it.

Ah, this is the first time I've read about "why" this faction of Labour hate the units - and its insane.

Its a nice break from "the rich start at $60k" to "the poor start at $135k".

Both miss the genuine middle class, as distinct from rich and working and poor.

I agree middle starts around $ 135. Not the same as median income.

Interest income on a savings account, which is taxable and a nominal that is unchanged, vs a capital gain, yes they both lose real money, but why exempt the gain from tax? Perfectly fair.
In any event, since that's the system, it doesn't make the country uninvestable.