Politics Thread 6

Fed up talking videogames? Why?

Who will you vote for at the next General Election?

Conservative
10
11%
Labour
27
31%
Liberal Democrat
24
28%
Green
18
21%
SNP
6
7%
Brexit Party
0
No votes
UKIP
0
No votes
Plaid Cymru
0
No votes
DUP
0
No votes
Sinn Fein
2
2%
The Independent Group for Change
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 87
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:46 pm

Samuel_1 wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:
Drumstick wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:All 19 LD MPs abstained from voting for an amendment to safe guard the NHS from further privatisation. strawberry float the Lid Dems :x

https://evolvepolitics.com/jo-swinsons-lib-dems-refuse-to-support-motion-to-halt-nhs-privatisation/?fbclid=IwAR2293B-qwaRDXmuMlFe3SRezWV71XiXp9u4YW2R0sGqwgQrdd4IalhTcxM

https://fullfact.org/health/liberal-dem ... atisation/

This would have placed political pressure on the government and indicated a parliamentary majority for that course of action, but would not have guaranteed any action.

So to suggest that “19 Lib Dem MPs refused to support a motion to stop privatisation of the NHS” exaggerates the motion by implying it would definitely have stopped privatisation of the NHS if it had a majority.


This is from the full fact piece. So even though voting in such a way wouldn't have guaranteed anything, it would have "put pressure" on the government concerning any further NHS privatisation. So why the Hell are the Lib Dems abstaining on such a vote?


I don't think anyone's arguing that the Lib Dems were wrong to vote against it, just that the way it's being reported is overstating what the bill would have done.

Sure, but it's another indication of what the party stands for. Their new leader's voting record is awful. Even though they may be the "party of remain" I don't think they're deserving of any votes from people who
view themselves as progressive.


There’s no realistic path to PM Corbyn without them.

User avatar
Samuel_1
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Samuel_1 » Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:50 pm

Moggy wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:
Drumstick wrote:
Samuel_1 wrote:All 19 LD MPs abstained from voting for an amendment to safe guard the NHS from further privatisation. strawberry float the Lid Dems :x

https://evolvepolitics.com/jo-swinsons-lib-dems-refuse-to-support-motion-to-halt-nhs-privatisation/?fbclid=IwAR2293B-qwaRDXmuMlFe3SRezWV71XiXp9u4YW2R0sGqwgQrdd4IalhTcxM

https://fullfact.org/health/liberal-dem ... atisation/

This would have placed political pressure on the government and indicated a parliamentary majority for that course of action, but would not have guaranteed any action.

So to suggest that “19 Lib Dem MPs refused to support a motion to stop privatisation of the NHS” exaggerates the motion by implying it would definitely have stopped privatisation of the NHS if it had a majority.


This is from the full fact piece. So even though voting in such a way wouldn't have guaranteed anything, it would have "put pressure" on the government concerning any further NHS privatisation. So why the Hell are the Lib Dems abstaining on such a vote?


I don't think anyone's arguing that the Lib Dems were wrong to vote against it, just that the way it's being reported is overstating what the bill would have done.

Sure, but it's another indication of what the party stands for. Their new leader's voting record is awful. Even though they may be the "party of remain" I don't think they're deserving of any votes from people who
view themselves as progressive.


There’s no realistic path to PM Corbyn without them.
Then perhaps there's no path, Swinson seems far more comfortable with the prospect of working with Tories.

Supporting My Local Mule Sanctuary Since 11/11/2014.

Donations welcome, please PM me to prevent unwarranted mule kicking.
User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by KK » Sat Oct 26, 2019 5:48 pm

The billionaire owners of the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph are to put both titles up for sale.

Sir Frederick and Sir David Barclay are understood to be reviewing all of their key assets, which includes the Telegraph Media Group (TMG).

Figures published on 17 October showed TMG's profit for the last financial year was £900,000 - a 94 per cent drop on the previous financial year.

The Barclay twins, who bought the paper in 2004, have declined to comment.

The news of the sale was first reported by the Times.

There have been rumours of a sale of the Telegraph for several years, which the owners have consistently denied.

Sales of the print editions have plummeted in recent years, with the Daily Telegraph averaging a daily circulation of 310,586. The Sunday Telegraph sells, on average, 244,351 copies.

A source close to the matter told the BBC the brothers were not under any time pressure to sell the paper, which could happen over the next 12-18 months.

No adviser has so far been appointed for the sale but it is expected the Telegraph will be the first asset to be sold.

Aidan Barclay, 63, and Howard Barclay, 59, are thought to be evaluating the family's businesses on behalf of their father, Sir David Barclay, and his 84-year-old twin Sir Frederick.

The brothers also own the Spectator magazine, delivery company Yodel and retailer Shop Direct, which includes online outlets Littlewoods and Very.

The Ritz hotel, which is also owned by the Barclay brothers, is already on the market.

There have been rumours over the years that several buyers have expressed an interest, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and the owner of the Independent and Evening Standard, Evgeny Lebedev.

Its political ally on the right - the Daily Mail - is also thought to be a contender.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50192912

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:11 pm



Gove is such a strawberry floating weirdo.

User avatar
Rex Kramer
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Rex Kramer » Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:52 am

So is Johnson's short bill for an election amendable? Clarke was saying at the weekend that there were options for adding things like lowering the voting age to 16 and other amendments possible. Has Boris opened pandora's box in his rush to an election?

User avatar
Drumstick
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Drumstick » Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:42 am

Boris Johnson will try for a fourth time to secure an early general election, after MPs rejected his plan.

The prime minister will publish a bill proposing a poll on 12 December that would only need a simple majority to succeed - not two-thirds as required in previous attempts.

If at first you don't succeed, simply move the goalposts.

One man should not have this much power in this game. Luckily I'm not an ordinary man.
Image Image
"economically unviable"
-Oblomov Boblomov
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:21 am

Drumstick wrote:
Boris Johnson will try for a fourth time to secure an early general election, after MPs rejected his plan.

The prime minister will publish a bill proposing a poll on 12 December that would only need a simple majority to succeed - not two-thirds as required in previous attempts.

If at first you don't succeed, simply move the goalposts.




General Election bill = 3 DAYS IS NOT ENOUGH TIME!

Johnson’s Withdrawal Agreement = 3 days is more than enough!

User avatar
Jenuall
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: 40 light-years outside of the buttermilk nebula

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Jenuall » Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:39 am

Still think it's bullshit that you can just put forward a bill for an election that needs a simple majority when the fixed term parliament act requires two thirds, what's the strawberry floating point in having it if you can just undercut it like that?

Image
User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Lex-Man » Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:47 am

If there's an election does that mean we'd probably be asking for another extension in January even if the Tories win?

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Karl_
Nyaaaaaaa~!
Nyaaaaaaa~!
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Karl_ » Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:12 am

Jenuall wrote:Still think it's bullshit that you can just put forward a bill for an election that needs a simple majority when the fixed term parliament act requires two thirds, what's the strawberry floating point in having it if you can just undercut it like that?

The 2/3rds provision in the FTPA was badly thought through. A Parliament in which a majority of MPs wanted an election was always going to be able to have an election. What the FTPA did successfully do was make it Parliament's decision, rather than the Prime Minister's.

User avatar
Jenuall
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: 40 light-years outside of the buttermilk nebula

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Jenuall » Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:15 am

Karl_ wrote:
Jenuall wrote:Still think it's bullshit that you can just put forward a bill for an election that needs a simple majority when the fixed term parliament act requires two thirds, what's the strawberry floating point in having it if you can just undercut it like that?

The 2/3rds provision in the FTPA was badly thought through. A Parliament in which a majority of MPs wanted an election was always going to be able to have an election. What the FTPA did successfully do was make it Parliament's decision, rather than the Prime Minister's.

Oh yeah I wasn't advocating that the FTPA was perfect or anything, just frustration at the general scenario where restrictions imposed by existing legislation can just be undercut and circumvented so easily.

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:28 am

Lex-Man wrote:If there's an election does that mean we'd probably be asking for another extension in January even if the Tories win?


It’s impossible to say as we don’t know what the makeup of the new Parliament would be.

A Tory victory would mean Johnson’s WA would pass easily.

A Tory government propped up by the Lib Dems would mean a second referendum.

A Tory government propped up by the Brexit Party would mean No Deal.

A Labour/Lib Dem/SNP coalition would mean a referendum.

A Labour victory would mean a referendum.

A Lib Dem victory would mean revoking Article 50.

A Brexit Party victory would mean No Deal.

An SNP victory would mean Scotland takes over and we all have to wear kilts, drink Buckfast and throw cabers.

A hung parliament would mean years more of where we are now.

Most of the options above would mean a further extension would be needed.

User avatar
Karl_
Nyaaaaaaa~!
Nyaaaaaaa~!
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Karl_ » Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:31 am

Jenuall wrote:
Karl_ wrote:
Jenuall wrote:Still think it's bullshit that you can just put forward a bill for an election that needs a simple majority when the fixed term parliament act requires two thirds, what's the strawberry floating point in having it if you can just undercut it like that?

The 2/3rds provision in the FTPA was badly thought through. A Parliament in which a majority of MPs wanted an election was always going to be able to have an election. What the FTPA did successfully do was make it Parliament's decision, rather than the Prime Minister's.

Oh yeah I wasn't advocating that the FTPA was perfect or anything, just frustration at the general scenario where restrictions imposed by existing legislation can just be undercut and circumvented so easily.

Sure, was just adding to what to said, not arguing or anything!

I don't agree or disagree with the 2/3rds provision (I agree with Parliament having power over the Prime Minister though). I just think it's a tough provision to implement in a system which doesn't distinguish between "constitutional" and other laws, or have different procedures for amending the constitution.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:31 am

Jenuall wrote:Still think it's bullshit that you can just put forward a bill for an election that needs a simple majority when the fixed term parliament act requires two thirds, what's the strawberry floating point in having it if you can just undercut it like that?


One of the main principals in the UK system is that Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. That means that Cameron/Clegg’s FTPA is only relevant until Parliament decides to overturn it.

If Parliament decides to pass an election bill, then the FTPA is irrelevant.

User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Lex-Man » Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:36 am

Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:If there's an election does that mean we'd probably be asking for another extension in January even if the Tories win?


It’s impossible to say as we don’t know what the makeup of the new Parliament would be.

A Tory victory would mean Johnson’s WA would pass easily.

A Tory government propped up by the Lib Dems would mean a second referendum.

A Tory government propped up by the Brexit Party would mean No Deal.

A Labour/Lib Dem/SNP coalition would mean a referendum.

A Labour victory would mean a referendum.

A Lib Dem victory would mean revoking Article 50.

A Brexit Party victory would mean No Deal.

An SNP victory would mean Scotland takes over and we all have to wear kilts, drink Buckfast and throw cabers.

A hung parliament would mean years more of where we are now.

Most of the options above would mean a further extension would be needed.


If you just use the polls now and the Tories win the upper house could take their time passing Boris' deal so they might still need another three month extension even if it passes the commons easily.

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Jenuall
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: 40 light-years outside of the buttermilk nebula

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Jenuall » Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:37 am

Moggy wrote:
Jenuall wrote:Still think it's bullshit that you can just put forward a bill for an election that needs a simple majority when the fixed term parliament act requires two thirds, what's the strawberry floating point in having it if you can just undercut it like that?


One of the main principals in the UK system is that Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. That means that Cameron/Clegg’s FTPA is only relevant until Parliament decides to overturn it.

If Parliament decides to pass an election bill, then the FTPA is irrelevant.

Absolutely and evolution of laws, legislation and policies are all good things I'm not denying that. We need ways to make improvements beyond what came before when we have learned new things and realised that what was the best wisdom of the past no longer holds today. That's all good stuff.

But this doesn't feel like that sort of scenario, it's more a case of "I didn't get my way so I'm going to change the goalposts and force the outcome I want". Suggest a new bill to improve the rules around parliamentary terms, the manner in which an election is called etc. but do it based on solid reasoning and advice, not like this!

Image
User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Lex-Man » Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:39 am

Jenuall wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Jenuall wrote:Still think it's bullshit that you can just put forward a bill for an election that needs a simple majority when the fixed term parliament act requires two thirds, what's the strawberry floating point in having it if you can just undercut it like that?


One of the main principals in the UK system is that Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. That means that Cameron/Clegg’s FTPA is only relevant until Parliament decides to overturn it.

If Parliament decides to pass an election bill, then the FTPA is irrelevant.

Absolutely and evolution of laws, legislation and policies are all good things I'm not denying that. We need ways to make improvements beyond what came before when we have learned new things and realised that what was the best wisdom of the past no longer holds today. That's all good stuff.

But this doesn't feel like that sort of scenario, it's more a case of "I didn't get my way so I'm going to change the goalposts and force the outcome I want". Suggest a new bill to improve the rules around parliamentary terms, the manner in which an election is called etc. but do it based on solid reasoning and advice, not like this!


Yeah, it seems like you should need a full 2/3 majority to change the election date law, otherwise the law that was put in place seems a bit pointless.

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:42 am

Jenuall wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Jenuall wrote:Still think it's bullshit that you can just put forward a bill for an election that needs a simple majority when the fixed term parliament act requires two thirds, what's the strawberry floating point in having it if you can just undercut it like that?


One of the main principals in the UK system is that Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. That means that Cameron/Clegg’s FTPA is only relevant until Parliament decides to overturn it.

If Parliament decides to pass an election bill, then the FTPA is irrelevant.

Absolutely and evolution of laws, legislation and policies are all good things I'm not denying that. We need ways to make improvements beyond what came before when we have learned new things and realised that what was the best wisdom of the past no longer holds today. That's all good stuff.

But this doesn't feel like that sort of scenario, it's more a case of "I didn't get my way so I'm going to change the goalposts and force the outcome I want". Suggest a new bill to improve the rules around parliamentary terms, the manner in which an election is called etc. but do it based on solid reasoning and advice, not like this!


Oh I agree that it is just Johnson throwing his toys out of the pram.

But I also think it is important that Parliament can change things without needing supermajorities in the House.

So the idea of Parliament not being bound is good. The idea of Boris Johnson as PM is bad.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Moggy » Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:43 am

Lex-Man wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Lex-Man wrote:If there's an election does that mean we'd probably be asking for another extension in January even if the Tories win?


It’s impossible to say as we don’t know what the makeup of the new Parliament would be.

A Tory victory would mean Johnson’s WA would pass easily.

A Tory government propped up by the Lib Dems would mean a second referendum.

A Tory government propped up by the Brexit Party would mean No Deal.

A Labour/Lib Dem/SNP coalition would mean a referendum.

A Labour victory would mean a referendum.

A Lib Dem victory would mean revoking Article 50.

A Brexit Party victory would mean No Deal.

An SNP victory would mean Scotland takes over and we all have to wear kilts, drink Buckfast and throw cabers.

A hung parliament would mean years more of where we are now.

Most of the options above would mean a further extension would be needed.


If you just use the polls now and the Tories win the upper house could take their time passing Boris' deal so they might still need another three month extension even if it passes the commons easily.


True, but I don’t see the HoL having the balls to do that if Johnson won a big majority.

User avatar
Jenuall
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: 40 light-years outside of the buttermilk nebula

PostRe: Politics Thread 6
by Jenuall » Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:43 am

Moggy wrote:
Jenuall wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Jenuall wrote:Still think it's bullshit that you can just put forward a bill for an election that needs a simple majority when the fixed term parliament act requires two thirds, what's the strawberry floating point in having it if you can just undercut it like that?


One of the main principals in the UK system is that Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. That means that Cameron/Clegg’s FTPA is only relevant until Parliament decides to overturn it.

If Parliament decides to pass an election bill, then the FTPA is irrelevant.

Absolutely and evolution of laws, legislation and policies are all good things I'm not denying that. We need ways to make improvements beyond what came before when we have learned new things and realised that what was the best wisdom of the past no longer holds today. That's all good stuff.

But this doesn't feel like that sort of scenario, it's more a case of "I didn't get my way so I'm going to change the goalposts and force the outcome I want". Suggest a new bill to improve the rules around parliamentary terms, the manner in which an election is called etc. but do it based on solid reasoning and advice, not like this!


Oh I agree that it is just Johnson throwing his toys out of the pram.

But I also think it is important that Parliament can change things without needing supermajorities in the House.

So the idea of Parliament not being bound is good. The idea of Boris Johnson as PM is bad.

Agreed.

Especially the bit about Boris as PM being bad. :dread:

Image

Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Blue Eyes, Chocolate-Milk, Edd, floydfreak, Garth, Google [Bot], Grumpy David, Lex-Man, Met, Minty14, Pedz, PuppetBoy, Saint of Killers, Snowcannon, Squinty, Tafdolphin, Trelliz, wensleydale and 143 guests