Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

[Smores]

Still no investigation into Islamaphobia within the Conservative party despite calls for their to be one.

Very strange that it's not receiving back to back coverage isn't it?

 

[Ubik]

Well he's already committed to a free vote on the matter so that should be the end of divisions concerning this really.

I'm always suprised so many care about trident policy, is it actually fear or is just that people like to talk war?

It's more that presumably the review will alter Labour party policy, so Corbyn will have to vote with or against said party policy. Just calling it a free vote doesn't make it less odd that a leader votes against his party's policy.

Defence of the state is fairly important, and one of the big things voters judge a leader on (as the focus group showed).

 

[Untied]

I hate the Queen's speech

This is our democracy in 2016

 

[sun_tzu]

I hate the Queen's speech

This is our democracy in 2016

How can you fail to be impressed - look at the medals charlie has - he must be a proper war hero

 

[Shamwow]

Those guardsmen don't look like they'd be too effective in a present-day combat situation.

 

[Smores]

Forcing a 90 year old women to read out some crap prepared for her and has nothing to do with her. Sounds more like ISIS.

It needs reform but it likely wouldn't be popular. The public love 'their' royalty

 

[Ubik]

I'm republican, but I'm not sure I can be bothered to care enough about it. They're just kind of there, and I don't overly dislike the younger ones.

 

[NinjaFletch]

I'm republican, but I'm not sure I can be bothered to care enough about it. They're just kind of there, and I don't overly dislike the younger ones.

Pretty much how I feel about it to. As long as they continue to do feck all other than show up for ceremonial occasions I don't really see a problem with it. I'd rather the Head of State be elected, but there are far more pressing matters to deal with first in terms of democratic representation in this country.

 

[11101]

I'm republican, but I'm not sure I can be bothered to care enough about it. They're just kind of there, and I don't overly dislike the younger ones.

My thoughts too. Get rid of all the hangers on and second cousins etc, tell Charles to do one, and leave the others to it.

 

[DOTA]

I'm largely in favour of the monarchy, just because I don't like political heads of state, but I do still worry about the lavishness of it when it comes to things such as this. I don't really want political occasions to be encouraging the view that the elites are to be looked up to and all the gold and robes doesn't help with that.

But, yeah, there are things much more worthy of getting worked up about.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

The country doesn't need an elected Head of State. I would also venture to say that there is more dignity in the Queen's little toe than those people who would be candidates for such a position. President Osborne, President Cooper or President Clegg? No thank you.


ETA: Though no a popular sentiment on here, i don't find Charles to be a dislikeable person. I think he genuinely cares about the environment and his work with the Prince's Trust.

 

[Adebesi]

Ive been reading The End of the Party by Andrew Rawnsley, about the rise and fall of New Labour though it nominally starts from the beginning of the second term, with references back to the first term and the Granata deal etc. Reminds me a bit of Bob Woodward's Bush At War trilogy, given a lot of it covers similar territory, and the amount of detail it goes into about what was going on behind the scenes. Absolutely fascinating stuff, especially in terms of the details of the rivalry between Blair and Brown, and how obstructive the latter was. I hesitated before reading this because I thought it was all a bit passe now but went for it anyway and glad I did.

Sorry, I know this is hardly current but the Book thread seems to be more devoted to fiction - and this is quite illuminating in terms of how things work - or at least how they can work - in Westminster.

 

[NinjaFletch]

The country doesn't need an elected Head of State. I would also venture to say that there is more dignity in the Queen's little toe than those people who would be candidates for such a position. President Osborne, President Cooper or President Clegg? No thank you.


ETA: Though no a popular sentiment on here, i don't find Charles to be a dislikeable person. I think he genuinely cares about the environment and his work with the Prince's Trust.

I'm sure he does, but thats a problem, regardless of whether you share his views on the issue or not.

It also the other reason why I think arguments like DOTAs don't really hold much sway for me. Because we all know that the royal family aren't apolitical, they have thoughts and feelings too and have the ear of the countries most influential people yet we play this song and dance and pretend like they don't.

What the solution is I don't know, and I accept that theres problems with electing a head of state that would have to be carefully dealt with, but I don't think we should turn our back on democracy just because its hard.

 

[Ubik]

Looks like Burnham is almost certainly going to be running for mayor of Greater Manchester.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

I see that Lucas has refused to rule herself out of the Green Party's leadership race. Although i don't think her reputation is quite what it used to be.

Looks like Burnham is almost certainly going to be running for mayor of Greater Manchester.

Do you think that's good or bad new for Corbyn? Is it the removal of a previous opponent from the shadow cabinet, or a means by which a known Labour figure improves his profile (similar to Khan)?

 

[sun_tzu]

Do you think that's good or bad new for Corbyn? Is it the removal of a previous opponent from the shadow cabinet, or a means by which a known Labour figure improves his profile (similar to Khan)?

Be interesting to see who he makes shadow home sec... Might promote Nandy? but there are not many MP's who you would say ideolgically are close to Corbyn and are competent enough to do such a high profile job without being a disaster (e.g. Burgdon)

 

[DOTA]

I see that Lucas has refused to rule herself out of the Green Party's leadership race. Although i don't think her reputation is quite what it used to be.

She's still our beloved Caroline, here in Brighton Pavilion.

Can't see anyone beating her if she runs and think with her back the Greens would get a boost. Shame it didn't work out with Bennett. I liked the idea of Lucas stepping aside and letting someone else build a profile for themselves but sadly she built a rather bad one - not helped by a silly manifesto but also she just never got the hang of interviews at all. I'm more inclined to go back to someone, in Lucas, that I have feel confident will improve the party's results.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Feckin hell, I haven't been around at the time PMQs is on in a while, it sounds like a pub on a Saturday night. What a disgrace.

 

[Ubik]

Do you think that's good or bad new for Corbyn? Is it the removal of a previous opponent from the shadow cabinet, or a means by which a known Labour figure improves his profile (similar to Khan)?

Does seem to be a method for which people can build powerbases elsewhere, have the authority of being directly elected, potentially by a greater number than voted for Corbyn as leader, to speak independent of the leadership. Not sure I see Burnham being a candidate for leader again, though, having already lost twice. West Midlands might be one to watch in future, though.

 

[Adebesi]

You reckon Burnham would have a good chance of getting the mayor job, given he's a Scouser?

It would certainly be a good job, Manchester Council seems to be doing great things, I seem to find myself reading about it most weeks in The Economist as an example of a brilliantly run and innovative council, an example of how local government should be run.

 

[Ubik]

You reckon Burnham would have a good chance of getting the mayor job, given he's a Scouser?

It would certainly be a good job, Manchester Council seems to be doing great things, I seem to find myself reading about it most weeks in The Economist as an example of a brilliantly run and innovative council, an example of how local government should be run.

Good chance of being the Labour candidate, which is basically the de facto mayor-in-waiting. MP for Leigh so does have the connection.

 

[Smores]

You reckon Burnham would have a good chance of getting the mayor job, given he's a Scouser?

It would certainly be a good job, Manchester Council seems to be doing great things, I seem to find myself reading about it most weeks in The Economist as an example of a brilliantly run and innovative council, an example of how local government should be run.

People usually vote for the higher profile candidate so I think he's guaranteed it. He wouldn't bother running otherwise but I do think it shows he's done with leadership bids for a long while.

I agree completely with what Burnham was saying today. It's important for Labour to get their foot in the door with these roles and it provides a great base for Labour to build and argue from.

 

[711]

The BMA are to have a referendum. Not a ballot of course, that might make them sound like a trade union or something.

 

[Untied]

Do you think that's good or bad new for Corbyn? Is it the removal of a previous opponent from the shadow cabinet, or a means by which a known Labour figure improves his profile (similar to Khan)?

Burnham's already lost two leadership elections comprehensively. He will never be Labour leader.

Also Whittingdale

 

[Walrus]

Feckin hell, I haven't been around at the time PMQs is on in a while, it sounds like a pub on a Saturday night. What a disgrace.

Its pathetic. They do precious little that anyone would class as actual work, but feel entitled to bump themselves a nice 10% pay rise (while causing Junior Doctors - people who do actually work - to go on strike). I could go on a good old fashioned rant on the topic but why bother? The worst part is I actually genuinely thought that the whole Scottish independence referendum would trigger some proper political reform over the UK.

 

[Smores]

Liz Truss on newsnight is terrible, she tries to speak like Cameron with pauses but just speaks incredibly loudly and waffles.

The Tories really do have a terrible cabinet.

 

[Chorley1974]

You reckon Burnham would have a good chance of getting the mayor job, given he's a Scouser?

It would certainly be a good job, Manchester Council seems to be doing great things, I seem to find myself reading about it most weeks in The Economist as an example of a brilliantly run and innovative council, an example of how local government should be run.

I think his scouse roots would be a major issue for start, never mind the rest.

 

[Untied]

Liz Truss on newsnight is terrible, she tries to speak like Cameron with pauses but just speaks incredibly loudly and waffles.

The Tories really do have a terrible cabinet.

"We import two thirds of our cheese... [beat] ...that is a DISGRACE"

 

[Silva]

Pork, she's the pork lady. Hence the Cameronesque behaviour.

 

[Blatzo]

What's the craic with Cameron wanting to push a British bill of rights whilst at the same time pushing for us to remain in the EU (one of the strongest draws of which is the rights we have as a result of European law)?

Serious question.

 

[Silva]

What's the craic with Cameron wanting to push a British bill of rights whilst at the same time pushing for us to remain in the EU (one of the strongest draws of which is the rights we have as a result of European law)?

Serious question.

The ECHR is separate from the EU, and the tories want out of it because they don't want to have to comply with international human rights agreements. They're dressing it up as having British rights for British people, but it's really a transparent ploy to royally feck the common man.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

The ECHR is separate from the EU, and the tories want out of it because they don't want to have to comply with international human rights agreements. They're dressing it up as having British rights for British people, but it's really a transparent ploy to royally feck the common man.

No its not, its a move to stop the weighting and interpretation of competing human rights being decided by people far away who don't live with or pay for the consequences of those decisions.

 

[Blatzo]

No its not, its a move to stop the weighting and interpretation of competing human rights being decided by people far away who don't live with or pay for the consequences of those decisions.

How can a party leader take that view and support staying in the EU?

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

How can a party leader take that view and support staying in the EU?

How can a party leader say he might support leaving the EU and then say it would lead to world war three if we did 3 months later. I'm not sure how giving benefits to migrants kicks off world war three but thank god he got the EU to see sense or else he would be leading us to war. (Or he is a lying cnut)

 

[Silva]

No its not, its a move to stop the weighting and interpretation of competing human rights being decided by people far away who don't live with or pay for the consequences of those decisions.

Have to disagree completely here mate. Courts tend to go with precedents, and once they set one it'll be the same treatment for the UK and whichever country the judges live in, including the British judges. It's not so much a bunch of faraway faceless judges, as it is judges from all over Europe doing their best to pass judgements that the entire continent should abide by.

It's really quite hard to have any faith in the current government, and in particular that line of thinking, when the people who would be writing the new human rights bill have consistently attempted to chip away at some of the most respected institutions (BBC, NHS). And have consistently tried to censor our ability to use modern means of communication. Not to mention their complete disregard for the will of peoples, for example their bullish behaviour in Lancashire when locals made their opposition to fracking clear.

When you look at their behaviour and ideals, it's really quite obvious that the only human right we'll have is to jump off a cliff somewhere.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Have to disagree completely here mate. Courts tend to go with precedents, and once they set one it'll be the same treatment for the UK and whichever country the judges live in, including the British judges. It's not so much a bunch of faraway faceless judges, as it is judges from all over Europe doing their best to pass judgements that the entire continent should abide by.

It's really quite hard to have any faith in the current government, and in particular that line of thinking, when the people who would be writing the new human rights bill have consistently attempted to chip away at some of the most respected institutions (BBC, NHS). And have consistently tried to censor our ability to use modern means of communication. Not to mention their complete disregard for the will of peoples, for example their bullish behaviour in Lancashire when locals made their opposition to fracking clear.

When you look at their behaviour and ideals, it's really quite obvious that the only human right we'll have is to jump off a cliff somewhere.

I know we argued this before over voting rights for prisoners.

I see there are basic ideals but applying them should be left to the countries as far as possible and that isn't happening at the moment, it's a power grab from Europe and a pretty obvious one.

 

[Shamwow]

Have to disagree completely here mate. Courts tend to go with precedents, and once they set one it'll be the same treatment for the UK and whichever country the judges live in, including the British judges. It's not so much a bunch of faraway faceless judges, as it is judges from all over Europe doing their best to pass judgements that the entire continent should abide by.

It's really quite hard to have any faith in the current government, and in particular that line of thinking, when the people who would be writing the new human rights bill have consistently attempted to chip away at some of the most respected institutions (BBC, NHS). And have consistently tried to censor our ability to use modern means of communication. Not to mention their complete disregard for the will of peoples, for example their bullish behaviour in Lancashire when locals made their opposition to fracking clear.

When you look at their behaviour and ideals, it's really quite obvious that the only human right we'll have is to jump off a cliff somewhere.

And they consistently ignore the advice of experts when it suits them.

 

[Silva]

I know we argued this before over voting rights for prisoners.

I see there are basic ideals but applying them should be left to the countries as far as possible and that isn't happening at the moment, it's a power grab from Europe and a pretty obvious one.

But the point of the court, and international human rights as a whole, is to stop particular politicians from having an impact on what universally agreed-upon principles. I can see why you might call it a power grab - but it's not really the experience which that language evokes - the ECHR isn't a colonial presence that forces you to adhere to their will, it's a collection of people from nation states that have come together to ensure that all their people have a mechanism through which they can share a set rights. I'd even argue the EU is more of a power grab than the ECHR given their respective powers, to go back to Blatzo's original question.

I'd much rather have an extended set of human rights which applies as far and wide as possible than have what are bare-minimum rights be continually changed by a Theresa May, Gideon Osbourne or even John McDonnell and Andy Burnham. These are the things that should only change when humanity as a whole has a "ah, shit, we ballsed up" moment, rather than the personal opinion of what will occasionally be extremely ideological individuals.

 

[Silva]

Just think about how different a human right bill controlled by UKIP would be to one controlled by the Green Party. It's just not a good way to do this.

 

[Mockney]

I see there are basic ideals but applying them should left to the countries as far as possible and that isn't happening at the moment, it's a power grab from Europe and a pretty obvious one.

It's the complete opposite. The power grab is from those who want out, who realise their brand of populist parochial politics will be far less sustainable if it's answerable to an objective authority.