Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
If you know what it means, the relevance is glaringly obvious.
So I’ll ask again a simple question, do you know what “parliament is sovereign” means?
I am no expert, nor is anyone else here, even if they may try and claim so, but impeachment hasn't been used for over 200 years and when it was, it was only for crimes and misdemeanours that could not be dealt with by the law of the land.
Which suggests that impeachment as a concept is dead. It doesn't exist for all practical reasons.
If he ignores the Benn Act, he may well end up in court.
I know exactly what I’m on about thanks. My belief is that once you step into the House of Commons you are a public servant whether you're in government or on the opposition benches. Your language and behaviour should all be expected to be of the same standard.
If Boris doesn't get a new deal, does bringing back May's deal and whipping MP's to vote against it cover him from seeking an extension?
No, but some commentators believe that if he manages to pass it, then crashes and burns the additional requirements resulting in no deal, he’d have fulfilled the law and not need to extend.
I see. Politics is gonna get worse before it gets better it seems.
It's called the ministerial code look it up.
I see your declaration to attempt debate in good faith has been resulted in false equivalency, although your trademark lashings of tangential pedantry survive but with your usual wry humour substituted with accusations of persecution.
If you genuinely cannot see the difference between the language used by the front bench, and the PM himself, and the behaviours of the rest of the house I would be surprised.
The language of war is being used. People are positioned as traitors by our own Government. The press, allied to the Brexit movement, echoes this language and singles out individuals, including the judiciary, for attacks using such language. Addresses are published. MPs are threatened and attacked. This is serious.
Last edited:
I think it will get worse before it gets even worse
More than likely!
I see the dangers of all sides and the language they use.
A week or so back I mentioned the man from Manchester murdered by his neighbours over Brexit. The victim, a leave voter, killed by a remain voter.
The actions of them all have consequences.
This morning, while others talk about the threats they have received in the last, a leave voting Tory MP had a brick left at there door.
We've seen it outside of Brexit as well. Look at the labour MPs being harassed by other labour supporters for their views on anti semitism, Corbyn and many other things. Angela Eagle for example getting hundreds of homophobic messages from labour supporters.
Another posted last week posted a study into the threats MPs receive. Corbyn and Boris cane out top, around 10% of the messages they receive are threats or abuse.
How anyone can look at it and think, well this is all one sides fault is beyond me. The language used, in parliament, on social media, in interviews and everywhere is unacceptable and nobody is above blame.
I said MY BELIEF. I judge on what I see and how it makes me feel. Both sides currently are a disgrace. Sorry Smores, that’s just how I feel. The last 3 years have shown us as a country to be a worldwide diagrace.
We need a party, with hats and streamers and everything.
I'm neither dude, and this is why I try and stay our of the current events threads
There is anger and inflammatory rhetoric on BOTH side of the house and I see no words from EITHER side that inflame my emotions so much as to enact my anger.
This is not the local pub, this is the frigging House of Commons ffs!!!
If you think think that using words like “traitor” or “enemy of the people” is acceptable during a debate in the House of Commons then you really have your head so far up your arse that you might as well live in a dictatorship. You really have no idea. This has nothing to do with political persuasion anymore, it’s to do with basic human decency and respecting the UK’s democratic parliamentary constitution. And to say that using inflammatory rhetoric used by a MP does not cause any harm is absolute bullsh*t as has been proven by the many threats received by MP’s, some even quoting one of Boris Johnson’s many inflammatory remarks he has made since becoming PM.
You honestly believe that there is universal equivalency here?
You cannot see that the Prime Minister using words like "surrender", "capitulation" and "traitor" is an issue? You cannot see that the Brexit supporting press echo this language, specifically link this language to individuals (including our judiciary) and publish addresses? You cannot see the from our national executive's language to the death threats and assaults on our MPs?
Where is the equivalency? The opposition do not use this rhetoric as a briefed strategy. The remain press do not echo the Mail's assault on our institutions.
I want to believe you are sincere in your belief of equivalency. I find it hard to do so.
Robust? Are you fecking kidding me? Do you even understand what traitor to your country implies? It means you’re committing treason, a crime that until quite recently still carried the death penalty.
Allow me to be the pedant. The process remains extant since the power has not been expunged so it's quite clear that Parliament remains capable of wielding it should it so wish. Since Parliament is in control of what it can do and is also the sole arbiter of the grounds on which it does so it seems that failure to comply with the Benn Act would be possible fodder.
Whether it will do so, or would be wise to do so, is another matter, but it seems reasonable to conclude that it probably can do so if it wishes.
I’ve never once said words don’t cause harm, just that those words are not exclusive to any one side.
And don’t talk to me about decency while saying I have my head up my arse. I’m not here arguing with anyone Rams, trying not to anyway.
Do you have a link for this please? I’ve been googling and can’t find any reference to it.
No I’m not kidding you. Not one of my posts states any kind of agreement with the words used by the government and Boris in particular. Just that both sides have been a disgrace for the last 3 years and are only getting more vitriolic and entrenched in their battles.
I am saying both sides of the debate have and are acting irresponsibly and their actions, words and sound bites all have consequences, as I demonstrated in my previous post.
People keep going back to the current PM. He's been there 2 months and this language goes back well beyond that time period. May certainly wasn't like Boris yet the same threats, same language, same abuse occured.
Why are you defending the indefensible then???? What happened yesterday in the House of Commons was unacceptable and anyone condoning yesterday’s behavior needs to have a long look in the mirror and ask themselves in what kind of society they want to live in!
BBC live text stream for HoC. It was posted fairly early so scroll to the first page and it should be there.
You can disagree with the government and its language while also disagreeing with those on the opposing benches and their language.
@WensleyMU incapable of answering my question, or simply unwilling because it doesn't fit your trolling?
Intemperate things have been said on both sides, yes, but yesterday felt like something different: a strategy to goad a parliament the govt clearly does not respect.
And as I said in my previous post, which you have yet to reply, I think you're wrong. Which makes you wrong.
It's clear as day that BJ has had personal tuition and is inspired by Trump's tactics. As Jess Phillips and Ken Clarke just exposed in parliament, this is a clear strategy to incite hatred. Everything else is simply defensive reaction.
I am waiting for your response. I thought you had perhaps gone for lunch.
No wonder that right-leaning commentators and politicians want a 'dignified' pall of silence to fall over discussion of tragedies like Jo Cox's assassination - the murder was committed by a right-leaning fanatic. It's an old, cynical routine: supposedly outraged calls for silent respect instead of self-reflection, assigned responsibility and scrutiny; calls for mere 'thoughts and prayers' from the thoughtless and godless; desperate pleas for non-politicisation from those whose desperate politics leave them with blood on their hands via useful idiot proxies.
It's a deliberate policy of deflection, and anyone of conscience can see through that tired trick.
It's a deliberate policy of deflection, and anyone of conscience can see through that tired trick.
Johnson's senior adviser, Dominic Cummings, was shortly afterwards confronted on the parliamentary estate by Labour MP Karl Turner, who said MPs including himself had received more death threats.
Cummings responded: “Well vote for a deal then.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...efuses-to-apologise-for-language-about-jo-cox
Cummings responded: “Well vote for a deal then.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...efuses-to-apologise-for-language-about-jo-cox
Their language was not impeachable at all. That is not what impeachment is for so I disagree with you strongly there.
And I do have a problem with everyone else, as well as the PM.
I see nothing at all wrong with that view.
Not the right, her family, her husband.
They don't want her to be used as a political pawn. Of course using her memory to educate, remember and inform is fine. Not to score cheap points though.
You categorically stated that 'I don't think anyone disagrees with that' and 'in reality all are guilty'.
I've easily proved both statements are false and essentially bullshit.
Your delusion is quite frightening.
Last edited:
You nor anyone else have proved a god damn thing with your opinions...
Case in point.
You really don’t get it. Unfortunately I’m travelling all day so can’t draw you a nice chart yet.
Parliament is sovereign. They can do and legislate for whatever they choose. They can write impeachment legislation, define the punishment as being fired out of a cannon, impeach and convict him based on their new legislation, and then fire him out of a cannon.
The Supreme Court ruling was clear.