[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[KZNSeagull]

That was the case when they were heredetary too, it doesn't make it democratic or representative no matter how many experts there are. There are many failed politicians, we now have one as Foreign Secretary. Their selection is hardly transparent and I can think of better ways to get an effective autocracy. I agree that in some respects it works but I don't think we have asked the question what it should be doing in its present/future forms. As long as seats in the Lords are a gift of the few, it isn't really fit for purpose in a democracy. The CCP works well on many metrics, but not sure that's a system I'd like here.

I agree it isn't democratic but you have to get subject experts somewhere into the system because they are not in the HoC and probably never will be. I would argue that you could never have a fully democratic HoL, you would have to have certain appointments in there too.
I have just looked up the reforms that Dunt suggest in his book and it is broadly in line with Lord Wakeham's Royal Commission in 2000. He would get rid of the Bishops and all remaining hereditary peers. He would get rid of the PM's appointments and give the Appointment's Commission full control over all appointments with the ultimate aim of a 50:50 split between political and cross bench appointments. Political appointments would be in the proportion to the votes gained by each party at the last GE. All peers would be appointed on renewable 15 year terms.

What he says about it being fully democratic "Opening it up to the frenzied demands of elections would obliterate the one institution in Westminster which provides expertise and rebuild it as just another generalist party political body. The idea of the Commons, in it's current form, operating without the scrutiny offered by the Lords is frankly terrifying."

 

[chip]

Even in Australia it isn't compulsory to vote. It's compulsory to turn up and get your name crossed off. After that, you can just draw a big comedy cock on the ballot and stick it in the box. Or just leave the ballot blank.

I have actually done the former, and we got a big comedy cock elected so I should be happy. Forcing people to vote seems popular in many countries but doesn't do anything to ensure democracy.

 

[Bodian]

I got the name of my constituency wrong.

So long as you don't also mix up the names of the parties when it comes to putting your X in the box.......

 

[WATFORD zero]

I have actually done the former, and we got a big comedy cock elected so I should be happy. Forcing people to vote seems popular in many countries but doesn't do anything to ensure democracy.

Well I've never done that, but still got a big comedy cock in 2019

 

[TomandJerry]

Sir Matthew Rycroft, permanent secretary at the Home Office, has told MPs that in theory Rwanda could walk away from its deportation deal with the UK with £240m – the money it has received already – without having to accept a single asylum seeker.

Giving evidence to the public accounts committee, Rycroft said if the UK instigated the break clause in the deal, Rwanda would keep the money already paid.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Sir Matthew Rycroft, permanent secretary at the Home Office, has told MPs that in theory Rwanda could walk away from its deportation deal with the UK with £240m – the money it has received already – without having to accept a single asylum seeker.

Giving evidence to the public accounts committee, Rycroft said if the UK instigated the break clause in the deal, Rwanda would keep the money already paid.

The BRITISH Supreme court do not trust Rwanda after a number of refugees they were 'processing' were killed in Rwanda whilst others were sent back to the countries they were trying to escape from.

No laws that this current cabal can change will effect that view of Rwanda by the BRITISH supreme court that they don't trust Rwanda. All of the rest is bullshit, aimed at the seriously naive and It is absolutely dead in the water.

The £240M that we have already paid Rwanda is sufficient to process 400,000 asylum cases from within the UK using UK staff. The total current backlog, that has been building for over 10 years is 175,000. We could have processed the complete backlog, with those who were accepted working and contributing to UK tax, and those who didn't sent back.

I suspect I may be quoting this post on quite a regular basis

 

[Is it PotG?]

I suspect I may be quoting this post on quite a regular basis

Unlike you to repeat, edit, repeat, edit .....

 

[WATFORD zero]

Unlike you to repeat, edit, repeat, edit .....

So what part of my post is factually incorrect

*edit*

I feel a bit guilty for doing this to you AGAIN and knowing how you love an edit, here's something to keep you happy because I'm off for dinner

Boris could RETURN as Prime Minister in astonishing plan being hatched by disgruntled Conservative MPs - and 'dream ticket' leadership tie-up with Nigel Farage is even being considered!​

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...n-return-Prime-Minister-astonishing-plan.html

Have a nice evening

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I would respectfully suggest that Braverman, Rees-Mogg, Kwarteng, Baker are all from the far right of the political spectrum and have held very senior positions in this Government's cabinet. Lee Anderson is Deputy Chairman FFS.

So yes, I believe that this Government has had, and continues to have extreme right wingers in positions of power within cabinet, the fear of which I believe is one of your major arguments against PR and for FPTP. In that an extreme party in coalition may be able to get someone into cabinet ?

But there's really no need to exaggerate, Tommy Robinson

Well by mocking my quip about Robinson you prove my point.

Israel has some utter mentalists in the coalition. We haven't come close, because fuckwits like Yaxley-Lennon, David Icke, Farage can't get past the first post.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Well by mocking my quip about Robinson you prove my point.

Israel has some utter mentalists in the coalition. We haven't come close, because fuckwits like Yaxley-Lennon, David Icke, Farage can't get past the first post.

To be fair H, there's a good chance that Farage would have got a seat in Parliament, but Cabinet ? Not a chance in hell with the majority Johnson got last election and the Tory's hatred of Farage. He could have joined the other swivel-eyed loons on the back benches (and let's face it, we've had a few) rather than those loons I've already highlighted above that have made it into cabinet and serious power, but Yaxley-Lennon and David Icke ?

I really don't think you're helping your case at all

I've had a glass, I'll pick up in the morning

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Well by mocking my quip about Robinson you prove my point.

Israel has some utter mentalists in the coalition. We haven't come close, because fuckwits like Yaxley-Lennon, David Icke, Farage can't get past the first post.

I don't think anybody's proposing the sort of party list system used in Israel. And if they are I strongly disagree with them. The weirdos.
Under the STV system (which isn't just my hobbyhorse, it's the one favoured by the Electoral Reform bods), your right/left wing nutcase would still have to persuade over 15% of people across an area roughly the size of East Sussex to vote for them as an individual candidate.
So you might get the odd Farage level twat getting in, but I wouldn't say he's any worse than some of the people on the extreme of either party as it is.
I just had a quick look at the BNP's results in General Elections, their best result was 17% in Barking in 2005. 17% would be enough to get elected, but considering that would be averaged out over a larger multi-seat constituency, they've never got anywhere near enough votes to be elected under an STV system.

 

[A1X]

The BRITISH Supreme court do not trust Rwanda after a number of refugees they were 'processing' were killed in Rwanda whilst others were sent back to the countries they were trying to escape from.

No laws that this current cabal can change will effect that view of Rwanda by the BRITISH supreme court that they don't trust Rwanda. All of the rest is bullshit, aimed at the seriously naive and It is absolutely dead in the water.

But…but…but…they have a piece of paper which says it definitely, definitely is safe! And no British politician who returns from abroad with a piece of paper and a commitment to something has ever been proven wrong before.

 

[Is it PotG?]

But…but…but…they have a piece of paper which says it definitely, definitely is safe! And no British politician who returns from abroad with a piece of paper and a commitment to something has ever been proven wrong before.

View attachment 171095

Sir Starmer has the whole thing covered, next year can't come quickly enough.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Mark François (the uber kynt) has the Government over his knee again.

I almost want the Government to succeed in fighting this horrid turd off along with his Gammony Thickets, but hey, the Tories believe that gaslighting the nation on stopping the boats of the 30k of the 700k net immigrants will be popular. They will find out next year that this will be the last of their existential mistakes.

So I hope François and his idiots give Sunak a bloody nose. A shambles of a Government but next time the Country will not vote in someone to ‘get it done’. They’ll vote in someone to get the Tories done…….the kynts.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

They are my human rights too. Oh yes, the Tories promise a British version of them, but who trusts the Tories?

 

[TomandJerry]

​

Parliament’s joint committee on human rights, which is cross-party and chaired by Labour’s Harriet Harman, has published its own briefing on the human rights concerns raised by the Rwanda bill.

The bill would require all domestic courts to accept that Rwanda is safe and not to consider any review or appeal brought on the grounds that it is not – even if there is compelling evidence in support. This raises difficult constitutional questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law. It would prevent the courts considering arguable claims that removal to Rwanda is unsafe, which would expose individuals to a risk of their fundamental rights not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment being violated, and is inconsistent with the right to an effective remedy guaranteed under article 13 ECHR [European convention on human rights]"

 

[TomandJerry]

If Sunak does lose the vote the bill is dead. He can’t ask parliament to consider the same bill twice in the same session, and with an election expected next year Sunak is out of time.

 

[Randy McNob]

Who's proud to be British today?

 

[beorhthelm]

If Sunak does lose the vote the bill is dead. He can’t ask parliament to consider the same bill twice in the same session, and with an election expected next year Sunak is out of time.

for this reason it probably goes through this stage. i cant see ever making the whole way though, as hinted in previous post, it would cause too many precedents for the legal system. its unfanthomable a law can state catagorically a country is safe in perpetuity. (does it or is this just what gets reported?)

 

[TomandJerry]