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

[Audax]

I think the number of people like me are growing, if recent by-elections and my own anecdotal experiences are anything to go by. If I had to put myself on the political spectrum somewhere, it would probably be very, very marginally right of centre, i.e. the moderate wing of the Tory party which has sadly had a steamroller driven through it by Bojo and his cronies. If there was a general election tomorrow, I’d most likely to be putting a tick in the LD box.

Very similar to me then. Last time I did one of those "here's where you are on the political spectrum" tests, it would have been a struggle to get any closer to the centre point. Very slight tendency in favour of the Tories on fiscal policy, and very slight tendency in favour of Labour on social policy.

My ideal world would see us alternate between Tory-Lib Dem coalitions and Labour-Lib Dem coalitions. In both cases with the Lib Dems strong enough to keep the other party closer to the central position and moderate against the more extreme wings in both parties.

I couldn't vote for Corbyn's Labour - too far left for me, too much Union-driven influence. I can't and won't vote for Boris' Conservatives. I could vote for Starmer's Labour, if I thought it would help deliver a Labour-Lib Dem government. But I'm far more likely to vote Lib Dem, especially if they position themselves as the "only just" right of centre fiscal party with a strong green policy to sit alongside it.

 

[Brian Fantana]

Very similar to me then. Last time I did one of those "here's where you are on the political spectrum" tests, it would have been a struggle to get any closer to the centre point. Very slight tendency in favour of the Tories on fiscal policy, and very slight tendency in favour of Labour on social policy.

My ideal world would see us alternate between Tory-Lib Dem coalitions and Labour-Lib Dem coalitions. In both cases with the Lib Dems strong enough to keep the other party closer to the central position and moderate against the more extreme wings in both parties.

I couldn't vote for Corbyn's Labour - too far left for me, too much Union-driven influence. I can't and won't vote for Boris' Conservatives. I could vote for Starmer's Labour, if I thought it would help deliver a Labour-Lib Dem government. But I'm far more likely to vote Lib Dem, especially if they position themselves as the "only just" right of centre fiscal party with a strong green policy to sit alongside it.

This is exactly where I am too. All of it. Summed up better than I could!

 

[Blue3]

Very similar to me then. Last time I did one of those "here's where you are on the political spectrum" tests, it would have been a struggle to get any closer to the centre point. Very slight tendency in favour of the Tories on fiscal policy, and very slight tendency in favour of Labour on social policy.

My ideal world would see us alternate between Tory-Lib Dem coalitions and Labour-Lib Dem coalitions. In both cases with the Lib Dems strong enough to keep the other party closer to the central position and moderate against the more extreme wings in both parties.

I couldn't vote for Corbyn's Labour - too far left for me, too much Union-driven influence. I can't and won't vote for Boris' Conservatives. I could vote for Starmer's Labour, if I thought it would help deliver a Labour-Lib Dem government. But I'm far more likely to vote Lib Dem, especially if they position themselves as the "only just" right of centre fiscal party with a strong green policy to sit alongside it.

I assume then you think the current political system is broken if that’s a correct assumption and I hold that view then the only way forward is to abolish the first past the post voting for something that takes all views into account

 

[rippleman]

seems nothing will materially change? as far as i read the bill will roll up previous legislation and change how and when ECHR apply. there's plenty of debate in parliament yet to come, no doubt focus in news will be about a couple of objectionable clauses that few outside law really understand.

As the ECHR is "hardwired" into the Good Friday Agreement, does this mean that in any dispute the British government could just ignore any ECHR decision they didn't like? How will that secure the peace in Northern Ireland?

If the bungle**** and his lapdogs can pick and choose which ECHR decisions they will comply with, who is to say they won't destabilise the still fragile peace in Northern Ireland.

And a final point. This is a court of HUMAN RIGHTS. Don't you find it disurbing that our government is putting itself in a position where it can ignore decisions made by a HUMAN RIGHTS court?

 

[Audax]

I assume then you think the current political system is broken if that’s a correct assumption and I hold that view then the only way forward is to abolish the first past the post voting for something that takes all views into account

I'm very much on the record in the appropriate threads on NSC that I think FPTP is an abomination in terms of being "democratic". PR would be best, but I'd be happy with AV + replacing House of Lords with a PR elected house (essentially duplicating what Australia has).

 

[rippleman]

From BBC - Today's PMQs

Today the Diana Award are raising awareness in schools and online, he says, and asks the PM if he will he encourage young people experiencing bullying to speak up?

Johnson thanks him and says everyone understands bullying is an appalling experience and something we should not tolerate in our society.

Except when the bully is his Home Secretary of course. More double standards from the bungle****.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Get us out of the EU they said. Look at the hypocrisy in Parliament, of MPs with Irish passports.

[tweet]1539520985795284997[/tweet]

 

[beorhthelm]

As the ECHR is "hardwired" into the Good Friday Agreement, does this mean that in any dispute the British government could just ignore any ECHR decision they didn't like? How will that secure the peace in Northern Ireland?

If the bungle**** and his lapdogs can pick and choose which ECHR decisions they will comply with, who is to say they won't destabilise the still fragile peace in Northern Ireland.

And a final point. This is a court of HUMAN RIGHTS. Don't you find it disurbing that our government is putting itself in a position where it can ignore decisions made by a HUMAN RIGHTS court?

the premise is the ECHR is incorporated into the Bill of Rights. the rights dont disappear, they become part of primary legislation.

 

[Baldseagull]

Get us out of the EU they said. Look at the hypocrisy in Parliament, of MPs with Irish passports.

[tweet]1539520985795284997[/tweet]

Up from 47 in 2016. More Irish Passports than UK passports issued in N. Ireland for the first time too.

 

[nicko31]

Get us out of the EU they said. Look at the hypocrisy in Parliament, of MPs with Irish passports.

[tweet]1539520985795284997[/tweet]

Do we have a list of the 321?

I heard Andrew Bridgen is still waiting for his Irish passport though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QzOdCqFbfs

 

[Baldseagull]

the premise is the ECHR is incorporated into the Bill of Rights. the rights dont disappear, they become part of primary legislation.

So the idea is that a British Judge interprets essentially the same law, rather than a European one? I wonder what the material difference is to having a UK PM appointed judge decide whether what the UK PM wants to do is legal, and a Council of Europe appointed judge making the decision?

 

[Bodian]

the premise is the ECHR is incorporated into the Bill of Rights. the rights dont disappear, they become part of primary legislation.

If that really is the case - then why is it being done at all? Why would Raab be saying we need to change it because the ECHR has stopped the Rwanda flights? The only logical reason is that the proposed primary legislation will be weaker than the ECHR. That's why the Tories want it done - it's not just a 'tidying-up' exercise.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

So the idea is that a British Judge interprets essentially the same law, rather than a European one? I wonder what the material difference is to having a UK PM appointed judge decide whether what the UK PM wants to do is legal, and a Council of Europe appointed judge making the decision?

Not forgetting that one of the 46 judges in the ECHR is British.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Do we have a list of the 321?

Apparently not, although it is across both houses so not all MPs, but also in the Lords. I'll keep my eyes open because I'm sure someone will leak it.

Thinking aloud, does this affect how they vote on the NIP or the GFA? Is there a conflict of interest?

 

[beorhthelm]

So the idea is that a British Judge interprets essentially the same law, rather than a European one? I wonder what the material difference is to having a UK PM appointed judge decide whether what the UK PM wants to do is legal, and a Council of Europe appointed judge making the decision?

if you're questioning the independence of the our high courts and Supreme Court, we have a much larger problem already. as they've told the government they've acted unlawfully a couple of times i dont have that concern.

If that really is the case - then why is it being done at all? Why would Raab be saying we need to change it because the ECHR has stopped the Rwanda flights? The only logical reason is that the proposed primary legislation will be weaker than the ECHR. That's why the Tories want it done - it's not just a 'tidying-up' exercise.

well thats the "picking a fight" argument, why are they bothering, its a good question. the consultation has been around for months though so it not in reaction to one incident. in that consulation they make the case this is been talked about for decades. Rabb is playing to an audience as we well know.

that consultation is here. isnt as scary as a few sensationalist headlines, though im sure there are problems.

 

[sydney]

I'm very much on the record in the appropriate threads on NSC that I think FPTP is an abomination in terms of being "democratic". PR would be best, but I'd be happy with AV + replacing House of Lords with a PR elected house (essentially duplicating what Australia has).

Hmm , we just managed to get rid of one of the most corrupt governments in federal history , they are still hanging around like a bad smell , unfortunately a sad fact is that not enough people are interested in politics and as long as it remains that way we will be run by self serving , corrupt entities.

 

[A1X]

Get us out of the EU they said. Look at the hypocrisy in Parliament, of MPs with Irish passports.

[tweet]1539520985795284997[/tweet]

"Do as we say, not as we do" from Brexit Tories? I struggle to believe such a thing.

 

[Audax]

Hmm , we just managed to get rid of one of the most corrupt governments in federal history , they are still hanging around like a bad smell , unfortunately a sad fact is that not enough people are interested in politics and as long as it remains that way we will be run by self serving , corrupt entities.

Australia suffered from a similar issue as the UK - the Opposition dropped the ball badly at previous elections. Where I think the Aussie system pays dividends is that the upper house, being PR elected, hasn't had a majority in decades. It can and does have the power to put the brakes on the excesses of government policy.

 

[sydney]

Australia suffered from a similar issue as the UK - the Opposition dropped the ball badly at previous elections. Where I think the Aussie system pays dividends is that the upper house, being PR elected, hasn't had a majority in decades. It can and does have the power to put the brakes on the excesses of government policy.

we have state and federal govts. we are , per capita the most governed country on the planet , they are all on 6 figure salaries with perks and the local shire/council CEO'S can earn 300 k a year on a salary basis .......it's a ****ing joke mate.

 

[Baldseagull]

if you're questioning the independence of the our high courts and Supreme Court, we have a much larger problem already. as they've told the government they've acted unlawfully a couple of times i dont have that concern.



well thats the "picking a fight" argument, why are they bothering, its a good question. the consultation has been around for months though so it not in reaction to one incident. in that consulation they make the case this is been talked about for decades. Rabb is playing to an audience as we well know.

that consultation is here. isnt as scary as a few sensationalist headlines, though im sure there are problems.

I am not really questioning the courts as they are, I fear though what they could become, we have never really had a PM that gave less regard to fair play, truth and integrity than Johnson, he can appoint judges, looking at the appointments he has made, or tried to make, being under his influence or in his bed seems to be an important quality. This is the PM that prorogued Parliament illegally to try and avoid Parliament preventing a no deal Brexit, lies more easily than tells the truth, and has demonstrated he is willing to break domestic and international law if he thinks he can get away with it.