[News] Nigel Farage and Reform

[Deportivo Seagull]

Sorry, I don't understand the first bit. How are we not impacted if judges and politicians are corrupt?

On the second part, I agree that we should protect Human Rights. My point is that we have individuals who we don't really know and didn't have any say in their selection, determining an interpretation of what those Human Rights should be.

The ECHR is next to WWII one Churchill‘s greatest accomplishment which you want to trash.
can you point me to the part that you disagree with and a reason why that is the case?

Clue: immigrants isn’t ajustifiable argument.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Are you saying this is a good thing?

of Course it is. Only the terminally stupid would want politically appointed judges. Germany in the 1930’s being a proof in point.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

ECHR judges are elected by members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe are appointed and not elected (at least the UK members). It is not ideal that unelected individuals are responsible for electing officials who sit in judgement on us. Can you name one ECHR judge or one UK member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe?

I already have done.

We are not America where we elect sheriffs or judges. You cannot vote for a Crown Court judge, nor a High Court judge.

EU matters are dealt with by a different court, the European Court of Justice.
.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Given the alternative of politically appointed judges, as with the US Supreme Court, I don't see it as a failing that the Judiciary is appointed by a committee with some understanding.

That isn't the point is it? I thought the point is that Reform's 'policy' is a load of old bollocks.

 

[Stato]

From the latest (Right-wing) The Spectator - written by Matthew Parris (a lifelong Tory).

View attachment 184599

Every time I see Farage, I'm reminded of Christopher Hitchens' line to Sean Hannity:

"You give me the awful impression, I hate to have to say it, of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position ever."​

Born to a certain level of middle class privilege, but with a bit of impostor syndrome when put amongst the golden sons and daughters of old money aristocrats. His unspoken, Uriah Heep like, inferiority complex makes him hate those he considers his betters, but at the same time, so desperate to be thought of as on their side that he goes further in his bigotry and extremisim than they would.

The worry about him is not the election, but us following the same path as France and taking the radical right option because seemingly everything else has failed. The policies being put forward by the Labour Party are not that much different from Macron's: Keep belief in the 'market is king' drivel to keep happy those that have the money; try to fiddle around the edges to make things a bit better for the working classes. This worked for a bit under Blair because there was money around. There now isn't and something far more radical is needed from the left. Success of the Starmer plan is dependent upon growth and we have obstacles in the way of growth, Brexit being the most obvious, but more fundamentally, Western capitalism in it's current form relied on the Western working classes being employed in manufacturing, in order for them to also be consumers. The shift of international capital to the location of the cheapest sources of labour makes this a dying model that more and more obviously works only for those who own the means of production. Biden has managed to do some Keynsian type stuff with the growth that the US has experienced, but it's still not shifted the views of a lot of those who see no future in the model. If the same happens here, Farage could be placed like Le Penn was to exploit desperation.

The danger is that these heckling fantasists convince everyone that there is nothing wrong with the vehicle, it's just that the current engineers aren't removing the grit from the engine. In the depression era thirties, and in post Soviet Russia under Farage's mate we have seen which groups in society are considered to be the 'grit' by those who both sell and believe these lies.

 

[Simster]

You seem to be saying that unelected individuals who have significant control of our lives (using valid UK examples) is a bad thing.

Yes and no. I don't want people like you deciding who the judges are, thanks. That would be more stupid than letting an ill informed public decide over Brexit.

But there does need to be accountability - and our country has come up woefully short in recent years on that score. So moaning that judges in the EHCR are not decided by people like you and I is completely disingenuous. Leaving the EHCR would be like cutting off your arm because you got a scratch on your finger. If you don't like the EHCR then you need to elect politicians advocating changes, not leaving it altogether.

 

[A1X]

Are you saying this is a good thing?

Maybe it's just me but I find the idea of judges being elected rather than chosen based on knowledge and experience an utterly hellish idea.

"Well we have this chap Sir Peregrine Woolstenholme who's been a KC for the last 15 years and presided over a vast range of cases, and has one of the finest knowledges of the English legal system of anyone alive. Alternatively we have Dave Shithead who props up the bar at the Dog & Wanker pub in Moulescomb who thinks we should hang anyone with a degree. Should we put it to a public vote?"

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Every time I see Farage, I'm reminded of Christopher Hitchens' line to Sean Hannity:

"You give me the awful impression, I hate to have to say it, of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position ever."​

Born to a certain level of middle class privilege, but with a bit of impostor syndrome when put amongst the golden sons and daughters of old money aristocrats. His unspoken, Uriah Heep like, inferiority complex makes him hate those he considers his betters, but at the same time, so desperate to be thought of as on their side that he goes further in his bigotry and extremisim than they would.

The worry about him is not the election, but us following the same path as France and taking the radical right option because seemingly everything else has failed. The policies being put forward by the Labour Party are not that much different from Macron's: Keep belief in the 'market is king' drivel to keep happy those that have the money; try to fiddle around the edges to make things a bit better for the working classes. This worked for a bit under Blair because there was money around. There now isn't and something far more radical is needed from the left. Success of the Starmer plan is dependent upon growth and we have obstacles in the way of growth, Brexit being the most obvious, but more fundamentally, Western capitalism in it's current form relied on the Western working classes being employed in manufacturing, in order for them to also be consumers. The shift of international capital to the location of the cheapest sources of labour makes this a dying model that more and more obviously works only for those who own the means of production. Biden has managed to do some Keynsian type stuff with the growth that the US has experienced, but it's still not shifted the views of a lot of those who see no future in the model. If the same happens here, Farage could be placed like Le Penn was to exploit desperation.

The danger is that these heckling fantasists convince everyone that there is nothing wrong with the vehicle, it's just that the current engineers aren't removing the grit from the engine. In the depression era thirties, and in post Soviet Russia under Farage's mate we have seen which groups in society are considered to be the 'grit' by those who both sell and believe these lies.

Superb analysis.

Alas there is no appetite for a populist socialist restructuring. 'Socialism' won't help unless everyone buys into it.
And yet so many appear to be quite happy to leap into the unknown with right wing restructuring, as invented by Farage.
One wonders if Starmer knows all this, and has a plan to effect 'change' by stealth.
I hope so.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yes and no. I don't want people like you deciding who the judges are, thanks. That would be more stupid than letting an ill informed public decide over Brexit.

But there does need to be accountability - and our country has come up woefully short in recent years on that score. So moaning that judges in the EHCR are not decided by people like you and I is completely disingenuous. Leaving the EHCR would be like cutting off your arm because you got a scratch on your finger. If you don't like the EHCR then you need to elect politicians advocating changes, not leaving it altogether.

Indeed.

And one can recall that after decades of not bothering to offer up candidates for management committees or indeed take a blind bit of notice of it's process, 'we' decided that rather than engage with the EU we should just leave.

Anyway, wasn't quite happy with the amount of milk the missus put in my tea this morning, so I need to call the solicitor to fix up a divorce. Back laters.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Despite the Conservative government voting to change the law, to say Rwanda was a safe country, it didn’t actually make it a safe country.
Boris Johnson admitted it as such. Britain has taken in asylum seekers from Rwanda.

The passing of the Act and ratification of the Treaty
The passing of the Act means that the UK government has gone directly against the judgment of the Supreme Court in November 2023 which unequivocally decided that Rwanda is not a safe third country

The Supreme Court is British, and Rishi Sunak can stamp his feet, and lie about ‘foreign courts’ to his hearts content. The whole thing was against the law, British law.

 

[beorhthelm]

a lot of noise about ECHR, seems both sides the argument ignore it's provisions are all written into our law anyway.

the real question is what would leaving the convention enable us to do? apparently for some, it is to expell lots of immigrants. this misses the blindingly obvious problem of where to, and why would they accept them. so leaving the ECHR for that would be utterly pointless.

 

[Berty23]

I would bet a lot of money that everyone who supports leaving ECHR means they want other people to lose their rights, not them. I assume if Labour got in then the reform voters would support the elected government’s right to remove the right of reform voters to legal representation at a trial, or maybe they would support the government removing the right to freedom of speech so anyone who talks about Farage would go to prison. Of course they wouldn’t. They all mean they want other people to lose those rights.

It reminds me of people who voted Brexit moaning about passport checks and issues with them trying to live and work abroad.

 

[Baldseagull]

330.

That's the number of times the court has found against the UK.
In another 140 odd cases the UK was ruled to have made no violation.
The majority are nothing to do with immigration or deportations, which I am assuming is your issue, forgive me if I am wrong.

Most of the cases are where an offender or suspected offender has not been given proper access to the law, or other rights.
A few on state surveillance, or Police investigation and record holding on peaceful protestors.
The most recent case I can see, where the court ruled against the UK, in part, and ruled against a complete family deportation, I think most decent people would agree that it would have been wrong to deport the whole family. The Father was still deported.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-205796#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-205796%22]}

 

[Hamilton]

General Sir Richard Dannatt on Radio 4 laying into the media for saying that we spend too much time listening to a man who has no MPs and has never been an MP. His general thrust is the media are using him because it creates column inches and that’s a dangerous game to play.

 

[Bodian]

And finally, how much should business rates be reduced by, how much would this save and how would we replace that income, or what should be cut to pay for it ?

Because it's always interesting to know why people have read these policies, considered them and decided these policies should win their vote, but I haven't had a lot of luck getting Reform supporters to discuss anything beyond the one liners that are printed on the pamphlets

Another point they @Wallace might like to address:

Business Rates are set by Central Government - but go to local council coffers. Local council funding has been cut drastically by central government over the last 10-15 years. So, cutting business rates would have a direct impact on the ability for these councils to maintain the roads (more potholes), recycling facilities (more rubbish), rufuse collections (more fly-tipping) and so on and so on.

Is @Wallace is happy with that though?

 

[Baldseagull]

General Sir Richard Dannatt on Radio 4 laying into the media for saying that we spend too much time listening to a man who has no MPs and has never been an MP. His general thrust is the media are using him because it creates column inches and that’s a dangerous game to play.

He is right.

 

[Berty23]

Another point they @Wallace might like to address:

Business Rates are set by Central Government - but go to local council coffers. Local council funding has been cut drastically by central government over the last 10-15 years. So, cutting business rates would have a direct impact on the ability for these councils to maintain the roads (more potholes), recycling facilities (more rubbish), rufuse collections (more fly-tipping) and so on and so on.

Is @Wallace is happy with that though?

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that some of the reform policies are not designed for people who like to understand what the policy means in reality.

 

[Berty23]

He is right.

Very. There is a reason that Hitler focused on media and had Goebells

 

[Bodian]

That's the number of times the court has found against the UK.
In another 140 odd cases the UK was ruled to have made no violation.
The majority are nothing to do with immigration or deportations, which I am assuming is your issue, forgive me if I am wrong.

Most of the cases are where an offender or suspected offender has not been given proper access to the law, or other rights.
A few on state surveillance, or Police investigation and record holding on peaceful protestors.
The most recent case I can see, where the court ruled against the UK, in part, and ruled against a complete family deportation, I think most decent people would agree that it would have been wrong to deport the whole family. The Father was still deported.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-205796#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-205796%22]}

Which of these would @Pondicherry think are wrong - and that the UK should have prevailed?

See some examples of how people in United Kingdom have been protected by the European Convention on Human Rights - Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights - www.coe.int

www.coe.int

Vulnerable victims of domestic violence gain exemption from “bedroom tax”​

A woman at severe risk of domestic violence faced eviction from her specially-adapted home because cuts to housing benefits meant she could no longer afford the rent. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the woman was discriminated against because of her gender. The UK then changed the law to exempt women like her from changes to the benefit rules.

Historic ruling ends ban on gay people serving in the armed forces​

Jeanette Smith, Graeme Grady, Duncan Lustig-Prean and John Beckett were all investigated and dismissed from the armed forces because they were gay. The European court ruled that the UK was unable to justify this policy and that its actions against the service members had violated their rights. In response to the judgment, the UK lifted the ban on gay people serving in the military.

Teachers stop hitting children after Scottish mums complain to Strasbourg​

Grace Campbell and Jane Cosans sent their children to state schools which continued to allow the use of corporal punishment. The two mothers complained to the European court, which found that this violated their right to have their children educated in line with their own convictions. Soon afterwards, the UK abolished the use of corporal punishment in state schools.

DNA records of innocent people destroyed after privacy complaint​

Two men from Sheffield had DNA samples taken by the police. Criminal charges against them were dropped. However, under British law the police could retain their DNA forever. The Strasbourg court ruled that keeping DNA records of innocent people breached their right to privacy.

Airline worker wins fight for religious freedom​

Nadia Eweida worked for British Airways (BA). She wore a small cross around her neck, as a sign of her religious faith. BA suspended Nadia from work without pay because her cross violated its uniform policy. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that this was an unreasonable interference with Nadia’s right to freedom of religion - leading to a change in relevant standards in the UK.

Man persecuted for his sexuality wins landmark judgment – transforming the law in Northern Ireland and beyond​

Since the age of 14, Jeffrey Dudgeon experienced fear and psychological distress because his sexuality was seen as a crime. His house was raided by police, and he was interrogated for hours. In a test case, the European court ruled that the law violated the right to private life. In 1982, Northern Ireland legalised gay relationships – followed by many other European countries.

Safeguards for vulnerable people after autistic man was illegally detained in hospital​

H.L., who has autism, was kept in hospital as an “informal patient” after he suffered a mental health crisis. The European court ruled that this amounted to detention and UK law had not sufficiently protected him. In response, the UK introduced legal safeguards for the placement and detention in psychiatric facilities of vulnerable people who cannot make legal decisions for themselves.

 

[Baldseagull]

Another point they @Wallace might like to address:

Business Rates are set by Central Government - but go to local council coffers. Local council funding has been cut drastically by central government over the last 10-15 years. So, cutting business rates would have a direct impact on the ability for these councils to maintain the roads (more potholes), recycling facilities (more rubbish), rufuse collections (more fly-tipping) and so on and so on.

Is @Wallace is happy with that though?

There is a case for reforming the rates system, but Farage can't be arsed to produce a comprehensive solution to the problem that makes sense, or even suggest a review with aims for a better balance. So just cut rates, which all business owners with premises think sounds like a nice idea, whether they are easily afforded or struggling to meet them. Keep it vague, so as many people as possible can think it might be good for them.