No, because Britons have proved that we are a mature enough society that we are willing to set the national accounts straight and not continue the rot of ever increasing borrowing.
The economy is now reaping what was sown over the last term and in the same way we have to stump up for our debts.
Ugh, those days you wake up to the prospect of 5 more years of Conservative government...
I think in every way this is a victory for Cameron. Not only does he have a working majority (since Sinn Fein don't turn up), but he has probably severed the head of any 'significant' opposition, with Milliband, Clegg and Farage all expected to resign. Sturgeon will hang on, but with the SNP landslide in Scotland, how long is it before they're gone from the UK entirely, and we're left with Cameron the only party leader in Westminster with more than one term's experience. And without Clegg to keep happy, he and the Tories are going to have free reign.
Called it on UKIP not being as significant as everyone was saying, winning only one seat and losing their leader. Now the Conservatives are through, and we'll get the referendum on the EU, UKIP are essentially a spent force.
I'm pleased to see the Lib Dems get annihilated, it's exactly what the deserve after breaking their promises, selling themselves out and sacrificing everything they stood for. I shan't be sad to see the back of Clegg.
I'm not sure quite where Labour have gone wrong, except possibly Milliband appearing as weak (although I'd argue Cameron is little stronger). In England and Wales, they actually gained seats (their overall loss is less than loss to the SNP in Scotland), but even then it wouldn't have been enough to challenge the Conservatives. As to where they go from here, I think they'll sadly move closer to centre rather than compete as an actual left wing party (at which they were beaten by the SNP). At which point, they may well lose my support, if they do indeed move further from their principles to get closer to parliament.
The SNP will see themselves as major winners here, but I think it'll be a while before we see what they can achieve. Even with Labour they've failed to keep the Conservatives out, and unless they do press for another referendum, I'm not sure what they can bring to a national parliament. They have a set out principles and policies I'm strongly in favour of, but I don't expect any of them to come to pass in their current position. It'll be interesting to see, though.
I'm also wondering where we'll be in five year's time with Party Politics. UKIP will likely be gone, the LDs will be just ghosts in a political graveyard, and the SNP may not even be a part of the union. Could we be seeing this age of multi-party politics coming to an end after just one election, before returning to the traditional two party decision?
/\/\ out of curiosity, how so? Labour was funding it by taxing bankers bonus and mansion tax, which would have just meant bonuses were lowered and shares would be offered as bonuses instead, and house prices would suddenly cap out at about 1.9 million.
However WRT scotland, even if all the scottish seats were labour, theyd still lose. England were scared stiff of witless Ed and Balls team, saw what was coming and said, 'nope', 5 years of full tory control to see if they can actually do the deficit sorting they stated , £8bn increase in NHS spending planned and we get a clear out of the poor candidates in Lab and LD and we see a resurgent left in 2020?
Will be interesting to see what happens in 2 years at the next local election. Perhaps LD will make a comeback that way? Labour needs a leader with a strong personality and leadership skills. Can't see anybody obvious at the moment, other than perhaps John Bercow? I saw an interview with him a few years ago and he seemed ok, not perfect, but at least he had a personality or maybe David will come back? The trouble is the whole lot of them (all parties) are dire personality wise.
The alarming thought now is that as Cameron is only doing one term, whoever takes over Labour next has five years to get their act together before we get another Conservative government under May or Osborne, which is terrifying...
Gee, thanks Scotland... (See this is why we can't let you go, without you it'll be Tories forever)
The Labour party have absolutely no one to blame but themselves. If the Labour party still represented the views of the Scottish people they would have been re-elected.
I wonder if Labour will move back to the left now? The centre right doesn't seem to be working for them anymore and their demolition in Scotland must surely provide some rich food for thought. The UK as a whole most definitely needs a major left wing party, certainly if the UK political scene is to have any relevance.
At least the Kippers have been torpedoed and will now hopefully sink without a trace. Without Farage they have no public face and their solitary MP will be able to do nothing of any note.
Frazzled wrote: So Cameron won? So sad. I was hoping for some sort of political implosion. It makes it easier for when Texas invades, er helps restore order.
Never fight a war on two fronts Frazz!!! You've got to deal with the Fed Gov first!
Hold on a mo, you might be ok, leave Chuck to sort out the Feds, leaves the rest of your forces available to come over and free us
So, we're all but done, here are my thoughts (not that anyone cares. )
The big reveals of this election are twofold. Firstly, Labour's rot has begun to set in seriously. For years now, they've been relying on the block vote of the working class man, when they ceased to represent him ideologically (and the working class man began to cease to exist) about fifteen years ago. And that's given time for a generation to come in who quite simply don't remember the actions of the old Labour Party, the things they fought for, and even the things they won. Which means their loyalty is no longer assured. You cannot rest on past glories forever.
Labour has lost its way. It no longer knows who or what it represents. Blair, the architect of New Labour, was revealed to be of little substance, and socialism seems strikingly outdated in today's Britain. Simply chasing the vote, encroaching on Tory/Lib Dem policies, and saying anything to win a vote merely makes the public hold you in contempt, and think 'Here comes new boss, same as old boss'. As more older people die out, and the generations flux, I think we are going to see Labour dwindle further until they figure out who they are, and what they stand for again.
The second thing being shown here, is that the Liberal Democrats are no longer being perceived as the 'automatic' third choice for 'not the other two'. Most of the Lib Dem loss of votes has actually swung to UKIP, which to me reveals that many of their voters weren't actually Liberal at all, but rather people just ticking the 'other' box on the polling slip. In Scotland meanwhile, the SNP have now come to inherit that place.
Now I'm not sure that either of these parties are in it for the long haul. UKIP may well be defanged by an EU referendum, and the SNP grabbing so many votes is a more of a vote against Westminster than it is a vote in favour of the SNP. A lot of their voters are newly registered, and after the referendum memory dies away, we may find the SNP vote begins to wither as a result. If UKIP manages to reform itself after the EU referendum, they too, may begin to cut into the SNP protest vote.
All in all, it looks to me like a solid case of the Tories winning, simply because they are infinitely more structurally stable than any of their opposition. He who fights longest, may well beat he who fights hardest. After all, who remembers a Lib Dem majority now?
The whole Scottish / SNP vote is a terrible joke / mess.
You can't have a campaign to encourage Scotland to stay in the Union, but then dismiss the SNP when it comes to an election. we are still a Union and all the seats count to who has overall control of the Union. The whole thing about English votes for English seats or Scottish votes for Scottish seats is something for after the General Election. When laws are being made, if they only affect wales, then the Welsh only vote on them, the same with Scotland and England.
The SNP should of publically agreed that the drive for another referendum was 10 - 20 years away, which is no different to any other referendum that has been held in this country, which would of taken away one of those fears that Cameron was playing on. Ed should of said he would be of prepared to work with the SNP, if such a time scale was agreed to. Perhaps they may of saved a few seats if this had happened.
notprop wrote: No, because Britons have proved that we are a mature enough society that we are willing to set the national accounts straight and not continue the rot of ever increasing borrowing.
The economy is now reaping what was sown over the last term and in the same way we have to stump up for our debts.
This is a good thing.
It was the office for budget responsibility (I think, or some other body) which said that Labours plans were more likely to actually happen and that the Tories plan to eliminate the deficit was more likely to fail. So I was taking a realistic promise over an unrealistic one.
It was however a close call to make and it was the OFBR that swung me.
The SNP should of publically agreed that the drive for another referendum was 10 - 20 years away
They did, with the caveat that certain things (such as the withdrawal from the EU) would probably trigger one early.
Given that MPs have seats in the parliament for the entire country things such as EVEL are a nonesense without the creation of a relevant political forum for such things.
notprop wrote: No, because Britons have proved that we are a mature enough society that we are willing to set the national accounts straight and not continue the rot of ever increasing borrowing.
The economy is now reaping what was sown over the last term and in the same way we have to stump up for our debts.
This is a good thing.
It was the office for budget responsibility (I think, or some other body) which said that Labours plans were more likely to actually happen and that the Tories plan to eliminate the deficit was more likely to fail. So I was taking a realistic promise over an unrealistic one.
It was however a close call to make and it was the OFBR that swung me.
The OBR has been depressingly negative about Conservative economic moves over the last parliament.
A lot of the Labour ideas are silly tinkering too, though.
Ed Miliband, Harriet Harman, Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy, and Ed Balls have all bitten the dust. Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling resigned just before the election.
That leaves...Diane Abbot, Chuka Umunna, and possibly David Miliband in the wings. That's it. I actually cannot think of any other Labour politicians. Their leadership cadre has been absolutely decimated. The Lib Dems meanwhile, have lost Vince Cable and Danny Alexander, the two most obvious Clegg successors, as well as Charles Kennedy.
This has been quite the purge of left-wing British politicians.
EDIT:- I just remembered Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper. But those two were third tiered in the Labour party. I wonder which of those two or Chuka will get it?
Ketara wrote: Ed Miliband, Harriet Harman, Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy, and Ed Balls have all bitten the dust. Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling resigned just before the election.
That leaves...Diane Abbot, Chuka Umunna, and possibly David Miliband in the wings. That's it. I actually cannot think of any other Labour politicians. Their leadership cadre has been absolutely decimated. The Lib Dems meanwhile, have lost Vince Cable and Danny Alexander, the two most obvious Clegg successors, as well as Charles Kennedy.
This has been quite the purge of left-wing British politicians.
If that lot were ever left-wing, then my name's Clement Atlee
Like most people, I had my calculator at the ready for totalling up a combination of Labour/SNP/Welsh nationalists etc etc to form a coalition.
That went well.
Question for anybody who voted Conservative: did the prospect of a Lab/SNP coalition make you more likely to vote Conservative, or was it something you were doing anyway.
Commentators have said that the Tory campaign of using the SNP as a bogeyman, worked well in Scotland. But in the long term...
Long term, the Tories have two issues to deal with. Scotland, and of course the EU.
Dave maybe happy now, but I remember the John Major years, and Tory backbenchers made his life hell over the EU issue.
1. Cameron scraping into government with two (?) seats majority is not a major victory. It actually puts him a couple of scandals or heart attacks away from being a minority government. Nearly six out of ten voters didn't want him in power.
2. Yes, the Conservatives probably lost votes to UKIP. They probably gained votes from the Liberals. The Liberal vote collapsed from about 25% to under 8%, all those votes had to go somewhere.
3. UKIP are nasty scum but they scored 13% of the vote and got no (?) seats at all. There is something wrong there.
4. The SNP may have won all the seats in Scotland but they only won half the votes.
All the above is evidence of a democratic deficit in the UK constitution, IMO.
Paradigm wrote: Ugh, those days you wake up to the prospect of 5 more years of Conservative government...
I think in every way this is a victory for Cameron. Not only does he have a working majority (since Sinn Vein don't turn up), but he has probably severed the head of any 'significant' opposition, with Milliband, Clegg and Farage all expected to resign. Sturgeon will hang on, but with the SNP landslide in Scotland, how long is it before they're gone from the UK entirely, and we're left with Cameron the only party leader in Westminster with more than one term's experience. And without Clegg to keep happy, he and the Tories are going to have free reign.
Called it on UKIP not being as significant as everyone was saying, winning only one seat and losing their leader. Now the Conservatives are through, and we'll get the referendum on the EU, UKIP are essentially a spent force.
I'm pleased to see the Lib Dems get annihilated, it's exactly what the deserve after breaking their promises, selling themselves out and sacrificing everything they stood for. I shan't be sad to see the back of Clegg.
I'm not sure quite where Labour have gone wrong, except possibly Milliband appearing as weak (although I'd argue Cameron is little stronger). In England and Wales, they actually gained seats (their overall loss is less than loss to the SNP in Scotland), but even then it wouldn't have been enough to challenge the Conservatives. As to where they go from here, I think they'll sadly move closer to centre rather than compete as an actual left wing party (at which they were beaten by the SNP). At which point, they may well lose my support, if they do indeed move further from their principles to get closer to parliament.
The SNP will see themselves as major winners here, but I think it'll be a while before we see what they can achieve. Even with Labour they've failed to keep the Conservatives out, and unless they do press for another referendum, I'm not sure what they can bring to a national parliament. They have a set out principles and policies I'm strongly in favour of, but I don't expect any of them to come to pass in their current position. It'll be interesting to see, though.
I'm also wondering where we'll be in five year's time with Party Politics. UKIP will likely be gone, the LDs will be just ghosts in a political graveyard, and the SNP may not even be a part of the union. Could we be seeing this age of multi-party politics coming to an end after just one election, before returning to the traditional two party decision?
I'm also happy to see the Lib Dems get their just deserts, but like I say, Conservative backbenchers + The EU = Major problems for Tory Leaders. Dave may be happy now, but 18 months down the line?
He will be thinking about transitioning to civilian life.
Luckily I will be shielded from whatever excessive cuts the Tories will be inflicting over the next few years but I'm glad I have a secure and well paid job and don't have to rely on any benefits.
The silver lining in this is that an independent Scotland has just gotten a step closer which Dave will doubtless be helping along with his partisan posturing.
1. Cameron scraping into government with two (?) seats majority is not a major victory. It actually puts him a couple of scandals or heart attacks away from being a minority government. Nearly six out of ten voters didn't want him in power.
2. Yes, the Conservatives probably lost votes to UKIP. They probably gained votes from the Liberals. The Liberal vote collapsed from about 25% to under 8%, all those votes had to go somewhere.
3. UKIP are nasty scum but they scored 13% of the vote and got no (?) seats at all. There is something wrong there.
4. The SNP may have won all the seats in Scotland but they only won half the votes.
All the above is evidence of a democratic deficit in the UK constitution, IMO.
Ketara is right about the Labour Party.
Agree with you about the democratic deficit, but that system has just given the Tories a majority, so the chances of them wanting to change it are zero.
As for the small Majority, do you remember John Major in the 1990s? That went well for the Tories
It's a Tory win, but their vote seems to have flatlined at about 36%. Compare that to Heath and Thatcher who were polling in the 40s.
Maybe the Tories were successful because their vote held up, rather than the country genuinely wanting them in.
This has been quite the purge of left-wing British politicians.
I'm wondering if this is a part of a larger trend in the post-recession West. The US voted in a Republican Congress, we've got Merkel in Germany, I believe the French left got blasted in their last election. Then we have the Greeks daring to elect a socialist, anti-austerity party and the whole of Europe went into meltdown.
Are left-wing politics finally dead in the Western world, or is it just that people would prefer to suffer in stability than risk change?
Are left-wing politics finally dead in the Western world, or is it just that people would prefer to suffer in stability than risk change?
I think its more a case of politicians and the mainstream media thinking that left wing politics are dead. The SNP result suggests a different narrative.
This has been quite the purge of left-wing British politicians.
I'm wondering if this is a part of a larger trend in the post-recession West. The US voted in a Republican Congress, we've got Merkel in Germany, I believe the French left got blasted in their last election. Then we have the Greeks daring to elect a socialist, anti-austerity party and the whole of Europe went into meltdown.
Are left-wing politics finally dead in the Western world, or is it just that people would prefer to suffer in stability than risk change?
It's a myth that left-wingers bankrupt a country and right-wingers restore economic stability.
In my lifetime I've seen the Tories in charge when the Black Wednesday disaster happened, and I've seen them cause recessions left right and centre with their property bubbles.
1. Cameron scraping into government with two (?) seats majority is not a major victory. It actually puts him a couple of scandals or heart attacks away from being a minority government. Nearly six out of ten voters didn't want him in power.
And will be hugely vulnerable to back bench rebellions.
3. UKIP are nasty scum but they scored 13% of the vote and got no (?) seats at all. There is something wrong there.
4. The SNP may have won all the seats in Scotland but they only won half the votes.
UKIP did get one. However, your right, they got 13% of the vote and SNP only got 5%. Lib Dems got 8%. I understand the issues with FPTP and PR systems and think that FPTP is the better system, but still not ideal, however I can't help thinking that the SNP have power far beyond what they should do. I hope they use it wisely or we may face more calls for changes to the electoral system which will hurt them now they are no longer a minor party, and help UKIP, which I would rather did not happen.
Are left-wing politics finally dead in the Western world, or is it just that people would prefer to suffer in stability than risk change?
I think its more a case of politicians and the mainstream media thinking that left wing politics are dead. The SNP result suggests a different narrative.
And yet, one major criticism from a lot of quarters was that Labour's policy set was too Left, and that they need to move closer to the centre.
Times like this I wish I lived in Scotland, at least there I could vote for the Left (as in actual Left, not Left of Centre) and actually have a chance of getting that...
This has been quite the purge of left-wing British politicians.
I'm wondering if this is a part of a larger trend in the post-recession West. The US voted in a Republican Congress, we've got Merkel in Germany, I believe the French left got blasted in their last election. Then we have the Greeks daring to elect a socialist, anti-austerity party and the whole of Europe went into meltdown.
Are left-wing politics finally dead in the Western world, or is it just that people would prefer to suffer in stability than risk change?
It's a myth that left-wingers bankrupt a country and right-wingers restore economic stability.
In my lifetime I've seen the Tories in charge when the Black Wednesday disaster happened, and I've seen them cause recessions left right and centre with their property bubbles.
Agreed; I have every faith that a Labour/SNP coalition could have genuinely and measurably improved quality of life for the citizens of the UK without leaving the nation penniless, but as long as the Cold War myths that Left=terrible/useless/dangerous are perpetuated, the Conservatives will remain in power, to slowly wring every last penny from the poor and line their own pockets, and those of the bankers and 1%ers that prop them up.
This has been quite the purge of left-wing British politicians.
I'm wondering if this is a part of a larger trend in the post-recession West. The US voted in a Republican Congress, we've got Merkel in Germany, I believe the French left got blasted in their last election. Then we have the Greeks daring to elect a socialist, anti-austerity party and the whole of Europe went into meltdown.
Are left-wing politics finally dead in the Western world, or is it just that people would prefer to suffer in stability than risk change?
It's a myth that left-wingers bankrupt a country and right-wingers restore economic stability.
In my lifetime I've seen the Tories in charge when the Black Wednesday disaster happened, and I've seen them cause recessions left right and centre with their property bubbles.
Agreed; I have every faith that a Labour/SNP coalition could have genuinely and measurably improved quality of life for the citizens of the UK without leaving the nation penniless, but as long as the Cold War myths that Left=terrible/useless/dangerous are perpetuated, the Conservatives will remain in power, to slowly wring every last penny from the poor and line their own pockets, and those of the bankers and 1%ers that prop them up.
Well, at least Ed has a tombstone for the death of his political career.
1. Cameron scraping into government with two (?) seats majority is not a major victory. It actually puts him a couple of scandals or heart attacks away from being a minority government. Nearly six out of ten voters didn't want him in power.
2. Yes, the Conservatives probably lost votes to UKIP. They probably gained votes from the Liberals. The Liberal vote collapsed from about 25% to under 8%, all those votes had to go somewhere.
3. UKIP are nasty scum but they scored 13% of the vote and got no (?) seats at all. There is something wrong there.
4. The SNP may have won all the seats in Scotland but they only won half the votes.
All the above is evidence of a democratic deficit in the UK constitution, IMO.
Ketara is right about the Labour Party.
They're still significantly ahead of any other party. Not sure who they'd have to partner up with if they lost seats, DUP maybe?
1. Cameron scraping into government with two (?) seats majority is not a major victory. It actually puts him a couple of scandals or heart attacks away from being a minority government. Nearly six out of ten voters didn't want him in power.
Remember the landslide Labour victory in 1997 where they got over 400 seats? They only got 43% of the vote then, so nearly 6 in 10 voters didn't want them in power either. First Past The Post is unfair, it means a huge amount of votes just don't count for anything.
Steve steveson wrote: I hope they use it wisely or we may face more calls for changes to the electoral system which will hurt them now they are no longer a minor party, and help UKIP, which I would rather did not happen.
Nicola Sturgeon is publicly in favour of PR, so while it would hurt the SNP in terms of MPs the SNP appears to be strong enough to accept that to do the right thing.
And yet, one major criticism from a lot of quarters was that Labour's policy set was too Left, and that they need to move closer to the centre.
Criticisms from who? Perhaps mainstream media and other politicians? How can the utter demolition of Scottish Labour be seen in terms other than a rejection of their policies in favour of a more left wing (or at least one that sounds like it is) party? One of the main reasons that Yes voters gave was that Westminster was too right wing.....
And yet, one major criticism from a lot of quarters was that Labour's policy set was too Left, and that they need to move closer to the centre.
Criticisms from who? Perhaps mainstream media and other politicians? How can the utter demolition of Scottish Labour be seen in terms other than a rejection of their policies in favour of a more left wing party? One of the main reasons that Yes voters gave was that Westminster was too right wing.....
It was mentioned several times by pundits/guests in the BBC coverage. Of course, it's too early to actually make predictions, but there does seem to have been a shift Right, which I imagine Labour may follow to do better next time. I guess it depends on how strong the convictions of the new leader are.
On another note, the Lib Dems lost £169,000 in deposits to run. Painful if you're one of them, but hilarious if you're anyone else.
there was a "Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol" party ?! .. is there a token party joke here somewhere ?
Huh? Hey I saw that cannabis leaf on my ballot paper and didn't even look to twice to see what the hell it was about. Nah I just had a swatch at if the Communists were there at all. Yup, right down at the bottom (as in way beneath the cannabis leaf, which IIRC was above the SNP too). Heh, no bias to the layout of that paper, not that that sort of thing matters unless you're always just ticking the same box no matter which party's in it.
There was a referendum a few years ago on that very question, Britain voted no to PR.
Also KK, branding 3.8m UKIp voters utter scum seems beyond the pale. There are legitamate concerns raised by UKIP and it's supporters and they deserve a bit more that off the cuff dismissal.
there was a "Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol" party ?! .. is there a token party joke here somewhere ?
Huh? Hey I saw that cannabis leaf on my ballot paper and didn't even look to twice to see what the hell it was about. Nah I just had a swatch at if the Communists were there at all. Yup, right down at the bottom (as in way beneath the cannabis leaf, which IIRC was above the SNP too). Heh, no bias to the layout of that paper, not that that sort of thing matters unless you're always just ticking the same box no matter which party's in it.
The ballot papers are laid out in alphabetical order by candidate name. No bias. If you want to get to the top of the paper change your name to Aaron A Aagre
notprop wrote: There was a referendum a few years ago on that very question, Britain voted no to PR.
Also KK, branding 3.8m UKIp voters utter scum seems beyond the pale. There are legitamate concerns raised by UKIP and it's supporters and they deserve a bit more that off the cuff dismissal.
There was referendum on an alternative vote system, not proportional representation.
That AV referendum was basically the only thing the Lib-Dems got out of the coalition and the Tories promptly annihilated it with a smear campaign in the run up.
A referendum that happened because of the much maligned Lib Dems, oh how things go around!
And whilst I despise UKIP and I am very annoyed that they even got close to having an influence, I lay the blame for this squarely at the feet of the major parties. They totally failed to a have a real and sensible conversation about people's concerns with regard to the level of efficiency and accountability in the EU and the strain that mass migration has on our social infrastructure, etc.
All the gloss of the modern media spin machines means they couldn't even mention it, for fear of being branded as racists and bigots. If they'd at least partially dealt with these issues, or even acknowledged that they existed, UKIP wouldn't have had room to breathe.
Jadenim wrote: A referendum that happened because of the much maligned Lib Dems, oh how things go around!
And whilst I despise UKIP and I am very annoyed that they even got close to having an influence, I lay the blame for this squarely at the feet of the major parties. They totally failed to a have a real and sensible conversation about people's concerns with regard to the level of efficiency and accountability in the EU and the strain that mass migration has on our social infrastructure, etc.
All the gloss of the modern media spin machines means they couldn't even mention it, for fear of being branded as racists and bigots. If they'd at least partially dealt with these issues, or even acknowledged that they existed, UKIP wouldn't have had room to breathe.
It's hard to argue that it's the fault of super-PC media that there couldn't be a discussion on immigration when the Daily Mail exists
Jadenim wrote: A referendum that happened because of the much maligned Lib Dems, oh how things go around!
And whilst I despise UKIP and I am very annoyed that they even got close to having an influence, I lay the blame for this squarely at the feet of the major parties. They totally failed to a have a real and sensible conversation about people's concerns with regard to the level of efficiency and accountability in the EU and the strain that mass migration has on our social infrastructure, etc.
All the gloss of the modern media spin machines means they couldn't even mention it, for fear of being branded as racists and bigots. If they'd at least partially dealt with these issues, or even acknowledged that they existed, UKIP wouldn't have had room to breathe.
The thing is though that they do acknowledge peoples worries, but are accused of dismissing them when they disagree. All of the major parties have stated that they believe immigration is good for the UK. The problem is they are dealing with an irrational fear. For example UKIP, and many of their supporters, make no differentiation between EU migration, non EU migration, illegal immigration and asylum seekers. How do you address an irrational fear? The facts do not back up the idea that mass migration is the issue UKIP claim.
The conservatives have addresses the EU issue far more clearly than UKIP. They have said they will re-negotiate with the EU and give us a referendum. Lib Dems also offerd a referendum. I don't see what more they could do than say "People have problems with being in the EU. We will give you a vote on it".
It's not that the media is PC, it's the way the political parties use it. They're so scared of saying anything outside of a beige middle ground, for fear of their opponents jumping up and down comparing them to <insert dictator of choice>. To my mind, that was part of the reason the SNP have got so much coverage and done so well; whether you agree with them or not they at least had the balls to get off the middle ground and set out their own agenda.
I acknowledge that people's fear of immigration is totally irrational (when you get down to it, most of people's actual complaints are due to lack of investment in social infrastructure), but from my point of view, the main parties only started to talk about it once UKIP started gaining ground. And by that point it was too late, because the tone of the conversation had already been set.
notprop wrote: There was a referendum a few years ago on that very question, Britain voted no to PR.
Also KK, branding 3.8m UKIp voters utter scum seems beyond the pale. There are legitamate concerns raised by UKIP and it's supporters and they deserve a bit more that off the cuff dismissal.
UKIP's concerns aren't legitimate, they are ignorant bollocks based on xenophobia and racism emerging under the strain of discontent whipped up by the press and chancer politicians.
The evidence is clear that the EU and immigration are positive things for the country. But people think we have a problem and everything will be fixed by kicking my and Legoburner's wives out of the country.
notprop wrote: There was a referendum a few years ago on that very question, Britain voted no to PR.
Also KK, branding 3.8m UKIp voters utter scum seems beyond the pale. There are legitamate concerns raised by UKIP and it's supporters and they deserve a bit more that off the cuff dismissal.
UKIP's concerns aren't legitimate, they are ignorant bollocks based on xenophobia and racism emerging under the strain of discontent whipped up by the press and chancer politicians.
The evidence is clear that the EU and immigration are positive things for the country. But people think we have a problem and everything will be fixed by kicking my and Legoburner's wives out of the country.
I was pretty shocked by the result. I guess England is a lot more right wing than even I gave it credit for. Fair enough.
Hope you guys vote to stay in the EU, I gotta say. Not optimistic though.
The SNP win was really impressive, but I wonder what they'll be able to do, simply being in opposition and not really being able to influence the various votes.
But people think we have a problem and everything will be fixed by kicking my and Legoburner's wives out of the country.
My wife as well. No one ever seems to mention the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of UK citizens who live and/or work within the wider EU either. UKIPs entire basis for existence is based upon little more than ignorance and the few areas where there is substance to their claims it can just as easily be blamed on insufficient local government funding and governmental inefficiencies.Its all moot now though.
The SNP win was really impressive, but I wonder what they'll be able to do, simply being in opposition and not really being able to influence the various votes.
In the long term I can't think of a better result for the SNP. A deal with Labour would have damaged their credibility as they would have huge difficulty pushing their agenda with a party that would outnumber about 5:1. As it stands though the SNP will be able to act as an energetic opposition and cement their position as the anti austerity party without being tainted by the inevitable compromises.
But people think we have a problem and everything will be fixed by kicking my and Legoburner's wives out of the country.
My wife as well. No one ever seems to mention the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of UK citizens who live and/or work within the wider EU either.
They'll kick out muh wife!
Despite the fact Nigel's wife is German and they aren't against immigration.
They just want it to be more selective which is in line with the rest of the world
notprop wrote: There was a referendum a few years ago on that very question, Britain voted no to PR.
Also KK, branding 3.8m UKIp voters utter scum seems beyond the pale. There are legitamate concerns raised by UKIP and it's supporters and they deserve a bit more that off the cuff dismissal.
UKIP's concerns aren't legitimate, they are ignorant bollocks based on xenophobia and racism emerging under the strain of discontent whipped up by the press and chancer politicians.
The evidence is clear that the EU and immigration are positive things for the country. But people think we have a problem and everything will be fixed by kicking my and Legoburner's wives out of the country.
Complete misrepresentation.
Continue to get needlessly angry though.
How to win the political arguments for the progressive left.
1. As soon as someone tries an opinion not in complete agreement with the progressive left accuse them of bigotry.
2. If they try and challenge your remark, call them bigots louder.
3. Repeat the accusation of bigotry from that moment onwards using every opportunity to label the opponent a bigot and therefore unable to hold a morally acceptable political argument. After all they must be 'evil' and by exposing them we are 'good'.
4. Do not under any circumstances allow them to gain platform enough to defend their point of view, they might successfully convince others they are not actually bigots, and we cant have that.
5. Now you can continue with the smug satisfaction that in our democratic society with free speech rights there is no room for intolerant bigots, excepting those on the progressive left.
Again KK I think your words are a little misplaced. A few bad apples aside UKIp at least has fairly average Brittons as candidates as aposed to generally career politicians of other parties.
I have really got a horse in that particular race (pun intended ) as I didn't vote UKIp and actually employ lots of Europeans, but you cannot argue that 180k average net migration since the turn of the century will not cause at the very least over subscription To national service and infrastructure that was already stretched.
There is a point to UKIp and one that resonated witha huge percentage of the electorate.
Da Boss wrote: I was pretty shocked by the result. I guess England is a lot more right wing than even I gave it credit for. Fair enough.
Frankly, I'm more convinced people just didn't like Ed, and his vapid lack of a strategy/economic policy, more than they liked Cameron. I know that was why I voted Tory.
Hope you guys vote to stay in the EU, I gotta say. Not optimistic though.
We'll see I guess. Britain leaving would be a substantial blow to the project though. Prestige aside, we contribute over 15 million pounds a day to the EU, and without that, they'll have difficulty paying the legions of eurocrats.
It's a myth that left-wingers bankrupt a country and right-wingers restore economic stability.
In my lifetime I've seen the Tories in charge when the Black Wednesday disaster happened, and I've seen them cause recessions left right and centre with their property bubbles.
The crashes in 1992 and 2008 were both caused by wider factors. The former a dip in Europe the latter the global economy.
The John Major government recovered quickly and the UK economy was handled well in the aftermath of Black Wednesday, it is also known in economic circles off hand as 'White Wednesday' as it saved the UK from a depression spell later in the decade. Soros sold short against the pound and made money, and his name, but that was as bad as it actually got.
The 2008 stock market disaster happened while another disaster, Gordon Brown, was in charge. He fethed up the recovery plan so thoroughly we still havent recovered while most of the western world has.
I would far rather trust the Tories in a financial crisis on track record.
Koppo wrote: Bleeding hell, another 5 years of the Tories.
Gee, thanks Scotland... (See this is why we can't let you go, without you it'll be Tories forever)
This bears repeating, over and over again: England chooses the government of the UK. Even if Scotland had returned all 59 MPs with Labour rosettes stuck on 'em, the Tories would still have a majority, and there still wouldn't have been the numbers to form an anti-Tory coalition. The Tories won this election by holding their seats against Labour challenges, and taking more of the collapsing Lib Dem vote than Labour did. It's always been that way, and under anything other than a system of full federalism with proportional representation it always will, it's purely a matter of demographics; you have 80%+ of the population.
The only thing to blame for Labour's woes is Labour; you can't out-Tory the Tories, they've had more practice, yet Labour keep trying. They saw themselves being beaten by the Tories, and Blair convinced the party that wasn't because Labour were failing to articulate their position, it was because left-wing politics were dead and they needed to haul hard-right to win again. And that lasted until the swing voters captured by that strategy realised that if they were going to vote Tory, they might as well vote for proper ones. Miliband came along and insisted Labour's problems weren't Old Labour's fault, and they weren't New Labour's fault, and they definitely weren't down to Labour failing to create or articulate a coherent alternative to the Tories, they were just victims of circumstance. They ignored the plummeting voter turnout figures in their heartlands. They ignored the steady rise of the SNP in Scotland on a slightly-left-of-centre social democratic platform. They ignored those Scottish Labour voters who wanted a positive, hopeful, inspiring case for the UK to continue and threw in with Better Together. Labour have become bitter weathervanes; Tories doing well? Labour are tough on deficits too! UKIP rising? Time to deploy the "Controls On Immigration" novelty mugs! Traditional Labour voters going SNP? ESSENPEE BAAAAAAD! RELEASE THE GORDO!
Now once again they've failed to set out a clear, enthusing alternative and they've failed to counter Tory propagandising and persuade the electorate to vote for them; what do we see? Is there a hint, a smidge, the slightest wee soupçon of self-reflection? Of contrition? Nowp. They lost in Scotland because we're all mad up here, all deluded, all tricked; Labour would have won, but the SNP stole Labour's voters away! The dastardly rogues! They lost in England because of the SNP as well. Even if it's true that Scotland going totally Red wouldn't have stopped Cameron, it's still the SNP's fault, you know, because they exist and the Tories stirred up some resentment about them possibly having some influence. Sure, sure, a Labour party with even a shred of principle, competence, and public trust could have forcefully countered that narrative and won the argument in England, but dagnabbit they shouldn't have to, it's the Scottos' job to send down a nice batch of Labour lads who'll take the party whip without complaint and then keep their bloody voices down so as not to frighten off "Middle England" with our odd accents and funny foods.
Labour are bankrupt. Financially, emotionally, intellectually, and ideologically. Until they acknowledge that, until they figure out what they stand for and how to persuade voters to trust both their convictions and their policies, they're going to keep losing. And they'll continue to have nobody to blame but themselves.
EDIT: Also, Douglas Alexander, Labour's chief election strategist and Shadow Foreign Secretary, lost his seat to a 20 year old working class girl, a politics student who's still to finish her degree, to which the only possible response is; LULZ
Here here. Social Democracy is struggling across Europe, struggling to come up with some sort of articulation that capitalism is not in fact all bad, but requires regulation and careful scrutiny.
Instead we have pandering to easy to communicate but actually pretty unimportant concerns like immigration (try emigration on for size and see which is the bigger problem guys) and debt (your debt is not a problem because no one is actually currently demanding that you pay it back and rates are historically low and likely to remain low).
I'd have to say as well, that as a lefty, I would never vote for Labour on principle due to their disastrous warmongering in the middle east which has helped to contribute to today's migrant crisis and untold amounts of human suffering. Tony Blair is a war criminal and too many of that old guard of the party are still there for me to consider them anything other than total scum. Say what you like about the Outlaw Party, but Cameron hasn't gotten ye into any decade long expensive quagmires.
He is completely in thrall to the City though.
Ketara: I think we'd get along fine without the UK's contributions. The money is not the important thing, the insitutions and ideas are. And selfishly, it would be bloody inconvenient for the Republic of Ireland if the UK left the EU. You're kinda in the way for us, y'know? We already had to stay out of the Common Travel Area because of British reluctance, and let me tell you as an Irishman living in Europe, that is bloody inconvenient.
Again KK I think your words are a little misplaced. A few bad apples aside UKIp at least has fairly average Brittons as candidates as aposed to generally career politicians of other parties.
I have really got a horse in that particular race (pun intended ) as I didn't vote UKIp and actually employ lots of Europeans, but you cannot argue that 180k average net migration since the turn of the century will not cause at the very least over subscription To national service and infrastructure that was already stretched.
There is a point to UKIp and one that resonated witha huge percentage of the electorate.
The point is wrong but I do accept it resonates with 13% of the electorate -- a lot of these people are victims of false consciousness -- and that is one reason why I think some PR is needed to allow those concerns to be aired.
It must also be said that the established parties have often pandered to the UKIP rhetoric, rather than confront it for the nonsense it is, and this has exacerbated the problem.
Again KK I think your words are a little misplaced. A few bad apples aside UKIp at least has fairly average Brittons as candidates as aposed to generally career politicians of other parties.
I have really got a horse in that particular race (pun intended ) as I didn't vote UKIp and actually employ lots of Europeans, but you cannot argue that 180k average net migration since the turn of the century will not cause at the very least over subscription To national service and infrastructure that was already stretched.
There is a point to UKIp and one that resonated witha huge percentage of the electorate.
The point is wrong but I do accept it resonates with 13% of the electorate -- a lot of these people are victims of false consciousness -- and that is one reason why I think some PR is needed to allow those concerns to be aired.
It must also be said that the established parties have often pandered to the UKIP rhetoric, rather than confront it for the nonsense it is, and this has exacerbated the problem.
From what commentators are saying, the UKIP vote would have been higher in not for the SNP, which drove UKIP towards the Tories to lock out a Miliband/Sturgeon alliance.
Da Boss wrote: I was pretty shocked by the result. I guess England is a lot more right wing than even I gave it credit for. Fair enough.
Frankly, I'm more convinced people just didn't like Ed, and his vapid lack of a strategy/economic policy, more than they liked Cameron. I know that was why I voted Tory.
Hope you guys vote to stay in the EU, I gotta say. Not optimistic though.
We'll see I guess. Britain leaving would be a substantial blow to the project though. Prestige aside, we contribute over 15 million pounds a day to the EU, and without that, they'll have difficulty paying the legions of eurocrats.
You may be happy with a Tory victory (you were spot on about UKIP) but as I've said, I've no desire to re-live the John Major years, and this Conservative government could easily go that way. If Tory rebels don't get their way over Europe, Cameron will be pulling knives out of his back for the next five years.
Again KK I think your words are a little misplaced. A few bad apples aside UKIp at least has fairly average Brittons as candidates as aposed to generally career politicians of other parties.
I have really got a horse in that particular race (pun intended ) as I didn't vote UKIp and actually employ lots of Europeans, but you cannot argue that 180k average net migration since the turn of the century will not cause at the very least over subscription To national service and infrastructure that was already stretched.
There is a point to UKIp and one that resonated witha huge percentage of the electorate.
But the flip side is that an EU exit would mess things up regarding all those ex-pat Brits living in Spain, for example. UKIP seems to forget it's a two way street.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: Here here. Social Democracy is struggling across Europe, struggling to come up with some sort of articulation that capitalism is not in fact all bad, but requires regulation and careful scrutiny.
Instead we have pandering to easy to communicate but actually pretty unimportant concerns like immigration (try emigration on for size and see which is the bigger problem guys) and debt (your debt is not a problem because no one is actually currently demanding that you pay it back and rates are historically low and likely to remain low).
I'd have to say as well, that as a lefty, I would never vote for Labour on principle due to their disastrous warmongering in the middle east which has helped to contribute to today's migrant crisis and untold amounts of human suffering. Tony Blair is a war criminal and too many of that old guard of the party are still there for me to consider them anything other than total scum. Say what you like about the Outlaw Party, but Cameron hasn't gotten ye into any decade long expensive quagmires.
He is completely in thrall to the City though.
Ketara: I think we'd get along fine without the UK's contributions. The money is not the important thing, the insitutions and ideas are. And selfishly, it would be bloody inconvenient for the Republic of Ireland if the UK left the EU. You're kinda in the way for us, y'know? We already had to stay out of the Common Travel Area because of British reluctance, and let me tell you as an Irishman living in Europe, that is bloody inconvenient.
The Left really hasn't recovered since the fall of the wall.
Koppo wrote: Bleeding hell, another 5 years of the Tories.
Gee, thanks Scotland... (See this is why we can't let you go, without you it'll be Tories forever)
This bears repeating, over and over again: England chooses the government of the UK. Even if Scotland had returned all 59 MPs with Labour rosettes stuck on 'em, the Tories would still have a majority, and there still wouldn't have been the numbers to form an anti-Tory coalition. The Tories won this election by holding their seats against Labour challenges, and taking more of the collapsing Lib Dem vote than Labour did. It's always been that way, and under anything other than a system of full federalism with proportional representation it always will, it's purely a matter of demographics; you have 80%+ of the population.
The only thing to blame for Labour's woes is Labour; you can't out-Tory the Tories, they've had more practice, yet Labour keep trying. They saw themselves being beaten by the Tories, and Blair convinced the party that wasn't because Labour were failing to articulate their position, it was because left-wing politics were dead and they needed to haul hard-right to win again. And that lasted until the swing voters captured by that strategy realised that if they were going to vote Tory, they might as well vote for proper ones. Miliband came along and insisted Labour's problems weren't Old Labour's fault, and they weren't New Labour's fault, and they definitely weren't down to Labour failing to create or articulate a coherent alternative to the Tories, they were just victims of circumstance. They ignored the plummeting voter turnout figures in their heartlands. They ignored the steady rise of the SNP in Scotland on a slightly-left-of-centre social democratic platform. They ignored those Scottish Labour voters who wanted a positive, hopeful, inspiring case for the UK to continue and threw in with Better Together. Labour have become bitter weathervanes; Tories doing well? Labour are tough on deficits too! UKIP rising? Time to deploy the "Controls On Immigration" novelty mugs! Traditional Labour voters going SNP? ESSENPEE BAAAAAAD! RELEASE THE GORDO!
Now once again they've failed to set out a clear, enthusing alternative and they've failed to counter Tory propagandising and persuade the electorate to vote for them; what do we see? Is there a hint, a smidge, the slightest wee soupçon of self-reflection? Of contrition? Nowp. They lost in Scotland because we're all mad up here, all deluded, all tricked; Labour would have won, but the SNP stole Labour's voters away! The dastardly rogues! They lost in England because of the SNP as well. Even if it's true that Scotland going totally Red wouldn't have stopped Cameron, it's still the SNP's fault, you know, because they exist and the Tories stirred up some resentment about them possibly having some influence. Sure, sure, a Labour party with even a shred of principle, competence, and public trust could have forcefully countered that narrative and won the argument in England, but dagnabbit they shouldn't have to, it's the Scottos' job to send down a nice batch of Labour lads who'll take the party whip without complaint and then keep their bloody voices down so as not to frighten off "Middle England" with our odd accents and funny foods.
Labour are bankrupt. Financially, emotionally, intellectually, and ideologically. Until they acknowledge that, until they figure out what they stand for and how to persuade voters to trust both their convictions and their policies, they're going to keep losing. And they'll continue to have nobody to blame but themselves.
EDIT: Also, Douglas Alexander, Labour's chief election strategist and Shadow Foreign Secretary, lost his seat to a 20 year old working class girl, a politics student who's still to finish her degree, to which the only possible response is; LULZ
I for one will not miss Scottish Labour. They dug their own grave.
Why is it wrong? I'll be honest, it logically follows that when you have large numbers of people moving into a country, it places pressure on schools and hospitals. Even if the money spent is made up in taxation a year or two later, the infrastructure is simply not there originally, placing what is there under increased stress and pressure as it tries to cater to a larger number of people than planned. If this occurs continuously over a decade, the result is a quite simply swamped state system.
I would be interested to know if you have facts to prove this wrong.
Ketara: I think we'd get along fine without the UK's contributions. The money is not the important thing, the insitutions and ideas are. And selfishly, it would be bloody inconvenient for the Republic of Ireland if the UK left the EU. You're kinda in the way for us, y'know? We already had to stay out of the Common Travel Area because of British reluctance, and let me tell you as an Irishman living in Europe, that is bloody inconvenient.
You say that, but we provide a large chunk of the EU's working finance at the moment, somewhere in the region of 15 billion pounds a year, or roughly eleven percent. That's a lot of money to lose from one member state out of twenty eight pulling out, considering nobody from Eastern Europe actually contributes anything.
With regards to the institutions and the ideas, Juncker won't shut up about EU armies, intelligence agencies, and police forces at the moment. Those don't come cheap, and I'm really not entirely sure we want any part of that. If we leave, it will place a serious knock on the idea of the European superstate, and I'm not entirely sure that would be a bad thing.
For one thing the UK population was falling until immigration started to replenish the population. Proper planning over a decade can easily cope with immigration or other anticipated changes.
Without immigration, the Richmond-on-Thames local schools suffered a major swamping in 2008-9 because of the number of bankers who got made redundant and had to take their children out of expensive private schools and try to put them into the small local state schools.
Another point is that immigrants tend to be young adults and do not need extensive medial care or education, so they import lots of free skills and experience. In the case of foreign students - a category that has been falling recently due to recent restrictions on immigration -- they import a lot of money.
I don't want to keep updating but the fact is that despite the common sense points about overloading infrastructure, etc, the empirical evidence is that immigration on the scale the UK has generally enjoyed since WW2 has been positive and this is due to sound economic reasons.
With regards to the international student part of that, with reduced government funding for universities they are needing increasing numbers of foreign students to fund programmes, especially expensive ones such as the sciences.
Kilkrazy wrote: For one thing the UK population was falling until immigration started to replenish the population. Proper planning over a decade can easily cope with immigration or other anticipated changes.
But surely that was the issue, historically speaking? Every time a new Eastern European country has entered the EU, we've tended to be flooded with immigrants numbering in the hundreds of thousands in the space of a year or two. So instead of being a steady figure that can be planned for, it has tended to come in reasonably intense spikes and fluctuations over the past decade and a half.
Another point is that immigrants tend to be young adults and do not need extensive medial care or education, so they import lots of free skills and experience. In the case of foreign students - a category that has been falling recently due to recent restrictions on immigration -- they import a lot of money.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-immigration per se. I fully recognise that most immigrants usually pay back for what they take out within a few years in tax receipts. I'm simply substantiating why people can legitimately feel it can be a problem at the moment, and from the infrastructure angle, it would seem to be accurate.
Assuming this is even remotely correct (I just double checked some of the figures elsewhere, and they seemed accurate), I think it accurately portrays the sheer spike in immigration into the UK since Labour first came into power back in 1997. Looking elsewhere, it dropped in 2012 down to about 175,000 people, but then spiked right back up to over 250,000 last year.That's quite simply not the sort of stress that you can plan or account for. You can't plan for service provision for an additional 80,000 people increase out of nowhere, let alone budget for it.
Having said all that, I have a feeling it will drop again now, because these things are cyclical, and there are no new countries about to join the EU. So it would be plausible to say that the worst is now over, we can begin to make long term plans again, and new immigration controls would hurt more than help us. I'd be inclined to think so at this stage of the game.
What is apparent to me though, is that mass immigration was allowed to rage for far too long, but the tiger has now fled the cage, eaten someone, and then been shot. Trying to lock the cage after it's dead and buried is somewhat pointless. But many, many people simply aren't aware that this is the case, fully expect the past trend to continue, and are pressing for legislation under that assumption. I don't think it makes them stupid, and I don't think it means their concern isn't rooted in fact, I just think they haven't considered thing in the short-long term future, and are simply going on the empirical experience of the last two decades.
angelofvengeance wrote: We tried to do it differently before, and people didn't want that system.
No, a party traded in all its pre-election promises to push through a referendum on a stupid voting system with no popular support and no real explanation to the public over what it was and how it would make things better and suffered an understandable backlash from its own supporters and the rest of the public.
Ketara: Sure, we'd have less money, which would mean less money for infastructure projects and research projects and other pan European initiatives.
But at the end of the day, even losing half the funding wouldn't cause the EU as a political institution to collapse. Each state runs it's own finances, the EU funding is not really required for it to function beyond the admin costs, which though they are too high, are still minuscule compared to the money going in. That graph also points out that the UK is the fourth biggest contributor, after Germany (with nearly double the contribution) France, with one and a half times, and Italy, with just slightly more. I've often seen British people claim to be the "second biggest contributors" and accepted it as fact, but it looks like you guys are sandwiched between Italy and Spain on that graph. Interesting.
Don't get me wrong, financially Britain leaving would be a hard blow for the Union, but it wouldn't be the death of it. In much the same way as Scotland leaving the other Union wouldn't have destroyed England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I look forward to the "Better Together" campaign getting together for a Project Fear campaign to keep you guys in the Union though, so you can see what it was like for the Scots
I mean the arguments are all pretty similar bar the currency one, right?
On Junker, yeah, good point. I almost hope you guys do leave so that mug doesn't get money for his right wing plans. Plus, Britain leaving would get rid of a fairly strong right-wing Neo-Liberal influence on the EU. But then again, I'm conflicted. Gah. Wish he hadn't gotten the Presidency. But his "plans" will come to nothing without agreement at the other European bodies.
I'm a believer in a Federal Europe though, despite all the problems with the EU as it stands (and there are many, especially with the ECB in my view). I don't want the continent to descend into narrow nationalism again (funny how Nationalism is bad when it's the Scots but okay when it's the entire UK, eh? Heh heh. I'm sorry, I'm enjoying the parallels a little too much.)
Da Boss wrote: I don't want the continent to descend into narrow nationalism again (funny how Nationalism is bad when it's the Scots but okay when it's the entire UK, eh? Heh heh. I'm sorry, I'm enjoying the parallels a little too much.)
Eh? In my experience the media narrative has been "SNP bad, UKIP racist bad."
I don't what on earth makes you think the political/media establishment looks favourably on UKIP as opposed to the SNP.
Da Boss wrote: Ketara: Sure, we'd have less money, which would mean less money for infastructure projects and research projects and other pan European initiatives.
But at the end of the day, even losing half the funding wouldn't cause the EU as a political institution to collapse. Each state runs it's own finances, the EU funding is not really required for it to function beyond the admin costs, which though they are too high, are still minuscule compared to the money going in. That graph also points out that the UK is the fourth biggest contributor, after Germany (with nearly double the contribution) France, with one and a half times, and Italy, with just slightly more. I've often seen British people claim to be the "second biggest contributors" and accepted it as fact, but it looks like you guys are sandwiched between Italy and Spain on that graph. Interesting.
Don't get me wrong, financially Britain leaving would be a hard blow for the Union, but it wouldn't be the death of it. In much the same way as Scotland leaving the other Union wouldn't have destroyed England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Oh, I completely agree, the financial aspect wouldn't kill the EU. Far from it. But it would make the various eurocrats have to look at their spending. Or, more likely, demand everyone else make up the shortfall, plus an extra 5% on top.
With regards to contribution, that's the amount that gets put in directly, we all get something back that isn't measured on the chart. It's possible (I wouldn't know without looking, but it would make sense) that Italy and France get more money back from the EU then us, taking us into the position of second highest overall contributor.
I look forward to the "Better Together" campaign getting together for a Project Fear campaign to keep you guys in the Union though, so you can see what it was like for the Scots
I mean the arguments are all pretty similar bar the currency one, right?
I'm not so sure it is. Scottish MP's are directly elected to the lawmaking process and are directly accountable to the electorate, whereas European MP's (the British ones included) seem to more or less do whatever they like without even having to publish their expenses. Brussels has just turned into this gaping financial maw with very little actually published on what it does with the money, and why it needs more. What's more, Scotland is already part of Britain, whereas the EU is busy trying to morph into a superstate. I think there are definitely similarities, but enough differences to make it a separate sort of issue.
On Junker, yeah, good point. I almost hope you guys do leave so that mug doesn't get money for his right wing plans. Plus, Britain leaving would get rid of a fairly strong right-wing Neo-Liberal influence on the EU. But then again, I'm conflicted. Gah. Wish he hadn't gotten the Presidency. But his "plans" will come to nothing without agreement at the other European bodies.
I'm a believer in a Federal Europe though, despite all the problems with the EU as it stands (and there are many, especially with the ECB in my view). I don't want the continent to descend into narrow nationalism again (funny how Nationalism is bad when it's the Scots but okay when it's the entire UK, eh? Heh heh. I'm sorry, I'm enjoying the parallels a little too much.)
I'm 80% okay with the EU as it stands. I'd like the ability to limit immigration from new memberships extended (we had a one year restriction on Romania, I believe, that could work as a starting point), I'd like our overall financial contribution cut by about a third, and I'd like us to be a little less susceptible to European whims of law. I also want the European superstate idea killed, and more financial accountability put in place. In those things, I suspect I'm similar to most people. The problem is that those desires run exactly counter to what Juncker and co are aiming at.
If I got told we had a choice between the status quo and leaving altogether, I'd pick to stay. If I get a choice between leaving, and a burgeoning EU superstate, I'd elect to bail. The question is, which will the EU end up becoming? I don't know which way I will vote yet, but I need the EU to tell me their plans before I make my choice. The very fact though, that they seem to not WANT me to be able to make a choice, makes me uneasy.
The Proportional representation argument surfaces just after Conservative Majority governments get into power. Funny that it doesn't surface with anything like the same intensity after Labour Majority governments get into power.
PR misses out the main feature of the British system. PR just takes a national tally, its rather soulless. Our system allows local people to generate their local representative.
The people in my home town elect their MP, they don't have another one fostered on them by force because another party scored a higher % in another region.
Gee, thanks Scotland... (See this is why we can't let you go, without you it'll be Tories forever)
This bears repeating, over and over again: England chooses the government of the UK.
Special snowflaking again Yodhrin.
It's time to remind you of some facts.
1. YES Scotland lost the referendum campaign fair and square, one organised by the SNP government in Scotland on their timetable. You are in the United Kingdom. GET OVER IT.
2. There are more people living in London than in Scotland.
3. Many of the people living in England are Scottish, we do not discriminate. You could stand for office anywhere in the UK.
4. SNP has a highly disproportionate number of seats and wields influence far out of proportion to its voter base. However this is fair because Scots choose Scottish MP's. This is fair under our system.
Eventually, I would like to see a federal European state. But I think further integration is mostly a requirement for the Eurozone countries, who need common financial regulations and oversight to prevent another Euro crisis.
I agree that spending is too high and MEP expenses and so on are a problem, but I hardly think the UK has much of a leg to stand on when it consistently pays no attention to EU politics or political structures, or the role it's own government plays in negotiating some things which are very unpopular in the UK. (For example the UK government was heavily involved in lobbying FOR an eastward expansion, something that is not very popular in the UK but gets blamed on "the EU" as a whole as if the UK was never part of it).
Sending Kippers to Europe where they have disgraceful attendance and are purely obstructionist and then complaining about your concerns not being represented is wrongheaded. I would love it if the UK became a champion for transparency and reform in the EU, but I don't think it will, and I don't think it ever has been. It's a major champion of the Transatlantic Trade agreement for example. On that front, I honestly believe the EU would be better off without the UK political establishment as it stands.
All of that said, while I agree that MEPs get paid too much, get ridiculous benefits and have ridiculous expenses, that doesn't really bother me as much as the lack of transparency on EU decisions. I think we really need to work on THAT above all else. I think all of us as EU citizens need to get more interested in the EU as more than a vague bogeyman but as OUR institution, and I think we desperately need a European media, rather than multiple national media all filtering EU issues through a narrow, local focus.
I, and many other Europeans, am worried about the UK and it's relationship with the rest of us. But I want the UK to stay in. I just hope the debate can be reasonable and informative, because I feel like there is a lot of ignorance in the UK about the EU and the UK's place in it - conflation of the ECHR and the EU is common for example.
That said, of course you guys should be entitled to a referendum. I just worry that the Murdoch controlled media has been feeding a very poisonous narrative for decades now and the UK political establishment has not challenged it sufficiently. But however ye vote, we'll all experience the consequences.
Shadow Captain: I never mentioned UKIP. There's plenty of british nationalism without the BNP or UKIP.
Orlanth: You're kinda misrepresenting PR there. It's possible to have PR without a list system (though actually I believe list systems have their benefits). Ireland for example has PR, but people still vote for their local representatives. They can just vote for more than one, in order of preference. When one gets elected, the second preference votes are allocated to the others in the constituency, as we have more than one representative per constituency. This would require a re-working of consituencies in the UK of course- the current set up is one consituency, one representative. But that creates a bit of a problem for people in "safe seats". In a PR system they could both be represented, and smaller parties get a greater share of the vote, allowing them to influence policy a bit more. I guess both systems have their downsides - PR lets the extremists have a voice on all sides, whereas FPTP makes people feel like their vote is worthless if it doesn't match the view of their constituency.
I actually like the German system best, having experienced it since moving here.If I were german, I would get to vote on multiple levels of democracy- at a local level, at a federal level, and at a European level. I can vote one way locally and then another way federally and and another way at the EU level. The list system is combined with local representatives in a fairly fair way to ensure that you have some politicians who pursue the interests of their local constituency but others who can work on issues of national importance without getting bogged down in local concerns.
Germany has also had coalition governments consistently for decades, and it has done their economy and society little harm.
All of that said, while I agree that MEPs get paid too much, get ridiculous benefits and have ridiculous expenses, that doesn't really bother me as much as the lack of transparency on EU decisions. I think we really need to work on THAT above all else. I think all of us as EU citizens need to get more interested in the EU as more than a vague bogeyman but as OUR institution, and I think we desperately need a European media, rather than multiple national media all filtering EU issues through a narrow, local focus.
I think BOTH of these elements are hugely important but the ruling political class seem to have no interest in it -apart from their own vested interest in keeping it as is.
There is apparently nothing that can be done about the scandel of the dual EU parilement buildings and the cost of this to us all every year.
That said, of course you guys should be entitled to a referendum.
I worry that like previous EU refernedum's this may well be a farce - the previous ones held in Eurpoean countries were shockingly dodgy where Refendums were held repeatedly until the "right" result was gained and only then was the matter dropped - the opposite of decmocracy...
Mr Morden: Actually, in the Irish case, the Irish electorate rejected the referendum based on some concerns. Then the EU bodies altered the treaties to address these concerns, and the Irish voted again on a new treaty with altered wording, and voted yes the second time. We actually benefited greatly from having the referenda because it allowed us to steer the process in a way that benefited us as a small country.
The narrative that we were made to vote until we got it right needs to be challenged because it is NOT what happened. But it is what gets reported and stated constantly.
I won't get into how dirty those referendum campaigns were on the No side though. The claims they made (EU mandated minimum wage of 1.89 was my favourite) never came to pass, but they have never been challenged on it and are allowed to keep shouting about the EU as if they had credibility.
Da Boss wrote: Mr Morden: Actually, in the Irish case, the Irish electorate rejected the referendum based on some concerns. Then the EU bodies altered the treaties to address these concerns, and the Irish voted again on a new treaty with altered wording, and voted yes the second time. We actually benefited greatly from having the referenda because it allowed us to steer the process in a way that benefited us as a small country.
The narrative that we were made to vote until we got it right needs to be challenged because it is NOT what happened. But it is what gets reported and stated constantly.
I won't get into how dirty those referendum campaigns were on the No side though. The claims they made (EU mandated minimum wage of 1.89 was my favourite) never came to pass, but they have never been challenged on it and are allowed to keep shouting about the EU as if they had credibility.
tbh Ireland wasn't in my thoughts to be honest - thinking about France and Dutch No results which were in effect ignored in the end......
1. Why does everybody in this thread dislike UKIP so much?
2. About the difference between leftwing and rightwing politics what I have read about different countries and their political systems it seems to be a pattern that economic and political stagnation are common in left wing countries. Albeit rightwing politics also have their fair share of problems, but a right leaning mixed economy seems to be the best option.
The Green began with a very bad start. Announcing their republicanism ideology in the wrong time (but maybe right space) where the world is on The Baby Princess hype! so AFAIK they got FOUR.
The Labour might enter its own 'reform' program soon, the party lost the election since the end of Tony Blair era. Did his hawkish policy doomed The Labour?
1. Why does everybody in this thread dislike UKIP so much?
2. About the difference between leftwing and rightwing politics what I have read about different countries and their political systems it seems to be a pattern that economic and political stagnation are common in left wing countries. Albeit rightwing politics also have their fair share of problems, but a right leaning mixed economy seems to be the best option.
1. UKIP, when they have been given seats (as in the European elections) have proven that they do not do the work they were sent to do (they have the worst voting record in the whole thing). Add to that that the party has more than it's share of racist nutbags, sexist nutbags and general nutbags, and UKIP begin to look a little shady. Some of their ideas are probably pretty decent, and the decent ideas will probably be co-opted by less embarrassingly tone deaf parties in future.
2. I'd say a left leaning country is a nicer place to live, I don't see political stagnation as being related to left or right wing views. Germany is pretty politically stagnant, and it's a centre-right leaning country. I'd argue that's more to do with demographics (Germany is full of cranky old people) than it is to do with political ideology. No doubt we could argue this back and forth with argument and counter argument, but I would say that I'm generally okay with a "centre-something" government, even if I'd prefer centre-left over centre-right. To me, the Tories are a proper right wing party, and do not occupy what I consider to be the centre ground.
Do you think you are going to get another referendum from a Con majority Government?
No, but the foundations are built and now all we need to do is build the rest of the structure. If the SNP had come up with a realistic currency plan before the indyref there is a good chance that Scotland would soon be leaving the Union. As it is Yes support has held steady at around 50% and I am sure that the SNP will do everything in their power to capitalise on their political and popular success.
The direction of travel is clear and the clock is ticking.
Do you think you are going to get another referendum from a Con majority Government?
No, but the foundations are built and now all we need to do is build the rest of the structure. If the SNP had come up with a realistic currency plan before the indyref there is a good chance that Scotland would soon be leaving the Union. As it is Yes support has held steady at around 50% and I am sure that the SNP will do everything in their power to capitalise on their political and popular success.
The direction of travel is clear and the clock is ticking.
You do realise the price of oil just crashed right? If the SNP come into power and independence rules, taxes will have to go up a fair bit.
@ Da Boss
What do you think the outcome would be of Britain leaving, both for Britain and the EU?
Do you think you are going to get another referendum from a Con majority Government?
No, but the foundations are built and now all we need to do is build the rest of the structure. If the SNP had come up with a realistic currency plan before the indyref there is a good chance that Scotland would soon be leaving the Union. As it is Yes support has held steady at around 50% and I am sure that the SNP will do everything in their power to capitalise on their political and popular success.
The direction of travel is clear and the clock is ticking.
That's a timebomb you're hearing mate.
It's counting down to the ruination of Scotland at the hands of the SNP.
You do realise the price of oil just crashed right?
Whats your point? The oil market is inherently volatile, oil fields are finite and Scotland makes only a fraction of its GDP from oil.
Oil prices are rising, there are large and currently untapped fields of the West coast (estimated to be worth £1trillon) and most importantly of all Scotland would be a prosperous country even without oil.
There will be economic uncertainty in the early years of any independent nation although it is highly likely to be fairly short lived in the case of Scotland. There will probably be tax rises in an Independent Scotland as well (there should be tax rises in the UK as a whole anyway). That's a small price to pay though.
Ketara:
Hmmm. Good question. I don't really know what to expect if it happens, but here's what I think MIGHT happen.
- Britain suffers economically as the EU is not going to let them leave without a fairly heavy price in terms of trade, and you guys have a trade deficit with the EU. The two million (?) brits living in the EU will be put in a difficult position, though I would hope arrangements would be made for them. Similar for Europeans living in the UK. It's possible I'm wrong, and the savings you guys make on not being part of the Union make up for the costs of leaving though. Too complicated for me to know.
- The EU suffers politically, perhaps disintegrating in slow motion as the British exit emboldens Eurosceptics in other countries to press for the same thing. This is the worst outcome in my opinion, and one reason why I am so against a british exit. Most likely, we would end up with a shrunken Union, and I'm not sure which countries would stay in.
- From a selfish point of view, I think it would be a definite negative for Ireland, since you guys are sort of "in the way" for us in all of our interactions with the continent (diplomatically as well as geographically). Ireland is pretty pro-EU and has done well out of it, the last 5 years notwithstanding, but Britain is our biggest trading partner, emigration destination and source of immigrants. I've no doubt a british exit would complicate matters in the North, and make it more difficult for us to trade with the EU. Most likely we'd have to make a whole load of new agreements with Britain, which would be a bit of an administrative nightmare for us if other countries in the EU didn't do the same.
Do you think you are going to get another referendum from a Con majority Government?
No, but the foundations are built and now all we need to do is build the rest of the structure. If the SNP had come up with a realistic currency plan before the indyref there is a good chance that Scotland would soon be leaving the Union. As it is Yes support has held steady at around 50% and I am sure that the SNP will do everything in their power to capitalise on their political and popular success.
The direction of travel is clear and the clock is ticking.
You do realise the price of oil just crashed right? If the SNP come into power and independence rules, taxes will have to go up a fair bit.
You do realise it's already recovered to approx $70/barrel, right? And that as a commodity it has always trended upwards over time despite large fluctuations, right? And that the fact we're so vulnerable to those fluctuations is a failure of the UK state to properly manage that resource and so is, in fact, a point in favour of us controlling those decisions ourselves in future, right? And perhaps most importantly that the SNP have very specifically NOT fought this campaign on a platform of independence, right?
Seriously, that last point needs to be hammered into people's heads, particularly the media; the only people banging on about independence during this election campaign were Unionists. The SNP only ever discussed it when it was brought up by others, and only then to state outright that even all 59 seats would not be seen as a mandate for independence or for calling another referendum, and that there would have to be substantial and material change in the circumstances of the UK and its relationship to Scotland before they would even consider proposing one. The SNP won this election by running on an anti-austerity, anti-Trident, anti-Tory, pro-more-devolution platform and they won it with over 50% of the popular vote. People have to pull their heads out of the sand and stop believing this is some frivolous protest vote, transient fever of nationalism, or mass delusion because the SNP aren't going anywhere, and that applies doubly so for Unionists because at this point pretty much the only two things that could push Scotland out of the UK are an utterly massive chasm of voting disparity between Scotland and rUK come the EU referendum(which is unlikely), or pig-headed Unionists continuing to patronise the SNP and those who voted for them.
EDIT: Don't bother Puffin, when it comes to the SNP MoD is just not interested in anything other than the fantastical imagined version of the party he has in his mind's eye.
Do you think you are going to get another referendum from a Con majority Government?
No, but the foundations are built and now all we need to do is build the rest of the structure. If the SNP had come up with a realistic currency plan before the indyref there is a good chance that Scotland would soon be leaving the Union. As it is Yes support has held steady at around 50% and I am sure that the SNP will do everything in their power to capitalise on their political and popular success.
The direction of travel is clear and the clock is ticking.
You miss the point of the referendum.
Yes or No the decision is FINAL.
There is no such thing as a FINAL referendum. They are called according to the prevailing political winds, there will be another referrendum on Scottish independence unless the support for the Yes camp dwindles away to almost nothing. That isn't going to be happening for the foreseeable future. It won't be for a good few years (unless we are forced out of the EU) but I am optimistic that Scotland will be a Sovereign nation again within my lifetime.
The ball is in David Cameron's court though, lets see if he fumbles it.
Da Boss wrote: Ketara:
Hmmm. Good question. I don't really know what to expect if it happens, but here's what I think MIGHT happen.
- Britain suffers economically as the EU is not going to let them leave without a fairly heavy price in terms of trade, and you guys have a trade deficit with the EU. The two million (?) brits living in the EU will be put in a difficult position, though I would hope arrangements would be made for them. Similar for Europeans living in the UK. It's possible I'm wrong, and the savings you guys make on not being part of the Union make up for the costs of leaving though. Too complicated for me to know.
- The EU suffers politically, perhaps disintegrating in slow motion as the British exit emboldens Eurosceptics in other countries to press for the same thing. This is the worst outcome in my opinion, and one reason why I am so against a british exit. Most likely, we would end up with a shrunken Union, and I'm not sure which countries would stay in.
- From a selfish point of view, I think it would be a definite negative for Ireland, since you guys are sort of "in the way" for us in all of our interactions with the continent (diplomatically as well as geographically). Ireland is pretty pro-EU and has done well out of it, the last 5 years notwithstanding, but Britain is our biggest trading partner, emigration destination and source of immigrants. I've no doubt a british exit would complicate matters in the North, and make it more difficult for us to trade with the EU. Most likely we'd have to make a whole load of new agreements with Britain, which would be a bit of an administrative nightmare for us if other countries in the EU didn't do the same.
If we can ensure that we're no worse off financially then, doesn't it logically make sense for us to do so? Or do you think it comes down to more than pure economics? And why do you think a federalist EU superstate is a good thing? I'm genuinely curious here, think of it as a chance to potentially persuade an undecided voter in the upcoming referendum.
There is no such thing as a FINAL referendum. They are called according to the prevailing political winds, there will be another referrendum on Scottish independence unless the support for the Yes camp dwindles away to almost nothing.
No there won't. We are all part of the UK, and the whole UK has the right to be consulted. No more special snowflake. Sturgeon's comments of Scotland will no longer be ignored must be backed by equality for all rather than regional privilege, Scots are entitled to no more a share of the pot as any other Briton, greater devolution for Scotland must go hand in hand with greater devolution for the whole UK the ending of the West Lothian question, and not a jot less.
There was no referendum in 1707 which justified the need for one now. However just referenda are not a case of repeat until one side gets the outcome it wants.
Oh man! Big ask. I'll do my best!
Well, yeah, I do think it comes down to more than a financial decision. Ultimately, the EU has meant there have been no armed conflicts between the various member states since it's introduction. We've had peace in Europe (at least, those parts in the EU) for longer than ever before in history. It's easy to dismiss this, or say it's due to other factors, but I think the closer ties between EU states economically, socially and politically are the main driver, and the EU facilitates all of that.
Elements within the EU are destructive to citizens interests, no argument on that from me, but I would argue that it's main actions have been positives for the people of Europe. Free movement of labour is a good thing in my case, and the intermixing of cultures it facilitates is the best thing (though as a fella engaged to a German lady I would say that )
The EU has championed consumer protection and data protection when national governments were slow to do so.
Though it is a separate institution, it comes up in these arguments a lot, and I would say the ECHR is a tremendous force for good in the main, allowing people who are not getting a fair hearing from their state governments to appeal to another body to get some help.
In the modern world, we need to connect more to each other and be more open to co-operation, not close ourselves off. Europe has the chance to make a bigger positive impact on the world if we work together than if we act as a bunch of separate and competing interests.
Despite what many say, the EU has also been a great force against inequality - Ireland was a backward, practically Third World nation before we joined, ruled by a theocratic and backward status quo. Not only did joining the EU do wonders for us economically due to help with structural funds and so on, it also opened us to trade with others and helped our economy open up. We developed socially and are now more progressive than we've ever been. I see this as a good thing, others may disagree.
Though we may find the movement of people between Eastern and Western Europe with irritation, it provides the same broadening of perspectives and helps to winnow away at inequality.
I'm sure I may eventually think of more to say, but that is the thrust of my argument- the EU is not an economic project but a social one, and though it is not perfect by a long way, on balance it's influence has been more positive than negative.
Edited to Add: On the federalist angle- the current crisis and democratic deficit in the EU, the technocratic way things are handled and the general feeling of disconnect from the EU are all huge problems. Rather than pull apart and destroy the union, I think the best way to confront these issues is with a much stronger pull together, where the issues can be addressed thoughtfully and carefully and proper democratic structures can be put in place to protect the interests of different regions. The current system works to an extent, but the Euro Crisis showed that national interests are not always going to lead us down the right path. I would prefer a proper federal arrangement with responsibilities, powers and roles properly spelled out, bringing us closer together and resolving the issues at the same time. Ambitious maybe, but why settle for anything less?
The democratic deficit in the EU is not felt only by the British, of course. There are more ways to address than than getting out.
But as regards referenda, if the Scottish one is definitive we don't need another EU membership referendum and Cameron has already broken is first promise.
Orlanth, referendum decisions are not set in stone. The UK had a referendum on joining the EU, now it's going to have one on leaving it. If the original had been set in stone, we wouldn't be here. People change, situations change. If the rUK votes to leave the EU, but Scotland votes to stay in, then that's justification for another independence referendum in my view.
Ketara, in reply to a point you made earlier, you're making the classic mistake of thinking that because London and the SE have a problem with immigration, then the whole of the UK has a problem with immigration. It doesn't Scotland's population is ageing, and only recently did it reverse population decline. It needs some immigration. There is no, one size fits all immigration policy for the UK.
Back to the main point I wanted to make. The next 5 years are a dream come true for the SNP. Anything that goes right in Scotland, the SNP claim credit. Anything goes wrong, blame it on the Tories and tell people that we warned you this would happen if you voted no.
The SNP can't lose. They are the plucky underdog standing up to the 'cruel' Tories in London. It's a narrative that will play well in Scotland. If Westminster takes a hard stance, it only boosts the independence cause. If Westminster grants more powers to Edinburgh, it only hastens the path to independence.
If the Tories were serious, I'm sure they could craft a plan in time to stymie the SNP, but time is something Cameron doesn't have.
Why, because he made the blunder of saying he will stand down in a couple of years, thus weakening his authority,
and
If the Conservatives do what I suspect they'll do, then Tory backbenchers will distract Dave with their fixation on the EU. I can see the SNP taking advantage of this distraction. Dave's fighting a war on two fronts. He may not win.
I am not sure the EU can claim the credit for the lack of war - I think the aftermath of WWII including the Marshall Plan and the Cold "War" that followed prevented a "Hot" war not the EU - - be better to complement NATO than the EU in this case?
I am not against imagration - its almost always been a good and neccesary thing - I am hoeever deeply suspicious of the EU politcal and governmental system - its bad enough trying to find out and do something about the corruption in our own parliment - let alone a massive and dubiuously funded institution that wanders between two massive palaces built to celebrate the EU's excess?.
I am not even against a Federal Europe - IF it actually looked like it was going to be better than what we have in nation state s- but it appears to be a even deeper cess pool with even less chance of being drained.
No there won't. We are all part of the UK, and the whole UK has the right to be consulted.
No, it doesn't. The Scottish government could even call a referendum on its own volition without even asking Westminster. It wouldn't be immediately legally binding, but the chances are good to excellent that the UK government wouldn't be able to ignore a sufficiently decisive yes vote, especially if the UN was to become involved.
The UK was formed by the amalgamation of 2 national parliaments which in turn was made possible by 2 separate acts by those parliaments; given that the Scottish government of the day implicitly permitted the treaty of union why would the modern Scottish population not be given the same consideration?
Kilkrazy wrote: The democratic deficit in the EU is not felt only by the British, of course. There are more ways to address than than getting out.
But as regards referenda, if the Scottish one is definitive we don't need another EU membership referendum and Cameron has already broken is first promise.
I'm working on the assumption that you remember the Major years when Tory backbenchers made his life hell. I can see that happening again. Cameron will not have his troubles to seek.
But the referendum will happen. The idea that the French and Germans will cave in to British demands on EU regulations is laughable nonsense IMO
and even if they did, some Tories like John Redwood will never be satisfied.
If Dave doesn't give the Tories their referendum, he's toast. They got rid of Thatcher, they'll have no hesitation of giving Dave the boot.
Yes, you are very correct, of course Cameron will probably have a lot of trouble from his anti-EU backbenchers especially now the UKIP safety valve has been welded shut for a few years.
The reason I mentioned the EU referendum was to contrast people's attitudes on re-running a referendum depending on whether the first result suited them or not.
No there won't. We are all part of the UK, and the whole UK has the right to be consulted.
No, it doesn't. The Scottish government could even call a referendum on its own volition without even asking Westminster. It wouldn't be immediately legally binding, but the chances are good to excellent that the UK government wouldn't be able to ignore a sufficiently decisive yes vote, especially if the UN was to become involved.
The UK was formed by the amalgamation of 2 national parliaments which in turn was made possible by 2 separate acts by those parliaments; given that the Scottish government of the day implicitly permitted the treaty of union why would the modern Scottish population not be given the same consideration?
Scotland has already had one referendum, until most of the people who voted in that referendum are dead, they shouldn't get another.
I'm also of the view that the whole of the UK should decide if Scotland can stay or go. You willingly entered this union, it should be up to the union to finish it.
At least your country wasn't conquered. And if Scotland is so intent on going back to the old ways, then Wales should get the lands that were taken by the English, which is most of the west.
No there won't. We are all part of the UK, and the whole UK has the right to be consulted.
No, it doesn't. The Scottish government could even call a referendum on its own volition without even asking Westminster. It wouldn't be immediately legally binding, but the chances are good to excellent that the UK government wouldn't be able to ignore a sufficiently decisive yes vote, especially if the UN was to become involved.
The UK was formed by the amalgamation of 2 national parliaments which in turn was made possible by 2 separate acts by those parliaments; given that the Scottish government of the day implicitly permitted the treaty of union why would the modern Scottish population not be given the same consideration?
Scotland has already had one referendum, until most of the people who voted in that referendum are dead, they shouldn't get another.
I'm also of the view that the whole of the UK should decide if Scotland can stay or go. You willingly entered this union, it should be up to the union to finish it.
At least your country wasn't conquered. And if Scotland is so intent on going back to the old ways, then Wales should get the lands that were taken by the English, which is most of the west.
That's not very logical, because by that logic, the rest of the EU should get a say on Britain staying or going, which would of course, be undemocratic.
No there won't. We are all part of the UK, and the whole UK has the right to be consulted.
No, it doesn't. The Scottish government could even call a referendum on its own volition without even asking Westminster. It wouldn't be immediately legally binding, but the chances are good to excellent that the UK government wouldn't be able to ignore a sufficiently decisive yes vote, especially if the UN was to become involved.
The UK was formed by the amalgamation of 2 national parliaments which in turn was made possible by 2 separate acts by those parliaments; given that the Scottish government of the day implicitly permitted the treaty of union why would the modern Scottish population not be given the same consideration?
Scotland has already had one referendum, until most of the people who voted in that referendum are dead, they shouldn't get another.
I'm also of the view that the whole of the UK should decide if Scotland can stay or go. You willingly entered this union, it should be up to the union to finish it.
At least your country wasn't conquered. And if Scotland is so intent on going back to the old ways, then Wales should get the lands that were taken by the English, which is most of the west.
That's not very logical, because by that logic, the rest of the EU should get a say on Britain staying or going, which would of course, be undemocratic.
I'd be okay with that.
I'm not the biggest fan of Europe by any means, but when half of the world is trying to kill or invade the other half, we need to stick together.
No there won't. We are all part of the UK, and the whole UK has the right to be consulted.
No, it doesn't. The Scottish government could even call a referendum on its own volition without even asking Westminster. It wouldn't be immediately legally binding, but the chances are good to excellent that the UK government wouldn't be able to ignore a sufficiently decisive yes vote, especially if the UN was to become involved.
The UK was formed by the amalgamation of 2 national parliaments which in turn was made possible by 2 separate acts by those parliaments; given that the Scottish government of the day implicitly permitted the treaty of union why would the modern Scottish population not be given the same consideration?
Scotland has already had one referendum, until most of the people who voted in that referendum are dead, they shouldn't get another.
I'm also of the view that the whole of the UK should decide if Scotland can stay or go. You willingly entered this union, it should be up to the union to finish it.
At least your country wasn't conquered. And if Scotland is so intent on going back to the old ways, then Wales should get the lands that were taken by the English, which is most of the west.
That's not very logical, because by that logic, the rest of the EU should get a say on Britain staying or going, which would of course, be undemocratic.
I'd be okay with that.
I'm not the biggest fan of Europe by any means, but when half of the world is trying to kill or invade the other half, we need to stick together.
If the EU had stuck to its original goal of being a trading union, then I think things would have been fine. Unfortunately, it became too greedy for political power.
At least your country wasn't conquered. And if Scotland is so intent on going back to the old ways, then Wales should get the lands that were taken by the English, which is most of the west.
It was politically conquered though, or near enough.
If the Welsh people want to be a sovereign nation again then I am more than happy for them to do so.
No there won't. We are all part of the UK, and the whole UK has the right to be consulted.
No, it doesn't. The Scottish government could even call a referendum on its own volition without even asking Westminster. It wouldn't be immediately legally binding, but the chances are good to excellent that the UK government wouldn't be able to ignore a sufficiently decisive yes vote, especially if the UN was to become involved.
The UK was formed by the amalgamation of 2 national parliaments which in turn was made possible by 2 separate acts by those parliaments; given that the Scottish government of the day implicitly permitted the treaty of union why would the modern Scottish population not be given the same consideration?
Scotland has already had one referendum, until most of the people who voted in that referendum are dead, they shouldn't get another.
Why? If we cannot change our minds as circumstances change and demand a democratic method of expressing that change in opinion(if it happens), why do we even have elections? Aye there you go, lets freeze the Westminster parliament in its current configuration for the next 70+ years until everyone on the present electoral roll is dead - people made their choice, they shouldn't be allowed to change it. Same logic.
I'm also of the view that the whole of the UK should decide if Scotland can stay or go. You willingly entered this union, it should be up to the union to finish it.
Two issues there. The first being "we" did not willingly enter anything; 300 years ago a small group of rich gentry with a vested interest agreed to be bribed with wealth and land to sign the Treaty of Union, there was rioting on the streets of Scottish cities for days and weeks after the news got out. Yes, the referendum last year gave the people's assent to remain within the Union, but like all democratic decisions it was provisional. The second problem is, of course, that the whole UK voting on Scottish independence would be a laughable mockery of the very idea of democratic self-determination. If the UK government wants to hold a referendum on whether to kick us out, fine, but if the polity demanding the referendum is Scottish then the polity voting in it must be the same, or else you could have a ridiculous situation where Scotland votes to leave the UK by an overwhelming majority but still loses the overall vote because England voted we must stay and they have over 80% of the population.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Orlanth, referendum decisions are not set in stone. The UK had a referendum on joining the EU, now it's going to have one on leaving it. If the original had been set in stone, we wouldn't be here. People change, situations change. If the rUK votes to leave the EU, but Scotland votes to stay in, then that's justification for another independence referendum in my view.
Not true. We had a referendum on joining the European Economic Community, or whatever it was called. The EU did not exist at the time, the EEC later morphed into it with several treaties that our Governments signed without consulting the British Electorate.
What we joined was a free trade zone, not a multinational political union / burgeoning superstate.
No there won't. We are all part of the UK, and the whole UK has the right to be consulted.
No, it doesn't. The Scottish government could even call a referendum on its own volition without even asking Westminster. It wouldn't be immediately legally binding, but the chances are good to excellent that the UK government wouldn't be able to ignore a sufficiently decisive yes vote, especially if the UN was to become involved.
The UK was formed by the amalgamation of 2 national parliaments which in turn was made possible by 2 separate acts by those parliaments; given that the Scottish government of the day implicitly permitted the treaty of union why would the modern Scottish population not be given the same consideration?
Scotland is a recognised part of the UK, a UDI from the Scottish parliament would be illegal.
Also the referendum we had was on Scotlands terms with only Scotland voting, should you want a divorce now the rest of the UK would demand consultation and it would have to be on our terms. Shared sovereignty on oil, shared burden on debt, at the very minimum. Also breaking up the UK is not in our interests, and those in England and Wales now should have the right to be consulted in any future process. It is no longer a question for Scots alone, 'what is best for Scotland' is no longer the unilateral concern, what is best for the UK is no less important and no less relevant.
Orlanth: Would you let the rest of the EU vote to keep britain in? Because britain leaving would be a major problem for Ireland- we'd like a say please!
Da Boss wrote: Orlanth: Would you let the rest of the EU vote to keep britain in? Because britain leaving would be a major problem for Ireland- we'd like a say please!
The UK's relationship within the EU is not the same as Scotland's relationship within the UK. The UK is a sovereign integral country, the EU is not.
If the EU fully federalises and if the Uk joins a federal Europe and wants to leave the rest of Europe will be entitled to have a say, with at most one UK only referenda before that process..
Besides we can say with some confidence the UK will not be leaving the EU, it will be renegotiating. UKIP scores votes for reasons largely unrelated to Europe, and all the other parties want in.
Interestingly, I've seen almost no major news sources covering this. Given the fierce anti-Labour propaganda that many were putting out, I'd say it seems our media is becoming more and more like certain American media...
Interestingly, I've seen almost no major news sources covering this. Given the fierce anti-Labour propaganda that many were putting out, I'd say it seems our media is becoming more and more like certain American media...
Left wing students like to know whats best for everyone, and if others don't agree then its time to stamp feet and throw bricks.
Been like this since the 60's nothing new. It will die down when term starts.
Well a lot of the newspapers are owned by a certain totally unbiased person so I'm not surprised by it not really appearing that much.
The amount of hate for the Tory's in my area is crazy, I've never really understood why. Labour won in our area so I don't know why everyone is kicking up a fuss. The Tory's won fair and square. This may or may not be a good thing depending on who you ask.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Orlanth, referendum decisions are not set in stone. The UK had a referendum on joining the EU, now it's going to have one on leaving it. If the original had been set in stone, we wouldn't be here. People change, situations change. If the rUK votes to leave the EU, but Scotland votes to stay in, then that's justification for another independence referendum in my view.
Ketara, in reply to a point you made earlier, you're making the classic mistake of thinking that because London and the SE have a problem with immigration, then the whole of the UK has a problem with immigration. It doesn't Scotland's population is ageing, and only recently did it reverse population decline. It needs some immigration. There is no, one size fits all immigration policy for the UK.
Back to the main point I wanted to make. The next 5 years are a dream come true for the SNP. Anything that goes right in Scotland, the SNP claim credit. Anything goes wrong, blame it on the Tories and tell people that we warned you this would happen if you voted no.
The SNP can't lose. They are the plucky underdog standing up to the 'cruel' Tories in London. It's a narrative that will play well in Scotland. If Westminster takes a hard stance, it only boosts the independence cause. If Westminster grants more powers to Edinburgh, it only hastens the path to independence.
If the Tories were serious, I'm sure they could craft a plan in time to stymie the SNP, but time is something Cameron doesn't have.
Why, because he made the blunder of saying he will stand down in a couple of years, thus weakening his authority,
and
If the Conservatives do what I suspect they'll do, then Tory backbenchers will distract Dave with their fixation on the EU. I can see the SNP taking advantage of this distraction. Dave's fighting a war on two fronts. He may not win.
This, so much this.
Unfortunately for the Union there is nothing in the world that the Scottish hate more at the moment, than a Tory.
At the moment I can't imagine the political catastrophe that the SNP would have to instigate in order for them to be less popular than Westminster.
In a bizarre speech which, quite frankly, left everyone baffled after he lost his seat, George Galloway ominously said yesterday he was “going off now to plan the next campaign” - so what on earth is he plotting?
The former Respect MP for Bradford West lost out to Labour’s Naseem Shah following Wednesday’s vote.
In his speech he said: "I don’t begrudge the Labour members here their moment of celebration of course.
"But there will be others who are already celebrating: the venal, and the vile, the racists and the zionists will all be celebrating.
"The hyena can bounce on the lion’s grave but it can never be a lion, and in any case, I’m not in my grave.”
He then declared: “I’m going off now to plan the next campaign”.
This has led to much speculation that he could be preparing to run for the position of Mayor of London once Boris Johnson steps down in May next year.
Galloway refused to comment on the possibility of such a campaign following his speech yesterday but he has previously declared his intention to run for mayor.
It sounds like the sort of thing Galloway will do, he didn't like losing his gravy train seat one bit, and will want some more gravy and ego boost. Standing for Mayor of London is a solid choice, if a rather overambitious goal. This move, if he makes it will only suit the Tories and it will help split the left vote in the city but I cant see anyone voting for him on the right.
Intersting article on the new Bradford West MP and her struggles with Galloway.
At the moment I can't imagine the political catastrophe that the SNP would have to instigate in order for them to be less popular than Westminster.
Their economic policies would have done it. But then the central government will have to keep a lid on spending so they not. Scotland will not be allowed to unilaterally end austerity and rack up a debt for everyone else.
We can't discount the SNPs anti-Tory agenda because one constituency in the south of Scotland voted Tory.
We also can't ignore the historical and political pummelling the Tories have taken in Scotland for the last few decades.
They are a deeply unpopular party in Scotland. There are parts of England and Wales who share the same opinions, but in Scotland the Conservatives are particularly polarising.
Ignoring that is foolish.
The SNP, at the moment can do no wrong. The only way they can mess it up is if they singularly fail to deliver on austerity. However, they have the perfect opponent. If they fail, it's because the of the bloody Tories. If they succeed, it will be despite them.
If Labour had got in, then the whole complexion would have been very different indeed.
r_squared wrote: We can't discount the SNPs anti-Tory agenda because one constituency in the south of Scotland voted Tory.
We also can't ignore the historical and political pummelling the Tories have taken in Scotland for the last few decades.
They are a deeply unpopular party in Scotland. There are parts of England and Wales who share the same opinions, but in Scotland the Conservatives are particularly polarising.
Ignoring that is foolish.
However when we get Labour governments we don't blame Scotland. Perhaps we are less volatile south of the border?
The SNP, at the moment can do no wrong. The only way they can mess it up is if they singularly fail to deliver on austerity. However, they have the perfect opponent. If they fail, it's because the of the bloody Tories. If they succeed, it will be despite them.
If Labour had got in, then the whole complexion would have been very different indeed.
They can certainly do wrong, but have a centalised stranglehold on just about everything, including the police. With Salmond this went to his head and he abused his power. This could happen again, though Sturgeon is a far more shrewd character.
Wulfmar wrote: Judge Dredd sums it up nicely here. As for me? Next time I'm voting Justice Department - at least you know where you stand.
Spoiler:
Its scarily accurate - good story that one...............
True democracy begins to break down with an electorate over 1000 citizens.
It works for small Greek city states.
Representative democracies work on a somewhat larger scale, but are real;ly there for larger city states.
Thing is everyone wants democracy, but none likes being told you need an educated electorate for it to work.
The Victorians had this argument, there was a move to restrict the vote to a professional register.
I wonder if it would have yielded better results long term.
Orlanth, you're re-treading old arguments that were completely demolished during the Scottish independence referendum.
If Scotland were independent, the oilfields, being in Scottish territorial waters, would belong to Scotland. The rest of the UK would have no more claim to them than it did on Edinburgh.
And as for rUK, there would be no longer a United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is Scotland and England. Wales and NI are an irrelevance in this regard. If Scotland goes, there is no UK.
They can call themselves Britain or whatever.
And as for other countries being consulted on Scotland's future, then by your logic, Germany and France should have a say on the UK's EU future. After all, it does effect them.
My final point is this. The UK is NOT greater England. If I remember some of your older posts correctly, you maintain that Scotland doesn't exist, then technically, England does not exist either.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Forgot to add that the UK is a composite state of two nations, not one nation absorbing another nation, and as such, both nations (Scotland and England) can go their separate ways.
If England decided to leave the Union, should Scotland get a say?
Interestingly, I've seen almost no major news sources covering this. Given the fierce anti-Labour propaganda that many were putting out, I'd say it seems our media is becoming more and more like certain American media...
This has been covered by the BBC. You arguably can't get a more major news source in the UK, or much of the world.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Orlanth, you're re-treading old arguments that were completely demolished during the Scottish independence referendum.
If Scotland were independent, the oilfields, being in Scottish territorial waters, would belong to Scotland. The rest of the UK would have no more claim to them than it did on Edinburgh.
This would assume seperation on Scottish parliaments terms, which was the expectation of a Yes vote.
However you got a No vote, so separation would not be on Scottish parliaments terms. They would be on bnegotiated terms.
As for oil, if Scotland is allowed to secede in a future deal, on terms agreed with the UK. The Uk will allow the Orkney's and Shetlands to remain in the UK, a deal they are likely to accept. Thus the oil revenue would have to be shared.
Salmond ruled out home rule for the outer isles, they would be ruled from Edinburgh, but at the time he was given free rein on referendum terms.
If the SNP want to renege on the deal of ther terms, one referendum Yes or No, then any fuiture agreement, if any, would be negotiated on mutual terms.
If the SNP doesnt like the terms they can stay in the UK. Even if they do like the terms there is no guarantee we will accept another referendum.
And as for rUK, there would be no longer a United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is Scotland and England. Wales and NI are an irrelevance in this regard. If Scotland goes, there is no UK.
Wrong. Scotland would leave the UK, it would not disband the UK. The Uk would remain a sovereign state with EU membership. Scotland would have to apply for everything afresh.
However you have half a point, there would be serious changes south of the border, its not just a Scottish issue, It's a UK issue. The UK would likely lose its Security Council seat. For this reason and others a second Scottish referendum is an issue that effects everyone regardless of what side of the border they are. We English DEMAND the right to be fully and equally consulted in all future changes. Scotland has had a shot at a partisan agreement alone, form now on if you vote we also get a fair vote.
Still the UK, thank you. But your lack of concern for what happens to the rest of the UK is evidence enough as to how we will not allow you alone to determine all our fates.
And as for other countries being consulted on Scotland's future, then by your logic, Germany and France should have a say on the UK's EU future. After all, it does effect them.
We are not in a Federal Europe with France and Germany. Were we a formal component of a Federal Europe then this would be the case. Indeed many in Europe oppose Federalism for this reason.
Scotland is part of a United Kingdom though in a way that is far more integral than an EU membership.
My final point is this. The UK is NOT greater England. If I remember some of your older posts correctly, you maintain that Scotland doesn't exist, then technically, England does not exist either.
You dont remember my older posts correctly. especailly if you think I claim Scotland doesnt exist.
Also Scotland is not part of 'Greater England' were that the case it would be a colonial situation, however Scotland is a fully integral part of the UK. Scots can rise to any position in any part of the nation, including Prime Minister. Some have done so.
Are you one of those people the Scots call Neeps. Someone thought you gullible enough to have your head filled with SNP twaddle about poor oppressed Scotland needing to rise from under those evil English overlords in Westminster.
In reality we have the West Lothian question, the Barnett formula, and disasterous Scottish politicians like Gordon Brown who threatened of lifelihoods for decades to come with his hairbrained squandering.
We needed austerity because of him, now the SNP want to end austerity in Scotland.
Who is going to pay the debt then?
Are we going to have a special snowflake Scotland which can squander and spend while elsewhere people are squeezed to pay the national debt.
And be under no illusions, the UK must pay the debt New Labour built up for us or face financial collapse.
Remember that New Labour was largely brought into power by Scottish MP's and a Scottish electorate, you cant write off New Labour as an English problem, especially if you howl about having Tory governments due to English rural voters.
Forgot to add that the UK is a composite state of two nations, not one nation absorbing another nation, and as such, both nations (Scotland and England) can go their separate ways.
Which is why we had a single binding referendum. Because there wasn't one in 1707.
If England decided to leave the Union, should Scotland get a say?
I think not. That's England's business IMO.
Pointless question, but all integral parts of the UK should have a say together, and not a partisan portion of the electorate alone. You know, the equal democracy thing.
I have to say that having listened to Nicola Sturgeon on the Andrew Marr show this morning, so seems to be either very naïve or ignoring the facts. The SNP did amazingly well at the polls and probably quite rightly gave Labour a deserved kicking... but and it's a big BUT, the Tories are still the majority party. Even after their drubbing Labour are still the 2nd biggest party.
Nicola might, rightly so, believe that there has been a political sea change in Scotland, but it will mean 'jack' to the Tories, they still have the majority. If London doesn't want it to happen, then it won't. Standing there and pointing at the results and basically saying 'it's not fair' will not count for anything.
So personally I think it was an amazing for a political Party, but ultimately it won't mean anything when it comes to affecting policy. Those backbenchers who are borderline 'kippers' aren't going to allow Scotland to dictate anything, they will feel they don't have to.
Scotland got the political party it wanted, but ultimately this will mean the rest of us will suffer.
Well, it's only 3 days since the Conservatives were elected, and already, the first major punch up between the Tories and the SNP is looming on the horizon...
The Tories want to scrap the ECHR, BUT, ECHR is heavily embedded in Scots law (independent under the act of union), the Scotland Act, and of course, the Scottish Parliament...
By scrapping the ECHR, the Tories may have to repeal the Scotland act, which will be Christmas day come early for the SNP.
I don't envy Dave his job in the months ahead
PS
I'm pretty sure the ECHR is heavily embedded in the Good Friday agreement/St Andrews agreements as well, in regard to peace in Northern Ireland...
1. Why does everybody in this thread dislike UKIP so much?
2. About the difference between leftwing and rightwing politics what I have read about different countries and their political systems it seems to be a pattern that economic and political stagnation are common in left wing countries. Albeit rightwing politics also have their fair share of problems, but a right leaning mixed economy seems to be the best option.
1. UKIP, when they have been given seats (as in the European elections) have proven that they do not do the work they were sent to do (they have the worst voting record in the whole thing). Add to that that the party has more than it's share of racist nutbags, sexist nutbags and general nutbags, and UKIP begin to look a little shady. Some of their ideas are probably pretty decent, and the decent ideas will probably be co-opted by less embarrassingly tone deaf parties in future.
2. I'd say a left leaning country is a nicer place to live, I don't see political stagnation as being related to left or right wing views. Germany is pretty politically stagnant, and it's a centre-right leaning country. I'd argue that's more to do with demographics (Germany is full of cranky old people) than it is to do with political ideology. No doubt we could argue this back and forth with argument and counter argument, but I would say that I'm generally okay with a "centre-something" government, even if I'd prefer centre-left over centre-right. To me, the Tories are a proper right wing party, and do not occupy what I consider to be the centre ground.
1. Fair enough, although UKIP could be inactive also simply because their MPs are new, and not used to the system.
2. Political stagnation =/= economic and scientisific stagnation. Otherwise you are probably right. Although the position upon the left-right axis in people might also be determined quite a lot depending on their current economic situation.
Orlanth wrote: The Uk will allow the Orkney's and Shetlands to remain in the UK, a deal they are likely to accept.
lol, That will happen at around the time that Kelpies are allowed the vote. Honestly Orlanth, do you actually believe what you type?
Yes I do. The Orkneys made noises on those lines during the referendum, which Salmond flatly rejected.
So Salmond wants iScotland but only on his terms, self rule for some, but not others.
Now that is all done and dusted Westminster can demand, and I do mean you get no choice on the matter, that is Scotland is to be allowed a second referendum it happens on OUR TERMS.
Westminster can offer Orkneys and Shetland continued membership of the UK if they so choose. It will then be up to how the referendum works there.
The SNP wont like it, but the terms would be justifiable.
1. The 2014 referendum was on SNP terms, and future referendum will be on UK terms.
2. If Scotland gets to vote out, why not the Shetlands.
3. Is Scotland votes out and the islands vote to remain in the UK the oil fields will no longer be exclusively Scottish.
4. Norway will back us on this as the only contender for the waters.
I don't think it will come to this, but these are MINIM UM terms I would except from Westminster if the SNP is to try and weasel out of the binding 2014 referendum.
Other minimum terms will be formal debt sharing and no currency union.
I dont think it will come to that becauxe the Uk can simply say no to any further referndum, or at the very minimum demand allUK citizens now get a vote on the UK's future (which will end the matter quickly enough).
Scotland is a historical people group and nation state, but it currently is not an independent sovereign state, the UK is and the UK is recognised as the lawful body that includes Scotland and England and the islands. Its our nation (collectively) so its our rules collectively, the 5% of the UK populace living in the region of Scotland dont get to dictate to the 95% who are not. You had that shot and the No vote won fair and square.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, it's only 3 days since the Conservatives were elected, and already, the first major punch up between the Tories and the SNP is looming on the horizon...
The Tories want to scrap the ECHR, BUT, ECHR is heavily embedded in Scots law (independent under the act of union), the Scotland Act, and of course, the Scottish Parliament...
By scrapping the ECHR, the Tories may have to repeal the Scotland act, which will be Christmas day come early for the SNP.
I don't envy Dave his job in the months ahead PS I'm pretty sure the ECHR is heavily embedded in the Good Friday agreement/St Andrews agreements as well, in regard to peace in Northern Ireland...
This is going to be one almighty mess!
Blair signed us up for the European Commission of Human Rights, on a point of dogma, which has proven to be one sided in application.
Amending the various treaties will be easy enough. The national mandate for the UK government to act is there and they can do so.
UK's relationship with Brussels has not been devolved to Holyrood and never should. Are you saying Scotland should determine the UK's position with the EU?
If so its a case of the 5% ruling the other 95%. Enough.
Also the Scotland Act would net need to be repealed, new legislation would overlap. This is normal for a parliamentary White Paper.
Anyway I see no sources on this rumour. Do you have a press link?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, it's only 3 days since the Conservatives were elected, and already, the first major punch up between the Tories and the SNP is looming on the horizon...
The Tories want to scrap the ECHR, BUT, ECHR is heavily embedded in Scots law (independent under the act of union), the Scotland Act, and of course, the Scottish Parliament...
By scrapping the ECHR, the Tories may have to repeal the Scotland act, which will be Christmas day come early for the SNP.
I don't envy Dave his job in the months ahead
PS
I'm pretty sure the ECHR is heavily embedded in the Good Friday agreement/St Andrews agreements as well, in regard to peace in Northern Ireland...
This is going to be one almighty mess!
Well it's a good thing that Westminster doesn't have Parliamentary Supremacy over Scotland and could potentially disband the Scotland Government and reverse devolution.
Oh wait, it can. It can also override any laws that Scotland wishes to make.
Oh wait, it can. It can also override any laws that Scotland wishes to make.
Yet it doesn't. For all the talk of Scotland not being able to apparently do anything why does Westminster allow the Scottish government to operate, it did after all take 2 referenda to get off the ground in the first place?
Orlanth, welshhoppo, you may or may not be aware that under the Act of Union, Scots law is separate and independent from the rest of the UK.
If Westminster rides roughshod over this with ECHR, then its easy ammunition for the SNP to fight back with and allows the SNP to say to Scotland that the Tories are not serious about the United Kingdom.
As for newspaper sources, Orlanth, there were a few articles about it last year, but they died down in the election run up, but now talk has re-surfaced due to Gove's appointment at the justice department.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: Also, ECHR is involved in Stormont AFAIK.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure it is heavily embedded in the various Northern Ireland peace process treaties, so if Westminster wants to start unpicking this...
As I say, it's going to be messy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is Scotland votes out and the islands vote to remain in the UK the oil fields will no longer be exclusively Scottish.
I looked into this during the referendum. If Scotland goes independent, then Shetland would be an enclave under international law, and the Shetland territorial waters would only extend out about 3 miles...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Orlanth, welshhoppo, you may or may not be aware that under the Act of Union, Scots law is separate and independent from the rest of the UK.
If Westminster rides roughshod over this with ECHR, then its easy ammunition for the SNP to fight back with and allows the SNP to say to Scotland that the Tories are not serious about the United Kingdom.
As for newspaper sources, Orlanth, there were a few articles about it last year, but they died down in the election run up, but now talk has re-surfaced due to Gove's appointment at the justice department.
Talk has resurfaced has it. Which bar stool? Because I dont see it in the press reports on Google.
I don't disbelieve the policy but if you want to discuss with the grown up you need to be able to find quotes.
Da Boss wrote: Also, ECHR is involved in Stormont AFAIK.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure it is heavily embedded in the various Northern Ireland peace process treaties, so if Westminster wants to start unpicking this...
As I say, it's going to be messy..
Is Scotland votes out and the islands vote to remain in the UK the oil fields will no longer be exclusively Scottish.
I looked into this during the referendum. If Scotland goes independent, then Shetland would be an enclave under international law, and the Shetland territorial waters would only extend out about 3 miles...
not enough to reach the oil fields...
That would apply if Sheltand went independent from a pre-existing independent Scotland, but that isnt what happens, you get UK waters becoming Scottish waters, so they would be divided.
As it currently stands there are no Scottish territorial waters, only UK territorial waters.
So the northern isles/UK get full share.
Anyway this is just a hypothetical, the UK will not allow iScotland now. You had your shot, you lost. Now we demand full consultation for the UK's future by all the UK. End of discussion.
As much as I hate saying people are completely wrong, you are completely wrong.
The Scottish Parliament was created by an Act of the Westminster Parliament. Under Parliamentary Supremacy Westminster cannot bind its successors. The Scotland Act is an act of Parliament, and Parliament has the power to repeal any act.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: What is wrong with the European Court of Human Rights, exactly?
The ECHR is the convention on Human rights, your thinking of the ECtHR, which is the Court.
Basically, the ECHR creates all sorts of circumstances that some people might not like. There isn't anything wrong with it, but it sometimes creates awkward situations for the goverment.
Don't be so naive, there is no way that this discussion will be over for decades. Westminster can't simply kill this; not if they actually believe in democracy of course, or at least want to wider world to think that they believe in democracy. Its Irish home rule all over again. The only way that Westminster and the rUK can deal with the issue of Scottish independence is to try and appeal to Scottish voters and that is something seems as unlikely as ever.
Scotland will keep the ECHR, irrespective of whatever manged horror Dave's little minions vomit out.link
Da Boss wrote: What is wrong with the European Court of Human Rights, exactly?
A lot of overruling of UK law the UK dont like.
Criminals in prison have gone to the European Court demanding the vote, which is against our laws, Strasbourg backed them, so HM Gov decided to ignore it. IIRC that was the final straw.
The ECHR was used to prevent us deporting this charming fellow for best part of a decade:
Yet did nothing to save this fellow:
It doesn't however do much to actually support human rights oddly enough, you need a politicised cause to get the funding/legal aid to go to the court, so a lot of real rights issues get ignored while scum get expensive lawyers to dance around our judicial processes.
Getting rid of the ECHR is a fairly popular move because of the sorts of cases the ECHR has been interfering with.
Da Boss wrote: What is wrong with the European Court of Human Rights, exactly?
Funny thing about human rights is that they change every 2 years and they can be used to justify anything. The original ones though are quite consistent and reasonable, the problem is just that which things are then human rights, as there is no clear definition.
Don't be so naive, there is no way that this discussion will be over for decades.
Its not nainve to suggest that while the SNP will constantly howl for it the UK can constantly defer it.
There was a referendum, job done, game over, you lost.
Westminster can't simply kill this; not if they actually believe in democracy of course, or at least want to wider world to think that they believe in democracy.
Refer to previous statement, referendum was allowed and agreed. Accept the results.
Also accept that flat fact that the whole UK now has a right to be consulted over its future.
Scotland agreed it would remain in the UK so this is a UK matter.
The only way that Westminster and the rUK can deal with the issue of Scottish independence is to try and appeal to Scottish voters and that is something seems as unlikely as ever.
Sorry not interested in special snowflake Scotland, we need to focus on the whole UK not giving into demands of a portion of the UK populace at the expense of the rest.
Scotland will keep the ECHR, irrespective of whatever manged horror Dave produces.link
No problem.
It's very unpopular, when terrorists get their special treatment in Scotland but not in the rest of the UK the people will likely demand otherwise.
It also means that special snowflake terrorists will get Strasbourg ruling for compo that the Scottish parliament pays, not HM Treasury.
UK Bill of Rights is a much better idea, which will not apply north of the border, for now.
Also this isnt a problem, Scottish law differs from UK law on a number of issues, it always has. It causes less problems than people make out.
Oh NOES Cameron will repeal laws!!!! Why care? Scotland has separate judicial processes and laws, and has done so since before the Scottish parliament. This goes both ways, Scottish Sheriffs courts have powers they dont have in England. Yet people in a Scottish court cannot have guilt assumed if they maintain the right to silence during questioning.
I have known cases where Scottish police game to England to interview a suspect over an accusation made in Scotland. The defendant was questioned in an English police station under Scottish law, and was advised over the phone by a Scottish lawyer provided for him.
Things went smoothly.
The UK has no problems with Scotland pursing its own legal standards, it has happened for decades without problems. You are making an issue that isn't there.
So is the queen dissolving parliament, she can even dismiss the prime minster. She won't though because we don't live in a banana republic.
Those powers partly went away when fixed session parliaments came in. But HM can still disband the government.
Downgrading the monarchs power was necessary for New Labour. Blair wanted rid of the monarchy's powers because it interfered with his intention to govern without accountability.
Its still quiet policy today for Labour.
HM's power to dissolve parliament is a value stopgap that prevents us from having a junta in the UK, a fact republicans overlook.
The only time the Queen will interfere is if the government of the day decides to overstep its authority.
The military is loyal to the monarch above the politicians, both titularly and in reality. Though again in the last decade moves were made to separate this allegiance.
Which was my point. However, she has the power to do something extremely undemocratic, just like the dissolution of the Scottish parliament would be, but she won't.
Which was my point. However, she has the power to do something extremely undemocratic, just like the dissolution of the Scottish parliament would be, but she won't.
You misread this. Her Majesty can remove a government when it does something undemocratic. This automatically calls a new election.
One fun fact I've just learnt, The SNP are asking for their privileges as the third party now.
It was a Lib-Dem perk, including nice offices, and seats on important committees, but as the LD have only 8 seats to the SNP's 56, they don't really qualify any more.
I think they should get it too, fair's fair, they are the third party now after all
marv335 wrote: One fun fact I've just learnt, The SNP are asking for their privileges as the third party now.
It was a Lib-Dem perk, including nice offices, and seats on important committees, but as the LD have only 8 seats to the SNP's 56, they don't really qualify any more.
I think they should get it too, fair's fair, they are the third party now after all
I'd agree with that, Wikipedia says they are the 3rd party. Wikipedia is the law.
marv335 wrote: One fun fact I've just learnt, The SNP are asking for their privileges as the third party now.
It was a Lib-Dem perk, including nice offices, and seats on important committees, but as the LD have only 8 seats to the SNP's 56, they don't really qualify any more.
I think they should get it too, fair's fair, they are the third party now after all
Its not a problem, SNP are exercising their right. and they shopuld get whats coming to them including committee seats.
Though moving the Lib Dems out of their offices wont do, also Lib Dems will still have access to committee seats, just fewer of them.
Interestingly as UKIP now have their own MP they are no longer a fringe party, and also unlock a range of benefits.
Bullockist wrote: In regard to the UKIP this is a good thing. The exposure will lead them to being regarded as crackpots faster and lead to their demise as a party.
That exposure is not in short supply.
However guaranteed access will give UKIP an undeniable platform to demonstrate that much of the media view of them is partisan.
marv335 wrote: One fun fact I've just learnt, The SNP are asking for their privileges as the third party now.
It was a Lib-Dem perk, including nice offices, and seats on important committees, but as the LD have only 8 seats to the SNP's 56, they don't really qualify any more.
I think they should get it too, fair's fair, they are the third party now after all
Its not a problem, SNP are exercising their right. and they should get what's coming to them including committee seats.
Though moving the Lib Dems out of their offices won't do, also Lib Dems will still have access to committee seats, just fewer of them.
Interestingly as UKIP now have their own MP they are no longer a fringe party, and also unlock a range of benefits.
Actually the offices the Lib Dems have are in an area of Westminster that traditionally go to the third party, it's in the "Irish Corridor"
Plus the whips office next to the Conservative and Labour whips office.
Bullockist wrote: In regard to the UKIP this is a good thing. The exposure will lead them to being regarded as crackpots faster and lead to their demise as a party.
That exposure is not in short supply.
However guaranteed access will give UKIP an undeniable platform to demonstrate that much of the media view of them is partisan.
"Hi UKIP, despite your best attempts you seem to be struggling to hang yourself with that bit of string. Here, have a nice length of rope"
Partisan? Who needs to be partisan when you have candidates like this:
And thats just in the last week. Yes, it was a particularly busy and high profile week for politics, but also the week when every politician should be aware they need to watch every single word they say. UKIP have had to suspend people left right and center. It may not be the parties intention to have people with these views, but they do attract those people to stand for them and vote for them.
It's undeniable that another referendum on Scotland could be held. I don't think it is justified by the current SNP election success, though. First, this was a general election, not a referendum on having a referendum, second, the SNP only got half the available votes. They are not overwhelmingly popular, they just benefited from FPTP.
Finally it obviously is impractical to have a referendum every couple of years. I think the issue should be shelved for 10 years perhaps and this would be a good rule for any referendum issue including the EU and proposals for PR.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's undeniable that another referendum on Scotland could be held. I don't think it is justified by the current SNP election success, though. First, this was a general election, not a referendum on having a referendum, second, the SNP only got half the available votes. They are not overwhelmingly popular, they just benefited from FPTP.
Finally it obviously is impractical to have a referendum every couple of years. I think the issue should be shelved for 10 years perhaps and this would be a good rule for any referendum issue including the EU and proposals for PR.
I agree, a referendum should stand for a good length of time, unless something drastic changes. You can't just keep having referendums until you get the result you want, on any of these issues. They are expensive and, at least in the case of the EU and Scotland, cause all sorts of economic instability. The SNP does not show some massive change, just that a small number of people voted SNP but didn't vote for independence, possibly because they felt independence was not a good thing but did want more power for Scotland. The gap between Yes votes and SNP voters was very small.
However, I doubt the SNP will push for a new referendum now. They will wait to see how the EU vote goes and keep pushing for more. Every time Scotland gets something it will be "Look what we have done for you" and every time they ask for something (no matter how outlandish) it will be "Look at the evil Westminster! Oppressing us again" and try and build on the support they have. Just the same as any other party does, but with a less nebulous voter base, making it a little easier to define what to claim and what to attack. The government will have a big headache with this as it also makes it much harder to spin. I can see it getting very dirty from both sides.
He's a shape shifting lizard. That's why he also hates David Icke.
Seriously, he is a man with a massive ego and a need for attention. I can't work out if this is a refusal to believe reality or a grab for attention. Either way, he's just coming across as a bit of a knob. Again.
Nothing like being gracious in defeat. Typical Galloway though; accuse opponents of doing something improper, and demands election results be set aside. He is reported for breaking election law, and it's "a storm in a thimble".
Orlanth, you asked for sources earlier about the plans to scrap the ECHR act.
The Guardian and the Telegraph are both running articles on this. I'm sure you're more than capable of accessing those articles
From what I've been hearing, this is increasingly looking like an unholy mess.
ECHR is codified into Scots law, which is independent under the act of union, and it's also heavily buried in the Northern Ireland peace treaties, and some parts of the Welsh devolution settlement.
As a result, by the time the lawyers have finished with this, we could end up with the crazy situation of ECHR being abolished in England, but still part of the legal system in Scotland!
One of the things I kinda don't get about the election results and what happened to the Lib Dems is the swing from Lib Dem to Conservatives in a fair amount of places.
Assuming that many of the actual voters swapped and not a case of some stopping voting and others starting to vote...
Anyhow, I just don't 'get' the logic. "Lib Dems failed to represent me properly during the coalition with the tories, so instead I'm going to go vote for... the tories."
Bullockist wrote: In regard to the UKIP this is a good thing. The exposure will lead them to being regarded as crackpots faster and lead to their demise as a party.
That exposure is not in short supply.
However guaranteed access will give UKIP an undeniable platform to demonstrate that much of the media view of them is partisan.
"Hi UKIP, despite your best attempts you seem to be struggling to hang yourself with that bit of string. Here, have a nice length of rope"
Partisan? Who needs to be partisan when you have candidates like this:
And thats just in the last week. Yes, it was a particularly busy and high profile week for politics, but also the week when every politician should be aware they need to watch every single word they say. UKIP have had to suspend people left right and center. It may not be the parties intention to have people with these views, but they do attract those people to stand for them and vote for them.
1, UKIP don't have access to the security services to vet their candidates for them.
2. Unlike other parties UKIP are very quick to root out unsavoury characters. Diane Abbott is still at large and her comments equal or exheed those here.
3. UKIP as a whole are judged with a higher level of scrutiny, it's hard to dodge a label when prejudged.
UKIP cant be blamed for people with bad pasts wanting to join, you wouldn't notice them at face value either. They are at best behaviour in party circles, and their other sides are shown outside.
UKIP is quick to replace bigots wherever found.
Nothing like being gracious in defeat. Typical Galloway though; accuse opponents of doing something improper, and demands election results be set aside. He is reported for breaking election law, and it's "a storm in a thimble".
Mr Galloway, leader of the Respect Party, lost his Bradford West seat to Labour's Naz Shah, who he has alleged made "false statements" during the campaign to affect the result.
He also claimed "widespread malpractice" involving postal voting meant the result must be "set aside".
A Labour spokesman said the action was "pathetic and without any foundation".
Galloway may have a point on 'widespread malpractice', it is Bradford after all. But he was ok with it being Bradford when he won.
Over the last month even the BBC started to comment on the laerge scale abuse of electoral fraud, and even the BBC went as far as to say it was a large problem in Asian areas. I was very surprised at that. Though misidentified the cause of the problem.
Vote rigging is a known problem in some parts of East London, and in other areas with a high Asian population. Tower Hamlets and Pendle in particular. New Labour did nothing about it as it was Labour guys doing it. Which was why the seminal cases of vote rigging in Pendle which first hit the press in 1997 were finally dealt with in this election. It is a major sea change as to highlight vote rigging, let alone highlight an ethnicity behind it would have been swept under the carpet as 'racism' in the very recent past.
Prior to the change in policy to unlock the problem of Asian vote rigging without fear of label the only media notably covering the story was the Daily Mail, another case of where 'Daily Fail stores were in fact accurate but no one else dared print them.
I first heard about the widespread vote rigging in 1997 from the Daily Mail and was able to verify because I had connections in Blacko, a small town in Pendle constituency. I have followed the phenomena ever since, and it was reported openly in the Daily Mail, but just about nowhere else on every subsequent election, and again was found to be true. It first got proper attention after the blatant electoral abuse in Tower Hamlets in 2010, which enabled the coalition government to act. And the change of government itself which was no longer happy to sit back and let people rig the vote.
Stop the stealing of votes, we cant have that says Labour.
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/pendle/11189626.Labour_reject_scheme_to_stop_Pendle_postal_fraud/?ref=arc
The major block to combating electoral fraud is that you have two weeks to make an appeal, and gathering evidence is difficult. In most cases this occurs when people talk to the press about having their postal vote stolen, and turning up on the day to vote only to be told they have already voted. This is easy to do as electoral forms still have a postal vote option as a tick box, there is no tick box to ask to vote in person, so its a simple addition fraud.
Pres demanding to see the redirected postal vote slips find that in the vast majority of cases they are sent to an Asian household to vote by proxy, one connected to the council worker who filled in the tick boxes and redirected the ballot.
Why Asians you might ask. Because on the Indian subcontinent the prevailing culture is that power is taken, not shared. If a vote can be taken that is power. Due to multiculturalism the UK has not drummed into ethnic groups sufficiently that that is not acceptable in the western world.
It is doubly sickening because despite this whole trail of paperwork until after 2010 no one wanted to do anything about it. To mention the phenomena would put you at fear of label of racist. Furthermore the candidates benefiting were almost exclusively Labour and this was not something Blair had any intention of discouraging by bringing the fraudsters to court.
This is not to say it happened to Galloway, but it's Bradford, it's Labour and the end candidate was Asian so it may well have. However getting those ducks in a row doesn't mean it quacks.
Personally I doubt vote rigging paid a major part on Galloway's downfall, and in many cases the vote rigging is not done with the candidate involvement but by the wider community to 'help out', its just that New Labour were not in any hurry to put a stop to it.
2. Unlike other parties UKIP are very quick to root out unsavoury characters. Diane Abbott is still at large and her comments equal or exheed those here.
Realy? Diane Abbott has made some controversial and inappropriate comments, but not on the same level, and is not something that has happened again and again and again. I gave you three examples in a week.
3. UKIP as a whole are judged with a higher level of scrutiny, it's hard to dodge a label when prejudged.
UKIP cant be blamed for people with bad pasts wanting to join, you wouldn't notice them at face value either. They are at best behaviour in party circles, and their other sides are shown outside.
UKIP is quick to replace bigots wherever found.
As I said, It may not be the parties intention to have people with these views, but they do attract those people to stand for them and vote for them. This is happening time and time again. It's not a case of a few bad apples. The issue is that UKIP totally refuse to do anything about routing out this problem that is endemic in there support. These aren't people who are hiding it, they are the people who talk about "PC madness" when someone accuses them of being racists or homophobic. They just don't see it as a problem until too late.
1, UKIP don't have access to the security services to vet their candidates for them.
So? Everyone else seems to manage without that.
Want to stand as a PPC for Lasbour Lib Dem or Tory, the security services will sniff you out. Its done for the sake of the nation.
You dont want people with very diodgy pasts running major parties.
Remember which parties are in power and thus have access to the police and MI5.
2. Unlike other parties UKIP are very quick to root out unsavoury characters. Diane Abbott is still at large and her comments equal or exheed those here.
Realy? Diane Abbott has made some controversial and inappropriate comments, but not on the same level, and is not something that has happened again and again and again. I gave you three examples in a week.
Dine Abbott is still there and has made numberous comments that if the ethnicities were reversed would have landed the person in serious trouble.
As I said, It may not be the parties intention to have people with these views, but they do attract those people to stand for them and vote for them. This is happening time and time again. It's not a case of a few bad apples.
Actually it is, gaffs are common across party lines. UKIP gaffs are more commonly highlighted. People are following them constantly to see if they do anything 'racist'. Other parties don't get the same press scrutiny, and certainly not with the same pre-conceptions.
The issue is that UKIP totally refuse to do anything about routing out this problem that is endemic in there support.
Again if the press didn't try and label falsely UKIP as a party of the far right the far right would not try to join. NF and BNP members are not welcome in UKIP. Also they are rooted out whenever found.
These aren't people who are hiding it, they are the people who talk about "PC madness" when someone accuses them of being racists or homophobic. They just don't see it as a problem until too late.
And a lot of those comments are indeed justified. PC madness has a lot to answer for, and only recently are the public waking up to the problems. A lot was swept under the carpet before but is becoming accepted as truth now.
The difference is how you handle the info, some want to expose, others want to rile and hate. The left wing press and society as a whole is conditioned to lump everyone in the latter category.
- The large scale eldtroal fraud which noone could do anything about because it would be 'racist' to go after Asian fraudsters mentioned just above is a good example.
- Rotherham child abuse, where the police did nothing for oever a decade because it might be 'racist' to investigate a large Asian paedophile ring.
- Islamisation of schools.
All three of the above were known factors, but only recently have something been done about them, because of the change of government which is trying to remove the stigma of dealing with large scale malfeasance in ethnic communities.
Even so the Tories avoid making comments because the dogma and stigmatisation of those who highlight the problem is still evident. The far right want the issues tackled but want them tackled the wrong way. I dont know what UKUIP's policy is, probably close to the Tories frankly. They do however recognise the nasty realities that the progressive left have long swept under carpet, even now, with full evidence that there are serious issues with PC attitudes which shroud malpractices those who speak against it are still labeled as 'racists'.
If our one remaining taboo in society, paedophilia, is not enough of a reason to deal with large scale abuse by members of an ethnic group because it might offend multicultural sensitivities then there is a de facto 'PC madness' and it is not 'racist' to expose it. Some of us have known this for years, but no one dared present the evidence until New Labour was gone.
We will tell an incoming Prime Minister about any information that we hold on a potential member of the new Cabinet only if that information raises serious national security concerns and only if it appears likely that the individual concerned will need access to sensitive information.
A similar arrangement has been in operation for the Official Opposition since 1992. The Leader of the Opposition is briefed on any serious security issue concerning a possible member of the Shadow Cabinet. This is necessary because members of the Shadow Cabinet are often briefed on security issues.
These arrangements have only ever been used on a very small number of occasions since MI5 was established over a hundred years ago.
You should read between the lines on this.
How will the security services know if someone is a national security risk?
It is naive in the extreme to think the security services wont keep files on politicians.
Also ask yourself the obvious question, who runs the government.
We will never find written admission from MI5 about vetting, however its open knowledge that if you want to be an MP for a major party (and proably for a lot of minor ones) you will be sniffed out. It's naive to think otherwise.
Heavily naive to think about it, as you don't need to be a minister to sit on a defense committee. And it would be wild eyed to think that people with seats on defense committees are not sniffed out by security services. The same applies for treasury and foreign policy committees at the very least, and likely the home office also.
Again this is unsourced, but a logical conclusion based on what these government bodies do and are for.
There is quite a bit of vetting going on.
And that is not all.
You need fairly heavy vetting to be a bouncer nowadays, or to work with children. This vetting is commonplace. This is done though common access to police records, not listed above. Access a major party, especially one that is in power will have, but not a fringe party.
You should read between the lines on this.
How will the security services know if someone is a national security risk?
Because the person will have come up during the course of their regular investigations.
MI5, indeed the security services as a whole does not have the time or manpower to vet 2-3 thousand + random people every X years.
They tend to be quite busy with a few roles.
Sure if you're an MP for long enough to be put into a position where you'll have access to sensitive information they do run a check -- be daft not too.
But it's ridiculous to claim that all Mps/party members are vetted by the security services.
It is naive in the extreme to think the security services wont keep files on politicians.
Good job no-one claimed this then.
Also ask yourself the obvious question, who runs the government.
A mixture of the Govt. and the civil service.
We will never find written admission from MI5 about vetting, however its open knowledge that if you want to be an MP for a major party (and proably for a lot of minor ones) you will be sniffed out.
No it's not.
It's the sort of BS you read a lot about on the internet but if you know people who actually work or have worked for political parties it's well known this doesn't happen at all.
It's naive to think otherwise.
It's paranoia to pretend that the services do what you're claiming.
They have much better things to do than vet a potential 1 term nobody from nowhere.
Heavily naive to think about it, as you don't need to be a minister to sit on a defense committee. And it would be wild eyed to think that people with seats on defense committees are not sniffed out by security services. The same applies for treasury and foreign policy committees at the very least, and likely the home office also.
People who are Mps and in sensitive positions are indeed checked out, no argument there.
Again this is unsourced, but a logical conclusion based on what these government bodies do and are for.
As promised Nigel Farage tendered his official resignation as leader of UKIP to the NEC. This offer was unanimously rejected by the NEC members who produced overwhelmingly evidence that the UKIP membership did not want Nigel to go
The NEC also concluded that UKIP’s general election campaign had been a great success. We have fought a positive campaign with a very good manifesto and despite relentless, negative attacks and an astonishing last minute swing to the Conservatives over fear of the SNP, that in these circumstances, 4 million votes was an extraordinary achievement. On that basis Mr Farage withdrew his resignation and will remain leader of UKIP. In addition the NEC recognised that the referendum campaign has already begun this week and we need our best team to fight that campaign led by Nigel. He has therefore been persuaded by the NEC to withdraw his resignation and remains leader of UKIP.
MI5 follows around prospective candidates and reorts to the leader of their party if they say something racist? But not for UKIP... Is that what is going on?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Breaking news, Garage has been persuaded to drop his resignation and remains UKIP leader.
We will never find written admission from MI5 about vetting, however its open knowledge that if you want to be an MP for a major party (and proably for a lot of minor ones) you will be sniffed out. It's naive to think otherwise.
Again this is unsourced, but a logical conclusion based on what these government bodies do and are for.
Access a major party, especially one that is in power will have, but not a fringe party.
Ok...Now we are straying in to tinfoil hat territory.
Your comments on "PC gone mad" stray in to this too. Boiling complex issues down to "they were to frightened to do anything for fear of being labeled racist". Yes, that may have had some effect on some people, but that is not the system that is wrong, but the implementation. It is the same issue where teachers ban conkers or people quote "data protection" for not doing something. BS. Nothing to do with law or rules, but BS excuses not to do things. Most of the reason for these problems was down to many other reasons, the same sort of reasons Jimmy Savil and many others got away with what he did. Bullying, power and refusal to listen to vulnerable children. That and over worked social workers being put under more and more pressure.
"PC gone mad" is used to excuse is people being racist, abalist, homophobic and sexist. "I'm not a racist but".
As for the MI5 stuff, what your suggesting is that MI5 spend vast amount of time and money on doing background checks on prospective MPs, pass this to parties and brake the law? Everyone is aware that they check on some people in line for specific jobs, but not for every MP.
You should read between the lines on this.
How will the security services know if someone is a national security risk?
Because the person will have come up during the course of their regular investigations.
MI5, indeed the security services as a whole does not have the time or manpower to vet 2-3 thousand + random people every X years.
They tend to be quite busy with a few roles.
Sure if you're an MP for long enough to be put into a position where you'll have access to sensitive information they do run a check -- be daft not too.
But it's ridiculous to claim that all Mps/party members are vetted by the security services.
PPC's would be covered by police vetting. That is a standard procedure, say you want a job as a bouncer your get negative vetted. Police are asked about extremeist affiliations, violent history and some sorts of mental health.
Main parties can have access to this though one means or another.
Also PPC's are pften know to the party prior to selection, many are party workers. You get security checks there.
A PPC is often say a former analyst or office guy in the party, they get security vetted, especially if their employer is a minister as a lot of them are.
Many many ways the main parties can draw from a recruiting pool of PPC's who are already vetted. Some of that vetting due to role will be by security services, others causal police vetting.
Both should pick up the sort of gak that UKIP has to find out the hard way. The standard UKIP candidate who used to be in the BNP would never get much beyond the door at Tory HQ, he would be identified long before he got to associate his name with the party.
We will never find written admission from MI5 about vetting, however its open knowledge that if you want to be an MP for a major party (and proably for a lot of minor ones) you will be sniffed out.
No it's not.
It's the sort of BS you read a lot about on the internet but if you know people who actually work or have worked for political parties it's well known this doesn't happen at all.
Appeal to authority fallacy. I could play that game also.
If you deliver party leaflets through doors ok, if you work in local government maybe, if you work in an office in Whitehall, your likely to be sniffed out to some degree or other.
It's paranoia to pretend that the services do what you're claiming.
They have much better things to do than vet a potential 1 term nobody from nowhere.
You misrepresent me. PPC's can be given a cursory check via standard police vetting. Same as bouncers and youth workers. The system is set up to deal with this on a large scale.
People in a position of connection to authority warrant former vetting.
Also an MP is by definition not a nobody. Taking a major party for instance. The Tories and Labour will need something on the region of 300-450 candidates for MP seats per general election, allowing for incumbency those candidates would be collected and sifted through over the period of a couple of years and many will already be known to the party. Thats not a major workload, for 400 PPC's thats about the same as the number of new teachers in one county for one year, and those all have mandatory checks. The system is set up for this (police) level of vetting on a large scale.
I have been though this vetting working in the youth service. The check came back ok or I wouldn't have kept my job, but the first I heard about it was when I was told by my boss I checked out. He needn't have said anything. IIRC you sign a disclaimer saying you will be checked, I remember a similar one for OTC and I was also checked out while living on an army base as a service brat.
This isn't tinfoil, secret squirrel, paranoid, big brother, society, its everyday society. If teenagers living on army bases get vetted why is it too hard a stretch to realise party candidates do, after all they will only be running the country.
Again this is unsourced, but a logical conclusion based on what these government bodies do and are for.
uh huh.
Welcome to the world of political analysis. You claim to know the workings of government, so you know what an analyst does. Find conclusions to information present from evidenced pieces to reach a unrevealed whole.
What do you expect, documentation from MI5? I don't have any of that, nor do I need it. If I did have this sourced somehow I wouldn't be stupid enough to post it, I can follow up logical conclusions from evidence in the public domain though safely and fairly.
If you truly place the idea of the need for the security services of any nation to vet the politicians of that nation as 'tin foil' hat stuff then I cant see value in your quality of thinking.
Not believing this was standard procedure in most, if not all, countries would be of a level of naivety akin to hippies believing that if we fully disarmed and gave the Soviet Union lots of bunny hugs they would be nice to us.
Kilkrazy wrote: MI5 follows around prospective candidates and reorts to the leader of their party if they say something racist? But not for UKIP... Is that what is going on?
Please read posts carefully. It will save you from making grossly inaccurate assessements of peoples posts.
This could be helpful especially as you are a mod here.
Ok...Now we are straying in to tinfoil hat territory.
No it isn't, so long as the logic sequence that the analyst uses itself has solid grounding. As this does.
If I said PPCs were vetted by aliens then call me tin foil.
If I said PPC's (for main parties) were vetted using the same police database that is used if they get a standard job in a whole list of common professions then it is a logical inference allowing for who has access to the info.
Your comments on "PC gone mad" stray in to this too. Boiling complex issues down to "they were to frightened to do anything for fear of being labeled racist". Yes, that may have had some effect on some people, but that is not the system that is wrong, but the implementation.
Actually the system was set up to have this effect, which is why the cases only started coming to light after New Labour was out of office.
It is the same issue where teachers ban conkers or people quote "data protection" for not doing something. BS. Nothing to do with law or rules, but BS excuses not to do things. Most of the reason for these problems was down to many other reasons, the same sort of reasons Jimmy Savil and many others got away with what he did. Bullying, power and refusal to listen to vulnerable children. That and over worked social workers being put under more and more pressure.
Pressure bullying. In the Saville case that was due to the conspiracy of silence and the monolithic organisation of the BBC.
What was the cause of the failure in Rotherham?
Not all cases are due to or connected to 'PC gone mad', I never claimed so, but enough are.
"PC gone mad" is used to excuse is people being racist, abalist, homophobic and sexist. "I'm not a racist but".
You just demonstrated hoe much the brainwashing is sinking though into society.
The 'Im not racist but' label doesnt actually mean racist, but society is conditioned to consider it racist anyway.
Why would someone want to say 'Im not racist but....'? It means they perceive a division in society where a different minority group is seen to have an unfair advantage.
There is an automatic conditioning to shut down on hearing the phrase (or equivalents) as 'racist' without haveing to check our whether the grievance is genuine.
Society is learning that sometimes the grievance is genuine. But it will take time to remove the conditioning.
As for the MI5 stuff, what your suggesting is that MI5 spend vast amount of time and money on doing background checks on prospective MPs, pass this to parties and brake the law? Everyone is aware that they check on some people in line for specific jobs, but not for every MP.
Actually I didnt say that, read carefully please. Most vetting police vetting, security services will do vetting in important cases.
So technically the Queen could force a General Election by dissolving the government, but if done off her own back would cause a constitutional crisis. Given that the Tories seem to be already steaming ahead with their plans to cut everything, couldn't the opposition parties gang up and go and request that she dissolves parliament?
They really do seem to be absolutely heartless and have no real grasp of what life is really like. Fine, I agree there needs to be a system in place that stops people ripping off the benefits system, but there has to be some flexibility, even if it means some people still get away with. You can't just lock it all down and write off the people who do actually need the help as 'unfortunate but unavoidable casualties'.
I used scoff at people and say, don't be stupid they aren't sat in Westminster deliberately coming up with ways to screw people over... have to say I'm seriously starting to wonder now.
Wolfstan, you're right - the Tories have no idea what they're doing.
I'm sorry to keep banging the human rights act drum, but as I keep saying, Conservative plans to abolish the ECHR are going nowhere...fast!
I can provide sources, but in a nutshell:
1) Human rights are not reserved to Westminster. Scrapping them in the devolved administrations (Scotland, NI, Wales) would require consent from them. Good luck getting the SNP to scrap that.
2) The Good Friday agreement has the ECHR as its bedrock, plus the deal was signed with the Republic of Ireland. In other words, the Republic would have to get involved and agree to scrapping this provision. Good luck with that, Mr Cameron
3) Yes, The Tories could ram it through Westminster and override the devolved administrations. But the political backlash would play right into SNP hands.
So yes, the Tories will soon discover that political slogans are a lot easier than fighting cold, hard legal battles.
Wolfstan wrote: So technically the Queen could force a General Election by dissolving the government, but if done off her own back would cause a constitutional crisis. Given that the Tories seem to be already steaming ahead with their plans to cut everything, couldn't the opposition parties gang up and go and request that she dissolves parliament?
Technically yes, but it is a misuse to petition the monarch on party plitical issues, no matter how important they are to you or you perceive they are to the country.
If Cameron rigs the 2020 election and is caufght but gets away with it on a technicality, which can occur if he is caught outside the 14 day complaint window for a ballot, then we would have an illegal government. At this point Her Majesty can say, 'no we dont', and boot out Cameron.
They really do seem to be absolutely heartless and have no real grasp of what life is really like. Fine, I agree there needs to be a system in place that stops people ripping off the benefits system, but there has to be some flexibility, even if it means some people still get away with. You can't just lock it all down and write off the people who do actually need the help as 'unfortunate but unavoidable casualties'.
I agree. However this goes beyond the Tories. The Tories for all their many faults are trying to fix the economy, their predecessors were filled with the same disregard for the populacer, and blatant cronyism but squandered as well.
Cameron's main failing is that austerity, while necessary, is clearly for some, while others get a red carpet to the feeding trough. The public do see that, but they also see Labour as not a jot better and on many degrees worse, because you get the same faults to Tories have, but you also have economic mismanagement to add to them.
I used scoff at people and say, don't be stupid they aren't sat in Westminster deliberately coming up with ways to screw people over... have to say I'm seriously starting to wonder now.
They are not. You were right.
A realistic/cynical approach is to think they are sat in Westminster to find ways to make money for themselves and to feather their nest.
Despite the high salaries politicians are on nowadays its nothing compared to the consultancy money they get afterwards. They get those jobs by buddying up to the corporations while in power.
Its a simple case of, help my company get rich while you are an MP and when you are not you can have a consultancy job with a six figure salary.
Look where retired MP's go after they lose their seats or retire, so many go straight on the gravy train.
Not all do, but enough to make the system stink while they are working to build their nest egg following the corporate agenda.
That is what screws people over, toadying to banks et al, however its not intentional, its 'just' a side effect of corporate profit being maximised.
There are honest people in parliament though, but they seldom rise far.
1) Human rights are not reserved to Westminster. Scrapping them in the devolved administrations (Scotland, NI, Wales) would require consent from them. Good luck getting the SNP to scrap that.
Thats a loaded comment, scrappjng the HCHR is not scrapping human rights. Also some legal powers are reserved for the state. As the EU is directly connected to the UK not regional governments the UK can sever the ties. Blair made it difficult, but not impossible.
2) The Good Friday agreement has the ECHR as its bedrock, plus the deal was signed with the Republic of Ireland. In other words, the Republic would have to get involved and agree to scrapping this provision. Good luck with that, Mr Cameron
Cameron has made no comments about undoing the Good Friday agreement, that is an international agreement and thus is an exception. Linking Scotland to Northern Ireland in this case is not realistic.
3) Yes, The Tories could ram it through Westminster and override the devolved administrations. But the political backlash would play right into SNP hands.
It need not. Remember this will occur on Cameron's timing, not the SNP's they can only react. Cameron will wait until the next hook handed horror gets preferential treatment under law thanks to a judgement from Strasbourg. This will inflame a lot of people. Cameron is also not a fool, he has the white paper in hand, now he needs the public riled up enough to have the people behind him when he does.
If he picks his case well even Sturgeon will be forced to at least keep silent.
People like Abu Hamza are not popular in Scotland either, and Scots were incensed when prisoners got massive legal aid payments to go to the ECHR to demand the right to vote. In UK custom, and this os one gernerally agreed on both sides of the border convicted criminals dont deserve ballot papers while serving time.
So yes, the Tories will soon discover that political slogans are a lot easier than fighting cold, hard legal battles.
Doesn't that go for every party, including your beloved SNP.
Sturgeon wants special snowflake Scotland getting all SNP demands met, getting that will be a lot harder than just demanding it from Holyrood.
To be fair, seeing the sheer volume of vileness being spouted by a large chunk of the Tory-voting population towards Scotland. And after seeing the anti-SNP ad campaign by the tories.
I genuinely hope Scotland leaves the UK, separates from England and floats somewhere where the people are less bitter.
Much of the behaviour has been disgusting this election. As someone who isn't behind any one particular party and is in the 'changing votes' category, I've been thoroughly put off the Conservatives.
Regarding Galloways legal action...even if there WAS postal voting fraud (which is a plausible allegation)...does he REALLY think it accounts for the majority of 11,000??? Sore loser.
As promised Nigel Farage tendered his official resignation as leader of UKIP to the NEC. This offer was unanimously rejected by the NEC members who produced overwhelmingly evidence that the UKIP membership did not want Nigel to go
The NEC also concluded that UKIP’s general election campaign had been a great success. We have fought a positive campaign with a very good manifesto and despite relentless, negative attacks and an astonishing last minute swing to the Conservatives over fear of the SNP, that in these circumstances, 4 million votes was an extraordinary achievement. On that basis Mr Farage withdrew his resignation and will remain leader of UKIP. In addition the NEC recognised that the referendum campaign has already begun this week and we need our best team to fight that campaign led by Nigel. He has therefore been persuaded by the NEC to withdraw his resignation and remains leader of UKIP.
Wulfmar wrote: To be fair, seeing the sheer volume of vileness being spouted by a large chunk of the Tory-voting population towards Scotland. And after seeing the anti-SNP ad campaign by the tories.
I genuinely hope Scotland leaves the UK, separates from England and floats somewhere where the people are less bitter.
Special snowflake more powers for us alone, end austerity for us alone. I can see how this isn't popular in England. SNP economic policy echoes that of the current Greek government: they promise no austerity when austerity is sorely needed.
But 'bitter', snt the SNP 'bitter' aren't you 'bitter'. Bitter is such a loaded term.
Bitter: feeling or showing anger, hurt, or resentment because of bad experiences or a sense of unjust treatment.
Why would Tory supporters be 'bitter'? They had the party in power, they just won the election, and why bitter over Scotland. Better Together wont the referendum.
Now Labour, they could be seen as bitter, but in fairness they arent. Galoway is bitter. And the SNP, well they are bitter because of the way their supporters are even on this thread trying to find a away around their defeat in the Scottish referendum.
Why call the Tories bitter when the losing party is trying to find away around a refendum intended to settle a constituatioan argument for a generation at least only a few months after it was won and lost.
And the excuse is that Tories are in power again.
Tories supporters aren't bitter SNP have the most seats in Scotland, most shrug shoulders about it, but SNP supporters are clearly bitter the Conservatives have most seats in England, and they are howling about it.
So in a nutshell if you see 'bitter' in the Tories then you need to look harder and more clearly.
Much of the behaviour has been disgusting this election. As someone who isn't behind any one particular party and is in the 'changing votes' category, I've been thoroughly put off the Conservatives.
Well they polled the most votes, and you cant write that off as 'haterz'.
You clearly weren't paying attention; the SNP wanted to end, or at least reduce, austerity for the entire UK. The SNP stated this explicitly throughout the election.
But 'bitter', snt the SNP 'bitter' aren't you 'bitter'. Bitter is such a loaded term.
Tories supporters aren't bitter SNP have the most seats in Scotland, most shrug shoulders about it, but SNP supporters are clearly bitter the Conservatives have most seats in England, and they are howling about it.
So in a nutshell if you see 'bitter' in the Tories thenyou need to look harder and more clearly.
You can back right off. Making this PERSONAL to me?
Much of the behaviour has been disgusting this election. As someone who isn't behind any one particular party and is in the 'changing votes' category, I've been thoroughly put off the Conservatives.
Well they polled the most votes, and you cant write that off as 'haterz'.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's undeniable that another referendum on Scotland could be held. I don't think it is justified by the current SNP election success, though. First, this was a general election, not a referendum on having a referendum, second, the SNP only got half the available votes. They are not overwhelmingly popular, they just benefited from FPTP.
Finally it obviously is impractical to have a referendum every couple of years. I think the issue should be shelved for 10 years perhaps and this would be a good rule for any referendum issue including the EU and proposals for PR.
I agree, a referendum should stand for a good length of time, unless something drastic changes. You can't just keep having referendums until you get the result you want, on any of these issues. They are expensive and, at least in the case of the EU and Scotland, cause all sorts of economic instability. The SNP does not show some massive change, just that a small number of people voted SNP but didn't vote for independence, possibly because they felt independence was not a good thing but did want more power for Scotland. The gap between Yes votes and SNP voters was very small.
However, I doubt the SNP will push for a new referendum now. They will wait to see how the EU vote goes and keep pushing for more. Every time Scotland gets something it will be "Look what we have done for you" and every time they ask for something (no matter how outlandish) it will be "Look at the evil Westminster! Oppressing us again" and try and build on the support they have. Just the same as any other party does, but with a less nebulous voter base, making it a little easier to define what to claim and what to attack. The government will have a big headache with this as it also makes it much harder to spin. I can see it getting very dirty from both sides.
Considering the SNP consistently, endlessly, unequivocally stated throughout the campaign that even all 59 constituencies in Scotland voting SNP would not be taken as a mandate for independence or even the calling of a second referendum, and that your first paragraph is essentially exactly what Nicola was saying in every interview where this was brought up, it's a pretty safe bet we won't be seeing a new referendum before 2020 unless either the EU referendum or some massive, colossal, utterly tone-deaf cock-up by the Tories cause a substantial shift in public opinion up here.
Hmm, reading that back to myself, under those terms a referendum before 2020 might be more likely than not considering Cameron appointed Gormless Gove as Justice Secretary and is letting BoBo the Clown sit in on cabinet meetings
Compel wrote: One of the things I kinda don't get about the election results and what happened to the Lib Dems is the swing from Lib Dem to Conservatives in a fair amount of places.
Assuming that many of the actual voters swapped and not a case of some stopping voting and others starting to vote...
Anyhow, I just don't 'get' the logic. "Lib Dems failed to represent me properly during the coalition with the tories, so instead I'm going to go vote for... the tories."
The thing you have to understand about the Lib Dems is that they attracted essentially two types of voters; "traditional" liberals, ie economically centrist social libertarians, and "left" liberals, ie economically left-wing social libertarians. The latter voters, many of whom they picked up in 2010 explicitly on the basis that they were opposed to Tory policy on virtually every issue, were lost to them the moment they went into the Coalition. In England & Wales, a handful drifted back to Labour(partially offsetting Labour's losses to UKIP in some seats), some to the Greens, and some just didn't bother voting. In Scotland, they split between the SNP and the Greens, but many Greens still voted SNP at Westminster, essentially "lending" their vote to the SNP's anti-austerity/voice for Scotland ticket while intending to go Green come Holyrood & EU elections, so the liberal collapse up here had a fair impact on the SNP's vote.
The former group, the "Orange Book" liberals, are a mix of people too ashamed to admit they're really just Tories, and people who consider themselves to be economically centrist, but the centre-ground has continued to shift rightwards in the last five years, the Tories have successfully sold the lie that they're not ideological extremists that would have made Thatcher blush, but rather just sensible men doing sensible things in the national interest, cleaning up Labour's mess etc. Well if you buy that, and you were happy with the Coalition, why vote for Tory-lite when you can have real Tory?
EDIT:
OK, someone just pointed something out to me, and it is perhaps the most perfect illustration of just how hidebound and bizarre Westminster is. "Scottish Questions" is a session in parliament where Scottish MPs can put their concerns to the government. It works like this; the Scottish Secretary represents the government, the Shadow Scottish Secretary, appointed by the official Opposition(that being Labour at Westminster) is allowed to ask the ScotSec five questions each of which is debated, and the "third party" at Westminster is allowed to appoint a representative who will be allowed to ask one question.
So in the coming parliament, for five years, Scottish questions will consist of Ian Murray, Scotland's only Labour MP, asking David Mundell, Scotland's only Tory MP, five questions in a row. The SNP's 56 MPs will be permitted to ask a single question. Scotland's only Lib Dem MP will sit in the corner doing nothing.
welshhoppo wrote: At least UKIP supporters haven't been protesting in droves over the election results.
I actually think that's a bit of a shame. The UKIPs probably want to avoid demonstrating as people would make comparisons with other right wing groups. I do think that a cross party alliance of the UKIPs, the Liberals, the Greens, SNP, TUSC etc. could really get the ball rolling concerning electoral reform and removal of FPTP. They only need one of the big parties to back them and the tide would turn.
Wulfmar wrote: ...
...
Well they polled the most votes, and you cant write that off as 'haterz'.
They polled well, and that's the worrying thing.
The Conservatives polled 37% of the the votes on a 66% turnout. That means they were voted for by less than a quarter of the electorate. I don't call that polling well.
Wulfmar wrote: ...
...
Well they polled the most votes, and you cant write that off as 'haterz'.
They polled well, and that's the worrying thing.
The Conservatives polled 37% of the the votes on a 66% turnout. That means they were voted for by less than a quarter of the electorate. I don't call that polling well.
But when less than 70% of the electorate even turn up to vote, it's obvious that you can easily achieve a majority with less than half of the population voting for you. That part wouldn't change if we had PR.
Kilkrazy, what's your take on the following, because you've always been quite knowledgeable when it comes to legal issues.
If the Tories try and scrap the Human Rights Act (HRA) it has massive knock on effects not just for Scotland and Wales, but the Northern Ireland peace process as well.
Orlanth thinks that it would continue to apply in Northern Ireland, but how much of a legal cluster feth will it be if the HRA applies in one part of the UK, but not others? Plus, the Republic of Ireland would have to agree as well.
That's just silly IMO and lawyers would be laughing all the way to the bank.
Orlanth wrote: The system has worked well for centuries, its not broken just because it doesnt return the results you like.
It's not about national percentage, its about local people choosing a candidate and placing them as their local representative.
The system hasn't worked well for centuries, it has been changed and reformed many times. It's not working just because it has returned a result you like.
The system should be more about national percentages. The current system made sense when there were only two parties and individual members felt freer to move between parties or vote against their own party if they wanted. It does not make sense in the current situation with multiple bloc parties involved.
Orlanth wrote: The system has worked well for centuries, its not broken just because it doesnt return the results you like.
It's not about national percentage, its about local people choosing a candidate and placing them as their local representative.
The system hasn't worked well for centuries, it has been changed and reformed many times. It's not working just because it has returned a result you like.
The system should be more about national percentages. The current system made sense when there were only two parties and individual members felt freer to move between parties or vote against their own party if they wanted. It does not make sense in the current situation with multiple bloc parties involved.
People say politicians and politics is distant and unaccountable now, when you can write to or go and talk to the person who represents you. My MP is also the PM. I can write to him, go and see him when he holds constituency surgeries, I see him in town from time to time. I know people who have contacted him about issues and he has replied and explained what he will do. He puts things to committees as our MP and we have input and influence. If you have a PR system you have non of this. You have some blob of people chosen by the party based on the number of people they get. It also entrenches party politics. Yes, smaller parties get more power, but it removes all power from independent parties. Local independents have no hope, neither do small parties without the power to campaign nationally. It basically fixes the parties as they are.
By the way, I am, and always have been, a Lib Dem supporter or independent. My party would have stood to gain, but I would have lost my representation.
PR may make the system seem "fairer" but it would also make it less accountable and more detached.
So we have a man that tried to take schools back to the 1950s, who dislikes the human rights act and has publicly supported hanging in charge of justice. This is not good.
I am sorry, we have PR in Ireland and NONE of the things you said about it are accurate. We still elect local representatives, our PM is STILL a locally sitting TD (MP), and politicians still have local surgeries, and gasp, walk around town.
Independents do really well in PR in Ireland, we have a large number of them, much larger as a proportion than in the UK.
Honestly, I don't know where people get their information from but a quick check next door would prove that the only fear that is realistic with PR is that coalitions are much more common. But from some perspectives, it's better to have coalitions because more viewpoints are represented in government.
Orlanth wrote: The system has worked well for centuries, its not broken just because it doesnt return the results you like.
It's not about national percentage, its about local people choosing a candidate and placing them as their local representative.
The system hasn't worked well for centuries, it has been changed and reformed many times. It's not working just because it has returned a result you like.
Did it now? I did tactically vote for the Tories, but the party I want to see making headway got one seat our of four million votes.
AND I AM NOT COMPLAINING.
UKIP now has its legitimacy. Labour if it got in was going to add UYKIP to the list of organisations labelled extremist that you cant join and remain a member of the police or armed forces. A great way of labeling the opposition.
Now that wont happen, even though UKIP are more a threat to the Tories than Labour long term.
UKIP, now legitimised as a major party (a party with its own MP), will do what it needs to do and absorb the traditional working class vote abandoned by Blair.
One MP was enough, in 2020 that will likely grow.
Parties demand PR when they cant get enough peole to like them in any one place. Representation for the people has nothing to do with it.
Da Boss wrote: I am sorry, we have PR in Ireland and NONE of the things you said about it are accurate. We still elect local representatives, our PM is STILL a locally sitting TD (MP), and politicians still have local surgeries, and gasp, walk around town.
Ireland is a much smaller country. You can have a list system and still have a local MP.
With a population of approaching 70 million thats not really possible.
Honestly, I don't know where people get their information from but a quick check next door would prove that the only fear that is realistic with PR is that coalitions are much more common. But from some perspectives, it's better to have coalitions because more viewpoints are represented in government.
Coalition politics means more backroom deals, everyone wanting in on the gravy train, and parties throwing in the oar for personal gain so that every single bill requires greasing of the wheels. Democracy sucks because of the sort of people who get elected, that is a given, at least with majority governments you can get some progress.
Orlanth, before stating that "we can have a list system" maybe you should check to see if we have one, because we don't.
Our form of Proportional Representation is called Single Transferable Vote. It's got a long history.
We vote for individual candidates who stand in our constituencies in order of preference. Once a candidate is elected, his or her "transfers" go to the second candidate. So you still get to vote for individuals, but can vote for more than one candidate. For this to work, the UK would need multiple seat constituencies (or there would be no point), but I am simply pointing out that the common view on PR is not the ONLY form of PR.
Appeal to authority fallacy. I could play that game also.
That is all your argument is.
You misrepresent me. PPC's can be given a cursory check via standard police vetting. Same as bouncers and youth workers.
So, once again, not the Intelligence agencies.
I have been though this vetting
So have I.
. The check came back ok or I wouldn't have kept my job
And I'm very pleased/assumed as much.
, but the first I heard about it was when I was told by my boss I checked out. He needn't have said anything. IIRC you sign a disclaimer saying you will be checked,
Sounds about right.
I have some vague memory of hearing you can in fact ask if you've been checked out -- Freedom of Information act related perhaps or somesuch ?
Quite probable that this will vary from job to job even ?
I remember a similar one for OTC and I was also checked out while living on an army base as a service brat.
This isn't tinfoil, secret squirrel, paranoid, big brother, society, its everyday society. If teenagers living on army bases get vetted why is it too hard a stretch to realise party candidates do, after all they will only be running the country.
Because there's a Big difference between being cleared by the local police and check out by the Intelligence Agencies, which was the claim being disputed.
Labour if it got in was going to add UYKIP to the list of organisations labelled extremist that you cant join and remain a member of the police or armed forces
SVT is not PR. SVT is a quasi proportional system but is not true PR. It has benefits and problems of it's own and is not always proportional. It tends to be more proportional than FPTP, but has issues of it's own. No system is perfect. The issues of true PR remain.
Of course it has issues of it's own. Every system does. Not claiming it is perfect.
I also think you have the authority to declare it "not PR" just because it does not fit your narrow conception of what is and isn't PR. List systems are one way, STV is another. Both are PR.
Coalition politics means more backroom deals, everyone wanting in on the gravy train, and parties throwing in the oar for personal gain so that every single bill requires greasing of the wheels. Democracy sucks because of the sort of people who get elected, that is a given, at least with majority governments you can get some progress.
But surely spreading the gravy train around is better than waiting for it to overflow while the people in charge of it keep raising the sides?
As it encourages give/take, where potentially decisions will be made that benefit the country in the long run because you had everyone at the discussion table, rather than one party given free reign to do whatever benefits them.
UKIP’s sole MP has caused consternation by refusing to endorse Nigel Farage’s return as the party’s leader.
Douglas Carswell was asked repeatedly if he supported the decision to keep Mr Farage as leader but declined to respond directly.
The MP for Clacton was one of the panellists at a question and answer session in London organised by Conservative Home when he was asked his views after UKIP’s national executive refused to accept Mr Farage’s resignation.
Mr Carswell replied: "I heard about the unresignation on, I think Twitter, or whatever. You'll need to ask me about it later I'm not going to talk about that now.”
Best General Election 2015 quotes
1 of 10
1. "Am I tough enough? Hell, yes, I'm tough enough."
Next
1. "Am I tough enough? Hell, yes, I'm tough enough."2. "If I'm getting lively about it, it's because I feel bloody lively about it."3. "Oh it's crats? I thought it was Liberal Demo-cats" 4. "Brain fade"5. "We're a shining example of a country where multiple identities work. Where you can be Welsh and Hindu and British, Northern Irish and Jewish and British, where you can wear a kilt and a turban, where you can wear a hijab covered in poppies. Where you can support Man Utd, the Windies and Team GB all at the same time. Of course, I'd rather you supported West Ham"6. “This is a real career-defining … country-defining election that we face in less than a week’s time”7. “Ed Miliband stabbed his own brother in the back to become Labour leader. Now he is willing to stab the United Kingdom in the back to become prime minister.”8. "Ajockalypse Now."9. “The SNP are openly racist. The anti-English hostility, and the kind of language that is used about and towards English people, is totally extraordinary.”10. "Terms are like Shredded Wheat. Two are wonderful, three might be too many."
When challenged afterwards for his views and even whether he planned to leave UKIP he responded: “No comment.”
His responses prompted speculation that he intends to defect back to the Conservatives, and former Tory colleague Louise Mensch taunted him in tweets: “Problem; he believes if you switch parties you need to resign and fight a by-election, and he'll lose a by-election.
“On the other hand @DouglasCarswell, you ditched your opposition to centrally-imposed candidates sharpish when it suited you eh?”
During the Q&A session Mr Carswell made remarks that suggest he is critical of Mr Farage’s leadership.
In particular, he referred to Mr Farage’s attack on Romanian immigrants last year when he said he would not like to live next door to them.
“If the case for leaving the EU is basically an argument framed as a debate between people who are anti-Romanian immigrants verses business interests, the 'out' campaign will lose,” Mr Carswell was quoted by the Huffington Post.
“If, on the other hand, this is presented as a pragmatic step to make Britain a more free-market, open, classical liberal society, then I think we can win it.”
He added: “That means making arguments in a way that is softer, more gentle. And we need to recognise that if you want to be listened to sometimes you need to adjust your tone. And I think we need to do that and we will fight a very inclusive campaign.”
Mr Carswell had already ruled himself out of standing for the UKIP leadership and said in a blog post published earlier yesterday that he thought there were at least six other candidates who would do the job better.
In the blog he described himself as “despondent” at learning of Mr Farage’s defeat in the South Thanet constituency at the election but took heart from knowing that with the Conservatives in government there would be a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union.
“Nigel Farage has been an inspirational leader,” he wrote. “Like hundreds of thousands of other people, he inspired me to leave the comfort of by previous party, and join him. I was prepared to resign from Parliament and fight a by election in order to do so. I feel gutted that he is no longer our leader.
“Ukip's next leader needs to be someone that recognises our party exists first and foremost to get Britain out of the European Union. We should take heart from the fact that there now appears to be, for the first time in a generation, a Commons majority in favour of holding an In Out referendum.”
Nice we are on the same page finally, I said police and security services from the start, and quantified the security services involvement is a clear minority, along the lines of those considerations linked.
You misread that accidentally, or deliberately to assume that I wrote that all candidate vetting was by MI5.
I suppose criticising what I actually wrote would be more difficult than if you made up what I allegedly wrote.
Here we go:
Want to stand as a PPC for Labour Lib Dem or Tory, the security services will sniff you out. It's done for the sake of the nation.
You don't want people with very dodgy pasts running major parties.
Remember which parties are in power and thus have access to the police and MI5.
PPC's would be covered by police vetting. That is a standard procedure, say you want a job as a bouncer your get negative vetted. Police are asked about extremist affiliations, violent history and some sorts of mental health.
Main parties can have access to this though one means or another.
I am not, nor do I need be, privy to the relationship between police vetting and the intelligence services; and more to the point wouldn't be at liberty to post if ever I was. But there is enough info on this in the public domain to see for yourselves.
Even wiki can help.
You quote properly so your input can be critiqued properly.
Orlanth: It is naive in the extreme to think the security services wont keep files on politicians.
Reds8n: Good job no-one claimed this then.
Orlanth: You did, because you didn't think through the logic holes in your comments (see above).
Because the person will have come up during the course of their regular investigations.
MI5, indeed the security services as a whole does not have the time or manpower to vet 2-3 thousand + random people every X years.
They tend to be quite busy with a few roles.
Sure if you're an MP for long enough to be put into a position where you'll have access to sensitive information they do run a check -- be daft not too.
But it's ridiculous to claim that all Mps/party members are vetted by the security services.
What is a personal file? A document compiled over time.
You mentioned above that MI5 wont have the resources to vet 2-3k candidates. I agree, and never said otherwise. Police vetting is enough.
However the files will likely exist, MP's are not nobodies, there aren't many of them, approx 700 or so over five years, allowing for by-elections.
So if files are there, files are accessible, to some but locked to others are are part of the pool of intelligence information. If files are there security service involvement at one level or other is there.
So logically by the time someone is elected there is a security services file on them, despite the other workload. I would be incredibly surprised if there was not, especially due to access to privilieged information and also to secure buildings.
PPCs are something else there are way too many of them appearing all too quickly.
You misrepresent me. PPC's can be given a cursory check via standard police vetting. Same as bouncers and youth workers.
So, once again, not the Intelligence agencies.
Once again only you can be blamed for misreading plain English and assuming I was saying anything different. Especially when being snide about it.
Making snide remarks based on misreading a post doesn't make you look clever.
I have some vague memory of hearing you can in fact ask if you've been checked out -- Freedom of Information act related perhaps or somesuch ?
True.
My last professional vetting was in 1996. I haven't done Youth work since or working in another industry requiring vetting. The FOI act came in in 2000.
Besides it wasn't important to verify, I would not have considered doing so even if the Act was in place at the time. Legal vetting doesn't bother me, being 'on file' doesn't bother me.
Because there's a Big difference between being cleared by the local police and check out by the Intelligence Agencies, which was the claim being disputed.
You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by reading the posts carefully.
UKIP’s sole MP has caused consternation by refusing to endorse Nigel Farage’s return as the party’s leader.
Douglas Carswell was asked repeatedly if he supported the decision to keep Mr Farage as leader but declined to respond directly.
Mr Carswell replied: "I heard about the unresignation on, I think Twitter, or whatever. You'll need to ask me about it later I'm not going to talk about that now.”
It makes sense not to talk about something until the right time. No inferences can be made.
'No comment at this time' doesn't mean 'refusal to endorse'.
His responses prompted speculation that he intends to defect back to the Conservatives, and former Tory colleague Louise Mensch taunted him in tweets: “Problem; he believes if you switch parties you need to resign and fight a by-election, and he'll lose a by-election.
Same Louise Mensch who abandoned her electorate to live in New York. Selfish cow.
She should at least pay lip service to the idea that she is a representative of the local people and put that career move in front of any others.
Anyone who gets elected must be willing to stick it out for the whole term, or until a resignation is forced by external forces, ill health being a solitary exception.
She does have one point though, its very hard to cross the floor twice and survive. Churchill managed it, in fact IIRC he crossed three times, but that was Churchill.
During the Q&A session Mr Carswell made remarks that suggest he is critical of Mr Farage’s leadership.
In particular, he referred to Mr Farage’s attack on Romanian immigrants last year when he said he would not like to live next door to them.
No problem with Carswell there, but if he wants to play for the leadership job he can make his mind up in his own time and step forward at a party meeting and not an open multi party discussion hosted by the press.
This is squeezing a story, and printing one even when the story wasn't successfully squeezed. Poor journalism.
I borrowed your word, you were the one that attached legitimacy to having an MP. If he goes that definition of legitimacy is lost. I think 4 million voters make them legitimate (and that parliament should reflect that). I understand that you feel differently.
Want to stand as a PPC for Lasbour Lib Dem or Tory, the security services will sniff you out. Its done for the sake of the nation.
What you actually meant to say was that this for certain jobs, and was not what you said.
And that's my fault.
What is a personal file? A document compiled over time.
It's a file compiled by a person.
A personnel file , which is what I assume you mean here, is a file containing information about a person -- normally an employee -- that's relevant to the job/task the file relates to.
I believe you mainly "type" on a phone so no worries here .. unless I'm missing some point you're trying to make here that I'm not getting ..?
you also claimed
You should read between the lines on this.
How will the security services know if someone is a national security risk?
It is naive in the extreme to think the security services wont keep files on politicians.
Also ask yourself the obvious question, who runs the government.
We will never find written admission from MI5 about vetting, however its open knowledge that if you want to be an MP for a major party (and proably for a lot of minor ones) you will be sniffed out. It's naive to think otherwise.
Heavily naive to think about it, as you don't need to be a minister to sit on a defense committee. And it would be wild eyed to think that people with seats on defense committees are not sniffed out by security services. The same applies for treasury and foreign policy committees at the very least, and likely the home office also
In which you seem to make no difference between cecurity Agencies -- which is the topic you're responding too/about and MI5.
If you wished to make any such difference here then the onus is really on you to be clear what you actually mean.
And now, all of a sudden
by the time someone is elected there is a security services file on them,
we're back to secret Mi5 files.
But that's all by the by as you claimed
UKIP don't have access to the security services to vet their candidates for them.
Prior to my link to the MI5 site.
So you're either arguing that UKIP/any similarly sized and funded organisation either doesn't have access to files that probably don't exist/wouldn't exist until an MP is elected - or that they're incapable of running a basic background check .
hmmm. Ok.
And again, nowhere in that exchange did I or ineed anyone else claim , that security services won't/don't keep files on politicans.
They just don't have files on all of them.
I cant afford to be as rude back.
You already have been rude to several users throughout this thread.
You've provided no supporting evidence -- other than claiming I'm naive and/or remarks to the affect that everyone knows X/Y/Z.
And then you started talking about your own experiences here.
And then complain that I'm appealing to authority .
Making snide remarks based on misreading a post doesn't make you look clever.
same user
if you want to discuss with the grown up
ta-da !
You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by reading the posts carefully.
If you presented your arguments better they'd be less confusing.
.. anyway...
we're all on the same page now regardless.
And I agree that Mensch -- whilst a smart cookie -- is both a disgrace and a sellout.
Want to stand as a PPC for Lasbour Lib Dem or Tory, the security services will sniff you out. Its done for the sake of the nation.
What you actually meant to say was that for certain jobs was not what you said.
And that's my fault.
Ok, please read the whole paragraph. It mentioned police from the get go, honest.
reds8n wrote: .
I believe you mainly "type" on a phone so no worries here .. unless I'm missing some point you're trying to make here that I'm not getting ..?
Definitely, the fair assumption that MP's warrant having personal files on them, those will very likely be connected to the security services. After all who else would legally build the files and you cant assume that MP's are insufficiently important to be overseen to some degree or other at state level.
reds8n wrote: .
In which you seem to make no difference between Intelligence Agencies -- which is the topic you're responding too/about and MI5.
If you wished to make any such difference here then the onus is really on you to be clear what you actually mean.
Actually funnily enough, after my last post I had a ponder and thought this is where you are going wrong.
Intelligence Services and Security Services are different things.
Intelligence Services = MI5, MI6 etc
Security Services = MI5 and parts of the police.
Now your common police vetting is not done by the security services, but local plod. Say you want a job as a teacher or youth worker, some other roles too; ?nurse?
There is a connexion though, and the deeper you go the more lines are blurred. Politicians are in pretty deep by all reckoning. And that is as much as I want to know.
Remember that armed police handle security for MP's, and even most royalty, with exception for the Queen who is theoretically protected by the Brigade of Guards, but even she has police cover IRL. We don't have spooks guarding Cameron like Obama has, though we can all pretty much guarantee they would be about in the daily running of things, we just dont know where. Even Cameron is guarded by armed police, yet those 'police' obviously have a very high security connection.
by the time someone is elected there is a security services file on them,
we're back to secret Mi5 files.
Case in point.
It is beyond credibility to think the 650 MP's in the House of Commons (not a huge number of people) are for some reason not important enough to national security to keep some sort of tab on.
Also a lot of filed info is for protection as well as monitoring. Also the UK doesn't want repeat of problems like the Profumo affair. Again this is public domain stuff.
So you're either arguing that UKIP/any similarly sized and funded organisation either doesn't have access to files that probably don't exist/wouldn't exist until an MP is elected - or that they're incapable of running a basic background check .
Minor parties are not part of the machinery of state. Even a bank can get vetting done on you or I if we worked there, so can the big players like Tories and Labour. However UKIP doesn't have the same connexion.
You already have been rude to several users throughout this thread.
You've provided no supporting evidence -- other than claiming I'm naive and/or remarks to the affect that everyone knows X/Y/Z.
Dakka can be like that, you don't notice the people being rude to those whose arguments you don't like.
Besides there is being rude and there is standing ones ground, if its good enough for you, its definitely good enough for me.
Actually I provide plenty of supporting evidence, where warranted. A lot of my comments here are my own analysis, opinion and forecasts, and claimed as such.
This thread is about political opinion, some people believe this will happen, others that.
And then you started talking about your own experiences here.
And then complain that I'm appealing to authority .
My own experiences were given as common example of commonly known law, that isn't appeal to authority, it's common experience.. That normal professions involve police vetting.
I borrowed your word, you were the one that attached legitimacy to having an MP. If he goes that definition of legitimacy is lost. I think 4 million voters make them legitimate (and that parliament should reflect that). I understand that you feel differently.
No, I must concede you do have a very valid point. If Carswell defects UKIP have no MP's and are not by definition a major party anymore. This will remove the seat at the table in more than just the House of Commons. This could affect legitimacy.
I don't think he will, he has guaranteed five years, if he defects he could lose anything and noone will trust him from any party. Even if Carswell cares only for Carswell (an unjustified as yet but not too unfair an assumption) he would still be far better off sleep in the bed he has made, its isn't a bad one.
Save yourself some facepalm and read the whole post, rather than take a line on its own and not read it in context.
I did.
And what you said was/is still vastly different from what you later claimed.
Definitely, the fair assumption that MP's warrant having personal files on them, those will very likely be connected to the security services. After all who else would legally build the files and you cant assume that MP's are insufficiently important to be overseen to some degree or other at state level.
err.. thinking maybe we lost a line here ?
Mps -- ie once they've won the election -- are indeed vetted by Special Branch and at times Mi5 if they are to have access to sensitive documents/information.
Never disagreed on that issue.
Once again I was arguing against your claim that all prospective Mps from the major parties are vetted by MI5 and yet for some reason UKIP -- despite being almost entirely funded and ran by ex Tory party donors. many of whom have access to people at the highest of levels -- can't vet thier prospective candidates.
IIRC since about 2010 -- a short while after the Conficker virus trouble at Westminster -- that staff working for an MP in their constituency are also now required to undergo vetting. It wasn't until this that the authorities twigged that these people had access to the email system and therefore potential access to various odds and sods.
Spouses/partners are still exempt from this.
.. I'll grant you that even if it's unofficial it's likely that said spouses/partners are , discretely checked out, can't imagine it being otherwise.
That said the vetting procedure is a series of forms they have to fill in so we're not exactly talking a thorough investigation here.
Actually funnily enough, after my last post I had a ponder and thought this is where you are going wrong.
Intelligence Services and Security Services are different things.
Intelligence Services = MI5, MI6 etc
Security Services = MI5 and parts of the police.
The Security Services -- in the formal sense of the term -- does not refer to the Police, and has not done AFAIk since the Security Service act of 1989.
The Police Forces were -- and still are AFAIK -- entirely separate for legal reasons.
BUT TBF we're pissing about on the OT board of a wargaming forum so chalk that one up to the medium I guess.
Now your common police vetting is not done by the security services, but local plod. Say you want a job as a teacher or youth worker, some other roles too; ?nurse?*
I agree entirelly fact i think it's somewhat worse than that, said checks now being carried out by civilian workers , but tehe ssential point is cool.
Case in point.
Besides you cant call 'tinfoil' with any credibility to think that the 650 MP's in the House of Commons are for some reason not important to national security.
Also a lot of filed info is for protection as well as monitoring. The UK doesn't want repeat of problems like the Profumo affair. Again this is public domain stuff in
Again I'd suggest you're really exaggerating what they do and the knowledge they have.
Note how wafer thin the case was against Hancock's Russian mistress/spy.
And he's a genuine certified piece of gak, no argument.
Minor parties are not part of the machinery of state. Even a bank can get vetting done on you or I if we worked there, so can the big players like Tories and Labour. However UKIP doesn't have the same connexion.
UKIP has more than enough connections and money to be able to run background checks on their members.
It can be done online in just a few minutes.
Actually I provide plenty of supporting evidence, where warranted.
Thus far you've provided none.
A lot of my comments here are my own analysis, opinion and forecasts, and claimed as such.
And no that doesn't mean baseless, it places my comments on the same level as just about everyone else. This thread is about political opinion you see.
Perhaps then you'll do the other users the courtesy of treating their opinions in the same way.
Even if they start to make outlandish claims about what political parties will or were going to do !
Orlanth wrote: No, I must concede you do have a very valid point. If Carswell defects UKIP have no MP's and are not by definition a major party anymore. This will remove the seat at the table in more than just the House of Commons. This could affect legitimacy.
I don't think he will, he has guaranteed five years, if he defects he could lose anything and noone will trust him from any party. Even if Carswell cares only for Carswell (an unjustified as yet but not too unfair an assumption) he would still be far better off sleep in the bed he has made, its isn't a bad one.
I suspect he may wish to use his position as twice elected MP for the UKIPs to demand a better position in the party, possibly the leadership. He is the most 'legitimate' party member. If he uses his support for the party (implicitly or otherwise) as leverage that could back fire on him. This is politics, there are risks.
Right now the UKIPs have issues with looking like a one man party and worse, not a party at all but merely a Tory pressure group. You yourself admit that you hadn't enough faith in either the party or the system (or both) to actually vote for them.
I, like many others, predicted that the sweetness of David Cameron's election victory would be short lived. I never knew it would be this short!
Here's Northern Ireland's reaction to the Tories' attempt to scrap the Human Rights Act, which is the corner stone of the Good Friday Agreement, and because it's an international agreement, Dublin will have to get involved. I'll point out that unlike Edinburgh, Dublin is not beholden to Westminster.
George Spiggott wrote: I suspect he may wish to use his position as twice elected MP for the UKIPs to demand a better position in the party, possibly the leadership. He is the most 'legitimate' party member. If he uses his support for the party (implicitly or otherwise) as leverage that could back fire on him. This is politics, there are risks.
With all this just after an election it makes sense to weigh ones options. Carswell has a legitimate claim to vie for leadership.
Right now the UKIPs have issues with looking like a one man party and worse, not a party at all but merely a Tory pressure group.
That at least is a step up, they are getting the most important part the message across. Tory pressure group is better popular label than neo-fascist.
UKIP seems to have won the battle to shake off the hardcore progressive left's assumption they are just a party of bigots to be shouted down. That hasn't stuck with the populace and that allows UKIP to speak out about several elephats in the room the progressive left have up until now made taboo subjects. Of which immigration is just a small part. On that note even Labour started talking about tougher immigration controls in the last election.
You yourself admit that you hadn't enough faith in either the party or the system (or both) to actually vote for them.
I don't like Tory selective austerity, I agree with austerity, but not the way they handled it. I don't like UKIP's demand to leave the EU, I would prefer they renegotiate instead, which appears to be what Cameron wants Other options just being a whole lot worse IMHO.
My tactical voting however was due to a belief that UKIP didnt have much chance in my constituency and that Labour were in danger of taking the seat. I got that half right.
I voted UKIP for council elections to register a statistic.
You are right though, for a number of reasons I can't truly call myself a UKIP supporter. UKIP however are useful to clear out deadwood and remove the social taboos placed for partisan gain in the Blair years, so I wish them well, and hope they have enough clout to have some say in the way the UK is run.
I think I got what I asked for last election, so am generally content with the result, if still not optimistic about our future.
Orlanth wrote: That at least is a step up, they are getting the most important part the message across. Tory pressure group is better popular label than neo-fascist.
Those aren't mutually exclusive, they can be a neo-fascist Tory pressure group. I don't think they are as a group/party but the description fits a few cases.
Orlanth wrote: I don't like Tory selective austerity... ....I don't like UKIP's demand to leave the EU, I would prefer they renegotiate instead
Forgive my interlude to show some positions we're in total agreement about.
Orlanth wrote: UKIP however are useful to clear out deadwood and remove the social taboos placed for partisan gain in the Blair years, so I wish them well, and hope they have enough clout to have some say in the way the UK is run.
There's precious little evidence of them going about this in any useful way. If there is a sensible discussion to be had about immigration (and there almost certainly is) we're not getting it from the UKIPs.
Kilkrazy wrote: Farewell has gone public as UKIP's only MP to say he does not accept the reinstatement of Garage as party leader.
There was a piece on PM this evening about Douglas Carswell refusing to accept the £650k that UKIP would be awarded from parliamentary funds (or whatever they are called) because he would rather return the money than have some gigantic entourage. UKIP's hierarchy are apparently less than happy.
Kilkrazy wrote: Farewell has gone public as UKIP's only MP to say he does not accept the reinstatement of Garage as party leader.
There was a piece on PM this evening about Douglas Carswell refusing to accept the £650k that UKIP would be awarded from parliamentary funds (or whatever they are called) because he would rather return the money than have some gigantic entourage.
Sounds reasonable. I'm sure that money can be better spent elsewhere.
Here's Northern Ireland's reaction to the Tories' attempt to scrap the Human Rights Act, which is the corner stone of the Good Friday Agreement, and because it's an international agreement, Dublin will have to get involved. I'll point out that unlike Edinburgh, Dublin is not beholden to Westminster.
There is a pressure group in Northern Ireland's opinion, its hard to claim it is the view of the entire province. Even the Guardian doesn't do that. Be fair.
Nevertheless this confirms what was said earlier, due to international treaties the Good Friday agreement would remain and exception.
Also you misjudge the reaction of the Republic of Ireland, they also don't like some of the interference from Strassbourg. Yes it involves modifying an international treaty, but there is always the chance that the Irish parliament agrees to the change in terms. And if not an exception can be made due to the existance of a pre-existing international treaty.
Scotland's consent is not required, there is no veto status. SNP parliamentarians in Westminster are free to oppose the bill. That is the actual legal way to defeat the bill.
Again, the Scottish parliament doesn't have a separate relationship with the EU, the UK does all that.
Also its a stretch even with current SNP support to say that 'Scotland' doesn't agree, Scots are still entitled to their own opinions. The SNP doesn't agree.
Again this is the Guardian making waves on Cameron's behalf over an undeclared policy. If Cameron moves on the Human Rights Act it will be under his timing.
Most likely if and when Strasbourg rules against the Home Office on life tariffs, which is going through the courts right now, and will piss a lot of people off no end if it goes through, including Scots for that matter.
Even Sturgeon will have problems being linked to 'rights' for Peter Sutcliff and Ian Brady. Our society decided that some people deserve to be in prison for life, no matter how long that is.
If Strassbourg thinks different, Cameron will have all the invitation he will want to ride roughshod over 'Brady's buddy Sturgeon' and force the bill through Westminster on a tide of public opinion.. Sturgeon is not a fool, she wont pick that fight. It pays for you not to think Cameron is a fool either.
Neither Brady or Sutcliffe would be subject to that law since they're mentally ill. They can only be released when they're cured, which isn't ever likely to happen.
Kilkrazy wrote: Brady and Sutcliffe both went into secure mental hospitals, not ordinary prisons on life sentences. Their status is mental patients.
Not relevant both are under life tariffs, appointed by the Home Secretary of the time.
A challenge from Strassbourg to eliminate life tariffs would still apply to Brady and Sutcliffe, who could then be released if declared sane. As Brady is known for playing the system and likely is sane this could cause problems.
In any event that doesn't need to materialise, the very fact that life tariffs were stripped would be enough to rile the populace. As Brady would have a potential window of release and the press will run with that.
Orlanth, with all due respect, this is getting a bit silly.
You maintain that the Good Friday agreement would be an exception to the scrapping of the Human Rights Act,
But, this would result in the HRA being allowed in one part of the UK, but not others...
That is illogical nonsense. People would flock to Northern Ireland for their court cases. The Judges' verdict would equally apply to other parts of the UK, as it does now.
Imagine if federal laws only applied in California, but not the other states of the USA.
Orlanth wrote: A challenge from Strassbourg to eliminate life tariffs would still apply to Brady and Sutcliffe, who could then be released if declared sane. As Brady is known for playing the system and likely is sane this could cause problems.
In any event that doesn't need to materialise, the very fact that life tariffs were stripped would be enough to rile the populace. As Brady would have a potential window of release and the press will run with that.
Way too much speculation and ifs there. Brady isn't sane and the challenge would still have to be successful.
I'd have more faith in this Tory plan if they implemented the UK law first, then dropped the EU one.
Good site thanks.
Interesting that there is no Scottish veto on Human Rights, there are simply matters which are devolved.
The short version? The Human Rights Act is not written into the Scotland Act. This is misleading, and increasingly unhelpful, shorthand. Under the devolution legislation, Acts of the Scottish Parliament and decisions of Scottish ministers must comply with European Convention rights.
If they do not, you can take your case to the Court of Session, inviting judges to strike the offending laws or decisions down. The powers of both the legislature and executive are checked. But the Human Rights Act goes further, requiring all public authorities in the United Kingdom - prisons, police officers, councils - to respect your rights to free expression, privacy, property, liberty, and so on. We have two distinct human rights regimes in this country, and if the HRA is repealed, it will require only Holyrood and the Scottish Ministers to take these fundamental rights into account.
But there is another important technicality here. Human rights aren't reserved matters under the Scotland Act. The Human Rights Act is a protected enactment under Schedule 4 of the devolution legislation -- meaning that Holyrood cannot repeal or amend it -- but human rights are devolved.
No problem there, it actually means the UK can withdraw and if the Scottish parliament does not then the Scottish parliament alone is subject to the rulings. The UK can have its Bill of Rights and Scotland can be forced to dance to Strassbourg's tune, and pay Strassbourg's fines if it does not. When the interferences clock up pressure could be on Sturgeon to follow Cameron's 'wise path' and withdraw, which time the Bill of Rights will be waiting for Scots.
We don't know how Cameron will play this, we only have hostile press reports, plus a few please for the legislation to come from the right wing press. No White paper.
Again Cameron isn't an idiot, he will have an angle.
The ECHR is as much as to do with the EU as the UEFA cup - they all just have 'Europe' in the name.
Not so, well technically true but..... While the ECHR predates the EEC and extends beyond it there are clear links.
In 2013 Judge Dean Spielmann, the President of the European Court of Human Rights, warned that the United Kingdom could not denounce the Convention on Human Rights without jeopardising its membership of the European Union.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/04/uk-human-rights-withdrawal-political-disaster
While the above threat is largely hollow, the UK would continue to renegotiate its position in the EU and has the ability to do so. It nevertheless highlights the link.
As another poster has rightly pointed out, agreeing that the ECHR would apply in Northern Ireland was written in to the NI peace deal.
Northern Ireland is a special case on so many levels, they don't even have Tories there. Cameron can fulfill his election pledge and not touch NI. Mountains are being made out of molehills here. England will be in general happy with the legislation change. If the SNP wants to keep Strassbourg in the loop let them, so long as it only effects Scotland. In fact in a very real way both the SNP and Tories can get what they want here.
Also remember that the Guardian has been more than unfair of its reporting on this issue (go figure).
- Cameron wants to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 not to divorce the UK entirely from the ECHR which the UK was a founding signatory in 1951.
- Cameron wants the UK's relation ship to the ECHR restored to pre-1998 with sovereignty over domestic laws restored.
You maintain that the Good Friday agreement would be an exception to the scrapping of the Human Rights Act,
But, this would result in the HRA being allowed in one part of the UK, but not others...
That is illogical nonsense. People would flock to Northern Ireland for their court cases. The Judges' verdict would equally apply to other parts of the UK, as it does now.
Not really. Do you know why. BECAUSE ITS ALREADY HERE. Scotland has always had a separate judiciary. The Scottish Courts in the current form were set up in 1995, well prior to devolution.
Do you know that Scottish law is legally separate and distinct from English law, and has been throughout the history of the Union.
Some examples.
- Scottish bailiffs courts can act without formal proceeding, they are far stricter than English ones. In this regard Scottish law is 'behind'.
- A Scottish defendant has the right to remain silent in questioning without having inference of guilt unlike a defendant in the English courts system. A case where Scottish rights have not been eroded like English law.
Even core rights differ depending on where you are in the UK. Furthermore the location of the court is less relevant than the location of the plea. I gave an example of this earlier on the thread.
If a defendant is held in England under an offense allegedly committed in Scotland they will be taken by English police to an English police station to wait a Scottish policeman to interview them under Scottish law, while on English soil. Its an everyday proceeding. So if we had a disagreement in England and one of us chose to take the matter to a Northern Irish court, the case would still be tried under English law. and vice versa.
Imagine if federal laws only applied in California, but not the other states of the USA.
Again its not a good comparison.
The UK is not withdrawing from the ECHR, but the Human Rights Act 1998. This alters our relationship with the ECHR, Scotland would remain bound if it wished. As Scottish law has always been a separate entity this is acceptable.
Orlanth wrote: A challenge from Strassbourg to eliminate life tariffs would still apply to Brady and Sutcliffe, who could then be released if declared sane. As Brady is known for playing the system and likely is sane this could cause problems.
In any event that doesn't need to materialise, the very fact that life tariffs were stripped would be enough to rile the populace. As Brady would have a potential window of release and the press will run with that.
Way too much speculation and ifs there. Brady isn't sane and the challenge would still have to be successful.
Judging mental health is always difficult even for professionals, and Brady is intelligent and manipulative.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/409580/Ian-Brady-is-manipulative-fiercely-bright-and-a-child-murderer-but-is-he-sane-or-insane Anyway, my point was that Brady need not be successful, the outrage about it being a possibility would be enough to give Cameron a public boost.
Nevertheless that isn't working on Cameron's timetable but as an opportunist reaction to Strassbourg as when or if the ruling occurs. That is the real if, not Brady or Sutcliff's sanity.
I'd have more faith in this Tory plan if they implemented the UK law first, then dropped the EU one.
Not sure that would work as the law would be pointless without implementation. Unless you mean set up the Bill, let the people see it and come to their own conclusions as to whether it will be better for the people if activated and the Human Rights Act replaced by it. Most Bills have an activation at a future date, the timing could include a window to remove the HRA.
Sounds messy, but maybe your right.
Orlanth wrote: Judging mental health is always difficult even for professionals, and Brady is intelligent and manipulative.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/409580/Ian-Brady-is-manipulative-fiercely-bright-and-a-child-murderer-but-is-he-sane-or-insane Anyway, my point was that Brady need not be successful, the outrage about it being a possibility would be enough to give Cameron a public boost.
Nevertheless that isn't working on Cameron's timetable but as an opportunist reaction to Strassbourg as when or if the ruling occurs. That is the real if, not Brady or Sutcliff's sanity.
If you're going to use them as examples then their situation needs to be relevant. A case in Strasbourg could drag on for years and the Government could still reject the decision. Brady doesn't want to be released, is legally insane despite his pleas otherwise and is already 77.
The outrage would have to come from somewhere. Neither of us believe that it would come about from the facts of the situation. Which brings us nicely back to the Express. We know the outcome of that case from the article. Brady is manipulative, bright and mentally ill. It is quite possible to be all of these things at the same time.
Quick question. As you've probably guessed I don't often read the Express. Did they openly come out in favour of the UKIPs in the end as people were speculating they would?
Orlanth wrote: A challenge from Strassbourg to eliminate life tariffs would still apply to Brady and Sutcliffe, who could then be released if declared sane. As Brady is known for playing the system and likely is sane this could cause problems.
In any event that doesn't need to materialise, the very fact that life tariffs were stripped would be enough to rile the populace. As Brady would have a potential window of release and the press will run with that.
Way too much speculation and ifs there. Brady isn't sane and the challenge would still have to be successful.
I'd have more faith in this Tory plan if they implemented the UK law first, then dropped the EU one.
Well the quickest way is to do both simultaneously. The opening section of the new bill of rights could be 'This act replaces the HRA'.
They want to scrap the ECHR, but it's written into the foundations of all the devolved administrations, in Scotland's case in such a way we would have a veto unless WM railroad through a Scotland act that strips that authority away from us, and it's part of the Good Friday agreement as others have pointed out.
They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.
The Conservatives, ladies and gents. Irony is dead, satire is impossible, lets just set off all the nukes now.
Yodhrin wrote: They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.
Gove is Satan's spawn but nobody really thinks he actually believes the reactionary right wing click bait he wrote in a column (every week to a deadline for money) for a newspaper twenty years ago do they?
Yodhrin wrote: They want to scrap the ECHR, but it's written into the foundations of all the devolved administrations, in Scotland's case in such a way we would have a veto unless WM railroad through a Scotland act that strips that authority away from us, and it's part of the Good Friday agreement as others have pointed out.
They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.
The Conservatives, ladies and gents. Irony is dead, satire is impossible, lets just set off all the nukes now.
Not necessarily.
It could be entirely possible for the UK Government to scrap the HRA and yet remain in Europe.
The section of the Scottish act you are referring to doesn't make mention of the HRA, only that Scotland must abide to EU law.
You'll then end up in a weird situation where people in Scotland could not take any action against UK bodies, but they could still take claims against Scottish Acts which break the convention laws. But seeing as most of the powers delegated to Scotland couldn't break convention laws if they tried, it would be pretty pointless.
Yodhrin wrote: They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.
Gove is Satan's spawn but nobody really thinks he actually believes the reactionary right wing click bait he wrote in a column (every week to a deadline for money) for a newspaper twenty years ago do they?
That's the funny thing about being a politician. If you ever make it to power, everyone muckrakes anything you said ever, and it follows you around like a bad smell. My political views aren't what they were even five years ago, so in most cases, it can be a little unfair.
Yodhrin wrote: They want to scrap the ECHR, but it's written into the foundations of all the devolved administrations, in Scotland's case in such a way we would have a veto unless WM railroad through a Scotland act that strips that authority away from us, and it's part of the Good Friday agreement as others have pointed out.
They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.
The Conservatives, ladies and gents. Irony is dead, satire is impossible, lets just set off all the nukes now.
Not necessarily.
It could be entirely possible for the UK Government to scrap the HRA and yet remain in Europe.
The section of the Scottish act you are referring to doesn't make mention of the HRA, only that Scotland must abide to EU law.
You'll then end up in a weird situation where people in Scotland could not take any action against UK bodies, but they could still take claims against Scottish Acts which break the convention laws. But seeing as most of the powers delegated to Scotland couldn't break convention laws if they tried, it would be pretty pointless.
Huh? I didn't mention staying in Europe. Maybe they can get away with it, maybe they can't, the issue is can they actually do it within the context of the current UK political structure?
The ECHR is an explicit component of the Good Friday Agreement, an international treaty, meaning if they want to get rid of the ECHR in Northern Ireland the Republic of Ireland have to be involved in that decision or they will essentially be voiding the GFA.
The issue in Scotland is that human rights law is devolved, meaning unless the UK government want to essentially claim they have a veto over the Scottish government on devolved issues, they will have to request that the Scottish parliament pass a Legislative Consent Motion giving Westminster the authority to legislate in a way that includes Scotland, and the Scottish government have already stated outright they will do no such thing.
If they fail to eliminate the ECHR/Human Rights Act from law in either Scotland or NI, they could end up with people filing cases in those jurisdictions under ECHR/Human Rights Act law and obtaining judgements against UK-wide companies and institutions, meaning all they'll have succeeded in doing is creating a new avenue for legal tourism.
Yodhrin wrote: They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.
Gove is Satan's spawn but nobody really thinks he actually believes the reactionary right wing click bait he wrote in a column (every week to a deadline for money) for a newspaper twenty years ago do they?
Normally I'd give someone the benefit of the doubt, but we're talking about Gove, the man who took a massive steaming dump on England's education system for purely ideological reasons. He's never gone back on the statement publicly that I've seen, so until I see him state explicitly that he no longer holds that view I will assume the worst.
Yodhrin wrote: They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.
Gove is Satan's spawn but nobody really thinks he actually believes the reactionary right wing click bait he wrote in a column (every week to a deadline for money) for a newspaper twenty years ago do they?
In all honesty, I don't know. I've never liked the Conservatives, but I have no idea what this lot are planning. If they abolished the laws that stopped kids being used as chimney sweeps, I would not be surprised. It's like I'm back in the 1980s. New star wars film, Tories in government, Boy George comeback tour , new terminator film
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yodhrin wrote: They want to scrap the ECHR, but it's written into the foundations of all the devolved administrations, in Scotland's case in such a way we would have a veto unless WM railroad through a Scotland act that strips that authority away from us, and it's part of the Good Friday agreement as others have pointed out.
They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.
The Conservatives, ladies and gents. Irony is dead, satire is impossible, lets just set off all the nukes now.
This.
Again, it's worth pointing out, that in order for the Tories to remove the HRA from Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland would have to agree.
What if Dublin refuses to play ball? What's Gove going to do?
Yodhrin wrote: They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.
Gove is Satan's spawn but nobody really thinks he actually believes the reactionary right wing click bait he wrote in a column (every week to a deadline for money) for a newspaper twenty years ago do they?
That's the funny thing about being a politician. If you ever make it to power, everyone muckrakes anything you said ever, and it follows you around like a bad smell. My political views aren't what they were even five years ago, so in most cases, it can be a little unfair.
Quick question: are you, or anybody else for that matter on this thread, a lawyer?
With all the legal talk flying around, we need a lawyer ASAP
Yodhrin wrote: They want to scrap the ECHR, but it's written into the foundations of all the devolved administrations, in Scotland's case in such a way we would have a veto unless WM railroad through a Scotland act that strips that authority away from us, and it's part of the Good Friday agreement as others have pointed out.
They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.
The Conservatives, ladies and gents. Irony is dead, satire is impossible, lets just set off all the nukes now.
Not necessarily.
It could be entirely possible for the UK Government to scrap the HRA and yet remain in Europe.
The section of the Scottish act you are referring to doesn't make mention of the HRA, only that Scotland must abide to EU law.
You'll then end up in a weird situation where people in Scotland could not take any action against UK bodies, but they could still take claims against Scottish Acts which break the convention laws. But seeing as most of the powers delegated to Scotland couldn't break convention laws if they tried, it would be pretty pointless.
Huh? I didn't mention staying in Europe. Maybe they can get away with it, maybe they can't, the issue is can they actually do it within the context of the current UK political structure?
The ECHR is an explicit component of the Good Friday Agreement, an international treaty, meaning if they want to get rid of the ECHR in Northern Ireland the Republic of Ireland have to be involved in that decision or they will essentially be voiding the GFA.
The issue in Scotland is that human rights law is devolved, meaning unless the UK government want to essentially claim they have a veto over the Scottish government on devolved issues, they will have to request that the Scottish parliament pass a Legislative Consent Motion giving Westminster the authority to legislate in a way that includes Scotland, and the Scottish government have already stated outright they will do no such thing.
If they fail to eliminate the ECHR/Human Rights Act from law in either Scotland or NI, they could end up with people filing cases in those jurisdictions under ECHR/Human Rights Act law and obtaining judgements against UK-wide companies and institutions, meaning all they'll have succeeded in doing is creating a new avenue for legal tourism.
Gah, why the hell did I say Europe. Must be all this revision rotting my brain.
But that's the point I was making. There are two types of ECHR in the UK, those bound to the delegated areas and those bound to the HRA 1998.
The UK can very easily drop the HRA, it's an act of Parliament and Parliament has the power to repeal any act it wishes, that is the law. It also means that the HRA will not apply in any of the devolved areas.
However, the delegated states would still be bound by the ECHR. It just means that they cannot take any UK institutions (because only Public bodies are bound to the CHR anyway) to the European Court. They'd have to take them to the British/Scottish Supreme Courts.
BUT!!!! You'd still be able to take the Scottish Government to the ECtHR for a breach of the ECHR. Say if the Scottish Government allowed torture, firstly it would be invalid because it breaches the ECHR, but you could then take them to the ECtHR. Legal tourism wouldn't work, because the Scottish justice system has no power in England or Wales and especially Northern Ireland.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I'm a Law Student who studied Public Law and European Law. I know my feth from my gak.
However, the delegated states would still be bound by the ECHR. It just means that they cannot take any UK institutions (because only Public bodies are bound to the CHR anyway) to the European Court. They'd have to take them to the British/Scottish Supreme Courts.
So we're looking at a complete legal mess, lawyers making loads of cash (as usual) and the SNP scoring political points against the Tories.
However, the delegated states would still be bound by the ECHR. It just means that they cannot take any UK institutions (because only Public bodies are bound to the CHR anyway) to the European Court. They'd have to take them to the British/Scottish Supreme Courts.
So we're looking at a complete legal mess, lawyers making loads of cash (as usual) and the SNP scoring political points against the Tories.
I'll take it
Not that it really helps seeing as the SNP has maxed out on MPs.
Plus it would be popular in England due to the fact it would appear as though Westminster is giving Scotland the finger.
However, the delegated states would still be bound by the ECHR. It just means that they cannot take any UK institutions (because only Public bodies are bound to the CHR anyway) to the European Court. They'd have to take them to the British/Scottish Supreme Courts.
So we're looking at a complete legal mess, lawyers making loads of cash (as usual) and the SNP scoring political points against the Tories.
I'll take it
Not that it really helps seeing as the SNP has maxed out on MPs.
Plus it would be popular in England due to the fact it would appear as though Westminster is giving Scotland the finger.
And so the Tory cycle continues.
But the SNP controlled Scottish Parliament will take a stand, and this will go down well in Scotland, as it would appear as Sturgeon standing up for the nation = more support for independence.
If the HRA was repealed, the UK would still be a signatory to and bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, and would be required to implement it in UK law, perhaps by some kind of a Bill of Rights, or Human Rights Act, if you will.
Kilkrazy wrote: If the HRA was repealed, the UK would still be a signatory to and bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, and would be required to implement it in UK law, perhaps by some kind of a Bill of Rights, or Human Rights Act, if you will.
I keep banging the drum, but the Northern Ireland aspect is covered by an International treaty with the Republic. I cannot see a way around this.
I honestly think the honeymoon for Cameron will end, because this will be a defeat for him.
It's probably also worth pointing out, as one of the links has done, that the Tories also want to introduce a British Bill of Rights.
Good luck with that. Defining rights for the British (English only? Including the Scots? N Irish?). Even if Gove can sort the extent within the UK to which the Bill applies, he will be hard pushed to come up with rights which aren't already listed under the ECHR.
Cameron has had his knackers grabbed by the Daily Mail. He had a manifesto which he thought was a starting negotiating position with the LibDems...he never thought he would have to win and have to implement the thing.
Orlanth wrote: Judging mental health is always difficult even for professionals, and Brady is intelligent and manipulative.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/409580/Ian-Brady-is-manipulative-fiercely-bright-and-a-child-murderer-but-is-he-sane-or-insane Anyway, my point was that Brady need not be successful, the outrage about it being a possibility would be enough to give Cameron a public boost.
Nevertheless that isn't working on Cameron's timetable but as an opportunist reaction to Strassbourg as when or if the ruling occurs. That is the real if, not Brady or Sutcliff's sanity.
If you're going to use them as examples then their situation needs to be relevant. A case in Strasbourg could drag on for years and the Government could still reject the decision. Brady doesn't want to be released, is legally insane despite his pleas otherwise and is already 77.
As a political stink Brady has potential, but you are right it need not be him. However he is a name never forgotten and would be an excellent icon, 'rights' for some terrorist who cant be deported who no one recognises in seperation to any other is not the same as the Moors Murderer or Yorkshire Ripper. If nothing else he is a clear example for the thread of someone who might technically fall into a release category and who the public deeply hates. Huntley is also a good case study, but Huntley hasn't been in prison anything like long enough for the ECHR to think about getting involved.
Daily Mail gave a list of topical cases to rile the readership, (above) but those wont help Cameron.
Cameron needs a fresh case for outrage to sink its teeth into, those are all old news. Rapists rights are a good one as that riles 50% of the electorate straight off regardless of ethnicity.
The outrage would have to come from somewhere. Neither of us believe that it would come about from the facts of the situation.
Truth is a heady wine, but the best spin is the truth. Despite their source the horror stories the Daily Mail gave in their 15 reasons hold a lot of truth to them, and cover a lot of deeply unpleasant characters.
Quick question. As you've probably guessed I don't often read the Express. Did they openly come out in favour of the UKIPs in the end as people were speculating they would?
Kilkrazy wrote: If the HRA was repealed, the UK would still be a signatory to and bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, and would be required to implement it in UK law, perhaps by some kind of a Bill of Rights, or Human Rights Act, if you will.
I keep banging the drum, but the Northern Ireland aspect is covered by an International treaty with the Republic. I cannot see a way around this.
And the drum beat back keeps on saying: That is good grounds for an exception, Northern Ireland is full of exceptions, many are much larger than this, such as mass pardoning of murderers.
Really it is not a big hurdle.
Daily Mail gave a list of topical cases to rile the readership, (above) but those wont help Cameron.
Thanks for the Express find. As a return favour you do realise that you can delete your cookies and get your 20 article access magically renewed. In the mean time here's a copy paste of the article.
Ukip embroiled in leadership row over use of millions of pounds of public money Ukip sources say Mr Carswell wants to get himself sacked; Mr Carswell says it is 'utter nonsense'". Mr Carswell meets Mr Farage on Wednesday
The UK Independence Party has descended into open warfare as the party's only MP was accused of trying to get himself sacked in a row with Nigel Farage about the leadership of the party.
Ukip sources said the row with Douglas Carswell, who was upset that Mr Farage had continued as Ukip leader, had been engineered to force the party to sack him. Mr Carswell said this was "utter nonsense".
Matters are now set to come to a head on Wednesday when Mr Farage will meet Mr Carswell to discuss the way forward for Ukip.
A serious split threatened the party, with three Ukip MEPs, including the party's general election campaign chief Patrick O'Flynn, backing Mr Carswell in the row.
Mr O'Flynn said on Twitter it was "absurd" to suggest Mr Carswell would do anything "improper".
Steven Woolfe, the party's immigration spokesman, added that Mr Carswell "is a man of integrity and honour and that is to be respected".
The row centres on Mr Carswell's refusal to accept in full more than £3million of "Short Money" which it is entitled to under House of Commons rules.
Short Money is used to fund parties in Opposition. It is calculated at £16,689.13 for every seat won, plus £33.33 for every 200 votes gained by the party.
Ukip won 3.9million votes last Thursday, and can claim £650,000 a year or £3.25million over this five year parliament.
However, the cash has to be claimed by Mr Carswell, who has refused to accept the full amount, prompting a war of words between Mr Carswell and the party.
Mr Carswell met with a Ukip official on Monday who asked him to accept the cash to pay for 15 Ukip members of staff for his private office.
Mr Carswell is understood to have replied that this was “a completely inappropriate” way to spend the money and agreed only to accept an extra five staff.
Ukip sources said “there was no cajoling, it was an idea”. Mr Carswell was trying to get himself sacked over the row. The source said: “The point is that the Short Money is ours. It is not Douglas’s. It is for the UK Independence Party and it goes straight to the UK Independence Party.
“I think he is looking for an excuse for someone to sack him. Why else would you engage in a public blame war over what is effectively quite a minor detail?
“It is not the end of the world – we are not trying to force him to do anything. The money is not his to accept or reject.
“Douglas has put himself in a very difficult position – Douglas is basically saying ‘I don’t want to represent the four million Ukip voters out there’.”
Mr Carswell said it was “utter nonsense” that he wanted to get himself sacked or that he was upset he could not be leader.
He looked forward to meeting with Mr Farage on Wednesday when the pair would discuss “a number of things that had happened since the election”.
He told The Telegraph: “I am not an American senator for goodness sake. Why do party staffers think that I need 15 staff?
“That is may be because they want to be the staff – I am sorry, I am Gladstonian about this. It ain’t going to happen.”
He said he was thinking of “the pensioners in Clacton-on-Sea who have scrimped and saved £7.50 for a taxi fare”.
Mr Farage, who was in Brussels on Tuesday, denied that he had had a row with Mr Carswell. He said: “The party wants to represent the four million people that voted for us at the general election.
"We feel the Short Money would assist us in doing that and we will come to an agreement over this.”
Meanwhile, the repercussions of Mr Farage’s decision to stay on as Ukip leader four days were still being felt with Ukip's chairman Steve Crowther insisting that the party's ruling National Executive Committee had unanimously refused his resignation.
Mr Crowther said that there “was not the slightest suggestion that the NEC was anything other than unanimous in its wish for Nigel to withdraw his resignation”.
“He left the room while it was further discussed. I took the views of members and they unanimously asked him to remain as leader.
“The NEC is 100 per cent behind Nigel as we go forward into the referendum campaign which is already underway.”
Somebody poke me to make sure I'm not dreaming. The Express have a pro-election reform article.
‘We must ditch first-past-the-post system’ says Katie Ghose
The predictions were well out. The pollsters and Labour lost heavily while the bookies and Conservatives had a good result. But let’s reserve the worst verdict on Thursday’s election for our rotten voting system.
Also, most people I know would be happy with the various murderers being arrested if the colluders in the british military and those guilty of crimes within the british military were also arrested.
Never going to happen, so we are where we are.
It seems tone deaf to basically give the finger to the rest of Europe over this, but tone deaf is the best description of cameron's government I've seen.
There is one simple answer to the issue of EU laws being passed. The British Government replies... "make me".
Very childish I know, but the principle is sound. What can they do? Invade? Issue a fine? (don't pay it, same response, what can they do?) I think the French have done this a number of times.
If we only do this once in a while on the big issues then I'm sure Brussels will be annoyed with us, but will end up letting it slide. Obviously if we do it all the time they would likely kick us out, but I'm sure just saying no every now and then would work.
Orlanth wrote: As a political stink Brady has potential...
Can you just accept that he was a really bad example and he isn't getting out, especially not as a result of EU law.
I really do think you miss my point, of course Brady isnt getting out. But if the ECHR tries to overrule th Home Secretaries right to impose life tariffs aided by the Human Rights Act then the life tariffs will be up for question.
The ECHR demanded prisoners get the vote, the UK has refused to implement this and is tying the courts up in red tape to do so.
Likewise Brady is goinng nowhere.
However should Strassbourg rule against life tariffs his name will be amongst many which would be up for review, and that is enough of an outrage to boil the blood of the middle and working class alike.
Thanks for the Express find. As a return favour you do realise that you can delete your cookies and get your 20 article access magically renewed. In the mean time here's a copy paste of the article.
Will remember that, thanks.
As for the article. I don't see what Carswell is doing, UKIP is entitled to that money, and it isn't 'gravy train' money, its for basic expenses like salaries for staff. After all Carswell will be well paid, but many staff are volunteers, the short money will allow volunteer staff in UKIP to get paid work for the next five years.
Somebody poke me to make sure I'm not dreaming. The Express have a pro-election reform article.
‘We must ditch first-past-the-post system’ says Katie Ghose
Now Daily Express is the UKIP rag it wants what is best for UKIP. The proportional representation argument has always been partisan rather than based on voting ethics. Does it help my party? If yes, holler for, if no holler against.
Orlanth wrote: As a political stink Brady has potential...
Can you just accept that he was a really bad example and he isn't getting out, especially not as a result of EU law.
I really do think you miss my point, of course Brady isnt getting out. But if the ECHR tries to overrule th Home Secretaries right to impose life tariffs aided by the Human Rights Act then the life tariffs will be up for question.
The ECHR demanded prisoners get the vote, the UK has refused to implement this and is tying the courts up in red tape to do so.
Likewise Brady is goinng nowhere.
However should Strassbourg rule agaijnst life tariffs his name will be amongst many which would be up for review, and that is enough of an outrage to boil the blood of the middle and working class alike.
I think your getting angry about something you don't understand. The ECHR has not stopped people being held for the whole of their lives. It has not demanded that prisoners get the vote.
What it has done is said you cannot imprison someone for the whole of their life without review. You cannot lock someone up and throw away the key. It has said that you must set some date at which you must review the case and see if it is appropriate to release that person or not. If not you must then set a new date and see again then. This could go on for their whole life if they are never safe.
What it has said is that you cannot AUTOMATICALLY ban prisoners from voting. You can remove that right as part of a sentence, but you should not do it automatically.
What is unreasonable about that? I honestly can't see what is wrong with judges deciding to impose removal of voting as part of sentencing guidelines where appropriate or every prisoner having the right to have their case reviewed eventually. If anything the possibility of parole will make our prisons safer as no prisoner has nothing to lose.
I think your getting angry about something you don't understand. The ECHR has not stopped people being held for the whole of their lives. It has not demanded that prisoners get the vote.
First that wasn't my angry face, please do not assume overly emotional attachment.
Second The ECHR has not yet stopped life tariffs, it might decide not to, but then again it might rule against the UK.
What it has done is said you cannot imprison someone for the whole of their life without review. You cannot lock someone up and throw away the key. It has said that you must set some date at which you must review the case and see if it is appropriate to release that person or not. If not you must then set a new date and see again then. This could go on for their whole life if they are never safe.
However our society has the right to impose a life tariff in lieu of a death penalty on some cases, without interference from a foreign court.
What it has said is that you cannot AUTOMATICALLY ban prisoners from voting. You can remove that right as part of a sentence, but you should not do it automatically.
Again our national custom is that people in prison forfeit some liberties common to the law abiding populace, the vote is one of those liberties. Again we do not want interference in our culture by a foreign court. If the British public decided prisoners should get the vote, and petition parliament is one thing, but to have the condition imposed by a foreign court with no accountability to the UK is something else.
What is unreasonable about that? I honestly can't see what is wrong with judges deciding to impose removal of voting as part of sentencing guidelines where appropriate or every prisoner having the right to have their case reviewed eventually. If anything the possibility of parole will make our prisons safer as no prisoner has nothing to lose.
You seem to forget that rights are subjective, not an absolute, the ECHR thinks otherwise. Our society does not consider votes for convicted criminals a basic right.
It also adds to the legal burden, currently the forfeiture of liberties includes the vote. We do not want to have to review every single case currently resulting in a custodial sentence just to satisfy Strasbourg. Our own culture is perfectly logical in this regards, commit a crime and go to prison, some freedoms are removed. In the UK this includes the vote, and that is hardly a unique position.
Orlanth wrote: As a political stink Brady has potential...
Can you just accept that he was a really bad example and he isn't getting out, especially not as a result of EU law.
I really do think you miss my point, of course Brady isnt getting out. But if the ECHR tries to overrule th Home Secretaries right to impose life tariffs aided by the Human Rights Act then the life tariffs will be up for question. The ECHR demanded prisoners get the vote, the UK has refused to implement this and is tying the courts up in red tape to do so. Likewise Brady is goinng nowhere. However should Strassbourg rule agaijnst life tariffs his name will be amongst many which would be up for review, and that is enough of an outrage to boil the blood of the middle and working class alike.
I think your getting angry about something you don't understand. The ECHR has not stopped people being held for the whole of their lives. It has not demanded that prisoners get the vote.
What it has done is said you cannot imprison someone for the whole of their life without review. You cannot lock someone up and throw away the key. It has said that you must set some date at which you must review the case and see if it is appropriate to release that person or not. If not you must then set a new date and see again then. This could go on for their whole life if they are never safe.
This. It's like the maximum sentence in Norway thing which people banged on about after the conviction of Breivik. He received a sentence of 21 years, with a minimum of 10 after which he is eligible to petition for parole, which is the longest sentence in Norway. Now, then you got loads of people saying he should've been locked up for life instead of 21 years, without actually bothering to look into Norways justice system and Breiviks sentence within that.
If, when the 21 years is up, he is still considered dangerous then the sentence can be extended by 5 years. Repeat at the end of those 5 years and so on. So, it is very likely that Breivik will never get out. However, if he were to actually reform, however unlikely that may be, he will have the possibility of leaving.
reds8n wrote: You already have been rude to several users throughout this thread.
So if User A on Dakka is rude to another then the forums rules are suspended and it is fair game to be rude back to User A? This seems a strange position, and likely to cause more problems than it solves.
To lose these protections then who gets to judge if another user was rude?
I am not clear what you are asking about but it seems off topic and should be taken to a separate thread. We have gone some months without a thread commenting on moderation and this would be a good opportunity to review the situation.
Back on topic, the ECHR is not a foreign court, it is the court of the EU alliance that the UK is a member of. UK judges are invited to sit in this court. If this court invites the UK to consider its position on some aspect of human rights I think that should be given proper consideration. No-one would claim the UK to be a perfect polity and culture. We should be able to stand a bit of self-examination prompted by criticism by our allies without throwing our toys out the pram, grabbing the football and taking it home to sulk.
A cursory examination of the state of the EU shows that the UK is one of the most important and successful countries in it. The rest of the EU does not want to do without us unless we make such ghastly nuisances of ourself by continual petty whinging that their patience snaps and they tell us to just feth off.
Orlanth wrote: I really do think you miss my point, of course Brady isnt getting out. But if the ECHR tries to overrule th Home Secretaries right to impose life tariffs aided by the Human Rights Act then the life tariffs will be up for question.
The ECHR demanded prisoners get the vote, the UK has refused to implement this and is tying the courts up in red tape to do so.
Likewise Brady is goinng nowhere.
However should Strassbourg rule against life tariffs his name will be amongst many which would be up for review, and that is enough of an outrage to boil the blood of the middle and working class alike.
And all of them would be reviewed on the merits of each individual case. Any outrage would be caused by the press and merit-less.
Now Daily Express is the UKIP rag it wants what is best for UKIP. The proportional representation argument has always been partisan rather than based on voting ethics. Does it help my party? If yes, holler for, if no holler against.
It is both partisan and based on ethics as all electoral reform has been. What has happened recently with the SNP and the UKIPs is that it has now become an issue that has united both the British left and the right.
Kilkrazy wrote: ....A cursory examination of the state of the EU shows that the UK is one of the most important and successful countries in it. The rest of the EU does not want to do without us unless we make such ghastly nuisances of ourself by continual petty whinging that theirMerkel's patience snaps and theyshe tells us to just feth off.
There I got that for you.
Junckers bluff has been called and he's peddling a new line
Eastern Europe will try to block any British changes, particularly to welfare reform that unfairly (haha) affect their citizens but have little power to influence much.
France will be to scared of losing the funding the UK provides, so they're in the bag after much playing to Le Gallery.
No one else has the balls to be so Black and White in Europe to be so stark as to draw a definite line but Angela, she's a different kettle of Bratwurst. I don't doubt that she wants Britain involved but will have to limit our power to effect change or everyone will be at it.
The UK is the second or third largest country in the EU in terms of population and economy, and punches well above its weight in terms of cultural inflence and military power due to historical reasons.
If the fething government of the UK would pick its fights on what is important rather than what bee the Daily Mail has got in its bonnet this week, we would be kicking arse and taking names all around Europe.
Being a thought leader in Europe would also enhance the UK's influence around the rest of the world, a virtuous circle and a win-win for us.
But Cameron would rather suck up to that paragon of modernity, cultural congeniality and human rights that is the People's Republic of China.
Kent Police are making inquiries into a report of electoral fraud in the Thanet South seat, contested in the general election by Nigel Farage.
The UKIP leader failed to win the seat, losing out to Conservative candidate Craig Mackinlay.
Mr Farage secured 16,026 votes, with Mr Mackinlay achieving 18,838.
And all of them would be reviewed on the merits of each individual case. Any outrage would be caused by the press and merit-less.
Au contraire, there would be enough merit because the cases would have to be reviewed, and the press triggered outrage is a normal use of popular democracy.
Public is outraged, we demand this, and some politicians say OK, because its what they wanted to do anyway, or because it will net them votes. It's standard politics 101, it can be horribly misused usually when half the story is D-noticed and half left to run and run, Blair was notorious for doing that.
Kent Police are making inquiries into a report of electoral fraud in the Thanet South seat, contested in the general election by Nigel Farage.
The UKIP leader failed to win the seat, losing out to Conservative candidate Craig Mackinlay.
Mr Farage secured 16,026 votes, with Mr Mackinlay achieving 18,838.
It looked a tad suspicious to me at the time, worth a second look, but nothing to formally say the vote was rigged.
South Thanet results were very late and the final declaration was pulled on the postal votes. Tories might have pulled off a 'miracle'.
It's a more feasible challenge than Galloway's to be sure, and worth looking into.
'Making inquiries' is however double checking, not confirmation of fraud. The postal vote system in the UK is wide open to abuse and double checking the postal vote is a reasonable idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: Good grief .
Order-order is saying that "UKIP sources" say the complaint isn't from them.
... strange times indeed.
That can be believed. UKIP might have looked into the result and chased up postal voters listed.
If it was an addition fraud it would not take much for some of the voters who had postal votes redirected to make a complaint.
It would be in UKIP's interest for the people whose votes were allegedly stolen to contact the police rather than UKIP.
This also might not help Farage long term. If there was vote theft and if the standard patterns emerge the votes may not have been redirected to the Tories. McKinlay's majority may well be genuine.
Looks like Farage and Carswell are both digging in. A UKIP spokesman confirms Guido’s story that the two have met, but:
“Nigel Farage met with Douglas Carswell this afternoon and there’s ongoing discussion about how best to represent four million UKIP voters in a way that is sensible and correct.”
So it didn’t go well then…
so .. one wonders if this, perhaps, a person/persons trying to force Farage out ?
Of course the complaint might be entirely unrelated to Farage/UKIP anyway ...
In other news, David Cameron has said he will push for a ministerial veto on the publication of Prince Charles' private correspondence to government ministers.
Given that in 2010, Cameron promised the most open and transparent government ever, his actions would suggest otherwise.
So much for British democracy. The public has a right to know what the heir to the throne has been saying to ministers in official correspondence, and if he's is as impartial as he says he is, then he's got nothing to fear
I honestly think he's trying to conceal his tax affairs with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In other news, David Cameron has said he will push for a ministerial veto on the publication of Prince Charles' private correspondence to government ministers.
Given that in 2010, Cameron promised the most open and transparent government ever, his actions would suggest otherwise.
So much for British democracy. The public has a right to know what the heir to the throne has been saying to ministers in official correspondence, and if he's is as impartial as he says he is, then he's got nothing to fear
I honestly think he's trying to conceal his tax affairs with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall.
Pushing for a veto on the publication of letters that have nothing to do with him, his government or even his party doesn't stop his government being more open and transparent than its predecessors.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In other news, David Cameron has said he will push for a ministerial veto on the publication of Prince Charles' private correspondence to government ministers.
Given that in 2010, Cameron promised the most open and transparent government ever, his actions would suggest otherwise.
So much for British democracy. The public has a right to know what the heir to the throne has been saying to ministers in official correspondence, and if he's is as impartial as he says he is, then he's got nothing to fear
I honestly think he's trying to conceal his tax affairs with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall.
Pushing for a veto on the publication of letters that have nothing to do with him, his government or even his party doesn't stop his government being more open and transparent than its predecessors.
The public have a right to know. After all, it's our taxes that are paying for him!!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In other news, David Cameron has said he will push for a ministerial veto on the publication of Prince Charles' private correspondence to government ministers.
Given that in 2010, Cameron promised the most open and transparent government ever, his actions would suggest otherwise.
So much for British democracy. The public has a right to know what the heir to the throne has been saying to ministers in official correspondence, and if he's is as impartial as he says he is, then he's got nothing to fear
I honestly think he's trying to conceal his tax affairs with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall.
Pushing for a veto on the publication of letters that have nothing to do with him, his government or even his party doesn't stop his government being more open and transparent than its predecessors.
The public have a right to know. After all, it's our taxes that are paying for him!!
Nice see that one trotted out. His personal lands income goes to the Treasury, out of which he gets an allowance.
To personalise this for the average man,
Imagine you had your income taken away, got given JSA in return and were expected to be grateful.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In other news, David Cameron has said he will push for a ministerial veto on the publication of Prince Charles' private correspondence to government ministers.
Given that in 2010, Cameron promised the most open and transparent government ever, his actions would suggest otherwise.
So much for British democracy. The public has a right to know what the heir to the throne has been saying to ministers in official correspondence, and if he's is as impartial as he says he is, then he's got nothing to fear
I honestly think he's trying to conceal his tax affairs with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall.
Pushing for a veto on the publication of letters that have nothing to do with him, his government or even his party doesn't stop his government being more open and transparent than its predecessors.
The public have a right to know. After all, it's our taxes that are paying for him!!
Nice see that one trotted out. His personal lands income goes to the Treasury, out of which he gets an allowance.
To personalise this for the average man,
Imagine you had your income taken away, got given JSA in return and were expected to be grateful.
This only works if we assume that all upper class people who inherit vast fortunes that were made by exploiting those less fortunate than themselves are deserving of that wealth somehow.
I don't mind people leaving something for their kids, but this idea that we should be grateful that the royal family deigns to swap the income from a large pile of land acquired by oppressing our country and people, for a lump sum is mildly absurd.
Kent Police are making inquiries into a report of electoral fraud in the Thanet South seat, contested in the general election by Nigel Farage.
The UKIP leader failed to win the seat, losing out to Conservative candidate Craig Mackinlay.
Mr Farage secured 16,026 votes, with Mr Mackinlay achieving 18,838.
"No evidence" of electoral fraud has been found in the Thanet South seat contested in the general election by Nigel Farage, police have said.
The UKIP leader failed to win the seat, losing out to Conservative candidate Craig Mackinlay.
Kent Police said initial investigations were prompted by contact from outside the county expressing concerns over social media speculation.
Thanet District Council said it was not under investigation for fraud.
In a statement it said police had an obligation to follow up the complaint.
"The council's returning officer is satisfied that the correct processes were followed and a member of the Electoral Commission was present at the election in Thanet," it said.
motyak wrote: That's clearly not the position, nor the topic of the thread. Consider your next post
My apologies, it seemed like a strange position to take and I just wanted to clarify the matter. You are correct that this is not the topic of the thread. I should have raised this in a more appropriate forum.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Given that in 2010, Cameron promised the most open and transparent government ever, his actions would suggest otherwise.
This appears to be a problem that afflicts both sides of the Atlantic. Given the differences in how the US and UK are politically constituted I wonder is there a root cause that afflicts both systems.
motyak wrote: That's clearly not the position, nor the topic of the thread. Consider your next post
My apologies, it seemed like a strange position to take and I just wanted to clarify the matter. You are correct that this is not the topic of the thread. I should have raised this in a more appropriate forum.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Given that in 2010, Cameron promised the most open and transparent government ever, his actions would suggest otherwise.
This appears to be a problem that afflicts both sides of the Atlantic. Given the differences in how the US and UK are politically constituted I wonder is there a root cause that afflicts both systems.
Its easier to believe a easy lie over the hard truth.
It politicians told the honest truth all the time, no one would vote for them.
Imagine you had your income taken away, got given JSA in return and were expected to be grateful.
This only works if we assume that all upper class people who inherit vast fortunes that were made by exploiting those less fortunate than themselves are deserving of that wealth somehow.
I don't mind people leaving something for their kids, but this idea that we should be grateful that the royal family deigns to swap the income from a large pile of land acquired by oppressing our country and people, for a lump sum is mildly absurd.
First. This takes the entirely insulting but unsurprising view of the progressive left that they alone can determine who is deserving of inheritance. And based on that arbitrary and self imposed criteria judge people who inherit, people who by definition are not responsible for the actions of their forebears.
Second. Almost all land is stolen, and the odd thing is the land least questionable ownership, is often the same land most criticised as stolen. Case in point, the entire New World was stolen, the only exception being the Falkland Islands because they were completely uninhabited. Yet see how this is panning out.
Third. Who do you give land back to? "The people" calls the left wing. But the people are the descendants of people who came in longships sword in hand to take the land, they are no less responsible than the kings and lords who led them.
Let is summise this principle with a favorite quote, a bastardisation of the call of the Far Right.
Britain for the British........................................................................................Saxons and Normans go home.
The ridicule of the position of criticising the legitimacy of the land ownership of the British Monarchy is that to recede the ownership beyond lawful inheritance, with the consent of the majority of the people at the time I might add, to an actual crime. You would have to predate to a time before and thus logically negating the legality of the conquest of the New World.
Prince charles has MORE right to own half of Cornwall than Frazzie does to live in Texas.
The complete illogic of the position does not stop the progressive left, or republican nitwits from howling ;'stolen land stolen land'.
Fourth. At the time land conquest was legal. Depending on where you go conquest still is.
Fifth. Something to put bee in bonnet of the progressive left, if ever they could be honest enough to look at the issue clearly.
YOU (and I) are all living on taken land, no matter how we paid for it, we are dealing in taken property, going back from owner to owner right back to the last person who was driven off and had the land seized. How far back this goes varies from place to place. In the UK the Enclosure Act and the Highland seizures were the last major land grabs, and that was 'legal' in that laws were past to allow them.
Rectifying this with any semblance is justice is not only impossible but also undesirable, as it would involve the undoing of most if not all nation states.
To accuse the Prince, who is a rather harmless chap of ruling the lands he owns by inherited oppression is ridiculous, as to make a case against him you have to go back enough centuries to cover most land exchanges on the planet. and requires a complete selective revisionist approach to world history, that airbrushes out pretty much all of the movement of human history except the ones you want to condemn. It's doctrinarian, unjustifiable and yet purported with sanctimonious authority to selectively judge which to the progressive left is all in a days work.
I don't see why that would allow Prince Charles to violate the constitution by writing letters to the cabinet on political matters and then make it fine for Cameron to go back on his word and conceal the contents.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't see why that would allow Prince Charles to violate the constitution by writing letters to the cabinet on political matters and then make it fine for Cameron to go back on his word and conceal the contents.
Prince Charles can write letter who whoever he wishes, so long as that is all he does.
Also the Prince's opinions on planning and the environment are not party political, they do not endorse one party over another just an issue, and thus fall under impartiality.
The only reason at all this because an issue was because the letters were written to New Labour, who abhored accountability of any kind, or being asked to do anything other than what they wanted to do for themselves.
Also which word is Cameron going back on? AFAIK he was against exposure of the Princes private letters from the start.
A champion of accountability and good government demanding that letters sent to him (but not from all sources, and not those he sent) be made public domain.
First. This takes the entirely insulting but unsurprising view of the progressive left that they alone can determine who is deserving of inheritance. And based on that arbitrary and self imposed criteria judge people who inherit, people who by definition are not responsible for the actions of their forebears.
Oh dear. You might want to think before ascribing political positions to people, it might make your assumptions more accurate. Because practically every point you've said is in in response to an argument I never made. Nobody accused the prince of 'inherited oppression', and nobody is playing squash in the 'all land is ultimately stolen court.' Relax.
I said:-
Ketara wrote:
This only works if we assume that all upper class people who inherit vast fortunes that were made by exploiting those less fortunate than themselves are deserving of that wealth somehow.
I don't mind people leaving something for their kids, but this idea that we should be grateful that the royal family deigns to swap the income from a large pile of land acquired by oppressing our country and people, for a lump sum is mildly absurd.
in response to
Imagine you had your income taken away, got given JSA in return and were expected to be grateful.
Your line I am quoting works on the premise that someobody's rightful income has been taken away and replaced with a lesser income, and that this is something the Royal Family should be aggrieved over.
I hold no grudge against our 'Liz, and I fully accept that as things stand, they legally own what they do in terms of land. I do believe however, that their ownership is a leftover relic from a feudal system that only acquired it by exploiting others. And that's fine, everyone did that back then. But pointing at something and saying, 'It's been that way for a few hundred years' is not necessarily a good reason for keeping it that way.
I am of the personal belief that anything in excess of a few million pounds should be taken by the Government as inheritance tax. I do not believe that people should be able to leave vast, vast sums of wealth/land to their children, as it tends to lead to new systems of social elite/oppressors forming, and those children have done nothing to earn such lucre. Sure, leave them a house. Leave them an expensive house. Heck, leave them a decent five bedroom house, and a few hundred thousand pounds in the bank, plus mummy's jewellery. Nothing necessarily wrong with the middle class leg up for your kids.
But I believe that the days of leaving vast sweeping estates to your children have long since come and gone, be it in the name of the Crown, an Earl, or the CEO of a FT 500 company. So yes. If the government takes your estates, inherited from forebears who acquired that wealth by keeping others in servitude with the sword, and leaves you a nice lump sum, or indeed, a livable portion of that wealth, I have little time for listening to complaints. You're still getting a lot more than many others who are undoubtedly more deserving, so stop complaining, take the nice little feathered nest that many others would still kill to have, and move on.
) as I didn't vote UKIp and actually employ lots of Europeans, but you cannot argue that 180k average net migration since the turn of the century will not cause at the very least over subscription To national service and infrastructure that was already stretched.
