The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kilkrazy**

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.

**Wulfmar**

You got your quoting boxes mixed up KillKrazy. You just quoted someone else's comment with my name at the top!

They only polled well in my opinion to get them into power under the current broken system.

**Orlanth**

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.

**-Shrike-**

Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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, you asked for sources. Try this: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/10/02/will-devolution-scupper-conservative-plans-for-a-british-bill-of-rights/

It was written a few months back, but the basic arguments remain the same.

**Kilkrazy**

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.

**George Spiggott**

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.

No it has not. It has been subject to changes over those centuries to make it fairer because at times it has been a deeply unfair system.

**Steve steveson**

Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

Only just noticed this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32679004
Michael Gove moves to justice in post-election reshuffle

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.

**Da Boss**

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**

Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

Da Boss wrote:

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.

**Da Boss**

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.

**reds8n**

Orlanth wrote:

PPC's would be covered by police vetting.

So not the intelligence agencies then.

Thanks.

You did,

No, I didn't.

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

Citation please.

**Steve steveson**

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.

**Da Boss**

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.

**Mozzyfuzzy**

Orlanth wrote:

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.

**George Spiggott**

Speaking of the UKIPs 'legitimacy'.

Douglas Carswell refuses to endorse Nigel Farage's return as Ukip leader

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/douglas-carswell-refuses-to-endorse-nigel-farages-return-as-ukip-leader-10243074.html

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.”

**Orlanth**

reds8n wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

PPC's would be covered by police vetting.

So not the intelligence agencies then.
Thanks.

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.

reds8n wrote:

You did,

No, I didn't.

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).

There we go, so lets look at this logically.

reds8n wrote:

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.

reds8n wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Appeal to authority fallacy. I could play that game also.

That is all your argument is.

Ouch, still being a mod you have an advantage. I cant afford to be as rude back.

reds8n wrote:

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.

reds8n wrote:

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.

reds8n wrote:

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:
Speaking of the UKIPs 'legitimacy'.

Now is UKIP not legitimate?

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.

**George Spiggott**

Orlanth wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:
Speaking of the UKIPs 'legitimacy'.
Now is UKIP not legitimate?

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.

**reds8n**

..hmmm

so when you said

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.

**Orlanth**

reds8n wrote:
..hmmm
so when you said

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.

reds8n wrote:

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.

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.

reds8n wrote:

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.

reds8n wrote:

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.

reds8n wrote:

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.

reds8n wrote:

You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by reading the posts carefully.

If you presented your arguments better they'd be less ~~incorrect~~ confusing.

I am comprehensive in my replies, and have the habit in favour of fully explaining what I mean, which perhaps doesn't serve well if skipread.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:
Speaking of the UKIPs 'legitimacy'.
Now is UKIP not legitimate?

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.

**reds8n**

Orlanth wrote:
[

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 !

**George Spiggott**

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

And so it begins.

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.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/12/scrapping-human-rights-act-would-breach-good-friday-agreement

Oh, and guess what, Scotland's not happy either

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/may/12/scottish-government-human-rights-act-conservatives

Over to you, Mr Cameron

**Orlanth**

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.

George Spiggott wrote:

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.

George Spiggott wrote:

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.

**Kilkrazy**

Farewell has gone public as UKIP's only MP to say he does not accept the reinstatement of Garage as party leader.

**George Spiggott**

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.

**Silent Puffin?**

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.

**-Shrike-**

Silent Puffin? wrote:
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.

**George Spiggott**

He didn't have a problem with wasting public/taxpayers money on a vanity by-election last October.

While we're playing fun name games. Did anyone else think that the other Tory/UKIPs defector's decision turned out to be a little Reckless?

**Orlanth**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And so it begins.

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!

Just as well the Guardian doesn't make policy for the Conservative party. It just likes people to think it has.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/12/scrapping-human-rights-act-would-breach-good-friday-agreement

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.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Oh, and guess what, Scotland's not happy either
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/may/12/scottish-government-human-rights-act-conservatives
Over to you, Mr Cameron

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.