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.
2015/05/11 09:04:48
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
If the thought of something makes me giggle for longer than 15 seconds, I am to assume that I am not allowed to do it. item 87, skippys list
DC:70S+++G+++M+++B+++I++Pw40k86/f#-D+++++A++++/cWD86R+++++T(D)DM++
2015/05/11 09:29:10
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
2015/05/11 10:40:58
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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".
2015/05/11 12:08:22
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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!
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2015/05/11 13:17:56
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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."
2015/05/11 13:33:42
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/11 14:10:44
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2015/05/11 14:08:49
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
2015/05/11 14:14:19
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2015/05/11 14:31:29
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/11 14:45:53
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2015/05/11 15:00:02
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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.
uh huh.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2015/05/11 15:03:30
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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.
UNBARRAGABLE!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/11 15:03:51
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/11 15:12:14
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/11 15:24:27
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
2015/05/11 15:44:56
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/11 16:04:07
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2015/05/11 16:43:03
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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.
Live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about his religion. Respect others in their views and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life. Beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.
Lt. Rorke - Act of Valor
I can now be found on Facebook under the name of Wulfstan Design
www.wulfstandesign.co.uk
http://www.voodoovegas.com/
2015/05/11 16:58:06
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2015/05/11 17:04:07
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/11 17:16:23
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2015/05/11 18:11:35
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/11 18:12:05
Thousand Sons: 3850pts / Space Marines Deathwatch 5000pts / Dark Eldar Webway Corsairs 2000pts / Scrapheap Challenged Orks 1500pts / Black Death 1500pts
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.
UNBARRAGABLE!
Thank you! That's an early birthday present.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/11 18:22:53
2015/05/11 18:55:20
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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'.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/11 19:22:17
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2015/05/11 19:42:44
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
SNP economic policy echoes that of the current Greek government: they promise no austerity when austerity is sorely needed.
Prove it. Show me where it's working. And don't quote our government statistics. If I want to read fiction I'll buy a black library book.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
2015/05/11 19:47:24
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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'.
They polled well, and that's the worrying thing.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/05/11 20:16:06
Thousand Sons: 3850pts / Space Marines Deathwatch 5000pts / Dark Eldar Webway Corsairs 2000pts / Scrapheap Challenged Orks 1500pts / Black Death 1500pts
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/11 23:05:27
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
2015/05/12 01:10:50
Subject: The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+
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.
Legion: Dark Angels 
Thousand Sons: 3850pts / 
Space Marines Deathwatch 5000pts / 
Scrapheap Challenged Orks 1500pts / 
Black Death 1500pts
