UK Politics

Brigantium said:
Funny, but probably more ammo for populist/nationalist backlash against the BBC. We've already got newspapers calling high court judges enemies of the people for ruling that Article 50 needs to be evoked by Parliament, not the PM.
Click to expand...

Which leaves me at an impasse. Do I let these idiots have their opportunity and let them eat cake so they can realise how much of a colosssal fuck-up they've made, or do I act upon my humanitarian instincts and try to fight back against it?
 
Or listen to Corbyn. This man stands up for vulnerable people and doesn't want to deliver his country to the wolves.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-gives-theresa-ultimatum-9204393

Nick Cleggs is also one to be respected:
Nick Clegg Slams 'Rank Hypocrisy' Of Brexiteers After Article 50 Ruling: check audio in link
https://audioboom.com/posts/5244605...pocrisy-of-brexiteers-after-article-50-ruling

"The apoplectic vilification of these poor judges by the Brexit press is deeply unfair," the Lib Dem told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"They’re doing their job.

"These Brexiteers who said we have to take back control… now seem outraged at the exercise of greater parliamentary control.

"It really is mystifying to me.

"Democracy does not mean you give the government of the day unqualified rights to do whatever they like."
 
Last edited:
The decision's not going to be reversed. It wasn't a huge majority and many people voted out for questionable reasons, but you don't hold a referendum only to declare it void. Corbyn has said the Labour line is to respect the vote, May will use the whips to keep as many Conservatives as possible in line.

The issue now is increasing radicalisation, particularly of the nationalist variety, and growing hostility to anyone who doesnt sing from the populist hymn sheet. The likes of the Mail and Murdoch's media are cheering this on and providing 'evidence' to justify and back up those views. Their tone has got much worse, and they're not limiting their attacks to foreigners now.
 
Definitely. It was always obvious to me that it would have to go through Parliament, even if that's only a formality with a debate on exit strategy and future trade and foreign policy. Some seem to be surprised and outraged by that, though, and of the opinion that it's the toffs and the PC crowd acting against the will of the people. I wouldnt be surprised if the Conservatives use this as a springboard for getting rid of the Lords and replacing it with a system where the leader of the ruling party has even more power.
 
I too thought it was funny. For me, it's more to do with mocking nationalistic pride than anything. and my dog (the one in my avi) bit that MP [Rosindell] once. True story.
 
Brigantium said:
I wouldnt be surprised if the Conservatives use this as a springboard for getting rid of the Lords and replacing it with a system where the leader of the ruling party has even more power.
Click to expand...
Personally, I'd like to get rid of the Lord's or at least make them electable and then install a proper PR voting system across all elections. Plus the ability for the electorate to recall anyone elected, reduce the amount of MPs and have more referendums giving more power to the electorate.

But that's just my thoughts.
 
If the politicians behaved themselves, we wouldn't feel the need for them. The problem is, someone gets elected then a few months into their term they do something bad, but they remain untouchable if they refuse to resign.
 
Sometimes politicians need to be able to make hard decisions without being immediately accountable to their electorates, though. Like sometimes spending has to be cut. Sometimes taxes have to be raised. Sometimes treaties must be signed - or abrogated. The same reason is why I'm generally against common referendums. Most people aren't capable of understanding the ramifications of major state action.

Just look at the amount of people who think nations should have 0 debt or never spend at a deficit, because it's not how they'd run their houses. The fact of the matter is that deficit and debt spending (different concepts, surely) are both major innovations of the modern political era, that have allowed governments to invest in major infrastructure at a fraction of the practical cost. But people don't really understand that.
 
I'm not talking about a politician taking a decision that folk don't like, I'm talking about a politician misbehaving in such a manner that Denis McShane did, or Eric Joyce, or Douglas Hogg. Elected people that fiddle expenses, get physically violent with other people, abuse the system for their own benefit.
 
Much as I'd like a reform of the second house, I can't work out how they'd do it without creating a duplicate of the Commons and giving even more power to the leadership of the ruling party in the Commons. A house made up of representatives of each local authority or region could be one way. I still think there's a danger that the current tide of popular outcry could be used as justification to bring in changes that would be detrimental, not beneficial, to democracy.
 
Brigantium said:
I can't work out how they'd do it without creating a duplicate of the Commons and giving even more power to the leadership of the ruling party in the Commons.
Click to expand...
Proper PR where a party that gets 30% of votes gets something like 30% of seats will put pay to that. Yes, it may end up with more hung parliament's, but if a party does not get more than 50% of votes, it can't command a majority in HoC. And it will force parties to work together.
 
We had a referendum on an alternative vote system. Not the same thing as full PR, but turnout was poor and it was rejected by a clear majority of those who did vote. I don't think there's much enthusiasm for such a change, either that or a poor understanding of how it would work. I'd like to see parties forced to work together, tbh, although the egos are currently far too big to allow that. The Conservatives all but destroyed the Lib Dems in the Coalition period.
 
All new voting systems have some form of PR (London Mayor, etc).
 
Mrs May can eat this:
The Scottish government will seek to oppose the UK government in the Supreme Court during the appeal over the triggering of Article 50.

"democratic wishes of the people of Scotland and the national parliament of Scotland cannot be brushed aside as if they do not matter"
Click to expand...

The first minister said: "The Scottish government is clear that triggering Article 50 will directly affect devolved interests and rights in Scotland.

"And triggering Article 50 will inevitably deprive Scottish people and Scottish businesses of rights and freedoms which they currently enjoy.

"It simply cannot be right that those rights can be removed by the UK government on the say-so of a prime minister without parliamentary debate, scrutiny or consent."

She also urged the prime minister to "live up to her promise to treat Scotland as an equal partner in the United Kingdom and listen to the will of the people of Scotland".
Click to expand...
 
That's the thing about democracy. You are going to upset some people. Ignoring the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland or ignoring the democratic wishes of the people of England and Wales?
 
You can't. The UK either leaves the EU or it doesn't and either way, someone is not going to like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top