• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

galeforce said:
It depends on the matter, it's completely subjective, I don't think the referendum was valid nor is leaving the EU what the voting public now want, there is a moral imperative to avoid it imo.

Labour/LD MP's were not elected to lead the government but they were elected to be part of parliament and work for their constituents.
Click to expand...
The day to day running of the country (including discussions with other countries) is an executive function.

Parliament holds the ultimate power in that they can change the PM/government with a vote of no confidence. That system was designed in from the start. It's not for some beardy, aging student clam to bottle out of the VonC and instead use parliamentary loopholes to force the government to act in their stead.
 
scaramanga said:
The day to day running of the country (including discussions with other countries) is an executive function.

Parliament holds the ultimate power in that they can change the PM/government with a vote of no confidence. That system was designed in from the start. It's not for some beardy, aging student clam to bottle out of the VonC and instead use parliamentary loopholes to force the government to act in their stead.
Click to expand...

I don’t think any of this comes under “day to day” and it’s far more than just discussion with other countries.
 
galeforce said:
I don’t think any of this comes under “day to day” and it’s far more than just discussion with other countries.
Click to expand...
The scale isn't relevant, the methods are.

The government governs, the clue is in the name. Parliament is from the French verb parler (to talk). That is what parliament is there for. If parliament doesn't like the government then it has the methods to change it.
 
Last edited:
Times like these I don’t bother posting just because there’s too much going on to digest.

One things for sure though the biggest 7 1/2 weeks in our countries history will be taking place no matter our view point.

Personally I think I want us to remain but like Corbyn said I’m about a ‘6 or 7 out of 10’ on that.

I just hope they made its over either way we can focus on addressing all of the important the issues that have meanwhilst arrived and passing through the appropriate legislation for them.

It would be sad to ever return to an unproductive state of squabbling again.

Oh and our constitution could do with codifying whilst we’re at it so we can have clear guidelines on this crap.
 
Craig_J said:
Oh and our constitution could do with codifying whilst we’re at it so we can have clear guidelines on this crap.
Click to expand...
Our constitution's fine, there are two short-term issues.

  1. A biased speaker. The whole system falls apart if the speaker won't stick to the rules. I've never seen that before, what Bercow has done is unprecedented and clearly outside the limits of what was assumed the level MPs would stoop to.
  2. An opposition too scared of an election. Parliament has a method by which to stop the government doing anything it likes. That's a vote of no confidence. Again, never before has the opposition been led by someone like Corbyn. The system doesn't work if the opposition doesn't want to lead
 
If it was not for likes of Bercow and other brave souls in parliament the cabal behind Cummins and Co would have had a clear run!
Thanks to all those who stood up to the far-right in the commons.
They must stay vigilant as these are a venal bunch!
 
Just browsing through, some interesting points on both sides (dare I say you lot seem to have clearer POV than most MPs!)

scaramanga said:
Our constitution's fine, there are two short-term issues.

  1. A biased speaker. The whole system falls apart if the speaker won't stick to the rules. I've never seen that before, what Bercow has done is unprecedented and clearly outside the limits of what was assumed the level MPs would stoop to.
  2. An opposition too scared of an election. Parliament has a method by which to stop the government doing anything it likes. That's a vote of no confidence. Again, never before has the opposition been led by someone like Corbyn. The system doesn't work if the opposition doesn't want to lead
Click to expand...

Re: #2 The problem is the current near hung parliament seems to be Corbyn dream situation. The opposition have enough votes to block everything but no real responsibility of their own.

I personally think he'd be pretty gutted to actually be PM, which as you say messes the system up as a desire to lead is supposed to break the deadlock.

My surprise is that Labour supporters are happy to have a Conservative government if it means a no-deal Brexit is ruled out. Doesn't seem very ambitious.
 
elyid said:
Just browsing through, some interesting points on both sides (dare I say you lot seem to have clearer POV than most MPs!)

Re: #2 The problem is the current near hung parliament seems to be Corbyn dream situation. The opposition have enough votes to block everything but no real responsibility of their own.

I personally think he'd be pretty gutted to actually be PM, which as you say messes the system up as a desire to lead is supposed to break the deadlock.

My surprise is that Labour supporters are happy to have a Conservative government if it means a no-deal Brexit is ruled out. Doesn't seem very ambitious.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. He has no desire to lead in my opinion and never has had, he's just a bitter old agitator with an axe to grind. The abdication of responsibility is sickening, and making an already hugely difficult situation far worse.
 
Last edited:
StephenH said:
If it was not for likes of Bercow and other brave souls in parliament the cabal behind Cummins and Co would have had a clear run!
Thanks to all those who stood up to the far-right in the commons.
They must stay vigilant as these are a venal bunch!
Click to expand...
Any government of any day would have a clear run if it were not for the option of a vote of no confidence.

It is absolutely wrong for any speaker of any leaning to have a say or an influence on proceedings. He or she is to be entirely neutral no matter what your opinion on the politics of the day. Parliament has a method to stop the government of over extending - if they refuse to use it then the blame lies with the opposition and the opposition entirely.
 
Bercow was a brilliant counterbalance to the workings of the Cummins cabal and he was a breath of fresh air.
He will be missed.
But we are not out of the woods yet.

I'm not writing off Bojo taking his staff as hostages and threatening blow Cummins up if we do not comply with his demands for a statue of himself outside Westminister.
 
StephenH said:
Bercow was a brilliant counterbalance to the workings of the Cummins cabal and he was a breath of fresh air.
He will be missed.
But we are not out of the woods yet.

I'm not writing off Bojo taking his staff as hostages and threatening blow Cummins up if we do not comply with his demands for a statue of himself outside Westminister.
Click to expand...

That is not Bercows job. And THAT is the point.
 
StephenH said:
The way the current conservative "government" have been acting it was a necessity.
He has done a grand job!
Click to expand...

He most certainly has not. That responsibility belongs to the opposition, who are - with the help of the speaker - playing games to skirt their responsibilities and promote their own agenda.

The speaker is meant to be neutral. Not as a "nice to have" sort of thing, but as a pre requisite for the role. Bercow has been shamefully partisan and has extended far to much influence to suit his own agenda.

As a speaker he has been terrible.
 
Rorschach said:
NL only backstop getting traction again, as I suspected it would.

The excellent Michael Dougan explains the pros and cons of the EEA model succinctly in this thread
https://twitter.com/x/status/1169948500181880832
Click to expand...

No idea who he is, but "excellent" isnt my first impression.

His counter arguments are just dismissives, and his linked to document is an EU produced doc detailing what they want/like in a relationship.

Not sure any of it is enlightening or conclusive, to be honest.
 
scaramanga said:
Our constitution's fine, there are two short-term issues.

  1. A biased speaker. The whole system falls apart if the speaker won't stick to the rules. I've never seen that before, what Bercow has done is unprecedented and clearly outside the limits of what was assumed the level MPs would stoop to.
  2. An opposition too scared of an election. Parliament has a method by which to stop the government doing anything it likes. That's a vote of no confidence. Again, never before has the opposition been led by someone like Corbyn. The system doesn't work if the opposition doesn't want to lead
Click to expand...

Yesterday it was "traitor" MPs. It's all someone elses fault. No resonsibility on Brexit itself? It being an impossible taks to deliver value to UK people from this nonsense. Can you forever blame something, while missing the underlying issue/problem? Probably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back