Why has the Guardian become transphopic all of a sudden?
Someone’s behaviour, which is what’s being reported here, should have no impact on the identity of the person in question. Should it?
I'm not remotely clear that it is now transphobic. Bloke has been arrested. Bloke has a female alias. Doesn't make him trans. Was Paul O'Grady trans whilst appearing on telly in drag as Lily Savage?
The important part is the girl was found safe. Considering that almost every previous case of child abduction has not involved man with a female alias the predominant safety issue - to children and women - remains men who think they are men. Trans is a massive distraction being used solely as a desperation wedge issue.
Interesting article as always. My own view is that it is obvious that the only way for now of leaving the EU was via EEA/EFTA, so I don't have a dog in the fight. But supposing I'm wrong, a couple of points/questions:
Are we finding, oddly, that all of a sudden the people happy to bypass parliament in massive ways via our membership of the EU are suddenly converted to parliamentary scrutiny of regulations covering My Little Pony stickers?
Lots of stuff doesn't go through parliament in any real way. Brexit wasn't about parliament scrutinising everything, it was about the UK not having stuff imposed on us from another emergent legislative authority; thus being able to kick out the UK government if we don't like what emerges from it. As we shall fairly soon.
"How can there be so many EU laws on the books that it is impossible to review them all?l
We were members for 43 years."
Indeed, but in theory, new EU laws had to be amended to fit UK legislation. The Health and Safety Executive are the main driver for Health and Safety Laws in the UK.
I remember attending a Brussels scientific meeting discussing proposed legislation. When our meeting had finished, I had some time before my flight home. An official seeing my name badge dragged me into a large meeting of lawyers to discuss how the UK would adapt the legislation to bring it into UK Law.
Despite my explaing I was there for my scientific experties and I was no lawyer (Europe has lawyers with doctorates, and appropriate name-badges), they bombarded me with questions. I answered to my best ability. I guessed basically. Hopefully no harm was done, but it felt a bit amateurish.
How different, how very different. from the professionalism of our own dear HSE.
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
You can’t use Henry VIII powers to remove rights of citizens .This is what the Supreme Court decided in the Article 50 case . So if the bonfire of EU law has that effect in a particular area it will end up in court .
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Is he? 49% of working class C2DEs want to restore the death penalty, only 39% don't.
57% of middle class ABC1s don't want to restore the death penalty however
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
That's precisely the problem. Posh right wingers deciding, apparently based on anecdotal evidence from some BBC talking heads in Burnley, that the working class are uniformly rough bigots who hate foreigners and want a return to family values. (Just as, to be fair, posh lefties long ago decided they're all an oppressed mass seething with revolutionary fervour).
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Is he? 49% of working class C2DEs want to restore the death penalty, only 39% don't.
57% of middle class ABC1s don't want to restore the death penalty however
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
That's precisely the problem. Posh right wingers deciding, apparently based on anecdotal evidence from some BBC talking heads in Burnley, that the working class are uniformly rough bigots who hate foreigners and want a return to family values. (Just as, to be fair, posh lefties long ago decided they're all an oppressed mass seething with revolutionary fervour).
Well it was the working class who delivered Brexit, in large part to reduce immigration.
If only the middle class had been able to vote in 2016 then Remain would have won the EU referendum
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Its an enabling act for ministers. Parliament won't be consulted beyond that. And as we know most ministers are thick as mince its an enabling act for civil servants. The unelected pencil-pushers that Brexit supposedly would remove...
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Is he? 49% of working class C2DEs want to restore the death penalty, only 39% don't.
57% of middle class ABC1s don't want to restore the death penalty however
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Its an enabling act for ministers. Parliament won't be consulted beyond that. And as we know most ministers are thick as mince its an enabling act for civil servants. The unelected pencil-pushers that Brexit supposedly would remove...
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Haha good point! The man's a moron, a blustering bully. They come in all classes and walks of life, Anderson just happens to have that accent and is willing to spew verbal diarrhoea without engaging what passes for a brain. So the Tories have elevated and are using him. They'll spit him out when he is no longer of any use.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Its an enabling act for ministers. Parliament won't be consulted beyond that. And as we know most ministers are thick as mince its an enabling act for civil servants. The unelected pencil-pushers that Brexit supposedly would remove...
All part of our democratic process. Like FPTP. Would we have started from here? Probably not but this is the system within which we live.
With all this talk of the U.K. giving Ukraine its tanks and planes, are we potentially not leaving ourselves a little naked. I hate to say it, but should we not be rearming. You have can’t “speak softly and carry a big stick”, without a big stick.
I am reminded of a Kleiban cartoon - "God gave us these bodies because he has better ones at home."
So far, much of the weaponry that has been provided to Ukraine is kit that was about to be canned - at the end of its use-by date. That Ukraine has used it to great effect is partly because the Russian kit they faced was itself 50s/60s tech.
Russia has not been facing NATO's state of the art toys. For example, I can't see Russia getting more than a few hundred yards into Poland before it suffered catastrophic losses. We can likely take great comfort that Russian manpower and materiel has taken a pounding that will take decades to understand and then repair, certainly in any capacity to strike within NATO.
(That said, you have a point that the required level of our stockpiles of shells and missiles needs to be reconsidered - and addressed as required.)
With all this talk of the U.K. giving Ukraine its tanks and planes, are we potentially not leaving ourselves a little naked. I hate to say it, but should we not be rearming. You have can’t “speak softly and carry a big stick”, without a big stick.
Nearly everything donated to Ukraine by various countries is either obsolete by Western standards or ammunition that was reaching its sell by date.
Across the NATO countries, this is being used as an excuse to clear out the stuff that is nominally still on the books, but in actuality needs to be replaced. Looking at you, AS90….
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Is he? 49% of working class C2DEs want to restore the death penalty, only 39% don't.
57% of middle class ABC1s don't want to restore the death penalty however
What is a mere unimpressive display of ankle is using Lee Anderson to suggest to a particular group of people who have better things to do than pay much political attention that capital punishment is on the agenda when it isn't and isn't going to be under any possible foreseeable circumstances.
In particular, life has moved on and the legal profession as a whole at every level would simply refuse to implement it. Try asking them.
On the subject of foodbanks he is on sounder ground, and his line on the matter worth some journalistic scrutiny. A vast quantity of nonsense is talked about them.
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Is he? 49% of working class C2DEs want to restore the death penalty, only 39% don't.
57% of middle class ABC1s don't want to restore the death penalty however
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Who cares what they say it does. It is a democratic act by a democratically-elected government. Don't like it? Vote in another one.
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Is he? 49% of working class C2DEs want to restore the death penalty, only 39% don't.
57% of middle class ABC1s don't want to restore the death penalty however
How can there be so many EU laws on the books that it is impossible to review them all? We were told for years that the EU was simply an economic community and that there was very little intrusion into UK life. Remainers also argued that all these EU laws were appropriately scrutinized with democratic oversight.
It sounds like politicians and Remainers were lying about all of this.
The problem is that it’s EU legislation, and there are groups of people that think EU legislation is automatically good, and other groups who think that EU legislation is automatically bad. Very few commentators are looking at the actual legislation, and instead are focussing on divergence from the EU being either good or bad...
Which is precisely the argument against this absurd bill.
But the opposition to it appears to concentrate little on the actual proposals, but more is against the whole concept of divergence from EU regulations, in the context of wanting to rejoin in the future.
What’s absolutely certain, is that leaving the EU but not diverging over time, ends up with the worst of all worlds.
I think you have that exactly the wrong way round.
The opposition to this bill is because it is appallingly bad. Those who brought it forward and those who are defending it are doing so only because of their animus towards the EU. They haven't though its implications for business investment through; they've imposed a completely arbitrary deadline; they're handing over massive fiat powers to ministers with minimal parliamentary oversight.
The argument against the bill isn't against divergence - that is a separate argument, which I'm happy to conduct elsewhere.
On the latter point, I would expect that if/when Britain does send fighter jets to Ukraine, they won't be our Typhoons or F-35s, but they will be F-16s or other jets that we've quietly bought from someone else. Interesting to note that Britain has Gripens for training, for example.
There are no Gripens in the UK (or on the UK mil reg). ETPS/Qinetiq buy Gripen-D hours from Saab for test pilot training but the students go to Linkoping to fly it.
There are 28 x Dutch F-16AM in storage at SABCA in Belgium if Rishi wants to flash his PayPal around.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Its an enabling act for ministers. Parliament won't be consulted beyond that. And as we know most ministers are thick as mince its an enabling act for civil servants. The unelected pencil-pushers that Brexit supposedly would remove...
Come now, please: that's an insult to mince.
It also, I would suggest, demonstrates a higher opinion of the ability of our civil servants than is warranted from the evidence.
Coronation day has been set for 6 May, the day after the third full moon from now.
There's both a Scottish angle and some sexual politics resonance.
Will the king insist that the Stone of Scone be under his special chair in the abbey, as he gazes out at the Cosmati pavement and has his special hat ceremonially placed on his special head?
If he does, will Nicola Sturgeon object to the rock's removal from Edinburgh, or at least make a snide wee comment that might help her popularity?
For Scottish nationalists, the biggest day in the stone's recent history was of course 25 December 1950. But forget that. Might some Scottish women who don't want self-reassigned rapists in their changing rooms remind people of what happened to the stone, and the special chair too, on 11 June 1914?
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Handing fiat powers to ministers without sufficient scrutiny is not a particularly democratic act, even if can be forced through Parliament. It wasn't any kind of manifesto commitment; the government, though it has a substantial majority in Parliament, is massively unpopular.
To say the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic, is to take a very narrow view indeed of democracy.
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
That's precisely the problem. Posh right wingers deciding, apparently based on anecdotal evidence from some BBC talking heads in Burnley, that the working class are uniformly rough bigots who hate foreigners and want a return to family values. (Just as, to be fair, posh lefties long ago decided they're all an oppressed mass seething with revolutionary fervour).
Well it was the working class who delivered Brexit, in large part to reduce immigration.
If only the middle class had been able to vote in 2016 then Remain would have won the EU referendum
The working class (and a large proportion of the middle and upper classes) voted in a binary referendum in 2016. It was a bunch of decidedly posh politicians, a number of whom hailed from the country's top public schools, who "delivered" it. Based on a mixture of a cartoon image of what people had actually voted for, and their own long standing deregulatory fantasies.
The CDM Regulations are the UK’s implementation of EU Directive 92/57/ECC. Are regulations such as this in the firing line?
You would have thought that amendments to suit Britain (which by the way we already have done so whilst in the EU) would be called for rather than an immediate repeal.
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Is he? 49% of working class C2DEs want to restore the death penalty, only 39% don't.
57% of middle class ABC1s don't want to restore the death penalty however
Yet the vast majority of people who'd end up executed, some despite being innocent, would be working class.
And the vast majority of victims of those murderers would be working class too
Especially the ones murdered by the state for no good reason at all.
Edit: sorry, of course there is an excellent reason for the state murdering unlucky and innocent randoms. It looks good on the Tory manifesto.
Bryant posted this on Twitter. It summarises the arguments against capital punishment pretty well.
The death penalty doesn’t work. It makes juries reluctant to convict so guilty parties get off. DNA and CCTV may establish someone’s presence at the scene but not their intent or the full picture. We now know conclusively of cases of false convictions and executions.
Human life is precious. A single execution of an innocent person brings the whole system into disrepute. There is no evidence that it deters criminals. Countries with the death penalty have high murder rates, perhaps because it brutalises society.
The death penalty is also very expensive. New York spent about $170 million over 9 years and had no executions. New Jersey spent $253 million over a 25-year period and also had no executions. The cost of convicting and executing Timothy McVeigh was over $13 million.
Finally the US shows that the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice and mistake. That these mistakes can never be rectified must give us pause to thank goodness we ended the death penalty in the UK in 1969 and (for treason) in 1998.
That it takes a thug like Lee to advocate for it speaks volumes.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Who cares what they say it does. It is a democratic act by a democratically-elected government. Don't like it? Vote in another one.
You might not be able to. There was talk some years back of the govt of the time wanting to abolish 5 yearly elections. I am sure we covered it here on PB.
Would it be democratic for the elected govt to decide to cancel elections? After all, they are an elected govt....
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Handing fiat powers to ministers without sufficient scrutiny is not a particularly democratic act, even if can be forced through Parliament. It wasn't any kind of manifesto commitment; the government, though it has a substantial majority in Parliament, is massively unpopular.
We voted in the government and they decided to do this. Just like not holding a referendum on Maastricht or telling us how many people we can have in our houses for tea. Perfectly democratic.
And who cares if the government is massively unpopular - are you proposing a different prioritisation of policies depending on the most recent opinion poll, including, presumably, a call for a Labour government right this minute.
This is our democratic system, warts and all and you know what that great Boris fan said of democracy, now, don't you.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
By this argument, an elected government abolishing elections would be a democratic act.
Personally I would say that the government can do all sorts of things which might support or erode democracy, and if it looks like they're eroding it that's fair grounds for criticising them.
Coronation day has been set for 6 May, the day after the third full moon from now.
There's both a Scottish angle and some sexual politics resonance.
Will the king insist that the Stone of Scone be under his special chair in the abbey, as he gazes out at the Cosmati pavement and has his special hat ceremonially placed on his special head?
If he does, will Nicola Sturgeon object to the rock's removal from Edinburgh, or at least make a snide wee comment that might help her popularity?
For Scottish nationalists, the biggest day in the stone's recent history was of course 25 December 1950. But forget that. Might some Scottish women who don't want self-reassigned rapists in their changing rooms remind people of what happened to the stone, and the special chair too, on 11 June 1914?
Perhaps it's just me, but I can't hear the phrase "Coronation Day" without thinking of Anna in Frozen singing For The First Time In Forever. Probably is just me.
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Throughout the great bulk of his political career, Lee Anderson was a Socialist Worker-selling lefty. His heroes were Benn and Foot.
He came to the Conservatives because he finally saw that Labour offered no route to delivering on people's aspirations.
He's very personable. He will be a great asset in motivating local associations for the coming election. As evidenced on here, his detractors will greatly underestimate him.
What an excellent header by Cyclefree - possibly the best I've ever seen by her, and one of the best I've seen in over 15 years looking at the site.
Cyclefree's thread headers are always exceptionally good. The problem with them is that all I can do is meekly agree, sigh, and wish I could write stuff like that.
Maybe we could get MalcG to do one, and we could all pile in to him.
Be some bodies around after that scuffle for sure Peter
How can there be so many EU laws on the books that it is impossible to review them all? We were told for years that the EU was simply an economic community and that there was very little intrusion into UK life. Remainers also argued that all these EU laws were appropriately scrutinized with democratic oversight.
It sounds like politicians and Remainers were lying about all of this.
The problem is that it’s EU legislation, and there are groups of people that think EU legislation is automatically good, and other groups who think that EU legislation is automatically bad. Very few commentators are looking at the actual legislation, and instead are focussing on divergence from the EU being either good or bad...
Which is precisely the argument against this absurd bill.
But the opposition to it appears to concentrate little on the actual proposals, but more is against the whole concept of divergence from EU regulations, in the context of wanting to rejoin in the future.
What’s absolutely certain, is that leaving the EU but not diverging over time, ends up with the worst of all worlds.
I think you have that exactly the wrong way round.
The opposition to this bill is because it is appallingly bad. Those who brought it forward and those who are defending it are doing so only because of their animus towards the EU. They haven't though its implications for business investment through; they've imposed a completely arbitrary deadline; they're handing over massive fiat powers to ministers with minimal parliamentary oversight.
The argument against the bill isn't against divergence - that is a separate argument, which I'm happy to conduct elsewhere.
The principle that EU-imposed laws should be examined and justified as still wanted is sound. If parliament has the capacitty to do that examining then it should certainly vote to do so.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
By this argument, an elected government abolishing elections would be a democratic act.
Personally I would say that the government can do all sorts of things which might support or erode democracy, and if it looks like they're eroding it that's fair grounds for criticising them.
Yes they could in theory introduce an act to abolish elections. I'm sure that would be challenged in the courts but as I am not a constitutional lawyer, nor a constitutional expert, I couldn't comment on the procedure.
On the latter point, I would expect that if/when Britain does send fighter jets to Ukraine, they won't be our Typhoons or F-35s, but they will be F-16s or other jets that we've quietly bought from someone else. Interesting to note that Britain has Gripens for training, for example.
There are no Gripens in the UK (or on the UK mil reg). ETPS/Qinetiq buy Gripen-D hours from Saab for test pilot training but the students go to Linkoping to fly it.
There are 28 x Dutch F-16AM in storage at SABCA in Belgium if Rishi wants to flash his PayPal around.
The Gripen is probably the best technical solution, but there aren't very many around. Does anyone in Europe have spare F18s ?
The F16, even though its runway requirements are much more constraining, is probably the only realistic option that can be supplied in large numbers, in time to make much difference. Sending anything else would degrade the air defences of whoever handed over their planes.
Ain't a hope in Hell Nothing's gonna bring us down The way we fly five miles off the ground Because we shoot to kill And you know we always will It's a bomber, it's a bomber
I bet Labour is loving this.
I think they should bring back those abandoned campaign posters from the election that never was in 2007.
Why has the Guardian become transphopic all of a sudden?
Someone’s behaviour, which is what’s being reported here, should have no impact on the identity of the person in question. Should it?
Great news in Scotland for sure , Police now seem to report real sex of the alleged perpetrators and newspapers covering all bases at least, even if linking it to your job etc. Tide is turning and hopefully we will see the final demise of the Wicked Witch and her desperate bunch, her broomstick is charged up and waiting to depart.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Handing fiat powers to ministers without sufficient scrutiny is not a particularly democratic act, even if can be forced through Parliament. It wasn't any kind of manifesto commitment; the government, though it has a substantial majority in Parliament, is massively unpopular.
To say the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic, is to take a very narrow view indeed of democracy.
"Forced through parliament" is a phrase which makes a lazy assumption. It entails action without without choice and consent. We may often disagree with the reason for MPs choices, and we may think they are craven and self interested but they truly are free agents and their votes are the absolutely supreme decision making power our country possesses. That and our power to kick them out is the big difference between us and North Korea.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Who cares what they say it does. It is a democratic act by a democratically-elected government. Don't like it? Vote in another one.
That's a pretty pathetic argument for a piece of legislation. And again, it's a legal act; it's not a particularly democratic act at all.
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Throughout the great bulk of his political career, Lee Anderson was a Socialist Worker-selling lefty. His heroes were Benn and Foot.
He came to the Conservatives because he finally saw that Labour offered no route to delivering on people's aspirations.
He's very personable. He will be a great asset in motivating local associations for the coming election. As evidenced on here, his detractors will greatly underestimate him.
If Lee Anderson was ever in the SWP he is about as untypical a representative of any working class demographic as it is possible to be.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Who cares what they say it does. It is a democratic act by a democratically-elected government. Don't like it? Vote in another one.
You might not be able to. There was talk some years back of the govt of the time wanting to abolish 5 yearly elections. I am sure we covered it here on PB.
Would it be democratic for the elected govt to decide to cancel elections? After all, they are an elected govt....
Sigh - they wanted to abolish the fixed election cycle, and return to the one where the government can hold an election earlier than the end of the term.
Which has been done.
I disagree on this one, but it’s not the end of democracy.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Who cares what they say it does. It is a democratic act by a democratically-elected government. Don't like it? Vote in another one.
You might not be able to. There was talk some years back of the govt of the time wanting to abolish 5 yearly elections. I am sure we covered it here on PB.
Would it be democratic for the elected govt to decide to cancel elections? After all, they are an elected govt....
Government introduces Act to abolish elections Challenge in Courts Government passes laws to override courts Government passes law to abolish elections Civil uprising
By this argument, an elected government abolishing elections would be a democratic act.
Personally I would say that the government can do all sorts of things which might support or erode democracy, and if it looks like they're eroding it that's fair grounds for criticising them.
Yes they could in theory introduce an act to abolish elections. I'm sure that would be challenged in the courts but as I am not a constitutional lawyer, nor a constitutional expert, I couldn't comment on the procedure.
But are you really going to claim that a government making the attempt to do so would be a "democratic act"? If so, I think your use of the phrase has diverged so much from mainstream usage as to impede useful discussion...
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Who cares what they say it does. It is a democratic act by a democratically-elected government. Don't like it? Vote in another one.
That's a pretty pathetic argument for a piece of legislation. And again, it's a legal act; it's not a particularly democratic act at all.
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Is he? 49% of working class C2DEs want to restore the death penalty, only 39% don't.
57% of middle class ABC1s don't want to restore the death penalty however
Yet the vast majority of people who'd end up executed, some despite being innocent, would be working class.
And the vast majority of victims of those murderers would be working class too
Especially the ones murdered by the state for no good reason at all.
Edit: sorry, of course there is an excellent reason for the state murdering unlucky and innocent randoms. It looks good on the Tory manifesto.
Bryant posted this on Twitter. It summarises the arguments against capital punishment pretty well.
The death penalty doesn’t work. It makes juries reluctant to convict so guilty parties get off. DNA and CCTV may establish someone’s presence at the scene but not their intent or the full picture. We now know conclusively of cases of false convictions and executions.
Human life is precious. A single execution of an innocent person brings the whole system into disrepute. There is no evidence that it deters criminals. Countries with the death penalty have high murder rates, perhaps because it brutalises society.
The death penalty is also very expensive. New York spent about $170 million over 9 years and had no executions. New Jersey spent $253 million over a 25-year period and also had no executions. The cost of convicting and executing Timothy McVeigh was over $13 million.
Finally the US shows that the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice and mistake. That these mistakes can never be rectified must give us pause to thank goodness we ended the death penalty in the UK in 1969 and (for treason) in 1998.
That it takes a thug like Lee to advocate for it speaks volumes.
Mm, interesting summary. I notice it doesn't mention the other problem - what it does to the people who have to implement it, at all levels. At least one judge used to enjoy it, [edit] or so one reads, but other folk were far more distressed and disturbed. Andz one wonders about the people who volunteered to be executors - were they the best candidates?
On the latter point, I would expect that if/when Britain does send fighter jets to Ukraine, they won't be our Typhoons or F-35s, but they will be F-16s or other jets that we've quietly bought from someone else. Interesting to note that Britain has Gripens for training, for example.
There are no Gripens in the UK (or on the UK mil reg). ETPS/Qinetiq buy Gripen-D hours from Saab for test pilot training but the students go to Linkoping to fly it.
There are 28 x Dutch F-16AM in storage at SABCA in Belgium if Rishi wants to flash his PayPal around.
The Gripen is probably the best technical solution, but there aren't very many around. Does anyone in Europe have spare F18s ?
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Who cares what they say it does. It is a democratic act by a democratically-elected government. Don't like it? Vote in another one.
That's a pretty pathetic argument for a piece of legislation. And again, it's a legal act; it's not a particularly democratic act at all.
Don't you remember what it said on the ballot paper? "Place your X by the candidate you solemnly authorise to vote in the House of Commons for a) what his party wrote in its manifesto, and b) anything else he feels like"?
“Nobody has ever committed a crime after being executed”
Isn’t this how Judge Death started? Though the Dark Judges were decent people compared to #30pLee Anderson. Mind you, Mega City 1 in #2000AD is a decent place to live compared to Tory Britain. https://twitter.com/Judgement_Dave/status/1623576051304611845
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Throughout the great bulk of his political career, Lee Anderson was a Socialist Worker-selling lefty. His heroes were Benn and Foot.
He came to the Conservatives because he finally saw that Labour offered no route to delivering on people's aspirations.
He's very personable. He will be a great asset in motivating local associations for the coming election. As evidenced on here, his detractors will greatly underestimate him.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Who cares what they say it does. It is a democratic act by a democratically-elected government. Don't like it? Vote in another one.
You might not be able to. There was talk some years back of the govt of the time wanting to abolish 5 yearly elections. I am sure we covered it here on PB.
Would it be democratic for the elected govt to decide to cancel elections? After all, they are an elected govt....
Government introduces Act to abolish elections Challenge in Courts Government passes laws to override courts Government passes law to abolish elections Civil uprising
Or something.
No idea.
The laws of logic dictate that there can be no final answer to "who guards the guards" - which is what this boils down to; since whatever the first answer is, it needs another set of superguards over them and so on ad infinitum.
Practicality suggests that the answer is 'the army and the crown'. Those who swear loyalty oaths in this country do so to the crown, not government or parliament.
On the latter point, I would expect that if/when Britain does send fighter jets to Ukraine, they won't be our Typhoons or F-35s, but they will be F-16s or other jets that we've quietly bought from someone else. Interesting to note that Britain has Gripens for training, for example.
There are no Gripens in the UK (or on the UK mil reg). ETPS/Qinetiq buy Gripen-D hours from Saab for test pilot training but the students go to Linkoping to fly it.
There are 28 x Dutch F-16AM in storage at SABCA in Belgium if Rishi wants to flash his PayPal around.
The Gripen is probably the best technical solution, but there aren't very many around. Does anyone in Europe have spare F18s ?
Spain and Finland will 3-4 years hence.
Ukraine can probably build runways faster than that.
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Is he? 49% of working class C2DEs want to restore the death penalty, only 39% don't.
57% of middle class ABC1s don't want to restore the death penalty however
Yet the vast majority of people who'd end up executed, some despite being innocent, would be working class.
And the vast majority of victims of those murderers would be working class too
Especially the ones murdered by the state for no good reason at all.
Edit: sorry, of course there is an excellent reason for the state murdering unlucky and innocent randoms. It looks good on the Tory manifesto.
Bryant posted this on Twitter. It summarises the arguments against capital punishment pretty well.
The death penalty doesn’t work. It makes juries reluctant to convict so guilty parties get off. DNA and CCTV may establish someone’s presence at the scene but not their intent or the full picture. We now know conclusively of cases of false convictions and executions.
Human life is precious. A single execution of an innocent person brings the whole system into disrepute. There is no evidence that it deters criminals. Countries with the death penalty have high murder rates, perhaps because it brutalises society.
The death penalty is also very expensive. New York spent about $170 million over 9 years and had no executions. New Jersey spent $253 million over a 25-year period and also had no executions. The cost of convicting and executing Timothy McVeigh was over $13 million.
Finally the US shows that the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice and mistake. That these mistakes can never be rectified must give us pause to thank goodness we ended the death penalty in the UK in 1969 and (for treason) in 1998.
That it takes a thug like Lee to advocate for it speaks volumes.
Mm, interesting summary. I notice it doesn't mention the other problem - what it does to the people who have to implement it, at all levels. At least one judge used to enjoy it, [edit] or so one reads, but other folk were far more distressed and disturbed. Andz one wonders about the people who volunteered to be executors - were they the best candidates?
"... perhaps because it brutalises society.''" does touch on that.
By this argument, an elected government abolishing elections would be a democratic act.
Personally I would say that the government can do all sorts of things which might support or erode democracy, and if it looks like they're eroding it that's fair grounds for criticising them.
Yes they could in theory introduce an act to abolish elections. I'm sure that would be challenged in the courts but as I am not a constitutional lawyer, nor a constitutional expert, I couldn't comment on the procedure.
But are you really going to claim that a government making the attempt to do so would be a "democratic act"? If so, I think your use of the phrase has diverged so much from mainstream usage as to impede useful discussion...
As I said I have no idea on the procedure for, say, abolishing elections. Do you? Would be great to hear. What about the Labour Party wanting to abolish the House of Lords? Out on the streets for that one?
And what we are talking about here is the government binning some laws it doesn't like. The majority of which I have no doubt neither you nor I have ever heard and don't affect our lives.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Who cares what they say it does. It is a democratic act by a democratically-elected government. Don't like it? Vote in another one.
You might not be able to. There was talk some years back of the govt of the time wanting to abolish 5 yearly elections. I am sure we covered it here on PB.
Would it be democratic for the elected govt to decide to cancel elections? After all, they are an elected govt....
Government introduces Act to abolish elections Challenge in Courts Government passes laws to override courts Government passes law to abolish elections Civil uprising
Or something.
No idea.
The King would refuse to sign an Act that abolished elections and the army take an oath of loyalty to the King as their head not the government and Parliament
On the latter point, I would expect that if/when Britain does send fighter jets to Ukraine, they won't be our Typhoons or F-35s, but they will be F-16s or other jets that we've quietly bought from someone else. Interesting to note that Britain has Gripens for training, for example.
There are no Gripens in the UK (or on the UK mil reg). ETPS/Qinetiq buy Gripen-D hours from Saab for test pilot training but the students go to Linkoping to fly it.
There are 28 x Dutch F-16AM in storage at SABCA in Belgium if Rishi wants to flash his PayPal around.
Gripen is of interest because of the heavy BAe involvement and the fact that Ukraine was (back in 2014) looking at setting up to *build* Gripen under license, in Ukraine.
Gripped sales require U.K. authorisation, because of content. Given they have been sold to the South Africans, the security concerns must be less.
Gripen was also supposed to be a fighter that required less support and logistics - suitable for countries with less defence industry depth.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if it is Gripen, transferred from an existing user, with U.K. approval.
The English clubs were trying to have it all. They wanted to be in the Premier League but guarantee their place in a European competition.
For the others, it was essential to their prospects in the future, so not a surprise that they are still trying to do it. I think one possible outcome is that there is a European Super League without the English clubs. Whether those clubs will be able to compete in their domestic leagues and/or UEFA competitions is another matter.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Who cares what they say it does. It is a democratic act by a democratically-elected government. Don't like it? Vote in another one.
You might not be able to. There was talk some years back of the govt of the time wanting to abolish 5 yearly elections. I am sure we covered it here on PB.
Would it be democratic for the elected govt to decide to cancel elections? After all, they are an elected govt....
Government introduces Act to abolish elections Challenge in Courts Government passes laws to override courts Government passes law to abolish elections Civil uprising
Or something.
No idea.
The King would refuse to sign an Act that abolished elections and the army take an oath of loyalty to the King as their head not the government and Parliament
I mean I think it could come down to something like that.
Which would be great were it not for the fact that UNISON is probably at greater strength than HMF atm.
Ain't a hope in Hell Nothing's gonna bring us down The way we fly five miles off the ground Because we shoot to kill And you know we always will It's a bomber, it's a bomber
Slight vibe of Francois Hollande being shuttled to and from his mistress on a glorified scooter. Whatever’s involved you can be sure Rishi’s a confirmed passenger.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Handing fiat powers to ministers without sufficient scrutiny is not a particularly democratic act, even if can be forced through Parliament. It wasn't any kind of manifesto commitment; the government, though it has a substantial majority in Parliament, is massively unpopular.
We voted in the government and they decided to do this. Just like not holding a referendum on Maastricht or telling us how many people we can have in our houses for tea. Perfectly democratic.
And who cares if the government is massively unpopular - are you proposing a different prioritisation of policies depending on the most recent opinion poll, including, presumably, a call for a Labour government right this minute.
This is our democratic system, warts and all and you know what that great Boris fan said of democracy, now, don't you.
Unsure if this is a defence of our system or a summary of the defence used by the Reichstag when it passed an enabling act and abolished its own powers.
Ministers will no longer need to consult parliament. This is the end of our democratic system.
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Is he? 49% of working class C2DEs want to restore the death penalty, only 39% don't.
57% of middle class ABC1s don't want to restore the death penalty however
What is a mere unimpressive display of ankle is using Lee Anderson to suggest to a particular group of people who have better things to do than pay much political attention that capital punishment is on the agenda when it isn't and isn't going to be under any possible foreseeable circumstances.
In particular, life has moved on and the legal profession as a whole at every level would simply refuse to implement it. Try asking them.
On the subject of foodbanks he is on sounder ground, and his line on the matter worth some journalistic scrutiny. A vast quantity of nonsense is talked about them.
If a government was elected to reintroduce capital punishment and judges refused, they would simply be replaced by judges who complied with the will of Parliament
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Throughout the great bulk of his political career, Lee Anderson was a Socialist Worker-selling lefty. His heroes were Benn and Foot.
He came to the Conservatives because he finally saw that Labour offered no route to delivering on people's aspirations.
He's very personable. He will be a great asset in motivating local associations for the coming election. As evidenced on here, his detractors will greatly underestimate him.
This is precisely what’s wrong with the country now, all these politicians running around with views that some people don’t agree with. Would be much easier if all MPs were rich public school toffs with a hive mind as everyone in the country shares their views or wealthy Islington soft lefties as everyone in the country shares their views.
We don’t want hoi poloi with their minority views having anyone in Parliament who shares their dirty uneducated opinions.
Ain't a hope in Hell Nothing's gonna bring us down The way we fly five miles off the ground Because we shoot to kill And you know we always will It's a bomber, it's a bomber
Slight vibe of Francois Hollande being shuttled to and from his mistress on a glorified scooter. Whatever’s involved you can be sure Rishi’s a confirmed passenger.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Who cares what they say it does. It is a democratic act by a democratically-elected government. Don't like it? Vote in another one.
You might not be able to. There was talk some years back of the govt of the time wanting to abolish 5 yearly elections. I am sure we covered it here on PB.
Would it be democratic for the elected govt to decide to cancel elections? After all, they are an elected govt....
Government introduces Act to abolish elections Challenge in Courts Government passes laws to override courts Government passes law to abolish elections Civil uprising
Or something.
No idea.
No no no. Remember that these are the People's Priorities. The civil uprising would be when the Enemies of the People tried to block the democratic will of the people - all 17.4m of us - in abolishing parliament's role in scrutinising legislation.
People like Lee Anderson definitely voted Brexit to ensure that laws were made in the dark by unelected bureaucrats.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Handing fiat powers to ministers without sufficient scrutiny is not a particularly democratic act, even if can be forced through Parliament. It wasn't any kind of manifesto commitment; the government, though it has a substantial majority in Parliament, is massively unpopular.
We voted in the government and they decided to do this. Just like not holding a referendum on Maastricht or telling us how many people we can have in our houses for tea. Perfectly democratic.
And who cares if the government is massively unpopular - are you proposing a different prioritisation of policies depending on the most recent opinion poll, including, presumably, a call for a Labour government right this minute.
This is our democratic system, warts and all and you know what that great Boris fan said of democracy, now, don't you.
Unsure if this is a defence of our system or a summary of the defence used by the Reichstag when it passed an enabling act and abolished its own powers.
Ministers will no longer need to consult parliament. This is the end of our democratic system.
Good point. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the procedure in the UK now if the govt tried to abolish elections and place itself in power for perpetuity.
I'm sure Mick Lynch would be on board. If it was a Labour government doing the abolishing.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the government has decided to abolish some laws that no one cares about and we have already got to Godwin. And it will presumably go through parliament. Why hasn't the HoL already sent back something about a recent bill?
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Who cares what they say it does. It is a democratic act by a democratically-elected government. Don't like it? Vote in another one.
You might not be able to. There was talk some years back of the govt of the time wanting to abolish 5 yearly elections. I am sure we covered it here on PB.
Would it be democratic for the elected govt to decide to cancel elections? After all, they are an elected govt....
Government introduces Act to abolish elections Challenge in Courts Government passes laws to override courts Government passes law to abolish elections Civil uprising
Or something.
No idea.
The laws of logic dictate that there can be no final answer to "who guards the guards" - which is what this boils down to; since whatever the first answer is, it needs another set of superguards over them and so on ad infinitum.
Practicality suggests that the answer is 'the army and the crown'. Those who swear loyalty oaths in this country do so to the crown, not government or parliament.
They swear loyalty to the monarch (named), and to the said monarch's heirs and successors. Not to the crown.
So if we expect the small minority of monarchist oath-swearers to honour their oaths, it's up to the rest of us (and we're the large majority) to sort things out.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Handing fiat powers to ministers without sufficient scrutiny is not a particularly democratic act, even if can be forced through Parliament. It wasn't any kind of manifesto commitment; the government, though it has a substantial majority in Parliament, is massively unpopular.
We voted in the government and they decided to do this. Just like not holding a referendum on Maastricht or telling us how many people we can have in our houses for tea. Perfectly democratic.
And who cares if the government is massively unpopular - are you proposing a different prioritisation of policies depending on the most recent opinion poll, including, presumably, a call for a Labour government right this minute.
This is our democratic system, warts and all and you know what that great Boris fan said of democracy, now, don't you.
Unsure if this is a defence of our system or a summary of the defence used by the Reichstag when it passed an enabling act and abolished its own powers.
Ministers will no longer need to consult parliament. This is the end of our democratic system.
Siri, show me an analogy guaranteed to make people take the other side in the discussion.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Who cares what they say it does. It is a democratic act by a democratically-elected government. Don't like it? Vote in another one.
You might not be able to. There was talk some years back of the govt of the time wanting to abolish 5 yearly elections. I am sure we covered it here on PB.
Would it be democratic for the elected govt to decide to cancel elections? After all, they are an elected govt....
Government introduces Act to abolish elections Challenge in Courts Government passes laws to override courts Government passes law to abolish elections Civil uprising
Or something.
No idea.
No no no. Remember that these are the People's Priorities. The civil uprising would be when the Enemies of the People tried to block the democratic will of the people - all 17.4m of us - in abolishing parliament's role in scrutinising legislation.
People like Lee Anderson definitely voted Brexit to ensure that laws were made in the dark by unelected bureaucrats.
I'm sure he did but the democratically-elected government gets to choose the bureaucrats. That's how democracy works.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Who cares what they say it does. It is a democratic act by a democratically-elected government. Don't like it? Vote in another one.
You might not be able to. There was talk some years back of the govt of the time wanting to abolish 5 yearly elections. I am sure we covered it here on PB.
Would it be democratic for the elected govt to decide to cancel elections? After all, they are an elected govt....
Government introduces Act to abolish elections Challenge in Courts Government passes laws to override courts Government passes law to abolish elections Civil uprising
Or something.
No idea.
The laws of logic dictate that there can be no final answer to "who guards the guards" - which is what this boils down to; since whatever the first answer is, it needs another set of superguards over them and so on ad infinitum.
Practicality suggests that the answer is 'the army and the crown'. Those who swear loyalty oaths in this country do so to the crown, not government or parliament.
They swear loyalty to the monarch (named), and to the said monarch's heirs and successors. Not to the crown.
So if we expect the small minority of monarchist oath-swearers to honour their oaths, it's up to the rest of us to sort things out.
Bunch of thick diddy's , I would not piss on royalty if they were on fire. A bunch of nasty parasites.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Who cares what they say it does. It is a democratic act by a democratically-elected government. Don't like it? Vote in another one.
You might not be able to. There was talk some years back of the govt of the time wanting to abolish 5 yearly elections. I am sure we covered it here on PB.
Would it be democratic for the elected govt to decide to cancel elections? After all, they are an elected govt....
Government introduces Act to abolish elections Challenge in Courts Government passes laws to override courts Government passes law to abolish elections Civil uprising
Or something.
No idea.
The laws of logic dictate that there can be no final answer to "who guards the guards" - which is what this boils down to; since whatever the first answer is, it needs another set of superguards over them and so on ad infinitum.
Practicality suggests that the answer is 'the army and the crown'. Those who swear loyalty oaths in this country do so to the crown, not government or parliament.
They swear loyalty to the monarch (named), and to the said monarch's heirs and successors. Not to the crown.
So if we expect the small minority of monarchist oath-swearers to honour their oaths, it's up to the rest of us to sort things out.
This of course is true. A reminder that another wonderfully balanced piece of our constitutional soup is that acts of parliament determine who that successor shall be. (Amended only recently to abolish male primogeniture).
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Handing fiat powers to ministers without sufficient scrutiny is not a particularly democratic act, even if can be forced through Parliament. It wasn't any kind of manifesto commitment; the government, though it has a substantial majority in Parliament, is massively unpopular.
We voted in the government and they decided to do this. Just like not holding a referendum on Maastricht or telling us how many people we can have in our houses for tea. Perfectly democratic.
And who cares if the government is massively unpopular - are you proposing a different prioritisation of policies depending on the most recent opinion poll, including, presumably, a call for a Labour government right this minute.
This is our democratic system, warts and all and you know what that great Boris fan said of democracy, now, don't you.
Unsure if this is a defence of our system or a summary of the defence used by the Reichstag when it passed an enabling act and abolished its own powers.
Ministers will no longer need to consult parliament. This is the end of our democratic system.
Good point. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the procedure in the UK now if the govt tried to abolish elections and place itself in power for perpetuity.
I'm sure Mick Lynch would be on board. If it was a Labour government doing the abolishing.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the government has decided to abolish some laws that no one cares about and we have already got to Godwin. And it will presumably go through parliament. Why hasn't the HoL already sent back something about a recent bill?
These laws that nobody cares about include things like the right not to be rostered to work unreasonable hours. Dangerously unreasonable if you do something that risks yourself and others.
We know that the spivs envisaged Brexit as their great opportunity to get the plebs to work longer in less costly conditions for less pay. More profit for them in a deregulated world.
So it is a very direct concern of all of us that the government wants no scrutiny as it rips up all this "red tape". You may be ok with lax regulation on what gets loaded onto a truck and how many hours the driver can do, but when that starts to kill more people hope it isn't you and yours.
Completely off-topic: a friend wants to donate to a trans charity but not to Mermaids, does anyone know anything about Gendered Intelligence? They seem quite sensible from their website.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
No it’s just the executive wanting to decide . Even some Leave politicians are moaning about that and say it goes against the point of Brexit .
Who cares what they say it does. It is a democratic act by a democratically-elected government. Don't like it? Vote in another one.
You might not be able to. There was talk some years back of the govt of the time wanting to abolish 5 yearly elections. I am sure we covered it here on PB.
Would it be democratic for the elected govt to decide to cancel elections? After all, they are an elected govt....
Government introduces Act to abolish elections Challenge in Courts Government passes laws to override courts Government passes law to abolish elections Civil uprising
Or something.
No idea.
The laws of logic dictate that there can be no final answer to "who guards the guards" - which is what this boils down to; since whatever the first answer is, it needs another set of superguards over them and so on ad infinitum.
Practicality suggests that the answer is 'the army and the crown'. Those who swear loyalty oaths in this country do so to the crown, not government or parliament.
They swear loyalty to the monarch (named), and to the said monarch's heirs and successors. Not to the crown.
So if we expect the small minority of monarchist oath-swearers to honour their oaths, it's up to the rest of us to sort things out.
Besides, if the rest of us are living in a dictatorship whilst the named monarch is kept is total comfort, what are the oath-swearers going to do?
Plenty of UK monarchs (most in fact) have lived in luxury whilst the majority of their subjects lived in squalor and near slave-like conditions.
A great, and deservedly scathing, thread header Cyclefree.
"The Executive is giving itself “do anything we want” powers."
They should call it an Enabling Act maybe?
Again we need to be reminded that many of the current critics were less critical of all this then it was not our parliament legislating for it but the structures of the EU.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Handing fiat powers to ministers without sufficient scrutiny is not a particularly democratic act, even if can be forced through Parliament. It wasn't any kind of manifesto commitment; the government, though it has a substantial majority in Parliament, is massively unpopular.
We voted in the government and they decided to do this. Just like not holding a referendum on Maastricht or telling us how many people we can have in our houses for tea. Perfectly democratic.
And who cares if the government is massively unpopular - are you proposing a different prioritisation of policies depending on the most recent opinion poll, including, presumably, a call for a Labour government right this minute.
This is our democratic system, warts and all and you know what that great Boris fan said of democracy, now, don't you.
Unsure if this is a defence of our system or a summary of the defence used by the Reichstag when it passed an enabling act and abolished its own powers.
Ministers will no longer need to consult parliament. This is the end of our democratic system.
Siri, show me an analogy guaranteed to make people take the other side in the discussion.
It's probably a fair analogy in this case though, as Topping's argument can be summarised as:
- Literally *anything* that gets through parliament is by definition 'perfectly democratic'.
Clearly untrue, there is more to good democratic standards than simply getting a law passed through parliament.
Interesting video of Zelensky in Paris - the body language appears a lot more stiff than London:
Zelensky to attend EU summit to press for weapons, fighter jets.
The Ukrainian president started a surprise tour of Europe on Wednesday with visits to Britain and France, marking just his second venture abroad since the Russian invasion almost a year ago VIDEO
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Is he? 49% of working class C2DEs want to restore the death penalty, only 39% don't.
57% of middle class ABC1s don't want to restore the death penalty however
What is a mere unimpressive display of ankle is using Lee Anderson to suggest to a particular group of people who have better things to do than pay much political attention that capital punishment is on the agenda when it isn't and isn't going to be under any possible foreseeable circumstances.
In particular, life has moved on and the legal profession as a whole at every level would simply refuse to implement it. Try asking them.
On the subject of foodbanks he is on sounder ground, and his line on the matter worth some journalistic scrutiny. A vast quantity of nonsense is talked about them.
If a government was elected to reintroduce capital punishment and judges refused, they would simply be replaced by judges who complied with the will of Parliament
I think this eventuality, which won't happen, would be a little more complicated than that.
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Is he? 49% of working class C2DEs want to restore the death penalty, only 39% don't.
57% of middle class ABC1s don't want to restore the death penalty however
What is a mere unimpressive display of ankle is using Lee Anderson to suggest to a particular group of people who have better things to do than pay much political attention that capital punishment is on the agenda when it isn't and isn't going to be under any possible foreseeable circumstances.
In particular, life has moved on and the legal profession as a whole at every level would simply refuse to implement it. Try asking them.
On the subject of foodbanks he is on sounder ground, and his line on the matter worth some journalistic scrutiny. A vast quantity of nonsense is talked about them.
If a government was elected to reintroduce capital punishment and judges refused, they would simply be replaced by judges who complied with the will of Parliament
I think this eventuality, which won't happen, would be a little more complicated than that.
No it wouldn't, Crown in Parliament is sovereign in the UK not judges and we have no written constitution for judges to interpret
Completely off-topic: a friend wants to donate to a trans charity but not to Mermaids, does anyone know anything about Gendered Intelligence? They seem quite sensible from their website.
Look them up on Twitter and see who they follow/who follows them. That will give you a guide to the company they keep.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Handing fiat powers to ministers without sufficient scrutiny is not a particularly democratic act, even if can be forced through Parliament. It wasn't any kind of manifesto commitment; the government, though it has a substantial majority in Parliament, is massively unpopular.
We voted in the government and they decided to do this. Just like not holding a referendum on Maastricht or telling us how many people we can have in our houses for tea. Perfectly democratic.
And who cares if the government is massively unpopular - are you proposing a different prioritisation of policies depending on the most recent opinion poll, including, presumably, a call for a Labour government right this minute.
This is our democratic system, warts and all and you know what that great Boris fan said of democracy, now, don't you.
Unsure if this is a defence of our system or a summary of the defence used by the Reichstag when it passed an enabling act and abolished its own powers.
Ministers will no longer need to consult parliament. This is the end of our democratic system.
Good point. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the procedure in the UK now if the govt tried to abolish elections and place itself in power for perpetuity.
I'm sure Mick Lynch would be on board. If it was a Labour government doing the abolishing.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the government has decided to abolish some laws that no one cares about and we have already got to Godwin. And it will presumably go through parliament. Why hasn't the HoL already sent back something about a recent bill?
These laws that nobody cares about include things like the right not to be rostered to work unreasonable hours. Dangerously unreasonable if you do something that risks yourself and others.
We know that the spivs envisaged Brexit as their great opportunity to get the plebs to work longer in less costly conditions for less pay. More profit for them in a deregulated world.
So it is a very direct concern of all of us that the government wants no scrutiny as it rips up all this "red tape". You may be ok with lax regulation on what gets loaded onto a truck and how many hours the driver can do, but when that starts to kill more people hope it isn't you and yours.
Fine. I look forward to the Labour party's line on what gets loaded onto a truck. We can then decide if it's better than what this will leave us with (almost certainly I have no doubt) and vote on that.
No one is disputing that it is fucking stupid, indeed that formed the basis of my first post on the subject. @Cyclefree is wrong when she called it undemocratic, however.
And then we got onto the hyperbole, Godwin, and the end of times.
Lee Anderson is what right wingers who have never engaged with working class people think all working class people are like. Ian Lavery is the Labour equivalent.
Throughout the great bulk of his political career, Lee Anderson was a Socialist Worker-selling lefty. His heroes were Benn and Foot.
He came to the Conservatives because he finally saw that Labour offered no route to delivering on people's aspirations.
He's very personable. He will be a great asset in motivating local associations for the coming election. As evidenced on here, his detractors will greatly underestimate him.
If Lee Anderson was ever in the SWP he is about as untypical a representative of any working class demographic as it is possible to be.
You do know he went down the mines for ten years? Like his father before him?
A great, and deservedly scathing, thread header Cyclefree.
"The Executive is giving itself “do anything we want” powers."
They should call it an Enabling Act maybe?
Again we need to be reminded that many of the current critics were less critical of all this then it was not our parliament legislating for it but the structures of the EU.
There's no comaprison. At all.
The c. 4,000 laws this shambles of a Government is aiming to give itself the powers of arbitarily keeping or ditching, were put in place over a period of nearly 50 years, with 11 General Elections, four changes of Government and ample time for scrutiny by our elected MPs.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Handing fiat powers to ministers without sufficient scrutiny is not a particularly democratic act, even if can be forced through Parliament. It wasn't any kind of manifesto commitment; the government, though it has a substantial majority in Parliament, is massively unpopular.
We voted in the government and they decided to do this. Just like not holding a referendum on Maastricht or telling us how many people we can have in our houses for tea. Perfectly democratic.
And who cares if the government is massively unpopular - are you proposing a different prioritisation of policies depending on the most recent opinion poll, including, presumably, a call for a Labour government right this minute.
This is our democratic system, warts and all and you know what that great Boris fan said of democracy, now, don't you.
Unsure if this is a defence of our system or a summary of the defence used by the Reichstag when it passed an enabling act and abolished its own powers.
Ministers will no longer need to consult parliament. This is the end of our democratic system.
Siri, show me an analogy guaranteed to make people take the other side in the discussion.
It's probably a fair analogy in this case though, as Topping's argument can be summarised as:
- Literally *anything* that gets through parliament is by definition 'perfectly democratic'.
Clearly untrue, there is more to good democratic standards than simply getting a law passed through parliament.
"Good democratic standards"
Well the devil is in the detail isn't it.
Abolishing parliament and setting up a dictatorship = probably not "good democratic standards". Playing fast and loose with lorry load and maximum axle weight legislation = less clear cut.
If Lee Anderson were just a harmless pillock, like several of the more extreme backbenchers on all sides, I wouldn't bother commenting. But he's not. He's the closest thing the PCP have got to Tommy Robinson. He spreads hate and prejudice; his comments on travellers over the years have been a particular disgrace, but he likes to attack all unpopular (in the eyes of the tabloids) minorities. Yes, he was in the Labour Party, but he wouldn't be now. Benn and Foot, mentioned earlier, would disown him instantly.
He's the UK equivalent of somebody like MTG. For Sunak to appoint him is a crass error. And I'd think the same if I were a Tory.
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Handing fiat powers to ministers without sufficient scrutiny is not a particularly democratic act, even if can be forced through Parliament. It wasn't any kind of manifesto commitment; the government, though it has a substantial majority in Parliament, is massively unpopular.
We voted in the government and they decided to do this. Just like not holding a referendum on Maastricht or telling us how many people we can have in our houses for tea. Perfectly democratic.
And who cares if the government is massively unpopular - are you proposing a different prioritisation of policies depending on the most recent opinion poll, including, presumably, a call for a Labour government right this minute.
This is our democratic system, warts and all and you know what that great Boris fan said of democracy, now, don't you.
Unsure if this is a defence of our system or a summary of the defence used by the Reichstag when it passed an enabling act and abolished its own powers.
Ministers will no longer need to consult parliament. This is the end of our democratic system.
Good point. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to the procedure in the UK now if the govt tried to abolish elections and place itself in power for perpetuity.
I'm sure Mick Lynch would be on board. If it was a Labour government doing the abolishing.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the government has decided to abolish some laws that no one cares about and we have already got to Godwin. And it will presumably go through parliament. Why hasn't the HoL already sent back something about a recent bill?
These laws that nobody cares about include things like the right not to be rostered to work unreasonable hours. Dangerously unreasonable if you do something that risks yourself and others.
We know that the spivs envisaged Brexit as their great opportunity to get the plebs to work longer in less costly conditions for less pay. More profit for them in a deregulated world.
So it is a very direct concern of all of us that the government wants no scrutiny as it rips up all this "red tape". You may be ok with lax regulation on what gets loaded onto a truck and how many hours the driver can do, but when that starts to kill more people hope it isn't you and yours.
Fine. I look forward to the Labour party's line on what gets loaded onto a truck. We can then decide if it's better than what this will leave us with (almost certainly I have no doubt) and vote on that.
No one is disputing that it is fucking stupid, indeed that formed the basis of my first post on the subject. @Cyclefree is wrong when she called it undemocratic, however.
And then we got onto the hyperbole, Godwin, and the end of times.
All I am asking is this:
Is it democratic to vote to elect people who then chose to abolish democracy?
Yes, I have a democratic vote. That elects an MP who sits in a parliament. But that parliament then votes to remove its own role in passing laws. Edicts are issued which directly impact me - potentially lethally. I have no say, my MP has no say, they literally are issued as orders which we have to obey.
Its democratic in that we indirectly enable this to happen, but not democratic in what happens after we do so.
A great, and deservedly scathing, thread header Cyclefree.
"The Executive is giving itself “do anything we want” powers."
They should call it an Enabling Act maybe?
Again we need to be reminded that many of the current critics were less critical of all this then it was not our parliament legislating for it but the structures of the EU.
There's no comaprison. At all.
The c. 4,000 laws this shambles of a Government is aiming to give itself the powers of arbitarily keeping or ditching, were put in place over a period of nearly 50 years, with 11 General Elections, four changes of Government and ample time for scrutiny by our elected MPs.
How long has the House of Lords been established. The Labour Party are very keen to abolish that.
Interesting video of Zelensky in Paris - the body language appears a lot more stiff than London:
Zelensky to attend EU summit to press for weapons, fighter jets.
The Ukrainian president started a surprise tour of Europe on Wednesday with visits to Britain and France, marking just his second venture abroad since the Russian invasion almost a year ago VIDEO
Much as I yield to no one, not even @Richard_Tyndall in believing that Brexit was a huge and costly waste of time, nevertheless, the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic and binning all these or indeed any laws is a democratic act.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
Handing fiat powers to ministers without sufficient scrutiny is not a particularly democratic act, even if can be forced through Parliament. It wasn't any kind of manifesto commitment; the government, though it has a substantial majority in Parliament, is massively unpopular.
We voted in the government and they decided to do this. Just like not holding a referendum on Maastricht or telling us how many people we can have in our houses for tea. Perfectly democratic.
And who cares if the government is massively unpopular - are you proposing a different prioritisation of policies depending on the most recent opinion poll, including, presumably, a call for a Labour government right this minute.
This is our democratic system, warts and all and you know what that great Boris fan said of democracy, now, don't you.
Unsure if this is a defence of our system or a summary of the defence used by the Reichstag when it passed an enabling act and abolished its own powers.
Ministers will no longer need to consult parliament. This is the end of our democratic system.
Siri, show me an analogy guaranteed to make people take the other side in the discussion.
It's probably a fair analogy in this case though, as Topping's argument can be summarised as:
- Literally *anything* that gets through parliament is by definition 'perfectly democratic'.
Clearly untrue, there is more to good democratic standards than simply getting a law passed through parliament.
Yes they could in theory introduce an act to abolish elections. I'm sure that would be challenged in the courts but as I am not a constitutional lawyer, nor a constitutional expert, I couldn't comment on the procedure.
But are you really going to claim that a government making the attempt to do so would be a "democratic act"? If so, I think your use of the phrase has diverged so much from mainstream usage as to impede useful discussion...
As I said I have no idea on the procedure for, say, abolishing elections. Do you? Would be great to hear. What about the Labour Party wanting to abolish the House of Lords? Out on the streets for that one?
Why do you think the procedure is relevant here? My view, and I suspect the majority view, is that any attempt to abolish elections is an undemocratic action, whether that action is in line with the theoretical process of the constitution and gets past the courts, or whether it gets shot down immediately. It is the intent, and the intended effect, which makes it undemocratic, not its conformance or otherwise with a constitutional process.
And it's the same with the government's proposals here -- it is their intent and intended effects which matter and are being criticised, not whether the government is acting in accordance with the established procedures for implementing them.
Comments
The important part is the girl was found safe. Considering that almost every previous case of child abduction has not involved man with a female alias the predominant safety issue - to children and women - remains men who think they are men. Trans is a massive distraction being used solely as a desperation wedge issue.
Are we finding, oddly, that all of a sudden the people happy to bypass parliament in massive ways via our membership of the EU are suddenly converted to parliamentary scrutiny of regulations covering My Little Pony stickers?
Lots of stuff doesn't go through parliament in any real way. Brexit wasn't about parliament scrutinising everything, it was about the UK not having stuff imposed on us from another emergent legislative authority; thus being able to kick out the UK government if we don't like what emerges from it. As we shall fairly soon.
"How can there be so many EU laws on the books that it is impossible to review them all?l
We were members for 43 years."
Indeed, but in theory, new EU laws had to be amended to fit UK legislation. The Health and Safety Executive are the main driver for Health and Safety Laws in the UK.
I remember attending a Brussels scientific meeting discussing proposed legislation. When our meeting had finished, I had some time before my flight home. An official seeing my name badge dragged me into a large meeting of lawyers to discuss how the UK would adapt the legislation to bring it into UK Law.
Despite my explaing I was there for my scientific experties and I was no lawyer (Europe has lawyers with doctorates, and appropriate name-badges), they bombarded me with questions. I answered to my best ability. I guessed basically. Hopefully no harm was done, but it felt a bit amateurish.
How different, how very different. from the professionalism of our own dear HSE.
57% of middle class ABC1s don't want to restore the death penalty however
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/30/britons-dont-tend-support-death-penalty-until-you-
As I said, I'm no lawyer, but I can see it being a goldmine for legal specialists in H and S.
A fucking, fucking stupid democratic act but a democratic act nevertheless.
If only the middle class had been able to vote in 2016 then Remain would have won the EU referendum
So far, much of the weaponry that has been provided to Ukraine is kit that was about to be canned - at the end of its use-by date. That Ukraine has used it to great effect is partly because the Russian kit they faced was itself 50s/60s tech.
Russia has not been facing NATO's state of the art toys. For example, I can't see Russia getting more than a few hundred yards into Poland before it suffered catastrophic losses. We can likely take great comfort that Russian manpower and materiel has taken a pounding that will take decades to understand and then repair, certainly in any capacity to strike within NATO.
(That said, you have a point that the required level of our stockpiles of shells and missiles needs to be reconsidered - and addressed as required.)
Across the NATO countries, this is being used as an excuse to clear out the stuff that is nominally still on the books, but in actuality needs to be replaced. Looking at you, AS90….
In particular, life has moved on and the legal profession as a whole at every level would simply refuse to implement it. Try asking them.
On the subject of foodbanks he is on sounder ground, and his line on the matter worth some journalistic scrutiny. A vast quantity of nonsense is talked about them.
Edit: sorry, of course there is an excellent reason for the state murdering unlucky and innocent randoms. It looks good on the Tory manifesto.
The opposition to this bill is because it is appallingly bad. Those who brought it forward and those who are defending it are doing so only because of their animus towards the EU.
They haven't though its implications for business investment through; they've imposed a completely arbitrary deadline; they're handing over massive fiat powers to ministers with minimal parliamentary oversight.
The argument against the bill isn't against divergence - that is a separate argument, which I'm happy to conduct elsewhere.
There are 28 x Dutch F-16AM in storage at SABCA in Belgium if Rishi wants to flash his PayPal around.
There's both a Scottish angle and some sexual politics resonance.
Will the king insist that the Stone of Scone be under his special chair in the abbey, as he gazes out at the Cosmati pavement and has his special hat ceremonially placed on his special head?
If he does, will Nicola Sturgeon object to the rock's removal from Edinburgh, or at least make a snide wee comment that might help her popularity?
For Scottish nationalists, the biggest day in the stone's recent history was of course 25 December 1950. But forget that. Might some Scottish women who don't want self-reassigned rapists in their changing rooms remind people of what happened to the stone, and the special chair too, on 11 June 1914?
It wasn't any kind of manifesto commitment; the government, though it has a substantial majority in Parliament, is massively unpopular.
To say the UK parliament doing whatever the hell it likes is not undemocratic, is to take a very narrow view indeed of democracy.
You would have thought that amendments to suit Britain (which by the way we already have done so whilst in the EU) would be called for rather than an immediate repeal.
The death penalty doesn’t work. It makes juries reluctant to convict so guilty parties get off. DNA and CCTV may establish someone’s presence at the scene but not their intent or the full picture. We now know conclusively of cases of false convictions and executions.
Human life is precious. A single execution of an innocent person brings the whole system into disrepute. There is no evidence that it deters criminals. Countries with the death penalty have high murder rates, perhaps because it brutalises society.
The death penalty is also very expensive. New York spent about $170 million over 9 years and had no executions. New Jersey spent $253 million over a 25-year period and also had no executions. The cost of convicting and executing Timothy McVeigh was over $13 million.
Finally the US shows that the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice and mistake. That these mistakes can never be rectified must give us pause to thank goodness we ended the death penalty in the UK in 1969 and (for treason) in 1998.
That it takes a thug like Lee to advocate for it speaks volumes.
Would it be democratic for the elected govt to decide to cancel elections? After all, they are an elected govt....
And who cares if the government is massively unpopular - are you proposing a different prioritisation of policies depending on the most recent opinion poll, including, presumably, a call for a Labour government right this minute.
This is our democratic system, warts and all and you know what that great Boris fan said of democracy, now, don't you.
Personally I would say that the government can do all sorts of things which might support or erode democracy, and if it looks like they're eroding it that's fair grounds for criticising them.
He came to the Conservatives because he finally saw that Labour offered no route to delivering on people's aspirations.
He's very personable. He will be a great asset in motivating local associations for the coming election. As evidenced on here, his detractors will greatly underestimate him.
The F16, even though its runway requirements are much more constraining, is probably the only realistic option that can be supplied in large numbers, in time to make much difference.
Sending anything else would degrade the air defences of whoever handed over their planes.
I think they should bring back those abandoned campaign posters from the election that never was in 2007.
Keir Starmer: serious
Rishi Sunak: seriously?
And again, it's a legal act; it's not a particularly democratic act at all.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/02/09/european-super-league-new-tournament-to-replace-champions-league/
Which has been done.
I disagree on this one, but it’s not the end of democracy.
Perhaps (still no idea) the sequence would go:
Government introduces Act to abolish elections
Challenge in Courts
Government passes laws to override courts
Government passes law to abolish elections
Civil uprising
Or something.
No idea.
“Nobody has ever committed a crime after being executed”
Isn’t this how Judge Death started? Though the Dark Judges were decent people compared to #30pLee Anderson. Mind you, Mega City 1 in #2000AD is a decent place to live compared to Tory Britain.
https://twitter.com/Judgement_Dave/status/1623576051304611845
You doing PR for thugs now ?
Or was that irony ?
Practicality suggests that the answer is 'the army and the crown'. Those who swear loyalty oaths in this country do so to the crown, not government or parliament.
And what we are talking about here is the government binning some laws it doesn't like. The majority of which I have no doubt neither you nor I have ever heard and don't affect our lives.
Gripped sales require U.K. authorisation, because of content. Given they have been sold to the South Africans, the security concerns must be less.
Gripen was also supposed to be a fighter that required less support and logistics - suitable for countries with less defence industry depth.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if it is Gripen, transferred from an existing user, with U.K. approval.
For the others, it was essential to their prospects in the future, so not a surprise that they are still trying to do it. I think one possible outcome is that there is a European Super League without the English clubs. Whether those clubs will be able to compete in their domestic leagues and/or UEFA competitions is another matter.
Which would be great were it not for the fact that UNISON is probably at greater strength than HMF atm.
Ministers will no longer need to consult parliament. This is the end of our democratic system.
We don’t want hoi poloi with their minority views having anyone in Parliament who shares their dirty uneducated opinions.
People like Lee Anderson definitely voted Brexit to ensure that laws were made in the dark by unelected bureaucrats.
"The Executive is giving itself “do anything we want” powers."
They should call it an Enabling Act maybe?
I'm sure Mick Lynch would be on board. If it was a Labour government doing the abolishing.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the government has decided to abolish some laws that no one cares about and we have already got to Godwin. And it will presumably go through parliament. Why hasn't the HoL already sent back something about a recent bill?
So if we expect the small minority of monarchist oath-swearers to honour their oaths, it's up to the rest of us (and we're the large majority) to sort things out.
We know that the spivs envisaged Brexit as their great opportunity to get the plebs to work longer in less costly conditions for less pay. More profit for them in a deregulated world.
So it is a very direct concern of all of us that the government wants no scrutiny as it rips up all this "red tape". You may be ok with lax regulation on what gets loaded onto a truck and how many hours the driver can do, but when that starts to kill more people hope it isn't you and yours.
Plenty of UK monarchs (most in fact) have lived in luxury whilst the majority of their subjects lived in squalor and near slave-like conditions.
https://twitter.com/privateeyenews/status/1623016385424027648?s=46&t=K1vXKHWMJvcQUDUSCjzM5g
- Literally *anything* that gets through parliament is by definition 'perfectly democratic'.
Clearly untrue, there is more to good democratic standards than simply getting a law passed through parliament.
Zelensky to attend EU summit to press for weapons, fighter jets.
The Ukrainian president started a surprise tour of Europe on Wednesday with visits to Britain and France, marking just his second venture abroad since the Russian invasion almost a year ago VIDEO
https://twitter.com/afp/status/1623550926845018114
Bit like a Father of the Bride speech from a father who’s not a fan of the groom..
No one is disputing that it is fucking stupid, indeed that formed the basis of my first post on the subject. @Cyclefree is wrong when she called it undemocratic, however.
And then we got onto the hyperbole, Godwin, and the end of times.
How many ex-miners in Islington?
The c. 4,000 laws this shambles of a Government is aiming to give itself the powers of arbitarily keeping or ditching, were put in place over a period of nearly 50 years, with 11 General Elections, four changes of Government and ample time for scrutiny by our elected MPs.
Well the devil is in the detail isn't it.
Abolishing parliament and setting up a dictatorship = probably not "good democratic standards".
Playing fast and loose with lorry load and maximum axle weight legislation = less clear cut.
He's the UK equivalent of somebody like MTG. For Sunak to appoint him is a crass error. And I'd think the same if I were a Tory.
Is it democratic to vote to elect people who then chose to abolish democracy?
Yes, I have a democratic vote. That elects an MP who sits in a parliament. But that parliament then votes to remove its own role in passing laws. Edicts are issued which directly impact me - potentially lethally. I have no say, my MP has no say, they literally are issued as orders which we have to obey.
Its democratic in that we indirectly enable this to happen, but not democratic in what happens after we do so.
And it's the same with the government's proposals here -- it is their intent and intended effects which matter and are being criticised, not whether the government is acting in accordance with the established procedures for implementing them.