Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Stoke Central’s down to whether BREXIT’s a big enough issue fo

12346»

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,241
    isam said:

    Yes I agree that is an arbitrary system, and people will find examples where it seems unfair. But I am trying to find ways of easing the strain on A&E... I didn't say that drinking and drug taking were the 'only' things people do that bring harm in themselves,but I chose those two as I think it feels morally more right to ask those people over someone who was enjoying a healthy hobby. I think we should discourage drunkenness and drug taking and not walking and ironman training. I have been in A&E myself twice through drunkenness and had 27 stitches in my head, 3 in my knee plus two new front teeth! It was my fault and I should have paid!
    A half-serious question: is there a mechanism for donating?

    I also wonder if it's not looking at the right thing. When I was seriously ill a year ago, the ambulance service (yes, the much-maligned East of England one) and Addenbrokes A&E were superb. Absolutely first class.

    The problems mostly came immediately afterwards; when I was moved out of A&E and onto the wards. Is the bottleneck not in the NHS, but the parts of the hospital and support services that people move onto after A&E ?

    (I am not a doctor, so I might have the roles and responsibilities incorrect).
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,650
    DanSmith said:

    Nonsense, you can accept the result but not the process.
    Those voting against are opposing and undermining the result, not accepting it. The only way for MPs to show their acceptance of the Leave result is to expedite the triggering of Article 50.

    After that, they can argue about detail, and hold a vote on the 'Deal or No Deal?' terms of leaving.
  • Floater said:

    Yet he was happy to allow other speeches by other leaders guilty of far worse than Trump - why so?
    Presumably he believed that the House wished those speeches to go ahead.

    There is an argument to be made - I express no view on it either way - that the leader of the free world should be held to a higher standard than tinpot dictators.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,404
    Barnesian said:

    I agree with you totally.

    That's why I'm a member of Dignity in Dying.

    https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/
    Thanks for that link. I'll look into becoming a member.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    "Nick Boles, who is currently fighting cancer, leaves hospital today to vote on the Article 50 bill:

    “Today, on my own initiative, I am coming out of hospital to support the government on the Article 50 bill. I have spent the last week receiving my third round of chemotherapy for the cancer that was discovered last October. I feel pretty grim and will have to go back to hospital after I have voted. But I want to come to Parliament to represent my constituents on this important bill and do my bit to ensure that it is passed without amendment.”

    https://order-order.com/2017/02/07/nick-boles-leaves-hospital-to-make-article-50-vote/
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,404

    Presumably he believed that the House wished those speeches to go ahead.

    There is an argument to be made - I express no view on it either way - that the leader of the free world should be held to a higher standard than tinpot dictators.
    So Trump should be held to a higher standard than Bercow?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Mr. W, the Speaker is meant to be neutral. He's waded straight into Foreign matters. It's clearly unacceptable.

    When the time comes for a replacement, MPs will now be considering each potential successor's partisan political perspective. Because Bercow's decided the Speaker can opine on diplomatic affairs without the approval of a majority of the House following a vote, and without consulting the Lord Great Chamberlain or the Lords Speaker.

    He's politicised what's meant to be a neutral role.

    You are completely misreading the issue.

    Bercow gave an answer within his remit. The fact that it is inconvenient to the government or their policy isn't relevant. The Speaker exercised his authority just as firmly as he does when Black Rod has the door to the Chamber of the House of Commons shut in his face.

    There is a reason why the Speaker enjoys elevated precedence. At times the government and wider public should be reminded of it.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,184

    Presumably he believed that the House wished those speeches to go ahead.

    There is an argument to be made - I express no view on it either way - that the leader of the free world should be held to a higher standard than tinpot dictators.
    I wonder what the actual view of the house was on the predient of China, and POTUS making speeches to parliament.

    Did Bercow speak for the house, or did he believe he spoke for the house. I wonder how votes on the respective speeches would go.

    I wonder if Bercow has fallen into the trap of believing a noisy minority is in fact a majority, when it is not.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,241

    Those voting against are opposing and undermining the result, not accepting it. The only way for MPs to show their acceptance of the Leave result is to expedite the triggering of Article 50.

    After that, they can argue about detail, and hold a vote on the 'Deal or No Deal?' terms of leaving.
    Take Daniel Zeichner (no, please do). He was robustly pro-EU during the run-up to the referendum, and represents an area that voted heavily for remain. AIUI he voted against A50.

    For him to vote for A50, he would not only be misrepresenting his own views, but also those of the majority of his constituents.

    Fortunately there are relatively few MPs in that sort of position; but they should be free to vote for what they think is right. If enough constituents disagree they'll suffer at the next election.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,214

    A half-serious question: is there a mechanism for donating?

    I also wonder if it's not looking at the right thing. When I was seriously ill a year ago, the ambulance service (yes, the much-maligned East of England one) and Addenbrokes A&E were superb. Absolutely first class.

    The problems mostly came immediately afterwards; when I was moved out of A&E and onto the wards. Is the bottleneck not in the NHS, but the parts of the hospital and support services that people move onto after A&E ?

    (I am not a doctor, so I might have the roles and responsibilities incorrect).
    Depends what time of the week you get ill I guess.

    My Dad was in hospital recently and all if the staff I spoke to said people should have to pay. Abuse of A&E was their major bugbear. I'm no expert, just trying to think of ways the NHS could be better
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @SamCoatesTimes: On Tory EU rebels, one member of the government says "They have the numbers to defeat us. What they are missing is the bottle."
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Pulpstar said:

    Yes but what about my taxi example where you're over the limit but have done the responsible thing, and end up in A&E through no fault of your own..

    A rare and awkward counterexample but I'd like to know your view on it :>
    A&E is the wrong place to start. Society has a moral duty to provide immediate care.

    I suspect people are think more about heavy smokers with lung cancer or obese people wanting gastric bypasses
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    This has got traction in US on Twitter - from BBC3 2015 IIRC

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaCYiBT5EVI
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    Presumably he believed that the House wished those speeches to go ahead.

    There is an argument to be made - I express no view on it either way - that the leader of the free world should be held to a higher standard than tinpot dictators.
    Which is tantamount to saying that we should let tinpot dictators get away with behaving badly, and indeed be rewarded for such, because they don't know any better, where as Mr Trump went to a good university in a modern country so he should know better.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    PlatoSaid said:

    This has got traction in US on Twitter - from BBC3 2015 IIRC

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaCYiBT5EVI

    I find that very depressing but I seem to remember that it was somewhat staged. Am I correct, or miss-remembering?
  • Well that's not right either. In Britain's imperfect system, the executive has far more influence over the legislature than is healthy but not all members of the governing party in the House of Commons are part of the executive. Some will actively not seek such a role. Some will be wanting to be critical friends. Their interests are not necessarily those of the executive and often will be diametrically opposed to them. And it seems strange for you to be making this suggestion precisely when the Speaker has acted inconveniently to the executive.

    The government seems to have overlooked some important niceties when wanting to curry favour with President Trump. Did it occur to no one to check whether this invitation was one that Parliament was willing to endorse?
    Whether or not the government has behaved appropriately doesn't impact on the debate as to whether the Speaker has, and he hasn't.

    There might be a case that the government should have consulted more widely. I might well have some sympathy with that criticism and it might well be valid for Bercow to voice that view. If he his a role in the process has been overlooked then he has a legitimate grievance that he can air. That's not what's happened. What has happened is that the Speaker made an overtly political speech and one which divided the House on partisan lines to boot. That's simply not acceptable.

    In any case, does anyone even know whether Trump was invited to speak in the Palace of Westminster? Because if it's simply a case of opposition MPs creating a mood to ensure that such an invitation was impossible then it's even less responsible of Bercow to get involved.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    Which is tantamount to saying that we should let tinpot dictators get away with behaving badly, and indeed be rewarded for such, because they don't know any better, where as Mr Trump went to a good university in a modern country so he should know better.
    There's no test Trump could win approval from - he knows his base and they aren't Guardian readers.
  • Charles said:

    A&E is the wrong place to start. Society has a moral duty to provide immediate care.

    I suspect people are think more about heavy smokers with lung cancer or obese people wanting gastric bypasses
    Agree whole-heartedly. Emergent/acute care should be available as of right in a civilised society. The debate should be around how chronic, non-acute or 'elective' treatment is delivered; the big problem for the NHS right now (IMHO) is that the facilities providing care are too heavily over-lapping on these two broad categories.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Blue_rog said:

    I find that very depressing but I seem to remember that it was somewhat staged. Am I correct, or miss-remembering?
    BBC3 isn't known for its right-wing bias.
  • Nigelb said:

    @david_herdson
    That's one reason why I'm far from convinced the government will give a nod and wink. They need to avoid his active opposition at this precise moment, while Brexit is still live - but if they delay past this week the moment to dump him over Trump will pass.

    If they play, they must win this time.


    I doubt they would win.
    Bercow might be a cackhanded egomaniac, but he probably has too much sympathy on this. The optics of throwing out the Speaker to placate Trump would be terrible.

    Which is why I'm sceptical that it will happen, unless backbenchers push it beyond the point of no return - but if they do, I agree that the PR would be bad. Still, better bad short-term PR than a hostile Speaker for 3-4 years (and after seeing off a second attempt to unseat him, he would be overtly hostile).

    But yes, I think the plan will be to find some better opportunity to bring him down.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    PlatoSaid said:

    BBC3 isn't known for its right-wing bias.
    Yes Plato, I know but I recall some debate about programme at the time but it's too long ago and I've slept since then - and lost a few brain cells :lol:
  • Mr. Meeks, he spoke for the Opposition. Not the House.

    He spoke for himself "I, I, I...."
  • NEW THREAD

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JenWilliamsMEN: Labour MP tells me those on the left are starting to mobilise for a leadership challenge. Bets are being taken on when
  • Which is why I'm sceptical that it will happen, unless backbenchers push it beyond the point of no return - but if they do, I agree that the PR would be bad. Still, better bad short-term PR than a hostile Speaker for 3-4 years (and after seeing off a second attempt to unseat him, he would be overtly hostile).

    But yes, I think the plan will be to find some better opportunity to bring him down.
    I think that has to be the right option. If no further comment is made, the posturing little twerp is denied the oxygen of additional publicity, which he seemingly craves.

    It may also embolden him to even more rash acts of self-aggrandisement, at which point the story becomes "the Speaker is removed because he's an embarrassment" rather than "the Speaker is removed because he opposed the Government".
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Blue_rog said:

    Yes Plato, I know but I recall some debate about programme at the time but it's too long ago and I've slept since then - and lost a few brain cells :lol:
    TBH, everything a teeny bit critical of Islam is rubbished.

    I posted the Afflect video a day ago - his reaction to fellow lefties was epic. His ego /opinion just shut out any alternative opinion/facts. He's a smart guy who wasn't listening-just outraged believer.

    His body language is so angry. He's beyond reasoning with.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

  • CdawgCdawg Posts: 2
    edited February 2017

    Racist is bit passe.

    2016: Your a racist
    2017: Your a white supremacist
    2018: ?

    2018: You're a nazi/Hitler
    2019: You're worse than Hitler.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,184
    Electoral bias in the electoral college system continued:

    Question: Are the safe/swing states under or overweight:

    GOP swing states underweight by 10 (Note includes Ohio & Iowa)
    Dem swing states overweight by 6
    GOP safe states overweight by 12
    Dem safe states underweight by 8
This discussion has been closed.