UK Politics - hookers and blow edition

[Lummel]

The UK has spent a hell of a lot more on the ground than our peers, and thereby saved a lot more lives than our peers. Every pound or euro spent in the Middle East goes a lot further there than in Europe.

 

then you can feel justly comfortable with our extraordinary compassion

[SeanF]

then you can feel justly comfortable with our extraordinary compassion

I think that our government's response has been both decent and rational.

 

On checking, I see that it isn't the case that  the people who are brought in under Humanitarian Protection are going to get deported when they reach 18.   Paddy Ashdown has it wrong.  It's a slightly different status to Refugee status.  After 5 years, Refugees have the right to apply for permanent residence in the UK.  After 5 years, people who are brought in under Humanitarian Protection don't acquire that right, but they are not expected to return to their home country unless it's deemed to be safe.

[ab aeterno]

The idea that privatisation "spreads" ownership is a popular neoliberal myth, when an industry is privately owned the ownership over everything generally goes quite quickly to a few dozen individuals (sometimes far fewer), who are less accountable than the managers who run public companies because their job doesn't depend on the government in power, they have the money in influence the political process, and they are generally more anonymous than government officials.

 

Most publicly traded companies are owned largely by large funds and investment vehicles, rather than a few dozen individuals. In that sense they have many thousands (or even millions) of owners. For many, if not most, large companies, it is the funds who have the most influence, and there will always be a significant number of then. Compare that to government ownership when the government or its appointed civil servants make all the decisions. So yes, it spreads ownership relative to state ownership. especially when you consider that the government is comprised of people who are obliged to show similar views for political reasons.

 

Similarly, for all large public companies (that is, companies that are traded on an exchange,) there is a very high level of visibility and accountability of both owners and directors. You probably have a better chance of naming the CEOs of the major banks than you do of the NHS, for example. Generally speaking, it's far easier to force out a CEO than a civil servant, even when you know who the civil servants are. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

George Osborne considers Parliament's rejection of proposals to take military action in Syria a huge mistake.

Because it's worked so well in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.

So, we supposedly lack the resources to give them asylum, but we've sufficient money to blow the shit out of their country.
I had no idea bombs and soldiers were so cheap...

[polishgenius]

George Osborne considers Parliament's rejection of proposals to take military action in Syria a huge mistake.

Because it's worked so well in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.

So, we supposedly lack the resources to give them asylum, but we've sufficient money to blow the shit out of their country.
I had no idea bombs and soldiers were so cheap...

 

 

While I don't think just extending bombing into Syria is a solution nor have any idea on what a solution might be, I know that just letting things continue as they are isn't a viable one. What, we're just going to keep accepting refugees until everyone in Syria and Western Iraq is either fled or dead? Yes, the situation was fostered by our inadequate meddling in the area in previous times, but that just speaks to the fact that the response can't be motivated by profits or what's PR-friendly in any given second. Just pulling away from it now would be washing our hands of a problem our nations helped create, just when it's descending into complete meltdown. It's an extraordinarily tricky situation where leaving alone could lead to as much culpability as interfering - we don't want another Rwanda.

[DJDonegal]

Unfortunately this may yet prove to be true. However, it doesn't change the facts: Alistair Carmichael

 

- Authorised the leak of confidential information

- That was untrue

- With the intention to damage his direct opponent in the election

- And he then publicly lied to the electorate about having done so

- And he then narrowly won the election on the basis of these lies

- And he then refused to resign when he was finally caught.

 

That he can't be recalled here because the lies were not directly about the character of the man standing against him in that constituency, should not stop us all - regardless of political preferences - from acknowledging that this was absolutely shitty behaviour, unscrupulous and shameful. Maybe this attempt to get rid of him will fail, but he should be got rid of. 

I don't disagree but the legal basis for the argument is what it is.

 

What we really needed was for Zac Goldsmith's "Real Recall" proposals to get passed instead of the gumpf that was eventually passed and poses as being recall when it's anything but. Here is a summary of what was actually passed:

 

The Bill provides for a recall petition to be triggered if a Member is sentenced to a prison term or is suspended from the House for at least 21 sitting days. If either occurred, the Speaker would give notice to a petition officer, who in turn would give notice to parliamentary electors in the constituency.

 

A petition would then be open for signing for eight weeks. If at the end of that period at least 10 per cent of eligible electors had signed the petition, the seat would be declared vacant and a by-election would follow. The Member who was recalled could stand in the by-election.

 

The Bill also introduces rules on the conduct of the recall petition, including campaign spending limits for those supporting and opposing recalling the Member.

So no actual power for members of the public to recall their MP.

[Hereward]

So no actual power for members of the public to recall their MP.

 

Thanks God. It's difficult enough to get MPs to show some balls rather than pandering to public opinion when they have up to five years to let people get over it.

[DJDonegal]

Thanks God. It's difficult enough to get MPs to show some balls rather than pandering to public opinion when they have up to five years to let people get over it.

I'm sure the mechanisms introduced could have avoided someone having to sidestep answering what their favourite cereal is on the chance they might upset a major fan of Weetabix.

 

You would still need to get 20% (for example) of the electorate to physically get out and sign a petition to bring about a by-election. When you look at the voting turnout in by-elections it's not even guaranteed that you get 20% of people to vote let alone sign a petition to recall their MP.

 

I can't see it being abused, but I can see it being used - such as would have happened in the case of Alistair Carmichael.

 

Zac Goldsmith's proposals, for anyone who wants a read.

[McCracken]

PolishGenius, i think this attitude that we must do something can dangerous.  Sometimes we have to accept that somethings are beyond our control and any action we take will only make the situation worse.  The best thing Britian can do right now is take in the millions of refugees that need our help.  No military action will make Syrian's lifes better at this time.

 

It's funny how the government are cynically using the refugee crisis to push for more military intervention.  This situation was partly caused by our previous interventions!  It wasn't long ago we were planning on helping rebels against Assad.  Now they want us to help Assad against Isis who probably consist of many of the rebels we earlier wanted to help.

 

Rwanda is an interesting example as I remember a programme by Adam Curtis claiming that our intervention in Rwanda actually made things worse spearding the violence into neihbouring countries

 

Link to programme https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUSsEqOXYbw

[DJDonegal]

It's funny how the government are cynically using the refugee crisis to push for more military intervention.  This situation was partly caused by our previous interventions!  It wasn't long ago we were planning on helping rebels against Assad. Now they want us to help Assad against Isis who probably consist of many of the rebels we earlier wanted to help.

What Cameron actually said in his statement on Monday (or, more accurately, in the questions thereafter) was that what Syria needed was to be rid of both Assad and ISIL.

 

Following quote from Hansard:

 

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is difficult to get precise figures, but a number of people have left Syria because of Assad’s brutality and a number of people have left because of ISIL’s brutality. That is why the movement of refugees has been so great and why it is wrong to say that we need to choose between two evils. We need to get rid of both of them.

[McCracken]

I'm sure that's what he says in public but I remember a senior minister hinting that any intervention in Syria against Isis without co-operation with Assad would be extermely dangerous.

 

I guess what i'm trying to say is that i don't think we can act like the world police.  Situations in other countries are extemley complicated and invading them nearly always makes things worse.  Violence can't be controled, inocents will always get hurt, and it always creats more violence.

 

Why are we so eager to bomb other countries in the name of helping their citizens (when theres good possibility it will only make things worse) but not willing to do something that will certainly help them, take in refugees.  We could also try stopping arming nasty dictatorships like saudi arabia.

[Fez]

Is all this news out of Northern Ireland a cause for real concern to the peace process or does this sort of thing happen somewhat regularly?

[Lummel]

Is all this news out of Northern Ireland a cause for real concern to the peace process or does this sort of thing happen somewhat regularly?

 

first time it has come to this serious a point.  On the other hand reports of ongoing violence perpetrated by the old paramilitaries are nothing new.  Could also be a reflection of power shifting and competition among unionists rather than simply a reaction to events on the street.

 

Sinn Fein were playing it cool, but it is hard to imagine a reelected Stormont looking very different to the current one in which case a unionist+nationalist deal would be necessary to form an administration

[Talleyrand]

Adam Holloway's been telling fibs

 

In a speech denouncing asylum seekers, the MP for Gravesham told the Commons on Tuesday that he could not get his hair cut because his barber, a refugee, had gone on holiday to the country he had fled.

 

“We have people in this country who have come here, claimed asylum and then they go back on holiday in the places where they’ve claimed asylum from,” Holloway said. “I couldn’t have my hair cut the other day for that reason.”

 

But Shivan Saeed, who regularly cuts Holloway’s hair at Kent Barbers, Gravesend, has now come forward to reveal that, far from going to Iraq, he in fact spent a week with his family in a caravan in Great Yarmouth.

Which is a rather strange and idiotic lie to tell. Maybe no-one taught him that if you are going to lie about something make sure it isn't something that can be easily disproven

[mormont]

Look, maybe he got mixed up. It's easy enough to do. One place is a lawless hell on earth, the other is Iraq.

[The BlackBear]

first time it has come to this serious a point.  On the other hand reports of ongoing violence perpetrated by the old paramilitaries are nothing new.  Could also be a reflection of power shifting and competition among unionists rather than simply a reaction to events on the street.

 

Sinn Fein were playing it cool, but it is hard to imagine a reelected Stormont looking very different to the current one in which case a unionist+nationalist deal would be necessary to form an administration

From what I understand of it: It seems like a bit of muck stirring. The Chief Constable said that the PIRA exists, something everyone knew, but that it's purpose has changed. That he accepts Sinn Fein are not involved. He said the murder was carried out by members of the PIRA, that doesn't mean it was done by the PIRA itself. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/provisional-ira-still-exists-but-not-involved-in-terrorism-george-hamilton-31469729.html

[Fragile Bird]

We in Canada have just found out we will be graced by the presence of PM Cameron's campaign strategist, Lynton Crosby, who has been hired by the Conservative party here to rescue their foundering campaign. Stephen Harper has a majority government, started at 40% in the polls, and is now in third place behind the Liberals and the NDP who are almost in a dead heat, each with about 31-32% of the decided voters, with the Conservatives down to 27% or less.

Anyone know anything about this guy?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-hire-high-profile-australian-strategist-to-reboot-campaign/article26315392/

[The BlackBear]

Radio 4 did a profile of him back in 2012, when he became the Conservatives campaign manager.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01p03b4

[SeanF]

We in Canada have just found out we will be graced by the presence of PM Cameron's campaign strategist, Lynton Crosby, who has been hired by the Conservative party here to rescue their foundering campaign. Stephen Harper has a majority government, started at 40% in the polls, and is now in third place behind the Liberals and the NDP who are almost in a dead heat, each with about 31-32% of the decided voters, with the Conservatives down to 27% or less.Anyone know anything about this guy?http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-hire-high-profile-australian-strategist-to-reboot-campaign/article26315392/

He's a very formidable strategist, pollster, and spin doctor. But, I don't see how he can turn things round this late in the day.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

What Cameron actually said in his statement on Monday (or, more accurately, in the questions thereafter) was that what Syria needed was to be rid of both Assad and ISIL.

 

Following quote from Hansard:

 

Then he is clearly deluded about our capabilities and what is achievable. Though I wouldn't say that's a first for the foreign policy of British Prime Ministers.

Who he exactly thinks will replace Assad I have no idea, considering that all of the groups fighting are unacceptable to someone in NATO, if he thinks the west can make a new government from scratch then I could point out a few very good examples from the 21st century alone of that failing horribly.