UK Politics: Royal Weddings and Referendums

[mormont]

I'd also like to reiterate that being anti-EU, then pretending to be pro-EU out of political necessity while actually still being anti, is not 'being consistent'. It's being inconsistent and also insincere.

[Yukle]

26 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

I'd also like to reiterate that being anti-EU, then pretending to be pro-EU out of political necessity while actually still being anti, is not 'being consistent'. It's being inconsistent and also insincere.

Yes, that's probably more accurate. I have a sneaky feeling if Brexit hadn't happened, he'd embrace that outcome, too.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

On 6/10/2018 at 2:10 PM, Werthead said:

Arron Banks met with Russian diplomats repeatedly before, during and after the Brexit campaign and was offered the chance to invest in Russian goldmines.

Interesting to see how far down the rabbit hole this goes.

If you want to explore that rabbit hole for a bit.

 

Anyway, with the vote marathon on the withdrawal bill almost done, do you still think Labour would look that much better, if PM Corbyn was in charge to deliver Brexit? Oh, and please somebody tell Labour to get rid of Hoey.

On annother note, it'll be interesting to see whether the pro-EU Tories will put up with May's not-so-meaningful vote amendment. Apparently Grieve wasn't too impressed on how May has interpreted her assurance to them.  

 

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Notone said:

If you want to explore that rabbit hole for a bit.

 

Anyway, with the vote marathon on the withdrawal bill almost done, do you still think Labour would look that much better, if PM Corbyn was in charge to deliver Brexit? Oh, and please somebody tell Labour to get rid of Hoey.

On annother note, it'll be interesting to see whether the pro-EU Tories will put up with May's not-so-meaningful vote amendment. Apparently Grieve wasn't too impressed on how May has interpreted her assurance to them.  

 

5 Labour MPs, plus Kelvin Hopkins voted with the government on that amendment, so the government have probably concluded they can withstand a rebellion among their own MPs. 

[Denvek]

While I live on the other side of town to Christchurch and don’t go there that often, I didn’t think there were that many perverts there.

Although with a 70% vote share, Chope probably thinks he can get away with anything.

[Maltaran]

58 minutes ago, Ali Daei-nvek said:

While I live on the other side of town to Christchurch and don’t go there that often, I didn’t think there were that many perverts there.

Although with a 70% vote share, Chope probably thinks he can get away with anything.

I saw the headline "Tory MP vetoes upskirting bill" and assumed it was Philip Davies, I didn't think they could have a second blatant misogynist in the party. How wrong I was.

[The BlackBear]

I don't want to defend him too much, but his position was that the bill had not had adequate scrutiny, especially given that it would create a criminal offense. He's been opposing bills for that same reason for twenty years. It seems a little harsh to write him off as purely a misogynist, this bill will be passed, but now will do so after being debated more.

[Werthead]

Philip Davies and Chope both have form for filibustering (which is considered un-Parliamentary, although as usual there's not much to stop it being done) to get to the 2.30pm cut off and then vetoing the private member's bill altogether. If they did this consistently to every PMB that comes along their claim to being ideologically consistent would have some merit. But they don't, and weirdly anything that comes through that benefits them (like the House of Commons Act 2016 which gives them access to a pot of public money) gets waved through. The PMBs that both Davies and Chope have objected to also have unfortunate threads emerging between them, such as bills designed to reduce violence against women and a bill to pardon Alan Turing.

I'm not a huge fan of my local MP, but he did at least do the right thing today by yelling "shame!" quite forcefully at Chope when he played his bullshit move.

The Universal Credit fiasco also rumbles on, beyond any semblance of sense. Having taken part in the pilot programme for UC, which was an unmitigated disaster, it's incredible that the government even tried to press on with the programme. It's more expensive than the benefits system it's replacing, it's considerably less customised to the needs of each person who applies for it (so that long-term disabled are treated with the same suspicion as the obviously benefit-scrounging workshy vanishing minority), it has resulted in landlords throwing people out (by making them wait 2 months for their next rent and insisting that's fine, when landlords disagree) and it's so rigid in its rules structure that it's quite possible to be out of work for 4 months and get only 1 month's full payment, although that of course is part of the point. The reaction from government today, insisting it is working and good value for money in the face of the insurmountable evidence that it has been a total clusterfuck, was disgraceful.

[mormont]

Going down in history as the man who stopped upskirting becoming an offence is perhaps not the hill to choose, no matter what Chope's motives were. And to be blunt, based on his voting record I see no reason to extend him the benefit of any doubt about those. He's a man of principle, when those principles coincide with an opportunity to behave like a stone-age idiot. The same principles magically disappear, like Chope from the chamber, at other times.

[polishgenius]

Yeah, I'd have more sympathy for the 'he just wants more scrutiny' excuse if he didn't seem to do it exclusively for things that aren't being debated purely because they're so obviously the right thing to do that everyone else just realises debate isn't necessary.

[john]

However much of a scumbag Chope may or may not be, it’s the parliamentary proceedings at fault here.  You shouldn’t be able to create new criminal law with the chamber almost empty and equally you shouldn’t be able to kill a bill by one mp saying object. That’s not the most egregious part of our parliamentary procedure either.

Even putting all that aside, he apparently does this every Friday (and had only shortly before blocked extra protection for police horses), so it shouldn’t be hard for senior party members, or the bill drafters, to have a quiet word and avoid this situation entirely, either by tabling it later or persuading him to skip the objection. Big fails all round.

[Werthead]

8 hours ago, john said:

However much of a scumbag Chope may or may not be, it’s the parliamentary proceedings at fault here.  You shouldn’t be able to create new criminal law with the chamber almost empty.

I would agree if egregious laws were being passed in this fashion but they are, generally, not. Any law that threatens to be controversial does get the scrutiny it deserves.

Also, as mentioned previously in this very thread and, indeed, just a few replies above, if Chope was applying this rule consistently that would be one thing. But, oddly, when his place on the gravy train is in question he will immediately toe the party line without a nanosecond's hesitation and wave through private member's bills with alacrity.

No, Chope is a sexist, misogynistic fucktard and that is the pure and clear reason he voted as he did.

[john]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

I would agree if egregious laws were being passed in this fashion but they are, generally, not.

Generally? So they sometimes are? That seems like a good reason to change things up.

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Any law that threatens to be controversial does get the scrutiny it deserves.

But not because of a screening process written into procedural rules, which is what should be the case.

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

 if Chope was applying this rule consistently that would be one thing.

It’s not so much a rule as a quirk of procedure that wouldn’t exist if the streamlining of legislation as PMBs didn’t exist.

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

No, Chope is a sexist, misogynistic fucktard and that is the pure and clear reason he voted as he did.

Which is why it’s strange to have a system that relies on the whims of individual, or small numbers of MPs. Even within the system we have, there’s no reason this should’ve happened. But in a better system it couldn’t have happened.

[Werthead]

 

Quote

 

Generally? So they sometimes are?

 

Not to my knowledge. Do you know of any laws that were passed by PMBs that were problematic?

Quote

 

But not because of a rigorous screening process, which is what should be the case.

 

There was a rigorous screening process. It went like this:

1) "Should it be illegal to use a camera to peer up the skirts of women and/or men?"

2) "Yes."

3) "Excellent. Let's do that."

I mean, what more do you want? The government is now dedicating time in parliamentary session to pretty much ask this exact question all over again, it will get the exact same answer and will be voted into law with a near-unanimous majority, so all this grandstanding has done is waste time that could have been dedicated to more important matters.

[john]

12 hours ago, Werthead said:

Not to my knowledge. Do you know of any laws that were passed by PMBs that were problematic?

There was a rigorous screening process. It went like this:

1) "Should it be illegal to use a camera to peer up the skirts of women and/or men?"

2) "Yes."

3) "Excellent. Let's do that."

I mean, what more do you want? The government is now dedicating time in parliamentary session to pretty much ask this exact question all over again, it will get the exact same answer and will be voted into law with a near-unanimous majority, so all this grandstanding has done is waste time that could have been dedicated to more important matters.

It’s not just to decide whether something is a good idea, or to catch problematic laws. It’s to ensure it’s fit for purpose and to give members a chance to propose changes or additions that might affect their constituents.  That makes better law and it’s more democratic.

I agree there’s too much grandstanding, the whole of Westminster is devoted to it, leaving little time for anything else. That’s exactly why Justice Department devised bills like this one try to be rushed through an empty session instead of doing it properly in the first place.

[mormont]

To be clear, are you opposed to Private Members' Bills on general principle? Because there's a reason why they were invented. A parliament where only the government can propose bills is another whole flavour of problem.

[Which Tyler]

WTF: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44495598

The NHS in England is to receive an extra £20bn a year as a 70th "birthday present", the prime minister has said.

Theresa May is expected to detail where the additional health service funding will come from on Monday.

However, she told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show the boost will be funded partly by a "Brexit dividend" available once the UK stops paying into the EU budget.

Labour said the government had failed to fund the NHS properly and was relying on "a hypothetical" windfall.

In her BBC interview, Mrs May said the increase will exceed the £350m-a-week extra promised by Leave campaigners during the EU referendum campaign.

The spending plan means the £114bn-a-year budget will rise by more than 3% a year on average in the next five years.

That will mean by 2023 the budget will be £20bn a year more than it is now once inflation is taken into account.

But crucially the plan just covers front-line budgets overseen by NHS England.

About a tenth of the overall health budget is held by other bodies for things such as training and healthy lifestyle programmes, including stop smoking services and obesity prevention programmes.

[john]

3 hours ago, La Albearceleste said:

To be clear, are you opposed to Private Members' Bills on general principle? Because there's a reason why they were invented. A parliament where only the government can propose bills is another whole flavour of problem.

I’m only opposed (and only somewhat opposed) to government business being dealt with by PMBs. If uncontroversial legislation needs to be shunted to a secondary form of enactment (where it may not get debated and can be subsequently halted by one objection) because there isn’t enough time in regular sessions it seems like there’s something wrong with the system.

[Werthead]

3 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

WTF: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44495598

The NHS in England is to receive an extra £20bn a year as a 70th "birthday present", the prime minister has said.

Theresa May is expected to detail where the additional health service funding will come from on Monday.

However, she told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show the boost will be funded partly by a "Brexit dividend" available once the UK stops paying into the EU budget.

"How's this going to be funded?"

"By the Brexit Dividend."

"Aha, the Magic Money Tree."

"No! It's completely different!"

"Indeed. There is more evidence that the Magic Money Tree exists."

[Spockydog]

17 minutes ago, Werthead said:

"How's this going to be funded?"

"By the Brexit Dividend."

"Aha, the Magic Money Tree."

"No! It's completely different!"

"Indeed. There is more evidence that the Magic Money Tree exists."

She's taking us for mugs, and the BBC's complicity is nauseating.