The Politics Thread

[Hoboh]

Apologies, I confused with your world view.

Most unfair, many people below a certain age would go, "Alf who? Never heard of him let alone seen him".

[Montreal Wanderer]

Mmm, interesting hyperbole from virtually all contributors to this little discussion.

Strangely enough my point was that the UK needed little assistance from other countries, whether allies or hapless stooges, between 1066 and 1958 and was happily independent until bankrupted by WW2 and the US. It is my belief, however laughable many of you find it, that this country is best to rely on it's own resources and ingenuity rather than fair weather friends who want to punish us for wishing to leave the european club.

Fire away, losers.

Great Britain was the dominant power in the world in the C19th because of its navy and, by extension, its colonial empire. Because it ruled the waves it could afford to waive the rules and no one could do a thing about it. Yet all this changed in WW1. We certainly needed assistance in WW2 especially from our former colonies like Australia, Canada, India, etc. After WW2 the dominant powers were the US and the Soviet Union - we had become a small player. As the Commonwealth because less important Europe seemed a good bet. I have no idea how the UK will do on its own now it is leaving the EU but it will still need good trading partners and allies - there are few hapless stooges left around.

I knew that we finally paid our debt to the US off in 2006 Monty, what I hadn't appreciated was that we also paid our debt to Canada off that year too. (I wasn't even aware that we had a debt to Canada!)

Which is a step further than our First World War debt, as we wrote that off on account of it being too big.

I didn't know about it either. Apparently we lent you $1.19 billion in 1946 at a rate of 2%. We lent it after the war apparently so the UK could pay for the lend lease stuff they decided to keep just in case.

[Hoboh]

Mmm, interesting hyperbole from virtually all contributors to this little discussion.

Strangely enough my point was that the UK needed little assistance from other countries, whether allies or hapless stooges, between 1066 and 1958 and was happily independent until bankrupted by WW2 and the US. It is my belief, however laughable many of you find it, that this country is best to rely on it's own resources and ingenuity rather than fair weather friends who want to punish us for wishing to leave the european club.

Fire away, losers.

Great Britain was the dominant power in the world in the C19th because of its navy and, by extension, its colonial empire. Because it ruled the waves it could afford to waive the rules and no one could do a thing about it. Yet all this changed in WW1. We certainly needed assistance in WW2 especially from our former colonies like Australia, Canada, India, etc. After WW2 the dominant powers were the US and the Soviet Union - we had become a small player. As the Commonwealth because less important Europe seemed a good bet. I have no idea how the UK will do on its own now it is leaving the EU but it will still need good trading partners and allies - there are few hapless stooges left around.

I knew that we finally paid our debt to the US off in 2006 Monty, what I hadn't appreciated was that we also paid our debt to Canada off that year too. (I wasn't even aware that we had a debt to Canada!)

Which is a step further than our First World War debt, as we wrote that off on account of it being too big.

I didn't know about it either. Apparently we lent you $1.19 billion in 1946 at a rate of 2%. We lent it after the war apparently so the UK could pay for the lend lease stuff they decided to keep just in case.

Blimey Monty, never knew you was a we that long ago.

[bedwetter2]

Apologies, I confused with your world view.

I was trying to be amusing and obviously failed totally. Or maybe it's you.

I am well aware of Till Death Do Us Part - being probably around the same age as you (92). I didn't mind the programme apart from the incessant references to the 'Ammers who, as we all know not only won the world cup for England but played the right way. Unlike the pleb's teams such as Bolton Wanderers.

[Worthy4England]

Apologies, I confused with your world view.

I was trying to be amusing and obviously failed totally. Or maybe it's you.

I took it as amusing.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Mmm, interesting hyperbole from virtually all contributors to this little discussion.

Strangely enough my point was that the UK needed little assistance from other countries, whether allies or hapless stooges, between 1066 and 1958 and was happily independent until bankrupted by WW2 and the US. It is my belief, however laughable many of you find it, that this country is best to rely on it's own resources and ingenuity rather than fair weather friends who want to punish us for wishing to leave the european club.

Fire away, losers.

Great Britain was the dominant power in the world in the C19th because of its navy and, by extension, its colonial empire. Because it ruled the waves it could afford to waive the rules and no one could do a thing about it. Yet all this changed in WW1. We certainly needed assistance in WW2 especially from our former colonies like Australia, Canada, India, etc. After WW2 the dominant powers were the US and the Soviet Union - we had become a small player. As the Commonwealth because less important Europe seemed a good bet. I have no idea how the UK will do on its own now it is leaving the EU but it will still need good trading partners and allies - there are few hapless stooges left around.

I knew that we finally paid our debt to the US off in 2006 Monty, what I hadn't appreciated was that we also paid our debt to Canada off that year too. (I wasn't even aware that we had a debt to Canada!)

Which is a step further than our First World War debt, as we wrote that off on account of it being too big.

I didn't know about it either. Apparently we lent you $1.19 billion in 1946 at a rate of 2%. We lent it after the war apparently so the UK could pay for the lend lease stuff they decided to keep just in case.

Blimey Monty, never knew you was a we that long ago.

You are correct. I was a you in 1946 and not technically a we until 1963.

[Hoboh]

Labour MPs have been told to cancel leave and be prepared for a three-line whip as the party enters another difficult week in which it will push for a series of amendments before a final vote on the Brexit bill.
But Jeremy Corbyn has hinted that frontbenchers who defy the official position will not face the sack, telling BBC Radio 4 that he is a “very lenient person”.

Little point in having a 3 line whip then if there are no consequences, Corbyn just gets worse.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

The whole whip system is a joke. If an MP is supposed to represent their constituents by making judgements in their and the interest of the country then how does going against that and voting the way their leader want them to vote work?

[Hoboh]

The whole whip system is a joke. If an MP is supposed to represent their constituents by making judgements in their and the interest of the country then how does going against that and voting the way their leader want them to vote work?

They are selected by the party, funded by the party, enjoy the benefits of the party, stand for that parties strategy and political direction, why should they not be expected to toe the line over something the leadership thinks is important?
The only choice the electorate has is, should they vote or not vote for the individual, they sure as hell do not stump up the readies for the campaign.

[BWFC_Insane]

The whole whip system is a joke. If an MP is supposed to represent their constituents by making judgements in their and the interest of the country then how does going against that and voting the way their leader want them to vote work?

They are selected by the party, funded by the party, enjoy the benefits of the party, stand for that parties strategy and political direction, why should they not be expected to toe the line over something the leadership thinks is important?
The only choice the electorate has is, should they vote or not vote for the individual, they sure as hell do not stump up the readies for the campaign.

More complex though isn't it? They are voted for by their constituents to represent them.

So IF a Labour MP campaigned in the last GE on a pro European basis, was elected to that mandate and is in a constituency who voted to remain, isn't it fair to consider their mandate from those who elected them?

I agree there is a balance between party leadership and that mandate. But there has to be some balance. Otherwise why bother with our local MP system at all?

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I see Rees-Mogg wants to get rid of 'elf and safety/safety regulations (not toys though) and regulation. We've also got a tax haven loving Chancellor and a PM that seems to like meeting the likes of Trump, Erdogan and Netanyahu (assuming Mugabe and Putin are next). Add in an NHS loving Cvunt, a Transport Secretary fresh from fcuking up the Justice Department and a Foreign Minister that thinks he's Churchill and we seem to be heading in a lovely trouble free direction.

Who votes these cvunts in?

[Hoboh]

I see Rees-Mogg wants to get rid of 'elf and safety/safety regulations (not toys though) and regulation. We've also got a tax haven loving Chancellor and a PM that seems to like meeting the likes of Trump, Erdogan and Netanyahu (assuming Mugabe and Putin are next). Add in an NHS loving Cvunt, a Transport Secretary fresh from fcuking up the Justice Department and a Foreign Minister that thinks he's Churchill and we seem to be heading in a lovely trouble free direction.

Who votes these cvunts in?

Well scaffolding and a safety harness to change a light bulb eight feet in the air does seem extreme and job adverts for cleaners, no experience required, must be aware of H&S and COSHH regulations,

[Hoboh]

The whole whip system is a joke. If an MP is supposed to represent their constituents by making judgements in their and the interest of the country then how does going against that and voting the way their leader want them to vote work?

They are selected by the party, funded by the party, enjoy the benefits of the party, stand for that parties strategy and political direction, why should they not be expected to toe the line over something the leadership thinks is important?
The only choice the electorate has is, should they vote or not vote for the individual, they sure as hell do not stump up the readies for the campaign.

More complex though isn't it? They are voted for by their constituents to represent them.

So IF a Labour MP campaigned in the last GE on a pro European basis, was elected to that mandate and is in a constituency who voted to remain, isn't it fair to consider their mandate from those who elected them?

I agree there is a balance between party leadership and that mandate. But there has to be some balance. Otherwise why bother with our local MP system at all?

Not really, they are put there for the constituents to vote for the party and the party manifesto, representing constituents is a sideline they mostly unwilling take usually leaving it to their 'agents'.

[BWFC_Insane]

The whole whip system is a joke. If an MP is supposed to represent their constituents by making judgements in their and the interest of the country then how does going against that and voting the way their leader want them to vote work?

They are selected by the party, funded by the party, enjoy the benefits of the party, stand for that parties strategy and political direction, why should they not be expected to toe the line over something the leadership thinks is important?
The only choice the electorate has is, should they vote or not vote for the individual, they sure as hell do not stump up the readies for the campaign.

More complex though isn't it? They are voted for by their constituents to represent them.

So IF a Labour MP campaigned in the last GE on a pro European basis, was elected to that mandate and is in a constituency who voted to remain, isn't it fair to consider their mandate from those who elected them?

I agree there is a balance between party leadership and that mandate. But there has to be some balance. Otherwise why bother with our local MP system at all?

Not really, they are put there for the constituents to vote for the party and the party manifesto, representing constituents is a sideline they mostly unwilling take usually leaving it to their 'agents'.

No. Really. That is their primary function. And one some take very seriously indeed.

In any case, Labour MP's last stood for election with a pro-Europe manifesto. So even if you disregard an MP's duty to their constituents (which shouldn't be ignored entirely), they were elected on that basis.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I see Rees-Mogg wants to get rid of 'elf and safety/safety regulations (not toys though) and regulation. We've also got a tax haven loving Chancellor and a PM that seems to like meeting the likes of Trump, Erdogan and Netanyahu (assuming Mugabe and Putin are next). Add in an NHS loving Cvunt, a Transport Secretary fresh from fcuking up the Justice Department and a Foreign Minister that thinks he's Churchill and we seem to be heading in a lovely trouble free direction.

Who votes these cvunts in?

Well scaffolding and a safety harness to change a light bulb eight feet in the air does seem extreme and job adverts for cleaners, no experience required, must be aware of H&S and COSHH regulations,

That wasn't what he was on about. He was on about getting rid of circa 90% of any and all regulations to make it nice and easy for foreign companies to come here and create even shitter jobs and cream even more money out of our economy whilst paying nothing in taxes.

[Lord Kangana]

Whats wrong with making jobs safer to do? You know, actually wrong, not the usual bullshit "I want my country back" non-argument. Some kind of concrete argument that can be grasped.

Who is it harming exactly?

[Hoboh]

Whats wrong with making jobs safer to do? You know, actually wrong, not the usual bullshit "I want my country back" non-argument. Some kind of concrete argument that can be grasped.

Who is it harming exactly?

Nothing at all, except when taken to the extremes and there is a lot of people/companies making a ummm healthy living out of the extreme.

[Lord Kangana]

I work in a dangerous environment. Its certainly much safer now than when it was when I started. Both for my colleagues and my customers. This involves more form filling and more rules I have to adhere to.

Are you suggesting that rules should be relaxed and my (amd my customers) risk of injury increased to save a few quid?

I need to be clear on what it is you think you're suggesting. I'm not sure you even know yourself, but what specifically is the issue?

[Hoboh]

I work in a dangerous environment. Its certainly much safer now than when it was when I started. Both for my colleagues and my customers. This involves more form filling and more rules I have to adhere to.

Are you suggesting that rules should be relaxed and my (amd my customers) risk of injury increased to save a few quid?

I need to be clear on what it is you think you're suggesting. I'm not sure you even know yourself, but what specifically is the issue?

Everything has to be perfect in your little world doesn't it?
Okay I'll bite, the last place I worked, health and safety in the office meant we had to get a qualified electrician to change a fuse in a plug or a fluorescent light bulb, in the warehouse were the dammed things were 40 odd feet in the air, yes you needed proper equipment and people able to do this but the office with an 8 foot ceiling?
The issue is quite clearly like give some folk a job and they will make it so they seem irreplaceable, don't get me started on a high vis and googles to walk 3 yards to the toilet in a walled off area because the door led to the warehouse!
I don't understand why you think I am anti H&S just because some simpleton justifies their job and actually demeans a serious subject.
Don't burn the toast eh.

[Bruce Rioja]

What do we make of this Bercow business? I mean, I tend to agree with what he said and also his right to hold an opinion, but is he in a position to act as some imperial arbiter as to who addresses Parliament and does he have a right to freely burst out with his opinions accordingly?

I feel a little uncomfortable on this one.