The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

I'm sort of with you SJM, I'm not trying to points score in a party political sense. Politics would probably be mighty boring without its fair share of leaks. I'm just wondering why MP's are so indignant about being subject to the same Laws as everyone else in the country. They're citing that they need to be able to do their jobs without unwarranted interference - an I'm ok with that, but I doubt the same would be applied to me, if the police were investigating something spurious.

There's also this bit about being able to call the Government to account - which I think is absolutely fine and dandy - again for all parties, but whilst they're suggesting that everything should be transparent to allow this to happen, they're (again all parties) moaning that they can't keep stuff hidden? Bizarre.

[a1]

I'm sort of with you SJM, I'm not trying to points score in a party political sense. Politics would probably be mighty boring without its fair share of leaks. I'm just wondering why MP's are so indignant about being subject to the same Laws as everyone else in the country. They're citing that they need to be able to do their jobs without unwarranted interference - an I'm ok with that, but I doubt the same would be applied to me, if the police were investigating something spurious.

There's also this bit about being able to call the Government to account - which I think is absolutely fine and dandy - again for all parties, but whilst they're suggesting that everything should be transparent to allow this to happen, they're (again all parties) moaning that they can't keep stuff hidden? Bizarre.

yeah . have you got your violin out ?

and

they should stop leaving laptops and phones and shit on trains then

[Lord Kangana]

W4E - the reason they are so up in arms is becasue its the first recourse of dictators to smear the name of opponents, then arrest/harrass them at will. Does that make him innocent? I've no idea, but bearing in mind the new laws they are trying to push through for our "safety", longer detention without evidence etc etc. then there is genuine concern over our police force being politicised and using the law to intimidate opposition to "the regime". Genuinly concerns me TBH.

[Worthy4England]

No LK - I don't believe they are up in arms because they think that suddenly we're going to turn into a dictatorship. The police force has often been used as an alleged "weapon" of the ruling party (Miners Strike, Wapping, Demos in Parliament Square etc.) that's no different now than it ever was. I certainly don't think there's a direct connection to detention periods. The whole schemozzle is about MP's rights to keep a little place away from prying eyes, while reserving thier own right to use their own prying eyes to call the other side to account.

I have no problem with people from either party getting leaks, and I'm not even too fussed about the whole "circumstances" of this case, as I think it'll all blow over. It's just the indignation of our elected representatives (and I keep stressing - from all parties) about the thought that their office could be raided. Surely that's no better than a police force having the right to do so, in the course of an investigation?

[InsaneApache]

I hear what you're saying about Wapping/miners etc. etc. but I they wern't elected representatives. I think the outrage is in (a) The government professing ignorance and (b) the way the Speaker caved in and let the police in to the commons to search the MPs office. I read somewhere that the last time someone sent the 'heavies' into parliament, they chopped his head off.

In conjunction with the anti-terror laws i.e. locking people up without charge, never mind a court case. The introduction of ID cards, (make no bones about it, they will be complusory). The arbitary use of anti-terror legislation to harrass people. The fingerprinting of schoolchildren, the national DNA database...the list goes on.

Any one of these measures on their own look a bit dodgy, together they paint a disturbing trend.

It will be interesting to watch this unfold. Stay tuned.

[Worthy4England]

I wouldn't disagree with some of what you're saying IA. We already have increased use of CCTV "to make things safe" and I think there are issues with some of the more bizarre bits of legislation going on, most particularly the DNA database.

As I've (hopefully) been at pains to point out, I wasn't trying to make a party political point out of any of this (there were plenty of "elected representatives" caught up in both Wapping and the Miners Strike ), and we could go on all day about whether the Government did or did not know about it. I just think that even MP's offices (on all political sides) in the House of Commons shouldn't be above police scrutiny in a civil/criminal investigation.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Come on, Worthy... it's just not done. Police storming the Palace of Westminster? The symbolism involved there is enormous.

Do you not believe in Parliamentary privilege at all then? Is there not a public interest in ring-fencing what goes on in the parliament buildings from the interference of the police?

[CrazyHorse]

Come on, Worthy... it's just not done. Police storming the Palace of Westminster? The symbolism involved there is enormous.

Do you not believe in Parliamentary privilege at all then? Is there not a public interest in ring-fencing what goes on in the parliament buildings from the interference of the police?

Not at all. Any suspicion that the police may have about anything untoward has to be investigated. Otherwise where do you draw the line? How serious does it have to be before the police should start interfering?

[Worthy4England]

Come on, Worthy... it's just not done. Police storming the Palace of Westminster? The symbolism involved there is enormous.

Do you not believe in Parliamentary privilege at all then? Is there not a public interest in ring-fencing what goes on in the parliament buildings from the interference of the police?

Yes, I do believe in parliamentary privilege. As far as I know, this allows people in the House to speak freely without fear that someone could take action against them through slander legislation. Just double checking on Wiki, it also means they can't be arrested for Civil matters (but can be arrested for Criminal matters).

The problem with ring fencing completely what goes on in Parliament from the police is where you would draw the line. My view is that if the police think that an offence has been committed then they should be able to pursue that as they would in any other outside jurisdiction. I wouldn't want to trust any party's MPs to be "above" the Law thank you very much.

I doubt actually that Police "stormed" the Palace of Westminster - the symbolism involved there is pure fiction, conjouring up some sort of Police siege complete with battering rams From what I've read, they were asked could they enter and on being told "yes", did so

I actually don't mind "leaks" - think it keeps any Government focused on not being too bent and "economical with the truth", although I think there are lines that shouldn't be crossed - that said, is the public interest best served by revealing the information that's leaked, or advising Authorities that they have someone leaking - probably in breach of the Official Secrets Act...surely the latter would be the appropriate course of action by any fair minded person

[Verbal]

Might have missed this absolute gem...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 276192.ece


The comment makes it

She became a Tóraidhe, well, how shocking, I hope she is not arrested, I hear many tories have had to go into hiding as the Nu-Labor junta crack down on dissidents and other people with contrary views or unexplained photocopies.

Tazia O' Tadpole, Seattle, USA

Ah yes, photocopying on a par with arms-smuggling.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

One for Monty... I think Canada may now be enjoying its most Machievellian Prime Minister in its history.

Last week Prime Minister Harper tabled an economic bill that cut public funding to political parties. This was pure brinksmanship: while Conservatives would have lost the most in an absolute dollar amount, their budget is only underwritten to the tune of 37% by the public, whereas the Liberals are at 63%, the NDP at 78%, and the Bloc Quebecois at 86% (funny - the separatist party being funded by the taxpayers of the country they wish to destroy), and so in relative terms they would have enjoyed a reasonable advantage. The other parties were aghast and threatened to defeat the government and form a coalition to take over. Many people thought that Harper would be out of office by the end of the week. I thought they were probably wrong - if he's bold enough to threaten to destroy the finances of his opposition parties, why wouldn't he be bold enough to bully the Governor General into doing what he wanted?

And this is what he did: he launched a public relations campaign that accused the "coalition" of wanting to usurp his newly-elected government and thus contradict the wishes of the voters. Because the coalition would have relied on support from the Bloc Quebecois, he asked Canadians if they wanted to be governed by a separatist party. It was brilliant. On his request the Governor General prorogued parliament until the end of January (and thus saved Harper from a lost non-confidence vote, and thus a coalition government), and Harper is now polling between 46 and 51% (his highest numbers ever). Over 70% of Canadians agree with the GG's decision, and 62% of Canadians are "angry at the coalition". The coalition will be toast by the end of next week and the Liberal Party will become splintered as they fight out how to deal with this. Dion is to be replaced in May, but will still be their much-detested leader at the end of January. If Harper continues to enjoy high public support when parliament reconvenes in January then he could table a budget guaranteed to fall, and thus win a majority three and a half weeks later.

Five days ago people thought Harper was an idiot and had committed political suicide. While I'm not sure that he planned all of this out to the last detail, I think it's clear he knew he could push some serious buttons, force a crisis, and use the entire thing to his own advantage. There were rumours of a planned coalition going back 4 weeks ago, and I suspect that this was his pre-emptive strike: force them into something before they had a new Liberal leader, and watch them implode. Brilliant stuff in the little dominion.....

[Prufrock]

Boris now in trouble?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008 ... ch-conduct

[Montreal Wanderer]

One for Monty... I think Canada may now be enjoying its most Machievellian Prime Minister in its history.

Last week Prime Minister Harper tabled an economic bill that cut public funding to political parties. This was pure brinksmanship: while Conservatives would have lost the most in an absolute dollar amount, their budget is only underwritten to the tune of 37% by the public, whereas the Liberals are at 63%, the NDP at 78%, and the Bloc Quebecois at 86% (funny - the separatist party being funded by the taxpayers of the country they wish to destroy), and so in relative terms they would have enjoyed a reasonable advantage. The other parties were aghast and threatened to defeat the government and form a coalition to take over. Many people thought that Harper would be out of office by the end of the week. I thought they were probably wrong - if he's bold enough to threaten to destroy the finances of his opposition parties, why wouldn't he be bold enough to bully the Governor General into doing what he wanted?

And this is what he did: he launched a public relations campaign that accused the "coalition" of wanting to usurp his newly-elected government and thus contradict the wishes of the voters. Because the coalition would have relied on support from the Bloc Quebecois, he asked Canadians if they wanted to be governed by a separatist party. It was brilliant. On his request the Governor General prorogued parliament until the end of January (and thus saved Harper from a lost non-confidence vote, and thus a coalition government), and Harper is now polling between 46 and 51% (his highest numbers ever). Over 70% of Canadians agree with the GG's decision, and 62% of Canadians are "angry at the coalition". The coalition will be toast by the end of next week and the Liberal Party will become splintered as they fight out how to deal with this. Dion is to be replaced in May, but will still be their much-detested leader at the end of January. If Harper continues to enjoy high public support when parliament reconvenes in January then he could table a budget guaranteed to fall, and thus win a majority three and a half weeks later.

Five days ago people thought Harper was an idiot and had committed political suicide. While I'm not sure that he planned all of this out to the last detail, I think it's clear he knew he could push some serious buttons, force a crisis, and use the entire thing to his own advantage. There were rumours of a planned coalition going back 4 weeks ago, and I suspect that this was his pre-emptive strike: force them into something before they had a new Liberal leader, and watch them implode. Brilliant stuff in the little dominion.....

It's not a little dominion! It's a very big one! Other than that you have the essential facts right. However, it still remains uncertain what will happen in this exercise in brinksmanship. The Liberals may try to get a new leader in sooner than May - it is possible to do so. Will the January budget be good or bad? Some Liberals may vote for it to avoid an immediate election and to get rid of their leader. Harper's highly partisan attempt to hurt the finances of other parties may boomerang on him. We are of course tired of elections - the US, then us, and today a Quebec provincial election. It depends where the electorate apportions the blame, and how soon the Liberals can get a new leader. Michael Ignatieff, who spent most of his life in the UK and the US is the front runner - an intellectual who is rumoured to be not as arrogant as he seems. Time will tell how brilliant Harper was or was not. Stephane Dion may be the first Liberal leader in history not to become Prime Minister (or so I heard though it seems odd). BTW, Mackenzie King was pretty Macchievellian despite being mad as a hatter.

[Montreal Wanderer]

One for Monty... I think Canada may now be enjoying its most Machievellian Prime Minister in its history.

Last week Prime Minister Harper tabled an economic bill that cut public funding to political parties. This was pure brinksmanship: while Conservatives would have lost the most in an absolute dollar amount, their budget is only underwritten to the tune of 37% by the public, whereas the Liberals are at 63%, the NDP at 78%, and the Bloc Quebecois at 86% (funny - the separatist party being funded by the taxpayers of the country they wish to destroy), and so in relative terms they would have enjoyed a reasonable advantage. The other parties were aghast and threatened to defeat the government and form a coalition to take over. Many people thought that Harper would be out of office by the end of the week. I thought they were probably wrong - if he's bold enough to threaten to destroy the finances of his opposition parties, why wouldn't he be bold enough to bully the Governor General into doing what he wanted?

And this is what he did: he launched a public relations campaign that accused the "coalition" of wanting to usurp his newly-elected government and thus contradict the wishes of the voters. Because the coalition would have relied on support from the Bloc Quebecois, he asked Canadians if they wanted to be governed by a separatist party. It was brilliant. On his request the Governor General prorogued parliament until the end of January (and thus saved Harper from a lost non-confidence vote, and thus a coalition government), and Harper is now polling between 46 and 51% (his highest numbers ever). Over 70% of Canadians agree with the GG's decision, and 62% of Canadians are "angry at the coalition". The coalition will be toast by the end of next week and the Liberal Party will become splintered as they fight out how to deal with this. Dion is to be replaced in May, but will still be their much-detested leader at the end of January. If Harper continues to enjoy high public support when parliament reconvenes in January then he could table a budget guaranteed to fall, and thus win a majority three and a half weeks later.

Five days ago people thought Harper was an idiot and had committed political suicide. While I'm not sure that he planned all of this out to the last detail, I think it's clear he knew he could push some serious buttons, force a crisis, and use the entire thing to his own advantage. There were rumours of a planned coalition going back 4 weeks ago, and I suspect that this was his pre-emptive strike: force them into something before they had a new Liberal leader, and watch them implode. Brilliant stuff in the little dominion.....

It's not a little dominion! It's a very big one! Other than that you have the essential facts right. However, it still remains uncertain what will happen in this exercise in brinksmanship. The Liberals may try to get a new leader in sooner than May - it is possible to do so. Will the January budget be good or bad? Some Liberals may vote for it to avoid an immediate election and to get rid of their leader. Harper's highly partisan attempt to hurt the finances of other parties may boomerang on him. We are of course tired of elections - the US, then us, and today a Quebec provincial election. It depends where the electorate apportions the blame, and how soon the Liberals can get a new leader. Michael Ignatieff, who spent most of his life in the UK and the US is the front runner - an intellectual who is rumoured to be not as arrogant as he seems. Time will tell how brilliant Harper was or was not. Stephane Dion may be the first Liberal leader in history not to become Prime Minister (or so I heard though it seems odd). BTW, Mackenzie King was pretty Macchievellian despite being mad as a hatter.

Dion has now resigned leaving the Liberal leadership field to the favourite, Ignatieff (who is anti-coalition) and Bob Rae (who is pro). Ignatieff says the government's future now depends on a good budget being brought down in January. So the ball is back in Harper's court.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Dion has now resigned leaving the Liberal leadership field to the favourite, Ignatieff (who is anti-coalition) and Bob Rae (who is pro). Ignatieff says the government's future now depends on a good budget being brought down in January. So the ball is back in Harper's court.

And now Rae has dropped out of the race, it seems...

[Montreal Wanderer]

Dion has now resigned leaving the Liberal leadership field to the favourite, Ignatieff (who is anti-coalition) and Bob Rae (who is pro). Ignatieff says the government's future now depends on a good budget being brought down in January. So the ball is back in Harper's court.

And now Rae has dropped out of the race, it seems...

Not to my knowledge - you must have special sources.... (although CTV is reporting that he will at a press conference in four hours).

[Lord Kangana]

Anhoo, anyone else seen how all the car giants have gone cap-in-hand to the various governments of the world this week? Including the side-splitting story of the Indian firm (Tata) that owns Jaguar/Land Rover appraoching the UK Government for a subsidy?

So that'd be the foreign investors who took over a British company, that the government wouldn't protect because it was against free-market principals, asking to be subsidised. If Ben Elton offered that as a script he'd be laughed out of town. Thank god for market forces.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Anhoo, anyone else seen how all the car giants have gone cap-in-hand to the various governments of the world this week? Including the side-splitting story of the Indian firm (Tata) that owns Jaguar/Land Rover appraoching the UK Government for a subsidy?

So that'd be the foreign investors who took over a British company, that the government wouldn't protect because it was against free-market principals, asking to be subsidised. If Ben Elton offered that as a script he'd be laughed out of town. Thank god for market forces.

Ok, so things have gone wrong.

But why do we get the impression that so many of your type, barely concealing your glee, have been waiting for years to pile in and give capitalism a good kicking?

[Verbal]

Anhoo, anyone else seen how all the car giants have gone cap-in-hand to the various governments of the world this week? Including the side-splitting story of the Indian firm (Tata) that owns Jaguar/Land Rover appraoching the UK Government for a subsidy?

So that'd be the foreign investors who took over a British company, that the government wouldn't protect because it was against free-market principals, asking to be subsidised. If Ben Elton offered that as a script he'd be laughed out of town. Thank god for market forces.

Ok, so things have gone wrong.

But why do we get the impression that so many of your type, barely concealing your glee, have been waiting for years to pile in and give capitalism a good kicking?

All of a sudden around central london, there are quite a few 'capitalism has failed, Marx was right' posters popping up around the place.

Must have had those in the warehouse for decades.

[Lord Kangana]

Because for years my "type" (ffs, a human being maybe?) have constantly been told how wonderful capitalism is and how it proved that socialism, or to be more precise the managed economy (with rules of behaviour and other such superfluous notions) was dead. Which is being shown to be utter piffle. Under the circumstances, what would you like me to do, lament that an inherently flawed system is showing its inherent flaws?