General politics discussion thread

[andrew "the ref" coyne]

Foster Parents have children taken away for belonging to UKIP.

 

I'm not a big fan of UKIP but heads need to roll over this fiasco.

 

The problem is that, since I know people in social services who have been frankly victimised by the press, anytime I read a anti social services story I am highly skeptical.

 

Social services are incredibly easy to write stories against. They can't legally respond to anything. I might end up being wrong, but I would highly surprised if the official reason was just because they were ukip.

[JNLister]

From what I can gather, there'd been a recent case with some other kids that had been placed with what turned out to be unsuitable parents. It wound up in court and the judge had specifically ordered the Rotherham social workers to take cultural elements into account in future placement decisions. This seems to have been somebody trying to follow that and going too far.

 

Speaking of Rotherham, not only did UKIP come second in the by-election there, but BNP was third, Conservatives sixth and the Lib Dems somehow managed to come eighth.

[Up Chuck]

UKIP got a gain of 15.87% in Rotherham, taking them from 5.92% to 21.79%. Absolutely no doubt that the adoption case had a massive effect there. Only UKIP and Labour got a bigger percentage of the vote than UKIP gained.

[Loki]

The theory is that broadcast was always inherently limited in variety (because there was only room for a few stations) while there can be unlimited newspapers. Clearly that's not the case today.

 

So essentially it's a redundant argument then?

 

It seems a moot point now anyway, as Cameron has immediately rejected the conclusion of Levison, and will go and do whatever he reckons his mates at News Corp will allow. So the whole thing has been a complete waste of money, time, and emotion for those who gave evidence.

[JNLister]

UKIP got a gain of 15.87% in Rotherham, taking them from 5.92% to 21.79%. Absolutely no doubt that the adoption case had a massive effect there. Only UKIP and Labour got a bigger percentage of the vote than UKIP gained.

 

Weirdest bit was Farage pointing out Labour got a much higher percentage in postal votes than it did in polling station votes and pretty much outright accusing them of fraud. It didn't seem to click that many of votes were cast before the adoption case blew up.

[Magnum]

The rise of UKIP concerns me somewhat. Aside from the fact that they're a single-issue party whose stance on that single issue I fundamentally disagree with, everyone I've ever heard of who's associated with that party is a complete loon. What is it with UKIP and politicians you can practically see the oil dripping off whenever they're on screen?

[David]

I guess it could be said that at least Labour are being honest, unlike the Liberal Democrats

 

Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont has warned that publicly-funded higher education was "not viable" without a "serious" reduction in standards.

 

Ms Lamont's remarks came in a speech to mark her first anniversary as leader.

 

She called for "a long-term solution" to higher education funding in Scotland.

 

Ms Lamont also claimed the Scottish government's free tuition fees policy had not increased the number of low income students going to university.

 

The MSP said that if the approach to funding did not change then Scottish universities would begin to "lose ground" against their international competitors.

 

During her address at the Mitchell Library in Glasgow, Ms Lamont said: "In spite of relatively low differences in learning outcomes between Scottish schools, an achievement gap between rich and poor continues to persist in Scotland.

 

"The educational divide between rich and poor is a scar on the country - it is simply unacceptable."

 

She insisted the education system in Scotland was "not delivering for the poorest".

 

It is not the first time Ms Lamont has put the spotlight on Scotland's free tuition policy.

 

At the end of September she told a party gathering that it was time to end a "something for nothing" culture.

 

She went on to question universal benefits, which see rich people receiving tuition fees and prescriptions for free.

 

A week later, when Ms Lamont came before her party's UK conference in Manchester, she renewed her attack on the universal provision of some benefits.

 

At the time she accused the SNP of making the poor pay for "election bribes" that benefit the better off.

 

In this latest speech, Ms Lamont questioned whether current higher education funding arrangements were fair.

 

She pointed out graduates not only got "higher lifetime returns", but a "disproportionate number" also come from more privileged backgrounds.

 

She added: "These two points, taken together, mean that a no-charge system is essentially regressive.

 

"There is no such thing as free higher education - under a completely tax funded tuition system, everybody is forced to pay for it, including those on low incomes."

 

The party leader called for different and innovative approaches to learning to close the educational gap between rich and poor.

 

She suggested targeted support, nurture classes, mentoring, summer schools, supported study and access to extra tuition.

 

Ms Lamont said she wanted to set out a vision of Scottish education which would take more than one term to deliver, one that she could start, "but may not be able to finish".

 

The former teacher added: "We will need to take tough choices and we will.

 

"Is

[Loki]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the Lib Dems already said that, given the new economic climate, their plans for funding of university places is no longer viable? They admitted that about a year and a half ago.

[Keith Houchen]

Excellent news.

MPs have approved legislation for same-sex marriage in England and Wales, despite the opposition of dozens of Conservative MPs.

 

The Commons voted in favour of the The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, by 400 to 175, a majority of 225, at the end of a full day's debate on the bill.

 

Prime Minister David Cameron has described the move as "an important step forward" that strengthens society.

 

About 140 Conservative MPs are thought to have voted against the plans.

 

Former children's minister and Conservative MP Tim Loughton told the BBC that he believed "140 or so" of his party colleagues had voted against the plans, along with "a small rump of Labour MPs" and "four Lib Dem MPs".

 

He added: "Apparently there are 132 Conservative MPs who voted in favour, so I think what we're going to see is that more Conservative MPs voted against this legislation than for it."

 

'We are all equal'

Deputy Prime Minister and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said: "I genuinely believe that we will look back on today as a landmark for equality in Britain.

 

"Tonight's vote shows Parliament is very strongly in favour of equal marriage.

 

"No matter who you are and who you love, we are all equal. Marriage is about love and commitment, and it should no longer be denied to people just because they are gay.

 

"The Liberal Democrats have long fought for equal marriage. It is party policy and I am proud that the Liberal Democrats are part of the coalition government that are making it happen."

 

MPs were given a free vote on the bill, meaning they were not ordered to vote a particular way by party whips.

 

Their decision to back the bill at second reading signifies that they approve of it in principle. The legislation will now receive more detailed parliamentary scrutiny.

 

'Divided nation'

Opposition leader Ed Miliband said: "This is a proud day and an important step forward in the fight for equality in Britain.

 

"The overwhelming majority of Labour MPs supported this change to make sure marriage reflects the value we place on long-term, loving relationships whoever you love.

 

"Equal marriage builds on Labour's successes in government which include the repeal of Section 28, equalising the age of consent, the introduction of civil partnerships and changes to the rules governing adoption."

 

But Conservative MP David Burrowes said: "We do respect the equal value of men and women, but surely that doesn't avoid us looking and celebrating difference, and marriage is a great way of celebrating the difference between a man and a woman."

 

He predicted that the legislation would receive substantial opposition when it arrived in the House of Lords.

 

He added: "If the view was that this was going to show us as a party in touch, well, we have done. The nation is divided, we have shown ourselves as a party to be divided.

 

"We have been the ones showing ourselves to have a grown-up, free-vote, conscience issue debate, and we shouldn't hide behind the fact that we're going to be divided on this issue."

[gary v1]

I wonder what 4 Lib-Dem MPs voed against. In what way can you call yourself liberal if you vote against this? Anyway, great news indeed and I think it reflects changes to society in general with this generation being more liberal and less bigoted than the previous.

[Keith Houchen]

From the Guardian Politics blog.

Here are the details of how Lib Dem MPs voted on the bill.

 

Some 44 Lib Dems voted in favour, four voted against and seven did not vote.

 

The 44 Liberal Democrats who voted for the Bill were: Danny Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey), Tom Brake (Carshalton & Wallington), Annette Brooke (Dorset Mid & Poole North), Jeremy Browne (Taunton Deane), Malcolm Bruce (Gordon), Paul Burstow (Sutton & Cheam), Lorely Burt (Solihull), Vincent Cable (Twickenham), Sir Menzies Campbell (Fife North East), Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland), Nick Clegg (Sheffield Hallam), Michael Crockart (Edinburgh West), Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton), Tim Farron (Westmorland & Lonsdale), Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey & Wood Green), Don Foster (Bath), Andrew George (St Ives), Stephen Gilbert (St Austell & Newquay), Duncan Hames (Chippenham), Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South), Sir Nick Harvey (Devon North), David Heath (Somerton & Frome), John Hemming (Birmingham Yardley), Simon Hughes (Bermondsey & Old Southwark), Julian Huppert (Cambridge), Norman Lamb (Norfolk North), David Laws (Yeovil), John Leech (Manchester Withington), Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne), Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk), Tessa Munt (Wells), Alan Reid (Argyll & Bute), Dan Rogerson (Cornwall North), Bob Russell (Colchester), Adrian Sanders (Torbay), Sir Robert Smith (Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine), Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove), Ian Swales (Redcar), Jo Swinson (Dunbartonshire East), Steve Webb (Thornbury & Yate), Mark Williams (Ceredigion), Roger Williams (Brecon & Radnorshire), Stephen Williams (Bristol West), Simon Wright (Norwich South).

 

The four who opposed it were: Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed), Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley), John Pugh (Southport), Sarah Teather (Brent Central).

 

Lib Dems who did not vote were: Norman Baker (Lewes), Martin Horwood (Cheltenham), Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye & Lochaber), Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West), John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross), David Ward (Bradford East), Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central).

Scroll down for the full list.

[Loki]

Marriage really is for gays!

 

Jesus Christ. I've got to get this off my chest, right. My parents are lifelong liberals, had gay friends as early as the 60s, and have generally been moral stalwarts their entire lives, and they're against gay marriage. I've tried to avoid discussing it too much with them as I didn't want to have to express my disappointment with them, particularly when my dad trotted out the "well, what about incestuous relationships then, should brothers and sisters be able to get married?"

 

Now it seems by brother is also against it. I think I might need a new family! Strange where people draw the line.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Loki

[PunkStep]

How can an incestuous relationship be compared to a gay one? Consummating an incestuous relationship can be harmful for reproduction, can it not?

[Carbomb]

It's a common excuse busted out - equating homosexuality with incest, bestiality and paedophilia. No offence to Loki's parents, but I think it's a morally and intellectually bankrupt thing to say.

[gary v1]

Marriage really is for gays!

 

Jesus Christ. I've got to get this off my chest, right. My parents are lifelong liberals, had gay friends as early as the 60s, and have generally been moral stalwarts their entire lives, and they're against gay marriage. I've tried to avoid discussing it too much with them as I didn't want to have to express my disappointment with them, particularly when my dad trotted out the "well, what about incestuous relationships then, should brothers and sisters be able to get married?"

 

Now it seems by brother is also against it. I think I might need a new family! Strange where people draw the line.

 

This does really piss me off. Ludicrous argument. You can't have an argument of being against something because you're actually against some other completely different and altogether ridiculous thing.