Jump to content

General politics discussion thread


David

Recommended Posts

2 points. When people moan about politicians being sterile and boring, not having no lives or life experience outside or before politics, surely this is the opposite of that? I'm not a big fan of Cameron, but also not someone who blames the Tories for everything wrong with the country, but I'd rather someone who had fun and did stupid things as a student instead of a lot of the people that are involved in student politics today and spend their youthful lives virtue signalling and being worthy.

And surely it's to Cameron's credit that he didn't allow Ashcroft to buy his way into the cabinet, despite him having all this dirt on him?

Edited by Daily Buzzard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
 

2 points. When people moan about politicians being sterile and boring, not having no lives or life experience outside or before politics, surely this is the opposite of that? I'm not a big fan of Cameron, but also not someone who blames the Tories for everything wrong with the country, but I'd rather someone who had fun and did stupid things as a student instead of a lot of the people that are involved in student politics today and spend their youthful lives virtue signalling and being worthy.

And surely it's to Cameron's credit that he didn't allow Ashcroft to buy his way into the cabinet, despite him having all this dirt on him?

 

 

Well the problem that comes with having a personality is that people will judge you for it. Unfortunately he has the personality of the kind of cunt who would join some dickhead society that has initiation ceremonies that involve sticking his pasty limp dick in a pig's mouth - just "having a personality" isn't enough; people want to see evidence of a personality that they actually like.

 

That said, although I do think it's indicative of his personality I don't particularly think he should be judged professionally for it.

 

Your second point is the standard spin line that I saw coming out today and it just doesn't wash with me. It's a total deflection and far from the actual topic here. I don't know a lot about Ashcroft, I don't know how credible his claims are right now but this kind of reasoning requires a pretty big jump in logic.

 

I could just as easily surmise from your point that based on that information, then the people he did give jobs to must have even worse dirt on him, so what's he really hiding?

Edited by Chest Rockwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

What's the deal with fixed-term parliaments? With the Tories having such a small majority, would it take an unlikely spate of by-election losses or could/would they carry on regardless? I was just thinking that "for a laugh" Dave might call an election to prove how much the UK detests socialism, but then I remembered they brought in that legislation for 5 year terms. Wikipedia seems to suggest they'd just roll with it. Fackinell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they lost their majority through a series of defections or by-elections my understanding is that it would be up to the opposition to call a confidence vote. If a majority of MPs backed it an election would be a likely outcome (but not the only one possible).

 

JNLister will explain in more detail and with greater fidelity at about lunchtime today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Yep, there's now only two ways for an election to happen before the end of the five years.

 

1) If the government loses a vote of no confidence, it kicks off a 14-day period during which somebody has to win a vote of confidence. That could be the same government after making a deal with a smaller party or it could be an opposing party that's made its own deal. If that doesn't happen within 14 days there's an election.

 

2) The Commons can vote to hold an early election at any time, but it needs the support of two-thirds of the entire house (not just two-thirds of the MPs who actually vote.)

 

The first likely isn't going to happen this time as it would take eight Conservative losses/defections for them to be outnumbered and even then they could likely do a deal with the DUP if needed. The Major government did lose their majority but there were more deaths back then (older MPs on average) and a host of scandals that led to resignation. By contrast, I think only three Conservative seats actually went to a by-election last time.

 

The second is a possibility. In theory the 2/3 rule is a big barrier, but in practice it means anytime the Conservatives and Labour agree to an election it can happen. Logically if the Conservatives are up for an early election, Labour wouldn't be, but in practice you could just dare them to agree and make them look scared if they won't go for it. You'd need to come up with an excuse, but I suspect it's possible that if, say, Osbourne takes over and Labour are miles behind in the polls, he'd call for an election saying he needed a personal mandate or something (like Brown considered doing in 2007.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Paid Members

Googled the definition of terrorism.

 

Terrorism: the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

 

So basically, the only thing that would be separating us from ISIS and Syria is that we voted on it? The belief there won't be substantial civilian casualty is bogus as well. Mhairi Black's posted an old Tony Benn speech on her facebook page. "We the people of the United Nations, determine to save future generations, succeeding generations, from the scourge of war, that twice in our lifetime has caused untold suffering to mankind" if we start killing innocent civilians in order to eliminate the opposition and attempting to justify it as a way of keeping us safe, we're really no better than ISIS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Not for me. I don't think we've seen evidence that the current bombing campaigns from Allies have been successful and given the risk of civilian casualties and becoming a larger target for terrorism off the back of it, I'd need to be convinced that the UK joining in would be effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Their supply lines need to be severed before we think about bombing them some more. 

 

Then again, apparently our bombs are not only better than the other countries' already dropping bombs, but they also ask to see I.D before they blow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Yes I agree. The only thing we can really do now is keep pressing for more work under the hood. Cameron says that they are also concentrating on this as well as air strikes but I see no evidence of any of the work they say they're doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...