Members SuperBacon Posted August 7 Members Share Posted August 7 4 minutes ago, Carbomb said: Was saying to Chris B that I would <keegan> love it </keegan> if they tried it on in my local area, Harringay Green Lanes - the Turkish mafia here were the reason most of the shops didn't get hit in the 2012 riots. Let's just say I wouldn't be comfortable eating any kebabs in those establishments for the next few months. This made me really laugh the other day.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Some Guy Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 2 hours ago, SuperBacon said: I'm in a Spurs supporters group chat and this morning someone posted/forwarded the message of the 30 "targets" or whatever with ? emojis and something about meeting etc, but it was quickly dealt with by admin. They deleted it, told the guy they'd pass this on to the police, kicked him out but its scary how easily the information can get spread and to what you would think is a fairly innocuous group chat, which goes to show you don't have to go looking for this information. I suppose if you do see something like this it's worth passing onto your local Anti fascist organisation who I'm sure would like to meet the mouth breathers for a full and frank discussion regarding current events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted August 7 Paid Members Share Posted August 7 https://www.instagram.com/p/C-YMsVUIu_n/?igsh=cHVkYTdtd2R6cTUx A massive turnout in Walthamstow against the fash, none of whom dared show their faces. I don't mind admitting to you guys that I'm welling up a bit. It's not going to end things, but it means the world right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted August 7 Paid Members Share Posted August 7 (edited) 1 hour ago, Carbomb said: https://www.instagram.com/p/C-YMsVUIu_n/?igsh=cHVkYTdtd2R6cTUx A massive turnout in Walthamstow against the fash, none of whom dared show their faces. I don't mind admitting to you guys that I'm welling up a bit. It's not going to end things, but it means the world right now. Big turnout in Brighton too, the very small racist group are currently hiding behind the police  Edited August 7 by Hannibal Scorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mal the Glorious Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 We've had 3.5-4k turn up to counter protest in Newcastle, no mention of any fash even turning up. It's been a bright spot in an otherwise depressing few days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamura Posted Sunday at 11:26 PM Share Posted Sunday at 11:26 PM It has now been 10,000 days since the last time a democratically elected prime minister was voted out of office in the UK. It's a strange kind of democracy we live in.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted Monday at 06:33 AM Share Posted Monday at 06:33 AM 7 hours ago, Tamura said: It has now been 10,000 days since the last time a democratically elected prime minister was voted out of office in the UK. It's a strange kind of democracy we live in.... I hate to be *that* guy, but we don't actually live in a democracy which elects Prime Ministers. We live in a representative democracy, where we elect local MP's, who collectively agree on a mechanism to select the Prime Minister. The system is working exactly how it's supposed to work. The major issue in our politics is how the political culture has embraced a 'Presidential' style, when we don't have Presidential elections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted Monday at 09:35 AM Moderators Share Posted Monday at 09:35 AM 3 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said: The major issue in our politics is how the political culture has embraced a 'Presidential' style, when we don't have Presidential elections. You say that, but when you have a strong whip what's the difference? Genuine question, not rhetorical. If a local MP doesn't directly serve the interest of their constituents on national issues, then the structures are in effect very similar, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted Monday at 12:19 PM Share Posted Monday at 12:19 PM 2 hours ago, Chest Rockwell said: You say that, but when you have a strong whip what's the difference? Genuine question, not rhetorical. If a local MP doesn't directly serve the interest of their constituents on national issues, then the structures are in effect very similar, no? But I'd say whips and the use of the whips is part of that political culture that has perverted the system as it was originally intended. I'd say the majority of people vote for leaders over their actual representative. But, that doesn't discount the fact that system - in terms of how Prime Ministers are selected - is working as its intended to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted Monday at 12:55 PM Moderators Share Posted Monday at 12:55 PM Ah. Well if it is, that's the only thing I've ever known so if it ever worked differently I've got no frame of reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vamp Posted Monday at 04:25 PM Share Posted Monday at 04:25 PM Isn't it also a case of Prime Ministers becoming increasingly involved/powerful. I'm under the impression that Prime Ministers were more for setting the overall strategy but not having as indepth a knowledge into everything as they do now. Even with PMQs, PMs weren't expected to be able to answer every question but that all changed with Thatcher. We've ended up with a system where who the PM is has far more impact on your life than who your local MP is so of course people are voting with the intention of deciding who the PM is even if they are actually voting for their local MP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamura Posted Tuesday at 12:31 AM Share Posted Tuesday at 12:31 AM 17 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said: We live in a representative democracy, where we elect local MP's, who collectively agree on a mechanism to select the Prime Minister. That isn't how it actually works, at least when it comes to the Tories. See for example this Commons research briefing on how their leadership elections are run. The rules, or mechanism as you describe them, are decided by the Executive of the 1922 Committee (a tiny sub-set of the elected MPs, numbering 14 if I'm correct) and the Conservative Party Board (made up of party members, 14 out of 20 members aren't elected Westminster MPs if I'm correct ), that's hardly a collective agreement of elected MPs. Also let's not forget that Rishi Sunak had the backing of more MPs than Liz Truss in the final round of the ballot of MPs, before losing in the vote of the wider party membership (and let's not pretend that should be considered a democratic mandate from the wider electorate). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted Tuesday at 05:10 AM Share Posted Tuesday at 05:10 AM (edited) 4 hours ago, Tamura said: That isn't how it actually works, at least when it comes to the Tories. See for example this Commons research briefing on how their leadership elections are run. The rules, or mechanism as you describe them, are decided by the Executive of the 1922 Committee (a tiny sub-set of the elected MPs, numbering 14 if I'm correct) and the Conservative Party Board (made up of party members, 14 out of 20 members aren't elected Westminster MPs if I'm correct ), that's hardly a collective agreement of elected MPs. Also let's not forget that Rishi Sunak had the backing of more MPs than Liz Truss in the final round of the ballot of MPs, before losing in the vote of the wider party membership (and let's not pretend that should be considered a democratic mandate from the wider electorate). Yeah, the Tory MPs have formed a party and then collectively agreed on a mechanism to elect their leader. That can also include how to deploy their membership. Who leads a Party (and ultimately sits at the top of government should that Party win an election), by the rules of our game, is party business. Our system isn't set up to support the election of leaders, it elects representatives. Who then, off their own backs, form parties with rules and regulations, and committees, and ways to elect leaders that these days includes members but never used to. But ultimately, our system says that's their business. The whips point too, is another point about party management, as that's their function. I actually don't think there's a way around political parties and the culture they create, but it doesn't alter the original point that our system doesn't elect leaders and doesn't require a leader to have a mandate from the wider electorate. All our system demands is that we all vote for local representatives, and somehow they can bind together to form a government. There is zero need, reason or precedent for every new leader to go back and hold an election if they take over. What you seem to be aiming at is a Presidential system where there are separate elections for the President (Exectutive), Commons and Lord's. I don't want to bore the back teeth off people by reciting my dissertation from over 15 years ago, but the American system is fraught with issues itself. Between the two, I'm picking ours. Edited Tuesday at 05:23 AM by d-d-d-dAz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vamp Posted Tuesday at 11:08 AM Share Posted Tuesday at 11:08 AM Aren't the US and UK systems basically opposite ends of the spectrum to some extent? The US president struggles to get anything done because despite being the "most powerful person in the world" they're constantly blocked resulting in government shutdowns, while the UK PMs can come in and change everything despite "all the red tape," resulting in constant policy changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SuperBacon Posted Tuesday at 12:24 PM Members Share Posted Tuesday at 12:24 PM I know it's not top of the pops in terms of importance but this really highlights how out of touch and tone deaf Starmer can be. Buy your own ticket you millionaire scrub. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.