Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
P155ing on Democracy PT2; Burying the Lords?
Topic Started: Dec 7 2015, 09:51 AM (428 Views)
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 


[...]


Lord Strathclyde has been instructed by the Prime Minister to look at curbing the powers of the second chamber

The Tory grandee appointed by David Cameron to review the role of the House of Lords will propose that hostile peers should be banned from overturning legislation.

Lord Strathclyde has been instructed by the Prime Minister to look at curbing the powers of the second chamber, after peers voted to block George Osborne's plan to cut tax credits.

The chair of the review into the second chamber will suggest the increasingly hostile anti-Tory majority should lose their veto over delegated or secondary legislation, as it poses a threat to the Prime Minister's legislative plans.

[...]

According to senior Tories, the Lords have inflicted defeats on the government on 70 per cent of occasions since May's election.

The peer said he will complete his review before Christmas and has rejected the option of creating hundreds of new Conservative Lords to give the governing party a greater chance of success in Lords votes.

One senior Tory said: “The House of Lords has to tread carefully. If they don’t accept this proposal, we could stop them having any say at all on secondary legislation. That’s a big bazooka.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12036635/David-Cameron-to-ban-House-of-Lords-from-overturning-legislation.html


This govt are beyond the pale.

Look how benevolent they're being, they're only destroying any democratic power the lords have..nothing too drastic then!

FFS.
Edited by skwirked, Dec 7 2015, 09:52 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 7 2015, 09:51 AM
Quote:
 


[...]


Lord Strathclyde has been instructed by the Prime Minister to look at curbing the powers of the second chamber

The Tory grandee appointed by David Cameron to review the role of the House of Lords will propose that hostile peers should be banned from overturning legislation.

Lord Strathclyde has been instructed by the Prime Minister to look at curbing the powers of the second chamber, after peers voted to block George Osborne's plan to cut tax credits.

The chair of the review into the second chamber will suggest the increasingly hostile anti-Tory majority should lose their veto over delegated or secondary legislation, as it poses a threat to the Prime Minister's legislative plans.

[...]

According to senior Tories, the Lords have inflicted defeats on the government on 70 per cent of occasions since May's election.

The peer said he will complete his review before Christmas and has rejected the option of creating hundreds of new Conservative Lords to give the governing party a greater chance of success in Lords votes.

One senior Tory said: “The House of Lords has to tread carefully. If they don’t accept this proposal, we could stop them having any say at all on secondary legislation. That’s a big bazooka.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12036635/David-Cameron-to-ban-House-of-Lords-from-overturning-legislation.html


This govt are beyond the pale.

Look how benevolent they're being, they're only destroying any democratic power the lords have..nothing too drastic then!

FFS.

You don't think the democratically elected governments which passed Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and House of Lords Act of 1999 were 'beyond the pale' ?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nope because the govt weren't more reactionary than the lords.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ewill
Dec 7 2015, 10:00 AM
skwirked
Dec 7 2015, 09:51 AM
Quote:
 


[...]


Lord Strathclyde has been instructed by the Prime Minister to look at curbing the powers of the second chamber

The Tory grandee appointed by David Cameron to review the role of the House of Lords will propose that hostile peers should be banned from overturning legislation.

Lord Strathclyde has been instructed by the Prime Minister to look at curbing the powers of the second chamber, after peers voted to block George Osborne's plan to cut tax credits.

The chair of the review into the second chamber will suggest the increasingly hostile anti-Tory majority should lose their veto over delegated or secondary legislation, as it poses a threat to the Prime Minister's legislative plans.

[...]

According to senior Tories, the Lords have inflicted defeats on the government on 70 per cent of occasions since May's election.

The peer said he will complete his review before Christmas and has rejected the option of creating hundreds of new Conservative Lords to give the governing party a greater chance of success in Lords votes.

One senior Tory said: “The House of Lords has to tread carefully. If they don’t accept this proposal, we could stop them having any say at all on secondary legislation. That’s a big bazooka.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12036635/David-Cameron-to-ban-House-of-Lords-from-overturning-legislation.html


This govt are beyond the pale.

Look how benevolent they're being, they're only destroying any democratic power the lords have..nothing too drastic then!

FFS.

You don't think the democratically elected governments which passed Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and House of Lords Act of 1999 were 'beyond the pale' ?

Only that which suits their own agenda is acceptable, the rest have to be bullied and threatened into submission,.
The delegated MPs of all parties make up the laws, and are elected to use their own informed judgements on all matters. They just cannot represent the will of ALL the voters all of the time, especially when so many of the voters are as we see on here.
You on the extreme left can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Your too extreme and unreasonable to be wanted by the majority, but keep trying, for the more you do the more you will be rejected.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ewill
Dec 7 2015, 10:00 AM
skwirked
Dec 7 2015, 09:51 AM
Quote:
 


[...]


Lord Strathclyde has been instructed by the Prime Minister to look at curbing the powers of the second chamber

The Tory grandee appointed by David Cameron to review the role of the House of Lords will propose that hostile peers should be banned from overturning legislation.

Lord Strathclyde has been instructed by the Prime Minister to look at curbing the powers of the second chamber, after peers voted to block George Osborne's plan to cut tax credits.

The chair of the review into the second chamber will suggest the increasingly hostile anti-Tory majority should lose their veto over delegated or secondary legislation, as it poses a threat to the Prime Minister's legislative plans.

[...]

According to senior Tories, the Lords have inflicted defeats on the government on 70 per cent of occasions since May's election.

The peer said he will complete his review before Christmas and has rejected the option of creating hundreds of new Conservative Lords to give the governing party a greater chance of success in Lords votes.

One senior Tory said: “The House of Lords has to tread carefully. If they don’t accept this proposal, we could stop them having any say at all on secondary legislation. That’s a big bazooka.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12036635/David-Cameron-to-ban-House-of-Lords-from-overturning-legislation.html


This govt are beyond the pale.

Look how benevolent they're being, they're only destroying any democratic power the lords have..nothing too drastic then!

FFS.

You don't think the democratically elected governments which passed Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and House of Lords Act of 1999 were 'beyond the pale' ?

How can the lords have any democratic power given that they are not democratically elected?

What happened was an unelected house blocked something from an elected house. That is pretty much the definition of undemocratic. The fact that I am glad they blocked it doesn't change the fact it was undemocratic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
^ Part of democracy is scrutiny.

The HofL is made up of a mixed bunch.

The Tories actually added many peers of their own...

The Tories want to make the HofL a spectacle so just how is that democratic?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
They are not elected so it really doesn't matter what you do with them. I propose replacing the Irmine with pink tutus. It all needs reform but of course vested interests will prevent it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Who voted for this govt's policies?

They have torn up their manifesto and totally lied to Joe Public, ergo the Lords are entirely justified in what they did.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Dec 7 2015, 10:20 AM
Ewill
Dec 7 2015, 10:00 AM
skwirked
Dec 7 2015, 09:51 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12036635/David-Cameron-to-ban-House-of-Lords-from-overturning-legislation.html


This govt are beyond the pale.

Look how benevolent they're being, they're only destroying any democratic power the lords have..nothing too drastic then!

FFS.

You don't think the democratically elected governments which passed Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and House of Lords Act of 1999 were 'beyond the pale' ?

Only that which suits their own agenda is acceptable, the rest have to be bullied and threatened into submission,.
The delegated MPs of all parties make up the laws, and are elected to use their own informed judgements on all matters. They just cannot represent the will of ALL the voters all of the time, especially when so many of the voters are as we see on here.
You on the extreme left can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Your too extreme and unreasonable to be wanted by the majority, but keep trying, for the more you do the more you will be rejected.
 ::)

Your post belongs in the jokes subforum.

Your ilk want a charlatan's state with no accountability because you think we should all accept whatever this govt does, you said so yourself.

The HofL isn't filled with extreme lefties is it.

Your ilk are anti-democratic charlatans who exist purely to serve yourselves.

And stop trying to talk for the country - you don't. The Tories got far less than half the vote and that's the people who voted at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 7 2015, 11:35 AM
Who voted for this govt's policies?

They have torn up their manifesto and totally lied to Joe Public, ergo the Lords are entirely justified in what they did.
The public voted them in and expect them to do what is necessary. Policies are what they decide are necessary when in office, the pragmatic approach dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations, adjusting the sails according to the wind, its strength and the direction it blows.
You want a listening government, then you must expect them to change their minds occasionally, for anything else will just be dictatorial dogma especially as dictated by the left.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Yes I want a listening govt and if the electorate wanted even more right-wing policies I would uphold such.

You don't want a listening govt, you support the govt doing whatever they decide is best - you admitted this. You are against democracy.

The public voted on a manifesto which the Tories, once in office abandoned. No party should be allowed to get away with this left or right wing.

- Care fees
- Tax credits
- Amount of time it will take to eliminate the deficit.

But you, being against democracy, are fine with all this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 7 2015, 12:16 PM
Yes I want a listening govt and if the electorate wanted even more right-wing policies I would uphold such.

You don't want a listening govt, you support the govt doing whatever they decide is best - you admitted this. You are against democracy.

The public voted on a manifesto which the Tories, once in office abandoned. No party should be allowed to get away with this left or right wing.

- Care fees
- Tax credits
- Amount of time it will take to eliminate the deficit.

But you, being against democracy, are fine with all this.
The whole "living up to their manifesto" is an interesting argument. It would be interesting to see how many governments went back on their manifesto claims, I imagine it would be a long list. There has to be some room for manouvre between what a government puts in it's manifesto and what it does due to changing circumstances. That Labour didn't make more of this is probably because they know they are just as exposed to this criticism as the tories.

As I say what do you do about a gov that makes manifesto pledges that it ditches. Not much by the look of it because it's pretty endemic. I suppose if the house of lords job was to hold the government to account that would make sense but does it? I suspect not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well care fees and tax credits are historic lies on their part IMHO.

Yes, New Labour lied through their teeth too and rightly got admonished for such. They also misled and cheated.

Yes old govts did the same, Thatcher sure as hell did.

Is any of it OK?

No, no it isn't. Funny how Corbyn is doing his utmost to be fair to everyone and is being treated utterly appallingly for it.
Edited by skwirked, Dec 7 2015, 12:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Dec 7 2015, 12:29 PM
skwirked
Dec 7 2015, 12:16 PM
Yes I want a listening govt and if the electorate wanted even more right-wing policies I would uphold such.

You don't want a listening govt, you support the govt doing whatever they decide is best - you admitted this. You are against democracy.

The public voted on a manifesto which the Tories, once in office abandoned. No party should be allowed to get away with this left or right wing.

- Care fees
- Tax credits
- Amount of time it will take to eliminate the deficit.

But you, being against democracy, are fine with all this.
The whole "living up to their manifesto" is an interesting argument. It would be interesting to see how many governments went back on their manifesto claims, I imagine it would be a long list. There has to be some room for manouvre between what a government puts in it's manifesto and what it does due to changing circumstances. That Labour didn't make more of this is probably because they know they are just as exposed to this criticism as the tories.

As I say what do you do about a gov that makes manifesto pledges that it ditches. Not much by the look of it because it's pretty endemic. I suppose if the house of lords job was to hold the government to account that would make sense but does it? I suspect not.
It's actually a very short list of one: this government

They haven't yet 'torn it up' but they're only 7 months in, give them time
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alberich
Member Avatar
Alberich
[ *  *  * ]
This surely cannot be sensibly argued in isolation from the main, and pressing need...that of a root and branch reform of the upper chamber. I can see the need for a second revising forum, but you cannot have an unelected bunch of placemen, carpet-baggers and lick-spittles over-ruling the decisions of the elected chamber, for no matter what you may think of some honourable members, they do at least have the legitimacy of having been elected.

We have argued reform already, and I am not going to re-visit that debate. But there is a pressing need for reform, is there not? Over 800 members already, and being added to at a fair rate of knots year in, year out, by successive PM's paying the price for donations, or to reward some retiring or defeated old school chum; not to mention 16 bishops there simply because they are bishops; an anachronism if ever there was one. Politicians keep mentioning reform, but nothing ever gets done!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 7 2015, 12:16 PM
Yes I want a listening govt and if the electorate wanted even more right-wing policies I would uphold such.

You don't want a listening govt, you support the govt doing whatever they decide is best - you admitted this. You are against democracy.

The public voted on a manifesto which the Tories, once in office abandoned. No party should be allowed to get away with this left or right wing.

- Care fees
- Tax credits
- Amount of time it will take to eliminate the deficit.

But you, being against democracy, are fine with all this.
Please do not tell me what I want or do not want please I decide such things for myself, being of an independent turn of mind.

This governments biggest failing is not that of changing direction when flaws are revealed , or where objections are justified, but in not thinking things through in the first place , to foresee the objections and the flaws that inevitably arise.
We have a growing problem with government debt and borrowing that has to be dealt with, and it is the addressing of that that is causing so many problems, for it means there has to be cuts , and no one likes that. Once we get used to something we want it to continue..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 7 2015, 12:16 PM
Yes I want a listening govt and if the electorate wanted even more right-wing policies I would uphold such.

You don't want a listening govt, you support the govt doing whatever they decide is best - you admitted this. You are against democracy.

The public voted on a manifesto which the Tories, once in office abandoned. No party should be allowed to get away with this left or right wing.

- Care fees
- Tax credits
- Amount of time it will take to eliminate the deficit.

But you, being against democracy, are fine with all this.
Please do not tell me what I want or do not want please I decide such things for myself, being of an independent turn of mind.

This governments biggest failing is not that of changing direction when flaws are revealed , or where objections are justified, but in not thinking things through in the first place , to foresee the objections and the flaws that inevitably arise.
We have a growing problem with government debt and borrowing that has to be dealt with, and it is the addressing of that that is causing so many problems, for it means there has to be cuts , and no one likes that. Once we get used to something we want it to continue..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Dec 7 2015, 10:20 AM
Ewill
Dec 7 2015, 10:00 AM
skwirked
Dec 7 2015, 09:51 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12036635/David-Cameron-to-ban-House-of-Lords-from-overturning-legislation.html


This govt are beyond the pale.

Look how benevolent they're being, they're only destroying any democratic power the lords have..nothing too drastic then!

FFS.

You don't think the democratically elected governments which passed Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and House of Lords Act of 1999 were 'beyond the pale' ?

Only that which suits their own agenda is acceptable, the rest have to be bullied and threatened into submission,.
The delegated MPs of all parties make up the laws, and are elected to use their own informed judgements on all matters. They just cannot represent the will of ALL the voters all of the time, especially when so many of the voters are as we see on here.
You on the extreme left can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Your too extreme and unreasonable to be wanted by the majority, but keep trying, for the more you do the more you will be rejected.
How many times did Blair and Brown use the Parliament Act to ram through Bills not related to finance? Very selective memory these lefties have.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 7 2015, 02:23 PM
Tytoalba
Dec 7 2015, 10:20 AM
Ewill
Dec 7 2015, 10:00 AM
Only that which suits their own agenda is acceptable, the rest have to be bullied and threatened into submission,.
The delegated MPs of all parties make up the laws, and are elected to use their own informed judgements on all matters. They just cannot represent the will of ALL the voters all of the time, especially when so many of the voters are as we see on here.
You on the extreme left can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Your too extreme and unreasonable to be wanted by the majority, but keep trying, for the more you do the more you will be rejected.
How many times did Blair and Brown use the Parliament Act to ram through Bills not related to finance? Very selective memory these lefties have.
Three times apparently

European Parliament Elections Act 1999
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000
Hunting Act 2004

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/parliamentacts/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Alberich
Dec 7 2015, 01:20 PM
This surely cannot be sensibly argued in isolation from the main, and pressing need...that of a root and branch reform of the upper chamber. I can see the need for a second revising forum, but you cannot have an unelected bunch of placemen, carpet-baggers and lick-spittles over-ruling the decisions of the elected chamber, for no matter what you may think of some honourable members, they do at least have the legitimacy of having been elected.

We have argued reform already, and I am not going to re-visit that debate. But there is a pressing need for reform, is there not? Over 800 members already, and being added to at a fair rate of knots year in, year out, by successive PM's paying the price for donations, or to reward some retiring or defeated old school chum; not to mention 16 bishops there simply because they are bishops; an anachronism if ever there was one. Politicians keep mentioning reform, but nothing ever gets done!!
Reform is required, but if you goo for elections you will end up with a House full of politicians in competition with the HofC and that makes no sense. The HofL if it is anything it should be for scrutiny of Bills put forward by HofC, if not this then scrap it. If this then ensure that those that comprise that place are suitably qualified and experienced. I would bar all Politicians if they had not held the post of Minister. Limit numbers to ~250 or less and have them appointed by an all party committee to ensure individuals meet CV requirements. A 7 year appointment, but the opportunity to revoke if the person does not or is not able to perform the function.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 7 2015, 10:05 AM
Nope because the govt weren't more reactionary than the lords.

You don't understand what 'reactionary' means
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Oh dear Ewill. You picked the wrong tidbit to challenge, best you consult the dictionary before pretending that others have got it wrong.

The snoopers charter?
All this terrorist sympathising crap?
All this BS fake discipline with regard to austerity?

Harking back to classical liberal values and economics in general?

Still, feel free to make childish "you dont know I know bettee ner" arguments.

Tytoalba
Dec 7 2015, 02:22 PM
skwirked
Dec 7 2015, 12:16 PM
Yes I want a listening govt and if the electorate wanted even more right-wing policies I would uphold such.

You don't want a listening govt, you support the govt doing whatever they decide is best - you admitted this. You are against democracy.

The public voted on a manifesto which the Tories, once in office abandoned. No party should be allowed to get away with this left or right wing.

- Care fees
- Tax credits
- Amount of time it will take to eliminate the deficit.

But you, being against democracy, are fine with all this.
Please do not tell me what I want or do not want please I decide such things for myself, being of an independent turn of mind.

This governments biggest failing is not that of changing direction when flaws are revealed , or where objections are justified, but in not thinking things through in the first place , to foresee the objections and the flaws that inevitably arise.
We have a growing problem with government debt and borrowing that has to be dealt with, and it is the addressing of that that is causing so many problems, for it means there has to be cuts , and no one likes that. Once we get used to something we want it to continue..


Your own posts tell us what you think. Do you read your own posts?

You unquestioningly accept authority and insist on others doing the same, that is the opposite of thinking independently.

I am not making up your positions for you, nor am I making strawman arguments. This govt's biggest problem is that it's totally incompetent and sadly people like you are far tio blinkered to realise this; you ignore pretty much ANY evidence to the contrary..that's a fact.

As I said You do not speak for this country.
Edited by skwirked, Dec 7 2015, 03:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 7 2015, 03:12 PM
Oh dear Ewill. You picked the wrong tidbit to challenge, best you consult the dictionary before pretending that others have got it wrong.

The snoopers charter?
All this terrorist sympathising crap?
All this BS fake discipline with regard to austerity?

Harking back to classical liberal values and economics in general?






Still, feel free to make childish "you dont know I know bettee ner" arguments.

Best you check a better dictionary rather than make yourself look silly

The reactionary opposes change, wants to keep things as are

Wanting to reform the welfare system isn't reactionary, it's being pro-active and reforming

It's still very interesting that you attack this democratically elected government for suggesting that an unelected Lords chamber needs reining in and see no wrong with the passings of the Parliament Acts and House of Lords Reform Act or 2006 consultation on curtailing the Lords further
No Salisbury convention for you if a conservative govt has a working majority in the Commons

The mistake that the govt made which allowed the Lords to block tax credit changes was that they drafted the changes as secondary legislation-not the more lengthy primary.It might even have been an aggrieved civil service worker deliberately present it as secondary . Had primary legislation been presented the second chamber would have been hard pressed to block it

reactionary


/rɪˈakʃ(ə)n(ə)ri/


adjective

adjective: reactionary


1.


opposing political or social progress or reform
Edited by Ewill, Dec 7 2015, 03:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ah but did I say I was against reform?

So you just made that up? Well you have form for such. Even the Tories wouldn't so pig-headedly chalkenge the notion that they are a bit reactionary. It is you who looks silly.

Your argument seems now to have shifted. Now you say that the Tories should have been even less democratic?

Do you understand that this govt wishes to take us back to classical liberal values especially wrt to the welfare state? And you'd dare to deny this when in their own words that's what they support?

:nono:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 7 2015, 03:39 PM
Ah but did I say I was against reform?

So you just made that up? Well you have form for such. Even the Tories wouldn't so pig-headedly chalkenge the notion that they are a bit reactionary. It is you who looks silly.

Your argument seems now to have shifted. Now you say that the Tories should have been even less democratic?

Do you understand that this govt wishes to take us back to classical liberal values especially wrt to the welfare state? And you'd dare to deny this when in their own words that's what they support?

:nono:
I've shifted nothing

Merely highlighted the anomalies in you apparent views
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Of course you've ground-shifted, you do it all the time.

My 'apparent' views make perfect sense. Looks like you are lost for words, maybe because you know I'm right (again)? :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Dec 7 2015, 02:23 PM
Tytoalba
Dec 7 2015, 10:20 AM
Ewill
Dec 7 2015, 10:00 AM
Only that which suits their own agenda is acceptable, the rest have to be bullied and threatened into submission,.
The delegated MPs of all parties make up the laws, and are elected to use their own informed judgements on all matters. They just cannot represent the will of ALL the voters all of the time, especially when so many of the voters are as we see on here.
You on the extreme left can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Your too extreme and unreasonable to be wanted by the majority, but keep trying, for the more you do the more you will be rejected.
How many times did Blair and Brown use the Parliament Act to ram through Bills not related to finance? Very selective memory these lefties have.


Considering Brown and Blair were Tories leading a Tory lite party with Tory lite policies maybe its one righty that has a selective memory.
Edward Heath was a swivel eyed Trotskyite compared with those two.
The HofL showed some social conscience and the Tory Ayn Rand disciples want their head on a plate.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The HoL lost any respect for being independent when it allowed Mrs T to freeze NUM strike funds, thus starving the miners back to work, or so they hoped.
Further Union reforms too were cruel, making employees servants of business ....... we are a nation of people not numbers.

Edited by Affa, Dec 7 2015, 11:25 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
They've done loads of bad stuff tbh.

That's why as I've argued many times we need bkth chambers fully reformed and held accountable. We also need a fair boundary change motion that doesnt favour any party even if that means skewing it in some senses.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 7 2015, 11:24 PM
The HoL lost any respect for being independent when it allowed Mrs T to freeze NUM strike funds, thus starving the miners back to work, or so they hoped.
Further Union reforms too were cruel, making employees servants of business ....... we are a nation of people not numbers.

You sure?

More like the Supreme Court as it was then known as the Law Lords. BIG difference

And IIRC the courts stopped Scargill misappropriating (ie stealing) union funds in defiance of his own NUM executive, for an unofficial strike. He had the remedy to hand, call a vote but we all known why he wouldn't call one. So right call by the courts
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ah so you back Thatcher against the miners do you?

Scargill was a pighead and tbh a traitor, but Thatcher is simply indefensible in this case.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 8 2015, 12:09 AM
Ah so you back Thatcher against the miners do you?

Scargill was a pighead and tbh a traitor, but Thatcher is simply indefensible in this case.
And where do you get that wild extrapolation from?

Scargill knew the union would vote him down so he didn't let them have a vote but he thought he'd steal the money anyway.

So I'd back the individual miners against both him and Mrs T. And so did the law. :thumbsup:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Fair enough.

You bloody anarko wildcat commie pinko. ;D

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 7 2015, 11:24 PM
The HoL lost any respect for being independent when it allowed Mrs T to freeze NUM strike funds, thus starving the miners back to work, or so they hoped.
Further Union reforms too were cruel, making employees servants of business ....... we are a nation of people not numbers.

Yet another lefty who doesn't know the difference between the House of Lords Judicial Committee (our highest court of appeal and also that of old Commonwealth countries without their own final CoA) and the completely separate House of Lords legislative

There's so many of you that your hero Blair decided to waste millions of taxpayers' money on renaming it the Supreme Court and shifting it to the now refurbished old Middlesex County Court across Parliament Square just so as his devotees didn't continue to display their ignorance by moaning that old unelected duffers in ermine were applying the law
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ewill
Dec 8 2015, 12:25 AM
Affa
Dec 7 2015, 11:24 PM
The HoL lost any respect for being independent when it allowed Mrs T to freeze NUM strike funds, thus starving the miners back to work, or so they hoped.
Further Union reforms too were cruel, making employees servants of business ....... we are a nation of people not numbers.

Yet another lefty who doesn't know the difference between the House of Lords Judicial Committee (our highest court of appeal and also that of old Commonwealth countries without their own final CoA) and the completely separate House of Lords legislative

There's so many of you that your hero Blair decided to waste millions of taxpayers' money on renaming it the Supreme Court and shifting it to the now refurbished old Middlesex County Court across Parliament Square just so as his devotees didn't continue to display their ignorance by moaning that old unelected duffers in ermine were applying the law
I do like your informative posts and in the main agree with them, but, with the above post I would draw your attention to the fact that some of our "supreme court" judgements are overruled on appeal by the European court of Human rights.....can you imagine that happening in the USA?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 8 2015, 12:34 AM
Ewill
Dec 8 2015, 12:25 AM
Affa
Dec 7 2015, 11:24 PM
The HoL lost any respect for being independent when it allowed Mrs T to freeze NUM strike funds, thus starving the miners back to work, or so they hoped.
Further Union reforms too were cruel, making employees servants of business ....... we are a nation of people not numbers.

Yet another lefty who doesn't know the difference between the House of Lords Judicial Committee (our highest court of appeal and also that of old Commonwealth countries without their own final CoA) and the completely separate House of Lords legislative

There's so many of you that your hero Blair decided to waste millions of taxpayers' money on renaming it the Supreme Court and shifting it to the now refurbished old Middlesex County Court across Parliament Square just so as his devotees didn't continue to display their ignorance by moaning that old unelected duffers in ermine were applying the law
I do like your informative posts and in the main agree with them, but, with the above post I would draw your attention to the fact that some of our "supreme court" judgements are overruled on appeal by the European court of Human rights.....can you imagine that happening in the USA?
Not strictly true

An application may be made (only if certain criteria is met) to ECHR once all domestic remedies are exhausted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ewill
Dec 8 2015, 12:42 AM
Rich
Dec 8 2015, 12:34 AM
Ewill
Dec 8 2015, 12:25 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I do like your informative posts and in the main agree with them, but, with the above post I would draw your attention to the fact that some of our "supreme court" judgements are overruled on appeal by the European court of Human rights.....can you imagine that happening in the USA?
Not strictly true

An application may be made (only if certain criteria is met) to ECHR once all domestic remedies are exhausted.
So how come we cannot deport known illegals, criminals, rapists?.....refer yourself to the law as set out by the ECHR.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
She's definitely correct Rich.

A lot of the things you've asked for re crims/immigration, in this and other threads technically can be done..and in a short timeframe too.

But the politicians have their agendas don't you know.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 8 2015, 12:55 AM
She's definitely correct Rich.

A lot of the things you've asked for re crims/immigration, in this and other threads technically can be done..and in a short timeframe too.

But the politicians have their agendas don't you know.
Perhaps you could remind me and others of how long it took to get rid of Abu Hamza? successive home secretaries tore their hair out over that debacle....AND we are still left with his family and supporting them on welfare.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
I didn't say 'everything'. ;-)

Did you see this just as an example of what's going on?

http://w11.zetaboards.com/UK_Debate_Mk_2/topic/11441035/1/?x=90#new

A lot of people said it wasn't possible. :rubchin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply