|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On December 13 2013 20:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 16:57 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 10:13 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2013 10:02 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 09:35 Zaros wrote:On December 13 2013 09:26 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 08:04 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2013 07:58 Danglars wrote:
Autumn statement's a gem. Can we trade this guy to make speeches in US Political scene? I don't know how much I'd pay to hear someone around here say with conviction, "Education underpins opportunity, it is business that provides those opportunities, and the best way to help business is to lower the tax burden" (if I caught the quote right on listen through).
How much of what he's saying can he actually follow through on? I was here believing that this UK government was a little too moderate for this kind of talk. Basically none of it. The pro business talk is all capitalist soundbites but in practices we still need to get tax revenue from somewhere and a lot of it is just shielding cartels. A few pages ago you can see Cameron explain how the flagrant price hikes by the energy company cartels, coupled with record profits at a time when people have less money to meet their overheads, are not a matter for the government because market forces will create new companies which will undercut the old ones for a slice of the robbery and it'll sort itself out. This isn't ideology, these are soundbites to grant government cover to businesses for kickbacks. I saw some undercurrent there of soundbites, like you say. How great is his ability to get topics discussed passed, with the current makeup of the parliament, assuming he wanted to act on both the easily passed and difficult-to-pass measures? If the PM and Chancellor want to act as long as they can get Nick Clegg on board it happens the executive can bassically do what it likes in the current system. So you're saying the voting block is so unified so as to say that even pro-business measures so opposed by Labour will go by without a scrape? I mean that's remarkable coalition-party unity, particularly considering how vocal the opponents were in both the August statement and PMQ's in the following days. Is it that the backbenchers fear reprisals should they deviate from the party leader's line? It wasn't even 25 years ago when the majority party had enough disunity to doubt the passage of more controversial policy initiatives. I guess it's strange from an American perspective but parliamentary systems give the executive vast amounts of power, especially when coupled with first past the post. If a party wins a majority (Cameron doesn't have one, he's in coalition) they can pretty much do whatever they want, even randomly invade Iraq after a million people marched in the street of the capital. You would be astounded at how few checks there are in our system. We don't even have primaries, the leader of the party can kick anyone he wants out, can give anyone he wants permission to be the party candidate for that seat and can overrule the local party members which, given independents basically don't win in first past the post, gives him an iron fist over his party. The commons can declare law with a simple majority and the lords are purely an advisory body now. Furthermore the PM has the power to appoint people to the lords under the devolved powers of royal prerogative. Royal prerogative also lets him simply declare law in the queens name if he wants to, along with declaring war, making treaties and a bunch of other cool things. Some aren't used by convention (ruling in the queen's name), others are modified by convention (some review on lord's appointments) and some are fine (treaties don't need common's approval). Then I guess my true question was how tight a grip the coalition has on the commons. How far at this moment can the prime minister and his ministers go one direction not backed by the local representatives without having opposition from the commons and Tory opposition in general? I know they have tremendous power to do so, but if you want to win at the next election when called, it does involve keeping some parties happy. I'm wondering what kind of party unity there is behind Cameron so as not to have a new PM more liberal next round or risk ousting the tories altogether with Labour forming the Her Majesty's government. Serious internal leadership challenges are pretty much unheard of. Sometimes people announce troll ones to make a point about how much they oppose things but leadership contests are pretty much reserved for after a general election loss. Thatcher after 12 years in power was the last one. Obviously there are some things they couldn't do, like banning socks or repealing the police, but I imagine things like an intervention in Syria could have been pushed through against opposition if both Clegg and Cameron wanted it.
Thatcher was the last power play? What? Gordon Brown on Blair was nearly as bad and pretty sure there were a fair few attempts to get rid of John Major and a few aborted attempts to get rid of Gordon Brown (which would have worked if David Miliband went for the coup.) Oh and IDS in opposition?
|
United States43976 Posts
On December 13 2013 20:35 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 20:15 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2013 16:57 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 10:13 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2013 10:02 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 09:35 Zaros wrote:On December 13 2013 09:26 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 08:04 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2013 07:58 Danglars wrote:
Autumn statement's a gem. Can we trade this guy to make speeches in US Political scene? I don't know how much I'd pay to hear someone around here say with conviction, "Education underpins opportunity, it is business that provides those opportunities, and the best way to help business is to lower the tax burden" (if I caught the quote right on listen through).
How much of what he's saying can he actually follow through on? I was here believing that this UK government was a little too moderate for this kind of talk. Basically none of it. The pro business talk is all capitalist soundbites but in practices we still need to get tax revenue from somewhere and a lot of it is just shielding cartels. A few pages ago you can see Cameron explain how the flagrant price hikes by the energy company cartels, coupled with record profits at a time when people have less money to meet their overheads, are not a matter for the government because market forces will create new companies which will undercut the old ones for a slice of the robbery and it'll sort itself out. This isn't ideology, these are soundbites to grant government cover to businesses for kickbacks. I saw some undercurrent there of soundbites, like you say. How great is his ability to get topics discussed passed, with the current makeup of the parliament, assuming he wanted to act on both the easily passed and difficult-to-pass measures? If the PM and Chancellor want to act as long as they can get Nick Clegg on board it happens the executive can bassically do what it likes in the current system. So you're saying the voting block is so unified so as to say that even pro-business measures so opposed by Labour will go by without a scrape? I mean that's remarkable coalition-party unity, particularly considering how vocal the opponents were in both the August statement and PMQ's in the following days. Is it that the backbenchers fear reprisals should they deviate from the party leader's line? It wasn't even 25 years ago when the majority party had enough disunity to doubt the passage of more controversial policy initiatives. I guess it's strange from an American perspective but parliamentary systems give the executive vast amounts of power, especially when coupled with first past the post. If a party wins a majority (Cameron doesn't have one, he's in coalition) they can pretty much do whatever they want, even randomly invade Iraq after a million people marched in the street of the capital. You would be astounded at how few checks there are in our system. We don't even have primaries, the leader of the party can kick anyone he wants out, can give anyone he wants permission to be the party candidate for that seat and can overrule the local party members which, given independents basically don't win in first past the post, gives him an iron fist over his party. The commons can declare law with a simple majority and the lords are purely an advisory body now. Furthermore the PM has the power to appoint people to the lords under the devolved powers of royal prerogative. Royal prerogative also lets him simply declare law in the queens name if he wants to, along with declaring war, making treaties and a bunch of other cool things. Some aren't used by convention (ruling in the queen's name), others are modified by convention (some review on lord's appointments) and some are fine (treaties don't need common's approval). Then I guess my true question was how tight a grip the coalition has on the commons. How far at this moment can the prime minister and his ministers go one direction not backed by the local representatives without having opposition from the commons and Tory opposition in general? I know they have tremendous power to do so, but if you want to win at the next election when called, it does involve keeping some parties happy. I'm wondering what kind of party unity there is behind Cameron so as not to have a new PM more liberal next round or risk ousting the tories altogether with Labour forming the Her Majesty's government. Serious internal leadership challenges are pretty much unheard of. Sometimes people announce troll ones to make a point about how much they oppose things but leadership contests are pretty much reserved for after a general election loss. Thatcher after 12 years in power was the last one. Obviously there are some things they couldn't do, like banning socks or repealing the police, but I imagine things like an intervention in Syria could have been pushed through against opposition if both Clegg and Cameron wanted it. Thatcher was the last power play? What? Gordon Brown on Blair was nearly as bad and pretty sure there were a fair few attempts to get rid of John Major and a few aborted attempts to get rid of Gordon Brown (which would have worked if David Miliband went for the coup.) Oh and IDS in opposition?
Gordon Brown was a divisive rival source of authority but did not attempt a coup on Blair. John Major's "bastards" did not make a serious attempt to topple him. IDS followed Hague who stepped down after a general election loss and himself claimed only to be a safe pair of hands until they found the replacement.
|
On December 13 2013 20:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 20:35 Zaros wrote:On December 13 2013 20:15 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2013 16:57 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 10:13 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2013 10:02 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 09:35 Zaros wrote:On December 13 2013 09:26 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 08:04 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2013 07:58 Danglars wrote:
Autumn statement's a gem. Can we trade this guy to make speeches in US Political scene? I don't know how much I'd pay to hear someone around here say with conviction, "Education underpins opportunity, it is business that provides those opportunities, and the best way to help business is to lower the tax burden" (if I caught the quote right on listen through).
How much of what he's saying can he actually follow through on? I was here believing that this UK government was a little too moderate for this kind of talk. Basically none of it. The pro business talk is all capitalist soundbites but in practices we still need to get tax revenue from somewhere and a lot of it is just shielding cartels. A few pages ago you can see Cameron explain how the flagrant price hikes by the energy company cartels, coupled with record profits at a time when people have less money to meet their overheads, are not a matter for the government because market forces will create new companies which will undercut the old ones for a slice of the robbery and it'll sort itself out. This isn't ideology, these are soundbites to grant government cover to businesses for kickbacks. I saw some undercurrent there of soundbites, like you say. How great is his ability to get topics discussed passed, with the current makeup of the parliament, assuming he wanted to act on both the easily passed and difficult-to-pass measures? If the PM and Chancellor want to act as long as they can get Nick Clegg on board it happens the executive can bassically do what it likes in the current system. So you're saying the voting block is so unified so as to say that even pro-business measures so opposed by Labour will go by without a scrape? I mean that's remarkable coalition-party unity, particularly considering how vocal the opponents were in both the August statement and PMQ's in the following days. Is it that the backbenchers fear reprisals should they deviate from the party leader's line? It wasn't even 25 years ago when the majority party had enough disunity to doubt the passage of more controversial policy initiatives. I guess it's strange from an American perspective but parliamentary systems give the executive vast amounts of power, especially when coupled with first past the post. If a party wins a majority (Cameron doesn't have one, he's in coalition) they can pretty much do whatever they want, even randomly invade Iraq after a million people marched in the street of the capital. You would be astounded at how few checks there are in our system. We don't even have primaries, the leader of the party can kick anyone he wants out, can give anyone he wants permission to be the party candidate for that seat and can overrule the local party members which, given independents basically don't win in first past the post, gives him an iron fist over his party. The commons can declare law with a simple majority and the lords are purely an advisory body now. Furthermore the PM has the power to appoint people to the lords under the devolved powers of royal prerogative. Royal prerogative also lets him simply declare law in the queens name if he wants to, along with declaring war, making treaties and a bunch of other cool things. Some aren't used by convention (ruling in the queen's name), others are modified by convention (some review on lord's appointments) and some are fine (treaties don't need common's approval). Then I guess my true question was how tight a grip the coalition has on the commons. How far at this moment can the prime minister and his ministers go one direction not backed by the local representatives without having opposition from the commons and Tory opposition in general? I know they have tremendous power to do so, but if you want to win at the next election when called, it does involve keeping some parties happy. I'm wondering what kind of party unity there is behind Cameron so as not to have a new PM more liberal next round or risk ousting the tories altogether with Labour forming the Her Majesty's government. Serious internal leadership challenges are pretty much unheard of. Sometimes people announce troll ones to make a point about how much they oppose things but leadership contests are pretty much reserved for after a general election loss. Thatcher after 12 years in power was the last one. Obviously there are some things they couldn't do, like banning socks or repealing the police, but I imagine things like an intervention in Syria could have been pushed through against opposition if both Clegg and Cameron wanted it. Thatcher was the last power play? What? Gordon Brown on Blair was nearly as bad and pretty sure there were a fair few attempts to get rid of John Major and a few aborted attempts to get rid of Gordon Brown (which would have worked if David Miliband went for the coup.) Oh and IDS in opposition? Gordon Brown was a divisive rival source of authority but did not attempt a coup on Blair. John Major's "bastards" did not make a serious attempt to topple him. IDS followed Hague who stepped down after a general election loss and himself claimed only to be a safe pair of hands until they found the replacement.
Oh come on Brown forced Blair out have you not seen all the leaked emails between his people and Blair's people.
|
We want Farage for PM! Vote UKIP.
|
Northern Ireland26771 Posts
I look forward to emigrating if that ever occurs
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On December 16 2013 09:35 Wombat_NI wrote:
I look forward to emigrating if that ever occurs
The kind of stance I'd expect from someone with the signature "YOLO"...
|
On December 16 2013 21:00 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2013 09:35 Wombat_NI wrote:
I look forward to emigrating if that ever occurs The kind of stance I'd expect from someone with the signature "YOLO"...
Damm straight!
|
From what i could find on the internet the UKIP seems to have a voter base of 12-15%, is that really true? Their party platform looks ridiculous.
|
On December 17 2013 03:51 Nyxisto wrote:
From what i could find on the internet the UKIP seems to have a voter base of 12-15%, is that really true? Their party platform looks ridiculous.
There base is more like 3-5% but they have additional support in the midterm for the 12-15% remains to be seen if they can keep it.
|
On December 17 2013 03:51 Nyxisto wrote:
From what i could find on the internet the UKIP seems to have a voter base of 12-15%, is that really true? Their party platform looks ridiculous.
Doesn't make their policies any less valid.
|
On December 17 2013 04:23 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 03:51 Nyxisto wrote:
From what i could find on the internet the UKIP seems to have a voter base of 12-15%, is that really true? Their party platform looks ridiculous. There base is more like 3-5% but they have additional support in the midterm for the 12-15% remains to be seen if they can keep it.
Doesn't make their policies any less valid.
|
Northern Ireland26771 Posts
If there are policies of theirs you think are valid, why not tell us all about them?
|
On December 17 2013 23:03 Wombat_NI wrote:
If there are policies of theirs you think are valid, why not tell us all about them?
I thought there was only one of them....
|
On December 17 2013 10:31 Joel-E wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 04:23 Zaros wrote:On December 17 2013 03:51 Nyxisto wrote:
From what i could find on the internet the UKIP seems to have a voter base of 12-15%, is that really true? Their party platform looks ridiculous. There base is more like 3-5% but they have additional support in the midterm for the 12-15% remains to be seen if they can keep it. Doesn't make their policies any less valid.
Didn't say it did.
|
Northern Ireland26771 Posts
On December 17 2013 23:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 23:03 Wombat_NI wrote:
If there are policies of theirs you think are valid, why not tell us all about them? I thought there was only one of them....
There are at least two if you consider 'fuck the EU' and 'fuck foreign people' as two distinct branches of policy.
They're a proest party if ever there was one, I don't see much in terms of a platform when they get to power.
|
On December 17 2013 23:03 Wombat_NI wrote:
If there are policies of theirs you think are valid, why not tell us all about them?
Ok then.
If you want to know their policy then go read their manifesto. It isn't my job to explain them to you. They're the only party that puts hard working people first.
|
On December 17 2013 23:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 23:03 Wombat_NI wrote:
If there are policies of theirs you think are valid, why not tell us all about them? I thought there was only one of them....
You obviously know nothing about them then. They are NOT a protest party. By the way, can you tell me what letting the LibLabCon establishment in again will do for our country?
|
On December 18 2013 01:02 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 23:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 17 2013 23:03 Wombat_NI wrote:
If there are policies of theirs you think are valid, why not tell us all about them? I thought there was only one of them.... There are at least two if you consider 'fuck the EU' and 'fuck foreign people' as two distinct branches of policy. They're a proest party if ever there was one, I don't see much in terms of a platform when they get to power.
Since when is it "Fuck foreign people"? Can you explain to me with evidence how they are what you said?
|
My personal favorites from their manifesto:
-"Let's leave the EU", as if that wouldn't be political suicide.
-"Scrap all green taxes, wind turbine subsidies and adopt nuclear power to free us from dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil and gas."
Yes, because as we all know nuclear reactors are fueled with love and happiness, and not with expensive fast diminishing uranium.
-"Remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights."
Obviously, because who cares about those pesky human rights anyway.
-"The law of the land must be single and apply to us all. We oppose any other system of law."
Sure , let's just ignore international law, it's not like we live in the globalized 21st century.
Sorry but the party has national-socialism written all over it, ridiculous populist stuff combined with cheap anti-establishment slogans.
|
Thankfully, Godfrey Bloom is out of the UKIP. That guy belongs on 4chan, not national politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
