Jump to content

Boris Johnson and the death of the United Kingdom as we know it.


SWF (Non Legally Binding) General Election  

161 members have voted

  1. 1. SWF (Non Legally Binding) General Election

    • Conservatives
      37
    • Labour
      45
    • Liberals
      50
    • UKIP
      1
    • Green
      17
    • Brexit
      8
    • Change UK
      0
    • Other
      3


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

It’s linked because it shows that there are plenty of things that are undemocratic. The fact is you seem to only be bothered about one element that would serve to protect lazy MPs. You also don’t seem much concerned with having a working democracy, one where everyone regardless of how they voted has a representative that works for them. 

If there's ever a vote for those things you list then the public can vote accordingly and we can discuss them accordingly. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, egg said:

You're confusing your own argument. My point is a simple one - if the public re elect this idiot they are daft to do so, but they can. If your question is whether proven lazy MP's should be allowed to stand for election, yes, they should be able to. It is then the right of the parliamentary party to either put that lazy son forward or not, and if they do, then it is the right of the public to either select him or not. One would hope that the public would have sense to say no but it's a simple concept this democracy. 

I'm not confusing my own argument, I'm just asking you a question which you have answered quite plainly. 

I think you and Ducky need to have a read of the Nolan principles...

Quote

The Seven Principles of Public Life (also known as the Nolan Principles) apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the Civil Service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), and in the health, education, social and care services. All public office-holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources

It's there in black and white on the government's own website. Being democratically elected does not exempt anyone from being held to these standards. And by my reckoning, Cox's actions are in breach of at least 4 of them.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I'm not confusing my own argument, I'm just asking you a question which you have answered quite plainly. 

I think you and Ducky need to have a read of the Nolan principles...

It's there in black and white on the government's own website. Being democratically elected does not exempt anyone from being held to these standards. And by my reckoning, Cox's actions are in breach of at least 4 of them.

This is pointless mate.l, you make one point then make points in support of something different.

On the issue of whether he's a disgrace, we agree. That's a completely different issue to the one I've made, namely that if he stands again and fools vote for him, that's up to those fools. It ain't complicated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, egg said:

This is pointless mate.l, you make one point then make points in support of something different.

On the issue of whether he's a disgrace, we agree. That's a completely different issue to the one I've made, namely that if he stands again and fools vote for him, that's up to those fools. It ain't complicated. 

Ok you've made your position clear and I get it.

The question really is whether or not there should be minimum standards in place to which MPs should be held and either removed from office or prevented from standing again if they fail to meet those standards.

You don't believe there should, and I do. So let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, egg said:

This is pointless mate.l, you make one point then make points in support of something different.

On the issue of whether he's a disgrace, we agree. That's a completely different issue to the one I've made, namely that if he stands again and fools vote for him, that's up to those fools. It ain't complicated. 

Yes, it's not complicated because I think it is over simplistic.

Lots of voters can't name their MP, will vote on party lines not as an endorsement of what the MP does or doesn't do, or they vote because they don't like the leader of the opposition or they oppose a local hospital closing or whatever.

I've seen some stuff online this week of people saying "COP is a disgrace no one voted for net zero" when in actual fact pretty much every single person who voted in 2019 did exactly that. They all did but funnily enough they didn't read the manifestos in detail. The mugs.

So, it's not correct to put the entire assessment of an MPs behaviour entirely in the hands of a pretty disengaged electorate.

You can say "well more fool them, they're fools" or whatever but it's an unfair burden to expect the electorate to make specific judgements on adherence to indivdual standards/rules/behaviour amongst all the other stuff that happens at an election. In the same way we don't ask them specific particular questions about nuclear policy in Kent or Cheshire cheese standards or investment into the justice system for family disputes or teenage knife crime or relations with Ghana.

Representative democracy literally means you give people power to do that stuff for you. Like set up independent standard committees for MPs. The last changes to the system were set up by the last government under Andrea Leadsom who was voted for and her ruling party was voted for to government.  Voted to sort that kind of thing out. 

Having a standards and people to assess and uphold them is essential and is baked into the system.  Our "democracy" is not quite as simple as "as long as you win your seat you are exonerated and have our blessing to carry on doing whatever the fuck you want until the next election". 

It doesn't just start and end with a vote.

This is too precise a concept for this forum so I already regret writing it. But the point is the Conservatives know this stuff and if they say "the voters can decide later" they know what that really means. Cynical simplistic and populism but they win because of the safe seats they have are not going to be even scratched by this. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CB Fry said:

Yes, it's not complicated because I think it is over simplistic.

Lots of voters can't name their MP, will vote on party lines not as an endorsement of what the MP does or doesn't do, or they vote because they don't like the leader of the opposition or they oppose a local hospital closing or whatever.

I've seen some stuff online this week of people saying "COP is a disgrace no one voted for net zero" when in actual fact pretty much every single person who voted in 2019 did exactly that. They all did but funnily enough they didn't read the manifestos in detail. The mugs.

So, it's not correct to put the entire assessment of an MPs behaviour entirely in the hands of a pretty disengaged electorate.

You can say "well more fool them, they're fools" or whatever but it's an unfair burden to expect the electorate to make specific judgements on adherence to indivdual standards/rules/behaviour amongst all the other stuff that happens at an election. In the same way we don't ask them specific particular questions about nuclear policy in Kent or Cheshire cheese standards or investment into the justice system for family disputes or teenage knife crime or relations with Ghana.

Representative democracy literally means you give people power to do that stuff for you. Like set up independent standard committees for MPs. The last changes to the system were set up by the last government under Andrea Leadsom who was voted for and her ruling party was voted for to government.  Voted to sort that kind of thing out. 

Having a standards and people to assess and uphold them is essential and is baked into the system.  Our "democracy" is not quite as simple as "as long as you win your seat you are exonerated and have our blessing to carry on doing whatever the fuck you want until the next election". 

It doesn't just start and end with a vote.

This is too precise a concept for this forum so I already regret writing it. But the point is the Conservatives know this stuff and if they say "the voters can decide later" they know what that really means. Cynical simplistic and populism but they win because of the safe seats they have are not going to be even scratched by this. 

I'm surprised by your we can't trust the public so let's not give them the choice angle, and it's not one I can subscribe to. We'll agree to differ, and I'm quite happy to leave the public to make its choices on a candidate if he/she is put forward. Highlighting the flaws in a candidate is the job of the other candidates/party if they're so inclined, and if the tories are bold enough to put Cox forward again, I'd hope that'll lead to another party getting their person elected. 

Edited by egg
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm surprised by your we can't trust the public so let's not give them the choice angle, and it's not one I can subscribe to.

Well, that didn't take long. Excellent wilful misunderstanding. Bravo.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, egg said:

I'm surprised by your we can't trust the public so let's not give them the choice angle, and it's not one I can subscribe to. We'll agree to differ, and I'm quite happy to leave the public to make its choices on a candidate if he/she is put forward. Highlighting the flaws in a candidate is the job of the other candidates/party if they're so inclined, and if the tories are bold enough to put Cox forward again, I'd hope that'll lead to another party getting their person elected. 

So naïve. Expected better but hey you and LD really know your democracy. Thanks for the insightful education 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, whelk said:

So naïve. Expected better but hey you and LD really know your democracy. Thanks for the insightful education 

Nothing naive about reminding folks of the basics whelk. Surprising that left leaning folk think we shouldn't allow the public to decide for themselves. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CB Fry said:

You can misrepresent and wilfully misunderstand what I've written over and over again if you like. But I'll point it out each time.

All it says to me is you didn't really read or understand what I was saying. And maybe you're a bit of a thick cunt.

I understand fully, and there was no misrepresentation or wilful misunderstanding. Top marks for having to resort to calling me a "thick cunt" to get your point across though pal, real sign of your class and intellect 👏

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, egg said:

I understand fully, and there was no misrepresentation or wilful misunderstanding. Top marks for having to resort to calling me a "thick cunt" to get your point across though pal, real sign of your class and intellect 👏

Nope, wrong again. You didn't read it, you sure-as-shit didn't understand it. So you just fell back on pointless, lazy slurs because you can't be arsed with a tiny bit of detail/context. In that post I put how I regretted bothering with it because I knew I'd get shit like this so thanks for proving me correct.

You can wilfully misunderstand and misrepresent what I said over and over again, I will keep pointing it out. On the last point, well, the proof is there. If it walks like a duck...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

Nope, wrong again. You didn't read it, you sure-as-shit didn't understand it. So you just fell back on pointless, lazy slurs because you can't be arsed with a tiny bit of detail/context. In that post I put how I regretted bothering with it because I knew I'd get shit like this so thanks for proving me correct.

You can wilfully misunderstand and misrepresent what I said over and over again, I will keep pointing it out. On the last point, well, the proof is there. If it walks like a duck...

Bless. Your point wasn't the complex one you think. Whichever way you dress it up, your point was that the public shouldn't be charged with deciding whether to vote for Cox should he be put forward for re election. Its no more complex than that. You support it with a dog shit point that we shouldn't ask the public to determine "specific particular questions about nuclear policy in Kent or Cheshire cheese standards or investment into the justice system for family disputes or teenage knife crime or relations with Ghana." Well guess what, nobody is suggesting we should, and specifics of policy are completely different to deciding whether to vote for a potential MP. I agree, however, that a line has to be drawn somewhere. 

I also agree that punters may vote on party lines, and yep they may well be disengaged and not give a fuck, but that's the way it is. 

Flowing from the last point, whether it should be the way it is should be the debate. The problem with your approach is that you've made your point based on how you'd like things to be, not the way they actually are. You've got all frustrated and shouty about the simplicity of my previous responses, but they're borne out of the simplicity of where we are.

Sure, there should be a process to determine whether people like Cox are kept away from re election, or even expulsion now. Any process should be party neutral, accountable, and have its autonomy. Until then we can only approach matters based on the actual reality and accept it for what it is, good or bad. If that means people like Cox get re elected, that's the process. Yep, that's our democracy. It's a bit shit in places, don't get me started on FPTP, but it's what it is.

Anyways, now I've shown my workings out and still arrived at the same answer, let's agree to differ. Going forward, perhaps have a bit of respect and class, you seem a tad brighter than having to resort to childish name calling. 

Edited by egg
Link to post
Share on other sites

On his recent hospital visit, BoJo was asked 3 times to put a mask on, having also been advised before the visit that it was required. After the second time he did put a mask on, for a couple of minutes before removing it again.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

On his recent hospital visit, BoJo was asked 3 times to put a mask on, having also been advised before the visit that it was required. After the second time he did put a mask on, for a couple of minutes before removing it again.

Absolutely ridiculous behaviour. Last week he was sitting next to the 94 year old David Attenborough mask less. The man's a fool, but I suspect his "I don't give a fuck about masks" approach is being lapped up by many punters, and won't deter staunch tory voters. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, egg said:

Absolutely ridiculous behaviour. Last week he was sitting next to the 94 year old David Attenborough mask less. The man's a fool, but I suspect his "I don't give a fuck about masks" approach is being lapped up by many punters, and won't deter staunch tory voters. 

I would argue that if Attenborough was such a risk, why was he at such an event (and not sending his message via a tele-link)?

 

On the wider point about 2nd jobs/incomes/donation etc.  The fact parliament as a whole is extraordinarily quiet on this, tells us all you need to know about your own party of choice.

Edited by AlexLaw76
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

I would argue that if Attenborough was such a risk, why was he at such an event (and not sending his message via a tele-link)?

I get that, but it takes nothing to pop a mask on like the other people around him did. The problem is Boris is an ignorant fucker, as proved by his ignoring direction on the recent hospital visit. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, egg said:

I get that, but it takes nothing to pop a mask on like the other people around him did. The problem is Boris is an ignorant fucker, as proved by his ignoring direction on the recent hospital visit. 

be honest, there is no way (not even on a good day) that with 1000's in attendance, that 100% of the time, all those within 2m of people his age would be wearing a mask properly, if at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, egg said:

Bless. Your point wasn't the complex one you think. Whichever way you dress it up, your point was that the public shouldn't be charged with deciding whether to vote for Cox should he be put forward for re election. Its no more complex than that. You support it with a dog shit point that we shouldn't ask the public to determine "specific particular questions about nuclear policy in Kent or Cheshire cheese standards or investment into the justice system for family disputes or teenage knife crime or relations with Ghana." Well guess what, nobody is suggesting we should, and specifics of policy are completely different to deciding whether to vote for a potential MP. I agree, however, that a line has to be drawn somewhere. 

I also agree that punters may vote on party lines, and yep they may well be disengaged and not give a fuck, but that's the way it is. 

Flowing from the last point, whether it should be the way it is should be the debate. The problem with your approach is that you've made your point based on how you'd like things to be, not the way they actually are. You've got all frustrated and shouty about the simplicity of my previous responses, but they're borne out of the simplicity of where we are.

Sure, there should be a process to determine whether people like Cox are kept away from re election, or even expulsion now. Any process should be party neutral, accountable, and have its autonomy. Until then we can only approach matters based on the actual reality and accept it for what it is, good or bad. If that means people like Cox get re elected, that's the process. Yep, that's our democracy. It's a bit shit in places, don't get me started on FPTP, but it's what it is.

Anyways, now I've shown my workings out and still arrived at the same answer, let's agree to differ. Going forward, perhaps have a bit of respect and class, you seem a tad brighter than having to resort to childish name calling. 

We live in a representative democracy - that isn't "how I want things to be" it's the way they actually are.

Our voted-in representatives then have the powers to run things and make decisions - like judgements, rules, processes and sanctions for MP's standards and behaviour. That's not "how I want things to be" it's the way they actually are.

Therefore the processes, checks and balances to regulate MP behaviour is already there, and through the power of democracy, our collective votes have facilitated their existence. That's not "how I want things to be" it's the way they actually are.

The wider public in any constituency do not get to select their candidate for the party they prefer before they get to vote for said party/candidate. We don't have a primary system. That's not "how I want things to be" it's the way they actually are.

As a result it is facile, pointless and incredibly cynicial to think that in a general election the public are then able to decide to cast their vote as an entire collective (say a 80k electorate) on one singular issue - the probity of their candidate - rather than manifesto, leader and the myriad other issues that are live in a national general election campaign. To extrapolate that as a proxy validation/exoneration of an individual is cynical and incredibly bad politics. The Conservatives saying "let the voters decide" know this entirely, and you are parroting along with it, which is your choice in a democracy. They know that the Conservatives will win in safe seats anyway, which is a blessing for them to continue to behave as they please. It's playing back the shortcomings of our system for their own benefit. You've swallowed it and are trying to twist it using the facile smears you are trying on me. It's awfully sweet.

My entire post was a description to you about the way things actually are. The fact you have interpreted it as some wish list of "how I want things to be" is quite frankly bizarre. And proof positive you didn't understand it.

Bless.

 

 

Edited by CB Fry
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

We live in a representative democracy - that isn't "how I want things to be" it's the way they actually are.

Our voted-in representatives then have the powers to run things and make decisions - like judgements, rules, processes and sanctions for MP's standards and behaviour. That's not "how I want things to be" it's the way they actually are.

Therefore the processes, checks and balances to regulate MP behaviour is already there, and through the power of democracy, our collective votes have facilitated their existence. That's not "how I want things to be" it's the way they actually are.

The wider public in any constituency do not get to select their candidate for the party they prefer before they get to vote for said party/candidate. We don't have a primary system. That's not "how I want things to be" it's the way they actually are.

As a result it is facile, pointless and incredibly cynicial to think that in a general election the public are then able to decide to cast their vote as an entire collective (say a 80k electorate) on one singular issue - the probity of their candidate - rather than manifesto, leader and the myriad other issues that are live in a national general election campaign. To extrapolate that as a proxy validation/exoneration of an individual is cynical and incredibly bad politics. The Conservatives saying "let the voters decide" know this entirely, and you are parroting along with it, which is your choice in a democracy. They know that the Conservatives will win in safe seats anyway, which is a blessing for them to continue to behave as they please. It's playing back the shortcomings of our system for their own benefit. You've swallowed it and are trying to twist it using the facile smears you are trying on me. It's awfully sweet.

My entire post was a description to you about the way things actually are. The fact you have interpreted it as some wish list of "how I want things to be" is quite frankly bizarre. And proof positive you didn't understand it.

Bless.

 

 

Ever decreasing circles CB. You have a good day, and try to get through it without shouting and bawling, you'll feel better for it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, egg said:

Ever decreasing circles CB. You have a good day, and try to get through it without shouting and bawling, you'll feel better for it. 

I know you didn't understand anything of what I was saying, and that's fine X x x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone on Question Time raised a good point last night. If some MP’s are earning considerably more than £82k outside of their MP’s salary, which job becomes their “second job”?  Would those people relaxed about part time MP’s be just as happy if their elected representatives was moonlighting as an MP instead of a lawyer etc?

Also wouldn’t it be good to hear that some had second jobs working with foodbanks and other worthy social causes rather than just filling their bank accounts up even more.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, warsash saint said:

Top marks to Alistair Campbell on BBCQT last night for referencing the 40million viewed Youtube video by Peter Stefanovic that the BBC have blatantly ignored.

I had a tinge of sympathy for the Tory MP from South Derbyshire who was the sacrificial lamb on Question Time.

I thought he did a decent job  trying to defend the indefensible but the negative feedback from the audience would surely have been noticeable to all at Tory HQ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, spyinthesky said:

I had a tinge of sympathy for the Tory MP from South Derbyshire who was the sacrificial lamb on Question Time.

I thought he did a decent job  trying to defend the indefensible but the negative feedback from the audience would surely have been noticeable to all at Tory HQ.

For the guy that whipped his party into voting for abolishing the rules of how MP's behave??? Not a chance

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, warsash saint said:

Top marks to Alistair Campbell on BBCQT last night for referencing the 40million viewed Youtube video by Peter Stefanovic that the BBC have blatantly ignored.

I liked his comment that earning £6m is equivalent to 2 peerages under this Government.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

What's your point, what only Tories can earn big money?

My point is that you need some front to be part of new Labour, and make jibes about cash for peerages. Bearing in mind plod were banging on number 10’s door when Ali’s master was in there. What’s next,  Keith Richards issuing warnings over drug use? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

My point is that you need some front to be part of new Labour, and make jibes about cash for peerages. Bearing in mind plod were banging on number 10’s door when Ali’s master was in there. What’s next,  Keith Richards issuing warnings over drug use? 

Well maybe that's what he was alluding too, you know having a sense of humour.

Anyway the politically motivated police complaint led to no charges, so there wasn't anything in it. It did lead to though, the tory party admitting that they also borrowed money off wealthy supporters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I would argue that if Attenborough was such a risk, why was he at such an event (and not sending his message via a tele-link)?

 

On the wider point about 2nd jobs/incomes/donation etc.  The fact parliament as a whole is extraordinarily quiet on this, tells us all you need to know about your own party of choice.

If Boris kills Attenborough he should be royally fucked

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

My point is that you need some front to be part of new Labour, and make jibes about cash for peerages. Bearing in mind plod were banging on number 10’s door when Ali’s master was in there. What’s next,  Keith Richards issuing warnings over drug use? 

The only retort to Campbell that you fuckers can ever reference. Quite sweet how much he angers the Tories. He actually interesting t9 listen to despite the “yeah but he’s a hypocrite tag” altogether now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, whelk said:

The only retort to Campbell that you fuckers can ever reference. Quite sweet how much he angers the Tories. He actually interesting t9 listen to despite the “yeah but he’s a hypocrite tag” altogether now.

Given his part in the death of 100,000s of people. It is remarkable he has the front to speak at all in public.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/12/iraq-dossier-case-for-war

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.computing.co.uk/news/4040566/government-seeking-water-protection-gut-ico-warns-org?utm_medium=email&utm_id=d606721453c1a5da183128e3762be8b3&utm_content= Government is seeking to water down data protection and gut the ICO%2C warns ORG &utm_campaign=CTG Daily 03&utm_source=CTG New Newsletters&utm_term=UNKNOWN

"The government is looking to gut the data protection rights afforded to individuals and weaken the oversight and transparency into how personal data can be used by businesses and government agencies, according to the non-profit campaigning organisation Open Rights Group (ORG)."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

He's falling apart under the select committee questioning over MPs standards.

The way he moves his eyes around when he's trying to think up some guff to cover up his uselessness is such a giveaway.

Surely must be due to spout some Latin soon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we hear there are no minutes for the meetings where hundreds of millions of pounds of contracts were given away to minister-related parties, with not a hint of a tender process.

Is there anyone in this country who still believes that this government is not corrupt?

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rallyboy said:

Now we hear there are no minutes for the meetings where hundreds of millions of pounds of contracts were given away to minister-related parties, with not a hint of a tender process.

Is there anyone in this country who still believes that this government is not corrupt?

Also, the minister involved had "accidentally" deleted his WhatsApp messages relating to the contracts.

As Annelise Dodds said: "The 21st century equivalent of 'The dog ate my homework'"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The demonstrations of ineptitude by this excuse for a government continue, their U-turns more truly resemble an out of control spinning top.  Senior ministers continue to contradict each other, the man calling himself the PM continues to lie, bluster and avoid anything resembling and answer to a question.  The Tory cultists  maladroitness continues, pathetic attempts to claim those not in government are somehow just as culpable, a bit like claiming the accident you had in your car was the fault of a previous owner.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})