General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Joe_ Public

Leave aside all the very serious questions about respecting the democratic process of scrutiny and public accountability for a minute, this guy who is talking tough about going into negotiations with trump saying he'll just walk away if they dont like what the americans are proposing is the same guy who's terrified of subjecting himself to questioning by his own people. What a truly appalling scenario that is.

prawnsambo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

and how does the leaders of political parties looking for votes assist democracy if they stay at home and not put themselves forward for scrutiny because it is 'too hard'?

Never mind the ludicrous stunt that Gove participated in last night; turning up at C4 with a camera crew, boom mics, the lot, just to try and deflect the pressure from his boss. This is one of the reasons Johnson won't subject himself to any serious scrutiny. They've pulled so many questionable stunts that they'd be massacred: Masquerading their Twitter account as a fact checker, editing BBC headlines and posting them on Facebook, doctoring interview clips, the list is endless.

hotmail.com

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's instructive to see people on here defending Johnson for not turning up to interviews and avoiding the press. And in the process vilifying the press rather than the politician who won't submit himself to public scrutiny. They seem to miss the point that the press in these situations, stands for the people. If they can't ask hard questions of the politicians, that's a subversion of democracy.

This is the same kind of thing that Trump has mainstreamed with his "enemies of the people" propaganda. It's Orwellian and no democratic minded person should ever cheer the muzzling of the press. Regardless of what you think their views might be. Because every sword has two edges.

The most criticism of the press and the broadcast media comes from the Left in Britiain. The BBC is daily accused of bias by the Labour Party.

So again the comparison with Trump (Orwell - bingo) is silly.

The Tory Party would be closed affiliated with the Democratic Party in America anyway rather than the Republicans.

robinph

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

in a sense yes.
but you have to emerge from your tribal bunker and realise that Johnson has now more to lose than Corbyn.

Johnson should have realised that before calling the election. He had another 3 years to wait in No 10 if he wanted, obviously with less and less actual power behind him but it was him that wanted to put the decision to the public.

Just the same as with May who decided that she wanted to go before the public rather than stay sat in No 10 for another three years, then ran away from debates and "lost" the election despite winning it and Corbyn "won" despite losing.

Bannasidhe

prawnsambo wrote: »

Don't like how the House of Lords is voting: limit its influence

That isn't a new tactic to be fair.
There is precedence - which is how the UK's version of having a Constitution 'works' after all.

1909 The Lord's Veto'd Lloyd George's (Liberals aka Whigs) Budget. The crises prompted a GE run on the 'Reform the HoL' theme.
The budget did eventually pass in 1910 and in 1911 the Commons voted to remove the Lord's power to veto a Bill, the exception being Bills to extend the life of Parliament.
(Which worked in Ireland's favour as it meant the Home Rule Bill's could no longer be veto'd as had been happening)

The Lords could delay Bills for 3 session over 2 years tho - If they timed the delay right they could technically 'kill it'.

The Parliament Act of 1949 was brought in by Clement Atlee's Labour Govt sought to reduce the ability of the HoL to delay from 3 sessions over 2 years to 2 sessions over 1 year. Atlee was concerned that the HoL would use the power of delay to stop his nationalisation programme.

The House of Lords Act of 1999 (Gordon Brown's Labour Govt) got rid of most of the hereditary peers and the number of 'lords' went from 1,330 to 669 most of whom are 'life peers'. There are currently 793 sitting in HoL.
Many saw this as an attempt by Labour to reduce Tory power in the HoL.

The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (Dan Byles (Con) Private Member's Bill - Cameron's Conservative Govt ) made it possible for Peers to retire/resign or be removed (members who commit serious criminal offences resulting in a jail sentence of at least one year, and members who fail to attend the House for a whole session) - all of which had been constitutionally impossible up til then.

Letwin_Larry

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Leave aside all the very serious questions about respecting the democratic process of scrutiny and public accountability for a minute, this guy who is talking tough about going into negotiations with trump saying he'll just walk away if they dont like what the americans are proposing is the same guy who's terrified of subjecting himself to questioning by his own people. What a truly appalling scenario that is.

no it's not.
the reason so many Lab people are trying to blow this up out of all proportion is Corbyn subjected himself to Andrew Neil and arguably cost himself any slim chances he had of becoming PM.
now they want Johnson to do the same.
if Johnson is tactically astute he will steer well clear of it. My guess is Cummings will be telling him such.

sid waddell

hotmail.com wrote: »

The most criticism of the press and the broadcast media comes from the Left in Britiain. The BBC is daily accused of bias by the Labour Party.

So again the comparison with Trump (Orwell - bingo) is silly.

The Tory Party would be closed affiliated with the Democratic Party in America anyway rather than the Republicans.

Tories who if they were in America would be Democrats are rapidly dying out, if they aren't indeed already gone, certianly most of them have.

The similarity between this Tory party and the Republicans is obvious - in the supine grovelling of the parliamentary party to a cultish "dear leader" type that Johnson has become, in their refusal to subject themselves to media scrutiny, in their attempt to create an alternate reality where objective truth doesn't matter, in their constant creation of enemies and manufacturing of crisis, and in their threats to those who get in their way.

This Tory party is very much a UK version of the Republicans.

LuckyLloyd

Boris Johnson is a coward who doesn’t believe in himself or his policies, is the straightforward implication of him running from public appearances. We were promised a different strategy, but he performed terribly in his two appearances and the polls were turning off the back of it so he’s retreated into the bunker.

It’s an utterly damning indictment of his fitness to be PM.

sid waddell

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Boris Johnson is a coward who doesn’t believe in himself or his policies, is the straightforward implication of him running from public appearances. We were promised a different strategy, but he performed terribly in his two appearances and the polls were turning off the back of it so he’s retreated into the bunker.

It’s an utterly damning indictment of his fitness to be PM.

I'd say the arrogance of it is astounding, except it's totally predictable.

The Tories genuinely do believe they were born to rule and should not have to subject themselves to public scrutiny, bah humbug, why on earth should they have to do that?

I mean, the absolute arrogance of the media and the public to think that the dear leader and his supine underlings should have to lower themselves to something as inconvenient as public scrutiny? What a disgrace! Shut up, people and take your medicine!

prawnsambo

hotmail.com wrote: »

The most criticism of the press and the broadcast media comes from the Left in Britiain. The BBC is daily accused of bias by the Labour Party.

So again the comparison with Trump (Orwell - bingo) is silly.

A free press should be equally disliked. Labour don't like the BBC, Conservatives don't like C4. That's fine. Threatening the one you don't like with a 'review' is worrying. And I'm not giving anyone a free pass on this. A free press, free from government influence is a healthy thing.

sid waddell

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

in a sense yes.
but you have to emerge from your tribal bunker and realise that Johnson has now more to lose than Corbyn.

The latter went on the Andrew Neil interview and imo blew it. it was a car crash, in much the same way Prince Andrew's interview with Ms. Maitlis was.
BOTH would have been better off staying at home, and watching Corrie.

Johnson would be very ill-advised to go on the Ch4 pointless show last evening, and also the Andrew Neil interview/grilling.

if he steers clear of these "gameshows" he WILL be PM on the 13th Dec 2019.

Note! please remember i couldn't give a fiddlers who wins this election. i follow it purely for amusement purposes.

Wow, public scrutiny is now a "gameshow"?

Could you possibly show any more disdain for ordinary people?

What Tories think of ordinary people really is coming out thick and fast, or should I say rich and thick, now, isn't it?

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

no it's not.
the reason so many Lab people are trying to blow this up out of all proportion is Corbyn subjected himself to Andrew Neil and arguably cost himself any slim chances he had of becoming PM.
now they want Johnson to do the same.
if Johnson is tactically astute he will steer well clear of it. My guess is Cummings will be telling him such.

The idea johnson is going to go to washington and lay down the law to the americans is just preposterous. The famed leverage they claim to have had with the EU, what do they have with the US? Nothing, not even the pretence of it. Johnson can duck all the scrutiny he wants and everybody, including "lab people" is entitled to call him out for the coward he is.

prawnsambo

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

in a sense yes.
but you have to emerge from your tribal bunker and realise that Johnson has now more to lose than Corbyn.

The latter went on the Andrew Neil interview and imo blew it. it was a car crash, in much the same way Prince Andrew's interview with Ms. Maitlis was.
BOTH would have been better off staying at home, and watching Corrie.

Johnson would be very ill-advised to go on the Ch4 pointless show last evening, and also the Andrew Neil interview/grilling.

if he steers clear of these "gameshows" he WILL be PM on the 13th Dec 2019.

Note! please remember i couldn't give a fiddlers who wins this election. i follow it purely for amusement purposes.

I find it hard to believe the bolded bit given what you say above. If you like the entertainment, you should actually be annoyed that you're being deprived of it. And of course what you're advocating is that the sitting PM should avoid scrutiny because said scrutiny could lose him the election.

Well d'uh, yeah. That's kind of the point.

Letwin_Larry

sid waddell wrote: »

Wow, public scrutiny is now a "gameshow"?

Could you possibly show any more disdain for ordinary people?

What Tories think of ordinary people really is coming out thick and fast, or should I say rich and thick, now, isn't it?

what exactly did the electorate learn from Corbyn's car crash interview with Andrew Neil?

again i'll remind you i am not a Tory.
but that is the problem with social media driven 'political discussion'. instead of listening to other people, you either pander to one another's tribal bias/prejudices or you just shout accusations at "THE OTHER LOT"

if Corbyn is elected PM it wont bother me. in fact i will watch with interest as destroys the UK economy.
but on a serious note a Johnson victory, or possibly a hung-parliament is much more likely imo.

hotmail.com

sid waddell wrote: »

Tories who if they were in America would be Democrats are rapidly dying out, if they aren't indeed already gone, certianly most of them have.

The similarity between this Tory party and the Republicans is obvious - in the supine grovelling of the parliamentary party to a cultish "dear leader" type that Johnson has become, in their refusal to subject themselves to media scrutiny, in their attempt to create an alternate reality where objective truth doesn't matter, in their constant creation of enemies and manufacturing of crisis, and in their threats to those who get in their way.

This Tory party is very much a UK version of the Republicans.

In policies, the Tories are aligned to the Dems and FG

prawnsambo

And this is how Johnson submits himself to media scrutiny. Gas that he didn't realise he was on camera. Can't wait for the CCHQ version starring Michael Gove as Boris and Stanley Johnson as Nick Ferrari.

sid waddell

hotmail.com wrote: »

In policies, the Tories are aligned to the Dems and FG

They aren't aligned to either.

The people of the UK as a whole are ideologically away to the right like the right-wing in America.

But the Tories are rapidly trying to change that and are succeeding.

There is no room for the likes of Ken Clarke or Justine Greening or even Philip Hammond in today's Tory party. John Major knows well what their game is.

That should tell you something.

I have no doubt that every one of that Tory front bench would be Republicans were they in the US and their supine grovelling towards their dear leader shows they'd be defending Trump outright too.

The Tory party is completely bereft of morals.

sid waddell

prawnsambo wrote: »

And this is how Johnson submits himself to media scrutiny. Gas that he didn't realise he was on camera. Can't wait for the CCHQ version starring Michael Gove as Boris and Stanley Johnson as Nick Ferrari.

Johnson couldn't even answer how many children he has on LBC.

If a PM can't answer how many children he has, he has lost the right to be trusted on anything.

Then there's this. Johnson allegedly said "**** the families", in reference to the families of the 7/7/2005 London bombings.

In view of his previous comments about Hillsborough and Liverpool, that's no surprise.

He has complete and utter disdain for ordinary people.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/16/boris-johnson-said-f-families-7-7-terror-attacks-9970567/

Joe_ Public

prawnsambo wrote: »

And this is how Johnson submits himself to media scrutiny. Gas that he didn't realise he was on camera. Can't wait for the CCHQ version starring Michael Gove as Boris and Stanley Johnson as Nick Ferrari.

Embarrassing for the presenter. On the substance of the tory proposal to seek a cross party consensus on social care, ok fair enough, but could you imagine if it was labour coming out with such a proposal? We'd never hear the end of it.

hotmail.com

sid waddell wrote: »

They aren't aligned to either.

The people of the UK as a whole are ideologically away to the right like the right-wing in America.

But the Tories are rapidly trying to change that and are succeeding.

There is no room for the likes of Ken Clarke or Justine Greening or even Philip Hammond in today's Tory party. John Major knows well what their game is.

That should tell you something.

I have no doubt that every one of that Tory front bench would be Republicans were they in the US and their supine grovelling towards their dear leader shows they'd be defending Trump outright too.

The Tory party is completely bereft of morals.

The Tories support the NHS and the principle of the welfare state, albeit less enthusiastically than the Left.

The notion that the Tories are more right wing than Americans is so daft.

Not even Thatcher dared to undo the NHS for example.

Bannasidhe

hotmail.com wrote: »

Not even Thatcher dared to undo the NHS for example.

.. it's never wise to make statements like that without checking first... not when there are historians lurking...

Treasury docs prove she not only dared, she was also rather keen on privatising the welfare state while she was about it. Even when her own cabinet revolted, she tried to get sneaky about it.

Margaret Thatcher secretly tried to press ahead with a politically toxic plan to dismantle the welfare state even after a “cabinet riot” and her famous declaration that the “NHS is safe with us”, newly released Treasury documents show.

The plan commissioned by Thatcher and her chancellor Sir Geoffrey Howe included proposals to charge for state schooling, introduce compulsory private health insurance and a system of private medical facilities that “would, of course, mean the end of the National Health Service”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/25/margaret-thatcher-pushed-for-breakup-of-welfare-state-despite-nhs-pledge

sid waddell

hotmail.com wrote: »

The Tories support the NHS and the principle of the welfare state, albeit less enthusiastically than the Left.

The notion that the Tories are more right wing than Americans is so daft.

Not even Thatcher dared to undo the NHS for example.

If the Tories supported the NHS, they wouldn't be drip drip privatising it and it wouldn't be on the table in trade talks with the Americans.

It is on the table and it is under threat.

If you believe what the Tories say in public about the NHS I have some magic beans to sell you.

sid waddell

Bannasidhe wrote: »

.. it's never wise to make statements like that without checking first... not when there are historians lurking...

Treasury docs prove she not only dared, she was also rather keen on privatising the welfare state while she was about it. Even when her own cabinet revolted, she tried to get sneaky about it.



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/25/margaret-thatcher-pushed-for-breakup-of-welfare-state-despite-nhs-pledge

Yet there are people here only too willing to believe in magic beans...

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

Yet there are people here only too willing to believe in magic beans...

...and some believe that 130 billion pounds grows on a forest of magic money trees.

Speaking of trees, Labour policy is - as usual - exposed for what it is = pure fantasy.

https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1199939534282248194

Harry Palmr

The tree planting thing isn't impossible if you plant the right trees - ones with acorns

Here is the full Nick Ferrari/Boris Johnson interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTmpzuwgnDA

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

...and some believe that 130 billion pounds grows on a forest of magic money trees.

Speaking of trees, Labour policy is - as usual - exposed for what it is = pure fantasy.

https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1199939534282248194

This one guy, just one guy almost all on his ownio, estimates he has planted 2 million trees over the past decade. Thats just one guy. On one day alone he planted 2,000 trees.

Reforesting the UK: 'Trees are the ultimate long-term project'

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/16/reforesting-the-uk-trees-are-the-ultimate-long-term-project?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Harry Palmr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The tree planting thing isn't impossible if you plant the right trees - ones with acorns

Even with acorns, the figure of 2 billion is plucked high from the sky.

Furthermore, the policy isn't "there will be 2 billion trees"; it's that 2 billion trees will "be planted".

Even the Guardian described the policy as "ambitious", which, for that Left-wing outlet, is code term for "unrealistic".

Furthermore planting trees must also come with responsible management. It's not a management-free issue; it has impacts on the environment, sometimes negative if handled poorly.

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

...and some believe that 130 billion pounds grows on a forest of magic money trees.

Speaking of trees, Labour policy is - as usual - exposed for what it is = pure fantasy.

https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1199939534282248194

Where's the objective fact that this isn't possible? Labour are not saying 1 person will dig every hole and plant a seed and then move on. It seems perfectly fine to me with machinery. As pointed out, trees can be planted to grow other trees e.g. acorns.

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

...and some believe that 130 billion pounds grows on a forest of magic money trees.

Speaking of trees, Labour policy is - as usual - exposed for what it is = pure fantasy.

https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1199939534282248194

So get everyone in the country to plant a couple of trees a year then. Doesn't sound quite as big a number then.

Sure a few people wouldn't plant any, and a few people would plant loads so it would even out. Get all the schools to each spend a day planting trees each year and that would be a big chunk of the numbers covered, give them some more saplings to take home and plant with their parents, jobs done. I don;t think the plan is for just one person to be doing all the planting on their own.

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

...and some believe that 130 billion pounds grows on a forest of magic money trees.

Speaking of trees, Labour policy is - as usual - exposed for what it is = pure fantasy.

https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1199939534282248194

I'm no forestry expert but apparently it's not an unreasonable figure.
Ireland for example plans to plant .4B trees in the same time frame, and we are roughly one quarter the size of the UK.

It seems far removed from 'Pure fantasy'.