Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
johnh

General Election

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rubecula said:

I am seriously surprised mike and matt

democratically elected mps follow the dictates of the people who voted for them yes they may have different view points but if they were voted in then the people were not informed otherwise or the person who was elected would not have been.  I have no objection to the mps having private concerns but making the public is wrong in my opinion.

They are not dictates. There’s a leadership style that employs dictates but isn’t that something to avoid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basic politics should be enforced like dentist visits; you need to learn the basics, you need to keep up with the maintenance and you need to know what’s going on. But chances are, you’re not going to like any of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, rubecula said:

I am seriously surprised mike and matt

democratically elected mps follow the dictates of the people who voted for them yes they may have different view points but if they were voted in then the people were not informed otherwise or the person who was elected would not have been.  I have no objection to the mps having private concerns but making the public is wrong in my opinion.

Yes, I am also seriously surprised Rubes.   There is a word for individuals who, having been elected to represent a party and a manifesto, instead force their own (and different) views onto the people who voted for them.  'Dictatorial' is the word that comes to mind.  If these people had any integrity they would resign as MP's and trigger a by-election and put their views to the test.  Some hope, we are talking politicians here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Edmund Burke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, johnh said:

Yes, I am also seriously surprised Rubes.   There is a word for individuals who, having been elected to represent a party and a manifesto, instead force their own (and different) views onto the people who voted for them.  'Dictatorial' is the word that comes to mind.  If these people had any integrity they would resign as MP's and trigger a by-election and put their views to the test.  Some hope, we are talking politicians here.

But where does this start and stop? The main parties change their minds all the time and then on the other hand they dont change their judgment when new information comes to light (ie Brexit). How many times has May said something that she has gone back on? Corbyn doesnt even follow the decisions made at their party conference. 

I get why people would suggest these independents should trigger a fresh election and in 'normal' times I would probably agree with them but the two main parties themselves are that bad that I would like to see more MPs become independent. Generally speaking, I actually think the country would be in a better place and politics would be more transparant if MPs were given more freedom to make their own decisions.

 

Share this post


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

But where does this start and stop? The main parties change their minds all the time and then on the other hand they dont change their judgment when new information comes to light (ie Brexit). How many times has May said something that she has gone back on? Corbyn doesnt even follow the decisions made at their party conference. 

I get why people would suggest these independents should trigger a fresh election and in 'normal' times I would probably agree with them but the two main parties themselves are that bad that I would like to see more MPs become independent. Generally speaking, I actually think the country would be in a better place and politics would be more transparant if MPs were given more freedom to make their own decisions.

I've been saying that for ever Bailey, I despise the system as it is.

Share this post


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

But where does this start and stop? The main parties change their minds all the time and then on the other hand they dont change their judgment when new information comes to light (ie Brexit). How many times has May said something that she has gone back on? Corbyn doesnt even follow the decisions made at their party conference. 

I get why people would suggest these independents should trigger a fresh election and in 'normal' times I would probably agree with them but the two main parties themselves are that bad that I would like to see more MPs become independent. Generally speaking, I actually think the country would be in a better place and politics would be more transparant if MPs were given more freedom to make their own decisions.

 

Government by compromise would be a nightmare.

Share this post


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

How many times has May said something that she has gone back on?

For me there should be another election if the ideals aren't being pursued and if it's for their own agenda boot them out or even prison. Country is being pilfered by the self serving bar stewards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, johnh said:

Government by compromise would be a nightmare.

It's all working well at the moment though isn'tt it:huh:?

Bailey (if I understand him right) is talking about government by conscience, not compromise. Compromise is just two opposing sides coming to agreement by ceding things they believe in in return for being allowed to keep some they do; something that would be more easily achieved (as I alluded to earlier but narrowing it a bit) by all of us going into a polling booth and hitting a blue button or a red button. Then the two party leaders could play paper, rock, scissors (with the winner having the first three choices) over every issue because individual MPs would be superfluous as they all agree on everything and debates would be a complete sham, like they are now..

Share this post


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

Government by compromise would be a nightmare.

Or it would lead to the people governing us working together instead of trying to sling mud at each other to point score against the other party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/02/2019 at 19:58, johnh said:

Government by compromise would be a nightmare.

Why? Works very well here in Switzerland and actually represents everyone, not just the supporters of one side:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/in-switzerland-cabinet-members-take-it-in-turns-to-be-president?utm_source=Facebook Videos&utm_medium=Facebook Videos&utm_campaign=Facebook Video Blogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Matt said:

not sure I would want to live under swiss laws though Matt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the evidence that Chris Grayling has had a prominent role in the loss of £2.7billion of tax payers money should he be forced to resign his post instead of being backed by May. 

Personally I think he should be fired and not praised by a desperate PM more concerned about losing allies than the country losing the sort of money that would make a huge difference to care for the elderly hospitals councils or schools, I hate paying my taxes to this government I feel like pursuing to see if I have any rights to sue them for mishandling of my taxes and demanding it be refunded because they are to incompetent to look after it, okay I know it won’t happen but it makes my blood boil how this sort calamitous attitude with our money is allowed to go on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brexit if anything has completely highlighted how politics and politicians in this country is and are completely nonfunctional, we need a better system when electing a government and cross party decisions from the off on national issues such as Brexit 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@rachshabi

I do think the Labour party has an antisemitism problem, but everyone is ill-served when the Conservative party, which has an Islamophobia problem, is let off the hook. This isn'tt to deflect or minimise - it's simply asking for consistency in the fight against prejudice.

Share this post


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

Eh, he wasn't hurt and went on with his day?

So? As the guy who committed the crime is charged with "assault by beating" it would suggest the he was punched in the head because CPS guidelines say...

"A battery is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another. Where there is a battery, the defendant should be charged with ‘assault by beating’. (DPP v Little (1992) 1 All ER 299)."

So the press suggesting an egg was thrown at him (without reference to distance) is misrepresenting what seems to have happened. Even the Met put out a statement that, "On Sunday, March 3 at around 3:52pm an egg was thrown at a Member of Parliament."

I have no idea what actually occurred but on the face of it someone's not telling the truth; the fact that he wasn't hurt (although punching a 69 man in the head is quite likely going to cause a fair bit of pain) is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MikeO said:

So? As the guy who committed the crime is charged with "assault by beating" it would suggest the he was punched in the head because CPS guidelines say...

 

Not to make light of the assault, but it seems curious he was holding an egg at the same time; do you think he beat it later, as well? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Formby said:

Not to make light of the assault, but it seems curious he was holding an egg at the same time; do you think he beat it later, as well? 

I did note the irony:).

Also, would it still be "battery" if the egg was free-range?

Share this post


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

Eh, he wasn't hurt and went on with his day?

 

Point is the beeb misreported it to down play the seriousness of the act because it's Corbyn. The headline would most likely be punch had it happened to anyone else. They're meant to be independent and fair, yet their tory bias is very strong. Most of our political news is more similar to North Korean propaganda than to a civilised European country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, pete0 said:

Chairman of the committee is "my" MP so thanks for that Pete, I think that's probably the first time I've ever heard him speak. Lovely bloke Neil Parrish.

Chairman of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare but a die-hard supporter of hunting (no conflict there obviously) https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/mp-tells-hunt-supporters-devon-975729  and an opponent of same sex marriage, saying it's "for the Church and Christians to decide [upon], not for parliament to legislate."

Don't blame me I didn't vote for him but with a 20,000 majority to defend he'll be around a while I fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Chairman of the committee is "my" MP so thanks for that Pete, I think that's probably the first time I've ever heard him speak. Lovely bloke Neil Parrish.

Chairman of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare but a die-hard supporter of hunting (no conflict there obviously) https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/mp-tells-hunt-supporters-devon-975729  and an opponent of same sex marriage, saying it's "for the Church and Christians to decide [upon], not for parliament to legislate."

Don't blame me I didn't vote for him but with a 20,000 majority to defend he'll be around a while I fear.

Love to know whether he knew the cup he was using was biodegradable or whether he was blind to the fact Gove was drinking from a plastic cup at that time. 

Poor thing with our politics. No voice or consideration to the minority. MPs grease up to the majority whereas they should have a greater social conscious, rather than play to the hunters for their vote they should ban it as they 'know better'. 

From the article you put this bit is very damning for the 'sport'. Hopefully the rest of Parliament will push through enforceable punishments soon. 

'According to the International Fund for Animal Welfare, no genuine trail hunting was witnessed at 98% of the hunts observed in 2015, with trails seen being laid at just eight of the 478 hunts monitored.' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pete0 said:

Point is the beeb misreported it to down play the seriousness of the act because it's Corbyn. The headline would most likely be punch had it happened to anyone else. They're meant to be independent and fair, yet their tory bias is very strong. Most of our political news is more similar to North Korean propaganda than to a civilised European country. 

https://skwawkbox.org/2019/03/06/breaking-bbc-under-ofcom-investigation-for-bias/?fbclid=IwAR2CiyA1k7jTlR5focQReQXTFG6Td623juH448J555DCphZ7pSYl1MiixcY

Ofcom are now looking into the BBC for being politically bias. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, pete0 said:

The media in this country are mostly on the right, probably most of the directors in the BBC went to same schools as top people in the Tory party, the school chum act and probably go to the same masons lodge as well.

Do you think I’m being paranoid? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Palfy said:

The media in this country are mostly on the right, probably most of the directors in the BBC went to same schools as top people in the Tory party, the school chum act and probably go to the same masons lodge as well.

Do you think I’m being paranoid? 

First bit 100% correct. The BBC though is a different animal, the right will accuse them of being left wing (as John does on here) while the left will maintain the opposite.

Their editorial guidelines say...

"Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences.  It applies to all our output and services - television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines.  We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.

The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.  But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects.  However, its requirements will vary.

The term 'due' means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.

Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of 'balance' between opposing viewpoints.  Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.

The BBC Agreement forbids our output from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy, other than broadcasting or the provision of online services.

The external activities of staff, presenters and others who contribute to our output can also affect the BBC's reputation for impartiality.  Consequently, this section should be read in conjunction with Section 15: Conflicts of Interest."

But it must be difficult for an individual reporter, who obviously has views on politics/current affairs or they wouldn't be in the job, to put their personal opinions to one side (bit like a football commentator who obviously prefers some teams over others). Personally though I think the beeb generally gets it right, for sure they have people of all political persuasions working for them but it balances out in the end imo.

Share this post


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

First bit 100% correct. The BBC though is a different animal, the right will accuse them of being left wing (as John does on here) while the left will maintain the opposite.

Their editorial guidelines say...

"Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences.  It applies to all our output and services - television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines.  We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.

The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.  But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects.  However, its requirements will vary.

The term 'due' means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.

Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of 'balance' between opposing viewpoints.  Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.

The BBC Agreement forbids our output from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy, other than broadcasting or the provision of online services.

The external activities of staff, presenters and others who contribute to our output can also affect the BBC's reputation for impartiality.  Consequently, this section should be read in conjunction with Section 15: Conflicts of Interest."

But it must be difficult for an individual reporter, who obviously has views on politics/current affairs or they wouldn't be in the job, to put their personal opinions to one side (bit like a football commentator who obviously prefers some teams over others). Personally though I think the beeb generally gets it right, for sure they have people of all political persuasions working for them but it balances out in the end imo.

Possibly does, but my concern is I don’t buy papers because you don’t get a balanced view and they are biased in their opinions, so it concerns me that an institution like the BBC could be leaning one way or another and possibly more to the  right. 

What we mustn’t forget is the media are responsible for how most receive and digest their information and they are changing the face of our society and not for the better hence Brexit delivered mainly with lies enforced by the Sunk and the Mail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Possibly does, but my concern is I don’t buy papers because you don’t get a balanced view and they are biased in their opinions, so it concerns me that an institution like the BBC could be leaning one way or another and possibly more to the  right. 

What we mustn’t forget is the media are responsible for how most receive and digest their information and they are changing the face of our society and not for the better hence Brexit delivered mainly with lies enforced by the Sunk and the Mail. 

Well you can't have it both ways Palfy, the BBC are rabidly pro-Remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, johnh said:

Well you can't have it both ways Palfy, the BBC are rabidly pro-Remain.

I don’t know John, but if that is the case then I apologise there not so bad after all 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, johnh said:

Well you can't have it both ways Palfy, the BBC are rabidly pro-Remain.

Yeah but pro-Brexit people are bound to say that; pro-remainers will say the opposite. I've seen zero evidence that they're biased either way myself, they report what's happening and have no "opinion" pieces because it would break their rules and the writer would be summarily sacked if anything got published (not that it would get past the editors in the first place).

I'd love to see links of where they're rabidly anything (even non-brexit related); it's a fantasy invented by the right wing press because the BBC doesn't espouse the same views, they just report what's happening and allow people to make up their own minds. What a strange way to run a news organisation eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pete0 said:

Hold on... so the MET Police release a statement saying that he was hit with an egg and every news agency, at least reasonable one, reports it as being hit with an egg and yet the BBC are "very poor". Bearing in mind the MET had officers there and they arrested the person for assault, which it would be.

The only quote I have seen from anyone who was there is Diane Abbott who says he was punched with an egg in his hand. Given that Abbott is completely unreliable and that Corbyn was clearly fine, I would be surprised if this was anything more than a "splat", slapping him on the head with the egg in his palm. Still should never happen but to suggest its been downplayed because of who it is is just a load of old tosh.

Furthermore that article you have claims the fella that did it is far right which seems far more unsubstantiated than the BBC report which was suported by the police. Likewise I can only see that it is "thought" that it was Brexit related which to me suggests that is media guessing games. 

It sounds like a left wing poor me story and Corbyn seems like he is putting distance betweeen himself and the story so fair play to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MikeO said:

I did note the irony:).

Also, would it still be "battery" if the egg was free-range?

Oh, I think so - he would most likely have been charged. :) 

Share this post


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

Hold on... so the MET Police release a statement saying that he was hit with an egg and every news agency, at least reasonable one, reports it as being hit with an egg and yet the BBC are "very poor". Bearing in mind the MET had officers there and they arrested the person for assault, which it would be.

The only quote I have seen from anyone who was there is Diane Abbott who says he was punched with an egg in his hand. Given that Abbott is completely unreliable and that Corbyn was clearly fine, I would be surprised if this was anything more than a "splat", slapping him on the head with the egg in his palm. Still should never happen but to suggest its been downplayed because of who it is is just a load of old tosh.

Furthermore that article you have claims the fella that did it is far right which seems far more unsubstantiated than the BBC report which was suported by the police. Likewise I can only see that it is "thought" that it was Brexit related which to me suggests that is media guessing games. 

It sounds like a left wing poor me story and Corbyn seems like he is putting distance betweeen himself and the story so fair play to him.

See Mike's post. 

8 hours ago, MikeO said:

So? As the guy who committed the crime is charged with "assault by beating" it would suggest the he was punched in the head because CPS guidelines say...

"A battery is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another. Where there is a battery, the defendant should be charged with ‘assault by beating’. (DPP v Little (1992) 1 All ER 299)."

So the press suggesting an egg was thrown at him (without reference to distance) is misrepresenting what seems to have happened. Even the Met put out a statement that, "On Sunday, March 3 at around 3:52pm an egg was thrown at a Member of Parliament."

I have no idea what actually occurred but on the face of it someone's not telling the truth; the fact that he wasn't hurt (although punching a 69 man in the head is quite likely going to cause a fair bit of pain) is irrelevant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nobody has asked what kind of egg was used  or whether or not it was fresh.   if itas a dinosaur egg for example it would be fossilsed and therefore would hurt a bit,  if it was an ostrich egg it would need to be fresh or it may sprout legs 00nd run away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MikeO said:

So? As the guy who committed the crime is charged with "assault by beating" it would suggest the he was punched in the head because CPS guidelines say...

"A battery is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another. Where there is a battery, the defendant should be charged with ‘assault by beating’. (DPP v Little (1992) 1 All ER 299)."

So the press suggesting an egg was thrown at him (without reference to distance) is misrepresenting what seems to have happened. Even the Met put out a statement that, "On Sunday, March 3 at around 3:52pm an egg was thrown at a Member of Parliament."

I have no idea what actually occurred but on the face of it someone's not telling the truth; the fact that he wasn't hurt (although punching a 69 man in the head is quite likely going to cause a fair bit of pain) is irrelevant.

"battery is classified as the application of unlawful force"

My main issue was the assumption that the BBC were playing it down. It was a non event and the fact Jez probably took it in his stride and played it down himself fed into that narrative.

If it was Mo Salah the guy would probably be up on attempted murder charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Chach said:

"battery is classified as the application of unlawful force"

My main issue was the assumption that the BBC were playing it down. It was a non event and the fact Jez probably took it in his stride and played it down himself fed into that narrative.

If it was Mo Salah the guy would probably be up on attempted murder charges.

or willful damage to a boot with his groin?

Share this post


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

It was a non event and the fact Jez probably took it in his stride and played it down himself fed into that narrative.

If you got punched (or slapped or even just "egged") in the street by a stranger would you consider it a "non event"? I sure as hell wouldn't. The fact that he played it down and left the matter to the police is to his credit.

I see your point on the reporting of it though, shame there was no footage of the incident so people could reach their own conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...