Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%

  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
Stroller said:
Does that make it okay, then? Abbott was kicked out of the Labour party, Sunak's still taking money from Hester.

Why won't the Minister for Women and Equalities take a hand? Ah yes, because she's a racist, too.
Click to expand...

Abbott was an MP, which makes it more serious. Racism is never ok, but this case is a bit like Tommy Robinson complaining someone called him a white bastard.

Not sure why you think Badenoch is a racist, what, for not saying something? Racism by staying silent is a new one on me.
 
Goldhawk-Road said:
Abbott was an MP, which makes it more serious. Racism is never ok, but this case is a bit like Tommy Robinson complaining someone called him a white bastard.

Not sure why you think Badenoch is a racist, what, for not saying something? Racism by staying silent is a new one on me.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was getting Badenoch mixed up with Braverman, who is undoubtedly racist. Badenoch has now spoken out against Hester's comments. Better late than never.
 
My neighbour used to tutor Hesters daughter at their mansion in Horsforth. Said he was a horrible man regardless.
Made a lot of money providing ****e computer systems for the NHS, some not fit for purpose. I know this cos my brother in law has worked on the systems for over 5 years now. At least someone has got extremely rich .
 
Sir Keir is promising a vote on Assisted Dying when Labour form a government. Assuming he doesn't U turn, then good for him. I've just been listening to a female Tory MP expounding why Parliament should not vote on this, and should ignore the public which is currently 78% in favour. Yet another example of where the Tories are getting it so wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobmid and Stroller
Goldhawk-Road said:
Sir Keir is promising a vote on Assisted Dying when Labour form a government. Assuming he doesn't U turn, then good for him. I've just been listening to a female Tory MP expounding why Parliament should not vote on this, and should ignore the public which is currently 78% in favour. Yet another example of where the Tories are getting it so wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree with assisted dying in principle, but I do think it may be quite tricky to implement because of the grey areas involved.
 
Goldhawk-Road said:
Sir Keir is promising a vote on Assisted Dying when Labour form a government. Assuming he doesn't U turn, then good for him. I've just been listening to a female Tory MP expounding why Parliament should not vote on this, and should ignore the public which is currently 78% in favour. Yet another example of where the Tories are getting it so wrong.
Click to expand...
That’s ‘representative’ democracy for you though. We don’t vote for an MP to represent us, we vote for someone to represent themselves and their party. So even if 75% of her constituents think one thing this MP (party irrelevant really) can vote the opposite and call it ‘conscience’, because she, not the people who vote for her, gets to make the decision on how to vote.

Doubtless they will have a ‘free vote’ on this where MPs are led by their conscience rather than their constituents. And nowadays it’s really easy to ask your constituents what they think.

Its bullshit.

rangercol said:
I agree with assisted dying in principle, but I do think it may be quite tricky to implement because of the grey areas involved.
Click to expand...

Canada, nearly all Australian states, 11 US states, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands have all figured out how to implement this effectively. Germany and France are on the way, framing legislation now. Shouldn’t be beyond us, plenty of places to copy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Goldhawk-Road
sb_73 said:
That’s ‘representative’ democracy for you though. We don’t vote for an MP to represent us, we vote for someone to represent themselves and their party. So even if 75% of her constituents think one thing this MP (party irrelevant really) can vote the opposite and call it ‘conscience’, because she, not the people who vote for her, gets to make the decision on how to vote.

Doubtless they will have a ‘free vote’ on this where MPs are led by their conscience rather than their constituents. And nowadays it’s really easy to ask your constituents what they think.

Its bullshit.



Canada, nearly all Australian states, 11 US states, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands have all figured out how to implement this effectively. Germany and France are on the way, framing legislation now. Shouldn’t be beyond us, plenty of places to copy.
Click to expand...

Not sure I’d want an MP going with the view of the majority of the minority of people arsed enough to air their view. People are generally ****ing morons and the MP in theory* is intelligent enough to make the best call even if that means saving constituents from themselves.


*until the 2019 intake as we now have Jonathan Gullis bringing the average IQ down irreparably.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toby and kiwiqpr
rangercol said:
I agree with assisted dying in principle, but I do think it may be quite tricky to implement because of the grey areas involved.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, two doctors would have to opine that a patient likely had 6 months to live before a judge signed off. I'm sure a judge would remind the patient that doctors can be wrong about prognoses, and then the patient can, if they wish, abandon the application or defer the execution of it (no pun intended). If he/she deferred, but had the necessary judicial permission, it would surely give him/her huge comfort that they had that choice if pain or distress (like struggling to breathe) became unbearable.
 
sb_73 said:
That’s ‘representative’ democracy for you though. We don’t vote for an MP to represent us, we vote for someone to represent themselves and their party. So even if 75% of her constituents think one thing this MP (party irrelevant really) can vote the opposite and call it ‘conscience’, because she, not the people who vote for her, gets to make the decision on how to vote.

Doubtless they will have a ‘free vote’ on this where MPs are led by their conscience rather than their constituents. And nowadays it’s really easy to ask your constituents what they think.

Its bullshit.



Canada, nearly all Australian states, 11 US states, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands have all figured out how to implement this effectively. Germany and France are on the way, framing legislation now. Shouldn’t be beyond us, plenty of places to copy.
Click to expand...

As I said, I agree with it.
We must ensure that no one is able to profit from it by putting someone under undue pressure to end their life.
 
rangercol said:
As I said, I agree with it.
We must ensure that no one is able to profit from it by putting someone under undue pressure to end their life.
Click to expand...

A valid concern, but not an issue that has been particularly problematic in countries where Assisted Dying is legal, I believe. The main complaint by the antis, is that AD can expand to other categories of patients through challenge under HR laws. But a legislature could put a stop to mission creep if it had the will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sb_73 and rangercol
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back