Off Topic The Politics Thread

[rangercol]

Tell them all to **** off then

Boris is and hopefully it's not too late to get a deal.

It's certainly what the hopeless May should have done.

Round and round we go .

 

[rangercol]

Dads Army and now Yes Minister

Try 11/9 if you want somewhere nearer accurate

You still here?

 

[rangercol]

Love this. Sort of sums up the thread.

'Majority of young people voted remain' [Fairly reasonable claim]

'Prove it'

*Provides statistic*

'I don't believe it'

For the record, on the question of the methodology, it's hardly within the margin of error: https://fullfact.org/europe/how-did-young-people-vote-brexit-referendum/

On the point of Cummings firing a SpAd, it's hardly a crisis of democracy for one unelected advisor, who is in charge of all the SpAds in other departments, to terminate the employment of another SpAd. Yes, there has been a change under this administration as SpAds used to report directly to Ministers, but they've been entirely transparent about that change, and I see no reason why they are not within their rights to have made that change. If Ministers wants advisors who are working for them alone, and not the Govt as a whole, they can pay for them out of their own pocket, or rely on their staff in their parliamentary office like every other MP.

Hardly 'sinister' then?

Your inside knowledge is appreciated.

 

[Stroller]

Hardly 'sinister' then?

Your inside knowledge is appreciated.

I think you'll find he said that there was a change under this administration whereby (the unelected) Cummings controls all the special advisors. I consider that somewhat sinister, but not so much as how Short (geddit?) seems to be dictating the tactics regarding avoiding parliamentary scrutiny.

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

I think you'll find he said that there was a change under this administration whereby (the unelected) Cummings controls all the special advisors. I consider that somewhat sinister, but not so much as how Short (geddit?) seems to be dictating the tactics regarding avoiding parliamentary scrutiny.

Yeah, but the SpAds are also unelected. There has been a change of reporting line, but I think they are within their rights to do that and have been entirely up front about it. If Cummings was getting rid of elected Government Ministers, or indeed civil servants, I think we'd have a problem, but one SpAd getting rid of more junior SpAds (essentially political appointees, paid for my the Govt, which is already dodgy in my book) isn't the same. It's effectively an employee of the Tory Party getting rid of another employee of the Tory Party.

As you all know, I'm by no means a Brexiteer, but some of the criticism in the last few days has been misdirected in my opinion. There is a lot to criticise that is very legitimate (again, IMO), but not the prorogation, or the firing of a SpAd. Frankly, I find it odd that someone who could work for Phil Hammond could also reconcile themselves with working for the Johnson administration anyway...

EDIT - I do find the amount of power Cummings holds fascinating, but that is nothing new, as with the likes of Alistair Campbell, or Ed Llewellyn, who both held more power than most of the Cabinet in their day. A discussion on the rights or wrongs of that would make an interesting (and refreshing) change from the cyclical discussions on Brexit. I also find him fascinating as a thinker. If you've not read much of his blog I would really recommend it. You won't agree with it all, but you'll appreciate his thought processes and arguments most likely.

 

[Stroller]

Yeah, but the SpAds are also unelected. There has been a change of reporting line, but I think they are within their rights to do that and have been entirely up front about it. If Cummings was getting rid of elected Government Ministers, or indeed civil servants, I think we'd have a problem, but one SpAd getting rid of more junior SpAds (essentially political appointees, paid for my the Govt, which is already dodgy in my book) isn't the same. It's effectively an employee of the Tory Party getting rid of another employee of the Tory Party.

As you all know, I'm by no means a Brexiteer, but some of the criticism in the last few days has been misdirected in my opinion. There is a lot to criticise that is very legitimate (again, IMO), but not the prorogation, or the firing of a SpAd. Frankly, I find it odd that someone who could work for Phil Hammond could also reconcile themselves with working for the Johnson administration anyway...

If they were entirely up front about the change (I didn't know, but then why would I?), why was Javid reportedly so furious?

Do you believe the line about the prorogation being perfectly normal and nothing to do with Brexit?

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

Do you believe the line about the prorogation being perfectly normal and nothing to do with Brexit?

No, of course not, not at all. But I've made the point a few posts back that I think it's a moot point. If the opposition have enough votes, and are serious (and united) about stopping no deal, they could pass a VONC prior to prorogation. If they don't, then having four fewer sitting days is irrelevant as they don't have the numbers to stop no-deal.

Even if they can't pass a VONC, they could wrest control of the order paper (as they did with the Cooper Act) and force the House to sit on the weekend.

 

[rangercol]

I think you'll find he said that there was a change under this administration whereby (the unelected) Cummings controls all the special advisors. I consider that somewhat sinister, but not so much as how Short (geddit?) seems to be dictating the tactics regarding avoiding parliamentary scrutiny.

Faux outrage.

Quality summed it up for us and he has excellent knowledge of these things.

 

[Stroller]

No, of course not, not at all. But I've made the point a few posts back that I think it's a moot point. If the opposition have enough votes, and are serious (and united) about stopping no deal, they could pass a VONC prior to prorogation. If they don't, then having four fewer sitting days is irrelevant as they don't have the numbers to stop no-deal.

Even if they can't pass a VONC, they could wrest control of the order paper (as they did with the Cooper Act) and force the House to sit on the weekend.

So we have been lied to by Johnson, Rees Mogg et al, whilst ministers in Johnson's cabinet who, just a few weeks ago, were saying that prorogation would be an outrage, now duck their heads and say nothing due to the 'culture of fear' that Cummings has generated. Nothing sinister about this?

 

[QPR Oslo]

No, of course not, not at all. But I've made the point a few posts back that I think it's a moot point. If the opposition have enough votes, and are serious (and united) about stopping no deal, they could pass a VONC prior to prorogation. If they don't, then having four fewer sitting days is irrelevant as they don't have the numbers to stop no-deal.

Even if they can't pass a VONC, they could wrest control of the order paper (as they did with the Cooper Act) and force the House to sit on the weekend.

What is a VONC Raving?

 

[QPR Oslo]

So we have been lied to by Johnson, Rees Mogg et al, whilst ministers in Johnson's cabinet who, just a few weeks ago, were saying that prorogation would be an outrage, now duck their heads and say nothing due to the 'culture of fear' that Cummings has generated. Nothing sinister about this?

Yes, Rudd for one.

 

[rangercol]

So we have been lied to by Johnson, Rees Mogg et al, whilst ministers in Johnson's cabinet who, just a few weeks ago, were saying that prorogation would be an outrage, now duck their heads and say nothing due to the 'culture of fear' that Cummings has generated. Nothing sinister about this?

Good grief!
And you wonder why I use the word screeching?
It's ridiculous.

You're lot, like Soubrey, Clarke, Bercow, Miller, Grieve etc etc have tried every parliamentary and legal trick in the book ,but as soon as Boris does something similar, you all start wailing and crying.

Pathetic hypocrisy.

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

What is a VONC Raving?

Sorry, Vote Of No Confidence. Parliamentary mechanism to bring down the Govt

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

So we have been lied to by Johnson, Rees Mogg et al, whilst ministers in Johnson's cabinet who, just a few weeks ago, were saying that prorogation would be an outrage, now duck their heads and say nothing due to the 'culture of fear' that Cummings has generated. Nothing sinister about this?

Oh yeah, the line they're using is definitely quite far from the truth, with a grain of truth to cover their backs [that prorogation is normal, happens once a year, hasn't happened for two years, and is also normal for a new administration]. But political parties and Governments will always spin/lie so hardly shocking or sinister. Well, no more than normal politics is.

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

Anyway, enough for me tonight. Will celebrate a win with a few beers and the family

Have a lovely evening all.

 

[Stroller]

Faux outrage.

Quality summed it up for us and he has excellent knowledge of these things.

Nothing faux (is that your word of the day?) about it.

Genuine, justified outrage.

Good grief!
And you wonder why I use the word screeching?
It's ridiculous.

You're lot, like Soubrey, Clarke, Bercow, Miller, Grieve etc etc have tried every parliamentary and legal trick in the book ,but as soon as Boris does something similar, you all start wailing and crying.

Pathetic hypocrisy.

Listen to yourself, Col.

All of the 'tricks' performed by those trying to prevent No Deal, were legitimate and legal. Shutting down our sovereign parliament to avoid scrutiny and opposition is not legitimate in my view and is quite possibly illegal.

 

[QPR Oslo]

Good grief!
And you wonder why I use the word screeching?
It's ridiculous.

You're lot, like Soubrey, Clarke, Bercow, Miller, Grieve etc etc have tried every parliamentary and legal trick in the book ,but as soon as Boris does something similar, you all start wailing and crying.

Pathetic hypocrisy.

Other than Millers legal challenge those "tricks" were parliamentary processes held to votes. Suspending parliament for a longer period to give little time for parliamentary process, is trying to block Parliament, avoiding the democracy the UK has in place.

And the result of the now 3,5 year old Referendum vote based on lies, and lack of knowledge about what Leave meant, has no substance. Wrong to have been held, but if it is relevant to be considered at all, then it at the least needs to be done again with the better knowledge available now. Round and round again.

 

[QPR Oslo]

Sorry, Vote Of No Confidence. Parliamentary mechanism to bring down the Govt

Right, thanks.

 

[rangercol]

Nothing faux (is that your word of the day?) about it.

Genuine, justified outrage.



Listen to yourself, Col.

All of the 'tricks' performed by those trying to prevent No Deal, were legitimate and legal. Shutting down our sovereign parliament to avoid scrutiny and opposition is not legitimate in my view and is quite possibly illegal.

Nope. Not attempts to prevent no deal, attempts to stop brexit happening.
For over three ****ing years.
Now Boris is playing them at their own game.
Already lost one legal challenge.

All within the rules.

Brilliant by Boris.

Round and round we go.

 

[rangercol]

Other than Millers legal challenge those "tricks" were parliamentary processes held to votes. Suspending parliament for a longer period to give little time for parliamentary process, is trying to block Parliament, avoiding the democracy the UK has in place.

And the result of the now 3,5 year old Referendum vote based on lies, and lack of knowledge about what Leave meant, has no substance. Wrong to have been held, but if it is relevant to be considered at all, then it at the least needs to be done again with the better knowledge available now. Round and round again.

Utter rubbish.

Round and round we go.