Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Guest MattP

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

On 1/23/2017 at 15:50, MattP said:

Leaving press opinion aside (which now has become indifference anyway rather than negative as he becomes more irrelevant).

 

Do you think he is doing a good job of leading the opposition?

Corbyn's great - easily as good as Milliband - and people should stop having a go at him! :D:trumpet:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38828383

 

Though I guess there's not much of another answer she could have given, still seems a bit like kowtowing to me.

Honestly not sure what the hell their immigration policy has to do with us tbh. Not like we're all good and rosy selling weapons that are used to kill innocents. 

 

Agree with him or not (I don't) he's doing exactly what he said he would do, exactly what he yelled to everyone who'd listen, and exactly what the people voting for him expected him to do. 

 

Who are we to judge them, really? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Honestly not sure what the hell their immigration policy has to do with us tbh. Not like we're all good and rosy selling weapons that are used to kill innocents. 

 

Agree with him or not (I don't) he's doing exactly what he said he would do, exactly what he yelled to everyone who'd listen, and exactly what the people voting for him expected him to do. 

 

Who are we to judge them, really? 

Yeah, we've hardly been sparkling on calling out countries with human rights records that would put Trump to shame that don't bother us, so why start now, I guess?

 

However, when certain aspects of that policy (a few immigration concerns regarding UK nationals, and more importantly environmental policy that's going to affect EVERYONE) do affect the UK, then perhaps something should be said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, we've hardly been sparkling on calling out countries with human rights records that would put Trump to shame that don't bother us, so why start now, I guess?

 

However, when certain aspects of that policy (a few immigration concerns regarding UK nationals, and more importantly environmental policy that's going to affect EVERYONE) do affect the UK, then perhaps something should be said?

Oh I completely agree with the environmental policy being challenged, that effects the whole world and needs to be sorted. 

 

From what I could make out regarding the immigration policy though, it shouldn't effect anyone in the UK. Might be missing something though, the last I read on it was that Mo saga. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Oh I completely agree with the environmental policy being challenged, that effects the whole world and needs to be sorted. 

 

From what I could make out regarding the immigration policy though, it shouldn't effect anyone in the UK. Might be missing something though, the last I read on it was that Mo saga. 

Yeah, I was referring more to the former (which is much more important incidentally) as it does seem that questions were asked and answered regarding the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

John Bercow's facing a motion of no confidence http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38923451

 

Personally I don't think he should be getting involved especially when considerably worse heads of state have addressed the house of commons. I don't like Trump but he's still the leader of our most important ally, maintaining friendly relations doesn't mean we condone his policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wookie said:

John Bercow's facing a motion of no confidence http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38923451

 

Personally I don't think he should be getting involved especially when considerably worse heads of state have addressed the house of commons. I don't like Trump but he's still the leader of our most important ally, maintaining friendly relations doesn't mean we condone his policies.

It seems to be a classic case of "if you ignore him he'll go away". Madness, he might be a complete bell, but he's a president, you can't just ignore him, if you don't agree with his views, challenge them ffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wookie said:

John Bercow's facing a motion of no confidence http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38923451

 

Personally I don't think he should be getting involved especially when considerably worse heads of state have addressed the house of commons. I don't like Trump but he's still the leader of our most important ally, maintaining friendly relations doesn't mean we condone his policies.

I posted this up on the Trump thread earlier.

 

Broadly speaking I agree that it's pretty hypocritical (not to mention a violation of neutrality) that the Speaker raised this issue in the first place...but it would be nice if something is said about the distaste for some of the policy of our most important ally at this time.

 

You bigger best mate (who trusts you) has had a few jars one night and now is spouting off loads of shit and looking for a fight. What do you do? You have a word in his ear, try to get him to calm the fvck down and get his daft arse in a taxi. You don't enable him being daft and then have to partly deal with the fallout yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Wookie said:

John Bercow's facing a motion of no confidence http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38923451

 

Personally I don't think he should be getting involved especially when considerably worse heads of state have addressed the house of commons. I don't like Trump but he's still the leader of our most important ally, maintaining friendly relations doesn't mean we condone his policies.

Mandela, De Gaulle, Obama are the three heads of state bar the queen to have spoken in the last 57 years (and Pope Benedict if you consider the Catholic Church/Vatican City to be a state). Which one of those is considerably worse than trump?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Wookie said:

John Bercow's facing a motion of no confidence http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38923451

 

Personally I don't think he should be getting involved especially when considerably worse heads of state have addressed the house of commons. I don't like Trump but he's still the leader of our most important ally, maintaining friendly relations doesn't mean we condone his policies.

 

If you read the article all the way through... It actually explains why he "became involved" and "is involved" in this particular matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Mandela, De Gaulle, Obama are the three heads of state bar the queen to have spoken in the last 57 years (and Pope Benedict if you consider the Catholic Church/Vatican City to be a state). Which one of those is considerably worse than trump?

Head of state was probably the wrong term to use but Xi Jinping and ask @Dr The Singh about Modi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

Neither of those spoke in Westminster hall.

I stand corrected, however he was still content to allow them to address both houses from the Royal Gallery or the robing room. I disagree with Trump's policies but it's not the speaker's job.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wookie said:

I stand corrected, however he was still content to allow them to address both houses from the Royal Gallery or the robing room. I disagree with Trump's policies but it's not the speaker's job.

 

He's one of the three keepers for Westminster hall. That's his jurisdiction. The gallery and the robing room are irrelevant to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ultimately both the member of the audience are partly correct in their stances...

 

...the the audience member is spot on when he points out it is the voting public who are an MP's boss, however, the power given to an MP is delegated authority, so the MP is correct in considering various determining factors in how they vote on any issue.

 

In this case, how the constituency voted in the previous referendum is a key factor, but there's no reason why other factor couldn't override an MP's thinking - the challenge for them would be to explain that decision to the local electorate. 

 

In some ways, an MP that goes against the popular way of thinking when it would be easier just to go with it should be respected more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...