The Politics Thread

[Guest]

It's quite clear that there was an implicit agreement that they wouldn't interfere which has now been broken. That obviously changes the game.

 

Implicit agreement? What's that funny handshakes in the boy's toilets. The law and constitution have given the right to the HoL to do this as a check and balance to a government with a majority which can abuse it's position. 

 

Stop crying.

 

Cameron and Osbourne were foiled in their first attempt to abuse the low paid if they are so aggrieved they have the right and the power to go through the correct channels to disband the HoL and give themselves carte blanche to abuse whoever whenever without any checks.

[The Railway Man]

Implicit agreement? What's that funny handshakes in the boy's toilets. The law and constitution have given the right to the HoL to do this as a check and balance to a government with a majority which can abuse it's position. 

 

Stop crying.

 

Cameron and Osbourne were foiled in their first attempt to abuse the low paid if they are so aggrieved they have the right and the power to go through the correct channels to disband the HoL and give themselves carte blanche to abuse whoever whenever without any checks.

 

Parliament Act 1911.

[MooseBreath]

I'm not actually crying. I've welled up a few times but no tears yet. I agree they should just abolish the HOL now.

[Guest]

Parliament Act 1911.

 

Have you read it?

[The Railway Man]

Have you read it?

 

The basis of it yes, just replying to your daft little comment about "secret handshakes in toilets".

 

I won't bother though, cant be doing with the tin foil hat brigade.

[Guest]

I'm not actually crying. I've welled up a few times but no tears yet. I agree they should just abolish the HOL now.

 

I know you do. They're are many who agree with you. 

 

But at the moment there is a HoL and it is acting within it's lawful guidelines.

The basis of it yes, just replying to your daft little comment about "secret handshakes in toilets".

 

I won't bother though, cant be doing with the tin foil hat brigade.

 

If you had read it you would know that the HoL acted within the law. Maybe you should rejoin your fatigue wearing commando unit.

[ousefox]

The basis of it yes, just replying to your daft little comment about "secret handshakes in toilets".

 

I won't bother though, cant be doing with the tin foil hat brigade.

You must have misunderstood it then.

[Guest MattP]

Surely the whole basis here is "protocol" - it was never needed to enshrine in law that the HoL didn't interfere with the financial precedures of the elected chamber as it was protocol never to do so.

 

Now that's been changed we do have a crisis and something does have to be done about it, if celebrities, millionaire donors and vicars to rule on British law they should run for election.

[Guest MattP]

Anyone watching Daily Politics? Jon Ashworth is a right drip isn't he?

 

Keeps being asked questions about finances and can't answer a question, just keeps saying "there are different ways" and "we can look at other things" - Labour really do need to hurry up and tell us what they are going to do rather than just telling everyone else what they can't do.

[Darkon84]

Decent PMQs there. Some strong questions from all over. Corbyn finally did what is expected of him and really tried to push Cameron on tax credits. That said, it was an odd question to really push him on, as it really isn't possible to give a firm answer as to whether or not individuals will be worse off come this time next year. There's far too many variables to give a 100% answer on it.

[Guest MattP]

Bit of a daft question really, no government policy can ever be guaranteed to make every single person in the country more well off.

 

Good to see Corbyn finally behaving like an opposition leader though rather than an agony aunt, suit fitted him as well this week.

[RobHawk]

Anyone watching Daily Politics? Jon Ashworth is a right drip isn't he?

 

Keeps being asked questions about finances and can't answer a question, just keeps saying "there are different ways" and "we can look at other things" - Labour really do need to hurry up and tell us what they are going to do rather than just telling everyone else what they can't do.

To be fair Matt - its called being in opposition. I remember the Torys doing exactly the same before they got in power. Not that i like it, i want politicians to be more up front especially in opposition, but it won't happen anytime soon.

 

As for HOL - Its worth remembering that this was tabled as a welfare issue not a finance issue and that if the torys had been specific about these cuts within their manifesto, there was nothing they could have done. Gove categorically stated before the election that tax credits would not be affected as part of the £12 billion cuts and that was simply a lie. Therefore it is right that the HOL addresses the situation, when it is not what people voted for. You can talk about being democratically elected but all parties need to be more realistic and specific within their manifestos and should be held to account when they deviate from them and it will adversely affect the poorest workers in the UK.

[Guest MattP]

To be fair Matt - its called being in opposition. I remember the Torys doing exactly the same before they got in power. Not that i like it, i want politicians to be more up front especially in opposition, but it won't happen anytime soon.

 

As for HOL - Its worth remembering that this was tabled as a welfare issue not a finance issue and that if the torys had been specific about these cuts within their manifesto, there was nothing they could have done. Gove categorically stated before the election that tax credits would not be affected as part of the £12 billion cuts and that was simply a lie. Therefore it is right that the HOL addresses the situation, when it is not what people voted for. You can talk about being democratically elected but all parties need to be more realistic and specific within their manifestos and should be held to account when they deviate from them and it will adversely affect the poorest workers in the UK.

 

It's clearly a finance issue and the HoL is being disinguenous to suggest it isn't, the Tories said they were going to take 12million out of welfare to help cut the deficit, that's what they are doing.

 

I wish the HoL had been so proactive with Labour's profligacy as there were on this, they never told us in their manifesto that the tax credit bill would rise from 4billion to 30billion but no one did anything about it, of course they didn't tell us because the public would have seen it for exactly what it was, bribery.

 

The problem with manifestos and promises is we live in age of unrealistic expectation, at the leaders debates last year the first question was a guy asking "What are you going to do about the nations debt and deficit?" - Farage answered in his way, usual stuff, aid cuts, out of EU etc etc then they went around the other politicians from Labour, Green, Plaid, SNP and every single one of them answered the question with increase in public spending and saying no to cuts, this then got woops of applause from the audience despite it being completely impossible and doing nothing to even try and address the question.

 

The public simply wouldn't vote for anyone who actually told them what they had to do financially as we've been living beyond our means for years, it will only stop when it crashes down one day Greece style.

[MooseBreath]

Where were the HOL when the lib Dems flipped their position on tuition fees? Where were they when the tories cancelled the northern powerhouse rail electrification?

If they want to be a body that makes sure the government in power sticks to their manifesto pledges then fine, that would be problematic in cases where a legitimate deviation from the plan was required but any effort to increase government accountability is worth a try. But just dipping in and playing politics whenever they feel like it is ludicrous, they can't pick and choose when to get involved because then they effectively become an unelected ruling party. They're either to be involved all the time or not at all.

[ousefox]

Where were the HOL when the lib Dems flipped their position on tuition fees? Where were they when the tories cancelled the northern powerhouse rail electrification?

If they want to be a body that makes sure the government in power sticks to their manifesto pledges then fine, that would be problematic in cases where a legitimate deviation from the plan was required but any effort to increase government accountability is worth a try. But just dipping in and playing politics whenever they feel like it is ludicrous, they can't pick and choose when to get involved because then they effectively become an unelected ruling party. They're either to be involved all the time or not at all.

The Lib Dems didn't win the election. The electrification was 'temporarily paused' and is now back on in the main - not sure that was even a bill anyway (I may be wrong)

 

As I posted earlier, the Tories can wait a year and push through this bill anyway. Having a second chamber has put pressure on them and now Osborne is 'listening' so I think it's done its job quite effectively. Obviously there are many things that need changing with the sorts of people in the Lords but the Tories have never seemed that interested in reforming it in the past. They blocked a reform bill introduced by Clegg.

[Guest]

Surely the whole basis here is "protocol" - it was never needed to enshrine in law that the HoL didn't interfere with the financial precedures of the elected chamber as it was protocol never to do so.

 

Now that's been changed we do have a crisis and something does have to be done about it, if celebrities, millionaire donors and vicars to rule on British law they should run for election.

 

But these people were selected to do this by "democratically" elected parliaments. It is their remit otherwise there is no point in them being there. Not sure why the right wingers on here are getting their panties in a twist and making claims like "rule on British law" when it is only a delay.

 

All a giggle in a tea cup.

[Guest]

Anyone watching Daily Politics? Jon Ashworth is a right drip isn't he?

 

Keeps being asked questions about finances and can't answer a question, just keeps saying "there are different ways" and "we can look at other things" - Labour really do need to hurry up and tell us what they are going to do rather than just telling everyone else what they can't do.

 

Bit like Cameron looked a drip not answering the 1 question asked multiple times and then getting in a fluster with his words. A simple "No" the first time would have sufficed and been honest.

[Guest]

Bit of a daft question really, no government policy can ever be guaranteed to make every single person in the country more well off.

 

Good to see Corbyn finally behaving like an opposition leader though rather than an agony aunt, suit fitted him as well this week.

 

So a simple No would have been the best answer.

[cityfanlee23]

Anyone watching Daily Politics? Jon Ashworth is a right drip isn't he?

 

Keeps being asked questions about finances and can't answer a question, just keeps saying "there are different ways" and "we can look at other things" - Labour really do need to hurry up and tell us what they are going to do rather than just telling everyone else what they can't do.

 

 

But that's the only way Labour can do politics?

They just moan about everyone else without a solution... they have always been the same.

[Guest]

But that's the only way Labour can do politics?

They just moan about everyone else without a solution... they have always been the same.

 

says the 12 year old.

[The Railway Man]

Can't be long before Simon Danchuz is kicked out of Labour, he was summoned to Corbyn's office asked to explain why he keeps writing anti-Corbyn pieces in the Sunday Mail, then this week writes about the meeting in the Sunday Mail lol

 

It's quite revealing actually and a good read.

 

Rebel Labour MP Simon Danczuk yesterday announced that he is ready to mount a ‘stalking horse’ challenge to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn.

Mr Danczuk has castigated the Labour leader in a series of articles in The Mail on Sunday.

The MP was duly summoned to Mr Corbyn’s office on Wednesday and expected a dressing down. That is not quite what happened, as he reveals in his latest MoS dispatch...

In my 25-year career in politics I’ve had many memorable meetings with Ministers, mandarins, police, victims of child sexual abuse and others. But nothing prepared me for the extraordinary 40-minute, one-to-one meeting I had with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn last week.

I had been invited to see him after criticising his performance in a series of articles in The Mail on Sunday. A Labour peer had waved a copy of my article in last week’s edition at Monday’s meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, calling for me to be disciplined.

 

So you can understand why, when I knocked on the door of Jeremy’s office at 4pm on Wednesday, I did so with a degree of trepidation.

Was he going to throw me out of the party merely for saying in public what other Labour MPs say in private about his leadership? Would it be the start of the great purge of Labour moderates by the Trots and Stalinists in his backroom team that we keep reading about?

The first surprise is his office: Jeremy has abandoned the vast suite used by Ed Miliband and is ensconced in a modest study no bigger than the ones enjoyed by most humble backbenchers. Very hairshirt.

There’s modern art on the walls, plus a ‘Women – Vote Labour For The Children’s Sake’ poster.

He greets me in his trademark beige slacks, jacket and open-neck yellow shirt, though there’s a smart blue suit and tie hung up on the door – presumably the one he wore a couple of hours earlier at Prime Minister’s Questions.

I can’t help thinking how little it would take to make him look really smart. He could lose the straggly beard, for a start.

He offers a warm handshake and asks about my recent split with my wife, saying: ‘I know what it’s like, I’ve been through divorce a couple of times. The first time I married we were both too young.’

The pleasantries over, we get down to business. I tell him my main problem with him is that he just doesn’t seem to understand that his brand of hard-Left politics may go down well in the trendy salons of Islington, North London, where he is MP, but they go down like a lead balloon in Northern towns such as Rochdale, which I represent.

 

I remind him that he recently said immigration was not an issue: that’s not how they see it in Rochdale. When I tell him the town is home to 1,000 asylum seekers – more than the whole of the South East – he doesn’t seem to believe me. ‘Really?’ he asks. I assure him it’s true. When I say that about one in four of my constituents has roots in Pakistan, Kashmir and Bangladesh, he says ‘great’ and his eyes light up.

To him it’s a multicultural cause for celebration. He doesn’t see the sensitive issues of social cohesion it brings with it. Nor does he recognise how the pace and scale of immigration is deeply unsettling for many communities.

 

I tell him Labour must be tougher on those who abuse the welfare system, or, as they say in Lancashire, swing the lead. He discreetly moves the conversation on to Tory cuts of tax credits.

We agree they are a disgrace. He has just tackled David Cameron on the subject during Prime Minister’s Questions and is delighted with how he is doing in PMQs.

Quite right: I tell him he’s getting better each week. But he had Cameron on the ropes over tax credits and should have gone for the kill instead of changing the subject. He listens thoughtfully.

He’s especially excited by the way he’s handling Tory hecklers. ‘Do you see what I do? I stop and stare at them.’

 

I tackle him about another of my gripes – his refusal to sing the National Anthem or bow to the Queen. Patriotic Labour voters don’t like it.

The previous evening he’d suppressed his republican zeal and donned white tie and tails for the state banquet at Buckingham Palace in honour of China’s President Xi Jinping. He clearly hadn’t relished the experience: ‘Oh God, it was one of the most boring nights I have ever had.’

Jeremy is not given to histrionics. But that isn’t to say he’s a man without ire: more than once I felt his cold stare, the curled eyebrow of disapproval, the chilly tone of voice.

Back on tax credits, he says Labour could defeat the Tories on the issue in the Lords tomorrow, then adds diffidently: ‘Then again, we might not.’

 

I’m reminded again of this quirkiness when we discuss another of my concerns: his lack of interest in business. Before I get the chance to explain why Labour must recognise business as a powerful engine of social mobility, he goes off at a tangent, talking about how the Unite union allows small businesses to join it. I’m puzzled, but after a while realise that he’s talking about black cab drivers, who qualify as self-employed. I’m all for black cab drivers, but they’re not the first thing most of us think of when discussing entrepreneurs.

 

I get the same feeling when he suddenly starts complaining about how his local falafel shop pays more tax than the Starbucks over the road. Obviously he has a good point, but as usual it’s argued from a multicultural fringe perspective.

I wonder if he’ll get behind other small businesses with the same passion he shows for falafel sellers.

 

His diary secretary pops in to remind us we’re near the end of our allotted time. When she disappears, Jeremy makes a great show of saying what a marvellous, hard-working person she is. Rather patronising, I reflect. But it’s as though he thinks I will be impressed at how egalitarian he is to compliment a junior member of his staff. I’m not.

 

I’m more interested in two other members of his retinue who have made wild statements over the years, such as Seumas Milne, his new head of strategy.

‘What did Seumas say?’ asks Jeremy blithely. So I tell him: following the murder of soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich in 2013, Milne said it ‘wasn’t terrorism in the normal sense’. Jeremy winces.

I continue: ‘Lee Rigby came from the constituency next door to mine. Do you realise how offended those constituents will be by you giving a job to a man like Milne?’ He replies: ‘Seumas is a good guy. He won’t be saying anything like that any more.’ What about his new political adviser Andrew Fisher, who called Ed Miliband’s Shadow Cabinet a ‘collection of absolute sh***?’

Jeremy grimaces: ‘Andrew is very intelligent and has a lot to offer.’

 

I am wholly unconvinced and tell him: ‘Appointments like that will haunt you for as long as you are leader.’ Keen to end on a positive note, I say, half joking: ‘How about posing for a selfie?’ ‘Sure,’ says Jeremy gamely.

I depart with mixed emotions. There’s no question Jeremy is a decent bloke and I admire him for having the courage to listen to my criticisms.

Unlike the decidedly distasteful characters who have attached themselves to his coat tails, Jeremy is warm, well-meaning and sincere. I’d go further: I like the guy and would happily share a falafel and green tea with him. It’s not hard to see why he won the leadership contest: there’s a refreshing openness about him.

 

But, unfortunately, politics is about much more than that. And as someone who desperately wants a Labour government, we need a leader who can win a General Election, not parliamentary beard of the year.

What worries me is that there is a profound lack of judgment and naiveté about Jeremy, and he’s on such a short ideological tether he’s never going to reach out beyond activists. He’s not going to grow into a ‘father of the nation’ figure; he’s more likely to be viewed as an out-of-touch uncle.

 

Spending 40 minutes with him has not changed my view: he is unsuited to leading a major political party and the sooner we get a Labour leader who is, the better.

At no point during our conversation did Jeremy say I should not speak about our meeting. Strangely, he didn’t even mention my articles in The Mail on Sunday.

As Jeremy says, welcome to the new politics.

 

[bovril]

So, so far this week we've had anti-Corbyn pieces from the cvnt Amis, the cvnt Danczuk and the cvnt bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz Al Saud.

 

Sterling work, Jez.

[Rincewind]

Were  the Tories  complaining about the HOL when they agreed to their  policies or blocked Labour ones?

Toys throw of pram out.

[Captain...]

 

Can't be long before Simon Danchuz is kicked out of Labour, he was summoned to Corbyn's office asked to explain why he keeps writing anti-Corbyn pieces in the Sunday Mail, then this week writes about the meeting in the Sunday Mail lol

 

It's quite revealing actually and a good read.

 

--snip--

 

 

Interesting read that, and it think it probably highlights why I want Jeremy to succeed, he is a decent man and not deserving of the shite he has received, but also why he probably won't, he is politically naïve and he hasn't made the best decisions in appointing his shadow cabinet. The thing is he has 4 years to sort it all out and if he has the full backing of the labour party then he can mount a serious challenge, but with the constant undermining of him then they stand no chance.

[The Railway Man]

Interesting read that, and it think it probably highlights why I want Jeremy to succeed, he is a decent man and not deserving of the shite he has received, but also why he probably won't, he is politically naïve and he hasn't made the best decisions in appointing his shadow cabinet. The thing is he has 4 years to sort it all out and if he has the full backing of the labour party then he can mount a serious challenge, but with the constant undermining of him then they stand no chance.

 

I agree, he does seem very London centric though and weirdly that was something Labour admitted just a few months back they needed to get away from, I get the feeling he's barely ever been anywhere outside of Islington or ever really spoken to people who hold anything other than a hard-left position. If his description of things like immigration in Rochdale is "wonderful" he can't have been there, he does seem a decent bloke though, it's a shame about those around him and his supporters who clearly aren't decent people.

 

He's got a massive uphill task,,,he is even seen as incapable of running the country by a large part of his own party members.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyns-labour-party-perceived-as-increasingly-incompetent-says-poll-a6709641.html