General News

[FOXYTALK]

39 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

I agree it's a proper weird one - to resign now after something so minor 13 years ago, who cares? 

 

I think she was out her depth and this was something agreed to force it through, I think just replacing her would of been bad press so she's mutually resigned based on something that happened 13 years ago. It's how these things work. If she was that bothered she would of resigned completely as an MP - which kind of backs up this theory. 

 

If it was such a big ''issue'' she shouldn't of been appointed to a ministerial role anyway. 

It's the society of today that causes this. 

For me she shouldn't of resigned. 

You could say the same about Gregg Wallace, he's abit of a perv but unless he's committed an actual offence the hysteria is mad. 

[Lionator]

44 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

I agree it's a proper weird one - to resign now after something so minor 13 years ago, who cares? 

 

I think she was out her depth and this was something agreed to force it through, I think just replacing her would of been bad press so she's mutually resigned based on something that happened 13 years ago. It's how these things work. If she was that bothered she would of resigned completely as an MP - which kind of backs up this theory. 

 

If it was such a big ''issue'' she shouldn't have been appointed to a ministerial role anyway. 

I don’t think she was out of her depth, more that her vision for transport in this country simply doesn’t align with the economic approach that Labour want to take. I’m inclined to believe that she’s been stitched up here. It’s a shame because greater investment in public transport and infrastructure in the north and midlands is what’s needed, as is better access to buses and trains for working people. But Labour clearly don’t want to tackle this issue at the moment, which is fair enough, but will maintain the inequality between London and the rest of the country, and will inadvertently give Labour far less clout at the next election where reform will sweep in these areas as things stand. 

[Lionator]

7 minutes ago, FOXYTALK said:

It's the society of today that causes this. 

For me she shouldn't of resigned. 

You could say the same about Gregg Wallace, he's abit of a perv but unless he's committed an actual offence the hysteria is mad. 

If someone is known as a bit of a perv within the public eye, you can bet they’ve got far bigger skeletons in their closet in their private life. No time for anyone like Wallace. 

[FOXYTALK]

6 minutes ago, Lionator said:

If someone is known as a bit of a perv within the public eye, you can bet they’ve got far bigger skeletons in their closet in their private life. No time for anyone like Wallace. 

Possibly but what's has been reported in the media hasn't warranted an offence.

[Sampson]

12 minutes ago, Lionator said:

If someone is known as a bit of a perv within the public eye, you can bet they’ve got far bigger skeletons in their closet in their private life. No time for anyone like Wallace. 

There’s a difference between not having time for people and having them decried and plastered all over the news so they can’t escape for the rest of their life from though. It’s that kind of public shaming and humiliation I really feel goes too far. If he quietly loses his job that’s warranted; but it’s the public humiliation is frightening to me, it’s the modern equivalent of putting someone in stocks in town so people can throw tomatoes at them, it’s a brutal punishment worse than prison in a lot of cases and it’s inhumane.

 

I feel it plays a big part in the culture that has meant people have such horrible mental health nowadays, people are too scared to make mistakes nowadays because it can essentially shut them out from society. But everyone makes major life mistakes and ****s up in major ways at some point in their life. If you make a heap of all your winnings, risk it all on one game of pitch-and-toss, and lose,  you should be allowed to start again at your beginnings.

Edited 29 November 2024 by Sampson

[izzymuzzet]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

I agree it's a proper weird one - to resign now after something so minor 13 years ago, who cares? 

 

I think she was out her depth and this was something agreed to force it through, I think just replacing her would of been bad press so she's mutually resigned based on something that happened 13 years ago. It's how these things work. If she was that bothered she would of resigned completely as an MP - which kind of backs up this theory. 

 

If it was such a big ''issue'' she shouldn't of been appointed to a ministerial role anyway. 

Not sure why you say she was out of her depth. I have a few dealings with people at DfT and in transport more generally and she was widely regarded as doing a good job. Her launch of the National Transport Strategy earlier this week went down very well with people in the industry.

[StanSP]

Starmer says 'law breakers can't be law makers' when the Tory party thing happened. 

 

But he knew about Haigh's offence (which let's face it, isn't the biggest offence ever). 

 

So when he elected her as Transport Sec in July he would have already known? Yet he accepts her resignation now. Why does her conviction (spent and a long time ago!) only matter now? 

[Lionator]

45 minutes ago, izzymuzzet said:

Not sure why you say she was out of her depth. I have a few dealings with people at DfT and in transport more generally and she was widely regarded as doing a good job. Her launch of the National Transport Strategy earlier this week went down very well with people in the industry.

Yep she had some great policy ideas. It just doesn’t align with the governments plan. She has been stitched up so that these plans can be shelved to save £££. 

[Lionator]

37 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Starmer says 'law breakers can't be law makers' when the Tory party thing happened. 

 

But he knew about Haigh's offence (which let's face it, isn't the biggest offence ever). 

 

So when he elected her as Transport Sec in July he would have already known? Yet he accepts her resignation now. Why does her conviction (spent and a long time ago!) only matter now? 

Because he wanted a convenient excuse to get her gone and he’s a steaming hypocrite.

[izzymuzzet]

Just now, Lionator said:

Yep she had some great policy ideas. It just doesn’t align with the governments plan. She has been stitched up so that these plans can be shelved to save £££. 

Can see why you'd think that but I'm not sure it's true tbh. I wouldn't expect Heidi Alexander to diverge in policy terms very much at all. No doubt she had some disagreements with the Treasury but show me a transport minister who hasn't. And the changes to the fiscal rules announced in the budget (which will allow more borrowing for infrastructure) are very significant.

[izzymuzzet]

Interesting unexpected outcome of Lou Haigh resigning - for the first time ever, the Cabinet is 100% state school educated.

[Fox92]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

There’s a difference between not having time for people and having them decried and plastered all over the news so they can’t escape for the rest of their life from though. It’s that kind of public shaming and humiliation I really feel goes too far. If he quietly loses his job that’s warranted; but it’s the public humiliation is frightening to me, it’s the modern equivalent of putting someone in stocks in town so people can throw tomatoes at them, it’s a brutal punishment worse than prison in a lot of cases and it’s inhumane.

 

I feel it plays a big part in the culture that has meant people have such horrible mental health nowadays, people are too scared to make mistakes nowadays because it can essentially shut them out from society. But everyone makes major life mistakes and ****s up in major ways at some point in their life. If you make a heap of all your winnings, risk it all on one game of pitch-and-toss, and lose,  you should be allowed to start again at your beginnings.

He hasn't "made a mistake". He's clearly acted like a knob and is a bit of a pervert. People shouldn't/can't get away with acting like this so it needs showing up. I'm not saying public humiliation, I don't agree with what Rod Stewart has said, but if he loses is job quietly then it's sort of an acceptance as to what he has done.

[reporterpenguin]

Assisted dying bill passes on to the next stage. 

 

Very happy with that, I think it's a travesty that we treat our pets better than our fellow humans at the end of their lives.

[Sampson]

39 minutes ago, reporterpenguin said:

Assisted dying bill passes on to the next stage. 

 

Very happy with that, I think it's a travesty that we treat our pets better than our fellow humans at the end of their lives.

Interesting how non-party this issue seems to be. Yes and No votes from close allies in the same party and similar votes from people with different opinions in every other area of life.

 

Here’s a list I saw of a few people voting for and against the bill:

 

Yes: Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak, Rachael Reeves, Lee Anderson, Ed Miliband, Liz Kendall, Layla Moran 

 

No: Kemi Badenoch, Robert Jenrick, Jeremy Corbyn, Ed Davey, Nigel Farage, David Lammy, Angela Rayner 

[bovril]

Very disappointed by the result. Didn't think I'd find myself on the same side as Abbott and Farage very often but I suppose it shows again that tribalism really is for dummies. 

[bovril]

2 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Interesting how non-party this issue seems to be. Yes and No votes from close allies in the same party and similar votes from people with different opinions in every other area of life.

 

Here’s a list I saw of a few people voting for and against the bill:

 

Yes: Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak, Rachael Reeves, Lee Anderson, Ed Miliband, Liz Kendall, Layla Moran 

 

No: Kemi Badenoch, Robert Jenrick, Jeremy Corbyn, Ed Davey, Nigel Farage, David Lammy, Angela Rayner 

I am biased because I am not in favour of assisted dying, but I think there has been an attempt from many (not all) on the Yes side to portray almost everyone against as being motivated by religious beliefs. 

[Dunge]

I don’t envy any MP their vote on assisted dying. There are excellent and convincing arguments on both sides and I think the whole debate has played out very maturely in Parliament and is one of its better days.

 

I honestly don’t know which way I would have voted as an MP.

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, bovril said:

I am biased because I am not in favour of assisted dying, but I think there has been an attempt from many (not all) on the Yes side to portray almost everyone against as being motivated by religious beliefs. 

Yeah, there clearly were numerous secular people on the No side too.

 

It's clearly a very complex and fraught ethical debate, and both sides made legit ethical points. I would have abstained, if I had the choice to do so.

[fox_up_north]

Very good approach by all. Hopefully it means the law gets appropriately scrutinised and measures put in place. 

 

Can we have the same sort of approach to immigration and birth rates please?

[Sampson]

13 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I don’t envy any MP their vote on assisted dying. There are excellent and convincing arguments on both sides and I think the whole debate has played out very maturely in Parliament and is one of its better days.

 

I honestly don’t know which way I would have voted as an MP.

I mostly agree, with the exception of the ever eye rolling Robert Jenrick who had to chime in with the pretty despicable dog whistling that approving it “would be giving over the decisions to "activist judges in Strasbourg".” in an otherwise mature debate.

[Dunge]

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

I mostly agree, with the exception of the ever eye rolling Robert Jenrick who had to chime in with the pretty despicable dog whistling that approving it “would be giving over the decisions to "activist judges in Strasbourg".” in an otherwise mature debate.

I still think it’s odds on he’ll be standing for Reform come the next election.

[HighPeakFox]

2 hours ago, Fox92 said:

He hasn't "made a mistake". He's clearly acted like a knob and is a bit of a pervert. People shouldn't/can't get away with acting like this so it needs showing up. I'm not saying public humiliation, I don't agree with what Rod Stewart has said, but if he loses is job quietly then it's sort of an acceptance as to what he has done.

What, did he recite the lyrics to Maggie May?

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, there clearly were numerous secular people on the No side too.

 

It's clearly a very complex and fraught ethical debate, and both sides made legit ethical points. I would have abstained, if I had the choice to do so.

I’m very much on the ‘no’ side and I’m utterly horrified that the vote has gone through. The implications are massive and I just don’t think most MPs could get their heads around them. 

Edited 29 November 2024 by ClaphamFox

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I’m very much on the ‘no’ side and I’m utterly horrified that the vote has gone through. The implications are massive and I just don’t think most MPs could get their heads around them. 

Fair to say.

 

For me, I see the idea of someone suffering terribly and for a long time, with people (or not) around them unable or unwilling to nullify the pain they're in, and think that denying them the other option to end that pain, is unconscionable.

 

But on the other side, the safeguards for something like this have to be utterly ironclad because the moment someone dies not entirely of their own free will, the entire idea is invalidated. And I'm not sure how you guarantee something like that.

 

Edit: I struggle with it a lot at a personal level tbh, is pain worse than death, or the other way round?

Edited 29 November 2024 by leicsmac

[Nalis]

There should be more issues decided in this way without towing the party line. Makes for a more balanced vote.