Coup, fascist etc...
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Coup, fascist etc...
I think those terms are the epitomy of robust.
I've posted on 1 of the last 3 pages...
Maybe you have confused me for one of the other posters?
Im still waiting for my reply to your post.
As in we used our eyes and ears and were able to determine right from wrong. If you see a murder or rape, you don’t need a debate to determine whether it is right or wrong. Even if he called him names or she was wearing a short skirt.
I make no apology for that “bias”
Which reply? It probably got lost in the avalanche of replies I get everyone I post here...
Possibly this provides the cover to vote with the goverent in a confidence motion as well
Something along the lines of... We have no confidence in you but will vote to keep the government in place in order that we can impeach the pm...
Here's a question... Could an impeached pm stand again? That would really throw the election plans of Cummings into ruins if all of a sudden the conservatives also had to find a new leader
What I do think should happen is educating our children from a very early age on politics and making future generations aware of the importance of voting and what they're voting for. I'm not sure if thats become the norm nowadays but back in the 90s Politics was a largely tabboo subject.
As for a reform, I do agree that it needs to happen. But the big problem is finding people from different backgrounds and industries willing to come forward to represent. But also finding a system that works and is fair for all poltiical minds. Career Politicians can feck off though.
For a start, there should be laws put in place to protect the general public from Politicans who spread consistent lies.
That's fine as long as it is performed in a balanced way but the education system is already a very left leaning entity.
I'd vote for that one matey, there should absolutely be more accountability in politics and dishonesty should be punished quickly and severely.
Bernard Jenkins. Wow
I have no idea honestly.... though I suspect he’d be both disqualified and on his way to jail if we continued to double down and try to bluster his way through it. And that it would quietly go away if he extended the eu membership and resigned.
One interesting snippet. There is some consideration to updating impeachment legislation before impeaching. I guess this would set out what happens in the case of a conviction.
Impeachment is when a peer or commoner is accused of ‘high crimes and misdemeanours, beyond the reach of the law or which no other authority in the state will prosecute.’ It is a procedure that is ‘directed in particular against Ministers of the Crown’. The first recorded impeachment was in 1376 and the last in 1806. This procedure is considered obsolete.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7612
Means not much. Parliament is sovereign. And the speaker makes the call of whether it gets initial floor time.
If impeachment is considered obsolete, largely because the PM is subject to the laws of the land, on what basis can he be impeached.
For sure, part of being Politically educated is understanding both sides of the argument right? That way you can make an informed decision. I don't think you have to bombard young children with lots of information. But ensuring they understand what each party represents and why people vote is a good thing right? Plenty of ways of making it fun for kids with a bit of imagination.
When they reach high school it becomes a bit more difficult as teachers would require to go in more depth. But ultimately, you can still discuss local issues and the more events occuring in the Government. This wouldn't need to be a weekly lesson either, it could be a one off monthly lesson to avoid kids being bombarded or bored.
On the basis that parliament is sovereign. We’ve been through this.
WMUs Piers Morgan act is getting very old
Answers nothing.
1999 Joint Committee's report, and the advice of the Clerk of the House of Commons that impeachment "effectively died with the advent of full responsible Parliamentary government".
This quote was given as response to attempts to impeach Blair.
Doesn't really look like a credible option. More the ramblings of mad men and women.
I'm not sure, but if Boris fails to comply with the Benn bill then I guess there could be fodder for the house to begin proceedings to bring it back if no other recourse can be found.
Do you know what the sentence “parliament is sovereign” means?
Exactly this. It was deliberate, callous and utterly repulsive. Then he went even further by sneering at people who referenced a good friend of theirs being murdered.
It was the vilest spectacle I’ve seen in the commons, and this is a place that once saw the Tories laughing and jeering at a question about low income people having to use food banks. Absolutely a new low yesterday.
No it doesn't and you clearly don't have a clue what you're on about with that statement.
Are you able to explain why it has any relevance to the question without the use of sound bites?
If you know what it means, the relevance is glaringly obvious.
So I’ll ask again a simple question, do you know what “parliament is sovereign” means?
I am no expert, nor is anyone else here, even if they may try and claim so, but impeachment hasn't been used for over 200 years and when it was, it was only for crimes and misdemeanours that could not be dealt with by the law of the land.
Which suggests that impeachment as a concept is dead. It doesn't exist for all practical reasons.
If he ignores the Benn Act, he may well end up in court.
I know exactly what I’m on about thanks. My belief is that once you step into the House of Commons you are a public servant whether you're in government or on the opposition benches. Your language and behaviour should all be expected to be of the same standard.
If Boris doesn't get a new deal, does bringing back May's deal and whipping MP's to vote against it cover him from seeking an extension?
No, but some commentators believe that if he manages to pass it, then crashes and burns the additional requirements resulting in no deal, he’d have fulfilled the law and not need to extend.
I see. Politics is gonna get worse before it gets better it seems.
It's called the ministerial code look it up.
I see your declaration to attempt debate in good faith has been resulted in false equivalency, although your trademark lashings of tangential pedantry survive but with your usual wry humour substituted with accusations of persecution.
If you genuinely cannot see the difference between the language used by the front bench, and the PM himself, and the behaviours of the rest of the house I would be surprised.
The language of war is being used. People are positioned as traitors by our own Government. The press, allied to the Brexit movement, echoes this language and singles out individuals, including the judiciary, for attacks using such language. Addresses are published. MPs are threatened and attacked. This is serious.
Last edited:
I think it will get worse before it gets even worse
More than likely!
I see the dangers of all sides and the language they use.
A week or so back I mentioned the man from Manchester murdered by his neighbours over Brexit. The victim, a leave voter, killed by a remain voter.
The actions of them all have consequences.
This morning, while others talk about the threats they have received in the last, a leave voting Tory MP had a brick left at there door.
We've seen it outside of Brexit as well. Look at the labour MPs being harassed by other labour supporters for their views on anti semitism, Corbyn and many other things. Angela Eagle for example getting hundreds of homophobic messages from labour supporters.
Another posted last week posted a study into the threats MPs receive. Corbyn and Boris cane out top, around 10% of the messages they receive are threats or abuse.
How anyone can look at it and think, well this is all one sides fault is beyond me. The language used, in parliament, on social media, in interviews and everywhere is unacceptable and nobody is above blame.
I said MY BELIEF. I judge on what I see and how it makes me feel. Both sides currently are a disgrace. Sorry Smores, that’s just how I feel. The last 3 years have shown us as a country to be a worldwide diagrace.
We need a party, with hats and streamers and everything.
I'm neither dude, and this is why I try and stay our of the current events threads
There is anger and inflammatory rhetoric on BOTH side of the house and I see no words from EITHER side that inflame my emotions so much as to enact my anger.
This is not the local pub, this is the frigging House of Commons ffs!!!
If you think think that using words like “traitor” or “enemy of the people” is acceptable during a debate in the House of Commons then you really have your head so far up your arse that you might as well live in a dictatorship. You really have no idea. This has nothing to do with political persuasion anymore, it’s to do with basic human decency and respecting the UK’s democratic parliamentary constitution. And to say that using inflammatory rhetoric used by a MP does not cause any harm is absolute bullsh*t as has been proven by the many threats received by MP’s, some even quoting one of Boris Johnson’s many inflammatory remarks he has made since becoming PM.
You honestly believe that there is universal equivalency here?
You cannot see that the Prime Minister using words like "surrender", "capitulation" and "traitor" is an issue? You cannot see that the Brexit supporting press echo this language, specifically link this language to individuals (including our judiciary) and publish addresses? You cannot see the from our national executive's language to the death threats and assaults on our MPs?
Where is the equivalency? The opposition do not use this rhetoric as a briefed strategy. The remain press do not echo the Mail's assault on our institutions.
I want to believe you are sincere in your belief of equivalency. I find it hard to do so.