OlivierK wrote:
We have such a system in Australia, and our Senate performs a role comparable to the HoL, recently blocking Tory budget proposals to screw the poor on health, pensions, and university fees in the name of budget repair (while cutting corporate tax.)

Our Senate is rarely an echo chamber for the House of Representatives for the reasons Scot gave: Senator's terms are longer, and the Senate is proportionally elected, usually ensuring that neither major party holds a majority.

It's not perfect, but it's far from hellish.

I would prefer to see a process of appointing an upper chamber that didn't rely on an electoral process. I don't doubt that they work for Australia or the Netherlands but, that in and of itself isn't reason enough to go down the well trodden path and explore other options. I'd rather not see the whole unpleasant edifice of electioneering and what not repeated for the upper chamber in Parliament.

I do agree that reform of the Lord's is needed, because the status quo isn't tenable. THis said, if the Tories get their way with their gerrymandering proposals, the Lord's may well start to look in less disrepair compared to the commons.

mrjonno wrote:Are you saying restricting drug usage isn't politically advantageous, ie will gain more votes than it will lose.

The Tories do staying in power , not right or wrong and what they have done will help them stay in power. Of course if you are 20% ahead in the polls you can sneak in a few unpopular things but no one is 20% ahead in the polls so you try not to piss of your supporters even if they are taking more drugs (for old age) than the young are

What I'm saying is that as a public health issue this manufactured false distinction between illegal intoxicants (which we call drugs) and the legal intoxicants (which we are told we can imbibe 'responsibly') skews the whole debate, miring it in custard-headed, self-righteous hypocrisy.

I don't think 'drugs' are good or bad, I think that addictive compounds are addictive and psychoactive compounds are psychoactive - by degrees. Banning relatively harmless intoxicants on the basis that that are 'drugs' -- that is, bad -- while taking money from and giving lobby-time to purveyors of relatively harmful intoxicant on the basis that they are not 'drugs' -- that is, not bad -- is of no benefit to the public health or to individual well being. Quite the contrary.

The use, and misuse, of some compounds causes more physical harm than others. Some compounds engender dependencies and some do not. Some have significant social impact and others don't. Alcohol is right up there with smack, coke, and prescription painkillers in terms of physical and social harms and addiction. Khat, ecstasy, LSD are at the other end of the spectrum - just a little bit more harmful than coffee. Tobacco has significant physical consequences but next to no psychoactive effects.

Cameron's desire to add a swathe of compounds at the bottom end of the table to the banned list, on the basis that they have some psychoactive effects, including NO2 and sucking helium out of a party balloon, achieves absolutely nothing in public health terms, and nothing in terms of of the 'personal responsibilities' afforded by liberty.

So yeah, having buried 3 alcohol addicts well before their time, and getting ready to bury another, I'm miffed that he's talking tough on drugs that don't do very much while ignoring the elephant in the room.

Calilasseia wrote:I've another idea to float here. Namely, an elected second chamber, from which persons with ties to political parties are barred from entry. The only persons to be eligible for election thereto, are persons with demonstrable achievements in non-political disciplines. I think this one could work.

That could work. Vetting out the political allegiances would be tricky to do, but still possible.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Once again saved by the Lords ie. Labour, LibDems and Bishops.

House of Lords votes to keep income-related child poverty measures

Conservatives announced plans to abolish current system of targets, but amendment by bishop of Durham passes by by 290 votes to 198

The House of Lords has voted to keep targets aimed at reducing child poverty, forcing the government to reconsider its plan to abolish them.

The bishop of Durham, supported by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, led the effort to retain the targets, which measure material poverty, and were set to be scrapped under the welfare reform and work bill.

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, announced the proposals in July, prompting dismay among child poverty charities.

He said the government would scrap its measurement of child poverty and the aim to eradicate it by 2020, while replacing it with a new duty to report levels of educational attainment, worklessness and addiction.

More...

But that's an attack on Cameron's attack on poverty. After failing to pass laws defining poverty as not not having enough money to live on Cameron will now force a vote on a perpetual war with Oceania, who we have always been at war with.

Sendraks wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:I've another idea to float here. Namely, an elected second chamber, from which persons with ties to political parties are barred from entry. The only persons to be eligible for election thereto, are persons with demonstrable achievements in non-political disciplines. I think this one could work.

That could work. Vetting out the political allegiances would be tricky to do, but still possible.

I think there's some merit in the Greek idea of forming an executive and legislature by lottery. Let's face it, it couldn't be any worse than what we have now.

Lest we forget....

So what does everyone think about Cameron's motivation for the "bunch of migrants" comment?
Dead cat strategy?
Personally I just think he's an obnoxious bastard and gets carried away with himself at times. The veneer of polish drops and he let's slip what an utter shite he really is.

smudge wrote:So what does everyone think about Cameron's motivation for the "bunch of migrants" comment?
Dead cat strategy?
Personally I just think he's an obnoxious bastard and gets carried away with himself at times. The veneer of polish drops and he let's slip what an utter shite he really is.

Was it newsnight last night where Tim Stanley of the Telegraph suggested Cameron wouldn't have said it accidentally? I think it was Newsnight. I disagree with Stanley, I think you're right, he's an obnoxious arrogant shit who lets the calm controlled facade slip sometimes, and the pig-fucking (allegedly) oik-humiliating Bullingdon tosspot shines through.

One thing that occurred to me this morning is that the blairites seem to have got back in their fucking box, because I'm surprised they haven't crawled out to lambast corbyn for 'gifting a line of attack to the tories' and 'appearing soft on migration' by visiting a focal point of the greatest humanitarian crisis Europe has faced since the wars in the balkans.

Because as they would say, you don't win elections with basic humanity but with mugs printed with slogans about controlling immigration.

ED209 wrote:One thing that occurred to me this morning is that the blairites seem to have got back in their fucking box, because I'm surprised they haven't crawled out to lambast corbyn for 'gifting a line of attack to the tories' and 'appearing soft on migration' by visiting a focal point of the greatest humanitarian crisis Europe has faced since the wars in the balkans.

Because as they would say, you don't win elections with basic humanity but with mugs printed with slogans about controlling immigration.

I see Kinnock senior in the Guardian setting up the devolved elections as the catalyst for getting rid of Corbyn, even though Labour could put up Billy Connolly as Labour Leader and they wouldn't get more votes this year in Scotland.

The Kinnock family, such a disappointment.

Wrong thread.

Tories defeated in Lords over plans to cut ESA by £30 a week

Peers vote by 283 to 198 to send proposal back to Commons, in second welfare and work bill setback for government this week

The government has been defeated in the Lords over plans to cut £30 a week from the benefits of sick and disabled people who have been found unfit to work.

Peers voted by 283 to 198 to send the cut to employment and support allowance (ESA) back to the House of Commons to be reconsidered.

The defeat is the government’s second setback on the welfare and work bill in the Lords this week. On Monday peers voted to keep targets aimed at reducing child poverty, forcing the government to reconsider its plan to abolish them.
More...

Thank goodness for the HoL.

Tories accused of shortchanging public as £26bn privatisation haul revealed

Labour and unions charge George Osborne with ‘selling family silver’ for political reasons after 2015 disposals hit record, according to Press Association

The government has been accused of shortchanging the taxpayer by “selling the family silver at a record pace” after new analysis showed a record £26.4bn raised last year through privatisation.

A final 30% state holding in Royal Mail, 11bn shares in Lloyds Bank and a stake in Eurostar were among the assets sold by ministers in a bid to pay down debt and balance the books.

The multibillion pound bonanza, details of which were compiled by the Press Association, dwarfed a previous high point in 1987 when Margaret Thatcher’s government raised £20bn selling off blue chip names such as British Airways and Rolls-Royce.

This time round, the Treasury dismissed suggestions of a politically inspired “fire sale” and promised there would be more disposals to come. There is speculation that Channel 4 is among those in the future firing line.
More...

The cupboard is almost empty. What are they going to do then?

Because as they would say, you don't win elections with basic humanity but with mugs printed with slogans about controlling immigration.

Correct, you also don't help immigrants by losing elections

The sad reality is Britain response to the refugee crisis is likely to be to leave the EU, won't resolve anything but then politics isn't about resolving problems its about emotions

Calilasseia wrote:Meanwhile, Cameron is trying to pretend that the Welsh Assembly doesn't matter with respect to their blocking of his pernicious anti-trade-union laws ...

The Welsh Assembly has just voted to block David Cameron’s trade union bill in Wales, with Assembly members saying it would undermine public services, the economy and the “constructive social partnership” between workers and employers in Wales. But instead of heeding the Welsh Assembly’s decision, David Cameron is ignoring it. Now a constitutional crisis looks set to erupt as the two governments do battle in the Supreme Court.

The showdown between the Welsh and UK governments over the trade union bill has been a long time brewing. While Cameron is determined to push through what some call “the biggest crackdown on trade union rights for 30 years,” Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones has promised his government will do everything in its power to stop the bill, which would severely limit the right to strike.

On Tuesday, the showdown came to a head when Welsh Labour, Plaid Cymru and Welsh Lib Dem Assembly members united to vote down the UK government’s plans by 43 to 13.

They were voting on a “legislative consent motion” (pdf) tabled by Public Services Minister Leighton Andrews. Legislative consent – basically permission – is required from the Welsh and Scottish governments when the UK government wants to pass legislation that relates to devolved areas, like on the health service and education.

All the more reason to celebrate St David's Day when it arrives.

Sadly the article is wrong in a few areas.

1 - employment laws are not a devolved and the legislation is a reserved matter and on which the UK Government is able to legislate for the entirety of the UK.
2 - LCM's do not enable the devolved administrations to actually block changes legislation on which the UK Government has the vires to make changes. An LCM could contest whether a matter was devolved or not but, in the case of employment law the precedent established is that it is a reserved matter and the Welsh Executive does not have the powers (unlike Scotland) to change the boundaries between "reserved" and "devolved" matters.

At best, the Welsh MPs can vote against these changes in the commons and lobby other MPs to do similar.

Sendraks wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Meanwhile, Cameron is trying to pretend that the Welsh Assembly doesn't matter with respect to their blocking of his pernicious anti-trade-union laws ...

The Welsh Assembly has just voted to block David Cameron’s trade union bill in Wales, with Assembly members saying it would undermine public services, the economy and the “constructive social partnership” between workers and employers in Wales. But instead of heeding the Welsh Assembly’s decision, David Cameron is ignoring it. Now a constitutional crisis looks set to erupt as the two governments do battle in the Supreme Court.

The showdown between the Welsh and UK governments over the trade union bill has been a long time brewing. While Cameron is determined to push through what some call “the biggest crackdown on trade union rights for 30 years,” Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones has promised his government will do everything in its power to stop the bill, which would severely limit the right to strike.

On Tuesday, the showdown came to a head when Welsh Labour, Plaid Cymru and Welsh Lib Dem Assembly members united to vote down the UK government’s plans by 43 to 13.

They were voting on a “legislative consent motion” (pdf) tabled by Public Services Minister Leighton Andrews. Legislative consent – basically permission – is required from the Welsh and Scottish governments when the UK government wants to pass legislation that relates to devolved areas, like on the health service and education.

All the more reason to celebrate St David's Day when it arrives.

Sadly the article is wrong in a few areas.

1 - employment laws are not a devolved and the legislation is a reserved matter and on which the UK Government is able to legislate for the entirety of the UK.
2 - LCM's do not enable the devolved administrations to actually block changes legislation on which the UK Government has the vires to make changes. An LCM could contest whether a matter was devolved or not but, in the case of employment law the precedent established is that it is a reserved matter and the Welsh Executive does not have the powers (unlike Scotland) to change the boundaries between "reserved" and "devolved" matters.

At best, the Welsh MPs can vote against these changes in the commons and lobby other MPs to do similar.

That's my understanding too. In fact the Presiding Officer at Holyrood ruled the Parliament couldn't refuse the new laws either. Holyrood can proactively take powers over issues if they aren't explicitly reserved, but employment law and trade unions are.

Ms Marwick wrote in a letter to fair work secretary Roseanna Cunningham that the Scottish Government’s plan for a legislative consent memorandum (LCM) – which would effectively allow MSPs to block certain aspects of the Bill – is “not ­competent”.

The measures would only affect the Scottish Government in its role as an employer, Ms Marwick said. She added: “In my view any functions so affected are management functions and are not functions within the Scottish ministers’ executive competence.”

The Scottish Government argued the bill, which restricts the time employees can spend on union business and forbids the deduction of dues by direct debit, would impact on employee relations in its devolved ­agencies.

However Ms Marwick – a veteran SNP MSP who relinquished her party affiliation to take the impartial presiding officer chair – said: “Having given the matter careful consideration and applying the tests set out in the rules, my view is that the parliament’s legislative consent is not required and it is not competent to lodge a legislative consent memorandum.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/h ... z3yYLvccgw

Unfortunately, Labour voted against the SNP amendment to the trade union bill to devolve the power to Holyrood, although I guess it would have been voted down anyway, but still ...

Channel 4 news interviewed some trump supporters in iowa, and one of them pointed out that "you're criticising donald trump while the british government is considering deporting women who don't speak english".

Tories - you ought to know you're a cunt when your policies are too fascist even for a trump supporter.