May Calls General election

[Golden_Gonads]

Not any more.

Edit: When I searched for this on Google (search term was uk wages vs inflation) I was able to read it, but with a direct link it wants a subscription. The numbers were 1.7% for wages in the year to April, while prices were at 2.9%.

I stand corrected. Though including bonuses, wages rose on average 2.1%. Still lower than inflation of course.
(I found the BBC article covering the figures http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40273003 ).

[clakclak]

You do see the problem right? If you are not voicing your opinion how are they suppossed to hear it?
But at the same time you think politicians are currently ignoring you and lying to you. So how is anything going to change this way? You are essentially saying "The politicians are evil and lying to us but we are to busy to call them out on it." The problem is that leads to a circle in which nothing changes. The politicians are not going to change something because nobody challanges them. One solution to this circle would be the above mentioned violence, but to be honest if there is time for violence, than there would probably also be time for more peaceful activities. And not everything takes a lot of time.

Well, my browser just ate my huge eloquent reply, so I'll keep this very brief.

1) I thought Trump winning was a good thing as it would force politicians to change their tactics.
2) I also thought that 9/11 was a good thing at the time, because it would force the world to change.
3) I was incredibly naive on both counts.
4) Instead of learning from the Trump victory, May just rolled out the traditional shtick.
5) May just looked awkward every time a question wasn't from the approved list. I'd love to play poker against her, with her panic face.
6) The general lack of preparedness from all sides was painful. Google: "diane abbott cringe compilation" how does she think that she can bluff her way through these conversations? I also think that Corbyn got a rough deal on that one question where he couldn't remember the amount of money, and was trying to find it on his ipad, but didn't want to give out the wrong information. He really seemed to get hauled over the coals for that, but it wasn't bad at all. I'd rather that he spent the time to get his facts in order than try to bull his way through like Diane Abbott pretending to be a 10 year old lying.


Anyway, what I was trying to say before I lost pages and pages is: Even after Trump won, even after the Brexit vote came down the line, May didn't seem to have noticed anything amiss.

She called the election, my immediate thought was "Is she bloody mad? If she doesn't want to be prime minister any more, just quit! Don't have a bloody election."

Then the media starts talking about how popular she is, and what a landslide she is going to win by.

And so, in a very uncharacteristic moment of humility, I assume that I was wrong about her and the current conservatives. After all, these people running the media and appearing on TV shows have obviously got their finger on the pulse more than I have...

Nope... I guess not. Same old bull.

I am sorry. I really have a hard time making the connection between your post and mine. Would you mind eleborating a bit more on the point you are trying to make? Because it seems to have gone right above my head.

[BugMeister]

- well at least we'll know who's in the driving seat, as the bus goes over the cliff..!!

- what a disaster..!!

[Ketraar]

most of which were to do with where and how laws are made to democratic accountability and the isolationist nature of the EUs protectionist trade block.

As for democratic accountability, you elect the EU parliament representatives directly, you elect the EU Council Representative directly. Both then appoint and elect an executive commission. People claiming undemocratic EU are misinformed.

As for Protectionist trade, is that not why people wanted to leave Eu, so the UK can protect its trade?

I agree though, that labelling all leave voters as racist helps no one, especially not any debate.

MFG

Ketraar

[Bishop149]

As for democratic accountability, you elect the EU parliament representatives directly, you elect the EU Council Representative directly. Both then appoint and elect an executive commission. People claiming undemocratic EU are misinformed.

As misinformation/lies about the EU goes, this one seems to be one of the harder ones to squash.
Yes there are people at the heart of the EU not directly elected to their position by the public, but rather appointed by those that are.
Just as there are such people in the UK government (ours is actually substantially worse than the EU if you consider such things to be a threat to democracy).
Just as there are in literally ANY democratic government.

The situation that people who think this is "undemocratic" would presumably prefer is some form of direct democracy, which generally hasn't proven especially practical at anything but the smallest scale. . . . . except Switzerland, whose government is weird on many levels.

[BugMeister]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtGrv2arAMQ

- John Bercow is "dragged" back as speaker..

[felter]

Theresa May and the Holy Grail

[Skism]

As for democratic accountability, you elect the EU parliament representatives directly, you elect the EU Council Representative directly. Both then appoint and elect an executive commission. People claiming undemocratic EU are misinformed.

As misinformation/lies about the EU goes, this one seems to be one of the harder ones to squash.
Yes there are people at the heart of the EU not directly elected to their position by the public, but rather appointed by those that are.
Just as there are such people in the UK government (ours is actually substantially worse than the EU if you consider such things to be a threat to democracy).
Just as there are in literally ANY democratic government.

The situation that people who think this is "undemocratic" would presumably prefer is some form of direct democracy, which generally hasn't proven especially practical at anything but the smallest scale. . . . . except Switzerland, whose government is weird on many levels.

I take issue with this.

I have just spent the last hour trying to understand the EU process for getting the commission; it can best be described as labyrinthine.

In the UK you vote in the General election for your MPs and the party with the most Mps forms the government.

At least in therory nice and simple.

So in our last election you had the amusing satisfaction of seeing Theresa May returning with a minority goverment and standing next to "Lord Buckethead" for the results of her seat.

Oh and Incidently the PM of the UK *IS* directly elected firstly by her/his constituents and secondly by the rest of the Country who know that a vote for their MP, is a vote for the PM so there are two ways to remove a Prime Minister - One by not enough people voting for them at General election and two interestingly by their local constituents not voting them in

Now for a Litmus test - How would I remove Jean Paul Junker? - he is a Drunkard and unfit for office!

Oh thats right you can't. (practically)

[Skism]

You do see the problem right? If you are not voicing your opinion how are they suppossed to hear it?
But at the same time you think politicians are currently ignoring you and lying to you. So how is anything going to change this way? You are essentially saying "The politicians are evil and lying to us but we are to busy to call them out on it." The problem is that leads to a circle in which nothing changes. The politicians are not going to change something because nobody challanges them. One solution to this circle would be the above mentioned violence, but to be honest if there is time for violence, than there would probably also be time for more peaceful activities. And not everything takes a lot of time.

Well, my browser just ate my huge eloquent reply, so I'll keep this very brief.

1) I thought Trump winning was a good thing as it would force politicians to change their tactics.
2) I also thought that 9/11 was a good thing at the time, because it would force the world to change.
3) I was incredibly naive on both counts.
4) Instead of learning from the Trump victory, May just rolled out the traditional shtick.
5) May just looked awkward every time a question wasn't from the approved list. I'd love to play poker against her, with her panic face.
6) The general lack of preparedness from all sides was painful. Google: "diane abbott cringe compilation" how does she think that she can bluff her way through these conversations? I also think that Corbyn got a rough deal on that one question where he couldn't remember the amount of money, and was trying to find it on his ipad, but didn't want to give out the wrong information. He really seemed to get hauled over the coals for that, but it wasn't bad at all. I'd rather that he spent the time to get his facts in order than try to bull his way through like Diane Abbott pretending to be a 10 year old lying.


Anyway, what I was trying to say before I lost pages and pages is: Even after Trump won, even after the Brexit vote came down the line, May didn't seem to have noticed anything amiss.

She called the election, my immediate thought was "Is she bloody mad? If she doesn't want to be prime minister any more, just quit! Don't have a bloody election."

Then the media starts talking about how popular she is, and what a landslide she is going to win by.

And so, in a very uncharacteristic moment of humility, I assume that I was wrong about her and the current conservatives. After all, these people running the media and appearing on TV shows have obviously got their finger on the pulse more than I have...

Nope... I guess not. Same old bull.

I am sorry. I really have a hard time making the connection between your post and mine. Would you mind eleborating a bit more on the point you are trying to make? Because it seems to have gone right above my head.

The problem being illustrated by Jericho is that of a complete lack of reality by the political class - both here and abroad. (Correct me if I'm wrong Jericho)

[Bishop149]

Oh and Incidently the PM of the UK *IS* directly elected firstly by her/his constituents and secondly by the rest of the Country who know that a vote for their MP, is a vote for the PM so there are two ways to remove a Prime Minister - One by not enough people voting for them at General election and two interestingly by their local constituents not voting them in

I wasn't referring to the PM, although yes that is a decent example of a position that is not directly elected by the public but appointed by others (some elected, some not). Until the election we just had Mrs May wasn't actually elected to her position of head of our executive branch by anyone at all, not even her own party. She was however, as you say, elected as an MP. I wonder how much of her time she spent doing that job.
Actually if you wanted your vote to control who the PM is by far your best option would be to join the Conservative Party (or insert party in power here, but you're not allowed to join both!).

So yeah the PM is one example but then there is the rest of our executive branch who are appointed solely by the PM. Annnnd. . . there are the various special advisers, party chairmen, internal party committees (such as the 1922), heads of department within the civil service etc etc.
The list goes on and on and on. All positions with quite substantial power to influence, direct and implement policy and none of whom are directly elected to those positions by the public, but are usually (but not always) appointed or elected by those that are. Much like the European Council.

Now for a Litmus test - How would I remove Jean Paul Junker? - he is a Drunkard and unfit for office!

Oh thats right you can't. (practically)

You could vote for an MEP who would in turn vote for someone else, simple.
By way of comparison you have a similar amount of power to remove Mr Junker from his position as I have to remove Jeremy Hunt from his position as health secretary.
Quite a bit more in reality, because you just have to swing a voting block within the European Parliament, whereas I'd have to change the whole bloody government. That and your vote would count (pretty much) equally to everyone else's where as how much my vote was worth would depend heavily on where I live. . . . . lets see my vote currently is worth . . . . 0.064 votes.


Basically what all these arguments boil down to is British people complaining that they alone don't get to decide the entire make up of the EU government, which is a little like the constituents of St Austell and Newquay complaining that they alone don't get to decide the make up of the UK government . . . . . and then complaining this is "undemocratic". Its silly.
This is a decent summary: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... lity-check

Basically I think the problems are threefold
1) The structure of the EUs government is (necessarily) complex and this confuses people.
2) People don't think the EU elections are important, certainly not as important as their national elections. They don't vote, don't bother to understand the process but then complain when an EU law is passed they don't like.
3) The British in particular don't understand/like the EU because the governmental system we are used to is so radically different to that of the EU. A two party system in which winner takes all, as opposed to a system built upon coalitions and compromises.

[Bishop149]

Oooo some actual thread relevant news
Deal with DUP done.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-4 ... ws_central

Right how much is propping up Mrs May gonna cost us then? 2 billion?
Are we still allowed to believe dinosaurs existed?

[brucewarren]

Of course they do, where do she think she got her cabinet from?

[muppetts]

1.5 Billion for 10 seats, great deal, bet Scotland and Wales are over the moon, if only they knew you could simply sell your votes!

[felter]

It's a bribe, pure and simple as that.

[Bishop149]

1.5 Billion for 10 seats, great deal, bet Scotland and Wales are over the moon, if only they knew you could simply sell your votes!

The stupid thing is that the DUP would almost certainly have voted for the Queens Speech anyway. She just spent a billion quid (from the magic money tree) on something she would have gotten for free.

As for beyond the Queen Speech, well I suspect the Tories are in for a very rude awakening to the norms of politics in Belfast which are (putting it politely) rather more fluid.

[Bishop149]

Well the DUP deal might not last very long.

There is a proposed amendment to the Queens Speech that reads:

. . . . but respectfully regret that measures to address the inequality in treatment of women from Northern Ireland with regard to healthcare provision were not included in the Gracious Speech; recognise that the UK currently provides funding for access to healthcare services including abortion to residents of other nations as part of its international development work; note that women from Northern Ireland have no choice but to travel to England for abortion services and face serious difficulties in doing so, and as such the current position risks the continuation of an unwanted pregnancy which may cause distress or illness to the patient concerned purely on the basis of her place of residence within the UK rather than any medical requirements; therefore call on the Government to clarify, if necessary by legislating, that under section 1(1)(a) of the National Health Service Act 2006 it is a requirement on the Secretary of State for Health to prevent illness among those who wish to end an unwanted pregnancy, who are UK taxpayers, by providing such services; and call on the Government to ensure the provision of adequate funding and guidance so that all UK citizens including those from Northern Ireland may access medical services including abortion procedures in England if they so wish without charge, and that such provision does not interfere with decisions made by the Northern Ireland Assembly with regard to the provision of such services in Northern Ireland.’.

Its inclusion has been put to a vote in the commons and will very likely pass (around 40 Tories have apparently said they will vote for it regardless of the whip).

So the Queens Speech is likely to contain something the DUP will very much NOT want to vote for.
It could all come crashing down at the first hurdle.
[popcorn]

Edit: Problem appears to have been averted but I'm not quite sure how.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40438390
It seems the government have simply said they will do this anyway so there is no need for the amendment. . . . but without a policy document or legislation isn't this just essentially a pinky swear?