• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

galeforce said:
Surely there is a law against that?
Click to expand...

There is, and it was brought in after Lloyd George took to auctioning peerages on the Edwardian equivalent of Ebay. But it’s never sucessfully been used against anyone, and Harold Wilson took the tinkle with gongs for mates far more than any recent PM. Thing about honours is that they are fundamentally silly and so it’s difficult to see their opportunistic bestowal as genuinely corrupt. A friend got an MBE today though, pleased for him.
 
So, Grieve's latest amendment has passed, meaning that if May's deal is voted down in Parliament, she must go back within 3 days with a plan B. No more running down the clock.

IIRC, Grieve's previous amendment also means that any "plan B' deal is subject to further amendments, so Parliament will lead the way on it (which means 'no deal' is dead).

I think I have this right, we shall see.
 
the dza said:
So, Grieve's latest amendment has passed, meaning that if May's deal is voted down in Parliament, she must go back within 3 days with a plan B. No more running down the clock.

IIRC, Grieve's previous amendment also means that any "plan B' deal is subject to further amendments, so Parliament will lead the way on it (which means 'no deal' is dead).

I think I have this right, we shall see.
Click to expand...
Not really. May still has the option to present something parliament doesn't want and is too far from what it does want to amend into shape. That would result in no deal.
 
scaramanga said:
Not really. May still has the option to present something parliament doesn't want and is too far from what it does want to amend into shape. That would result in no deal.
Click to expand...

If she does that, then I wonder if the 'people's vote' Tories would decide to go along with a vote of no confidence in the government? They are actually rebelling now and defeating the government on votes that historically would have brought the government down. I know "buh muh scared of Corbyn" but if May is really just going to allow us to go over the cliff, then I think they'd throw her out. And they can only do so now with a no confidence vote in the government and calling for another GE.

However, May surely knows that the country is not prepared for a no-deal Brexit. And she wants to cling on to power for as long as possible and has absolutely no dignity whatsoever. So I would expect her to give ground to Parliament, when it comes to the crunch. Which is another check for "no deal is dead" imo.
 
the dza said:
If she does that, then I wonder if the 'people's vote' Tories would decide to go along with a vote of no confidence in the government? They are actually rebelling now and defeating the government on votes that historically would have bought the government down. I know "buh muh scared of Corbyn" but if May is really just going to allow us to go over the cliff, then I think they'd throw her out. And they can only do so now with a no confidence vote in the government and calling for another GE.

However, May surely knows that the country is not prepared for a no-deal Brexit. And she wants to cling on to power for as long as possible and has absolutely no dignity whatsoever. So I would expect her to give ground to Parliament, when it comes to the crunch. Which is another check for "no deal is dead" imo.
Click to expand...
Against any even vaguely moderate Labour leader, maybe. Even the satunchest Remain Tories will realise things would be significantly worse under Corbyn though.

They wouldn't let no deal happen, but they'd back May's plan before they allowed Corbyn a chance. They might be Tories but they're not entirely stupid.
 
scaramanga said:
Against any even vaguely moderate Labour leader, maybe. Even the satunchest Remain Tories will realise things would be significantly worse under Corbyn though.

They wouldn't let no deal happen, but they'd back May's plan before they allowed Corbyn a chance. They might be Tories but they're not entirely stupid.
Click to expand...

But there are too many people who won't back May's deal, as they want no-deal (ERG/DUP). 4 outcomes (maybe?): May's deal as is, No-Deal, General Election, May giving Parliament much more say in a deal.

I think the last one is most likely and no-deal is most unlikely, from those options.
 
the dza said:
But there are too many people who won't back May's deal, as they want no-deal (ERG/DUP). 4 outcomes (maybe?): May's deal as is, No-Deal, General Election, May giving Parliament much more say in a deal.

I think the last one is most likely and no-deal is most unlikely, from those options.
Click to expand...
They may not want any of those options but trust me, they would take all of them over putting a communist into Downing Street.
 
What a week in politics its been.

The woman being abused was horendous and there is no place for it. It is however funny how this is reported, some loon turns up at Moggs home and screams at his kids and Farage gets hit and two cars written off and the people are let off as they represent the softer left. All of them are horendous acts
 
Grays_1890 said:
What a week in politics its been.

The woman being abused was horendous and there is no place for it. It is however funny how this is reported, some loon turns up at Moggs home and screams at his kids and Farage gets hit and two cars written off and the people are let off as they represent the softer left. All of them are horendous acts
Click to expand...

I think you should be able to verbally abuse politicians in public arenas/at their workplaces. It's a dangerous precedent against free speech to try and stop that.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Is this legit?
Click to expand...

Yes. The right to offend is very important to protect. It's the same territory as Charlie Hebo, Life of Brian etc. Restricting it marks a big step towards authoritarianism.

Do you really want to give up your right to call a politician or a policeman a fascist?
 
Gutter Boy said:
Yes. The right to offend is very important to protect. It's the same territory as Charlie Hebo, Life of Brian etc. Restricting it marks a big step towards authoritarianism.

Do you really want to give up your right to call a politician or a policeman a fascist?
Click to expand...

Even if their kids are there and being shouted at? Thats not on? Neither is a politician having two cars written off due to damage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back