|
How are you going to vote on May 7th? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative |
|
72 | 6.22% |
| Labour |
|
410 | 35.41% |
| Liberal Democrat |
|
46 | 3.97% |
| UKIP |
|
69 | 5.96% |
| Green |
|
199 | 17.18% |
| SNP |
|
121 | 10.45% |
| DUP |
|
0 | 0% |
| Sinn Fein |
|
35 | 3.02% |
| Plaid Cymru |
|
20 | 1.73% |
| Respect |
|
3 | 0.26% |
| Monster Raving Loony |
|
56 | 4.84% |
| BNP |
|
23 | 1.99% |
| Some flavour of socialist party |
|
37 | 3.20% |
| Some flavour of communist party |
|
27 | 2.33% |
| Independent |
|
3 | 0.26% |
| Other |
|
37 | 3.20% |
| Total: | 1158 votes | ||
|
kapparomeo posted:They... walk through one door to say Yes and another to say No? I don't get it, how does that affect the functioning of governance? Seems pretty straightforward, open and unambiguous to me. Nah man this is way better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfhO38CPlAI
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
"All this clapping disrupts proceedings" *Literally tries to drown out opposition speakers by unintelligibly screaming like a chimp*
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:"All this clapping disrupts proceedings" Yeah that's bad, but this is hardly a rationale to encourage more noise by removing the "don't loving clap" rule.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
From my twitter timeline, extract from the findings of a commons select committee on modernisation from 1998....
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
winegums posted:Yeah that's bad, but this is hardly a rationale to encourage more noise by removing the "don't loving clap" rule. I say more clapping. And chanting. I want to hear Conservatives with chants of "You're going home in a loving ambulance" and Labour responding with chants of "But you sold them *Clap-clap-clapclapclap*"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:I say more clapping. And chanting. I want to hear Conservatives with chants of "You're going home in a loving ambulance" and Labour responding with chants of "But you sold them *Clap-clap-clapclapclap*" Oh. This is funny because it's like what those working class plebs do at those horrid football matches. Nice. Like on Top Gear.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Shameful of the SNP to distract Skinner from his yearly quip about the speech.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
they do clap in holyrood and it doesnt disrupt speaking, but there are less MSPs than MPs and Tricia Marwick is pretty good at calling order. whatever its only clapping, im sure they wont do it again 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Not after Bercow ripped them a new one.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
yea agreed that privileged english man sure took those scotch plebs down a peg, honestly they should just piss off back to edinburgh
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:I say more clapping. And chanting. I want to hear Conservatives with chants of "You're going home in a loving ambulance" and Labour responding with chants of "But you sold them *Clap-clap-clapclapclap*"
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:They... walk through one door to say Yes and another to say No? I don't get what the problem is, how does that adversely affect the functioning of governance? Seems pretty straightforward, open and unambiguous to me. That they have to actually physically walk through a door to vote, at a given time in one building in the entire country when they have tasks and responsibilities in their constituencies seems silly to me, doubly so when it means that instead of having to consciously and recordably abstain from voting on difficult issues, or have their opinions recorded and answerable to their constituents, they can just... stay at home, or stay in the office? Yes, I think it's a silly system. When it means that as soon as a vote is called and they actually want to vote, they literally have to drop whatever the hell they're doing and run from wherever they are to physically pass through that archway? Yes, it's a silly system. When there aren't actually enough physical chairs in the chamber for all the MPs to sit down at the same loving TIME? (There are 650 MPs and about 400 seats at a squeeze) You see where I'm going with this? Maybe the clapping isn't as bad as I make out. But it's no more disruptive than the loud shouting, booing and hear-hearing that they're allowed to do. It's just not traditional. I support the speaker keeping order and not letting people shout over one another, and making sure that they have time and space to make their points. That's fine, that's what the chair of a committee is THERE for. But telling people off for clapping when the entire house is shouting? gently caress off. E: selected quotes from the wikipedia page: Members are not allowed to have their hands in their pockets. Members are not allowed to smoke (fine) so instead the door guards keep snuff boxes so that they might take snuff. You're not allowed to eat or drink, unless you're the Chancellor delivering a budget in which case you're entitled to have a tipple. I'm sure there are more, the wiki isn't exactly complete. thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 23:13 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
We really should modernise the parliamentary system. Motions should be passed by getting MPs to like them on facebook. Appropriate responses to a speech are image macros and typing lmao.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
www posted:yea agreed that privileged english man sure took those scotch plebs down a peg, honestly they should just piss off back to edinburgh I'm sorry is there a problem with a working class person, educated at a comprehensive school, exerting the full authority of the position he has risen to?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
no
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Maybe the SNP should just do jazzhands.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:Nah man this is way better  I mean I know voting in absentia is a thing but some of the people are right there like two feet from their seat and some fucker leans back and presses their button for them 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:We really should modernise the parliamentary system. e: Upper house can use facebook, lower house can use tumblr.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
www posted:yea agreed that privileged english man sure took those scotch plebs down a peg, honestly they should just piss off back to edinburgh He only intervened after the third time. And he's not privileged - he's the son of a taxi driver, went to a comprehensive school and the Unversity of Essex. Not that his level of privilege should matter. thespaceinvader posted:But telling people off for clapping when the entire house is shouting? gently caress off. *shrugs* When in Rome...it's just good manners to obey the rules and traditions of the institution you're attending. That goes doubly so when the institution has such a storied history. Prince John fucked around with this message at 23:19 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I'm sorry is there a problem with a working class person, educated at a comprehensive school, exerting the full authority of the position he has risen to? He's not a working class person, he's from a working class background and the point was implicitly about the use of his authority so the answer is obviously 'yes'. team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 23:20 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:That they have to actually physically walk through a door to vote, at a given time in one building in the entire country when they have tasks and responsibilities in their constituencies seems silly to me, doubly so when it means that instead of having to consciously and recordably abstain from voting on difficult issues, or have their opinions recorded and answerable to their constituents, they can just... stay at home, or stay in the office? Yes, I think it's a silly system. If they're too busy with "constituency work" then I'm sure their constituents will understand. It's objectionable that MPs have to be present to vote? what do you think MPs do in other parliaments, vote by text message? kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 23:27 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:He's not a working class person, he's from a working class background and the point was about the implicitly about the use of his authority so the answer is implicitly yes. Pretty stupid question. It's already been answered and you got it wrong. Good to know it's impossible to have working class MPs though.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:This is unironically a better system than having an entire upper house comprised of a mishmash of peers, bishops, and people who have donated large sums to the ruling party, then stripping it of any real power so the lower house can just keep resubmitting bills. The church having an automatic political presence is something I would defend, actually. Because it gives the church its own power and the freedom to pursue its own agenda in government. If you take that away from them, well, I would expect to find that you would just end up with a party going for the religious vote. The church and state many nominally be separate in the US but in practice it just means the church just supports the parties. The UK does fairly well at keeping the church out of partisan politics and I think that giving the church their own members is part of that.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Prince John posted:*shrugs* When in Rome...it's just good manners to obey the rules and traditions of the institution you're attending. That goes doubly so when the institution has such a storied history. It used to be traditional for women not to vote, should we have kept that one? It used to be traditional for the monarch to have absolute power and there not to be a parliament at all, should we have kept that one? Lots of storied histories behind those august institutions, but we changed them. Just because something's traditional doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned, or changed, or modernised, or made more functional at the cost of its traditions. FWIW, I'd be all for keeping the current buildings as a museum - maybe even a living museum - but there's room for the system to function a lot more effectively in a modern building with modern practices.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:
I doubt the dignity of the House will be much improved by MPs shaking keypads at each other rather than schedule papers, even if it soothes some goons' cultural cringe.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The church having an automatic political presence is something I would defend, actually. Because it gives the church its own power and the freedom to pursue its own agenda in government. I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, but why should only the Church of England have an automatic presence and not also, say, Catholicism, or Islam, or Sikhism?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:If they're too busy with "constituency work" then I'm sure their constituents will understand. Yes, I think they ought to be able to vote remotely. If something critical takes them away from the house on a given day, what possible reason should there be to deny them their vote on the grounds that they're not physically present to walk through an archway? In an age where we could, if we wanted to, conduct the entire proceedings remotely, why on earth shouldn't they be able to cast their vote remotely? And this doesn't even come close to getting into the clownish mugging that is the whips. It would breach parliamentary privilege to give explicit instructions on how a member is to vote. So instead, they give them instructions on their schedules to turn up which are enforceable by chucking them out of the party if they're ignored, and tell them how to vote by means of loving hand signals. Like that somehow makes it NOT giving explicit instructions on how to vote, by making them sign language instead of spoken language. You want to talk about the dignity of the house? It doesn't look very dignified when backbenchers fall asleep in their seats, or when a room full mostly of men get drunk over lunch and bawl unintelligibly at one another for reading from notes in their speeches. E: just as a for instance, less than 100 MPs voted on the Northern Ireland welfare reform bill the other day. Less than 1/6th of the MPs. It was passed by less than 1/10th of them, by a margin of 9 of them. thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 23:42 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's already been answered and you got it wrong. You can have working class MPs. There have been a few MPs in the past who came into being an MP from ordinary jobs, didn't even take their full salary (instead taking the average UK salary and giving the rest to charity) and after their stint returned to a normal working-class job. Few have that commitment Assuming that because someone is born in working class circumstances means they are absolutely and forever working class no matter how rich and privileged they get and no matter where their class sympathies lie doesn't really make sense though. Is Lord Sugar working class, for instance? If the answer is yes I don't think your criteria have any relation to reality. If no then you have to look at Bercow's history and try and explain how a current speaker of the house of commons and former merchant banker and director of a Saatchi and Saatchi firm is working class.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
What's the most you can earn while remaining working class?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
What's the least you can own whilst remaining an aristocrat?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I'm sorry is there a problem with a working class person, educated at a comprehensive school, exerting the full authority of the position he has risen to? 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:What's the most you can earn while remaining working class? 80k if you're married and both earn 40k?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:It used to be traditional for women not to vote, should we have kept that one? It used to be traditional for the monarch to have absolute power and there not to be a parliament at all, should we have kept that one? Lots of storied histories behind those august institutions, but we changed them. I don't disagree with what you're arguing, but the SNP aren't trying to achieve any noble goal here, they appear to be just making GBS threads up the place because they want to put noses out of joint. Anyway, since we're in Yet Another Scottish Derail, is anyone able to offer an informed opinion on Sturgeon's latest complaints? quote:The Scottish Parliament will receive new powers to raise 40% of taxes and decide about 60% of public spending, the Queen's Speech has confirmed. So, everyone, including the SNP signed up to the Smith Commission, and the Scotland Bill is supposed to implement it. As far as I can tell, Sturgeon isn't complaining that the Scotland Bill doesn't implement the Smith Commission recommendations, rather that it doesn't implement all these extra powers she wants: quote:Before the Queen's Speech, SNP leader and Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she wanted the Scotland Bill to go much further than the Smith proposals. Is this a case of Cameron delivering what was agreed after the referendum and the SNP complaining about something different, or are there some parts of the Smith Commission recommendations that are left out? Interesting remark about full devolution to the SNP from Cameron as well: quote:And in a direct message to the SNP benches, Mr Cameron said: "If you want more taxes, more spending and more borrowing you can now introduce those measures in Scotland. It is time for you to stop talking and start acting." Aside from his comments about how full fiscal autonomy might look, he's right about the time to start acting. So far, the SNP government has failed to pursue progressive policies in government (and in fact, run a surplus) - once the Scotland Bill passes, it will be really interesting to see if the SNP suddenly starts raising taxes/borrowing to fund increased spending now, when they haven't taken the opportunity so far within the remit of their existing powers. Fake edit: Dabir posted:I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, but why should only the Church of England have an automatic presence and not also, say, Catholicism, or Islam, or Sikhism? I'll respond to your devil's advocate by giving you the answer that is probably correct, but very open to being shot down: Because the Church of England is the Established Church and woven into the history and fabric of our society and institutions in a way that other faiths are not. Catholicism of course has a chequered history in the UK that would have prevented any established role. Islam and Sikhism are inconsequential consitutionally, with only 4% and 0.7% of the population according to the 2011 census. Basically, it was there first!  I don't feel strongly about the issue (I'm in favour of the constitutional status quo unless it creates significant practical issues), but I did read a comedy snippet somewhere suggesting that only the UK and Iran had unelected clerics in the government. Prince John fucked around with this message at 23:55 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:In an age where we could, if we wanted to, conduct the entire proceedings remotely, why on earth shouldn't they be able to cast their vote remotely? Because government debate ought to be a bit more personal than an online poll on an Internet forum? Because there's value in the transparency of the physical process rather than the ambiguity of voting in abentia? That voting remotely only even more aggressively presses on us that MPs are votinng drones not even nominally interested in discussion or even being a representative full stop? quote:And this doesn't even come close to getting into the clownish mugging that is the whips. It would breach parliamentary privilege to give explicit instructions on how a member is to vote. So instead, they give them instructions on their schedules which are enforceable by chucking them out of the party if they're ignored, and tell them how to vote by means of loving hand signals. Like that somehow makes it NOT giving explicit instructions on how to vote, by making them sign language instead of spoken language. So what you're proposing is to streamline this process and make it even faster and easier for party leadership to impose orders and punish dissenters. Truly, the march of progress goes ever on. quote:You want to talk about the dignity of the house? It doesn't look very dignified when backbenchers fall asleep in their seats, or when a room full mostly of men get drunk over lunch and bawl unintelligibly at one another for reading from notes in their speeches. https://parliamentfights.wordpress.com At the sight of some of these refined, sophisticated and modernist senates, I think our hidebound regressive adversarial legislature ain't doing so bad, really. kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 00:08 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Dabir posted:I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, but why should only the Church of England have an automatic presence and not also, say, Catholicism, or Islam, or Sikhism? They probably should. I wouldn't oppose a general religious section in the upper house.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:What's the most you can earn while remaining working class? I don't know, maybe it's best not to focus on a single set figure and instead apply some critical analysis based on all relevant factors of class like income, wealth, social position, job roles, political loyalties, culture, etc. Oh wait, no, if you do that then he's clearly not working class so you'd better just stick to the simplistic to the point of irrelevance one-liners that mean you neither have to actually engage with the issue. My bad.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:He created an estimated 27 new offenses every month, a number surpassing Thatcher, Chamberlain, even Cromwell, and surpassed only by Brown. It's not surprising that one or two of these flecks of vomit issuing from his distended legislative sphincter would turn out to be reasonable. I had a quick search for "27 new offenses every month" and came up with this article, which suggests that the source is the impeccably honest Chris Huhne, and of the five 'new' laws they bother discussing in any detail, two seem perfectly sensible (one says "you can't tamper with samples of food that a food standards inspector has set aside for testing", and the other says "you can't lie about having closed and locked a door in a ship that is being built and tested"), two seem at worst harmless ("you can't enter the wreck of the Titanic without permission" and "you may not set off a nuclear explosion") and, OK, the one about not selling birds shot on Christmas day does seem bizarre. Since this an article from the daily mail based on a report compiled by a self-important liar, it's probably safe to assume that those are the most surprising or strange-sounding of these awful new laws, and not one of them actually seems bad, so what exactly is the problem here? LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 00:04 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:I don't know, maybe it's best not to focus on a single set figure and instead apply some critical analysis based on all relevant factors of class like income, wealth, social position, job roles, political loyalties, culture, etc. So it's more an intuition thing. Got it.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
this might have something to do with itquote:The Devolution (Further Powers) Committee said the UK government's draft legislation did not meet the "spirit or substance" of Smith http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32731463 cross party committee doesnt agree it goes far enough, sturgeon (rightly or wrongly) thinks that since scotland voted for 56/59 SNP mps the Scottish public agree that the smith commision doesnt go far enough and scotland should get more on offer which west minister cant ignore, or maybe they can.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:So it's more an intuition thing. Got it. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of people I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description"working-class", and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the person involved in this case is not that.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 00:06
|
|
