|
Teesside.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
America needs more Northern British voices in their foreign political talking heads.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Pissflaps is way too lefty for the US media
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
I once engaged with the CFO of a medical group in the states right at the time of their 'NHS death panel' scare stories which was interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
go on
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:It was not some date I picked at random, it's just what the source stated. If I found data that went back to 1992 or 1902 I'd have gone and said since that date. You're seeing things that aren't there. For what it's worth, Paul Flynn cites the same information as you do early on in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDPXiI0lzrk
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Citation needed on... well just about all of that, to be honest. A useful resource, particularly on the rarity of free votes. It's also worth noting that the opposition has never responded to a three-line whip without a whip of its own (whether for or against the government's motion) since the line system was introduced in 2004, and even before whips were officially codified into lines, there was always a degree of proportional response depending on the severity of the government whip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:since the line system was introduced in 2004, and even before whips were officially codified into lines, Pretty sure they predate 2004 by a long way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/feb/21/top-lawyers-warn-of-human-rights-crisis-after-brexit
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I once engaged with the CFO of a medical group in the states right at the time of their 'NHS death panel' scare stories which was interesting. Were you the top, or the bottom?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:Were you the top, or the bottom? I don't understand. This was at a barbecue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
the american attitude to opiates is v distressing when they're popping your shoulder back in without any painkillers then giving a prescription once it stops hurting
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Pretty sure they predate 2004 by a long way. poo poo, yeah, sorry, wrong domain name. The same system applies over here, though - free votes are relatively rare, and used almost exclusively on minor issues of conscience. For an impression of scale, there were nine free votes between 2010 and 2015 (1.9 per year). For the one-year 2015/16 session, there were 269 votes total.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:A useful resource, particularly on the rarity of free votes. It's also worth noting that the opposition has never responded to a three-line whip without a whip of its own (whether for or against the government's motion) since the line system was introduced in 2004, and even before whips were officially codified into lines, there was always a degree of proportional response depending on the severity of the government whip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:You do understand that the page you cited is about Canada's parliament rather than Britain's, right? You very obviously don't know anything much about Parliamentary history or procedure since you were apparently able to read and copy the statement that "the line system was introduced in 2004" and not think "hang on, there's something very wrong here." Eh, got caught out by all the parliamentary reforms under Blair, which did a lot to codify previously uncodified elements of parliamentary procedure. As you can see from my post just above, though, the data on this side of the pond backs up that the principle is identical over here - whips are the norm, and free votes are rarely used, and only for (constitutionally) low-priority matters of conscience like abortion and gay marriage. There's never been one on something this big. (I should clarify here that I do think gay marriage was important, but not in this specific, technical context - it didn't specifically affect the running of the UK government). Darth Walrus fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:poo poo, yeah, sorry, wrong domain name. The same system applies over here, though - free votes are relatively rare, and used almost exclusively on minor issues of conscience. For an impression of scale, there were nine free votes between 2010 and 2015 (1.9 per year). For the one-year 2015/16 session, there were 269 votes total. Yeah I admire your spunk and creativity but this argument of yours just doesn't hold water I'm sorry. Corbyn didn't have to impose a three line whip. He chose to. That's why people were asking if he would or not prior to vote. That's why people were surprised - some shocked - that he did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Yeah I admire your spunk and creativity but this argument of yours just doesn't hold water I'm sorry. Based on? Do you have sources on free votes being successfully used for constitutional amendments?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
courtesy of the meme thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Based on? Do you have sources on free votes being successfully used for constitutional amendments? Which parliament are you interested in?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Which parliament are you interested in? The UK one. Because the parliament.uk source I posted showed no constitutionally significant free votes in the time period they covered, or free vote responses to a three-line whip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:The UK one. Because the parliament.uk source I posted showed no constitutionally significant free votes in the time period they covered, or free vote responses to a three-line whip. So what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:So what? So I'm asking if you have any evidence or examples of the opposition successfully responding to a three-line whip over a constitutional amendment with a free vote that would back up your statement that Corbyn didn't have to whip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Don't really see why Maverick New Politics Corbyn would have to obey stodgy parliamentary etiquette if he is in fact The Change We Need?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:So I'm asking if you have any evidence or examples of the opposition successfully responding to a three-line whip over a constitutional amendment with a free vote that would back up your statement that Corbyn didn't have to whip. The uk doesn't have a codified constitution. Our constitution is made up of acts of parliament, case law and tradition. Every single vote in that list you linked to is a constitutional amendment. There is nothing that compels an opposition leader to impose a three line whip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Don't really see why Maverick New Politics Corbyn would have to obey stodgy parliamentary etiquette if he is in fact The Change We Need? So that he could give an actual direction and policy stance to the party on a major constitutional issue?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
TheRat posted:For what it's worth, Paul Flynn cites the same information as you do early on in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDPXiI0lzrk It's nothing to do with the factual accuracy, it's a reference to the date of Elizabeth's accession to the throne. It's just not how a normal person would interpret the statistics, i.e. it's just deliberately deployed for exaggerative effect. We have also invited the last three Chinese presidents for state visits in the last 20 years. There's no question that state visits have become more politicised. It used to be almost every invited head of state was a monarch or Commonwealth related. Since the late 90s you can clearly see less and less small/irrelevant nations, and more and more big players. Post Clinton it is now the norm for presidents of the US to be invited for a state visit. The only mildly surprising thing this time around is how fast it is happening, and really, it is not surprising. Trump is very pro-UK, the UK is in the middle of Brexit and looking for a stronger relationship with the US.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Canada has more party discipline than vanilla Westminster - the traditional analysis is that the UK has a three-line whip system, where only defying the three-line whip has substantive consequences, and conversely the three-line whip is theoretically only used in areas where party confidence is to be demonstrated. So the semantic difference between a one-line whip and a free vote is that a free vote implies that the party position is to explicitly demur conversely, in the Canadian federal parliament, all votes are treated as votes of confidence unless explicitly freed; this is a source of considerable angst to Canadian pro-democratisation reformers
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:So that he could give an actual direction and policy stance to the party on a major constitutional issue?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
as a rule of thumb, all of the Westminster spinoffs are considerably more party-centralist than the vanilla flavour, having diverged considerably since 1911 party it is due to constitutionalisation - stuff that was merely convention, like resigning to contest a by-election whenever one is expelled or crosses the floor (even if the number of rebels is not enough to collapse confidence) was, at the beginning of the 20th century, only a parliamentary convention. the UK proceeded to discard it for being undemocratic. New Zealand and Singapore encoded it in law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04650 Of the big EU Acts up until 2004, only one of four had an opposition whip in response to the government's three line whip. Jeremy Corbyn did not have to impose a three line whip. Pissflaps fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Jeza posted:There's no question that state visits have become more politicised. It used to be almost every invited head of state was a monarch or Commonwealth related. Since the late 90s you can clearly see less and less small/irrelevant nations, and more and more big players. Post Clinton it is now the norm for presidents of the US to be invited for a state visit. The only mildly surprising thing this time around is how fast it is happening, and really, it is not surprising. Trump is very pro-UK, the UK is in the middle of Brexit and looking for a stronger relationship with the US. See, now this is a more sensible analysis. Yes, it's more likely a US president would get a State Visit than it used to be and yeah, no-one's saying that it's particularly surprising. With that said, Trump isn't just any president, he's wildly publicly unpopular. It's quite a lot like Bush's visit (which Blair got a lot of poo poo for, there were widespread protests etc) except it started being talked about after ~2 weeks in office as opposed to, y'know, well over 100.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Based on? Do you have sources on free votes being successfully used for constitutional amendments?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The uk doesn't have a codified constitution. Our constitution is made up of acts of parliament, case law and tradition. Every single vote in that list you linked to is a constitutional amendment. You may want to look up what a government constitution is again. Long story short, it's the structure of a government, determining what parts have what powers and who those parts of government answer to. So, for example, an Act altering the definition of marriage would not be a constitutional alteration, because it's simply the government choosing to exercise its pre-existing power over the definition of marriage. Similarly, since parliament has power over whether or not we go to war, voting on bombing Libya is not a constitutional matter. Changes to the structure of government itself (such as altering term limits, removing parliamentary sovereignty, and enhancing and reducing the abilities of the House of Lords) are constitutional matters. Invoking Article 50 is a constitutional matter because it removes the EU as a body with an advisory influence on U.K. law. Whether or not the UK's written constitution is codified into a single document is irrelevant to this, and so is how easy the constitution is to change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
You might want to plead the Fifth on this one it'd be better than digging the hole any deeper than it already is. You realise House of Lords reforms - something you have just described as a 'constitutional issue' - is on that list of free votes, which are supposedly impossible, right? Pissflaps fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
So there's a bunch of news stories today based on 'sources' from inside the Monday PLP meeting, and Mandelson has told an audience he is 'working every day' to bring down Jeremy Corbyn. You have to hand it to them, they really stuck to the idea of 'let him fail on his own' as long as they could.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
then again, the traditional analysis also holds that Labour is more cohesive and disciplined than the Tories, even though the crack started with Benn and that was how many decades ago now new stuff happens every now and then; that's why it's new
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
jabby posted:So there's a bunch of news stories today based on 'sources' from inside the Monday PLP meeting, and Mandelson has told an audience he is 'working every day' to bring down Jeremy Corbyn. Yeah, decent effort but the wanks in the party have probably realised by now he's not going anywhere
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Anybody else here ever watched Poltergeist 2?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
ronya posted:then again, the traditional analysis also holds that Labour is more cohesive and disciplined than the Tories, even though the crack started with Benn and that was how many decades ago now I get the impression sometimes that the Tory party right now is like a really nicely furnished house that looks nice and well kept from the inside, but is subsiding , has woodrot and the roof could collapse at any second. The owner has decided that the best policy is to not think about the problems and try and make sure the outside stays looking spick and span.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:43 |
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I get the impression sometimes that the Tory party right now is like a really nicely furnished house that looks nice and well kept from the inside, but is subsiding , has woodrot and the roof could collapse at any second. The owner has decided that the best policy is to not think about the problems and try and make sure the outside stays looking spick and span. it seems to be doing well enough, as a party - it is successfully bridging factions that hate and despise each other, even though this hatred is so deep that it totally incapacitates the party from yielding anything like a consensus ideological outlook as an organization brought together to realize very few points of agreement, it is a remarkable success, and all the more so given the instability brought about by a rough post-Cameron succession and a lacklustre May premiership one should not expect too much out of a mass party. the nature of a big tent is that it's full of people one would rather not rub shoulders with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 16:07
|
|