|
A lot of by to let mortgage providers specifically prohibit borrowers from renting their property to people on housing benefit
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Is this even a major thing that happens? And what is supposedly happening after? An EU person marries a not EU person and moves to the UK, then... Johnny European might not have the same thorough screening policy as great Britain before granting residency to non-EU nationals thus opening us up to backdoor sham marriages to circumvent our tough on the causes of browns policy!
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Igiari posted:Weird question here, but: I don't qualify for Irish citizenship as neither my parents nor grandparents (all of whom are now sadly deceased) are Irish. However, my great grandfather was, which presumably means my father qualifies. If my father got Irish citizenship, would I then qualify on the basis that my father is (now) Irish? He would had to have already been on the foreign births registry and have claimed citizenship by the time of your birth for you to qualify
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
Lewis' defining features policy wise at the minute are being strongly pro-remain (or at least anti-brexit) and one of the most vocal and active voices in labour talking about electoral pacts and the "progressive alliance" I think the second bit will probably wound him in a leadership bid
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:At this point Labour need to get over themselves & accept a progressive alliance/popular front arrangement with the Liberals, Greens & aye, even the Scottish & Welsh nats, with a manifesto commitment for electoral reform. Because STV or the like is the only thing that will counteract the big advantage Tories will get from the boundary redraw next year. Personally I think that's a big positive for Lewis. I think an electoral pact makes sense but its clearly decisive in labour and I don't think the party are in a place to accept standing aside in seats to make room for the Libs or Greens - there is certainly a contingent as shown by the handful of MPs who signed that letter calling on Labour to stand aside in the Isle of Wight to give the greens a straight run, but I think there's enough opposition from the traditional left and right of the party to outnumber the pro-pacters Its a matter of whether or not labour will accept a recalibration from the natural party of government to a party of government
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:It would make more sense to have another election using the new electoral system if they do get in after they implemented what they wanted to do since politcal ideals would conflict with each other very often and create an unstable main government in the HoC. Since the only way a progressive alliance is going to work in a FPTP system is to have all the parties agree to be one entity in the ballot. The small problem is what candidate gets what seat. I would imagine a more realistic approach would let Labour/Lib Dem candidates stay in their strongholds with Lib dems staying away from areas that are mainly Labour/Tory to focus on areas that they have a better chance at, especially in Tory/Lib Dem areas and vice versa. You basically want to absorb most parties/indepedents to get a better chance of gaining votes rather then waste away spliting votes in a FPTP too. You don't necessarily need to stand as a single entity on the ballot, non-contesting deals in target constituencies with parties agreeing not to nominate candidates would be the obvious solution - a tactic used quite effectively in northern Ireland in 1974 and still deployed occasionally (Fermanagh and South Tyrone has such a pact in place since 2010) A new election after reform makes sense but you need to get the government first and I doubt the greens would accept a super duper honest promise from Labour re:electoral reform without a solid commitment to make way in at least one additional seat outside of Brighton Pavilion Any promise of reform would need to be underscored with a solid material commitment with no-contest ssats
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
You could probably chuck in one or two agreed independents running purely on reform tickets in hotly disputed seats with key rivals (the libs and labour) agreeing on a single issue limited life candidate with no contest from either to smooth over a handful of seats where neither wants to cede ground to the other
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Burnham can't be pm cause of the unwritten rule that an open catholic can't be prime minister 
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Jippa posted:LOL ireland Blasphemous libel is still on the books in Scotland and Northern Ireland
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I have a question about UK labour law. I'm reading wikipedia and from what I can tell, the UK basically has the equivalent of nationwide right-to-work, in American terms, IE employees cannot be forced to join a union that is recognized as representing a particular workplace? Is that accurate? Closed shops are not common in Europe and there have been several legal tests for the few countries that still operated them since the 80s (Sweden, Denmark and the UK) and broadly the ECHR has found that compelling union membership violates the negative right to refuse association granted by article 11 that defines free association of individuals You can still require employees to pay wage monitoring fees to unions if I remember correctly but you can not compel post-entry membership
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Miftan posted:Since we are on the subject, does anybody know if people who work for foreign states in the UK are bound by uk employment law for their contracts and such, or by the state they work for? For example, can a contract for the equdorian embassy staff be illegal by uk standards if it's legal by equdorian standards? I haven't been able to find anything on it, and it's a very important issue for a good friend of mine. Depends on the nature of the work, if it involves the exercise of sovereign powers (consular staff) sovereign immunity still applies so no domestic labour court has jurisdiction to hear the matter. If it doesn't then staff can be subject to domestic labour requirements. There's a bit of case law enforcing this, Cudak vs Lithuania and Sabeh eh Liel vs France relating to the wrongful dismissal of a switchboard operator at the polish embassy and an accountant at the Kuwaiti embassy respectively where both heard at the ECrtHR and the court found immunity did not apply. Similarly the CJEU found in favour of an embassy driver in Mahamdia v Peoples Democratic republic of Algeria, allowing his case for wrongful dismissal to be referred to German labour courts Its probably worth noting all the above cases where brought after initial refusals to hear the cases in domestic courts kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 08:36 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
Miftan posted:It's not about the Ecuadorian embassy, I just didn't want to give away the actual one. Does it being a permanent posting matter? No embassy staff is permanent, and in this case the contract gets "re-signed" every year by both sides so I'm not sure which way this goes. The reason I'm asking is that the contract straight up ignores a load of UK employment laws (and ones from the host country, but that will be much harder to bring to court in the host country), so I was wondering if he could try to get some improvements in working conditions via UK law. Mostly stuff like time spent working, zero hours bullshit with an added minimum shifts per week only on his side (so he has to work 8 shifts a week, but if he's only given 3 that's also fine), amount of holiday/sick leave, etc. If the contract violates the working time directive they can bring their case to an employment tribunal, the court of appeal specifically ruled that domestic UK law preventing this was incompatible with EU law based on past ECrtHR judgement in 2015 I would expect resistance though
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
Bleeding activist judges siding with the Brussels tyrants against our sovereign parliament!!
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
I think there would be more than a few firms eager to take on an embassy related employment tribunal case just cause of the relevantly recent judgements on the issue and a chance to get their name on some early cases
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:What percent of the UK labor force is unionized or covered by a union collective bargaining agreement? OECD stat for unionization rate (~25%) is relatively high by neoliberal Anglosphere standards, what further percentage are covered by union contracts but not actually in the union? National union membership is 24.7% while coverage by collective bargaining agreements is 27.9% (which would be union members inclusive) so only a minor difference as pointed out. There's a good deal of regional variation of course (England is about 10% behind Scotland at 23% union density with Wales and NI in the 35% range) while about 50% of NI employees are effected by collective bargaining agreements due to the large size of the public sector. For the record London has the lowest rate of union membership at 18% of the workforce, with only 19% being effected by a collective agreement
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:Sarah Champion always seems wonderful, is there a reason she doesn't get talked about for the leadership? There was that whole thing the red tops dug up about her divorce and being cautioned by the police that was spun as DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SPOKESWOMEN SPENT NIGHT IN JAIL FOR HITTING HUSBAND So not off to a great start for a leadership bid
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
jabby posted:- Extend the right to abortion to Northern Ireland Can't be done without taking justice powers back from the Assembly which they wont consent to or a complete collapse and suspension of the Assembly and a total assumption of all their powers So basically a pointless promise that sounds nice on paper and i doubt if collapse does finally happen Labour will go against the SDLP, DUP & UUP (all sitting NI MPs)
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
A more imminently practical and immediately achievable goal would be to amend the NHS Act 2006 to extend free access to anyone ordinarily resident in United Kingdom as opposed to the current wording of Great Britain, which would immediately allow Northern Irish women free access to abortion services in England which they are currently denied edit: you'd have to insert some language about secondary care access but the fundamental principle that there are easier more immediately actionable policy proposals available if you actually want to effect a material difference as a Westminster government before becoming the bull in the constitutional China shop kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 02:04 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:You also get 17 year olds being done for noncery just for having consensual sex with other 17 year olds. The CPS has general guidelines against prosecuting cases where both parties are consenting minors above the age of 13 with no aggravating factors (coercion, duty of care etc). Technically it is an offence but its considered contrary to the public interest to prosecute. CPS posted:It should be noted that where both parties to sexual activity are under 16, then they may both have committed a criminal offence. However, the overriding purpose of the legislation is to protect children and it was not Parliaments intention to punish children unnecessarily or for the criminal law to intervene where it was wholly in appropriate. Consensual sexual activity between, for example, a 14 or 15 year-old and a teenage partner would not normally require criminal proceedings in the absence of aggravating features. The relevant considerations include: Theoretically If you knocked up consent to 18 the underlying principle of the guidelines would probably hold
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
Miliband specifically proposed a national investment bank lending to infrastructure products though, capitalised by the government with powers to borrow on foreign markets
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
ukle posted:Ohh FFS. Just found out my area is one where the Lib Dems and Greens have colluded, and despite the Lib Dem's being second in every election bar 2015 they aren't going to stand in the 2017 election. It makes no sense and completely blows my intention to tactically vote Lib Dem. Skipton? They've abandoned a punt at one of the safest Tory seats to get the greens off he ticket in Harrogate, where they have a better chance cause its on of the few Yorkshire boroughs that went remain and they used to hold the seat.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Coming second is important in deciding a future pact probably, cause the only chance of Skipton not being blue is if every other party agrees on one candidate
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
It was a timing thing as well cause it happened at the same time Reckless won the rochester byelection for UKIP
kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 16:32 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Was thinking that this election might end IP with literally nobody happy - labour lose around 20 seats and the Tories gain around the same amount, which after all the hype about a 150 seat majority will be a disappointment. The SNP lose a few and the lib dems only pick up a handful. Every one goes home pretty disappointed. Only losing 20 in the face of a UKIP collapse would be a miracle - by my rough napkin calculations there are 55 Labour held seats where the combined Tory + UKIP 2015 vote exceeds Labour's 2015 vote AND voted Leave (and that's assuming no swings from Lab to Con)
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
As I expected that commitment on abortion reform in Northern Ireland got watered down toLabour Manifesto posted:Labour will continue to ensure Not surprisingly really
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
OzyMandrill posted:If the manifesto has everything costed, then where is the 'more borrowing' dogwhistle coming from? They commit to borrowing 250bn
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
Im pretty sure they aren't touching existing debt
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
I'm sure Khan is probably spitting bullets about the expansion of stamp duty into derivatives. Personally not sure post-Macron's victory and with an EU exit looming its wise to push for a more robust unilateral Tobin tax tbh Edit: I mean it sounds good and the principle is sound, just a case of possible bad timing really
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I mean you could wait for "the right time" & quickly realise that the vested interests will ensure the right time never comes around. Or you could do it and hope that others follow your lead. Its just pushing through a more aggressive financial transaction tax at a time when you are actively trying to hold onto financial services, which a large chunk of economy requires, who are actively being poached by near neighbours with access to a larger market might not be great. It might not feel great but its one of those Brexit economic calculations you have to make
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Re:Corbyn and Northern Ireland I think there is a general unwillingness to place his positions at the time in the context of other political tendencies, either through a distaste at revisiting the divisive arguments of the past or because of the dissonance between the fundmanetal constitutional underpinnings of the settlement and the radical position of the time So for sake of clarity Corbyn as part of the Bennite tendency, and loosely affiliated with the "Troops Out" movement, supported a unilateral termination of British sovereignty and withdrawal of troops which was reasoned would LEAD to a political settlement as the conflict was viewed as being purely one of decolonization - the "consent principle" that unification can only occur with the majority consent of the people of NI was rejected as the "unionist veto" and the underlying theoretical underpinning was that an end to British support for Northern Ireland as en entity would inevitably lead to reunification and end to partition. Slightly more moderate than the Troops Out tendency you had the "Time To Go" group, the most prominent voice being Clare Short (but you also had people like Peter Hain), who stressed that withdrawal and end of British sovereignty could only occur AFTER a political settlement to end partition had been secured which the British government was duty to bound to conclude with the Irish government to reverse the injustices of the Northern Irish state. Then even more towards the middle there was the "unity by consent" stream, which actually defined Labour policy re:Northern Ireland pre-Blair, engineered by long serving Labour head of NI policy Kevin McNamara that stressed that Labour should support Irish unification but reunification can only be achieved by the voluntary consent of the population of Northern Ireland, which Labour (and its allies) are duty bound to ACTIVELY work to secure - this model being closer to the SDLP view (a party it should be pointed out which was actively rejected by the more radical streams in Labour as being too reformist rather than republican). So Corbyn's position was definitely more radical than "supporting Irish unification" and the Bennites tabled bills to unilaterally terminate sovereignty well into the late 80's, rejected the Anglo-Irish agreement as it codified the principle of consent as prerequisite for unification and broadly tracked to the Republican theoretical line - the shift to support the principle of consent happened when Sinn Fein did the same, that is it was a REACTIVE acceptance of a new political consensus that emerged from the political settlement. This is all for complete clarity mind - I think a lot of people get a bit uncomfortable discussing the past positions of certain streams of Left wing thought regarding the consent principle as it seems to defy the contemporary interpretation of the principle of self determination which is broadly considered the cornerstone of the eventual settlement. kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 17:02 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
ronya posted:the left had good reasons for being suspicious of the consent principle in the 1980s, being that the tricky topic of how a former colonial master should react to white apartheid governments declaring independence was still a live one. Bantustans and all that. Oh the arguments about the consent principle definitely made sense (and it was an issue of argument in "centre ground" irish politics for much of the 70's) but its ultimate victory and the subsequent revisionist reassessment of Irish history within the country that drifted away from the decolonisation interpretation can make people who don't want to delve into the historical context of the arguments sweaty Edit: that is the argument that the troubles should be viewed as primarily a conflict of decolonisation is considered to be quite an old fashioned view by the body of Irish historians kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 17:15 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
jabby posted:The 'political representatives of the IRA' presumably being Sinn Fein, the party that she was in a power-sharing agreement with until recently. Yeah but the DUP's thing was refusing to work with Sinn Fein until decommissioning happened This is their thing
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
There was a fellow on from Labour in Northern Ireland this afternoon on BBC NI radio robustly defending Corbyns comments and laying into people trying to make political mileage out of the past, but even he paused to comment that as a socialist he thinks the Labour left made a fundamental mistake in the 70s and 80s and drastically misinterpreted Irish republicanism and bear a degree of responsibility for the hardening of sectarian headcount politics by undermining cross community solidarity socialism. That's pretty much where I stand too tbh
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:The point is that's It's a multi level issue and far more complex than Muslims r terrurists send them back. There was those chaps wot starved themselves to death. Was kind of a big deal at the time
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
I don't think the Tories ordered a suicide attack to stop Corbyn
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 10:03
|
|
|
The second Boer war and the Jameson raid pretty much ruined Rhodes reputation in Britain, he wasn't best liked by the time of his death
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
The UK asylum application rate is like 6 per 100,000 as opposed to the European average of 26 Barging in to make points about the CRAZY EUROPEAN ASYLUM system being at fault is dumb dumb dumb
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
buckets of buckets posted:Also lol at the word Paddy being verboten now in this thread. This thread is more milquetoast than a piece of lightly browned bread dunked into a glass of milk, repeatedly Its PC gone mad!!
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Can't even say I'm going down the bleeding paki shop thanks to Labour!
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
The ethnic enclave of manchester
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 15:22
|
|