THE RESULTS !!!

[udderlyoffroad]

So let's review after a week in power

1) £3bn/year to that murderous scumbag Zelenski & authorising UK missiles in Russia.  This will end badly.

2) Cancelling north sea drilling, onshore windmills back on - Electricity going to sky rocket again...

3) Concreting over the green belt 

4) Offenders released even earlier

What a dumpster fire already. 

Doubtless Brains Trust Yvette Cooper will leverage the crossbow tragedy to bring in further firearms restrictions/bans.  After all, if they were going to make law abiding certificate holders pay for victims of knife crime per their manifesto, S1/S2 restrictions on the back of an 'unlicenced' weapon is somehow less of a leap.

On the bright side, doctors have somehow magically ended their strikes despite not being offered anything more.  It's as if they were politically motivated.

[Rewulf]

11 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

On the bright side, doctors have somehow magically ended their strikes despite not being offered anything more.  It's as if they were politically motivated.

Talking of magic, the 100s of 1000s of potholes in Notts have received some 'magic' yellow crayon round them in the last week.

 

13 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

1) £3bn/year to that murderous scumbag Zelenski & authorising UK missiles in Russia.  This will end badly.

The magic money tree had an excess of fruit this year, so theyre gonna spread the love around.

Next job, slave reparations 😆

[PeterHenry]

9 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I dont think anyone insists on it, 99% of the populace couldnt give a monkeys, but we should at least aspire to it , rather than the illusory form we have now ?

 

Thats rather debateable isnt it ?
We vote for the MP/government we PREFER ,not the one we WANT, with the system we have, a tiny percentage of people get the desired outcome.
That maybe the fault of apathetic people who dont vote, or vote along traditional lines, but in essence the system is not really working that well is it ?
The problem is , the 'system' is what we have had for the best part of 500 years, and is copied worldwide, its going nowhere fast.
The choice of left and right seems to be overly represented too, far too much emphasis on what you SHOULD vote , due to your demographic/lifestyle choices/ work or social status.
But that is driven primarily by the media, who in turn are owned and driven by vested political entities.

In the US , this is not masked like here, everyone has to declare their interests.

I think aiming for perfection is a dangerous thing - the proposer is often hardly satisfied himself, and that's not to say anything about anyone else. It's not to say I'm against perfection in the limited sense of a watch or a painting or a shotgun, etc - but in something as big and messy as politics or democracy - I think it's dangerous thing to pursue.

Regarding intrests being masked here - there are compulsory registers of interests for both houses of Parliament. Unless I've you are making a broader point that I've missed?

I think we should realise that we live in an imperfect world and whatever system we come up with will have its faults. As it stands, we have a sound, and stable system - and get to vote governments in or out after a period of - generally - about four years. That's a lot better than the ever-ending election cycles in some european counties. It's also a lot better than the near permanent grand coalitions in others. All being better than elections in Russia, China, North Korea, etc.

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

As it stands, we have a sound, and stable system - and get to vote governments in or out after a period of - generally - about four years.

The system would likely be perfectly fit for purpose, if it wasnt for the fact that a huge amount of the politicians are not !
Lets face it, if we had a good government, we wouldnt need to change it so often !?

So why do we keep voting for the same old rubbish, whatever colour they wear, whatever promises they break ?
The last few elections have been a binary choice, blue or red, and weve run out of patience with blue.
Those who were brave enough to go Reform, or bored enough to go Libdem have shown just how apathetic or disinterested we have become with the system, handing a predictable landslide to labour, who could theoretically do whatever they want, and the Lords certainly arent going to stop them, less so once Starmer thins them out, and maybe reforms their powers and composition.
What he certainly isnt going to do is make them more powerful, a real counter to his massive majority, its just not in labours interest, and that in itself is somewhat undemocratic.
So they become the ultimate power in British politics, and all with only 1/3 of the popular vote.

[PeterHenry]

16 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The system would likely be perfectly fit for purpose, if it wasnt for the fact that a huge amount of the politicians are not !
Lets face it, if we had a good government, we wouldnt need to change it so often !?

So why do we keep voting for the same old rubbish, whatever colour they wear, whatever promises they break ?
The last few elections have been a binary choice, blue or red, and weve run out of patience with blue.
Those who were brave enough to go Reform, or bored enough to go Libdem have shown just how apathetic or disinterested we have become with the system, handing a predictable landslide to labour, who could theoretically do whatever they want, and the Lords certainly arent going to stop them, less so once Starmer thins them out, and maybe reforms their powers and composition.
What he certainly isnt going to do is make them more powerful, a real counter to his massive majority, its just not in labours interest, and that in itself is somewhat undemocratic.
So they become the ultimate power in British politics, and all with only 1/3 of the popular vote.

True - but that's the nature of first past the post. And I'd take anyday over proportional representation, which will only lead to coalitions with no meaningfull change or the constant churn of never ending elections.

First past the post solves that, and acts as a valve to stave off the less temperate urges that we see in Europe.

It's not perfect - and I won't defend it as such. But I do defend it as better than the alternatives.

[Rewulf]

10 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

True - but that's the nature of first past the post. And I'd take anyday over proportional representation, which will only lead to coalitions with no meaningfull change or the constant churn of never ending elections.

On that we are definitely agreed.

 

12 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

First past the post solves that, and acts as a valve to stave off the less temperate urges that we see in Europe.

That would depend on how popular those 'less temperate urges' become would it not ?

[Gordon R]

Quote

On the bright side, doctors have somehow magically ended their strikes despite not being offered anything more.  It's as if they were politically motivated.

An astute observation. 🙂

[PeterHenry]

39 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

On that we are definitely agreed.

 

That would depend on how popular those 'less temperate urges' become would it not ?

Well, I tend towards the veiw that you need to be open minded, but not so open minded that your brain falls out.

At two extremes, National Socialism and Communism were very popular once. I'm glad they never got a foothold over here. 

[Rewulf]

13 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

At two extremes, National Socialism and Communism were very popular once. I'm glad they never got a foothold over here. 

Give it time , desperate people accept desperate measures.
Not something I would look forward to BTW.

[PeterHenry]

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Give it time , desperate people accept desperate measures.
Not something I would look forward to BTW.

I agree wholeheartedly

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

I think aiming for perfection is a dangerous thing - the proposer is often hardly satisfied himself, and that's not to say anything about anyone else. It's not to say I'm against perfection in the limited sense of a watch or a painting or a shotgun, etc - but in something as big and messy as politics or democracy - I think it's dangerous thing to pursue.

Regarding intrests being masked here - there are compulsory registers of interests for both houses of Parliament. Unless I've you are making a broader point that I've missed?

I think we should realise that we live in an imperfect world and whatever system we come up with will have its faults. As it stands, we have a sound, and stable system - and get to vote governments in or out after a period of - generally - about four years. That's a lot better than the ever-ending election cycles in some european counties. It's also a lot better than the near permanent grand coalitions in others. All being better than elections in Russia, China, North Korea, etc.

That just sounds like excuses to me. 

With that attitude we might as well just let nature take its course and allow the survival of the fittest again. 

The Lords is outdated and could be dramatically improved upon, yet there is no appetite for it, I wonder why, it's almost as if there are vested interests at play 🤔

[Rewulf]

30 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

The Lords is outdated and could be dramatically improved upon, yet there is no appetite for it, I wonder why, it's almost as if there are vested interests at play

It will be reformed in some way shape or form, as I said labour had plans to abolish it when they got power, theyve downgraded that to an age limit so far.
They will likely find a way to power swap certain anti labour elements, just so they can cling to power as long as possible.
Thats the vested interest, once they realised the Lords is a great way of rewarding all those donors, friendly media bosses and sycophants, they realised they couldnt abolish it altogether.

[PeterHenry]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

That just sounds like excuses to me. 

With that attitude we might as well just let nature take its course and allow the survival of the fittest again. 

The Lords is outdated and could be dramatically improved upon, yet there is no appetite for it, I wonder why, it's almost as if there are vested interests at play 🤔

If you want to have a run at perfection at at the expense of a solid, working pre-existing system, well.... what can I say. But it would be a run with no turning back, so you better be sure.

Perfection in politics is near synonymous with utopia. No one can agree what exactly it is, and when a few pepole do, a great deal of value is generally lost along the way, for something that turns out to be largely illusory.

So no, not excuses - I'm just wary of those who promise things, and leave us all worse off.

Edited July 11 by PeterHenry

[oowee]

5 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

The Lords are appointed though, aren't they. As are members of Americas executive (baring the President). And there is oversight in the form of the House of Lords Appointments Commision.

From a different angle - Judges are also appointed and play a major role in the creation of law. Thankfully in this country, they are non political appointments - but appointments nevertheless.

Your point about a written constitution spelling out economic parameters rarther proves my point. Would you be happy to apply the financial thinking of 100 years ago? What about 300 years ago? What about 45 years ago? Circumstances change, and its better to be able to change with them. The fact that we have a constitution that allows this, is of great benifit. The fact that it's worked - successfully - for so long and under great strain at times proves its worth. I very much subscribe to Burkes thinking - that if something is to be replaced, it has not not only be better, but so much better as to account for the disruption caused. I don't see that test fulfilled by a written constitution, especially one that builds in economic thinking and keeps it in aspic. The reason the rest of the world is littered with the damm things is because the states that adopt them have had to remake themselves after some great trauma, or as starting from fresh - and in the case of the latter, do exactly as you sugest. In the case of the former, its largely to prevent whatever problems they have just got through on top of that.

Devolution is another wonderful constitutional mess created by clever men who were oblivious to their own limitations. One parliament was quite enough - that said, I'm perfectly happy to have more, and more powerful mayors, so a sort of macro devolution. That aside, all the devolved administrations have achived is to weaken the bonds of the United Kingdom - with what at the time seemed like a smart way of ensuring certian party political goals... (Northern Ireland aside)

It's the folly of all reasonably intelligent individuals to think 'I know a better way to do this'. We are all guilty of it - and written constitutions are a prime example. Although a simplification, in Court, two groups of intelligent and able individuals argue their points. One of thems always wrong.

We have an adaptable and refined constitution, the edges of which have been honed down over time. It works and it works well. There is absolutely no need from a practical / pragmatic veiw to change it. The only reason you could think to change it, is if you believe you can do a better job of designing something than evolution can.

The Lords are appointed for fear and favour. It has no place in a democracy. Oversight from a fear and favour commission is not oversight. The system perpetuates the class divide, supports institutional racism, promotes privilege and encourages a disenfranchisement. It's the Athenaeum club in action. 

Exactly the same with the monarchy, the military and the church. These relics of the past are holding us back. 

There is simply no reason why a constitution cannot set out parameters of operation. I take your point that they cannot be cast in stone and will need to adapt but processes can be put in place to allow this. 

Devolution is a mess because it's a half started project that needs to be completed. Nothing wrong with the principle just poor execution. We have not defined the Kingdom its role and purpose or the Nations within it. It's in the too hard to do box. Maybe that's a good reason not to have started it in the first place. 

 

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, PeterHenry said:

If you want to have a run at perfection at at the expense of a solid, working pre-existing system, well.... what can I say. But it would be a run with no turning back, so you better be sure.

Perfection in politics is near synonymous with utopia. No one can agree what exactly it is, and when a few pepole do, a great deal of value is generally lost along the way, for something that turns out to be largely illusory.

So no, not excuses - I'm just wary of those who promise things, and leave us all worse off.

The only person mentioning perfection is yourself. I'm pointing out we have an ancient, undemocratic chamber that could be vastly improved upon. The fact as rewulf has pointed out, Labour are to put an age limit on it, will influence it further. A PR chamber with elected members would ensure the most damaging legislation was harder to be pushed through by a party that has slipped in with a huge majority. 

[PeterHenry]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

The only person mentioning perfection is yourself. I'm pointing out we have an ancient, undemocratic chamber that could be vastly improved upon. The fact as rewulf has pointed out, Labour are to put an age limit on it, will influence it further. A PR chamber with elected members would ensure the most damaging legislation was harder to be pushed through by a party that has slipped in with a huge majority. 

It was in answer to your 'That just sounds like excuses to me.' - you will have to forgive me. I presumed given the nature of your comment, you agreed with some of definitions underpinning it.

Regarding your repeated use of Ancient - this is chronological snobbery, not a valid criticism in itself. Our Common Law is older still - to state that its Ancient is just a fact, not a Criticism.

Regarding proportional representation - why? You are going to select a system that is renowned for causing gridlock and enabling fringe lunacy - and use that for a revising chamber? What could possibly make you think that's a good idea?

Edited July 11 by PeterHenry

[PeterHenry]

16 hours ago, oowee said:

The Lords are appointed for fear and favour. It has no place in a democracy. Oversight from a fear and favour commission is not oversight. The system perpetuates the class divide, supports institutional racism, promotes privilege and encourages a disenfranchisement. It's the Athenaeum club in action. 

Exactly the same with the monarchy, the military and the church. These relics of the past are holding us back. 

There is simply no reason why a constitution cannot set out parameters of operation. I take your point that they cannot be cast in stone and will need to adapt but processes can be put in place to allow this. 

Devolution is a mess because it's a half started project that needs to be completed. Nothing wrong with the principle just poor execution. We have not defined the Kingdom its role and purpose or the Nations within it. It's in the too hard to do box. Maybe that's a good reason not to have started it in the first place. 

 

Fear and favour runs through all politics in every country. Its nothing to be proud of, and but not just found in the House of Lords. I hate to point out that goverment minsters are likewise appointed - or am I to presume you would revert to the principle of by-elections each time an MP is appointed to the Government?

I fail to see how working / life peerages perpetuate a class divide.

I fail to see how it's racist as an institution.

The only people it disenfrachies are it's own members - who can't vote once they are made members. We all still have our votes.

Given that the Athenaeum was founded as a meeting place for experts and intellectuals, you may inadvertently have a point. I don't know how much time you have spent in London clubs - but in 2024 my experience is they are not the hubs of intrigue people like to imagine.

I'm not sure how well you will get on without an army in the country you are tearing down and building from scratch - or are you supposing to somehow radically reform them too?

For the record - I'm also perfectly content with a constitutional monarchy and with an established religion. We have had these things long enough for them to have lost their edges and they both exist in fairly benevolent forms.

Regarding constitutions and parameters of operations again - its rarther the point that they are near enough set in stone. If you make it so easy to change, its not worth the paper it's written on as to the intent of the thing. Every constitutional referendum, every hard fought constitutional court case, every very public qualifed constitutional vote, they all drive wedges. Its not a good way to promote unity, which is always needed, and now moreso. Look at the second amended - I know this is a shooting forum - and this country isn't above criticism in regards to firearms law. But Americas approach to guns is frankly unhinged given the amount of mass shootings they have. The bile and venom that festers over there on account of a constitutional right set in stone is astonishing.

Finally, regarding devoloution - there was no need other than the Labour Parties need to try and create permanent Labour strongholds. Why, in a state the size of Britain, do you need more than one parliament?

Edited July 12 by PeterHenry

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

It was in answer to your 'That just sounds like excuses to me.' - you will have to forgive me. I presumed given the nature of your comment, you agreed with some of definitions underpinning it.

Regarding your repeated use of Ancient - this is chronological snobbery, not a valid criticism in itself. Our Common Law is older still - to state that its Ancient is just a fact, not a Criticism.

Regarding proportional representation - why? You are going to select a system that is renowned for causing gridlock and enabling fringe lunacy - and use that for a revising chamber? What could possibly make you think that's a good idea?

Your comparison with common law is like apples and oranges. The reason common law has stood the test of time is simple common sense that has come from a virtual pr system, where even stone age people understood some things are simply wrong, it doesn't really need reforms unless people want to see the likes of rape and murder legalised. 

PR would work very well in the lords, it would ensure the majority of the countrys opinions couldnt be ignored. For example, despite an overwhelming majority, Labour's vote share was only something like 33%, which means nearly 70% of the UK doesn't agree with them. A PR Lords would help prevent a elected party pushing through highly unpopular laws. 

[Raja Clavata]

8 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

So let's review after a week in power

1) £3bn/year to that murderous scumbag Zelenski & authorising UK missiles in Russia.  This will end badly.

This might justify why we don’t appear to agree on much. Where’d you rate Zelensky on a murderous scumbag scale of 1 to 10 compared to say Putin?

[PeterHenry]

35 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Your comparison with common law is like apples and oranges. The reason common law has stood the test of time is simple common sense that has come from a virtual pr system, where even stone age people understood some things are simply wrong, it doesn't really need reforms unless people want to see the likes of rape and murder legalised. 

PR would work very well in the lords, it would ensure the majority of the countrys opinions couldnt be ignored. For example, despite an overwhelming majority, Labour's vote share was only something like 33%, which means nearly 70% of the UK doesn't agree with them. A PR Lords would help prevent a elected party pushing through highly unpopular laws. 

But as a system the Common Law isn’t very democratic is it? And its also well and truly ancient. Besides, murder could be legislated for by the Commons - even using PR in what was previously called the Lords.

Anyway, now we have established that age isnt really a problem, and that systems which are not fundamentally democratic can nevertheless exist successfully within, and provide valuable contributions to a funcioning democracy - I suppose all thats left is to ask why the fascination with PR? 

If I was a betting man - and i'm not - i'd be willing to wager it has something to do with the current Nigel Farage vehicle / primary colours childs drawing of the 1980s Conservitive party that calls itself Reform.

But hey ho, happy to live in a country where we can all cast our vote as we see fit.

Edited July 11 by PeterHenry

[udderlyoffroad]

40 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Where’d you rate Zelensky on a murderous scumbag scale of 1 to 10 compared to say Putin?

I'm not getting into some ridiculous who-is-worse comparison of dictators.

Putin is a murderous, corrupt dictator, but that doesn't somehow make Zelensky good.  That is just reductio ad absurdum. 

Especially not  a thread supposedly about the UK general election results

Zelensky, though his continuation of a war he cannot possibly win, has turned a far higher proportion of his population into grieving widows, children and parents than Putin could ever manage.  That's before we get to his banning of opposition parties and various other scumbag acts.

That does not make Putin's invasion of Ukraine just or right.  But neither does Kamala Harris' baffling speech, prior to the invasion, inviting Ukraine to join NATO, when all the 'grown ups in the room' had long since ruled it out, for various reasons, not least epic corruption.

And if the human element of this pointless slaughter doesn't resonate with you, then no, I'm not happy that my taxes are going towards this ridiculous proxy war with Russia either.  Especially on the day it's announced we will be even more dependent on Russian gas this winter than we already are.

Trying to drag this thread back on topic, I hope Keir Starmer's decision to allow use of UK missiles inside Russia, and/or Ed Miliband's insane decision marks this government's first 'u turn' - something that the press get far more hung up about than the public.

[Raja Clavata]

6 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

I'm not getting into some ridiculous who-is-worse comparison of dictators.

Putin is a murderous, corrupt dictator, but that doesn't somehow make Zelensky good.  That is just reductio ad absurdum. 

Especially not  a thread supposedly about the UK general election results

Zelensky, though his continuation of a war he cannot possibly win, has turned a far higher proportion of his population into grieving widows, children and parents than Putin could ever manage.  That's before we get to his banning of opposition parties and various other scumbag acts.

That does not make Putin's invasion of Ukraine just or right.  But neither does Kamala Harris' baffling speech, prior to the invasion, inviting Ukraine to join NATO, when all the 'grown ups in the room' had long since ruled it out, for various reasons, not least epic corruption.

And if the human element of this pointless slaughter doesn't resonate with you, then no, I'm not happy that my taxes are going towards this ridiculous proxy war with Russia either.  Especially on the day it's announced we will be even more dependent on Russian gas this winter than we already are.

Trying to drag this thread back on topic, I hope Keir Starmer's decision to allow use of UK missiles inside Russia, and/or Ed Miliband's insane decision marks this government's first 'u turn' - something that the press get far more hung up about than the public.

I was purely seeking to better understand you, and now I do. Don’t agree with everything you’ve stated but like you said not suitable for a lengthy discussion here.

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, PeterHenry said:

But as a system the Common Law isn’t very democratic is it? And its also well and truly ancient. Besides, murder could be legislated for by the Commons - even using PR in what was previously called the Lords.

Anyway, now we have established that age isnt really a problem, and that systems which are not fundamentally democratic can nevertheless exist successfully within, and provide valuable contributions to a funcioning democracy - I suppose all thats left is to ask why the fascination with PR? 

If I was a betting man - and i'm not - i'd be willing to wager it has something to do with the current Nigel Farage vehicle / primary colours childs drawing of the 1980s Conservitive party that calls itself Reform.

But hey ho, happy to live in a country where we can all cast our vote as we see fit.

Common law couldn't really be any more democratic, it's been formed from every right mined individual knowing that doing certain things are simply wrong, therefore it's been the law since the dawn of modern humans, I still don't see why your trying to connect it to the Lords which is a totally different matter. 

Have we established that age isn't a problem? Again I disagree, while it's certainly not the biggest issue, I'd say it forms a part of the problem, as it's connected to a time when the peasants really didn't have much of a say in anything, is anti democratic and in my opinion needs a total tear up and reform. 

Absolutely nothing to do with Farage, other than the fact I didn't like the EU for partially the same reason, it's undemocratic. 

Again I disagree with your final point to. Choosing between the fire and the frying pan isn't really much of a choice, I think it's long overdue our political landscape was relooked at. How to change it I don't know, but what I do know is the current system is no longer fit for purpose and doesn't work for the vast majority of average people. 

[PeterHenry]

23 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Common law couldn't really be any more democratic, it's been formed from every right mined individual knowing that doing certain things are simply wrong, therefore it's been the law since the dawn of modern humans, I still don't see why your trying to connect it to the Lords which is a totally different matter. 

Have we established that age isn't a problem? Again I disagree, while it's certainly not the biggest issue, I'd say it forms a part of the problem, as it's connected to a time when the peasants really didn't have much of a say in anything, is anti democratic and in my opinion needs a total tear up and reform. 

Absolutely nothing to do with Farage, other than the fact I didn't like the EU for partially the same reason, it's undemocratic. 

Again I disagree with your final point to. Choosing between the fire and the frying pan isn't really much of a choice, I think it's long overdue our political landscape was relooked at. How to change it I don't know, but what I do know is the current system is no longer fit for purpose and doesn't work for the vast majority of average people. 

No one in Britan ever voted to have common law - it was created when William I sent men out to gather the disparate local laws and customs of the kingdom he had just conquered, and codify the best bits into one cohesive set of laws. Those laws have been built on and interpreted by judges for the better part of a thousand years. The principles have been extrapolated and then extrapolated again and again and again. It's not democratic - its entirely judge lead and administered through the courts. It predates democracy in Britain by a very long way. If you want to talk about institutions being forced on peasants - its been the case with the common law for far longer than the house of lords.

 

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

No one in Britan ever voted to have common law - it was created when William I sent men out to gather the disparate local laws and customs of the kingdom he had just conquered, and codify the best bits into one cohesive set of laws. Those laws have been built on and interpreted by judges for the better part of a thousand years. The principles have been extrapolated and then extrapolated again and again and again. It's not democratic - its entirely judge lead and administered through the courts. It predates democracy in Britain by a very long way. If you want to talk about institutions being forced on peasants - its been the case with the common law for far longer than the house of lords.

 

I'm not sure what your obsession with common law is. Even if it is undemocratic (and I think it is), what part of common law do you think the average person doesn't agree with? Should Rape or Murder be legalised? The comparison doesn't stand up. 

The Lords is open to abuse, is undemocratic, is archaic, wasteful of tax payer money and should be torn down and rebuilt from scratch.