[img] [/img]

Get yourself over to the Cypriot thread and be thankful you are not under the yoke of the unelected totalitarian regime that is the EU

EDIT: for cross posting SHHH he is one of the arguing it

Vote for Donald:

[img] [/img]

We have a government ruling without mandate, which we did not vote for.

Wot?

And can someone fill me in on the actual news, cos all that article does is say that there's no news coverage of it.

[url] http://wingsoverscotland.com/after-the-watershed/ [/url]
I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about - anyone got any ideas/links?

More here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/workfare-why-did-so-many-labour-mps-accept-this-brutal-unforgivable-attack-on-vulnerable-people-8542193.html

The basic idea of democracy is that if you don't like the government, you can (at widely-spaced intervals) kick them out and vote in somebody different.

Hmm, former Eton public schoolboy, or former Eton public schoolboy; decisions, decisions...

Hey, we're subjects not citizens so they can do what they like.

If this was a real democracy then there would not be a superior house of government full of unelected aristocrats, anglican bishops, and appointees with the ability to mangle any legislation, and all topped by a monarchy.

So know your place, be grateful for the crumbs you are allowed to keep of the bread you have made, and don't forget to tug the forelock when one of the born-to-rule class speaks.

Meanwhile 2014 is eagerly awaited by certain northern would-be citizens.

The basic idea of democracy is that if you don't like the government, you can (at widely-spaced intervals) kick them out and vote in somebody different.

Lets get labour back in. They have an outstanding record on the rugged defense of justice, respect from all the institutions upholding national and international law, and a constant, unflincing championing of citizens rights

[img] [/img]

Government action deemed illegal. government liable to pay damages to those who lost out because of illegal action. government use time machine to retrospectively change the law.no compensation now payable. Labour do nothing to oppose this.

We are back in the circle, of politicians not caring about the people who pay for them...

If this was a real democracy then there would not be a superior house of government full of unelected aristocrats, anglican bishops, and appointees with the ability to mangle any legislation, and all topped by a monarchy.

As if it would make any sodding difference at all?

Where's it better than here?

Government action deemed illegal. government liable to pay damages to those who lost out because of illegal action. government use time machine to retrospectively change the law.no compensation now payable. Labour do nothing to oppose this.

Nicely summed up

[i]Ex post facto[/i] laws. But hey they only effect the shirkers and the ****less unemployed so why should we care.

Roll on 2014

2015?

Lifer - I think 2014 refers to the 2014 scottish independence referendum.

By 2015, I guess you're referring to the General Election? As a matter of interest, what do you think voting the opposition in will do to improve the situation? (Given the cross-party nature of this latest instance)

The government should not have the power to retrospectively change the law. It's a frightening threat to civil liberty.

we don't live in a democracy, the EU is as democratic as the UK in general. we vote for Mps, we Vote for MEPs we vote , it is the governments that we vote for that apoint the council of ministers etc.

Take the EU out of the picture give the Tories and UKIP the free reign they want and watch what is left of employment rights evaporate.

I hear Shetland is now looking for independence from scotland...

Why is it that the UK is one of the most centralised countries in Europe? why is there no power in the regions, why do local councils have so little power. Oh yes Postcode lottery!!!! You get the whinging that you have a post code lottery but everything is run from london!!!!

organdonor - Member
Lifer - I think 2014 refers to the 2014 scottish independence referendum.

Ah that would make sense because:

By 2015, I guess you're referring to the General Election? As a matter of interest, what do you think voting the opposition in will do to improve the situation? (Given the cross-party nature of this latest instance)

Not much. Until we have more, smaller parties with a smaller share of the seats there is no reason for politicians to become more representative and answerable to the electorate.

Labour MPs abstaining on this was at best disappointing. But not surprising.

I hear Shetland is now looking for independence from scotland...

Well, one Lib Dem MSP keeps wittering on about it* - I don't think anyone has bothered asking the population of Shetland. But if they want independence, good luck to them.

*who is also quite involved with the Better Together campaign. Odd that someone who wants to keep the UK together is also talking about independence for Shetland, isn't it?

who is also quite involved with the Better Together campaign. Odd that someone who wants to keep the UK together is also talking about independence for Shetland, isn't it?

Funny that isn't it. One might even accuse him of being disingenuous.

Politicians? Disingenuous? 😯

What gets me is polititians can't work out why no one votes.
It's easy, they're all useless ****ing ****ers, who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves and their **** mates from eton.
Same shite, different coloured tie.

Roll on 2014

Is that a type of deodorant?

bencooper - Member
More here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/workfare-why-did-so-many-labour-mps-accept-this-brutal-unforgivable-attack-on-vulnerable-people-8542193.html

Have any of you considered not voting for labour/Tory/libdem at the next election.

Other parties exist.

I think the major parties may be in for a big surprise, by exactly how many people are planning on doing precisely that piemonster

Good

Alternatively, Government wins substantive points in legal battle but loses one small technical point, which makes the regulations ultra vires. Government appeals decision, but in the meantime re-enacts the regulations so there are compliant with extant judgement to restore the position to what parliament thought they were voting for. When described like this, it is really not that controversial, although I am personally anti retrospective legislation, even when it is aimed at tax avoiders like Barclays.

uselesshippy - Member
What gets me is polititians can't work out why no one votes.

IMO it's in the current lots (the big 3)'s interest for low turnouts. Big turnouts may lead to a coaltion with some of the newer parties who don't know the 'rules'.

mefty - Member
Alternatively, Government wins substantive points in legal battle but loses one small technical point, which makes the regulations ultra vires. Government appeals decision, but in the meantime re-enacts the regulations so there are compliant with extant judgement to restore the position to what parliament thought they were voting for. When described like this, it is really not that controversial, although I am personally anti retrospective legislation, even when it is aimed at tax avoiders like Barclays.

Finding that stopping benefits for people who refused work fare was illegal is not a small technical point.

And describing it like that is glorious spin.

piemonster - Member
Have any of you considered not voting for labour/Tory/libdem at the next election.

Other parties exist.

Haven't voted for them at the last 2, thanks. (But have voted!)

What I find worrying is that rather than vote for one of the other parties than the top 3 the general consensus seems to be not to vote at all, as if that sends some sort of message.

Bizarre attitude but a lot seem to do it, and then complain about the results afterwards.

The only election I haven't voted in since being old enough to vote was for the local Police Commissioner and that was mainly because I could find no useful info on any of the candidates and the one campaigner who stuck a leaflet through my letter box wasn't interesting in talking to me.

The regulations were incorrectly implemented, that is a technical implementation error, the substantive point was that the whole policy breached human rights law and the Government won on this - so I don't think it is an unreasonable description. But it obviously paints the judgement in the best possible light, but that seems reasonable when every other article referred to on this thread does the opposite.

We have a government ruling without mandate, which we did not vote for.

Who's we?

Without the West Lothian question the Conservatives would have won a majority of 21 seats in the 2010 election!

Why have we had Scottish MP's voting on English matters? Thats [i]truly[/i] people who [b]we[/b] did not vote for ruling without mandate!

Roll on 2014 indeed - its win-win for the Tories!

Have any of you considered not voting for labour/Tory/libdem at the next election.

Other parties exist.

Like UKIP (loons), BNP (bigger loons) and the Greens (quaint loons)?

and the Greens (quaint loons)

Out of interest, why do you consider the Greens to be loons ?

Who's we?

Without the West Lothian question the Conservatives would have won a majority of 21 seats in the 2010 election!

What's the WLQ got to do with a general election?

Oh, and Scottish votes haven't swung any election since WWII.

piemonster - Member
Have any of you considered not voting for labour/Tory/libdem at the next election.
Other parties exist.

Yup I voted Green at the last election. Bit pointless though.

[quote=grum ]
Yup I voted Green at the last election. Bit pointless though.
You've got to think of it as a long-term change. If no one votes for Greens then no one [i]will[/i] vote for Greens. Once folk see that it's a real option - one that might actually result in getting an MP or two - it'll swing pretty quick.

might actually result in getting an MP or two

They already have an MP 🙂

Good to see the "what difference will my vote make" line of thought alive and well, long live the two and a half party system.

Playing devils advocate somewhat, presumably the reason that the parties from both sides were backing this is that it's a vote winning policy with the people who vote. Or at least the people who vote for those parties. Getting 'benefit scroungers' to work for free seems to be a popular policy - whether they are actually 'scroungers' or whether the policy actually works is of less interest to most voters.
Not getting the government I want, or the parties I want doesn't make it undemocratic. UKIP's seems to be on the up and up, so what's stopping people forming a socialist alternative?

[quote=IanMunro ]Playing devils advocate somewhat, presumably the reason that the parties from both sides were backing this is that it's a vote winning policy with the people who vote. Or at least the people who vote for those parties. Getting 'benefit scroungers' to work for free seems to be a popular policy - whether they are actually 'scroungers' or whether the policy actually works is of less interest to most voters.
Not getting the government I want, or the parties I want doesn't make it undemocratic. UKIP's seems to be on the up and up, so what's stopping people forming a socialist alternative?
There is always the fact that those who voted LibDem did so in the belief they'd actually adopt & support the polices in their manifesto, but essentially you are correct. I suspect that the STW-ites are simply unrepresentative of the general population of England and Wales.

mefty - Member
The regulations were incorrectly implemented, that is a technical implementation error, the substantive point was that the whole policy breached human rights law and the Government won on this - so I don't think it is an unreasonable description. But it obviously paints the judgement in the best possible light, but that seems reasonable when every other article referred to on this thread does the opposite.

No one cares about the human rights aspect apart from those trying to defend the government's actions. It was found to be illegal, that's the substantive point.

In a carefully reasoned judgment the Court found that the Secretary of State, Iain Duncan Smith, has acted beyond the powers given to him by Parliament[4] by failing to provide, any detail about the various “Back to Work” schemes in the Regulations. The Government had bypassed Parliament by introducing the Back to Work schemes administratively under an “umbrella” scheme knwons as the Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme, claiming the need for “flexibility’. The Court of Appeal held that this was contrary to what Parliament had required. Stanley Burnton LJ stated:

“any scheme must be such as has been authorised by Parliament. There is a constitutional issue involved. The loss of jobseekers’ allowance may result in considerable personal hardship, and it is not surprising that Parliament should have been careful in making provision for the circumstances in which the sanction may be imposed. There are well known legislative formulae for conferring complete flexibility of decision on a Minister.” (at [75])

The result is that over the past two years the Government has unlawfully required tens of thousands of unemployed people to work without pay and unlawfully stripped thousands more of their subsistence benefits.

[url] http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/news_details.php?id=298 [/url]

Incorrect implementation or acting outside the legislature?

No one cares about the human rights aspect apart from those trying to defend the government's actions. It was found to be illegal, that's the substantive point.

That bastion of the right wing press, aka the Guardian seems to disagee when reporting the high court decision.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/aug/06/unpaid-work-scheme-ruled-lawful-poundland ]Link[/url]

EDIT: You do realise you are linking to the plantiffs' lawyers' site, they are bound to be unbiased.

Time for the founding of "the Real Labour party". Party leader Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner as Chief Party Whip. Straight talking men who know what's what. Nationalise the banks we already virtually own for starters.

RIP Hugo Chavez

Out of interest, why do you consider the Greens to be loons ?

Because looking at their policies, the economy would go to hell pretty quickly.

This is from their manifesto.

Because size matters: if the economy gets too big it will grow beyond its ecological limits.

There's no such thing as ecological limits in terms of humanity. We always find a way round them. Copper getting expensive? Oh noes it's gonna run out? Oh someone invented graphene. OMGZ we're gonna run out of foodz! Oh look someone invented a new GMO that massively increases productivity. OMFGZ GMO's are evil corporate inventions that will give you cancer. Actually, all evidence points to them being quite good for you. OMFGZ global warming is gonna kill us all! Actually, it will cause problems but not wipe us off the face of the planet. OMFGZ we're gonna run out of oil. Oh look, someone's working on better batteries, better solar panels and Fusion! OMFGZ the world population is gonna hit dozens of Billionzzzz......no it isn't....all evidence points to it hitting 11 billion and then decreasing back to about 7 billion.

Humans always find a way, Green's underestimate humanities innate ability to adapt and invent. They're misanthropic doomers. Removing growth and strangling markets will risk seeing that the things humanity needs to move forward won't get invented.

RIP Hugo Chavez

Tut tut

El Comandante lives

Forever
[img] [/img]

We always find a way round them

hu·bris (hybrs) also hy·bris (h-)
n.
Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance: "There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris" (McGeorge Bundy).
[Greek, excessive pride, wanton violence; see ud- in Indo-European roots.]
hu·bristic (-brstk) adj.
hu·bristic·al·ly adv.

We always find a way round them

There's a lot more safety in technology than the green option of going all hippy to save the earth and cutting back on R&D and limiting the growth of our economy in the name of cutting back on CO2.

We're ****ed already, the damage has already been done to the planet. Global warming is going to happen now whether we cut our CO2 output in half by next week. Other countries like China and India will still plow on ahead regardless, we'll get left behind and it will be for nothing.

The only way out of this is forward, through the application of better technology produced through regulated growth and capitalism.

Green's underestimate humanities innate ability to adapt and invent

I see. So basically it's because you don't agree with their policies, that you consider them to be loonies.

Interestingly the Greens only MP, Caroline Lucas, isn't considered to be a loony by a lot of people. Take a look at the awards she's received :

In her time as a politician and activist, Lucas has won the 2006 Michael Kay Award "for her outstanding contribution to European animal welfare" from the RSPCA. She was named in the Top 10 of the New Statesman Magazine Person of the Year Award 2006, which was voted for by New Statesman readers, alongside varied personalities including Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Shami Chakrabarti, Director of the civil liberties NGO Liberty. This was considered surprising because many of the other members of the Top 10, including 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, had been nominated and profiled by prominent writers in the magazine in the weeks before the vote.

Lucas has won the award for Politician of the Year in The Observer Newspaper Ethical Awards three times. The award is voted for by Observer readers, who chose her to win in 2007, 2009 and 2010. In 2007 she had been shortlisted alongside Gordon Brown and David Cameron. In 2008 she was listed by The Guardian as one of "50 people who could save the planet".

In July 2007, Lucas came in eighth place in the New Consumer Magazine Top 100 Ethical Heroes list, behind a number of celebrities including fashion designer Katharine Hamnett (who came 1st), Anita Roddick (The Body Shop founder), Al Gore (former US Vice-President who is now a campaigner for action on climate change) and Jonathon Porritt, a former Green Party politician. The list was designed to recognise people who "made the biggest contribution to ethical consumption over the last five years". According to New Consumer magazine, "if you had to trust one person with changing the world you could do worse than rely on Lucas". During the same month, BBC Wildlife magazine named her in their Top 50 Conservationists, which was topped by Prince Charles.

In October 2008 Lucas was winner in the Trade category of The Parliament magazine MEP Awards 2008. The awards are voted for by MEPs and NGOs. In April 2010 Lucas won Best UK Politician in The Independent Green Awards and in November 2010 she was awarded "Newcomer of the Year" in The Spectator Parliamentarian of the Year awards. In July 2011 she was awarded "Best all-rounder" in the Total Politics End of Year MP awards and in September 2011 she was awarded "MP of the Year" in the Women in Public Life Awards 2011. Also in 2011 she was given the Political Studies Association award for "Influencing the Political Agenda" and voted "Progressive of the Year" in Left Foot Forward's readers' poll

Or are all those newspapers, magazines, etc, all read and written by loonies ?

for her outstanding contribution to European animal welfare"

So she's an animal rights loony as well?

alongside varied personalities including Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez

I LOL'd.

In 2008 she was listed by The Guardian as one of "50 people who could save the planet".

Cuz guardian jouno's and readers who majored in something like anglo-saxon history etc are qualified to be able to make decisions on who can save the planet?

which was topped by Prince Charles.

Buhahahah, the man who wants us to go back to an pre-industiral agrarian society?

Or are all those newspapers, magazines, etc, all read and written by loonies ?

No, just uninformed idiots as usual. I've come to the crashing conclusion the 99.5 percent of the people on this planet are wrong about everything 100 percent of the time. As a general rule it seems to serve me quite well.

So she's an animal rights loony as well?

Because she received an award from the RSPCA ? According to you the RSPCA are also loonies ?

Yeah I think we'll leave it there ........ as I suspected, everyone who doesn't agree with you is a loony.

Would that be the same Green Party that turned all luddite wanting to smash up Rothamstead, and managed to thoroughly embarrass themselves over their complete misrepresentation and misunderstanding of basic scientific principles?

You don't support the Greens either Z-11 ?

What a surprise.

She's against animal experiments in Medical testing and thinks there are scientifically reliable alternatives.

There aren't unless she wants to volunteer to skip the animal trials and put herself forward for untested phase 1 trials.

As I said, misanthropic loony and I'll move country if she ever manages to ban those experiments and will conduct research in Hong Kong or Singapore instead.

mefty - Member
No one cares about the human rights aspect apart from those trying to defend the government's actions. It was found to be illegal, that's the substantive point.
That bastion of the right wing press, aka the Guardian seems to disagee when reporting the high court decision.

Link

EDIT: You do realise you are linking to the plantiffs' lawyers' site, they are bound to be unbiased.

What is incorrect about their summary and what does the Guardian's report from last year have to do with anything? A lot's happened since then.

As I said, misanthropic loony.

Which presumably is why the RSPCA decided to give her an award ?

They're all loonies ..... right ?

In fact pretty much everyone who disagrees with you is.

"bwaarp".... is that the sound your arse makes when you (very rarely) remove your head from so far up it? This is in reference to your 'general rule' post.

She's against animal experiments in Medical testing and thinks there are scientifically reliable alternatives.

Don't be unfair on her Bwaarp - she's a big fan of science in medicine: Here's a quote from her blog from a while back:

[i]Here in Brighton we are lucky to be served by an excellent network of complementary and alternative medicine practicioners.
The Green Party would fully integrate their services and expertise into NHS treatment plans, not only improving patient choices but helping to boost this important sector of the local economy.
Complementary and alternative medicine may be written off by drug companies and other sceptics as "mumbo jumbo" medicine, but recent evidence strongly contradicts such claims.
A little reported year-long pilot scheme in Northern Ireland recently found complementary and alternative medicine offers significant health improvements to NHS patients...
...Therapies offered included acupuncture, chiropractic, osteopathy, homeopathy, reflexology and aromatherapy administered by local practitioners.[/i]

😆

Here in Brighton we are lucky to be served by an excellent network of complementary and alternative medicine practicioners.
The Green Party would fully integrate their services and expertise into NHS treatment plans, not only improving patient choices but helping to boost this important sector of the local economy.

[img] [/img]

This exercise in character assassination was far to easy.

she's a big fan of science in medicine

I'm glad you're brought up medicine Z-11. Let's remind ourselves how your great political guru, Dan Hannan, is a big fan of telling lies about the NHS

Now now, Bwaarp -lets not be bitchy - after all, the Green party manifesto pledged to:

[i]• Ensure that all medicines meet safety standards, are properly labelled with ingredients and have information on side-effects. [/i]

[img] [/img]

Fairly miserable article linked by the op, fails to make a point with any clarity.

Not sure what the problem is, this government was voted in to reduce immigration and benefit fraud, fairly unpopular principles on STW towers but rightly or wrongly pretty much what the cons are doing.

I'm glad you're brought up medicine Z-11. Let's remind ourselves how your great political guru Dan Hannan, is a big fan of telling lies about the NHS

How does that have any relevance to our Green MP?

Including alternative therapies on the NHS and encouraging people to believe they might work is one of the most unethical manipulative things one could do.

Ensure that all medicines meet safety standards, are properly labelled with ingredients and have information on side-effects.

HAHAHAHAHARRRRRRRRRRRRR like they already do?

Edit - Ah, you can tell Ernie's rattled, he's had to rely on the Dan Hannan attacks again 😆

Come on Ernie - now we've dealt with Caroline - would you like us to start on your mate Jenny Jones?

Here you are Z-11, this is what David Cameron had to say about the man you most admire in politics, Dan Hannan :

[b][i]David Cameron today slapped down a Tory MEP who went on American television to attack the National Health Service, dismissing his views as "eccentric"[/i][/b]

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-slaps-down-tory-mep-daniel-hannan-over-nhs-attack-1772164.html ]David Cameron slaps down Tory MEP Daniel Hannan over NHS attack[/url]

"eccentric" .......isn't that a bit like saying looney ?

[img] [/img]

So we're not talking about healthcare then ?

I see.

What do the lies told by this other MP have to do with the lies told by our Green friend?

Or are you going to keep trying to deflect the fact that the person you cited as an example of a perfectly logical and reasonable human being, does in fact hold some pretty lunatic views? Views which are about as intellectually sound and morally defensible as aids denialism.

I thought there might be a connection with healthcare related lies.

Still, since according to you, quote :

[i]"I've come to the crashing conclusion the 99.5 percent of the people on this planet are wrong about everything 100 percent of the time."[/i]

I'm prepared to accept that I'm probably wrong.

It's just you, Z-11, and the rest of the 0.5%, who are right.

Obviously.

Still, since according to you, quote :

In response to your edit :

Or are you going to keep trying to deflect the fact that the person you cited as an example of a perfectly logical and reasonable human being, does in fact hold some pretty lunatic views?

I haven't cited anyone "as an example of a perfectly logical and reasonable human being", where did you get that from ?

I don't however think Caroline Lucas is a lunatic. And I suspect 99.5% of people agree with me. Not that you are impressed by that of course.

😆

I think she, and the rest of the Green party, are just full of sh*t!

Even the Guardian agrees with us on this one Ernie!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/29/green-party-science

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2012/may/30/1

IanW - Member
Fairly miserable article linked by the op, fails to make a point with any clarity.

Not sure what the problem is, this government was voted in to reduce immigration and benefit fraud, fairly unpopular principles on STW towers but rightly or wrongly pretty much what the cons are doing.

You've got a funny memory. Is that really what they're doing? How much have they reduced benefit fraud by? Immigration?

The problem is the government acted illegally, corrected their mistake but backdated it so that they never broke the law. But they did.

In fact even George Monbiot does.

Buhahahaha

I haven't cited anyone "as an example of a perfectly logical and reasonable human being", where did you get that from ?

You attempted to cite her as an example of why the Green party isn't loony, it played right into my hands. Most people with a smattering of science education would agree with me when it comes to animal testing. She holds an illogical fringe view that is based on the views of a reactionary protest movement, she is one of those types that are attracted to those kinds of groups. Hence she also holds other dodgy views like those on alternative therapies.

Basically even if Global Warming wasn't scientifically proven or in fact dis-proven, she'd still probably believe in it. Because she's a professional activist - that's the kind of person she is....a career hippy.

Even the Guardian agrees with us

It doesn't seem to. A group of individuals where asked their opinions with regards to the Green Party's policies. The conclusion was :

[i]"Their policy in some areas is excellent, and it's tempting to be generous to the Greens. As a party they're well intentioned and admit that they are in the midst of a process of reform"[/i]

No where is there any "loonies" claim.

Still, don't let that bother you.

in some areas

And again, since when were Journo's who majored in some shitty arts subject more qualified than everyone else to make such opinions?

Who were these individuals anyway? Were they even journo's or some champagne socialist readers who read a bit of what prince Charles etc has said and then decided that obviously the party is awesome?

You must stop all this excessive editing Z-11. RE :

I think she, and the rest of the Green party, are just full of sh*t!

But to be fair Z-11, you do deeply admire Dan Hannan, the man who publicly claims that the NHS is "a failed experiment".

So it comes as a great relief to me that don't like the Greens.

So it comes as a great relief to me that don't like the Greens.

Actually it is to the rest of us as well. Luckily all polling reports indicate they will get no where in the next election.