-
@jegga said in British Politics:
How does this twat know they are far right if they said nothing during the attack? I hink he underestimates that he's loathed acroos a few different demographics in the Uk and deservedly so the dishonest shrieking clown.
Oh he didn't hear anything because he was too busy getting his head kicked in.
-
@Bones said in British Politics:
@jegga said in British Politics:
How does this twat know they are far right if they said nothing during the attack? I hink he underestimates that he's loathed acroos a few different demographics in the Uk and deservedly so the dishonest shrieking clown.
Oh he didn't hear anything because he was too busy getting his head kicked in.
Fortunately they didn't seem to do much visible damage. He hasn't let an opportunity to push his agenda go by either
-
@Bones said in British Politics:
@jegga yeah he's all over the breakfast news this morning, looking distinctly like a guy that wasn't involved in a group beatdown.
Just looking through his twitter hes also accusing the thugs of cultural appropriation.
-
@Bones said in British Politics:
@jegga he was attacked by Japanese? The plot thickens...
๐๐๐
-
Was having a think on the train today, and I've realised the biggest thing I cannot get my head around at the moment.
Given that British democracy / parliament is widely used across the world and viewed as one of the great British backbones, I cannot fathom how there can be such a hole in the setup. How is it possible, that when a government loses majority - either by MP's crossing the floor, by-elections or whatever, it doesn't automatically trigger a mandatory general election? A lost majority means that the government can no longer be representative of the people. Therefore, basic logic means that the people didn't vote in who has the power, subsequently, the basic rule of democracy is lost.
It blows my mind that we can be in a situation where the government has lost majority, and the opposition can be allowed to block an election, which therefore means no legislation can be passed.
That is such a fundamental flaw.
-
@Rembrandt said in British Politics:
I give BBC a lot of grief in regards to bias but fairplay to them this doco is fairly balanced. Well worth a watch.
Only just saw this post.
To be fair, BBC social documentaries are generally very well done. There are issues in the general presentations and reporting (although I don't think they are as bad as reported), but the indepth documentaries are usually very well done.
-
@Rembrandt said in British Politics:
I give BBC a lot of grief in regards to bias but fairplay to them this doco is fairly balanced. Well worth a watch.
Who is Chris MacLean ? He seems like a massive gaping ahole.
-
@MajorRage said in British Politics:
Was having a think on the train today, and I've realised the biggest thing I cannot get my head around at the moment.
Given that British democracy / parliament is widely used across the world and viewed as one of the great British backbones, I cannot fathom how there can be such a hole in the setup. How is it possible, that when a government loses majority - either by MP's crossing the floor, by-elections or whatever, it doesn't automatically trigger a mandatory general election? A lost majority means that the government can no longer be representative of the people. Therefore, basic logic means that the people didn't vote in who has the power, subsequently, the basic rule of democracy is lost.
It blows my mind that we can be in a situation where the government has lost majority, and the opposition can be allowed to block an election, which therefore means no legislation can be passed.
That is such a fundamental flaw.
Yes. No. Maybe. Not always.
Have a read here: [Minority Governments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_government
I have selected this bit:
In Westminster systems, in minority situations, the incumbent government usually has the first opportunity to attempt to win the confidence of the House. This is so even if the incumbents have fewer seats โ the incumbent prime minister still holds his or her commission for the duration of the writ period and immediately following an election. If (s)he cannot form a government that commands the confidence of the House then it is expected that (s)he will resign that commission voluntarily โ it is not considered acceptable for the Sovereign (or her representative) to revoke said commission unless the prime minister was acting in serious breach of constitutional protocol. Nevertheless, usually an incumbent government that loses its plurality in the House simply resigns, especially if the main opposition party is only a few seats short of having a majority or if it feels it has no chance of winning the support of enough members of smaller parties to win an initial confidence vote.I guess BJ could resign. In fact, convention seems to point to this being the norm - although not always.
But my understanding is that this does not trigger an election. The party who then controls the confidence of the house, then gets to form the government.But I am no expert. Someone else can wade in here...
-
@Billy-Webb There is no way he will resign - and neither he should.
May quit, he inherited the clusterfuck, (by choice) and is working his arse off to resolve it. Public opinion polls on the Tories are aggressively rising, but the previously elected MP's to represent these same people are going the other way.
It is a massive hole in the law, that the PM cannot unequivocally call a GE in this situation. The opposition who currently hold the majority, are blocking it as they will (in all likelihood) lose it. That ain't democracy. That's the opposition blatantly doing what they accuse Boris of doing. Putting themselves ahead of the people.
-
@MajorRage said in British Politics:
@Billy-Webb There is no way he will resign - and neither he should.
May quit, he inherited the clusterfuck, (by choice) and is working his arse off to resolve it. Public opinion polls on the Tories are aggressively rising, but the previously elected MP's to represent these same people are going the other way.
It is a massive hole in the law, that the PM cannot unequivocally call a GE in this situation. The opposition who currently hold the majority, are blocking it as they will (in all likelihood) lose it. That ain't democracy. That's the opposition blatantly doing what they accuse Boris of doing. Putting themselves ahead of the people.
While I concur with much of what you say there - I have a different take on the bolded bit.
BJ didn't inherit the situation, he actively worked to engineer the situation. He undermined May at every possible turn. There could possibly actually have been a Brexit deal done already had BJ and his cronies not so aggressively pursued power for themselves. So don't place him up on a pedestal too much. This current clusterf#ck is as much of his own making as anyone else. And be clear on one thing - what he is currently pursuing has very little to do with representing the will of the people. It is a power play. He is just using the agenda of the day as his tools of trade.
British Politics