Politics Thread!

Inane baanter or words of wisdom - you decide...
Post Reply
User avatar
pogo
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 14180
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 8:28 pm 0
Yahoo Messenger: BrassSparrow
Location: County Durham

Re: Politics Thread!

Post by pogo »

merman wrote:Freedom of Information the next target for the Cameron Diktat... In the week it revealed British forces (embedded with foreign military) have been involved in military action in Syria.

But wait, didn't our democratically elected officials in Parliament vote to say there would be no British involvement in Syria? Gosh, that would be embarrassing for the regime, wouldn't it?
The vote was about something different:
MPs have rejected possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government to deter the use of chemical weapons.
This has not been a UK military action. But more importantly it’s not against Assad’s government but against Islamic State. The vote was clearly not against all action ever in Syria. Nor generally does the government need parliament’s decision for military action – often there is no time or an element of surprise or secrecy is needed.
User avatar
merman
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 10943
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:44 pm 0
XBL Gamertag: merman1974
Yahoo Messenger: andrewrfisher
Location: Skegness, England
Contact:

Re: Politics Thread!

Post by merman »

It was about British military action WITHIN SYRIA. That includes missions against ISIS, Bashir or Syrian rebels.
Twitter, Xbox, Wii U and Steam - merman1974
ZZAP is back - https://www.patreon.com/zzapmagazine
User avatar
pogo
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 14180
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 8:28 pm 0
Yahoo Messenger: BrassSparrow
Location: County Durham

Re: Politics Thread!

Post by pogo »

merman wrote:It was about British military action WITHIN SYRIA. That includes missions against ISIS, Bashir or Syrian rebels.
No it doesn’t. Can’t you read what I quoted? That was from the BBC. So is this.
The government's motion said the House of Commons "deplores" the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime and "agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action".

It said any such action would be "legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria's chemical weapons"
User avatar
gravy
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 19572
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:28 pm 0
Location: The Other Place

Re: Politics Thread!

Post by gravy »

Yeah that 2013 motion was about giving Assad a slap if need be.

There has been no motion for these airstrikes, he's bypassing democracy completely this time.

Surprised anyone would be defending that through semantic quibbling; if this had come in front of the house it'd been rejected for pretty much the same reasons the last bill was.
User avatar
pogo
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 14180
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 8:28 pm 0
Yahoo Messenger: BrassSparrow
Location: County Durham

Re: Politics Thread!

Post by pogo »

gravy wrote:Yeah that 2013 motion was about giving Assad a slap if need be.

There has been no motion for these airstrikes, he's bypassing democracy completely this time.
But that’s normal. I mean there is no legal requirement to ask parliament for permission. There couldn’t be as often it’s not possible. There may not be time as action may be launched at a moment’s notice. The operation may be secret at the time. Special forces in particular normally operate in secret. More generally during a conflict there may be so many day to day decisions that consulting parliament would be impractical.

The government can voluntarily ask for parliament’s permission, as it did over Assad. Parliament itself can pass motions condemning government action, but that has no legal effect. They could in theory pass a law forcing the government to always consult, but that seems very unlikely as any opposition would fear it would be used against them one day. Finally if parliament gets fed up they could force another election and let voters decide the government’s fate.
User avatar
gravy
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 19572
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:28 pm 0
Location: The Other Place

Re: Politics Thread!

Post by gravy »

I didn't say it was illegal. I said he was bypassing democracy.

Given the previous anti miltary action sentiment it's also pretty clear this isn't something people or their representatives want.

And these are military on long term secondment, it's not a snap reaction for a crisis that's suddenly reared it's head and needs dealing with.

It's long term support for the US military action. Subtleties that we're acting as part of foriegn forces will probably be lost on anyone who loses friends in the bombing raids and decides to fight back through terrorism.
User avatar
pogo
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 14180
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 8:28 pm 0
Yahoo Messenger: BrassSparrow
Location: County Durham

Re: Politics Thread!

Post by pogo »

gravy wrote:I didn't say it was illegal. I said he was bypassing democracy.

Given the previous anti miltary action sentiment it's also pretty clear this isn't something people or their representatives want.
Parliament can act if it wants. Apart from the things I listed above they can ask questions e.g. at PMQs, or put pressure on particular ministers or the PM to apologise or resign.

As for sentiment it is completely different. Going after Assad was one thing: a sovereign country backed by Russia. But Islamic State is an entirely different thing: an extremist and terrorist organisation that is in Syria but also Iraq, destabilising both, radicalising people here, and driving large number of refugees into Europe.

I’m sure there is support for doing something about refugees from Iraq and Syria fleeing into southern and eastern Europe. And for doing something about British Muslims being radicalised and joining IS. And probably the only long term solution to these is to deal with IS. I don’t think it has a long term future; its brand of medieval fundamentalism will collapse sooner or later. But bringing that about sooner, by military action to help tip the balance in battles with local governments and militias, is I think the right thing to do.
User avatar
(o)(o)
Baaaaaaa!
Baaaaaaa!
Posts: 6885
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:21 am 0

Re: Politics Thread!

Post by (o)(o) »

pogo wrote:
gravy wrote:Yeah that 2013 motion was about giving Assad a slap if need be.

There has been no motion for these airstrikes, he's bypassing democracy completely this time.
But that’s normal.
Subverting democracy is normal with this government and they are not interested in serving the will of the people.

Foxhunting vote - an cynical attempt to bring English law into line with Scottish law which patently in need of reform.

The public are massively opposed to letting dogs-rip-foxes limb from limb and they know it so the vote was an undemocratic attemtp to get it in law through the backdoor against the will of the people.

I look forward to more SNP interventions where the Nasty party abuse their position.
User avatar
(o)(o)
Baaaaaaa!
Baaaaaaa!
Posts: 6885
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:21 am 0

Re: Politics Thread!

Post by (o)(o) »

Be interesting to see if ..

Image

.. Harriet Harmen has done her bit to destroy the remains of the Labour Party?

Vvette Cooper and Andy Burnham are the other two spineless brain dead leadership candidate shills who are now slithering along to Conservative-Lite refusing to take a firm stance against the Social Cleansing Welfare Bill, with Jeremy Corbyn looking to be the only honest candidate remaining.
User avatar
zip accident
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 13928
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:58 pm 0
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: Politics Thread!

Post by zip accident »

(o)(o) almost said wrote:The public are massively opposed to letting Toffs rip foxes limb from limb and they know it
Well, you have to be a Toff to like them. However they are the Toff's party, and they have to represent Toff interests.


Fox:

Image


versus firefox:

Image

I know which I prefer.
"My way is the way of not fighting":- the book of Enter the Dragon.
User avatar
(o)(o)
Baaaaaaa!
Baaaaaaa!
Posts: 6885
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:21 am 0

Re: Politics Thread!

Post by (o)(o) »

One animal is yawning the other is having a stretch what's the problem?

<DM commentor mode ON>
The mini bear is clearly being kept, in a zoo or some cushy environment, is clearly leaching off society and looks like it's expecting to get doted on hand and foot off us hardworking taxpayers, whilst the fox is at least putting in the hours and has a damned sight more British pride than these scroungers who are signing on. That bear should be thrown onto the streets and forced to earn it's keep like the rest of us hardworking Britons.. pass us me fags Sharon.
<DM commentor mode OFF>
User avatar
zip accident
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 13928
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:58 pm 0
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: Politics Thread!

Post by zip accident »

(o)(o) wrote:One animal is yawning the other is having a stretch what's the problem?
The problem is the long muzzle. We've learned that long muzzles belong to predators, which is what the fox is. People like pugs for their short faces, but it's a mistake in their case.

Foxes kill stuff, that's who they are and what they do.

Cats have deceptively short faces, which is sort of why we like them, but red pandas are the real thing that cats fake.
"My way is the way of not fighting":- the book of Enter the Dragon.
User avatar
pogo
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 14180
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 8:28 pm 0
Yahoo Messenger: BrassSparrow
Location: County Durham

Re: Politics Thread!

Post by pogo »

(o)(o) wrote:The public are massively opposed to letting dogs-rip-foxes limb from limb and they know it so the vote was an undemocratic attemtp to get it in law through the backdoor against the will of the people.
Actually the opposition is not that great. I think one report today (can’t find it now) said that 51% opposed, which is probably a clear majority against but not the sort of thing that will lose the government much support: that 51% were probably not going to vote for them anyway.

The government put it in their manifesto probably thinking it would be the first thing to go in coalition negotiations. Now they have an overall majority they would be criticised if they did not hold a vote. It probably also helps keep some of their backbenchers happy who might otherwise cause trouble over more important things like Europe.

I don’t know how much the government actually wants it to pass. It is a free vote and those are normally for matters of conscience, not government policy. But they probably welcome the chance to highlight the SNP’s contradictory and unprincipled stance, supporting a policy in England which is the opposite of the one under their direct control in Scotland.
User avatar
gravy
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 19572
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:28 pm 0
Location: The Other Place

Re: Politics Thread!

Post by gravy »

A greater percentage of people in this country loath fox hunting than like the Tories.

By your definition the Tories have fuck all support if banning Fox hunting has very little.
User avatar
(o)(o)
Baaaaaaa!
Baaaaaaa!
Posts: 6885
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:21 am 0

Re: Politics Thread!

Post by (o)(o) »

LOL!

Furthermore that's just one survey, most have come out much more strongly against repealing

Image

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33507280
Post Reply