General Politics Thread

[Mortar Bored]

You edited your post after I had started to reply. No matter.

Moron.

1. Yes they did. They forced the government to pull the vote on it.

2. This makes literally no sense.

Yes, it was the SNP that did it. England doesn't just have Tory members of Parliament. Governments pass legislation with the support of opposition parties but not some of their backbenchers all the time.

[Antlion]

Ad Lib now making a case for England to be an independent country.

[invergowrie arab]

Afraid the Greens don't trust & have never forgotten the way the YSN destroyed the original Scottish Ecology Party via infiltration to get them to vote themselves out of existence & hand over their assets to the SNP; nor the way Plaid shafted them when they won a seat on a joint ticket & the candidate immediately began engineering excuses to break the electoral pact once the job was done (Private Eye had been warning as much before the GE in question - they were proven right within six months).

Hence why the SNP had better not take for granted that the Scottish Greens will be another shower of LibDem type gutless shites that will do anything for the merest wink of future influence if they wag their tails when ordered.

Does anything post 1980s influence your political views?

[strichener]

You edited your post after I had started to reply. No matter.

1. Yes they did. They forced the government to pull the vote on it.

2. This makes literally no sense.

 

Yes, it was the SNP that did it. England doesn't just have Tory members of Parliament. Governments pass legislation with the support of opposition parties but not some of their backbenchers all the time.

1. How can an minor opposition party force a majority government to pull a vote?  Take me through the procedural steps.

2. It does if you think your answer was relevant.  I asked about English votes and you answered with reference to the SNP.

 

What would have been the result if the Tory ENGLISH MPs had voted for the Sunday Trading Bill?  In a single word answer, would it have passed?  Yes or No.

[Antlion]

You're wasting your time, strichener. Ad Lib is a contrarian - he will try desperately to argue against anything just to see himself type (and to try and score minor victories by looking for contrarian minutiae - desperately sad).

The fact is that England as a nation gets the governments it votes for; hence there is no real appetite for English independence from the UK. If it elects parties with small majorities who can't get through all the legislation that they want, then that's how the cookie crumbles. It doesn't mean that there's a democratic deficit in any way comparable to that of Scotland in this "family of nations".

Edited May 20, 2016 by Antlion

[Ira Gaines]

Ad Lib even argues against points that aren't even being made just to keep an argument going. A strange angry man, despite his claims to the contrary.

[WaffenThinMint]

Does anything post 1980s influence your political views?

The irony of a Dundee United fan accusing anyone of being trapped in an 80s mindset is delicious.

In any case champ, I was illustrating why the green parties are cynical towards the nationalist ones - not my own view.

[Ad Lib]

1. How can an minor opposition party force a majority government to pull a vote?  Take me through the procedural steps.

2. It does if you think your answer was relevant.  I asked about English votes and you answered with reference to the SNP.

 

What would have been the result if the Tory ENGLISH MPs had voted for the Sunday Trading Bill?  In a single word answer, would it have passed?  Yes or No.

A minor opposition party can force a majority government to pull a vote by making it clear that they way they vote will mean the government's proposal will be defeated, making it futile for the government to put it to a vote. This isn't fucking complicated. That very clearly deals with your first point.

Secondly, you asked:

"What were the results of these votes? How many Scottish MPs voted against English wishes?"

in response to:

"England gets its way... except when they want to decide for themselves whether and how foxes should be hunted or if they want to have the same law on Sunday trading as Scotland has had for decades..."

At no point did I even mention a "vote". It was you who introduced the question about votes, which was, as I said at the outset, "shifting the goalposts".

I very clearly answered your question, though. I told you that the result of the SNP MPs threatening to and actually respectively voting on fox-hunting reforms and Sunday Trading laws that only applied to England (and Wales), proposals supported by a majority of English (and Welsh) Members of Parliament, was that the proposals were not passed.

 

Or to put it in terms Antilion was interested in: "England didn't get its own way".

 

So that deals with your second point.

 

Finally, your third point. It is irrelevant that some English MPs, or indeed that some Tory English MPs, intended to vote against, or did vote against, the respective proposals. What matters is that the majority of English MPs voted or sought to vote for them.

Now of course if governments had better discipline, Scottish votes would be material in far fewer decisions about English or English and Welsh-only matters. But that doesn't mean they don't have a democratic deficit. It just means their democratic deficit was less severe than the one that existed in pre-devolution Scotland and Wales.

[Granny Danger]

When Ad Lib stands for election again I hope his election material is clear about his views on the various matters he has championed on here:

Incest is OK

Singing sectarian songs is OK

Politicians lying is OK

Dumping key manifesto commitments is OK

Papal bull should take precedence over acts of Parliament

I've probably missed a couple or so.

[Ad Lib]

When Ad Lib stands for election again I hope his election material is clear about his views on the various matters he has championed on here:

Incest is OK

Singing sectarian songs is OK

Politicians lying is OK

Dumping key manifesto commitments is OK

Papal bull should take precedence over acts of Parliament

I've probably missed a couple or so.

 

That's impressive Granny.

 

5 lies in one post.

I have never said that incest is "okay".

 

I have never said that singing sectarian songs is "okay".

 

I haven't actually said that "politicians lying" is "okay". I've said that I expect politicians to lie and I have said that some lies by politicians can be justified (e.g. about their own health).

 

I haven't said that "dumping key manifesto commitments" is "okay". I have said that in some circumstances it is justified not to implement it, such as when you don't have a majority of support for the proposal in parliament and the next least bad policy involves you doing something mutually exclusive.

 

And finally, I haven't said that Papal bulls take precedence over Acts of Parliament. Like I just have not said that. At all.

 

Granny, why are you such a liar?

[Granny Danger]

That's impressive Granny.

 

5 lies in one post.

I have never said that incest is "okay".

 

I have never said that singing sectarian songs is "okay".

 

I haven't actually said that "politicians lying" is "okay". I've said that I expect politicians to lie and I have said that some lies by politicians can be justified (e.g. about their own health).

 

I haven't said that "dumping key manifesto commitments" is "okay". I have said that in some circumstances it is justified not to implement it, such as when you don't have a majority of support for the proposal in parliament and the next least bad policy involves you doing something mutually exclusive.

 

And finally, I haven't said that Papal bulls take precedence over Acts of Parliament. Like I just have not said that. At all.

 

Granny, why are you such a liar?

I know you have a tendency to write long tedious posts as a way of deflecting and most of the time most folk on here, including myself, cannot be bothered to reply. But not this time.

If you want to decriminalise incest then, in the opinion of rational people, that means you think it is OK. I could have said you were in favour of incest but you have not posted to that effect. I'm trying to be fair to you here.

Ditto sectarian songs.

People just need to look at your 'defence' of Carmichael to form a view on this.

People just need to look at your view on university tuition fees to form a view on this.

If you think that there are only three universities in Scotland then your statement on this is a lie.

So no lies to me. Five lies to you.

I notice that you don't deny you will stand for election again. As someone who has stood for public office three times and been successful on every occasion my advice to you is please do it again. It's fun watching you crash and burn.

[jmothecat]

Believing something should be legal doesn't mean you think it's ok. I think adultery should be legal but I don't think it's ok.

[WaffenThinMint]

I have never said that incest is "okay".

 

Yes you did - and then when you realised how much of a hole you were digging yourself in, you demanded Div scrub the thread.

 

Unfortunately you forgot that you'd started a thread about the topic back in 2011

 

http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/146794-incest/

 

making one in four of all the posts made.

 

http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=stats&do=who&t=146794

 

Clearly you have a highly unhealthy obsession with this topic way beyond merely looking for "bites".

[sophia]

I know you have a tendency to write long tedious posts as a way of deflecting and most of the time most folk on here, including myself, cannot be bothered to reply. But not this time.

If you want to decriminalise incest then, in the opinion of rational people, that means you think it is OK. I could have said you were in favour of incest but you have not posted to that effect. I'm trying to be fair to you here.

Ditto sectarian songs.

People just need to look at your 'defence' of Carmichael to form a view on this.

People just need to look at your view on university tuition fees to form a view on this.

If you think that there are only three universities in Scotland then your statement on this is a lie.

So no lies to me. Five lies to you.

I notice that you don't deny you will stand for election again. As someone who has stood for public office three times and been successful on every occasion my advice to you is please do it again. It's fun watching you crash and burn.

 

Advocates bullying and thinks "teuchters" sound gormless.

 

(not you, GD, no, not you, I'm referring to the man-child who I hope is refused fuel by a teuchter and runs out of fuel in Rannoch Moor) 

Edited May 20, 2016 by sophia

[Antlion]

Believing something should be legal doesn't mean you think it's ok. I think adultery should be legal but I don't think it's ok.

Is that because you think it's "morally wrong"?

[Ad Lib]

 

Yes you did - and then when you realised how much of a hole you were digging yourself in, you demanded Div scrub the thread.

 

Unfortunately you forgot that you'd started a thread about the topic back in 2011

 

http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/146794-incest/

 

making one in four of all the posts made.

 

http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=stats&do=who&t=146794

 

Clearly you have a highly unhealthy obsession with this topic way beyond merely looking for "bites".

 

You haven't managed to provide a single post in which I have said "incest is okay".

 

Thanks for trying, though.

[The OP]

Ahh the old debate between legal moralism and the harm principle. I prefer the harm principle myself. Mon the cousin fuckers.

[banana]

Consenting partners => noone else's business.

[WaffenThinMint]

You haven't managed to provide a single post in which I have said "incest is okay".

 

Thanks for trying, though.

 

Nah merely a whole thread wittering on demanding to know "why" it was wrong (in much the same style Peter Tatchell tried to justify adults bumming 12 year olds in the Guardian's letter pages then trying to deny what he was up to) and demanding Div scrubbed another thread where you'd shown your unhealthy obsession yet again & were being called out over it in much the same way GD is doing just now.

 

People don't start topics on forums about matters they've no interest about, champ - & yours is clearly a lot more than "academic".

Edited May 20, 2016 by WaffenThinMint

[Fotbawmad]

I know you have a tendency to write long tedious posts as a way of deflecting and most of the time most folk on here, including myself, cannot be bothered to reply. But not this time.

If you want to decriminalise incest then, in the opinion of rational people, that means you think it is OK. I could have said you were in favour of incest but you have not posted to that effect. I'm trying to be fair to you here.

Ditto sectarian songs.

People just need to look at your 'defence' of Carmichael to form a view on this.

People just need to look at your view on university tuition fees to form a view on this.

If you think that there are only three universities in Scotland then your statement on this is a lie.

So no lies to me. Five lies to you.

I notice that you don't deny you will stand for election again. As someone who has stood for public office three times and been successful on every occasion my advice to you is please do it again. It's fun watching you crash and burn.

Not that I'm defending Ad Lib, but I take issue with your reasoning. Decriminalizing something does not mean you approve of something. It just means you don't believe people should be arrested, fined or imprisoned for it. We need to focus on pursuing the most serious crimes and avoid involving police or courts for what would be considered a non-violent offence. 

Edited May 20, 2016 by Fotbawmad