UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[Hirota]

Incidentally to Rishi Sunak, I don't think it should be allowed that MPs are placed into safe seats to which they have no connection, even if the electors happen to like them as they probably do in his case. Rishi Sunak has no connection to Yorkshire let alone Richmond so he should not be a Member of Parliament for that place.

If you are going to outlaw party HQ's telling local parties who should be standing as their local candidate, then you are effectively banning "all-women" or "all-demographicX" lists mandated from Labour HQ, or Tory HQ etc etc etc.

Which isn't the worst idea in the world.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Incidentally to Rishi Sunak, I don't think it should be allowed that MPs are placed into safe seats to which they have no connection, even if the electors happen to like them as they probably do in his case. Rishi Sunak has no connection to Yorkshire let alone Richmond so he should not be a Member of Parliament for that place.

If you are going to outlaw party HQ's telling local parties who should be standing as their local candidate, then you are effectively banning "all-women" or "all-demographicX" lists mandated from Labour HQ, or Tory HQ etc etc etc.

Which isn't the worst idea in the world.

how about banning political parties

[Hirota]

If you are going to outlaw party HQ's telling local parties who should be standing as their local candidate, then you are effectively banning "all-women" or "all-demographicX" lists mandated from Labour HQ, or Tory HQ etc etc etc.

Which isn't the worst idea in the world.

how about banning political parties

That's not the worst idea in the world either, although it is definitely in or amongst the pack of generally bad ideas.

[Celritannia]

If you are going to outlaw party HQ's telling local parties who should be standing as their local candidate, then you are effectively banning "all-women" or "all-demographicX" lists mandated from Labour HQ, or Tory HQ etc etc etc.

Which isn't the worst idea in the world.

how about banning political parties

That would be difficult, because in order to become a PM or even form a government in the UK, you need to be a member of a political party.
Perhaps it is possible to become PM without being member of a party as long as a Parliament has confidence in the individual, but that's really difficult.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

how about banning political parties

That would be difficult, because in order to become a PM or even form a government in the UK, you need to be a member of a political party.
Perhaps it is possible to become PM without being member of a party as long as a Parliament has confidence in the individual, but that's really difficult.

lmao

if there were no political parties, how would you need to be a member of a political party to be PM?

[Celritannia]

That would be difficult, because in order to become a PM or even form a government in the UK, you need to be a member of a political party.
Perhaps it is possible to become PM without being member of a party as long as a Parliament has confidence in the individual, but that's really difficult.

lmao

if there were no political parties, how would you need to be a member of a political party to be PM?

That's what my concern is. How do you become PM without being leader of a political party?

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

some options:

• the crown could appoint you
• you could gather the support of other MPs, by some kind of quorum
• MPs could just vote on it, like they sometimes do for the speaker
• it could be random

[Hirota]

So RLB's event in Liverpool sounds delightful.

Rebecca Long-Bailey also came in for some criticism last night, though this was largely from the other end of the factional spectrum. Lewis Goodall reported from an event in Liverpool where the leadership hopeful was told that Tom Watson, Margaret Hodge and John Mann were members of the “Israeli lobby” and asked “why on earth” she had described herself as a “Zionist”. Although Long-Bailey replied in defence of a “strong independent Israel”, she did not address the remarks about the “Israeli lobby”. Another attendee called Labour-Tory switchers “traitors” and questioned whether Labour should “want them back”. Long-Bailey was criticised for careful replies that did not confront those comments head-on.

Yeah, "Isreali lobby" conspiracy theories and calling other people traitors is certainly a promising sign of kinder, gentler' politics in grassroots Labour.

I'll give RLB credit though, she did try to be more conciliatory than these individuals.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

better not criticise israel OR ELSE

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

the traitors thing is stupid though

[Hirota]

better not criticise israel OR ELSE

Guido had the video of that particular section.

I'm trying to find a video of the "traitors" comment...but it looks like it's only on twatter.

Still, fixating on both are bold strategies for becoming the majority in parliament once more.

[Alvecia]

Long-Bailey was criticised for careful replies that did not confront those comments head-on.

Honestly, if you asked me what makes someone a good politician, being able to do this would be near the top of the list.

[Ostroeuropa]

Hot take nobody likes:

The UK should demand Islamist (not muslim) nations accept Uighyur refugees as a precondition of trade deals with them and demand (quietly) China allow the Uighyur to relocate to those nations if they want.

I would say we should take them ourselves but the attitudes surveys suggest the majority are pretty fundie.

It's a human rights crisis and we should try and do something about it. But I dont want them here.

[Nakena]

Hot take nobody likes:

The UK should demand Islamist (not muslim) nations accept Uighyur refugees as a precondition of trade with them and demand (quietly) China allow the Uighyur to relocate if they want.

I would say we should take them ourselves but the attitudes surveys suggest the majority are pretty fundie.

Like Saudi-Arabia or the Anglo-Egypt Sudan?

[Ostroeuropa]

Hot take nobody likes:

The UK should demand Islamist (not muslim) nations accept Uighyur refugees as a precondition of trade with them and demand (quietly) China allow the Uighyur to relocate if they want.

I would say we should take them ourselves but the attitudes surveys suggest the majority are pretty fundie.

Like Saudi-Arabia or the Anglo-Egypt Sudan?

Ehhhhhhhhhhhh Saud included but Uighyurs arent THAT fundie. Basically anywhere Islam is official religion and guides policy. Not Iran because shia/Sunnis split.

Maybe ask Iran if they're cool with it despite that.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

It's a human rights crisis and we should try and do something about it.

No we shouldn't, it's none of our business.

[Ostroeuropa]

[Tab=]n[/Tab]

It's a human rights crisis and we should try and do something about it.

No we shouldn't, it's none of our business.

We are on the security council bro. I'm content to entertain this isolationism as an idea if and when we resign that position. Until then we have a duty to uphold international law and lobby for global human rights. If we dont want the job, we should resign.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

We are on the security council bro. I'm content to entertain this isolationism as an idea if and when we resign that position. Until then we have a duty to uphold international law and lobby for global human rights. If we dont want the job, we should resign.

Being on the security council doesn't give you a duty to "lobby for global human rights."

[Gormwood]

We are on the security council bro. I'm content to entertain this isolationism as an idea if and when we resign that position. Until then we have a duty to uphold international law and lobby for global human rights. If we dont want the job, we should resign.

Being on the security council doesn't give you a duty to "lobby for global human rights."

Wanting a say in the security affairs of a world you want to shut yourself out from. Can't have it both ways.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Wanting a say in the security affairs of a world you want to shut yourself out from. Can't have it both ways.

Being on the security council doesn't give you a duty to "lobby for global human rights."

[Gormwood]

Wanting a say in the security affairs of a world you want to shut yourself out from. Can't have it both ways.

Being on the security council doesn't give you a duty to "lobby for global human rights."

It's like being in the EU parliament. What's the fucking point if you don't want to be a part of it anyways?

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Do I have to repeat myself a third time?

[Gormwood]

Do I have to repeat myself a third time?

If you don't want to carry out the duties of office, don't fucking bother having the office in the first place. Try getting a job you're not interested in doing, see how long you last.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Do I have to repeat myself a third time?

If you don't want to carry out the duties of office, don't fucking bother having the office in the first place. Try getting a job you're not interested in doing, see how long you last.

Are you literate?

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

The purpose of the UN Security Council is the maintenance of collective security, it has nothing to do with "global human rights."