UK Politics Thread X: Immigration, Housing, Strikes oh my

[The Archregimancy]

Why did BoJo feel the need to criticize a SCOUTS ruling?

He is not all bad, and he has lost the support of a lot of women voters.

Given the number of women who are rumoured to have had terminations after relationships with the Prime Minister - one of which, from his affair with Petronella Wyatt, has been confirmed - perhaps he also had just enough self-awareness to realise how hypocritical it would have been not to express concern over the ruling.


Edit:

And why shouldn't he criticise it? The decision is an appalling breach of human rights implemented by an undemocratic body - one third of whom were appointed by a right-wing authoritarian populist who tried to overturn a legitimate election - in an increasingly flawed democracy. That we're allies with the United States is irrelevant; we would have equally criticised a similar decision in another flawed democracy like, say, Kenya.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Carrier bags of cash - who the hell gives Prince Charles advice? Or is he like Prince Andrew and just ignores it.

[The Archregimancy]

Carrier bags of cash - who the hell gives Prince Charles advice? Or is he like Prince Andrew and just ignores it.

As far as I can tell, even the Guardian article on the donation concedes that the money was immediately given to the Prince of Wales's charities, the money was appropriately recorded, the trustees of the charity audited the donation before deciding to accept it, and there's no suggestion that the donation was in any way illegal or inappropriate or that Sheikh Hamad didn't intend the money to be a charitable donation.

The optics of having the authoritarian leader of a corrupt petrostate (and yes, I've worked in Qatar) give the heir to the throne a vast sum of money in bags of cash are poor, and someone needs to explain to Sheikh Hamad that while this is a perfectly acceptable means of doing business in the GCC, it's not really the done thing in a Western European democracy; but I just can't see it as remotely comparable to anything Prince Andrew has done.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Carrier bags of cash - who the hell gives Prince Charles advice? Or is he like Prince Andrew and just ignores it.

As far as I can tell, even the Guardian article on the donation concedes that the money was immediately given to the Prince of Wales's charities, the money was appropriately recorded, the trustees of the charity audited the donation before deciding to accept it, and there's no suggestion that the donation was in any way illegal or inappropriate or that Sheikh Hamad didn't intend the money to be a charitable donation.

The optics of having the authoritarian leader of a corrupt petrostate (and yes, I've worked in Qatar) give the heir to the throne a vast sum of money in bags of cash are poor, and someone needs to explain to Sheikh Hamad that while this is a perfectly acceptable means of doing business in the GCC, it's not really the done thing in a Western European democracy; but I just can't see it as remotely comparable to anything Prince Andrew has done.

For clarity, I'm not comparing the actions to Prince Andrew, just questioning whether Charles has no good advisors to point out how bad this looks, or whether he chooses to ignore such advice.

[The Archregimancy]

As far as I can tell, even the Guardian article on the donation concedes that the money was immediately given to the Prince of Wales's charities, the money was appropriately recorded, the trustees of the charity audited the donation before deciding to accept it, and there's no suggestion that the donation was in any way illegal or inappropriate or that Sheikh Hamad didn't intend the money to be a charitable donation.

The optics of having the authoritarian leader of a corrupt petrostate (and yes, I've worked in Qatar) give the heir to the throne a vast sum of money in bags of cash are poor, and someone needs to explain to Sheikh Hamad that while this is a perfectly acceptable means of doing business in the GCC, it's not really the done thing in a Western European democracy; but I just can't see it as remotely comparable to anything Prince Andrew has done.

For clarity, I'm not comparing the actions to Prince Andrew, just questioning whether Charles has no good advisors to point out how bad this looks, or whether he chooses to ignore such advice.

As I understand it, Sheikh Hamad put Prince Charles in a tricky position by simply handing over bags of cash on the spot. Prince Charles immediately handed the donation from a foreign head of state over to his charities, and let them make the decision over whether to accept the money. The donation was audited by the trustees before it was accepted.

Unfortunately, Gulf monarchs have a habit of treating the British royal family as just like them, not understanding the difference between their executive head of state and government role within their state structures and the British royal family's ceremonial head of state role within our state structure. This leads to misunderstandings.

Under the circumstances, I think the Prince of Wales handled it about as well as he could; but I hope someone at the Foreign Office has politely explained to the Qataris why this really isn't the done thing, and the significant embarrassment that this behaviour can cause.

[Danternoust]

I don't see how it is possible that the Prince of Wales isn't permitted his own autonomy. There exists no institution that mandates anti-corruption measures against the monarchy. He actually could declare, "I've been given money as a gift, I have no authority or influence over the civil bureaucracy of the United Kingdom, and this money has not impacted our commonwealth."

Although I guess the donation wasn't a check or cash, unless the trustees of his charities have wideranging authority to verify that there is no negative impact what so ever. Even to corrupt British bureaucracy.

[Ifreann]

Why did BoJo feel the need to criticize a SCOUTS ruling?

Its very normal to discuss current events happening outside one's country.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Brandon Lewis moves to cut MLA pay unless Stormont restored soon

The Northern Ireland secretary has said he will move to cut MLAs' pay if devolution is not soon restored at Stormont.

Brandon Lewis said he was aware of public annoyance at MLAs being paid despite an executive not being formed.

Mr Lewis' predecessor Karen Bradley cut MLAs' pay after at least 18 months of the previous Stormont stalemate.

However, he told Sunday Politics he would act much sooner than that and would seek to introduce legislation.

A row over the affect of the Northern Ireland Protocol has created a block on forming a devolved government in Northern Ireland, with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) stopping the assembly from sitting or a new executive being formed since Sinn Féin emerged as the largest party in May's election.

The DUP, which has the second highest number of Stormont seats, has refused to support the election of a new speaker or first and deputy first minister until there is "action" on the protocol.

MLAs' salaries were cut by 15% in November 2018 after Stormont had been without a functioning government from January 2017.

MLAs (Members of the Legislative Assembly) are currently receiving an annual salary of £51,500 a year.

Mr Lewis said: "Last time round it was about 18 months into Stormont collapsing before we dealt with MLA pay. I have absolutely heard what people have been saying about MLA pay. I do think we need to deal with it.

"We can't wait that long. I do require legislation to deal with that but yes, if Stormont is not back up and running soon that is something we need to deal with.

"I will be looking to bring legislation in order to deal with MLA pay, absolutely."

He added he would "not put an arbitrary deadline on it but I don't think we can wait very long".

=CONTINUES=

Should have had their pay cut a long time ago, get around to it already.

[Fartsniffage]

Why did BoJo feel the need to criticize a SCOUTS ruling?

Its very normal to discuss current events happening outside one's country.

Plus, Bojo is American by birth.

[Old Tyrannia]

He is not all bad, and he has lost the support of a lot of women voters.

Given the number of women who are rumoured to have had terminations after relationships with the Prime Minister - one of which, from his affair with Petronella Wyatt, has been confirmed - perhaps he also had just enough self-awareness to realise how hypocritical it would have been not to express concern over the ruling.


Edit:

And why shouldn't he criticise it? The decision is an appalling breach of human rights implemented by an undemocratic body - one third of whom were appointed by a right-wing authoritarian populist who tried to overturn a legitimate election - in an increasingly flawed democracy. That we're allies with the United States is irrelevant; we would have equally criticised a similar decision in another flawed democracy like, say, Kenya.

The "unelected body" argument isn't a particularly good one when it was the same unelected body that implemented the policy being overturned in the first place. Strictly speaking, what Friday's ruling did was return the decision to democratically elected lawmakers in the state legislatures. I won't comment on the "human rights" element of your argument as it seems we have very different perspectives on that arising from fundamentally different values.

[Vassenor]

Given the number of women who are rumoured to have had terminations after relationships with the Prime Minister - one of which, from his affair with Petronella Wyatt, has been confirmed - perhaps he also had just enough self-awareness to realise how hypocritical it would have been not to express concern over the ruling.


Edit:

And why shouldn't he criticise it? The decision is an appalling breach of human rights implemented by an undemocratic body - one third of whom were appointed by a right-wing authoritarian populist who tried to overturn a legitimate election - in an increasingly flawed democracy. That we're allies with the United States is irrelevant; we would have equally criticised a similar decision in another flawed democracy like, say, Kenya.

The "unelected body" argument isn't a particularly good one when it was the same unelected body that implemented the policy being overturned in the first place. Strictly speaking, what Friday's ruling did was return the decision to democratically elected lawmakers in the state legislatures. I won't comment on the "human rights" element of your argument as it seems we have very different perspectives on that arising from fundamentally different values.

So it's fine to strip a person's rights away if it's the state government doing it. Huh.

[Celritannia]

Given the number of women who are rumoured to have had terminations after relationships with the Prime Minister - one of which, from his affair with Petronella Wyatt, has been confirmed - perhaps he also had just enough self-awareness to realise how hypocritical it would have been not to express concern over the ruling.


Edit:

And why shouldn't he criticise it? The decision is an appalling breach of human rights implemented by an undemocratic body - one third of whom were appointed by a right-wing authoritarian populist who tried to overturn a legitimate election - in an increasingly flawed democracy. That we're allies with the United States is irrelevant; we would have equally criticised a similar decision in another flawed democracy like, say, Kenya.

The "unelected body" argument isn't a particularly good one when it was the same unelected body that implemented the policy being overturned in the first place. Strictly speaking, what Friday's ruling did was return the decision to democratically elected lawmakers in the state legislatures. I won't comment on the "human rights" element of your argument as it seems we have very different perspectives on that arising from fundamentally different values.

First, the unelected body had a massive amount of public support to implement RvW. They did not have the massive public support to remove it, so not really accurate.

Second, I would not say the state Government are acting democratically if they are simply banning abortion without the actual consent of the people, and going off their supposed religious convictions.

Third, no woman should have their rights removed from a few people who have not considered the consequences of removing an important legal decision.

[Hirota]

Ewww, American politics is leaking all over the place again.

[Ifreann]

Ewww, American politics is leaking all over the place again.

Ectopic politics.

[The Archregimancy]

Given the number of women who are rumoured to have had terminations after relationships with the Prime Minister - one of which, from his affair with Petronella Wyatt, has been confirmed - perhaps he also had just enough self-awareness to realise how hypocritical it would have been not to express concern over the ruling.


Edit:

And why shouldn't he criticise it? The decision is an appalling breach of human rights implemented by an undemocratic body - one third of whom were appointed by a right-wing authoritarian populist who tried to overturn a legitimate election - in an increasingly flawed democracy. That we're allies with the United States is irrelevant; we would have equally criticised a similar decision in another flawed democracy like, say, Kenya.

The "unelected body" argument isn't a particularly good one when it was the same unelected body that implemented the policy being overturned in the first place. Strictly speaking, what Friday's ruling did was return the decision to democratically elected lawmakers in the state legislatures. I won't comment on the "human rights" element of your argument as it seems we have very different perspectives on that arising from fundamentally different values.

There's no way of replying to this properly without it turning into an American political discussion; and this is a UK politics thread.

But yes, I think we likely have fundamentally different approaches to, and understandings of, the core constitutional and moral issues at the heart of this discussion; and we're both intelligent enough to know what each others' perspectives most likely are even while disagreeing with them. I'll simply acknowledge as much without attempting to develop the argument in this specific thread.

And meanwhile informally urge everyone to get back on-topic. The question of why the British Prime Minister chose to respond to the US Supreme Court decision is germane; a general discussion of the rights and wrongs of that decision much less so.

[The Nihilistic view]

Brandon Lewis moves to cut MLA pay unless Stormont restored soon

The Northern Ireland secretary has said he will move to cut MLAs' pay if devolution is not soon restored at Stormont.

Brandon Lewis said he was aware of public annoyance at MLAs being paid despite an executive not being formed.

Mr Lewis' predecessor Karen Bradley cut MLAs' pay after at least 18 months of the previous Stormont stalemate.

However, he told Sunday Politics he would act much sooner than that and would seek to introduce legislation.

A row over the affect of the Northern Ireland Protocol has created a block on forming a devolved government in Northern Ireland, with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) stopping the assembly from sitting or a new executive being formed since Sinn Féin emerged as the largest party in May's election.

The DUP, which has the second highest number of Stormont seats, has refused to support the election of a new speaker or first and deputy first minister until there is "action" on the protocol.

MLAs' salaries were cut by 15% in November 2018 after Stormont had been without a functioning government from January 2017.

MLAs (Members of the Legislative Assembly) are currently receiving an annual salary of £51,500 a year.

Mr Lewis said: "Last time round it was about 18 months into Stormont collapsing before we dealt with MLA pay. I have absolutely heard what people have been saying about MLA pay. I do think we need to deal with it.

"We can't wait that long. I do require legislation to deal with that but yes, if Stormont is not back up and running soon that is something we need to deal with.

"I will be looking to bring legislation in order to deal with MLA pay, absolutely."

He added he would "not put an arbitrary deadline on it but I don't think we can wait very long".

=CONTINUES=

Should have had their pay cut a long time ago, get around to it already.

I'd make it minimum wage.

[The Nihilistic view]

The "unelected body" argument isn't a particularly good one when it was the same unelected body that implemented the policy being overturned in the first place. Strictly speaking, what Friday's ruling did was return the decision to democratically elected lawmakers in the state legislatures. I won't comment on the "human rights" element of your argument as it seems we have very different perspectives on that arising from fundamentally different values.

There's no way of replying to this properly without it turning into an American political discussion; and this is a UK politics thread.

But yes, I think we likely have fundamentally different approaches to, and understandings of, the core constitutional and moral issues at the heart of this discussion; and we're both intelligent enough to know what each others' perspectives most likely are even while disagreeing with them. I'll simply acknowledge as much without attempting to develop the argument in this specific thread.

And meanwhile informally urge everyone to get back on-topic. The question of why the British Prime Minister chose to respond to the US Supreme Court decision is germane; a general discussion of the rights and wrongs of that decision much less so.

Also if we go back to the original point it was about the scouts not scotus.

[The Archregimancy]

Also if we go back to the original point it was about the scouts not scotus.

I for one applaud the Prime Minister's robust response to the scandals plaguing the Boy Scouts of America. As the country that gave the world Lord Baden-Powell and Scouting for Boys, it's important that the United Kingdom continues to take a robust interest in how scouting is organised in failing flawed post-colonial democracies like the United States of America.

[Celritannia]

Brandon Lewis moves to cut MLA pay unless Stormont restored soon

Should have had their pay cut a long time ago, get around to it already.

I'd make it minimum wage.

The minimum wage needs to be increased to meet rising inflation anyway.

Speaking of, I've been loving Mike Lynch tearing into tory politicians and tory leaning journalists alike for their stupidity.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Brandon Lewis moves to cut MLA pay unless Stormont restored soon

The Northern Ireland secretary has said he will move to cut MLAs' pay if devolution is not soon restored at Stormont.

Brandon Lewis said he was aware of public annoyance at MLAs being paid despite an executive not being formed.

Mr Lewis' predecessor Karen Bradley cut MLAs' pay after at least 18 months of the previous Stormont stalemate.

However, he told Sunday Politics he would act much sooner than that and would seek to introduce legislation.

A row over the affect of the Northern Ireland Protocol has created a block on forming a devolved government in Northern Ireland, with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) stopping the assembly from sitting or a new executive being formed since Sinn Féin emerged as the largest party in May's election.

The DUP, which has the second highest number of Stormont seats, has refused to support the election of a new speaker or first and deputy first minister until there is "action" on the protocol.

MLAs' salaries were cut by 15% in November 2018 after Stormont had been without a functioning government from January 2017.

MLAs (Members of the Legislative Assembly) are currently receiving an annual salary of £51,500 a year.

Mr Lewis said: "Last time round it was about 18 months into Stormont collapsing before we dealt with MLA pay. I have absolutely heard what people have been saying about MLA pay. I do think we need to deal with it.

"We can't wait that long. I do require legislation to deal with that but yes, if Stormont is not back up and running soon that is something we need to deal with.

"I will be looking to bring legislation in order to deal with MLA pay, absolutely."

He added he would "not put an arbitrary deadline on it but I don't think we can wait very long".

=CONTINUES=

Should have had their pay cut a long time ago, get around to it already.

People who refuse to work despite clear ability to should not be rewarded for it.
Seems reasonable.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Cut their pay and their expenses.

[Celritannia]

Cut their pay and their expenses.

All UK representatives should go through a job centre process where if they fail to attend 3 meetings without good reason then they should lose their pay and expenses for a month.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Cut their pay and their expenses.

All UK representatives should go through a job centre process where if they fail to attend 3 meetings without good reason then they should lose their pay and expenses for a month.

I would support random drug testing for politicians. If they allow it for people doing menial tasks, they sure as shit should have it for people making big decisions that affect lots of people. Don't drink/take drugs and run the country.

[The Nihilistic view]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61929986

I do wonder how it's possible for people to put so little thought into what they say as public figures regarding some subjects.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Westminster Voting Intention (26 June):

LAB: 41% (–)
CON: 33% (+1)
LDEM: 15% (+2)
GRN: 4% (-1)
SNP: 4% (–)
RFM: 3% (-2)
OTH: 1% (-1)

Changes +/- 22 June