bickster Posted February 18 Moderator Share Posted February 18 33 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said: Just used that Electoral calculus site to see how my former stomping ground of South Staffordshire is predicated. 90% blue. Pretty sure that one is going nowhere. Boundary changes are huge in South Staffs, over 40% of it going to the new Stone et al Constituency and gaining a bit from Dudley South which will probably bring in more Labour voters but not enough, yep that's a bound to be blue constituency. If the Tories lose that, they will be as good as extinct 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted February 18 VT Supporter Share Posted February 18 22 minutes ago, bickster said: Boundary changes are huge in South Staffs, over 40% of it going to the new Stone et al Constituency and gaining a bit from Dudley South which will probably bring in more Labour voters but not enough, yep that's a bound to be blue constituency. If the Tories lose that, they will be as good as extinct I used to work for that particular local authority years ago. Think it covered 25 wards (certainly 27 parishes anyway), with about 50 district councillors. Out of that fifty, one councillor was Labour, and perhaps not so surprisingly, he represented the former mining area of the district. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 19 Share Posted February 19 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harkanon Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 On 17/02/2024 at 20:51, bickster said: No, they’re the Greens. Some of their policy document, in fact most of it, reminded me of the set of insane policies you’d see enacted in student unions in the 80s. Well meaning but batshit crazy Just a couple of examples… (and I’ve read nowhere near all of it.) Mothers will be allowed time off EVERY hour fully paid to attend to their children. Now ignoring the blatant sexism (as there are plenty of kids with a male as the primary care giver) I just wonder how that will work for say a female train driver or bus driver (and plenty of other jobs) Workers should have a written contract within three months of starting work for a company and that contract will state how much time the company has to give before they can change the contract. What??? That’s miles WORSE than current employment law They just don’t seem anchored in reality https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/our-policies/long-term-goals/workers-rights-and-employment/ Please point me to the particular sections that state this please. I would like to investigate further Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 20 Moderator Share Posted February 20 3 minutes ago, Harkanon said: https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/our-policies/long-term-goals/workers-rights-and-employment/ Please point me to the particular sections that state this please. I would like to investigate further It’s in the link you provided WR307 & WR349 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harkanon Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 minute ago, bickster said: It’s in the link you provided WR307 & WR349 Ok. I have read them. They are not as bonkers as you made them out to be. Also followed by WR350 which further clarifies parental leave policies not limited to just mothers. I am not sticking up for the greens here but you provided some nice bits of misinformation there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 20 Moderator Share Posted February 20 49 minutes ago, Harkanon said: clarifies parental leave policies What I was talking about has nothing to do with parental leave and neither does the policy WR349 is a worse situation for employees than current rights we have. It states that the initial contract can be changed by the company at a given interval, that really isn't very good at all and would completely change workers rights for the worse. It allows employers to continually move employment contracts to suit them not the employee. Currently if I have an employment contract, I'm entitled to keep those terms and conditions if I so wish, there are potential downsides to that but sometimes it may still be in my interest to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 21 Moderator Share Posted February 21 So, what in the name of Bergerac happened in the House of Commons this evening? I'm baffled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ml1dch Posted February 21 Popular Post Share Posted February 21 (edited) 25 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: So, what in the name of Bergerac happened in the House of Commons this evening? I'm baffled. My best attempt at a summary, but I don't claim to be an authority, so any corrections are welcome: It's opposition day. So the opposition parties get the chamber to debate and vote on stuff that they think is important. None of it has any legal standing and the Government can ignore all of it, if it so chooses. The SNP wanted to discuss and vote on a ceasefire in Gaza. Obviously that's not going to do anything in Gaza, or even change Government policy, but it means that something important that isn't currently being discussed that a lot of people want to be discussed - is discussed. A cynic might say that the SNP want there to be a Commons vote to highlight and intensify Labour divisions on the subject. Lots of Labour MPs and their constituents would want to vote for what the SNP says. The Labour leadership don't want to align with the SNP or have that Israel / Palestine conversation opening up more than it needs to be What tends to happen is that the other parties amend these motions, so if it's on something that they care about, then they amend what is being proposed, then the biggest party votes for what the biggest party wants it to say, and it always passes like that. They can pretty much just stick a Wayne's World-style NOT! at the end, and completely reverse what is being proposed at the start. So Labour do their slightly more mealy-mouthed Labour version and the Tories do their Tory version. Where it gets complicated is that normally the speaker doesn't pick multiple amendments on a similar theme. But apparently the Labour whips went all Mafia on Hoyle and basically said "nice Speaker role you've got here, shame if something were to happen to it when we're the biggest party next year and you're up for reselection..." So Hoyle went against precedent, selecting the Labour amendment when he normally wouldn't have (normally he'd have just chosen the Government amendment to the original text), meaning that Labour MPs now have a third choice, rather than just SNP or nothing. So can then go to their surgeries on Friday and proudly say "I voted for a humanitarian ceasefire, (in the fullness of time, at the right juncture, when the stars align)". So the SNP (for whom this is all about Palestine, honest, and not about trying to cause political problems for their biggest electoral rival) and the Tories have gone all Just Stop Hoyle and are VERY ANGRY about a relatively boring part of procedure and not because Hoyle has obviously helped out Labour a bit more than he should have done by helping them avoid embarrassment. Hoyle's since apologised and said he shouldn't have done it. Basically, literally everyone involved should be utterly ashamed and wonder if they really went into this just to be politicking bell-ends about dying children. Edited February 21 by ml1dch 4 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 21 Moderator Share Posted February 21 @ml1dch You Sir, are exactly what is required. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 6th form politics debate, how they managed to book Westminster for it is very impressive. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 21 Moderator Share Posted February 21 39 minutes ago, ml1dch said: My best attempt at a summary, but I don't claim to be an authority, so any corrections are welcome: It's opposition day. So the opposition parties get the chamber to debate and vote on stuff that they think is important. None of it has any legal standing and the Government can ignore all of it, if it so chooses. The SNP wanted to discuss and vote on a ceasefire in Gaza. Obviously that's not going to do anything in Gaza, or even change Government policy, but it means that something important that isn't currently being discussed that a lot of people want to be discussed - is discussed. A cynic might say that the SNP want there to be a Commons vote to highlight and intensify Labour divisions on the subject. Lots of Labour MPs and their constituents would want to vote for what the SNP says. The Labour leadership don't want to align with the SNP or have that Israel / Palestine conversation opening up more than it needs to be What tends to happen is that the other parties amend these motions, so if it's on something that they care about, then they amend what is being proposed, then the biggest party votes for what the biggest party wants it to say, and it always passes like that. They can pretty much just stick a Wayne's World-style NOT! at the end, and completely reverse what is being proposed at the start. So Labour do their slightly more mealy-mouthed Labour version and the Tories do their Tory version. Where it gets complicated is that normally the speaker doesn't pick multiple amendments on a similar theme. But apparently the Labour whips went all Mafia on Hoyle and basically said "nice Speaker role you've got here, shame if something were to happen to it when we're the biggest party next year and you're up for reselection..." So Hoyle went against precedent, selecting the Labour amendment when he normally wouldn't have (normally he'd have just chosen the Government amendment to the original text), meaning that Labour MPs now have a third choice, rather than just SNP or nothing. So can then go to their surgeries on Friday and proudly say "I voted for a humanitarian ceasefire, (in the fullness of time, at the right juncture, when the stars align)". So the SNP (for whom this is all about Palestine, honest, and not about trying to cause political problems for their biggest electoral rival) and the Tories have gone all Just Stop Hoyle and are VERY ANGRY about a relatively boring part of procedure and not because Hoyle has obviously helped out Labour a bit more than he should have done by helping them avoid embarrassment. Hoyle's since apologised and said he shouldn't have done it. Basically, literally everyone involved should be utterly ashamed and wonder if they really went into this just to be politicking bell-ends about dying children. I think there’s one thing missing and it’s quite crucial, parliamentary convention says that on an opposition day motion the speaker only usually selects only the government amendment, so you essentially have the motion as proposed by the one opposition party and the government amendment. Hoyle broke the convention by allowing the Labour amendment. The situation has only arisen twice before and (I think) on both occasions it had been agreed by all parties that the multiple amendments would be allowed prior to the session starting in the chamber. The SNP rightly expected that any Labour amendment simply wouldn’t be selected, their anger is justified. The Tories anger, however, is just faux outrage, it makes no difference to them for the reasons you’ve outlined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 31 minutes ago, bickster said: I think there’s one thing missing and it’s quite crucial, parliamentary convention says that on an opposition day motion the speaker only usually selects only the government amendment, so you essentially have the motion as proposed by the one opposition party and the government amendment. 1 hour ago, ml1dch said: So Hoyle went against precedent, selecting the Labour amendment when he normally wouldn't have (normally he'd have just chosen the Government amendment to the original text) Nah, reckon I got it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 8 hours ago, bickster said: I think there’s one thing missing and it’s quite crucial, parliamentary convention says that on an opposition day motion the speaker only usually selects only the government amendment, so you essentially have the motion as proposed by the one opposition party and the government amendment. Hoyle broke the convention by allowing the Labour amendment. The situation has only arisen twice before and (I think) on both occasions it had been agreed by all parties that the multiple amendments would be allowed prior to the session starting in the chamber. The SNP rightly expected that any Labour amendment simply wouldn’t be selected, their anger is justified. The Tories anger, however, is just faux outrage, it makes no difference to them for the reasons you’ve outlined. I don’t think anyone needs lessons in following parliamentary convention from the Tories who’ve been trampling all over centuries of precedent for years now in order to “get breggzit dun” and literally lied to the monarch in order to shut the place down and get their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 11 hours ago, ml1dch said: Just Stop Hoyle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 It was shameful politics yesterday. Everyone involved came out of it worse off. They all played the game as people die. All they achieved was to erode the hope that things will ever get better. And Starmer. He is fricking lost. He is so far from the man he promised when he became leader of the Labour party. So obsessed with the optics of doing no wrong that he will actively prevent good from happening. There is a quote out there about what triumphs when good men do nothing... Why does he have to be the option against the people who actively want to do harm? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 It does seem like an infuriating waste of time. But notice how full the chamber is while everyone waits for their turn for some pointless political grandstanding, while it's empty on debates where they might actually have some influence. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 The explantion today is that Hoyle wanted to give MPs the chance to vote on something that they would feel comfortable with, otherwise they could find themselves on the wrong end of their constituents. Democracy is live and well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 6 minutes ago, Davkaus said: It does seem like an infuriating waste of time. But notice how full the chamber is while everyone waits for their turn for some pointless political grandstanding, while it's empty on debates where they might actually have some influence. And it is all largely pointless as the only country Israel listens to is the US who are still vetoing everything so a few more thousand Palestinians can die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 22 Moderator Share Posted February 22 Just now, Jareth said: Democracy is live and well The whole uk parliamentary aspect is kind of a microcosm of democracy overall. What I mean is that one democracy (Israel and its current government) is committing atrocities and collective punishment on civilians. And they’re not remotely minded to pay any attention to anything anyone says in Westminster. Meanwhile the Westminster politicians are posturing and acting and pontificating and virtue signalling and playing games. Nothing any of them say or do in the HoC is remotely of any significance beyond their own small circles and electorates and donors. They don’t matter, these MPs in terms of being part of any solution. It’s just hot air and performative guff. They are not part of any solution and they kid themselves and us if they think or say they are. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts