|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 25, 2019 6:57:29 GMT -5
Four day weeks for the elites and zero hours contracts for the rest.... Boris’s election announcement last night left the other parties reeling, with the spinning and stall-setting kicking into overdrive. The Tories are pushing hard for a fresh general election to be held on December 12, briefing that the Government is willing to play hardball to achieve it, to the point of “going on strike” as a Government with nothing being passed until one is granted. So no change from usual then… This morning Guido brings you a handy roundup of where the other parties in Parliament stand… The Liberal Democrats immediately started to fundraise off the back of the announcement, but look set to vote against it in Parliament. On Newsnight last night, Chuka squirmed but held firm to his ‘wait and see’ position. Which in reality means they oppose an election but don’t want to say so… The SNP have come up with a cleverer line that they “want an election, but not on Boris Johnson’s terms.” Whatever that means… The Greens were perhaps the most audacious, with Caroline Lucas decrying the idea of electing a fresh Parliament as a “dangerous and cynical manoeuvre.” Remainer opposes democracy shock… As for Labour, initially, Momentum and hard-left Labour figures said ‘bring it on’, while Blairites attempted to pour cold water over the suggestion. The Labour Leadership initially followed the anti-election Blairite line which left the likes of Owen Jones and Ash Sarkar reeling. This morning the leadership have settled on the broadly meaningless form of words that they will not agree to an election “until No Deal is taken off the table.” The only way of doing that is by passing a deal (which Labour continues to vote against) or revoking Article 50 (which Labour continues to criticise). If the EU agree to Parliament’s demand for an extension until January 31, there is no chance of leaving without a deal before then, and the future relationship would be determined by the winner of the election. If Labour wanted to deliver a much closer future relationship, nothing would stop them from doing so if they won the election. The real reason opposition parties are running scared is they think Boris will win… order-order.com/#_@/wJLubnJnb8s3yAZzzzzz |
|
|
|
Post by Dex on Oct 25, 2019 9:48:20 GMT -5
Sometimes I think we'd be better off with several influential political parties like you have instead of just the two who carry any weight.
At least yours can negotiate. Ours turns into a kill or be killed situation with leaders like Trump and Hillary Clinton. Neither one of them should be in high level political roles.
|
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 26, 2019 9:24:38 GMT -5
Sometimes I think we'd be better off with several influential political parties like you have instead of just the two who carry any weight. At least yours can negotiate. Ours turns into a kill or be killed situation with leaders like Trump and Hillary Clinton. Neither one of them should be in high level political roles. In the first instance Dex you, as a voter, have far more power than I, as a voter, have. We have completely different systems and I might add values; that derive from those systems or opposition to them. Sometimes I think we'd be better off with several influential political parties like you have instead of just the two who carry any weight.To be honest, Dex, our system is also built for two parties. In the past the dominant political parties were the Whigs (Liberals) and the Tories (Conservatives): Early political parties
The Whigs and Tories of 1679-85 are seen by some as embryonic political parties in England. Although each group's relation to government and political power changed over time, they continued to fight for dominance in Parliament over the next centuries.www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/overview/whigstories/That 'parliamentary status quo' held up until the end of the first world war. As the working class man secured more rights over time he organised in the form of trade unions and... the Labour Party. The Labour Party grew out of the trade union movement of the late 19th century and surpassed the Liberal [Whig] Party as the main opposition to the Conservatives in the early 1920s. In the 1930s and 1940s, it stressed national planning, using nationalization of industry as a tool, in line with Clause IV of the original constitution of the Labour Party which called for the "common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Labour_Party_(UK)One party replaced another. And now it's breaking down over a single issue - do I need to name it?! But make no mistake, it is the electoral voting system - First Past The Post - that perpetuates the problem. UKIP has only one MP, Douglas Carswell, despite winning nearly four million votes and 12% of the total vote.Mr Carswell said the era of "cartel politics" and "safe seats" must end.www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34368901There are two aspects to the British state: a) A constitution where Parliament is supreme above people and monarch - eg the monarch being the, er, the Head of State. Why is the monarchy special? Because it has no mandate or vote from the people while parliament (sort of) does. The monarch is told what to do - and the family gets left alone to do what it does. b) An electoral system that guarantees a two party monopoly. The parties might change but the system does not and will not without a fight - Tolpuddle Martyrs. The same goes for Women's suffrageThis is really what Parliament is determined to do - preserve the status quo. |
|
Alpha 
