General Election 2024: General UK Politics Discussion here

[RollingJ]

1 minute ago, Mister M said:

Good for Milliband. I agree with him.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

So would anyone who expects Labour to stick to their pledge to remove sleaze.

Just now, Delbow said:

 

Yep, that's Tory behaviour through and through.

So, Labour think it's OK to copy their predecessors, despite saying they wouldn't?

[Delbow]

1 minute ago, RollingJ said:

So would anyone who expects Labour to stick to their pledge to remove sleaze.

So, Labour think it's OK to copy their predecessors, despite saying they wouldn't?

 

Starmer clearly does, there are others who disagree with him who he hasn't managed to expel yet. You don't have to seek confirmation from me every time that I agree Starmer's Labour are sh*the, by the way.

[RollingJ]

1 minute ago, Delbow said:

 

Starmer clearly does, there are others who disagree with him who he hasn't managed to expel yet. You don't have to seek confirmation from me every time that I agree Starmer's Labour are sh*the, by the way.

Considering some of his behaviour recently, I'm not 100% convinced - although he appears to have partly corrected the error.

I wasn't seeking any confirmation - just making an observation.

[Tony]

14 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Which morals have a use by date?

 

Holding slaves is definitely past its time. Throwing gays off the roof is too. Genociding Jews is another. Marrying children isn't on my list of acceptable morals. Executing political rivals is right out.

 

We don't have to disagree just for the sake of it Mr M so I hope that we can agree that morals have a use-by date.  👍

 

 

 

@Delbow You're ambivalent about living in China? Despite all the human rights abuses, one party state, institutionalised violence, slavery, oppression, religious persecution, exploitation and expansionism you'd be okay making it your home and see China's morals no differently to the UK's?  Millions of Chinese Communist Party officials would probably agree.   🙉🙈🙊

[Delbow]

4 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Considering some of his behaviour recently, I'm not 100% convinced - although he appears to have partly corrected the error.

I wasn't seeking any confirmation - just making an observation.

 

Sorry, my comment that 'Starmer clearly does' was in answer to your second question.

 

What I think is notable is that people in the political centre or in the centre right or centre left think it's great when Labour purge left wingers, whether it's Kinnock purging Militant or Starmer purging the Corbynites. But they also want politicians with principles - well sorry, but there are very few of those near the centre. If you want principled, you have to be able to put up with people with an actual belief system.

[RollingJ]

3 minutes ago, Delbow said:

Sorry, my comment that 'Starmer clearly does' was in answer to your second question.

It helps if you state what the comment relates to - you were not very clear.

4 minutes ago, Delbow said:

What I think is notable is that people in the political centre or in the centre right or centre left think it's great when Labour purge left wingers, whether it's Kinnock purging Militant or Starmer purging the Corbynites. But they also want politicians with principles - well sorry, but there are very few of those near the centre. If you want principled, you have to be able to put up with people with an actual belief system.

Who, in the current Government, or Opposition, have beliefs that are for the good of the country - as a whole. If the answer is 'no-one' - who does?

[HairFarceOne]

19 hours ago, Tony said:

You can always rely on Lammy for another bit of idiocy. He's only a few months in and he's agreed to pay a Chinese ally to take the sovereignty of a UK territory in return for being allowed to carry on using what's already ours. 

 

What a mastermind!  

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/britain-agrees-chagos-island-sovereignty-deal-with-mauritius-2024-10-03/

You do know that it was Jimmy Dimly who originally negotiated this though don't you?

Quote "In November 2022, then British foreign secretary James Cleverly announced the UK and Mauritius had started sovereignty negotiations with Mauritius." from Sky News.

[Tony]

 I was waiting for that one  @HairFarceOne Yes I do know and it is still a terrible plan and I hope that I have been pretty clear about that. It is terrible and dangerous geopolitics in 2024. Lammy is the idiot FS who finalised and implemented it instead of chucking it in the bin.

 

Intriguingly it appears that the chief lawyer acting for the other side happens to be bessie mates and former chambers associate with one Sir Keir Starmer. 

 

Giving away the sovereignty of a UK Overseas Territory seems to me at least to be exactly the kind of thing that should be subject to Parliament scrutiny and voting. It's not a decision for the whims of ministers and their pals from back in the day. 

 

Argentina's politicians and lawyers must be checking their LinkedIn profiles to see who they know who knows Lammy.

[Mister M]

9 minutes ago, Tony said:

 I was waiting for that one  @HairFarceOne Yes I do know and it is still a terrible plan and I hope that I have been pretty clear about that. It is terrible and dangerous geopolitics in 2024. Lammy is the idiot FS who finalised and implemented it instead of chucking it in the bin.

 

Intriguingly it appears that the chief lawyer acting for the other side happens to be bessie mates and former chambers associate with one Sir Keir Starmer. 

 

Giving away the sovereignty of a UK Overseas Territory seems to me at least to be exactly the kind of thing that should be subject to Parliament scrutiny and voting. It's not a decision for the whims of ministers and their pals from back in the day. 

 

Argentina's politicians and lawyers must be checking their LinkedIn profiles to see who they know who knows Lammy.

From today's Guardian:

 

By the way, there is an awful lot of comment on social media by angry politicians that the Chagos Islands agreement should have gone through parliament. All international treaties have to be ratified by parliament, so there will clearly have to be a debate about it in due course, and it is somewhat disingenuous by those in certain quarters who appear to be trying to suggest that parliament has been bypassed.

"Under the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, all treaties (defined as written agreements between states or between states and international organisations which are binding under international law) must be laid in each house by a minister, together with an explanatory memorandum. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office also sends a copy of the treaty and the memorandum to the foreign affairs committee, and to relevant departmental select committees."

Ratification of treaties - Erskine May - UK Parliament

[Tony]

I said scrutiny and voting, not ratification of a done deal. As you will recall, international treaties actually sit with the Crown rather than Parliament so government can do as it wishes technically. The Government on behalf of the Crown can also put it to a Parliamentary vote and even a referendum as they did in 2016. 

 

However, putting giving away sovereign territory into the same bag as sanitary checks on frozen chickens seems a little underwhelming for the important subject in hand. People got very upset when they thought that Johnson's government was going to use Henry VIII powers on behalf of Citizens. This is no different really. The Falklands, Shetlands and even Scotland* could go at the stroke of a pen too.

 

I hope again that you will agree that while it's technically correct it's just the sort of extreme power that both despotic regimes and technocrats love and that decent politicians should reign(sic) in on behalf of you and me.  Parliament should decide very important things in public and under scrutiny. 

 

 

* I haven't checked the Constitution on that so forgive me if I have that one wrong