Jump to content
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

news & politics:discussion


zahidf

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, mattiloy said:


 


Its hilarious how if this thread has been fairly dormant, if you then spontaenously post reasonable criticism of Starmer, another post appears almost immediately about something unrelated. As if to attempt to steer the thread away from discussion of the negative Starmer content. Always watching, always waiting. A bit creepy tbh.

Anyway here it is again. A good article by Michael Crick on the Labour selection processes.

Also, this.

0F5FD87F-E6C2-4DD4-A8B4-0F6062285BB2.jpeg

Edited by mattiloy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mattiloy said:


Its hilarious how if this thread has been fairly dormant, if you then spontaenously post reasonable criticism of Starmer, another post appears almost immediately about something unrelated. As if to attempt to steer the thread away from discussion of the negative Starmer content. Always watching, always waiting. A bit creepy tbh.

Anyway here it is again. A good article by Michael Crick on the Labour selection processes.

Also, this.

0F5FD87F-E6C2-4DD4-A8B4-0F6062285BB2.jpeg

here you go then...

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I kind of agree with some people who are saying why bother with the house of lords thing...I think we need an unelected second chamber, but a better one than we have now...more experts, less party political, no hereditary lords, more diverse etc etc. Better to change the electoral system maybe...


There is an argument for that. But the process of anointing individuals to become ’lords’ with all the pomp, ceremony and deference that comes with the title is shit.

Really to fulfill the useful elements of what the lords does all you need is a new department of the civil service which only exists to moderate the bills that come through the commons perhaps in consultation with experts and maybe the odd referendum within a set of rules. For instance, if a govt passes a bill which is well outside of what the mandate they received during the general election states - ie something really not on their manifesto - the upper house could have the right to reject the bill or ask the govt to seek a referendum to pass it. A completely neutral, unglorified, dull, procedural branch of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

here he is...,man of the moment...

 

 

It'll be interesting to see what Labour's plans are, from what I've read so far they could be good.

This from that article is also really interesting:

'No longer will taxpayer money be doled out to ministers’ mates or in crony contracts. Sunak’s reaction to losing billions to fraud was to shrug his shoulders. That will change too.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mattiloy said:


Its hilarious how if this thread has been fairly dormant, if you then spontaenously post reasonable criticism of Starmer, another post appears almost immediately about something unrelated. As if to attempt to steer the thread away from discussion of the negative Starmer content. Always watching, always waiting. A bit creepy tbh.

Anyway here it is again. A good article by Michael Crick on the Labour selection processes.

Also, this.

0F5FD87F-E6C2-4DD4-A8B4-0F6062285BB2.jpeg

I literally posted criticism of him 2 days ago:

On 12/2/2022 at 1:55 PM, kaosmark2 said:

So I was defending Starmer before about MP selection, but wtf is happening in Uxbridge? Literally just saying a result doesn't count?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...