|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 21, 2021 12:23:34 GMT
Well that helps... Not. Let me enlighten you. The following taken from the BBC analysis... So should an elected Government be responsible for deciding if a country is committing genocide or should the unelected courts do that. I can see the argument on both sides. And both sides have good arguments that, as far as I can see, are apolitical. I would therefore have expected to see people from both sides of the house taking different positions - as seen in the Tory ranks. I’m surprised this isn’t reflected with Labour - I’m sure old school parliamentarians like Tony Benn, Tam Dalyell and others like them would have expected this to be something decided in Westminster rather than the Old Bailey. My suspicion is the labour leadership have seen an opportunity to weaponise this issue hoping to get the topic under debate falsely characterised as one of a question of support or not for the action of genocide. 33 members of its own party don't trust the government with making a decision on what constitutes genocide for the purpose of these trade deals, that in itself speaks volumes. Personally speaking I'd take the judgement of the High Court over these charlatans every day of the week, that's just my opinion...... I think you’re allowing your visceral hatred of the current government to blind your judgement. The question being debated is whether Parliament or the Judiciary should be responsible for deciding if a country is committing genocide.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 21, 2021 12:26:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 21, 2021 12:35:38 GMT
33 members of its own party don't trust the government with making a decision on what constitutes genocide for the purpose of these trade deals, that in itself speaks volumes. Personally speaking I'd take the judgement of the High Court over these charlatans every day of the week, that's just my opinion...... I think you’re allowing your visceral hatred of the current government to blind your judgement. The question being debated is whether Parliament or the Judiciary should be responsible for deciding if a country is committing genocide. I've clearly given you my answer. Like 33 Tory MP's it's the Judiciary. Keep up with the tedious "hatred of the Tories" shtick though even though I'm agreeing with 33 of them.........
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 21, 2021 12:49:40 GMT
Trade Bill — After Clause 2 - Agreements with states accused of committing genocide Well that helps... Not. Let me enlighten you. The following taken from the BBC analysis... So should an elected Government be responsible for deciding if a country is committing genocide or should the unelected courts do that. I can see the argument on both sides. And both sides have good arguments that, as far as I can see, are apolitical. I would therefore have expected to see people from both sides of the house taking different positions - as seen in the Tory ranks. I’m surprised this isn’t reflected with Labour - I’m sure old school parliamentarians like Tony Benn, Tam Dalyell and others like them would have expected this to be something decided in Westminster rather than the Old Bailey. My suspicion is the labour leadership have seen an opportunity to weaponise this issue hoping to get the topic under debate falsely characterised as one of a question of support or not for the action of genocide. But it is to do with morality and trade which you seemed to be suggesting it isn't. I look at Liz Truss's and this wretched Government's record on Arms to Middle East and establish my moral compass and I think Tony Benn would do the same
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 21, 2021 12:52:34 GMT
Well that helps... Not. Let me enlighten you. The following taken from the BBC analysis... So should an elected Government be responsible for deciding if a country is committing genocide or should the unelected courts do that. I can see the argument on both sides. And both sides have good arguments that, as far as I can see, are apolitical. I would therefore have expected to see people from both sides of the house taking different positions - as seen in the Tory ranks. I’m surprised this isn’t reflected with Labour - I’m sure old school parliamentarians like Tony Benn, Tam Dalyell and others like them would have expected this to be something decided in Westminster rather than the Old Bailey. My suspicion is the labour leadership have seen an opportunity to weaponise this issue hoping to get the topic under debate falsely characterised as one of a question of support or not for the action of genocide. But it is to do with morality and trade which you seemed to be suggesting it isn't. I look at Liz Truss's and this wretched Government's record on Arms to Middle East and establish my moral compass and I think Tony Benn would do the same This just taps into the whole wider "ethical foreign policy" debate. One day the penny may drop and we might press the reset button, stop trying to be a policeman of the Middle East, stop selling weapons to dictators and stop trading with inhumane regimes. I won't be holding my breath though.....
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 21, 2021 13:46:49 GMT
Well that helps... Not. Let me enlighten you. The following taken from the BBC analysis... So should an elected Government be responsible for deciding if a country is committing genocide or should the unelected courts do that. I can see the argument on both sides. And both sides have good arguments that, as far as I can see, are apolitical. I would therefore have expected to see people from both sides of the house taking different positions - as seen in the Tory ranks. I’m surprised this isn’t reflected with Labour - I’m sure old school parliamentarians like Tony Benn, Tam Dalyell and others like them would have expected this to be something decided in Westminster rather than the Old Bailey. My suspicion is the labour leadership have seen an opportunity to weaponise this issue hoping to get the topic under debate falsely characterised as one of a question of support or not for the action of genocide. But it is to do with morality and trade which you seemed to be suggesting it isn't. I look at Liz Truss's and this wretched Government's record on Arms to Middle East and establish my moral compass and I think Tony Benn would do the same The specific issue being debated is about who makes decisions - the courts or Parliament. I can see why the courts would be a good idea. I can see also why it should be Parliament. The arguments for each are different. The courts would be apolitical but are not accountable. Parliament is of course political, but it is accountable. That’s why I think old school, Parliamentarians would want this decision to be in the domain of accountable politicians. As far as concerned, I’m not really bothered either way.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 21, 2021 16:03:34 GMT
But it is to do with morality and trade which you seemed to be suggesting it isn't. I look at Liz Truss's and this wretched Government's record on Arms to Middle East and establish my moral compass and I think Tony Benn would do the same The specific issue being debated is about who makes decisions - the courts or Parliament. I can see why the courts would be a good idea. I can see also why it should be Parliament. The arguments for each are different. The courts would be apolitical but are not accountable. Parliament is of course political, but it is accountable. That’s why I think old school, Parliamentarians would want this decision to be in the domain of accountable politicians. As far as concerned, I’m not really bothered either way. "I don't have an opinion either way, I just like sniping at those that do with tedious repetition"
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 21, 2021 16:09:34 GMT
The specific issue being debated is about who makes decisions - the courts or Parliament. I can see why the courts would be a good idea. I can see also why it should be Parliament. The arguments for each are different. The courts would be apolitical but are not accountable. Parliament is of course political, but it is accountable. That’s why I think old school, Parliamentarians would want this decision to be in the domain of accountable politicians. As far as concerned, I’m not really bothered either way. "I don't have an opinion either way, I just like sniping at those that do with tedious repetition" I’ve decided not to comment further on anything you post because it’s pointless. Just letting you know so you understand why I’ll not respond to your inane drivel. Cheerio.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 21, 2021 16:13:09 GMT
"I don't have an opinion either way, I just like sniping at those that do with tedious repetition" I’ve decided not to comment further on anything you post because it’s pointless. Just letting you know so you understand why I’ll not respond to your inane drivel. Cheerio. Aside from the cricket thread you haven't given your own opinion on here since about 2018. The fact that you won't respond to me any longer bothers me not one iota...........
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jan 21, 2021 20:34:12 GMT
The infantalisation of politics continues into the Lords I see, the NHS that was being sold to Trump according to Labour now needs protecting by passing a completely meaningless motion that would protect the NHS from not being free at point of use, you labour types should make your mind up on the one hand the nhs is the envy of the world on the other hand the tories cant be trusted with the nhs despite them actually being in control of it for the majority of its existence, privatising the nhs is something else the tories dont seem very good at. Two of the biggest problems the nhs faces are as a direct result of Labour lumbering the nhs with massive pfi contracts and the effective privatisation of gp practices. Its 8 o'clock and here we are again for another edition of your favourite game show, 'Defend the Indefensible' and here's your host, Followyoudown. Ratings will be higher than your 'believe everything you read on the internet' You actually want a clause in a trade deal saying the NHS can't be sold FML I have heard it all now, I mean who do you actually think is going to buy it ? If anyone was that arsed with buying it do you think they need a trade deal, set up a uk company or buy an existing one and bid on contracts, whats strange is if the NHS is the envy of the world why has no other country copied it ? Most european health services are free at the point of use and most offer better outcomes and service than the NHS.
|
|
|
Post by Linx on Jan 21, 2021 20:48:32 GMT
I’ve decided not to comment further on anything you post because it’s pointless. Just letting you know so you understand why I’ll not respond to your inane drivel. Cheerio. Aside from the cricket thread you haven't given your own opinion on here since about 2018. The fact that you won't respond to me any longer bothers me not one iota........... Is this a Scottish thing going on here?😉
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 21, 2021 20:54:41 GMT
Aside from the cricket thread you haven't given your own opinion on here since about 2018. The fact that you won't respond to me any longer bothers me not one iota........... Is this a Scottish thing going on here?😉 Who knows? his toys are out the pram now though it is what it is.....
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 21, 2021 21:11:10 GMT
Trade Bill — After Clause 2 - Agreements with states accused of committing genocide Well that helps... Not. Let me enlighten you. The following taken from the BBC analysis... So should an elected Government be responsible for deciding if a country is committing genocide or should the unelected courts do that. I can see the argument on both sides. And both sides have good arguments that, as far as I can see, are apolitical. I would therefore have expected to see people from both sides of the house taking different positions - as seen in the Tory ranks. I’m surprised this isn’t reflected with Labour - I’m sure old school parliamentarians like Tony Benn, Tam Dalyell and others like them would have expected this to be something decided in Westminster rather than the Old Bailey. My suspicion is the labour leadership have seen an opportunity to weaponise this issue hoping to get the topic under debate falsely characterised as one of a question of support or not for the action of genocide. They're good points actually, to be fair. And, on consideration, I'd probably go with the judiciary when all said and done, provided the judiciary was independently appointed, unlike the Supreme Court in the US. I wouldn't trust any government with a workable majority to take anything like an objective decision on whether a country had committed genocide or not when several hundred billion dollars of trade and jobs were at stake. Parliament debates and makes laws, then the judiciary decides whether or not they have been broken. We've already seen numerous examples of govts, including the current one, acting unlawfully and sometimes illegally, this would be just the same, wouldn't it? Shame it didn't get through, but no great surprise, and the Lords may have an influence yet.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 21, 2021 22:05:27 GMT
Well that helps... Not. Let me enlighten you. The following taken from the BBC analysis... So should an elected Government be responsible for deciding if a country is committing genocide or should the unelected courts do that. I can see the argument on both sides. And both sides have good arguments that, as far as I can see, are apolitical. I would therefore have expected to see people from both sides of the house taking different positions - as seen in the Tory ranks. I’m surprised this isn’t reflected with Labour - I’m sure old school parliamentarians like Tony Benn, Tam Dalyell and others like them would have expected this to be something decided in Westminster rather than the Old Bailey. My suspicion is the labour leadership have seen an opportunity to weaponise this issue hoping to get the topic under debate falsely characterised as one of a question of support or not for the action of genocide. They're good points actually, to be fair. And, on consideration, I'd probably go with the judiciary when all said and done, provided the judiciary was independently appointed, unlike the Supreme Court in the US. I wouldn't trust any government with a workable majority to take anything like an objective decision on whether a country had committed genocide or not when several hundred billion dollars of trade and jobs were at stake. Parliament debates and makes laws, then the judiciary decides whether or not they have been broken. We've already seen numerous examples of govts, including the current one, acting unlawfully and sometimes illegally, this would be just the same, wouldn't it? Shame it didn't get through, but no great surprise, and the Lords may have an influence yet. Thanks for taking the time to read what I was saying. It isn’t a question of do we want to trade with a country who commits genocide, it’s who gets to determine if a country is committing genocide. As mentioned I’m easy with either Parliament or the judiciary doing this. My heart is inclined to Parliament (I’ve a sentimental attachment to voter accountability), my head says the judiciary because politicians can’t be trusted and when they are held to account it will be too late to make much difference. Actually, thinking on this some more I’m probably 60/40 for the judiciary.
|
|
|
Post by Soro's Sorrows on Jan 21, 2021 22:13:47 GMT
Is this a Scottish thing going on here?😉 Who knows? his toys are out the pram now though it is what it is..... Speaking of toys and prams it's been over 1200 posts since you rage quit, well done you, what a tedious little trooper you are!
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 21, 2021 23:03:03 GMT
Its 8 o'clock and here we are again for another edition of your favourite game show, 'Defend the Indefensible' and here's your host, Followyoudown. Ratings will be higher than your 'believe everything you read on the internet' You actually want a clause in a trade deal saying the NHS can't be sold FML I have heard it all now, I mean who do you actually think is going to buy it ? If anyone was that arsed with buying it do you think they need a trade deal, set up a uk company or buy an existing one and bid on contracts, whats strange is if the NHS is the envy of the world why has no other country copied it ? Most european health services are free at the point of use and most offer better outcomes and service than the NHS. Just watching Johnson being exposed as a filthy liar regarding paperwork requirements in Northern Ireland. Another one you defended. Is that on tonight's show?
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 21, 2021 23:52:51 GMT
Who knows? his toys are out the pram now though it is what it is..... Speaking of toys and prams it's been over 1200 posts since you rage quit, well done you, what a tedious little trooper you are! Now here’s someone I wish would ignore me. At least partick enjoys discussing the great game of cricket and posts links to readable articles, you bring fuck all to the party.......
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 22, 2021 16:47:53 GMT
Anybody fancy £500 to catch Covid? Sounds like a good idea
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jan 22, 2021 17:16:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 22, 2021 18:02:37 GMT
Anybody fancy £500 to catch Covid? Sounds like a good idea This story highlights one of the huge challenges our (any UK) Government faces... leaking of working documents. This from the BBC an hour or so ago... No plans for universal £500 self-isolation payment, No 10 says knocking the idea on its head. This quote is what concerns me though... The challenge is a real one. But does leaking options under consideration really help the Government make decisions. I worry that this causes harm because options get withheld that should be put forward because people choose to go with “safe” options and off the wall ideas never come forward.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 22, 2021 18:25:25 GMT
Yeah, it was obviously something that was discussed!
Not sure about off the wall ideas. It was Cummings great idea to have misfits and weirdos (his words) putting this kind of stuff together.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 22, 2021 18:27:05 GMT
Yeah, it was obviously something that was discussed! Not sure about off the wall ideas. It was Cummings great idea to have misfits and weirdos (his words) putting this kind of stuff together. Einstein was a misfit and weirdo who had some off the wall ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 22, 2021 18:28:00 GMT
Yeah, it was obviously something that was discussed! Not sure about off the wall ideas. It was Cummings great idea to have misfits and weirdos (his words) putting this kind of stuff together. Einstein was a misfit and weirdo who had some off the wall ideas. Was he? Really?
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jan 22, 2021 18:30:16 GMT
Einstein was a misfit and weirdo who had some off the wall ideas. Was he? Really? Not sure we should be comparing Einstein with Cummings or the theory of relativity with bunging folk with Covid £500! I take your point though.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Jan 22, 2021 18:34:26 GMT
Not sure we should be comparing Einstein with Cummings or the theory of relativity with bunging folk with Covid £500! I take your point though. Thank you. The comparison is an extreme one. But innovation comes from the odd and the weird. And innovation is what solves intractable problems by seeing things differently. It needs to be encouraged, not stifled. Cummings was absolutely right in trying to inject some of that culture into the civil service.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 22, 2021 18:34:32 GMT
This is a direct result of the low rage, no rights, flexible gig labour markets favoured by the right. When a pandemic comes and you tell people to stay at home, they say go and fuck yourselves because all you'll do is send me half a tomato and tell me to feed my kids on it for a week.
Remember when we were going to value 'key' workers more across the spectrum, during the first wave?! What a fucking joke!
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Jan 22, 2021 18:47:30 GMT
This is a direct result of the low rage, no rights, flexible gig labour markets favoured by the right. When a pandemic comes and you tell people to stay at home, they say go and fuck yourselves because all you'll do is send me half a tomato and tell me to feed my kids on it for a week. Remember when we were going to value 'key' workers more across the spectrum, during the first wave?! What a fucking joke! Right on comrade ! Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 22, 2021 18:49:47 GMT
This is a direct result of the low rage, no rights, flexible gig labour markets favoured by the right. When a pandemic comes and you tell people to stay at home, they say go and fuck yourselves because all you'll do is send me half a tomato and tell me to feed my kids on it for a week. Remember when we were going to value 'key' workers more across the spectrum, during the first wave?! What a fucking joke! Right on comrade ! View Attachment We'll be clapping for carers again next....after sacking and rehiring them on less terms. Fucking joke.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 22, 2021 20:09:00 GMT
Anybody fancy £500 to catch Covid? Sounds like a good idea This story highlights one of the huge challenges our (any UK) Government faces... leaking of working documents. This from the BBC an hour or so ago... No plans for universal £500 self-isolation payment, No 10 says knocking the idea on its head. This quote is what concerns me though... The challenge is a real one. But does leaking options under consideration really help the Government make decisions. I worry that this causes harm because options get withheld that should be put forward because people choose to go with “safe” options and off the wall ideas never come forward. You're assuming that the leak was done without the Prime Minister's permission. Leaking is often used as a way to test public opinion on a policy.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Jan 23, 2021 12:43:33 GMT
|
|