Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

General British politics discussion thread

1540541543545546550

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,924 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    Think most of that was before the election. With the Labour majority and hatred of the LibDems for the SDP split it was a pipe dream.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 597 ✭✭✭Randycove


    it seems to be the Lib Dems modus operandi to offer a coalition to however gets the most seats, in the event of no overall majority. Ed Davey offered it to Sir Kier before the last election and Nick Clegg stated that was their intention in 2010, hence initially talking to the Tories and then talking to Labour when those talks looked like they would break down. They went into government with Labour in the first Scottish parliament on the same basis.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,882 ✭✭✭Jack Daw


    New Sentencing guideline announced by Labour today, which basically confirms special treatment for people from certain "minority" groups.

    But apparently claims of a two tier justice system in the UK are a far right conspiracy theory.

    Image


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,523 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    You think sentencing reports are evidence of a two-tier justice system?

    Tell us a bit more about sentencing reports, Jack — what their function is, how they work, what they address, who prepares them, that kind of thing.

    Also, you say that the new sentencing guidelines were "announced by Labour today". My understanding is that they were announced by the Sentencing Council, an independent panel of judges. Can you link to the announcement from Labour about this, please? 'Cause, if you don't, we might think you just made it up. And, far from refuting the idea that claims about a two-tier justice system are a far-right conspiracy theory, any perception that you are just making shît up will tend to reinforce that idea. And you wouldn't want that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,882 ✭✭✭Jack Daw


    Sentencing reports are the first step towards getting a more favorable sentence.

    If it isn't an example of a two tiered approach to justice then why are they only being introduced from people for supposed minorities.

    Why is the average person not entitled to the same treatment?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,973 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Well no they weren't announced by Labour, they have been suggested as new guidelines from the INDEPENDENT Sentencing Council which FYI they also made the same recommendations to the tories while they were in power and you never heard a peep about it….. they just sent it off for public consultation to try and pretend it wasn't happening.

    Add to that Labours Justice Secretary has already written to the sentencing council to ask them to reverse this guidance and how the suggestions are not in line with the views of the Labour government.

    So literally nothing in your post of clueless righteous indignation had any fact to it whatsoever.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,523 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Sentencing reports are the first step towards getting a more favorable sentence.

    Who told you that? And why did you believe them? The purpose of pre-sentence reports is to enable the court to determine an appropriate sentence, and they cover both mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

    If it isn't an example of a two tiered approach to justice then why are they only being introduced from people for supposed minorities.

    They're not being introduced for anybody; they've been around for years. And they're not only for minorities, as the text you yourself posted makes very clear. Did you not read it before you posted it?

    Why is the average person not entitled to the same treatment?

    Again, who told you that? Whoever it was, they lied to you. In all cases the defence has a right to request a pre-sentence report be prepared before sentencing.

    The information you're posting about this is wildly inaccurate. You're either making stuff up or, more likely, credulously recycling what you get from some highly biassed source that wants you to form certain views and isn't too scrupulous about how it gets you to do that.

    And, I cannot but note, you are strangely silent about how you got the idea that this was a Labour announcement, despite having been directly asked that exact question.

    Why are you so reluctant to tell us where you're getting this firehose of misinformation, Jack? As a method of persuading us that there isn't a right wing conspiracy, being coy about your sources when they seem so obviously dodgy is very, very counterproductive.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,861 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Are reform maneuvering to remove Rupert Lowe from the party?

    This comes one day after Lowe said about Farage

    "Reform UK remains a "protest party led by the Messiah" under his leadership."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,861 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Rupert Lowe responds to the above claims.

    20250307_174437.jpg 20250307_174439.jpg 20250307_174441.jpg 20250307_174443.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,861 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Now being reported that Lowe has had the whip removed.

    The implosion of reform is happening pretty rapidly



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,877 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Typical woke Reform. Ruining a good man's reputation just because some women make "allegations" 🤣



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,861 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    And they waited 3 months to report these "threats" against Yusuf to the police.

    Mere days after he criticised Farage.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,196 ✭✭✭Mr.Wemmick


    What an unfolding disaster the UK is becoming under Starmer. He’s like Thatcher on steroids..

    The disability cuts on the most vulnerable and using the media to demonised an innocent cohort of disabled and sick people is disgusting. By their own figures there was 0% fraud in 2024 yet he and the Labour (blue) party are happy for the narrative of fraud and waste to poison the day.

    The end of the NHS is here with very little care and medical support for people - mostly why sick and disabled people are becoming worse and not better. Is this it? Sold to corporate America, no wonder he got off lightly with Trump and his rabble.

    Little wonder Starmer is hated going by the shocked reaction across social media.

    Trump & Ukraine: what a fantastic gift to hide behind.

    “The fact that society believes a man who says he’s a woman, instead of a woman who says he’s not, is proof that society knows exactly who is the man and who is the woman.”

    - Jen Izaakson



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,877 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    People are getting really confused about the shutting down of NHS England. I'm already sick of the amount of people who have told me the NHS is being disbanded.

    NHS England is the management division for the region and has only existed since 2013.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,776 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I'm no fan of Starmer or the current crop of Blairites that make up the present "Labour" party. But NHS England was a Tory invention and has, on the face of it, led to an enormous amount of bloat that has led directly to long waiting times and an over emphasis on bureaucracy within the organisation.

    Ostensibly, this looks like an effort to cut the fat, as it were, and try to bring more control of the NHS back under the governing bodies that should be managing it. I say "ostensibly" because we have absolutely no idea what this is actually going to look like yet. At the moment I don't think people should be pulling their hair out.

    The most concerning thing is that there are going to be thousands of jobs lost as a result.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,877 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Hopefully the jobs cuts don't happen. Even if it means duplication for a while before people retire or move on its better than forced redundancy.

    The whole NHS England era saw a worrying amount of creeping privatisation which was probably the Tory plan and will hopefully change under government control (not holding my breath though)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,776 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    There were people worried about "creeping privatisation" under Blair as well and Starmer is Blair 2.0 for a lot of people. I understand why they're highly sceptical of him and what Labour is at present and what their plans are for the NHS. So much so that every move is greeted with trepidation and not without reason.

    Regarding the job cuts they'll, probably, be bolted on because there's an army of admin staff that pass everything from pillar to post in the NHS's current form. Unfortunately the vast majority of that echelon are not subject to retirement because they're not old enough and the doctors/consultants who are are in the minority. So I wouldn't be at all surprised to see job losses.

    On NHS England, it was entirely administrative in nature and designed to act as an "independent" body so that government could throw their hands up and claim innocence when anything untoward happened or if any criticism was levelled against the NHS as a whole, which is a very Tory idea in the first place. Seemingly its duties are now going to revert back to the ministry of health in the guise of the DHSC.

    Our own HSE is modelled on this type of bloated, inefficient, monstrosity too, so much that it has gotten completely out of control. I wouldn't be adverse to seeing some of the fat cut over here to be honest.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,877 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Blair wasn't really as into privatisation as he is made out to be. Water, energy and transport was all done before his time it's just that he was in charge when the final steps or public implementation happened. Now he wasn't against it either in fairness.

    Privatisation has proven to be a failure though and even the "Blairites" are now pro re-nationalisation.

    So whatever about the leaders the times have changed and the idea that private companies do things better than government is dead. We will probably see more re-nationalisation rather than privatisation under Starmer.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,651 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Privatisation works after a fashion, but it needs pretty stringent rules in place and I'm not sure it ever made sense for things like rail. Though British Rail was awful, so public ownership is not some panacea either.

    I don't get the use of "Blairite" as a pejorative. Putting the whole Iraq thing aside (which is a huge black mark that justifiably overrides much else), the Blair years were probably the best in the UK in the last 50 years.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,877 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    I certainly wasn't using Blairite as an insult but rather the standard use as the more centrist, free market wing of the party.

    Not sure Blair can fully take credit for the good days though. Pretty much every western democracy was going through the same thing.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,651 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Sorry, I know you weren't, it was supposed to be more of a general comment. I was just pointing out that I don't really agree with the boogieman view of "privatisation" in general. For the most part the issues in the UK aren't related to privatisation per se, they are related to doing it really badly.

    There is an element of truth to the second point, but it is how they used those good days. Investment in the NHS, education etc all skyrocketed. Like, he was very pro-business but the public sector was probably at its height during that time period also.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 597 ✭✭✭Randycove


    people use terms like privatization and selling off to corporate America as purely scaremongering terms without understanding what they mean. GPs are mainly private companies who carry out services on behalf of the NHS. There are dozens of privately owned eye clinics that have helped reduce the waiting times for cataract operations, but they do this on behalf of the NHS and are, most importantly, free to use for patients.
    I’m not sure I understand the NHS England thing though. Healthcare is a devolved function, so is bringing it fully under the DHSC going to make any difference? Yes, there are 9000 jobs affected, but I would have thought that most of them will simply transfer to whatever organisation is replacing it. That said, I’m all for reducing the bloated mess that is the NHS management.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,991 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Public sector when training, private sector when practicing seems to be the motto

    The NHS in England is under the control of UK government as Westminster acts as the devolved government for England



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Welfare cuts coming in for the UK. Expect more of this as money has to be found.

    In fairness the welfare bill has spiralled out of control, even though the unemployment rate has remained more or less the same.

    Is it true that 1 in 10 adult working person is on disability? WTF?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,991 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    The final nail in the Labour coffin, not even nine months in



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 166 ✭✭bigsuge1


    The media are churning out the clickbait articles about military conscription every few weeks or so here in the UK. I wouldn’t put it past this looney tune government thinking that they could pull it off some how! Absolute car crash stuff so far.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,877 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    What media ?

    I must have missed all these articles somehow.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 166 ✭✭bigsuge1


    https://www.gbnews.com/politics/uk/britons-conscripted-war-russia-mp-claims


    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/2028207/uk-military-conscription-world-war-3/amp

    https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/daily-star-readers-allergy-dying-34881857

    https://www.gbnews.com/news/conscription-europe-starmer-defence-ukraine

    https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/news-opinion/government-urged-think-unthinkable-consider-10032258.amp

    They even give ex army chiefs 30 minute segments on Sky News from time to time.


    Click bait nonsense no doubt but they sure do rile up thousands in the comments!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 166 ✭✭bigsuge1


    ^^^^



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,877 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    No wonder I missed it.

    None of the above actually report news



Advertisement