About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

bots · 26-05-2021, 08:13 AM

reading the article, i'm not sure it was smart. He was locked in to a no win situation on the drugs and sexual partners topics and if people manage to get through life without having personal family tragedy they are the exception rather than the rule.

Obviously, it very much depends on how its all edited, but I can predict the outcome now

joeysteele · 26-05-2021, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

reading the article, i'm not sure it was smart. He was locked in to a no win situation on the drugs and sexual partners topics and if people manage to get through life without having personal family tragedy they are the exception rather than the rule.

Obviously, it very much depends on how its all edited, but I can predict the outcome now

I've just been hearing about a drugs segment bots.

As you say depending on the edit, it's a wait and see.
However, that's one of those questioning lines which if a straight answer isn't given.
Then that is seized on by the media normally.

I am more edgy about this interview and the content of it.

I wouldn't be bothered if Labour have to seek a new leader myself.
I haven't wanted the last 3 who became so.
However, it's not a new leader that will likely help us now.

It's a new agenda, a new idea , a new narrative.
Which I may be proved wrong if it was followed, however I think PR for local and general elections could start that new agenda and grow considerably as to support for it too.

I already believe myself way over 50% of voters and the electorate who don't vote too, are believers of a fairer and more representative electoral voting system now.
Which would put the Con party into total panic in my view.
The ONLY party in the UK who'd NEVER ever want it

bots · 26-05-2021, 09:13 AM

i'm not a fan of PR at all, and I think it would be disastrous if it were implemented. The situation we had with May and Brexit is but a small taster of how it would be. Nothing would ever get done. Some may say that a good thing of course

but it gives power to fringe politics like we had with the northern irish group. That would be common place. So, no, i am certainly not a fan

joeysteele · 26-05-2021, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i'm not a fan of PR at all, and I think it would be disastrous if it were implemented. The situation we had with May and Brexit is but a small taster of how it would be. Nothing would ever get done. Some may say that a good thing of course

but it gives power to fringe politics like we had with the northern irish group. That would be common place. So, no, i am certainly not a fan

Well for me and I believe the majority of voters too.
The fact we have an electoral system where in 2005 Labour could be in absolute power, only getting around 36% of the vote with a strong overall majority.
Where the last election gave the Cons around 43% of the vote with 57% of voters voting against them.
Yet taking power with an 80 overall majority against the desire of 57% of the electorate.
I find that the most Undemocratic representation possible and obscene.

If PR was the norm and it's used in part and in full, for the Scottish, Welsh and Irish elections.
For Mayoral elections.
Also the Police and Crime Commissioner elections.

It's ridiculous we don't have it for all elections now and I believe Parties would have to work and be forced to moderate and work together if it was the norm.

Never again would there be a majority Labour government, also too however never a majority Con one either.

The only people I think, sorry for this, who would be against PR, are likely Con hard-liners, who agree with their party in government particularly, being able to dismiss and ride over the majority of voters who voted against them.
That is ridiculous.
Outdated and plain wrong in my view.

Only once since 1900 has a single party got over 50% of the votes cast,
In 1906 the Cons took 50.2%

Since 1974.
The 2 main parties have only taken between around 66% to 78% of the votes cast.
Leaving near a quarter or even more of voters with no real representation whatsoever in effect.
That should be wrong in any election and no Party should have absolute power on those figures.

Since 1974, only in 2017 did the 2 Main Parties get on or above 80% of the votes cast.
That resulted in a Hung parliament.
That was correct as a result.

I won't be surprised that mainly hard-line Con supporters aren't in favour of PR, of course they're not.
They'd be in near panic.

Every other single party is in favour of it, if Labour came to embrace it too.
From Independent candidates through to UKIP/Brexit/ Reform Party, whatever it's called now, even through to the usually the UnDemocratic Unionist Party too.

Only the Cons not really.
Labour should clear it's fear on PR at the top of the party and work to align from the centre to the left.
Leaving the Cons with their heartless hard-line extreme right wing stance out where it ought to be if voting was more representative, out in the freezing cold.
It may even force the Cons to find a heart again rather than a robotic machine beating in its chest.

Livia · 26-05-2021, 08:44 AM

He's just another unelectable Labour leader. I hope they sort themselves out before the next election or the Tories will be running virtually unopposed. Again.

arista · 26-05-2021, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

He's just another unelectable Labour leader. I hope they sort themselves out before the next election or the Tories will be running virtually unopposed. Again.

Labour are hoping this will
bring some round to vote for him

joeysteele · 26-05-2021, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arista

Labour are hoping this will
bring some round to vote for him

I really doubt it actually will arista.
I'm actually not that sure either, we the members or even many MPs think this the best move by him.

joeysteele · 26-05-2021, 10:05 AM

Furthermore, I also firmly believe had PR been the norm.
For this pandemic, a then like National government, with all the Parties elected to Westminster, carrying with them the authority of the massive majority of voters with them.
Rather than just this hapless Con government solely doing what it liked.

I think, the pandemic would have had clearer messaging and maybe less disastrous results of losses of life.

Rather than a government elected with only around 4+ out of every 10 voters.
Solely deciding policy on it.

arista · 26-05-2021, 04:07 PM

arista · 30-05-2021, 06:13 AM

Live on LBC Radio
Debating Keir.

Andrew Castle.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/

Free Live Feed link

Oliver_W · 30-05-2021, 09:09 AM

I don't see how PR could work with our parliamentary system - we vote for an MP to represent our constituency, not who we want to be PM. If the number of seats were to be allocated based on nation wide votes, how would they guarantee a seat gets the party the area voted for?

Zizu · 30-05-2021, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I don't see how PR could work with our parliamentary system - we vote for an MP to represent our constituency, not who we want to be PM. If the number of seats were to be allocated based on nation wide votes, how would they guarantee a seat gets the party the area voted for?

How about a citizen’s parliament then eventually get rid of all politicians ?

https://www.citizensparliament.uk/manifesto

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Oliver_W · 30-05-2021, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zizu

How about a citizen’s parliament then eventually get rid of all politicians ?

https://www.citizensparliament.uk/manifesto

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Ha! I actually wouldn't hate it tbh

bots · 30-05-2021, 10:09 AM

citizens parliament is what we have now

We are all citizens, if what is being suggested is that parliament become apolitical, well that's just not possible

Oliver_W · 30-05-2021, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

citizens parliament is what we have now

We are all citizens, if what is being suggested is that parliament become apolitical, well that's just not possible

If the second chamber was civilians, voting to approve laws being put through, that'd make things even more democratic

Zizu · 30-05-2021, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

citizens parliament is what we have now

We are all citizens, if what is being suggested is that parliament become apolitical, well that's just not possible

I was thinking morally incorruptible citizens..

It’s no secret that I’d do away with every politician and get rid of the house lords ..

Things could hardly be any worse whatever we replaced them with

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

bots · 30-05-2021, 10:27 AM

i'm not a fan of hereditary peers, i think thats totally wrong. I also don't like how the party in government creates a load of peers to ensure their bills get through, so there is room for improvement. Also, the house of lords can't stop a bill from becoming law, they can only request a limited number of amendments after which they are just ignored.

Personally, i think we only need 1 elected body. That's why they were elected after all. I'm not sure that the lords performs a useful function

Oliver_W · 30-05-2021, 11:59 AM

While I'm all for accountability, I think it's helpful to have people in government who don't need to worry about being voted out or unseated due to their views.

A recent example? The use of the phrase "pregnant people" in a piece of legislature stirred some emotions among feminists.

Quote:

I doubt Douglas Hurd remembers a bolshy teenager heckling him in 1999. Shortly prior to my ignoble and premature departure from the sixth form, my school took a trip to listen to him speak. Hurd had recently moved the House of Commons to the Lords and was seeking to inspire young people with a talk about the joys of parliamentary democracy. With the burning sense of self-righteous fervour that is every adolescent’s right, I shouted to the newly appointed Lord: “Why do we pretend to live in a democracy when laws are subject to the whims of unelected old, white, rich men?”

Without missing a beat and somewhat drily, Lord Hurd replied that there were plenty of old, white rich men in the commons too. Everyone laughed; my teacher gave me an icy stare and I tried to pretend not to be embarrassed, while flushing deep crimson.

Over twenty years on from my heckle and watching yesterday’s debate on the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill I have never been more thankful that the House of Lords exists. A slew of largely pale, male and stale peers similar to those I had sneered at, stood up and spoke powerfully in defence of women’s rights.

The bill itself is narrow in scope, long overdue and under-scrutinised. Hastily pushed through as emergency legislation, it has been hiked up the agenda to ensure Attorney General Suella Braverman is able to take maternity leave. It is astounding that in 2021 the possibility that a woman in such a senior position might get pregnant had not been considered or planned for. One might consider it evidence of sexism, but of course the notion of “sex” itself is now considered offensive to those who prefer to identify as genders outside of the binary.

In the course of debating the maternity bill in the House of Commons, the word “woman” was used some three-hundred times, and yet it doesn’t appear in the legislation once; instead, the draft bill refers to “pregnant people”. It was Baroness (Sheila) Noakes in the House of Lords who picked-up the gauntlet, tabling a “motion to regret” while stating her support for the aims of the bill she reminded government that it is only women who get pregnant. Baroness Noakes explained that the avoidance of the word “woman” is part of a wider assault on women’s rights from transgender activists who seek to deny the reality of sex. Labour peer Lord (Philip) Hunt went further, powerfully arguing that at a local level people are “frightened to speak out” for fear of being labelled transphobic and that the “government itself has remained silent… because the government has got a lot of this philosophy embedded within its advisory system”.

The use of so-called “gender neutral” language dates back some fourteen years. It was on International Women’s Day in 2007 when the then Leader of the Commons Jack Straw MP announced that legislation would be drafted to “take a form which achieves gender-neutral drafting so far as it is practicable”. Far from denying the female-centric reality of motherhood, his aim was laudable, believing that the practice of referring to male as the default in legislation reinforced “historic gender stereotypes” and made women invisible.

Feminists have long argued that language is political and that it can have a role in not only reflecting, but also in reifying patriarchal norms. Of course, there are always those who delight in pointing out that several hundred years ago the word “man” simply meant “human being”, often the same group who huff and puff about “political correctness gone mad”. But there is an undeniable logic in referring to “fire fighters” not “firemen”, “police officers” not “policemen” and “astronauts” not “spacemen”. These linguistic adjustments do not obscure reality, they more accurately describe a world where women can join the police, fire service or even go into space. Importantly, they send a cultural message that one can perform such roles while in possession of a vulva and breasts. In this respect sex-neutral language represents an expansion of possibilities whilst being more accurate than traditional terms.

Transgender ideology has piggy-backed off the work of feminism, but rather than communicating a shared reality what is demanded is that language be made into a tool to validate subjective identities. While many females who identify as men (transmen) claim to be offended by the word “woman”, it seems they are apparently not upset by the process of giving birth. A case in point is Guardian journalist and transgender activist Freddy McConnell. Freddy gave birth after having medical procedures to look stereotypically “male” and then lost a case at the High Court to be recognised as a “father”. In the mouths of transgender activists words such as “mother”, “father”, “female” and “male” exist as markers of faith; showing that one believes men have babies and women have penises. This extremist nonsense is now at risk of being written into the statue because our elected representatives are seemingly too stupid or scared to present a challenge.

It is an astounding testament to the power of transgender extremists that decades of work to reduce shame around women’s bodies risks being undone, “woman” itself is now a rude word. Women are increasingly referred to as “menstruators”, “cervix-havers” and “pregnant people” by official bodies, including some NHS Trusts and providers of single-sex services. Tellingly it is always women who are reduced to biological descriptors; one can imagine the response if a bill was introduced which referred to men as “ejaculators” or “scrotum-havers”. Unlike men, women are culturally expected to concede our comfort and rights in the service of “being kind”. Were it acceptable to say so this might be described as “sexism”.

Yesterday, a succession of brave men and women said no to the demands of transgender extremists. They did so because they can; because they do not have to please a fickle electorate. To date the few members of parliament who have spoken out on this issue, such as David Davies and Rosie Duffield, have faced continuous harassment from the public in addition to hostility from within their own parties. But as Baroness Noakes reminded all parliamentarians, “There is nothing incorrect or illegal about the use of the word ‘woman’ in relation to pregnancy.”

My sixteen-year-old self would doubtless be horrified, but today I find myself indebted to the brave peers who stood up for women’s rights against the whinging wokerati. I sometimes wonder what beliefs I will be forced to reconsider next; I know I will be truly estranged from my younger self when I find myself rooting for the royals.

https://thecritic.co.uk/how-the-gove...eality-of-sex/

Thanks to them being brave enough to speak out, changes in wording were made. Would they have been able to do that if they thought they could lose their place? Stuff like this is why it's helpful for parliament to have someone looking over their shoulder.

Crimson Dynamo · 01-06-2021, 07:28 PM

in the last election, Labor

lost to the Tories in Every socio-economic group!

from the bottom to the top

Oliver_W · 02-06-2021, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

in the last election, Labor

lost to the Tories in Every socio-economic group!

from the bottom to the top

I didn't realise it was that bad. I guess the "champagne socialist" image Labour had at the time didn't appeal to the working class, and the middle classes didn't want to be taxed too much? That, coupled with BoJo's "good old boy" image...