[arista]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Says the ghoul who said the people who died in Grenfell lacked common sense

Be Fair
Slick Liam
he is an MP that made a mistake

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by arista

Jacob Rees-Mogg
Live on Times Radio DAB

Says the Labour Party call Voters Stupid.

pot lits kettle

[Withano]

I mean

If Labour were in charge for ten years, I’d imagine the tories wouldn’t like Britain so much.

It’s kinda the point, they have wildly different ideas.

Duhr (no offence)

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Withano

I mean

If Labour were in charge for ten years, I’d imagine the tories wouldn’t like Britain so much.

It’s kinda the point, they have wildly different ideas.

Duhr (no offence)

wrong

they would not like Labour

that is the point

duhr (no offence)

[joeysteele]

Well it's equally so that Labour doesn't like the Cons, who are in charge.

Nothing at all to suggest Labour don't like Britain either.
If the Cons wouldn't.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Well it's equally so that Labour doesn't like the Cons, who are in charge.

Nothing at all to suggest Labour don't like Britain either.
If the Cons wouldn't.

Labour’s England problem

The impulse to deride patriotism reflects the party’s distance from many core
voters

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...ngland-problem

2016

and now look

[bots]

there are a whole host of reasons why labour is basically unelectable. They are a mess, and as i said way earlier in the thread, i think ultimately in order for a party to emerge that can compete with the tories, it will need to split up, there are too many competing/warring factions that are fundamentally incompatible with each other on policy. That results in a watered down policy from whatever side you view it from. It's untenable really. They can kid themselves otherwise, but the last few years have shown the deep divides. The tory party has divides too, but the branch in charge don't allow policy to be watered down by the more moderate tories to the same extent as labour.

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[jet]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politi...queens-speech/

PETS are to have their feelings protected by a new law, announced today in the Queen's Speech.

It forms part of the government's plan to help improve "the highest standards of animal welfare" in the UK.
The Bill will increase protection for all pets, sporting and farm animals.
Battery cages for laying hens will be banned, as well as sow stalls and veal crates, and CCTV will be installed in all slaughterhouses in England.
It will also end the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter, bring in more effective powers to tackle live stock worrying, and improve standards in zoos.
The new rules, set out by the monarch, 95, at today's State Opening of Parliament, will "eradicate cruel practices" and strengthen the penalties for those who abuse animals.
Maximum sentences will increase from six months to five years under the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021.

Great news!

[Father Chris Mouse]

Originally Posted by jet

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politi...queens-speech/

PETS are to have their feelings protected by a new law, announced today in the Queen's Speech.

It forms part of the government's plan to help improve "the highest standards of animal welfare" in the UK.
The Bill will increase protection for all pets, sporting and farm animals.
Battery cages for laying hens will be banned, as well as sow stalls and veal crates, and CCTV will be installed in all slaughterhouses in England.
It will also end the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter, bring in more effective powers to tackle live stock worrying, and improve standards in zoos.
The new rules, set out by the monarch, 95, at today's State Opening of Parliament, will "eradicate cruel practices" and strengthen the penalties for those who abuse animals.
Maximum sentences will increase from six months to five years under the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021.

Great news!

I rarely have anything positive to say about the Queen, or any royal for that matter, but this certainly is encouraging news. A decent step in the right direction for animal welfare in this country.

It's only they'd put a stop to their 'shoot weekends' next?!

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Swan

I rarely have anything positive to say about the Queen, or any royal for that matter, but this certainly is encouraging news. A decent step in the right direction for animal welfare in this country.

It's only they'd put a stop to their 'shoot weekends' next?!

I mean in this case she's a glorified news anchor - she doesn't actually make laws.

[Father Chris Mouse]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I mean in this case she's a glorified news anchor - she doesn't actually make laws.

Yeah, i mean like i say, it's encouraging at least. A step forward. We can only hope this becomes law in the near future.

[arista]

[arista]

This one 2020 Sept

[Ammi]

….I am confused about this and it being part of a new law when much if not all of it was already law…CCTV in slaughterhouses were …but sadly those laws get disregarded as we sometimes see…and battery cages were banned for quite a few years…?..was this all part of EU laws that we’ve been part of anyway but now they have to be made law again because of Brexit…?…I’m not really understanding fully….

…but though, increase in prison time is a good thing and (…may..)…be more of a deterrent to not observing law….

[Ammi]

…it is being reported that the ban on conversion therapy is not quite as stated in the speech…as in it has been in consultation period before and for a long time and will still have consultation period to consider religious beliefs etc …


..Edit:…it was apparently 2018 and Theresa May’s government who promised to ban conversion therapy…it’s been in consultation period since then and now another consultation period will begin…

[joeysteele]

I have to take major issue with those advocating the Labour Party split.
To quote Mrs Thatcher as she once said on a EU issue.
I'd echo her NO, NO, NO.

Maybe from my more suspicious mind, that suggestion comes from either happily identifiable or closet hard-line Con supporters.
Who vote Conservative.
Who know any split would MORE likely ensure endless Con rule.
As in the 80s the great gift to the Cons and Thatcher then, who went on to go from a 43 overall majority to a 144 one and 14 years of further power on top of the 4 years they'd already had.

In this ridiculous and outdated election system..
I think, the Cons will always get on or just above 30% of votes in elections.
The Labour party unlikely to fall under 25% in elections.

There's then the rest of voters who at times float between the 2 parties.
Giving one on or just above 40% with the other in the 30s as a percentage.

So for those advocating the Labour Party split into 2 parties.
They know fine well.
When under this archaic election system, the vote would then swing towards a more social conscience and genuine caring policy making.
That with now 2 parties from the one Labour one.

You'd get let's say anything from 15 to 20 % for one and around 20 to 25% for the other.
Leaving the Cons, in the 30% ranges therefore ensuring under this electoral system.
Only the Cons benefit.

Now, if we had PR the split to 2 Parties makes more sense as the possible usual Labour vote in a favourable election, would be proportionally recognised in numbers of seats too.

No, absolutely no to Labour splitting again as in the 80s to suit Con supporters.
No way.
Labour is a broad church, we do disagree in it, we argue with each other, we make life hard for our leaders.
We do though come together on vital issues to remove things like heartless humiliation of the weakest in society, to the sick, disabled and all vulnerable.
Something those hard- line Con supporters don't care one bit as to what policies their Con government inflicts on them.

[arista]

[user104658]

There’s no question at all that it’s a form of voter suppression; there is no indication that there’s anything wrong with the current voting system (other than the inherent flaws of FOTP, but not with the votes themselves) and thus there’s no valid reasoning behind suddenly requiring photo ID.

If an election showed real evidence of widespread fraud then you might understand wanting more security around voting. But that hasn’t happened. So it’s being done for other reasons. That simple.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There’s no question at all that it’s a form of voter suppression; there is no indication that there’s anything wrong with the current voting system (other than the inherent flaws of FOTP, but not with the votes themselves) and thus there’s no valid reasoning behind suddenly requiring photo ID.

If an election showed real evidence of widespread fraud then you might understand wanting more security around voting. But that hasn’t happened. So it’s being done for other reasons. That simple.

The fraud side imo, had only not been done because the loop hole wssnt widely known.

It is now, and it is now open for lawyers to make vast amounts of money on prosecution cases, but boris has now attempted to block this by introducing this scheme that will be needed in years to come if it isnt introduced now.

It's called progression.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There’s no question at all that it’s a form of voter suppression; there is no indication that there’s anything wrong with the current voting system (other than the inherent flaws of FOTP, but not with the votes themselves) and thus there’s no valid reasoning behind suddenly requiring photo ID.

If an election showed real evidence of widespread fraud then you might understand wanting more security around voting. But that hasn’t happened. So it’s being done for other reasons. That simple.

It's a pathetic idea.
I believe on Peston tonight, former Con Scottish leader, Ruth Davidson, also thinks it's ridiculous or a word to that effect.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

anyone can go in and say i live at xyz and vote

we have NO IDEA how much fraud goes on at mo

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

anyone can go in and say i live at xyz and vote

we have NO IDEA how much fraud goes on at mo

The conservatives probably proved how it can be done by fraudulently obtaining hartlepool.

I'm joking but its probably true.