Originally posted by Ushgarak
The majority of the House? Labour is only voting against as an attack on the coalition. I'll remind you that Labour INTRODUCED tuition fees. The majority of the House supports such fees.The cost to children is a complete red herring of an argument.
The vote will show the support of the house for this surely, or are you saying our country is so fragmented that the parties are that petty.
Oh, Police Baton Charges!
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Of course parties are that petty- opposition is always about trying to destroy the Government.Are you seriously saying you don't think Labour are in favour of tuition fees or removing the cap? You are a fool if you do.
Obviously i'm not saying that i'm being extremely cynical. I believe the vote will go through in favour for both parts...
Opposition isn't always about trying to destroy the Government, it's only in favour of that when it doesn't affect the old order.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
And this is indeed a big strain on the Coalition. Like I say, a lot of those complaining about 'betrayal' don't understand how Coalition works.
Believe it or not I remember the last coalition, I was a kid at the time.
Coalition can never work, it's why we need PR. The headmistress cop girl is hilarious.
Counting abstentions in votes like this is a waste of time; you may as well say all General Elections are invalid as no party ever gets more than 50% of the country voting for them, if you count all of those who did not vote.
Of those who voted, the majority were in favour. Hence the conclusion that the House supports the law. That's democracy.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Counting abstentions in votes like this is a waste of time; you may as well say all General Elections are invalid as no party ever gets more than 50% of the country voting for them, if you count all of those who did not vote.Of those who voted, the majority were in favour. Hence the conclusion that the House supports the law. That's democracy.
General elections don't serve the majority I agree, particularly as so few vote now because they feel so disenfranchised. It's old fashioned undemocratic democracy, aimed at seving the state and not the people. Which is hilarious when you look at what demos and kratis means.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You may want to check out some basic politics before you post. We have a constitution and we live in a declared constitutional monarchy. We don't have a CODIFIED constitution in a single document- that's very different.
We have as you say no written constitution. Declaration only means something if it is supported by it's peoples perception. We have an unwritten constitution...According to those that hold power. All I've seen over the last 25 years is an erosion in my freedoms and rights, through legislation. This in part is due to not having a codified constitution. Whilst my degrees, yes, I have more than one are not in Humanities or Social Sciences, I do have an A level in Politics thanks, from the days when A levels meant something.
Actually, irrelevant to perception we have a constitution, and are factually protected by it regardless of opinion. Your paranoid views don't change that, and your feeling that codifying it will improve anything is simply amusing.
Well, I say amusing- but your glee in seeing police attacked brings it more into the area of being simply disturbing.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Actually, irrelevant to perception we have a constitution, and are factually protected by it regardless of opinion. Your paranoid views don't change that, and your feeling that codifying it will improve anything is simply amusing.,
Well we're not protected because we have no bill of rights.... This means that things like anpr cameras by stealth have turned the UK into little more than an open Prison. Legislation has been pushed through to criminalise almost everone and remove the ladders of opportunity for many.
Having no Bill of Rights doesn't mean we don't have Rights- that's a ridiculous confusion. We have many, many legally enshrined rights. Why get so fixated on one piece of paper, which would be no different in effect from what we have now?
This sort of talk, of course, only comes when democratic votes are going AGAINST what someone thinks. Such protests purport to be pro-democracy. In fact, they are often the opposite; they are anti 'what the person does not want', using rights as a fake cover for the argument.
Someone on the television night now just called the vote undemocratic. What possible definition could there be for that? It was passed by the democratically elected house. It is, precisely, democracy in action.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Having no Bill of Rights doesn't mean we don't have Rights- that's a ridiculous confusion. We have many, many legally enshrined rights. Why get so fixated on one piece of paper, which would be no different in effect from what we have now?This sort of talk, of course, only comes when democratic votes are going AGAINST what someone thinks. Such protests purport to be pro-democracy. In fact, they are often the opposite; they are anti 'what the person does not want', using rights as a fake cover for the argument.
Someone on the television night now just called the vote undemocratic. What possible definition could there be for that? It was passed by the democratically elected house. It is, precisely, democracy in action.
If someone on the television called it undemocratic.... It must be true.
Our legally enshrined rights have been greatly eroded, particularly under labour since 97 and some credit to the Tories they have paid lip service to changing this. The biggest erosion of rights was when terror laws got used on ordinary people.
Just a few of the thousands of changes I could list
ASBO legislation introduces hearsay evidence, which may result in a person being sent to jail.
- The Criminal Justice Act (2003) allows the prosecution to make an application to be heard without a jury where there is a danger of jury tampering. This will include fraud trials.
- The admissibility of evidence concerning a person's bad character, previous convictions and acquittals.
- The Proceeds of Crime Act (2002) gives the state powers to confiscate assets in circumstances where it does not have enough evidence for prosecution.
-Special Immigration Appeals Court hearings are held in secret. Those terror suspects whose cases come before the court are not allowed to know the evidence against them or to be represented by a lawyer of their own choice.
- The Courts and Tribunals Enforcement Act abandons the tradition of an Englishman's home being his castle, which since 1604 has made breaking into a home by bailiffs illegal.