The Political Thread

[Jim_Campbell]

We have a parliamentary democracy and Mrs May was elected to Parliament, so, in my view, no need for a General Election.

Oddly enough, Mrs May took the exact opposite view to you when Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair. She was very clear that she thought there should be a general election.

[Banners]

Theresa... May believes, amongst other equally repulsive things, that Lesbion, Gay and Bisexual folk should be treated chemicaly and with electro shock therapy to "cure" them.

Your happy with this kins of bigot in power?

Do you have a source for that...?

[Modern Panther]

the judge is a human being,

Of course they are.  But like politicians, or police officers, they are also there to represent the will of the people, whereas an individual being robbed of their right to carry a weapon into a courtroom is a person.  Whilst the rights of a person are certainly important, any sort of society only functions by balancing those rights against the safety and security of the people.

[Hawkmumbler]

Theresa... May believes, amongst other equally repulsive things, that Lesbion, Gay and Bisexual folk should be treated chemicaly and with electro shock therapy to "cure" them.

Your happy with this kins of bigot in power?

Do you have a source for that...?

As ever, the brilliantly neutral Pink News has done an indeph analysis, and as much as Darth May might want to look like a saint, her mist resent act...

2016: Calls for withdrawl from European court of human rights*.

...She is far far hypocritical as to be unbelievable.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/07/11/from-gay-rights-opponent-to-unsung-hero-of-equal-marriage-theresa-mays-surprising-evolution-on-lgbt-rights/amp/?client=safari#

*Of which bans, amongst other things, gay conversion therapy.

[Jim_Campbell]

As ever, the brilliantly neutral Pink News has done an indeph analysis, and as much as Darth May might want to look like a saint, her mist resent act...

2016: Calls for withdrawl from European court of human rights*.

...She is far far hypocritical as to be unbelievable.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/07/11/from-gay-rights-opponent-to-unsung-hero-of-equal-marriage-theresa-mays-surprising-evolution-on-lgbt-rights/amp/?client=safari#

*Of which bans, amongst other things, gay conversion therapy.

I think it's quite a stretch to suggest that this is in anyway convincing as support for your first statement.

[GordonR]

The ECHR forbids many nasty and unpleasant things. It's quite a jump, though, to say that anyone opposing it is therefore an advocate of one specific thing that it makes illegal.

Your claim that she's in favour of electro-shock therapy for LGBT people is still unproven and kinda hysterical-sounding.

[Hawkmumbler]

It probably is, to be honest, but i'm certainly not delighted to have somone with such a patchy history and potential to be disastrous for the LGBT+ community as PM.

[ZenArcade]

I agree she is cold and as I've said before very authoritarian; if not potentially draconian....she did, I think, back same sex marriage.
The point about her comments around Browns accession to the PM position is a matter of record. Z

[Dandontdare]

Over half the PMs since 1900 were not actually elected in that role, including Brown, Major, Callaghan, Douglas-Home and ...err ...Churchill.

There are many faults with our electoral system but this is one of the lesser ones.

And Hawk to say that someone who disagrees that HR cases should go to an extra-national body does NOT mean that they must take the opposite position on every decision of that body, that's just dumb. Now look what you've made me do - I'm sticking up for a Tory you bastard!

[IndigoPrime]

Wish people had paid attention during that particular referendum (and if the usual idiots hadn't whined about it not being the 'right reform' when the alternative is always 'no reform')

I voted in favour of AV, but was also one of those "idiots". Frankly, it was a stitch-up, designed to silence for a generation the need for electoral reform. The Tories knew AV would dent them slightly at worst (it either benefits the third party or it benefits the top two), and that a loss would result in "you had the opportunity for change, but no-one wanted it". What gets me is how even pro-PR MPs say we had a referendum on PR. We didn't. We got the choice between two majoritarian systems, because the LDs caved. (It should have been FPTP vs AV+, which was the recommendation in the report at the time, even though that system's also problematic.)

I voted to leave the EU and am quite happy to have Mrs May as the new Prime Minister.  We have a parliamentary democracy and Mrs May was elected to Parliament, so, in my view, no need for a General Election.

We do indeed have a parliamentary democracy, which means that fundamental changes to the fabric of society should come down to a vote and be backed by a majority of MPs. For example, a certain non-binding referendum.

[Jim_Campbell]

We do indeed have a parliamentary democracy, which means that fundamental changes to the fabric of society should come down to a vote and be backed by a majority of MPs. For example, a certain non-binding referendum.

On this subject (with apologies to anyone who's already read this on Facebook)...

I've been following some very smart constitutional lawyers chewing over 'Brexit' on Twitter, and here's how I think it may play out...

No way we leave the EU without a Commons vote. Article 50 only establishes the framework and timetable for a member to leave — in that respect, it's something of a red herring because, at some point, we will have to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 which took us into the EEC. There's no way that can happen without a vote in the Commons — Prime Ministers don't get to repeal primary legislation. If the referendum was meant to convey that authority, such authority would have been written into the bill that enabled the referendum in the first place.

(Even if Article 50 has been invoked, despite what Cameron says, there's nothing in the Article that says it's a one-way, irreversible process.)

So, the Commons vote...

At this point, MPs have the perfect opportunity to acknowledge the referendum result but argue (with some justification) that they have the benefit of hindsight. They cannot say with confidence that they are upholding the public will, now that we know there's no extra £350M a week for the NHS, that immigration won't be materially affected, that Boris Johnson's notion of a trade deal with all the benefits and none of the strings was just a fantasy...

So, they'll punt it back to a second referendum. In all likelihood, binding this time but with a 60% threshold on Leave. Remain will probably win, but...

...There's no way the EU will hand us any concessions. More likely, they'll punish us to stop other countries trying the same thing to extract more favourable terms. Expect either a reduction in our rebate, or enforced agreement to Schengen.

[Old Tankie]

I think a vote in the Commons on Brexit would be very interesting.  The current Prime Minister and the future Prime Minister have both said that Brexit will happen.  They could well carry the majority of the Conservative Party on that.  I don't go along with the idea that all Labour MPs will vote to stay in the EU, especially the ones whose constituencies are in the Midlands and the North, where in many of these areas there was a decisive vote to leave.  The only people to gain from those MPs voting to stay would be Ukip.

As for a second referendum, I think that would be a major problem for the Tories, if they're still in charge, as many of their voters in the South and in the East voted to leave.  Again, only Ukip will gain politically from a second referendum, in my view.

[Jim_Campbell]

I think a vote in the Commons on Brexit would be very interesting.  The current Prime Minister and the future Prime Minister have both said that Brexit will happen.  They could well carry the majority of the Conservative Party on that.  I don't go along with the idea that all Labour MPs will vote to stay in the EU, especially the ones whose constituencies are in the Midlands and the North, where in many of these areas there was a decisive vote to leave.  The only people to gain from those MPs voting to stay would be Ukip.

In that scenario, the MPs wouldn't be voting to stay. They'd be voting to put the matter back to the people, given the sheer range of promises that were resiled from, many within hours of the result being announced. They hadn't even finished counting the votes when Farage trashed the £350M/week pledge.

[Old Tankie]

Well, if the vote in the Commons was just to have a second referendum, then Labour would be in the same boat as the Tories with many of their voters.  People on both sides of the argument thought their vote would be decisive.

[Banners]

Theresa... May believes, amongst other equally repulsive things, that Lesbion, Gay and Bisexual folk should be treated chemicaly and with electro shock therapy to "cure" them.

I think it's quite a stretch to suggest that this is in anyway convincing as support for your first statement.

It probably is, to be honest, but i'm certainly not delighted to have somone with such a patchy history and potential to be disastrous for the LGBT+ community as PM.

The Pink News article seems to show that her opinions have evolved along with society's, which is probably a good thing. It even quotes her as saying "I have changed my view" and "I have changed my mind".

Most significantly to my mind is that she voted for the 2013 Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, when two of her erstwhile challengers - Andrea Leadsom and Stephen Crabb - did not. Consider who we could have had.