Quo Vadis Labour?

[Pannonian]

The UK seems to have caught the "politics is a soap opera" bug and in a world where Sir Kier is doing badly because he's boring, the way to success is constant drama. Oh, and that probably helps keep people from seeing what idiocy Boris is currently up to.

Follow up questions to the above. Is the government minister justified in pushing commercial media channels as long as they are re-elected, and the PM does not sack them? Or are there standards that stand regardless of whether or not they are elected? And relating to that, given the format of our democracy. Is the government justified in doing anything they like, as long as they are elected?

The UK does not have a formal constitution, because the argument in the past has been that the electorate will punish any errant government. However, this government has contravened a number of parliamentary customs that served to check past governments, and the PM has been repeatedly shown to be more often lying than telling the truth. But he was re-elected, nonetheless. Does this validate anything the PM does, and his government? Is media popularity the only requirement for any government?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Follow up questions to the above. Is the government minister justified in pushing commercial media channels as long as they are re-elected, and the PM does not sack them? Or are there standards that stand regardless of whether or not they are elected? And relating to that, given the format of our democracy. Is the government justified in doing anything they like, as long as they are elected?

The UK does not have a formal constitution, because the argument in the past has been that the electorate will punish any errant government. However, this government has contravened a number of parliamentary customs that served to check past governments, and the PM has been repeatedly shown to be more often lying than telling the truth. But he was re-elected, nonetheless. Does this validate anything the PM does, and his government? Is media popularity the only requirement for any government?

Remember the words of that Savoyard lawyer...

On a moral/ethical level, of course actions such as lying to preserve one's self and trashing established customs should be problematic.

But it they people do not vote to preserve such than on a practical level the standards have been changed.

[Pannonian]

Remember the words of that Savoyard lawyer...

On a moral/ethical level, of course actions such as lying to preserve one's self and trashing established customs should be problematic.

But it they people do not vote to preserve such than on a practical level the standards have been changed.

Parliament, and the much-touted PM's questions is supposed to hold the government to task. If the PM can lie to Parliament on a regular basis without any action, are there any standards worth talking about? In US terms, if an elected government, with the collusion of the judiciary and a supportive media, can ignore the constitution without any action against them being possible, are there any standards remaining? Here in the UK, the media have already tried to intimidate the judiciary by labelling those judges who were against the government's abuse of Parliamentary norms "Enemies of the people".

Enemies of the People (headline)

NB. This was 5 months after a UK politician had been assassinated on this issue.

[Montmorency]

Parliament, and the much-touted PM's questions is supposed to hold the government to task. If the PM can lie to Parliament on a regular basis without any action, are there any standards worth talking about? In US terms, if an elected government, with the collusion of the judiciary and a supportive media, can ignore the constitution without any action against them being possible, are there any standards remaining? Here in the UK, the media have already tried to intimidate the judiciary by labelling those judges who were against the government's abuse of Parliamentary norms "Enemies of the people".

Enemies of the People (headline)

NB. This was 5 months after a UK politician had been assassinated on this issue.

I don't know if I should offer warning or make light.
https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/statu...31034443407360 [VIDEO]

[Pannonian]

The new Royal Yacht Britannia will no longer be a Royal Yacht because the Queen think's it's over the top and not needed. But the government is going ahead with it anyway, and funding it through the Ministry of Defence.

It was hoped that the ship would be named after the Prince Philip, who died in April at the age of 99, but the PM's plan was rejected by the royals.

A senior Whitehall inside had said the ship would be named after Prince Philip, who played a role in designing the original Britannia, if Buckingham Palace agreed to the plan.

But, a royal source said the suggestion was 'too grand' and added 'it is not something we have asked for.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ce-Philip.html

New national flagship replacing the Royal Yacht Britannia 'to be funded through the Ministry of Defence', says Number 10

https://news.sky.com/story/new-natio...no-10-12337906

[Furunculus]

I do question the value of a 'royal yacht' in this billionaire era where there are dozens of alabaster and smoked-glass behemoths roaming the seas, each larger that most counties frigates (and likely more expensive).

That said, i see no reason why it couldn't be an excellent venue for trade and diplomacy, and more than 'wipe-its-face' in terms of the capital and revenue costs.

If that is the case - that it is a net positive on a par with any other equivalent investment - then a decision to proceed is purely thematic:
i.e. does a multi-use Trade and Diplomacy / Disaster Relief and Casualty Receiving / ISR and Emergency Command Post ship project the image of the UK that HMG wants to project?

Arguably, with the Integrated Review and Defence Command Paper, as well as the DIT push for a more seagoing free-trading role, then a new 'royal' yacht is a perfectly acceptable idea.

But i'd like to see HMG evidence their confidence that a seaborne venue for trade and diplomacy is indeed a net positive...?

[Pannonian]

I do question the value of a 'royal yacht' in this billionaire era where there are dozens of alabaster and smoked-glass behemoths roaming the seas, each larger that most counties frigates (and likely more expensive).

That said, i see no reason why it couldn't be an excellent venue for trade and diplomacy, and more than 'wipe-its-face' in terms of the capital and revenue costs.

If that is the case - that it is a net positive on a par with any other equivalent investment - then a decision to proceed is purely thematic:
i.e. does a multi-use Trade and Diplomacy / Disaster Relief and Casualty Receiving / ISR and Emergency Command Post ship project the image of the UK that HMG wants to project?

Arguably, with the Integrated Review and Defence Command Paper, as well as the DIT push for a more seagoing free-trading role, then a new 'royal' yacht is a perfectly acceptable idea.

But i'd like to see HMG evidence their confidence that a seaborne venue for trade and diplomacy is indeed a net positive...?

Are net positive the new key term? The trade deal with Australia is estimated to increase the UK's GDP: by 0.08%, while the loss of existing trade links with the EU is estimated to decrease the UK's GDP by 4%. Do net positives apply in this calculation too?

[rory_20_uk]

Follow up questions to the above. Is the government minister justified in pushing commercial media channels as long as they are re-elected, and the PM does not sack them? Or are there standards that stand regardless of whether or not they are elected? And relating to that, given the format of our democracy. Is the government justified in doing anything they like, as long as they are elected?

The UK does not have a formal constitution, because the argument in the past has been that the electorate will punish any errant government. However, this government has contravened a number of parliamentary customs that served to check past governments, and the PM has been repeatedly shown to be more often lying than telling the truth. But he was re-elected, nonetheless. Does this validate anything the PM does, and his government? Is media popularity the only requirement for any government?

The system of the UK has a a key strength in the ability to quickly change to new circumstances.
The massive flaw is of course tha the system relies in people having something like a working set of ethics. Boris has never been encombered by one of those in either his professional or personal life. He is, to be clear, gutter journalist scum.
The electorate in turn doesn't seem to really care - the Tories loosing to the Lib Dems in a by election apparently had more to do with reforming the planning process as the right to both complain no housing as well as protest any and all developments is key.
As thubgs stand, there are almost no checks and balances. The Courts only enforce the Law (so when the Tories move to remove the powers from the body overseeing politicians no one bat's an eyelid). Remove the law enforcing elections every 5 years? That's fine too. As long as they change the laws rather than breaking then all is fine.
The only theoretical power base is the Monarch. But sadly the House of Windsor prefers visiting charities, holding cream teas and feuding publicly with the ginger Beta and his sociopath of a wife rather than providing any sort of governance on the Politicians.

Te system only reacts to events that loose votes. We have a system where lying at elections is fine - and even truths are vague aims rather than having any legally minding weight. In short, the system is rotten and not far of the system of rotten boroughs but this time the politicians are bought directly by rich backers.