General UK politics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
I am all for the monarchy. Rather have a nice but dim monarch in place than some autocrat like Putin or some communist people's republic. Keeps out the fascists, too, as technically the Queen 'appoints' the Prime Minister once elected. Sure the 'men in grey' see to all this, but technically she could stop an incoming totalitarian regime in its tracks.
Click to expand...

Bolded - false equivalence.

Italicised - the Windsors (or whatever they change their name to at a point Windsor becomes inconvenient) and their relatives have a recent history which very much says otherwise.
 
GlennB said:
This presumes that somebody needs to be at least the nominal head of state. Why?

…snip…
Click to expand...

I’d say we have two at the moment, one is the monarch the other the PM.

For all practical purposes we could reduce that to just the PM.
 
Vixen said:
Utter nonsense. The Generals, Admirals, Wing Commanders of the Armed Forces have all pledged allegiance to the Crown. Should there be some kind of peasants' uprising or a Dominic Cummings' far right attempt at a coup d'état, whose side do you think the armed forces will be on. They are unelected and there is nothing you can do about it, other than pass a Bill through Parliament to abolish the monarchy, which I doubt the Queen's lawyers will advise her to sign off.
Click to expand...

Make your mind up about the type of authoritarian government coming into power that you think the monarch could resist.
 
“ Extra £3.5bn promised by government to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise buildings over 18 metres "at no cost to residents"”

This is one I’m in two minds about. The residents of these unsafe high-rise buildings are not at fault - they have been swindled and from the evidence from the inquiry so far it looks like the construction industry has quite deliberately sought ways to use cheaper cladding regardless of safety.

I would say the government should step in with the cash to allow the repairs to be be made as quickly as possible but at the same time it needs to put in place legislation that will slap stiff levies onto the industry to quickly get back the cash.

We simply can’t keep letting companies make so-called profits yet the public purse has to pick up the expense of those profits.
 
Darat said:
“ Extra £3.5bn promised by government to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise buildings over 18 metres "at no cost to residents"”

This is one I’m in two minds about. The residents of these unsafe high-rise buildings are not at fault - they have been swindled and from the evidence from the inquiry so far it looks like the construction industry has quite deliberately sought ways to use cheaper cladding regardless of safety.

I would say the government should step in with the cash to allow the repairs to be be made as quickly as possible but at the same time it needs to put in place legislation that will slap stiff levies onto the industry to quickly get back the cash.

We simply can’t keep letting companies make so-called profits yet the public purse has to pick up the expense of those profits.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
If parliament presented a bill and the queen refused to sign what then?
Do you think it would just not be implemented?
Click to expand...


Let's have President Gove or President Swivel-Eyed Loony instead of the devil we know.


Yes, I fully believe the Establishment (which is two-thirds NOT elected, such as the Armed Forces) do have a contingency plan ready should some upstart from the House of Commons decide they want to get rid of the monarchy.
 
Darat said:
Make your mind up about the type of authoritarian government coming into power that you think the monarch could resist.
Click to expand...

Having a monarchy in effect upholds the parliamentarian system. Sure Johnson and Cummings tried to dismantle it with some success - and much opposition from the High Court/Supreme Court judges (also unelected establishment - see how many judges are Barons and Earls) - but another three years and the country can democratically vote them out!


Look what came after the Romanovs: at first a benign Bolshevik Workers Revolutionary Party which within seven years evolved into Stalin's iron fist horror show - oppressive central committee communism lasting all the way up until 1996.
 
Darat said:
“ Extra £3.5bn promised by government to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise buildings over 18 metres "at no cost to residents"”

This is one I’m in two minds about. The residents of these unsafe high-rise buildings are not at fault - they have been swindled and from the evidence from the inquiry so far it looks like the construction industry has quite deliberately sought ways to use cheaper cladding regardless of safety.

I would say the government should step in with the cash to allow the repairs to be be made as quickly as possible but at the same time it needs to put in place legislation that will slap stiff levies onto the industry to quickly get back the cash.

We simply can’t keep letting companies make so-called profits yet the public purse has to pick up the expense of those profits.
Click to expand...

It is shocking to realise that three years later after Grenfell, hundreds of thousands of people are still living in technically dangerous buildings. People who lived in two particular tower blocks in Swiss Cottage LB Camden, had much tv coverage of having to move out immediately in the aftermath to temporary accommodation (such as the ramshackle Premier Inn in Euston Road and similar budget dives). Now they are back again in the same dodgy buildings with Camden claiming the hazard was the fire doors which has now been fixed.

On 23 June, Camden Council stated that 800 homes in the five tower blocks were being evacuated in order to undertake "urgent fire safety works".[8] On 24 June, 83 people were refusing to leave, and council leader Georgia Gould said this would "become a matter for the fire services".[9]

By 31 July, the decision had been reversed and residents were ordered to vacate the temporary accommodation and move back into the flats. An issue with fire doors had been found and rectified. No information had been given on the safety of the cladding. A resident, Letitia Esposito, challenged the decision in the high court. As of July 2017 the judgement was pending.[10]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcots_Estate

Swiss Cottage is quite a well-heeled area, similar to Kensington, where Grenfell happened. Once again we see the rich living side by side the poor in knowingly dangerous conditions because they have nowhere else to go.
 
Darat said:
“ Extra £3.5bn promised by government to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise buildings over 18 metres "at no cost to residents"”

This is one I’m in two minds about. The residents of these unsafe high-rise buildings are not at fault - they have been swindled and from the evidence from the inquiry so far it looks like the construction industry has quite deliberately sought ways to use cheaper cladding regardless of safety.

I would say the government should step in with the cash to allow the repairs to be be made as quickly as possible but at the same time it needs to put in place legislation that will slap stiff levies onto the industry to quickly get back the cash.

We simply can’t keep letting companies make so-called profits yet the public purse has to pick up the expense of those profits.
Click to expand...


It's the Tory way.

How else are they going to get public money to their friends?
 
Vixen said:
Let's have President Gove or President Swivel-Eyed Loony instead of the devil we know.


Yes, I fully believe the Establishment (which is two-thirds NOT elected, such as the Armed Forces) do have a contingency plan ready should some upstart from the House of Commons decide they want to get rid of the monarchy.
Click to expand...

You mean a military coup?

You are assuming the squaddies would go along with Colonel Blimp telling them to overthrow the government.
 
Darat said:
“ Extra £3.5bn promised by government to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise buildings over 18 metres "at no cost to residents"”

This is one I’m in two minds about. The residents of these unsafe high-rise buildings are not at fault - they have been swindled and from the evidence from the inquiry so far it looks like the construction industry has quite deliberately sought ways to use cheaper cladding regardless of safety.

I would say the government should step in with the cash to allow the repairs to be be made as quickly as possible but at the same time it needs to put in place legislation that will slap stiff levies onto the industry to quickly get back the cash.

We simply can’t keep letting companies make so-called profits yet the public purse has to pick up the expense of those profits.
Click to expand...


I'd like to know how many companies that knowingly profited by producing 'fire resistant' cladding that wasn't or cutting corners on the installations will profit again doing remedial work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom