Presumably you are aware that the government has a level of discretion in what it does with your (it's?) money? Sort of underpins the concept of a party political system.
Theresa May's Conservatives
Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
Tim Farron's Liberal Democrats
Paul Nuttall's UKIP
2 people's Greens
Nicholas Durgeon's Scottish Nationalists
Satan's Sinn Fein
Dr Ian Paisley's DUP
Some other bunch of nonces
I'm foreign, but I wish I were an Englishman
Presumably you are aware that the government has a level of discretion in what it does with your (it's?) money? Sort of underpins the concept of a party political system.
No, talk us through it. Why would it be illegal?Originally Posted by Reg
Why would it not be legal? Politics is, at its heart, all about apportioning funding to things, so why would one party saying 'we'll back you if we can have the funding we want' be illegal?
Because any agreement should be based on mutual feelings on how the country should be run, not a "compromise" (bribe).
If you can't buy votes you shouldn't be able to buy a government.
Cue GS calling me naive.
They kind of do but they'd be stupid not to use it as an opportunity for their own country. That's the problem with A UNION. The Lib Dems couldn't do the same because they are the same country as Tories.
Also we're due £2.9 billion now. Fuck the English.
You can buy votes, you just do it with commitments to fund the things that a particular group cares about.
I'll do that for him. You seem to be naive to a ridiculous degree on this.
Again avoiding the question of why morally it should be legal. And I'm not naive about the legality of it, I'm opposed to the morality of it being legal. And I could do without any forthcoming patronising/dickhead comments from you or GS.
In the grand scheme of things what is an extra £1bn over however many years?
Jeremy was probably going to bung them more for free tuition alone.
Stick to the football, naive nelly.
Parliament can make anything legal or illegal if it chooses, so even if we passed a law to ban it (lol) then Theresa May could simply pass a law to unban it and then shove it through the Lords using the Parliament Acts.
Because, again, politics is essentially about apportioning funding to things. It's legal for them to offer a funding package in exchange for their votes on whatever issues come up going forward because it's legal for precisely the same thing to occur when a party makes promises to the public. 'Vote for us, students, we'll make your tuition free and triple the bursary' wouldn't be subject to questions of legality, when it could be viewed as bribery just as easily as the thing you're moaning about.
There's no question to answer regarding why 'morally it should be legal' because morality and legality are different. It's like saying 'why, legally speaking, should you be allowed to cheat at Monopoly?'
Really interesting opinion here actually John.
I suppose it is relatively new insofar as it is a coalition with a party whose interest are very specific. With the Liberal Democrats the BRIBES were spread out everywhere, because they were a national party, rather than just getting spent on new flutes and orange paint.
I'd equate it more to "Why is it legal for some bloke running for MP of Chichester to slip a £100 cheque through a voter's letterbox?" (If this were the case.)
And I'm asking why it should be legal. Not asking why it's realistic that it can be so. Not much point in this going further though (but thanks for posting in a friendly tone).
That'd be a false equivocation. In your example money is going directly into the personal account of the person whose vote is being sought. That example would actually be far closer to the 'vote for us, students' line I've offered above. What's happening with the Tories and the DUP is essentially political capital being exchanged. The Tories get DUP support going forward, and in exchange the DUP very publicly get some funding for things which are likely to buy them votes when the next election rolls around.
If we made giving peoples money away in Government illegal, Tony Blair would be serving a life sentence. Something we can all agree with. I'm with Reg.
The Tories 'gave away money' on the Lib Dems' silly AV referendum in 2010, among other things, I'm not sure how it's any different.
The German Greens throw their hat in with the socialists there every time (and it is every time thanks to PR), they must get loads of nice goodies in return.
Giving people's money away is the entire point of government.
It wasn't a direct comparison, I just meant why either should be legal. Basically, it just doesn't sit right with me that a government can be formed because of anything other than the moral views (disregarding any possible benefit) of the parties involved. I get that my position may be unrealistic / "aren't you in cuckoo land!".
And Jim, I'm not arguing sides. As phonics said earlier in the thread, it's not football.
Being on the wrong side of something for spurious reasons is your default position at this point.
Precisely, any party will do it and if in six months' time we've had another election and Corbyn has got himself up to 300 odd seats and more than the Tories, he will be doing just the same sorts of deals in terms of chucking money at other parties for their support. You need a majority in parliament or you just can't do anything.
This is the current Danish parliament:
So it's 179 seats and the biggest party is 34, how do they get anything done. By 'bribing' each other until a larger group is formed.
Just for the record, AV would make a majority in the UK more likely, rather than less.
PR is a different question altogether, of course. That's where you start to get more minority governments.
Did this 1bn come from the magic money tree?
No it came from the fully costed Tory manifesto.
It's the cost of having a strong and stable government in the national interest.
Magic tree.
To be fair, one billion to secure strong and stable government in the national interest is a much better deal for everyone than transferring £11bn from poor people to buy off the middle class and youth votes.
It appears that protests against her may have had some effect.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...many?CMP=fb_gu
I'm going to say it because no-one else will, I'm clearly the leader of political progress in this world.
In a measured intervention, the BMA have passed a motion which accuses the Tories of 'consciously' creating a 'crisis' in the NHS so they can use it as a pretext to privatise the entire thing.
Lol.
Sounds about right to me.
Also known as the strategy of starve the beast in a US context. Lewis has basically advocated it.
Increasing spending year after year doesn't seem like the ideal approach to it though.
Depends where you allocate the spending really.
Socialism, we want less
SELL THE FAILING NHS
I'll start a marching club with Toby Young.
Possibly not, but I believe that the argument is that spending isn't actually increasing per head of population; and with that population getting older and treatments getting more high-tech and expensive, it can't keep up. Or maybe it's just being mismanaged. Or both.
Probably both, but keeping up with mooching old people will finish it off.
He'd invite 14 people and only 3 would turn up.
Does anyone remember a year in their lifetime that the NHS wasn't on the brink of collapse?
Surprised there's not been more amusement on here at the SNP getting lolled out of town: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...nce-referendum
There's no appetite for it because they want to be part of Papa Jez's glorious revolution now.
The Union is on a roll.
There's no amusement because, alas, Krankie is only proposing to slightly delay the process rather than bin it off. She'll still try and shove another one through before 2021, because the SNP are so terrible at governing they'll probably lose their pro-independence majority at Holyrood and her dream of getting her face plastered over a Scottish banknote will have passed.
Then again, if the SNP don't stand for independence then they might as well fold themselves into Labour and call it a day.
They'll rebrand as SKIP and rebrand again because they can't find something for the K to stand for. Kilt. Okay, it's back on.
SIP still works.
'Build the case'
What the juddering fuck have they been trying to do for the past year or so?
That paper will be shut within a year, which sadly will mean no more 'Scots' pull quotes to lol at for a while.
I'm convinced he's a troll.
Does he write his entire column like that?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
