Senate The UK Politics discussion

Populism is so loosely defined though, as the wiki article states it's usually used to belittle ones political opponents, or ideologies that reject or oppose one's own, and few people claim the title of populist for themselves. I like the google dictionary definition, which is what I guess I was also addressing. At it's heart, populism is the belief that the people should hold power over their representatives (which we do in elections and selections/deselections).

The author of that article could have used the same arguments to trash the concept of elections, which I pointed out. The Russian communists called their system democratic, as did Castro, quite famously, and by the dictionary they weren't lying as they were ruling on behalf of the people. Lots of dictatorships over the world claim to be representative democracies working for the people's best interests, and use the same arguments to support that narrative, and there's even a death cult religion or two which support the idea that peasants should let wise scholars decide things in their best interests.

 

Court ruling says that (party leader) Jezza can go on the ballot without needing a required number of nominations from Parliamentary colleagues;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36909862

This always looked like the probable outcome to me. Labour's rules are quite clear about this.

Jezza is home and dry in terms of being re-elected Lab leader.

 

If a country has "democratic" in its name, it probably isn't.

 

Hard to say who 'won' this one, Corbyn looked tired and spoke softly and decisively, while Smith appeared dynamic but floundered. The seated audience seemed evenly divided, all but a few can be seen applauding both debaters at different times. Smith received the most aghast responses from the crowd (especially regarding party unity, immigration, and Trident), but that will surely be characterised as jeers from the Corbyn mob by the media and the New Labour spin doctors.

 

Can someone wake me up when Corbyn and Smith have buried themselves and the party?

Then, with Labour's demise, a new political opposition can arise that's more effective.

A Liberal resurrection? Well, stranger things have already happened so.....

 

Now you sound like a republican talking about Trump.

 

Why is Farage speaking with Trump at a rally in Mississippi (great optics having a secessionist speak in the former confederacy), while Trump is speaking about how racist Hillary apparently is and how she doesn't care about Hispanics and African-Americans as much as Trump? What's the point of Farage coming here to speak alongside Trump, especially under these circumstances? I know he's not officially in UK government anymore, but still, it's so odd. Is he just trying to help the Brexit = UK's Trump, Trump = US's Brexit narrative? If so, why? How does that help either of them? I'm just baffled.

 

Right wing populists appealing to the lowest common denominator can back slap one another. How does this elude you Ghost?

 

Farage'll be getting paid.

 

The Times are reporting Jezza is about to be re-elected with a bigger mandate than the one he received from Labour members last year!

 

Did you all see Ed Balls on Strictly Com Dancing?

It was funny.

I guess he has a lot of time on his hands now he isn't an MP.
He was also on the Great British Bake Off.

 

No, I have taste.

 

Didn't see it but clearly Ed Balls is attempting to "rehabilitate" his image/career. Getting ready to have a leadership run after Jezza is defeated in 2020?

 

Keith Vaz

Champion of family values. Anti loads of stuff.

Caught with male prostitutes and drugs.



Hahaha haha.

 

Not that it'll take him out, he's the Clay Davis of Parliament.

 

Strong rumours that he'll step down

 

Champion of family values such as hypocrisy/duplicity, nepotism, corruption, fraud, wasting police time, bullying/intimidation... Seriously, this is nothing like the Tory sleaze scandals, this guy had no reputation as any sort of upstanding community member.

He was chair of a committee looking into crime and drugs, so it almost seems reasonable that he should consult with sex workers and discuss their use of drugs. Of course it looks dodgy, but the guy is dodgy.

Also where are you getting the drugs info? Nothing about that on the BBC except that he supposedly talked to two sex workers about poppers.

 

Oh, agree. Nothing like the Tory issues.

As far as I know "Poppers" falls under the category of drugs. Mild granted but still drugs.

I'll be honest in the fact that I skim read the article as I was at my in laws but everything is pointing to it not being completely above board which considering the fact that Vaz is decidedly dodgy anyway doesn't surprise me.



Either way it sill amuses me.

 

Keith Vaz has always been one of those odd "characters"/"hangers on" that seems to be attracted by politics.

If there's a "breaking" news story or TV news camera crew around, you can normally expect Keith Vaz to be on the scene fairly quickly, giving the world his two-pennith and generally attention-seeking...

I imagine that for once he'll be keeping his head down this time though!

 

I saw a couple of newspaper reports that said he is to step down but BBC News website says he will tell the committee his plans on Tuesday. Can't really stand the guy so no great loss if he does.

 

Yeah, leaving the world no poorer, Vaz steps down as chair of the home affairs select committee.

In my opinion these recent indiscretions pale in comparison to all his nepotistic shenanigans and string-pulling on behalf of billionaires but hey. I guess that's politics. If you're caught up to your arms in massive corruption everything's good but if you're caught using the proceeds to hire a couple of prostitutes it's game over.

 

Only politician I've heard speak out in favor of him (on the BBC London radio news) was Ken Livingston. Another waste of space..

 

What was it he said that you disagreed with?

 

Not so much what he said - I just can't stand the man. Every time he opens his mouth it sounds like he's trying to con the listener - much the same as Vaz.

 

Do you feel other politicians don't try to con the listener? Or is it that you have more respect for the politicians who are more convincing liars? Help me out here.

I don't much like Ken's Estuary accent, or his willingness to discuss Hitler, but his politics are generally fairly sound. There's not much to disagree with regarding his comments on Vaz's sexual conduct. What I thought was stupid was to suggest that Vaz had only made 'one or two mistakes'.

If Vaz paid for sex, why should that disqualify him from investigating prostitution laws? Can you think of any other services or goods that, if paid for by a politician, would bar that politician from a committee investigation into said goods or services? Is there a conflict of interests if you pay for sex?