Re: The UK General Election Thread

[Merlin]

:Isn't transportation an option?:

Aye, perhaps.
But we wouldn't want to expose our crims to the 21st century antipodeans ... they'd be down there to reform themselves not get worse!

[Shoeshine]

:Isn't transportation an option?:

Aye, perhaps.
But we wouldn't want to expose our crims to the 21st century antipodeans ... they'd be down there to reform themselves not get worse!

Besides, their bloody kids decide to come back - NOT the idea.

[Allan D]

Interesting point I've just come across is that the forthcoming General Election will be only the third since 1900 (when the UK started to have a 3- or 2 1/2-party system) when all three main party leaders (Brown, Cameron, Clegg) will be different to those (Blair, Howard, Kennedy) who fought the last election in 2005.

The only two previous occasions when this has happened were 1959 (Macmillan, Gaitskell and Grimond compared to Eden, Attlee and Clement Davies in 1955) and 1979 (Callaghan, Thatcher and Steel compared to Wilson, Heath and Thorpe in October 1974).

[Merlin]

However, I have no faith in the Tories at all.

This is based on what exactly?
No manifesto published as yet ... but never mind .... who's counting!

Presumably your lack of faith is either based on hearsay or else from cock-ups of 12 years ago!

Like I said - a lot of folk writing off the Tories before they get elected!
Very amusing

[Brass Monkey]

Some very sensible stuff though, a commitment to cut spending (like it or not, we have to do it), scrapping of the NIR database and ID cards themselves, scrapping of the NHS database, abiding by the ECHR ruling on DNA retention, a commitment not to reduce defence spending but to slash the number of civil servants, scrapping of quangos.....pretty good start really.

Uhhh, hmmm, well....

Yep to the NIR database and ID cards
The NHS database and DNA retention are illegal anyway so were going to be disbanded anyway, no government was going to continue with these.
The quangos have been in place for as long as I can remember, so you're saying every single one of those is just not useful? Yeah, reet.
Getting rid of civil servants is a noble thing however, for the most part they do f*ck all for their money.

I'm with you on two of them. The others are just dressed up as a big thing that Cameron is going to do. What a knight in shining white armour he is. Personally reckon he should f*ck the suit off, grow a beard and wear a white robe.

[Brass Monkey]

However, I have no faith in the Tories at all.

This is based on what exactly?
No manifesto published as yet ... but never mind .... who's counting!

Presumably your lack of faith is either based on hearsay or else from cock-ups of 12 years ago!

Like I said - a lot of folk writing off the Tories before they get elected!
Very amusing

No, you're completely correct. Have no basis other than the selfish way they ran the country for 18 years.

[Shoeshine]

Some very sensible stuff though, a commitment to cut spending (like it or not, we have to do it), scrapping of the NIR database and ID cards themselves, scrapping of the NHS database, abiding by the ECHR ruling on DNA retention, a commitment not to reduce defence spending but to slash the number of civil servants, scrapping of quangos.....pretty good start really.

Uhhh, hmmm, well....

Yep to the NIR database and ID cards
The NHS database and DNA retention are illegal anyway so were going to be disbanded anyway, no government was going to continue with these.
The quangos have been in place for as long as I can remember, so you're saying every single one of those is just not useful? Yeah, reet.
Getting rid of civil servants is a noble thing however, for the most part they do f*ck all for their money.

I'm with you on two of them. The others are just dressed up as a big thing that Cameron is going to do. What a knight in shining white armour he is. Personally reckon he should f*ck the suit off, grow a beard and wear a white robe.

The NHS database wasn't illegal and was going ahead. Labour have announced a scaling back of it anyway, but that's because it doesn't bloody work and is costing a fortune, not because they saw a problem with it.

On DNA retention the government refused to abide by the judgement of the court and announced a plan to keep them on file for 5 years, irrespective of whether a person was charged or not. This would doubtless have fallen foul of the court as well, but it'd have taken 5 years to get to judgement. In essence, they ignored the ruling because they're illiberal tossers who view the whole population as suspects.

The expansion in the level of quangos has been extraordinary. They are unaccountable and undemocratic. You will always have some, but the Tories have stated that they need to be made accountable to the public (I await what their ideas are for doing this) and reduced in number. That's a good thing.

As far as the civil servants in the MoD are concerned, we have more of them than we do soldiers. Sack three quarters of them and divert the money into the army, navy and air force.

[Merlin]

No, you're completely correct. Have no basis other than the selfish way they ran the country for 18 years.

As with 30 years ago, the Tories inherited a bankrupt country (in hock to the IMF and World Bank for billions back then) from the Wilson/Callaghan eras ... as they will, yet again, come May from the Blair/Brown era!
Basically, whenever Labour leave government, the country's f**ked economically ... and the Tories left to pick up the pieces!

Other than Major's filth 5 years and the stupid "milk issue" which amusingly keeps rearing its silly head, I'd suggest that the Tories have done rather well given the circumstances, wouldn't you?

[Shoeshine]

As with 30 years ago, the Tories inherited a bankrupt country (in hock to the IMF and World Bank for billions back then) from the Wilson/Callaghan eras ... as they will, yet again, come May from the Blair/Brown era!

That's a slightly party-political analysis though. Firstly, the Wilson/Callaghan government inherited that nightmare from Heath. Secondly, Britain didn't actually need the IMF loan at all - it was the Treasury stuffing up their calculations that made things seem vastly worse than they actually were. Labour were somewhat shafted on both counts.

[Brass Monkey]

The NHS database wasn't illegal and was going ahead. Labour have announced a scaling back of it anyway, but that's because it doesn't bloody work and is costing a fortune, not because they saw a problem with it.

On DNA retention the government refused to abide by the judgement of the court and announced a plan to keep them on file for 5 years, irrespective of whether a person was charged or not. This would doubtless have fallen foul of the court as well, but it'd have taken 5 years to get to judgement. In essence, they ignored the ruling because they're illiberal tossers who view the whole population as suspects.

Uh, sorry, no. It is illegal under the data protection act of 1998. There would have been sancions put in place within two or so years to discontinue it on this basis. The same with the DNA database. Read up on it a bit. Get back to me.

The expansion in the level of quangos has been extraordinary. They are unaccountable and undemocratic. You will always have some, but the Tories have stated that they need to be made accountable to the public (I await what their ideas are for doing this) and reduced in number. That's a good thing.

OK. I'm intrigued about this and until I hear their views I will not denigrate their apparent 'championism'.

As far as the civil servants in the MoD are concerned, we have more of them than we do soldiers. Sack three quarters of them and divert the money into the army, navy and air force.

That's fair do's.

[Brass Monkey]

Other than Major's filth 5 years and the stupid "milk issue" which amusingly keeps rearing its silly head, I'd suggest that the Tories have done rather well given the circumstances, wouldn't you?

I'm not going to get into this with you. You are always from your own perspective. They did you alright - I know, I know.

[Merlin]

As with 30 years ago, the Tories inherited a bankrupt country (in hock to the IMF and World Bank for billions back then) from the Wilson/Callaghan eras ... as they will, yet again, come May from the Blair/Brown era!

That's a slightly party-political analysis though. Firstly, the Wilson/Callaghan government inherited that nightmare from Heath. Secondly, Britain didn't actually need the IMF loan at all - it was the Treasury stuffing up their calculations that made things seem vastly worse than they actually were. Labour were somewhat shafted on both counts.

And who was it that "ran" the treasury?

A claim currently being extolled by the Jock Brown himself !
I wonder where the buck finally stops with this lot?

[Shoeshine]

The NHS database wasn't illegal and was going ahead. Labour have announced a scaling back of it anyway, but that's because it doesn't bloody work and is costing a fortune, not because they saw a problem with it.

On DNA retention the government refused to abide by the judgement of the court and announced a plan to keep them on file for 5 years, irrespective of whether a person was charged or not. This would doubtless have fallen foul of the court as well, but it'd have taken 5 years to get to judgement. In essence, they ignored the ruling because they're illiberal tossers who view the whole population as suspects.

Uh, sorry, no. It is illegal under the data protection act of 1998. There would have been sancions put in place within two or so years to discontinue it on this basis. The same with the DNA database. Read up on it a bit. Get back to me.

Er, nope, because the legislation for the NHS database specifically allowed the sharing of data. If you really believe that the entire process was going to be sidelined by it contradicting an earlier Act, you're rather naiive. Same applies to the NIR, which also rides roughshod through the Data Protection Act. There was no prospect whatsoever of it failing on that basis, not least because the government simply change the law.

[Merlin]

Other than Major's filth 5 years and the stupid "milk issue" which amusingly keeps rearing its silly head, I'd suggest that the Tories have done rather well given the circumstances, wouldn't you?

I'm not going to get into this with you. You are always from your own perspective. They did you alright - I know, I know.

Nothing to do with it BM - I am the first to admit that Major was a cock - an absolute cock - who couldn't control his own party members, as a result of which, he and the then useless bunch of pr*cks lost all purpose and focus on dealing with the issues, concentrating more on trying to save their own skins.

Like I said - filth ... and this current crop of Socialists are following exactly the same path to their doom.

[Shoeshine]

As with 30 years ago, the Tories inherited a bankrupt country (in hock to the IMF and World Bank for billions back then) from the Wilson/Callaghan eras ... as they will, yet again, come May from the Blair/Brown era!

That's a slightly party-political analysis though. Firstly, the Wilson/Callaghan government inherited that nightmare from Heath. Secondly, Britain didn't actually need the IMF loan at all - it was the Treasury stuffing up their calculations that made things seem vastly worse than they actually were. Labour were somewhat shafted on both counts.

And who was it that "ran" the treasury?

A claim currently being extolled by the Jock Brown himself !
I wonder where the buck finally stops with this lot?

The civil service of course. In reality, although it's easy for the media to point and shout, the simple truth is that politicians are always going to be dependant on Treasury figures - and these are often wrong. In point of fact, the UK Treasury is one of the best and most accurate in the world (one reason why EU figures look flatteringly good at the moment when they're actually in the cack - wait six months for the truth to come out), but on this occasion they ballsed up. Unfortunate timing.

[Brass Monkey]

Er, nope, because the legislation for the NHS database specifically allowed the sharing of data. If you really believe that the entire process was going to be sidelined by it contradicting an earlier Act, you're rather naiive. Same applies to the NIR, which also rides roughshod through the Data Protection Act. There was no prospect whatsoever of it failing on that basis, not least because the government simply change the law.

What? Load. Of. Bullshit. It doesn't matter what the hell the government did - under EU legislation it is illegal and would've got culled once a judgement was made, after shitloads of litigation. Check up on it, as I say.

[Guest]

If the Tories were returned with a ehopping majority - just watch the Thatcherite knuckle-draggers emerge from under whatever rock they've been hiding under since 1997.

I wonder will they reabsorb the BNP, as the Tories did to the old NF in 1979?

That is a pretty ridiculous thing to say Rob. Ridiculous and without a shred of truth in it.

Perhaps I used ambiguous language. I do not suggest that the 1979 Conservative Party formed an alliance with the NF. Rather, the existence of a New Right Govt meant that the NF became redundant as a political entity. There was a party in power with an anti-union, anti-Commie, apartheid-apologetic, anti-immigration message, so the NF voters switched to Tory.

[Shoeshine]

Er, nope, because the legislation for the NHS database specifically allowed the sharing of data. If you really believe that the entire process was going to be sidelined by it contradicting an earlier Act, you're rather naiive. Same applies to the NIR, which also rides roughshod through the Data Protection Act. There was no prospect whatsoever of it failing on that basis, not least because the government simply change the law.

What? Load. Of. Bullshit. It doesn't matter what the hell the government did - under EU legislation it is illegal and would've got culled once a judgement was made, after shitloads of litigation. Check up on it, as I say.

The NHS database is connected to an EU project for the sharing of records and inter-operability. You have far too much faith in the EU I'm afraid. Some reading for you:

http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/electronic-health-records/article-168688

http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/report-shows-good-progress-health/article-163098

http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/interoperability-ict-systems/article-161077

http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/health-hampered-interoperability-glitches/article-185309

[Brass Monkey]

The NHS database is connected to an EU project for the sharing of records and inter-operability. You have far too much faith in the EU I'm afraid. Some reading for you:

http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/electronic-health-records/article-168688

http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/report-shows-good-progress-health/article-163098

http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/interoperability-ict-systems/article-161077

http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/health-hampered-interoperability-glitches/article-185309

Without trawling the internet, the European Court has already initialised an injunction on the development of the NHS database due to a precident being set in Finland after a similar database f*cked over some nurse. It would have eventually obliterated any further access to our NHS database.

[Shoeshine]

The NHS database is connected to an EU project for the sharing of records and inter-operability. You have far too much faith in the EU I'm afraid. Some reading for you:

http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/electronic-health-records/article-168688

http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/report-shows-good-progress-health/article-163098

http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/interoperability-ict-systems/article-161077

http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/health-hampered-interoperability-glitches/article-185309

Without trawling the internet, the European Court has already initialised an injunction on the development of the NHS database due to a precident being set in Finland after a similar database f*cked over some nurse. It would have eventually obliterated any further access to our NHS database.

The ECHR is not part of the EU.

[Brass Monkey]

The ECHR is not part of the EU.

Righto. And here's me thinking it was an EU initialised convention that all members are bound to ratify....

[Shoeshine]

The ECHR is not part of the EU.

Righto. And here's me thinking it was an EU initialised convention that all members are bound to ratify....

The ECHR is not part of the EU. The European Court of Justice is. Look it up and (to use your words) come back to me when you've done it.

[Brass Monkey]

The ECHR is not part of the EU. The European Court of Justice is. Look it up and (to use your words) come back to me when you've done it.

What a pithy load of semantics.

The European Court of Justice cites case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and therefore ECHR as part of the EU's legal system. The EU treaty states that it should adhere to the judicial precedents of the ECHR. Ridiculously moving away from the point. Furthermore, AFAIK, there is going to be a change soon whereby there is no grey area at all.

[Shoeshine]

The ECHR is not part of the EU. The European Court of Justice is. Look it up and (to use your words) come back to me when you've done it.

What a pithy load of semantics.

The European Court of Justice cites case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and therefore ECHR as part of the EU's legal system. The EU treaty states that it should adhere to the judicial precedents of the ECHR. Ridiculously moving away from the point. Furthermore, AFAIK, there is going to be a change soon whereby there is no grey area at all.

It's semantics that one court is part of the EU structure and one isn't? There's no requirement whatsoever for any EU member to be a signatory to the ECHR, they can choose if they prefer to incorporate the Declaration of Human Rights all into their domestic legal structure instead. The European Court of Justice on the other hand is a fundamental part of EU membership and cannot be circumscribed. Really, if you are going to tell people to go and do some research you should be aware of these things, they're quite basic.

[Brass Monkey]

It's semantics that one court is part of the EU structure and one isn't? There's no requirement whatsoever for any EU member to be a signatory to the ECHR, they can choose if they prefer to incorporate the Declaration of Human Rights all into their domestic legal structure instead. The European Court of Justice on the other hand is a fundamental part of EU membership and cannot be circumscribed. Really, if you are going to tell people to go and do some research you should be aware of these things, they're quite basic.

Well, here's my research, put more succinctly than my good self, but nevertheless it's what I said:

"Furthermore, when the Treaty of Lisbon takes effect on 1 December 2009, the EU is expected to sign the Convention. This would make the Court of Justice bound by the judicial precedents of the Court of Human Rights and thus be subject to its human rights law; this would resolve the issue of conflicting case law."

Woop.

[Sponsored content]