Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
How anyone who lives in the modern world could ever vote for someone who advocated this is just beyond me...
Absolutely crazy if so.
Also fuck you Peter Bone!
I did quite like the one about abolishing the office of Deputy Prime Minister given that a) it's childishly spiteful and b) totally meaningless as Deputy Prime Minister isn't an office that exists constitutionally (Nick Clegg's powers and cabinet position derive from the fact that he is also Lord President of the Council).
but Margaret Thatcher Day?
Get. To. Fuck.
I can imagine it being like the premise of that new film The Purge
the one way that premise could make sense
i love the image of them all in a room together on a four day black coffee and olive bender, laying down on tables so their mismatched father's day socks show and shouting any vaguely right wing thing that comes to their head.
"hey maaaaan, how about margaret thatcher day? and pizza, we should get pizza"
"yes and ho!"
There ain't no FLAC in the Union Jack
Britannia rules the wavs
They'd probably consider it dangerously foreign.
I imagined them like a bunch of exited children needlessly queuing for the new Harry Potter book, giggling as their oh so clever plan to game the system, unable to think far enough ahead to see how futile it what be and how they'd just end up looking like a right bunch of pillocks. At least the excited children get a Harry Potter book for their troubles, this lot just have to sit through an interminably dull meeting where nobody comes to listen to their cack-brained ideas and if they do it's probably someone from their own party come in to tell them to stop making the rest of us look bad.
And then when a civil servant tries to explain to them in the cold light of day why they're a bad idea they're like nah mate nah this'll get bare votes
but given that this group is essentially calling the shots within the Tory party, it would be very worrying if they somehow managed to secure a working majority at the next general election.
They really are a scary bunch.
In the article, the only MP I can see mentioned who is from the 2010 intake is Nuttall.
Although the report was written by five MPs, there's a larger group of them, who have been instrumental in trying to unite the older right-wing factions in the Tory party (eg No Turning Back group etc). From what I've read, this alternative Queen's Speech has come about because of their organisation, even if the named MPs in the report are more senior.
But if I were a Labour supporter I'd be concerned that this lot appear to be a far more effective and prominent opposition to the govt. than the actual opposition.
despite it being a coalition with the supposedly more centrist LibDems, is pursuing policies that are a long way to the right of what the Conservative party put in their manifesto, and to the right of what the front bench and strategists wanted, it's pretty clear that either they've got a power that exceeds any mandate delivered at the ballot box, or that this was the intention of Cameron et al after all: campaign on the centre-right, govern as Thatcherite.
Thankfully, the polling, especially that by Ashcroft, shows that this approach will not deliver a majority.
your statement that they are calling the shots is plain untrue. If they were, they wouldn't need to do this.
If it wasn't for these guys there wouldn't have been the privatisation of the NHS, the abandonment of the 'greenest government in history,' third runway at Heathrow, or any of the other manifesto and coalition agreement commitments that have been abandoned since the election.
I must've missed that one.
But I reckon that particular decision will be left until after the next election.
It's already being planned for, and is a done deal in terms of long-term strategy.
Given all the economic arguments it is probably inevitable. And far cheaper than the Boris Island plan (which as well as being expensive would screw up all the parts of the UK outside the South East of England as it would place them at an even greater competitive disadvantage than they suffer now due to increased travelling time compared to Heathrow).
But I can entirely understand why none of the parties would wish to make a decision until after 2015.
I remember seeing an interview with Jonathan Powell where he was mocking the fact that when Labour got in in 1997 the Civil Service had worked up a series of proposals for implementing the party's election manifesto on the assumption that that was what they planned to do.
All parties are guilty of this, though. Look at the last election: none of the parties spelt out how they planned to deal with the deficit. It was like ringing up a company for an insurance quote to be told that they would explain what was covered and what the charges were once you'd taken out the policy.
this is clearly the list he was planning to post to Santa this year.
just sneak 'em in whilst upping the oil tax or the world cup's on or summat. no one would notice.
here to steal YOUR marrow
- it's above the first image
- it's a different font that the main story
- it's a different size from the main story
- the norm is that the strapline is a summary of the story, not the start of the narrative.
nah, the cranks and wankers of the Tory Party are the Tory Party
then when I've asked if they'd voted, they've said no, is frankly ridiculous.
Exercise your vote, innit. It's the one time in five years we (the people) have any power.
fuck off you absolute bellend
The idea that people only have power when voting is the sort of abysmal subservient mindset politicians would like us to have. Puppet on the left, puppet on the right? Choice is yours...
is the circumstances.
the sentiment of frustrated rejection seems quite apposite in this case
if you can't deal with it then I'm sorry
was fair language in any way.
so no I'm not going to vote for them
When making comparitively small changes to the NHS, benefits, etc. is met with such resistance and general ballsing up of the details?
They want to bring back national service!
nail some sense into em!
definitely a debate to be had around forced National Service!
I don't think a short stint of military training would have done me any harm. Quite the opposite in fact.
Not so keen on abolishing the Department of Energy and Climate Change, though - it would make my day job a lot more difficult.
It'd be a good way to get kids to work for free, get better at controlling their anger and clean up after themselves.
The problem is, these guys are likely to have a very set view on what "National Service" would mean, which makes me want to oppose it from a gut reaction perspective.
but also because they're lecturing downwards from a position of (I'm sure) inherited privilege, and I don't think anyone should be forced to essentially help maintain a system that seeks to exclude the majority from it.
I don't think all these guys were privately educated or born into privilege (or whatever), but there is very much an air of "rich white guys telling people what is right" about it all.
If done in the right way, a National Service style thing needn't be how you say. For example, a system wherein people have several options, including working on local projects, could be great in giving people from disadvantaged backgrounds a chance to gain skills and life experiences they wouldn't normally have.
However, it's more than likely that any debate on introducing it would be such a complete mess that it's best leaving things as they are now.
no one's stopping you
Needed to happen at some point between the more formative ages of 16-21 to have a proper impact.
it'd massively improve the manners of future generations
It would be impossible to top. No point trying.
that this is all a smokescreen to get the married couples' transferrable tax allowance through? I mean, most of the proposals are laughable and wouldn't get through, but they're headline making and ultimately bring attention to the less controversial/extreme elements of their agenda. In the article the main focus is actually on this marriage bill.
I'm just being optimistic aren't I? They genuinely believe that gay marriage is worth the expense of a national referendum. :-\
but the thing that a lot of people don't get is just how much these guys hate the PM. It's as much an exercise in undermining him.
Looks like a right laugh.
Pretty poor stuff.
Do these people seriously have no understanding of the difference between legislation and political agreements?
I do like Gypsies and Travellers (Same Planning Rules as Everyone Else as a title for something, even if its massively discriminatory.
And remember kids, you can't spell discriminatory without TORY!
Isn't necessarily equal treatment. Some groups have different needs and should be treated differently. (Though technically, yeah, you're right - "discriminatory" is a poor choice of words on my part).
Plenty of proper discrimination against immigrants in there though - 32) Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) and 36) Foreign Nationals (Access to Public Services) would mean that people like me get to pay taxes but aren't allowed access to the services that those taxes pay for.
But as a summary: A Bill to restrict access by foreign nationals to United Kingdom public services for which no charge is made - seems quite problematic. Foreign nationals pay taxes too, matey.
The "Prime Minister (Replacement) Bill" and the "Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Abolition)" are both clearly wind-ups as they're not needed in legislative terms.
To withdraw from the EU!
United Kingdom (Withdrawal from the European Union) - we're going to leave the EU!
European Communities Act 1972 (Repeal) - and we're going to repeal the law that makes us part of the EU!
EU Membership (Audit of Costs and Benefits) Bill - and we're going to conduct a survey of the costs and benefits of being in the EU!
Why *wouldn't* you want to know the costs and benefits of EU membership?
But it's redundant in light of the other two, which provide for withdrawal from the EU.
17) Smoking (Private Members’ Clubs) - Bill to make provision to allow smoking in a separate ventilated room in a private members’ club if a majority of the members of the club so decide.
This HAS to be a joke, ahahahah
These also require membership and would therefore be deemed Private Members Clubs.
your own potential health problems on other people.
"Bill to make provision to allow smoking in a separate ventilated room in a private members’ club if a majority of the members of the club so decide"
Glass chambers that they have in airports and bigger night clubs on the continent then it's a complete nonsense. If they just mean cracking a window and having a separate room then it's still a serious issue. Also the health implications for the staff who have to work there have to be considered even if this is the case.
Also the wider issue to consider is that having an all encompassing smoking ban is encouraging people to stop smoking which is a brilliant thing and shouldn't be compromised.
concern but it's a stupid idea with real health implications.
I think you're over thinking this.
And if the room is ventilated, as per the legal requirements, the affect would be negligible for those that are working there anyway.
You're over thinking this.
doesn't hurt anyone.
You're a prick.
still implications for people who work in other parts of the building due to lingering fumes.
Unless like I say these clubs are going to install the expensive ventilation boxes which I would presume they aren't.
I'm sure people will be alright.
Hey, it works for the Tory party as a whole.
I'd say that having this as a bill is elitist rather than endangering of the health of innocents
codes very strongly towards the valorisation of membership and exclusivity. it's an aesthetic principle of mine to feel slightly nauseated in response
I seem to recall when the smoking ban came in, this scenario was a compromise which seemed agreeable to many non-smokers also.
I'm not pro this idea, especially given the successes of the smoking ban, incidentally - just intrigued as to why the chap posting seemed to think it was SUCH a bad idea.
it's just a weird thing to have on the list innit
I don't see any logical reason myself to repeal any element of the smoking ban. I think it's worked incredibly well as a piece of legislation.
But of all the terrible things to pick out of this list and say `is this a joke???!??!?!`, it's quite weird to select this one.
they're pointing it out because it seems weird, it's one of the things that is most obviously just these guys trolling and throwing any old shit in there. it's just funny to think these guys think the lack of smoking rooms in private clubs is a big issue of contention amongst the electorate.
6 years ago they might have had a point, but not now.
Again, I fail to be too bothered about it. These folk are best ignored.
a bill to allow posh people to put a smoking room inside their clubs, is at all amusing?
I think the class war has lost it's way a bit.
into "private members' clubs"?
and the rising power of the elite
But these just seem like ridiculous things that obviously wont happen that are just put out to distract people whilst they push through less-headline worthy shit
Can’t see a time in the foreseeable future where any of the mainstream parties end up being governed by/significantly influenced in the policy arena by those on the extremes and fringes of their founding ideologies in such fashion.
This group should be decried but not feared, if you ask me.
a.) There is people that think like this that have any influence at all.
b.) We are paying them to do this.
I refuse to be too concerned. There's enough to be concerned about that the leadership of this government are doing - rather than a handful of fringe loonies.
You just described the Tea Party.
Last time I checked, they were in a different country. A country whose political party behaviour is very difficult to model onto our own.
But, sure. I've been proved wrong over stranger things.
in particular the increasing influence "think tank" privately funded lobby group are wielding leads me to think it's only a matter of time before hardcore right wingers within the Tory party begin to exercise power in a similar manner.
I don't share your pessimism on that score but I wouldn't rule it out wholesale.
"UKIP are the new conservatives" + "The conservatives have clearly lost their way" = 'Conservative MPs launch attempt to bring back death penalty, privatise the BBC and ban burka'
10/10 (Well done Eddie!!!)
(it won't happen, they are not serious and they do not expect any of it to survive.. they are using this as a ploy to win back the foaming gimps from the Twit Olympics who have strayed from the torch of twat)