• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Jeremy Corbyn

thehistorymakers said:
Who said anything about no opposition?
Click to expand...

Well, if you want all manifesto pledges to be legal commitments you have to get approval from both Houses of Parliament. They debate and then vote (at least once) and if voted not to be approved then the manifesto pledge cannot be done.

But if you want all manifesto pledges to be put into law you would have to have bypass this process or at least the ones that fail. Ergo you have no opposition. Do you think that's right?
 
Johnny75 said:
Well, if you want all manifesto pledges to be legal commitments you have to get approval from both Houses of Parliament. They debate and then vote (at least once) and if voted not to be approved then the manifesto pledge cannot be done.

But if you want all manifesto pledges to be put into law you would have to have bypass this process or at least the ones that fail. Ergo you have no opposition. Do you think that's right?
Click to expand...

I would like the house of Lords to be radically changed. I think what happens at the moment, with governments not completing manifesto promises, isn't right and I can't see any harm in trying to change the system to a more accountable one. What I suggested was only an idea and it would need to take in to account the democratic process of course and safeguard it. I can see more advantages than disadvantages in goverments having to keep their promises, however I would want to protect the democratic process. What we have at the moment isn't perfect either, but what I proposed was just an idea, that would obviously need a lot of thought and work put in to it.
 
Personally I don't want manifesto promises barging through parliament without scrutiny because election promises become legal obligations

First manifesto promises would be full of lovely things

Back page would have "repeal Parliament Act to ensure our party stays in government forever", and then the next manifesto could contain the really nasty stuff.

That way lies dictatorship.
 
Visage said:
What if circumstances change?
Click to expand...

Then there would be an procedure, where the elected goverment could to take their wishes to change to a special court that would see if their wish to change could be justified. If they decided that there wasn't good enough reason, then the government would have to keep their promises. I am not saying this is an ideal solution, but neither is voting for goverment after goverment that breaks it's promises.
 
Johnny75 said:
You mean like the house of Lords?
Click to expand...

A completely different house of Lords, that was elected and were competent would be part of my solution, but I would still want goverments to be accountable to keep election promises by law. As I have said, in special cases, like war etc, or unforseen circumstances then three would be right of appeal. I am not saying my idea is perfect, but anything that helps to make sure a goverment keeps it promises, is worth looking at. There are only really 2 choices in our electoral system and they both continuously say one thing and do another.
 
Sometimes it really is OK to just hold your hands up and say, "Sorry, shit idea. I hadn't really thought it through. Let's talk about something else."
 
_82383554_manifesto_pledges_gra624.png


The issue primarily in this respect is the Tories regularly promising the moon on a stick and people being dumb enough to believe them. Like aspirant middle class people in receipt of in-work benefits watching them pledge £12bn in welfare cuts, refuse to say where it was coming from (but heavily imply that they wouldn't be hitting say, Working Tax Credits), vote Tory and then get upset when it turns out that yep, they're coming for you.

Legislation that as it turns out, we needed the House of Lords to throw out as it was so poorly drafted and so badly thought through.
 
So Long Architect said:
Sometimes it really is OK to just hold your hands up and say, "Sorry, $#@! idea. I hadn't really thought it through. Let's talk about something else."
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying it was perfect, but what we have is far from perfect to. If you only have 2 parties in a country that get elected and they both continuously break their promises, people lose interest in politics and goverments can get away with things that are not in the interests of the majority. I never said the idea was perfect, but neither is the status quo.
 
OK, in that case, I suggest policy is decided entirely by the most intelligent horses we can find. Horses wouldn't be driven by the same selfish human impulses as the rest of us and could probably be relied upon to give a balanced view. I know this isn't a perfect idea but the status quo isn't either so with fifteen more pages of discussion about it on an obscure football forum, I reckon we could hammer something workable out.
 
thehistorymakers said:
Then there would be an procedure, where the elected goverment could to take their wishes to change to a special court that would see if their wish to change could be justified. If they decided that there wasn't good enough reason, then the government would have to keep their promises. I am not saying this is an ideal solution, but neither is voting for goverment after goverment that breaks it's promises.
Click to expand...

You want UNELECTED JUDGES to decide if the government can change its mind?
 
Visage said:
You want UNELECTED JUDGES to decide if the government can change its mind?
Click to expand...

I want goverments to keep their promises. Judges don't need to be elected, they would need to be the very best judges, impartial and upholding the law. If there were laws in place about breaking election promises, I doubt you would need to use them to often, as governments wouldn't want to break the law and government promises would be kept.
 
And I want to fuck Scarlett Johansson. But it aint going to happen.
 
The very best judges are already split out and promoted because of their hugely deep knowledge of the legal system, the laws of the country, years of experience in their area, deep respect they command, gravitas, utter commitment to the neutrality of the judiciary in political matters. You know. All that good stuff.

They are called LAW LORDS

Ring a bell?
 
Well, they're called Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom now. But it's the exact same job. Involves being an enemy of the state I believe.
 
I know the change in nomenclature - but the point wouldn't have had quite the same venom.

But, you are right - must have a certain percentage of traitorous blood to even be considered.
 
Paddingtonwolf said:
The very best judges are already split out and promoted because of their hugely deep knowledge of the legal system, the laws of the country, years of experience in their area, deep respect they command, gravitas, utter commitment to the neutrality of the judiciary in political matters. You know. All that good stuff.

They are called LAW LORDS

Ring a bell?
Click to expand...

OK, but do they hold goverments responsible for breaking election promises in their manifesto?
Do you think successive goverments break election promises and that we don't have a lot of choice who will be elected? If so, tell me a way that we could improve the system. I was never saying making it law was a perfect idea, but was saying I think there must be a better way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Del Woppio
Top strikers - the early years.
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Deutsch Wolf
Deutsch Wolf
D
They Wore The Shirt launch
Replies
0
Views
2K
dwarfio
D
Back
Top