Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [2]

[Pettytyrant101]

I see Australia has got its carbon tax passsed. According to the BBC-

'Australia - the highest emitter per-head in the developed world.'

And there I was thinking Aussies were enviromentally minded.

The law 'forces the country's 500 worst-polluting firms to pay a AU$23 (£15; $24) levy for every tonne of greenhouse gases they produce.'
But the opposition have already said they will repeal it if they win the next election in 2013.

And 'there have been large public protests against it.'

You agin it or for it Orwell? (or are you to busy policing the protests!)

[Orwell]

What? The protests that are - as far as I can - only in the Media and not on the streets? As being for or agin, I don't know really. I don't understand it. But I'm happy for big polluters and mining magnates to spread their wealth a bit and be more responsible in their polluting. I hate how the Media is telling me to vote Liberal (Tory). I shall vote labor. (They're no worse than the Lib/Tories - and frankly, are doing a reasonable job as far as I can tell - though they can't promote their achievements at all well. Give me Deeds before Spiel any time. I hate the political Media btw. I would kill most political journalists if I could.

[David H]

I would kill most political journalists if I could.

Wait, that looks suspiciously like the smiley you used when you called me godlike...and now that I come to think of it, you've never been a big fan of gods other than Eru....have you?.......[lightbulb slowly goes on....].... ..................

[Pettytyrant101]

An indepth report into the riots last year in England has been published- makes intresting reading.
It looks at several aspects. Firstly how the police felt about it:

'police officers caught up in last summer's riots reveals that they were woefully outnumbered, leaving many in fear of their lives.
In London they were so stretched that some volunteer police without riot training or gear joined the front line.
But radio problems meant riot police from other areas were held back and not deployed to deal with the violence.
Their accounts reveal that:
Officers on the front line, who were often outnumbered and under-equipped, feared that they would be killed. Senior officers were astonished that no police died during the unrest

Officers of all ranks were shocked and surprised by the extent and nature of violence directed at them, as well as the speed with which it escalated, with many describing it as the greatest physical and psychological challenge of their careers

There were particular problems in London, where the system of "mutual aid" between forces failed to bolster the available resources at a critical time, with the Metropolitan Police not activating the national alarm system to call for more resources until the third and final day of the riots

Numbers were so stretched in London that volunteer special constables and British Transport Police with no riot equipment or training were used on the front line

Once officers from other forces did arrive, many were not allowed to deploy to the front line because their radio systems were not compatible with those used by the Metropolitan Police, preventing them from being deployed to outbreaks of violence

Many officers from all ranks expect a repeat of the riots and are concerned that they may not have the resources to cope with future unrest on such a scale.

n Tottenham the outnumbered and under-equipped police on the ground when the violence broke out had to face a barrage of bricks, Molotov cocktails and other weapons for two hours before back-up arrived.

"We did everything that we possibly could with the resources that we had to try and protect life as well as property, but at some point I had to make the difficult decision it was life - it was always going to be life above property," Chief Inspector Ade Adelekan, who was in charge on the ground, told BBC Newsnight.

Officers interviewed in the study reported seeing rioters armed with machetes and said that they were convinced that given the chance the rioters would kill them.

Inspector Andre Ramsey, who led the police who reinforced the Tottenham officers, said his biggest fear had been of having a police officer separated from his or her colleagues, "and if that had happened, I have absolutely no doubt that there could have been loss of life".



The next part of the report looks more at why people in England rioted in the first place:

A lack of confidence in the police response to the initial riots in London in August led to further disturbances across England, a report has concluded.
The Riots, Communities and Victims Panel found it had "encouraged people to test reactions in other areas".
The panel found there was no single cause of the riots, but said it was shocked at the "collective pessimism" among the young people it spoke to.
The panel said the initial riots had been triggered by the police's handling of the death of Mark Duggan, and in particular communication with his family, which was caused by the "breakdown of their protocols" with the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
It said rumours surrounding the shooting had not been countered effectively, and that "there is a fault line running between the IPCC and the police in this area", which it urged both parties to address.
The panel then said that if the police had responded more robustly to the riots which erupted firstly in Tottenham, and then across London, they would not have have happened elsewhere.
The panel said in its interim report: "Lack of confidence in the police response to the initial riots encouraged people to test reactions in other areas.
"Most of the riots began with some trouble in retail areas with a critical mass of individuals and groups converging on an area.
"Rioters believed they would be able to loot and damage without being challenged by the police. In the hardest-hit areas, they were correct."
The report said: "We heard a range of motivations from the need for new trainers to a desire to attack society."
The panel's other recommendations included:
Prompting the insurance industry to address poor service, after complaints about the speed and treatment of claims
A government fund to help high streets that are still suffering from a decline in business after the riots
A need for the police to strike a balance between protecting business premises on the one hand, and people and homes on the other
The authorities should review how they help people caught up in riot areas, including the creation of certain sites as "safe havens"
Police stop and search powers need immediate attention to ensure that community support and confidence is not undermined
The police should immediately review emergency planning to ensure they can deal with public disorder on the scale of the August riots.
"While deprivation is not an excuse for criminal behaviour, we must seek to tackle the underlying causes of the riots, or they will happen again.
The report ends by saying that there's been a breakdown in one of the police's founding principles: "The police are the public and the public are the police."


Sorry for the length of this but I wanted to give as a full an account of the report as possible.
The last point is linked I reckon to the points on depravation, stop and search and a lack of trust.
I can say that where I am at least I don't know anyone would trusts the police as far as they could kick them. They are somethng to be avoided, wolves walking among the sheep. A threat not an aid.

And in my own opinion the drug laws are a part of all this too (which is the main aim of the stop and search policy which is so unpopular and hated). There are milions in the UK smoke cannabis, and everyone of them that does so makes an ememy of the law and therefore the police.
They are not seen as defending the public but harassing and threatening them.
That otherwise perfectly law abiding people should be forced into such a posiition seems like madness to me.

[Pettytyrant101]

This Land of Commons and of Peers, this broken isle,
This earth of corruption, this seat of Bankers,
This other Hell, demi-damnation,
This prison built by Nature for herself
within dispute and the hand of greed.
This unhappy breed of men, this small-minded world
This sullied stone set in the tormented sea,
Which serves it in the office of a trap
Or as a fence to keep the prisoners in
Where each part envies each others less happier lands.
This broken plot, this sulied earth, this broken realm, this Great Britain,
This Cameron, opening festering wounds
With hatred of the poor from his wealthy birth
Renowned for his desire to save his pounds-
For wealth is his and true corruption abounds,—
And opposite, Milliband, no band of brothers:
brother he usurped, woe for it, no brothery love,
And Balls, befitting name, his deeds fit his title as if a glove.
Dear Britain her reputation through the world,
Is now leas’d out,—I die pronouncing it,—
Like to a tenement, or a rich mans toy:
Britain, narrowed in mind with the triumphant sea,
Whose rocky shore within lands break asunder,
its Union shattered now with shame,
With inky blots, and rotten banking bonds:
This Britain, that was wont to lecture others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
Ah! would the scandal vanish with my life,
How happy then were my ensuing death.

-Pettytyrant (with apoligies to William Shakespeare).

[Mrs Figg]

crikey Petty the Uk looks like a haven of honesty and order from where I am standing in Italy, believe me the UK has nothing nothing on the endemic congenital and vile corruption here.

[Pettytyrant101]

Perhaps not, feels pretty corrupt right now however. Especially our government and their criminal banking friends- and the speech in Richard II struck me as being ripe to exploit to reverse its meaning to show that up. Especially as that speech is so often used to hold up what a wonderful land England is (there was no GB back then of course so I updated that bit).

[Mrs Figg]

I think the difference in Britain is that the ordinary people wont tolerate wrong doing, and are prepared to stand up for justice, whether it is mass demonstrations, or little old ladies writing to their MPs, in Italy corruption is conveniently ignored until the ordinary peoples pockets start to suffer, they voted for Berlusconi knowing he was best mates with the Mafia and the most corrupt politician in Europe, it suited them and they turned a blind eye, even admired him for being cunning and rich, he owns the State media. That would never ever be tolerated for one minute in Britain, never in a million years.

[Pettytyrant101]

Interesting goings on in Parliament today. There was supposed to be a vote on Lords reform, but the government, well the Tory part of it, pulled the plug on it. Why? Because more than a 100 Tory MP's were prepared to go against the party line and vote against it. So rather than face defeat Cameron pulled the vote altogether.

Now I maybe best explain to those who don't know our system what this is about. The UK has effectively two parliaments.

The House of Commons and the House of Lords. But only the House of Commons can make Law.

However before a Law can become Law it has to go to the House of Lords- they debate it and then vote on it- if they vote against it it goes back to the Commons.
The Commons then looks at whatever the Lords had a problem with about the Law and either amend it and send it back, or send it back as it is.
They can send a bill 3 times to the Lords and if the Lords still vote against it they can then proceed anyway and make it Law- the Commons has ultimate power.

This has rarily happened however, normally Lords scrutiny highlights unseen problems and puts a check on hasty kneejerk laws that are ill thoughtout. Amongst its members are retired specialists in Law, Business, Economics, Medicine ect
So whats the problem? Well its the members.
To be in the Lords you have to be born a Lord, or Lady or Duchess. Or be a Bishop- the Church has a set allocation of seats.
The other main way in is to receive a peerage- these are awarded by PM's and are usually, these days, political appoints. Some MP's however are made a Peer because they were prominant and generally considered good parlimentarians or were considered particularly knowlagable in their field.

In short- its a completely unelected, undemocratic chamber- the electorate have no say whatsoever about who is in it or what it does.

The lib-dems (who are in coalition with the Tories right now) have stood on a platform of Lords reform for over a century. The Tories say they are in favour of it, but as half of them are Lords or Ladies they have always found a way to not do anything about it.
But as it is such a big part of the lib-dem platform they could not resist it this time. So it seemed.
Now with the vote pulled it has been kicked back into the long grass and Tory backbenchers are saying its dead in the water.

Oddly 100 Tories voting against was not enough not to prevent the passing of the bill, except that Labour, who also claim they are all for reform of the Lords, also said they were voting against the bill.
The reason given is that 10 days had been assigned to debating the bill- and they said that was not long enough.
The lib-dems responded that all sides had been discussing reform for over a 100 years and 10 days was plenty to pass the bill.

Cameron however pulled the vote, as 100 Tories rebelling not only looks bad for him but would also, with Labour, have been enough to inflict a defeat on the government.

So the lib-dems are furious- Nick Clegg, the Lib-dem leader and Deputy PM said of Conservative and Labour alike "A plague on both your houses!"
So the colaition looks very rocky indeed.

But it doesn't end there- the speculation sweepiing Westminister is that Cameron only ordered a soft touch from the Whips (the Whips are the Party people who go round threatening their own Parties MP's if they don't vote the way the government wants, they come in three stages of severity, from a straight Whip to a 3-line Whip-going against a 3-line whip nearly always results in you losing your job. This is what you get when your Parliament is run by boarding school rich types) and not only did Cameron give the word for a soft touch but he was actively looking for about a hundred to come out and say they would vote against- thus allowing him to pull the vote, kick it into touch and appease his own backbenchers of Lords and Ladies who rather fancy wiling away their latter years on a fat retainer in the Lords.

So to sum up- everyone comes out of it looking bad- Labour look like partisan wreckers, Cameron looks like he can't persuade his own side (or that he set it up sneaky style and stabbed his coalition partners in the back), Clegg looks like he has no power or say in the coalition and the Commons looks like its bowing down to the Lords.

And the Lords? It gets to remain unelected, full of the privelaged and the useless (but born to be useless) and Bishops of a Church noone goes to any more and it continues to all be paid for from the tax-payers purse.

Another great day in modern British politics.

[Eldorion]

The Prime Minister can simply not let Parliament vote on an issue, just like that?

The Presidential system might not be perfect, but Separation of Powers for the win...

[Pettytyrant101]

No, you got it wrong Eldo, my fault for not making that aspect clear enough- this was a government vote on a government bill, put forward by them so they have the right to withdraw it.

[Eldorion]

That makes much more sense. Thanks Petty.

The Tory/Lib Dem alliance is so bizarre. They have practically nothing in common ideologically and it pissed off the Lib Dem base. I'm still not sure what Nick Clegg was thinking after the election.

[Pettytyrant101]

No one knows what he was thinking here either so youre not alone there Eldo.
So far he has had to go back on his key election pledge- no tuition fees and introduce tuition fees, he got a referendum on changing the voting system to proportional reprentation, a key libdem policy they have been fighting decades for, and the Tories galvanised the support against it, called the vote a a time of year with poor turnout and when the economy was going into meltdown and everyone had minds on that, and the libdems lost the vote and so a key central plank of their party. And now the other key plank, House of Lords reform is gone too.
I cant see him lasting as leader, and if he goes so does the coalition.

[Pettytyrant101]

Nice bit of analysis on Lords reform from the bbc's deputy news editor. Giving an idea of what the government and the rebels might do next and the tools they have to do it with.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18782379

[Eldorion]

And then of course there is Standing Order 29. It is too boring to explain all the detail, suffice it to say that it can be used to stop an individual MP speaking and was used recently against Christopher Chope during daylight saving legislation.

It's great to see reporters with a sense of humor that isn't just bad puns. It actually does sound interesting to me and I wish I knew more about the ins and outs of UK politics. Sadly, political science classes in the U.S. are almost entirely about American politics, and more global classes don't get too specific unless that's your focus at the upper levels.

[Pettytyrant101]

Not to worry Eldo you can rely on Forumshire to further your education by keeping you reliably ill-informed about events elsewhere on a regular basis.

[Eldorion]

Discussion of the tragic shooting in Colorado at the premiere of The Dark Knight Rises has been moved to its own thread.

http://www.hobbitmovieforum.com/t442-colorado-movie-theatre-shooting

[Pettytyrant101]

Congrats to NASA for landing their latest biggest most complex Rover in a crater on Mars.
One tonne of Rover going from 20,000km/h to a complete stand still without becoming a pancake- thats impressive stuff.

[Eldorion]

At first I was a little surprised that the sky crane for the soft landing actually worked. It seems so far-fetched but the people at NASA definitely know their stuff and I'm sure they did plenty of tests beforehand. Pretty exciting; I remember when Mars rovers were the size of a dog, not a SUV.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/technology/insituexploration/edl/skycrane/

[Pettytyrant101]

Looks like the UK coalition governmentis on the rocks, again.
Got to hand it to the Tories, they have totally demolished their partners the liberal-democrats.
Before the last election the Lib-dems were best know for their three main planks- free education, reform of the voting system to PR, and House of Lords reform- they gave up free education to get in power with the Tories- the Tories gave them a referundum on PR and then successfully scuppered it- and today Cameron has dropped the House of Lords reform bill, not just kicking it into the long grass but effectively killing it stone dead.
In response Nick Clegg, lib-dem leader and deputy PM has said the Tories have broken a part of the coalition contract between parties and that the lib-dems will not support reform of the electoral boundaries, which the Tories want as it would correct an anomaly which would increase the likelihood of a Tory majority government next election- without the boundary reform many think the Tories will not win an outright majority.
So both sides are no longer cooperating with each other in this so called government.
Could be another election on the horizon.

[Eldorion]

Got to hand it to the Tories, they have totally demolished their partners the liberal-democrats.

Maybe that was David Cameron's secret plan all along!

[Ally]

Not saying I will hold the balance of power in the next general election
Still I'd like to be at peace with my first ever vote
So I'm voting Green

[Eldorion]

I still have to decide who to vote for in November for my first time. I feel torn between voting to support the candidate(s) I truly support but who have little chance of winning and voting against the worst of the mainstream candidates who actually have a chance. Damn two-party system.

[David H]

FWIW, I think it's more productive to vote for something you believe in than to vote against something you don't.

But I'd also like to point out that increasingly elections are decided by the independent swing voters who are a large enough minority that often neither party can count on carrying the vote without them. So in effect we are becoming a 3 party system, and political strategists are very aware of this.

So don't ever feel your vote is wasted if you choose a 3rd party candidate who actually stands for something you believe in. Both the D's and the R's want your vote, and they watch the grass roots Indy candidates' numbers with extreme interest as they consider future policies.

[Eldorion]

That's a good point, Dave, and a rather encouraging one. Obama is pretty much guaranteed to win Maryland since it almost always goes Democratic in the electoral college but I'm trying to still take my decision seriously. I want to make the most informed decision I can. I've waited years to be able to vote and it was really exciting voting in the primary elections back in April, although Obama was running unopposed in that one. I really am looking forward to election day and being able to cast a ballot of my own.