Conservative party/opposition watch

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 22 May 2015, 10:32

From that article:

Next week’s Queen’s speech is expected include loosely specified powers to “strengthen the role of Ofcom to take action against channels which broadcast extremist content” according to a statement released by Downing Street last week.

RT blocked? Al Jazeera? The bar may be set even lower than that - nothing would surprise me.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 22 May 2015, 10:38

emordnilap wrote:
3rdRock wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/m ... -colleague

A plan by the home secretary to introduce counter-extremism powers to vet British broadcasters’ programmes before they are transmitted has been attacked in the bluntest terms as a threat to freedom of speech by one of her own Conservative cabinet colleagues, the Guardian has learned.

Sajid Javid wrote to David Cameron to say that, as culture secretary, he was unable to support Theresa May’s proposal to give Ofcom the new powers to take pre-emptive action against programmes that included “extremist content,” in a letter sent just before the start of the general election campaign.
More from the Indie:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 68697.html
This may not rival the 'Current Oil Price' thread, but the Conservatives may ensure it tries. (Or is that the Conservatives' May? )

Theresa horrible looking thing if you will. Part politician, part vampire.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 22 May 2015, 11:18

3rdRock wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
3rdRock wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/m ... -colleague
More from the Indie:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 68697.html
This may not rival the 'Current Oil Price' thread, but the Conservatives may ensure it tries. (Or is that the Conservatives' May? )
Theresa horrible looking thing if you will. Part politician, part vampire.

She's the spitting image of herself.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 22 May 2015, 12:05

MrG · Post by **MrG** » 22 May 2015, 12:58

emordnilap wrote:From that article:

Next week’s Queen’s speech is expected include loosely specified powers to “strengthen the role of Ofcom to take action against channels which broadcast extremist content” according to a statement released by Downing Street last week.
RT blocked? Al Jazeera? The bar may be set even lower than that - nothing would surprise me.

Actually this is a point. Isn't it still the case that any laws which are passed have to be given the OK by the queen. Royal Assent. We're still a constitutional monarchy, so technically she still has the power to veto anything. Perhaps we should all be petitioning the queen! Surely any changes they try to make which are a threat to our democracy itself.. well if she was ever going to use that power and draw the line somewhere. Then surely this is the time.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 22 May 2015, 13:03

MrG wrote:
emordnilap wrote:From that article:

Next week’s Queen’s speech is expected include loosely specified powers to “strengthen the role of Ofcom to take action against channels which broadcast extremist content” according to a statement released by Downing Street last week.
RT blocked? Al Jazeera? The bar may be set even lower than that - nothing would surprise me.
Actually this is a point. Isn't it still the case that any laws which are passed have to be given the OK by the queen. Royal Assent. We're still a constitutional monarchy, so technically she still has the power to veto anything. Perhaps we should all be petitioning the queen! Surely any changes they try to make which are a threat to our democracy itself.. well if she was ever going to use that power and draw the line somewhere. Then surely this is the time.

Don't hold your breath MrG. She's told what to say and it would be a mistake to believe otherwise.

MrG · Post by **MrG** » 22 May 2015, 13:13

3rdRock wrote:
MrG wrote:
emordnilap wrote:From that article:
RT blocked? Al Jazeera? The bar may be set even lower than that - nothing would surprise me.
Actually this is a point. Isn't it still the case that any laws which are passed have to be given the OK by the queen. Royal Assent. We're still a constitutional monarchy, so technically she still has the power to veto anything. Perhaps we should all be petitioning the queen! Surely any changes they try to make which are a threat to our democracy itself.. well if she was ever going to use that power and draw the line somewhere. Then surely this is the time.
Don't hold your breath MrG. She's told what to say and it would be a mistake to believe otherwise.

Actually when there was a million people on the streets of London protesting the Iraq war I very naively thought she might step in then. But nothing happened of course.

Edited to add.. apparently this is the last time it was used

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Militia_Bill

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 22 May 2015, 14:03

A monarch? Democracy? Some serious irony going on here.

MrG · Post by **MrG** » 25 May 2015, 16:38

emordnilap wrote:A monarch? Democracy? Some serious irony going on here.

Oxymoronic in fact - but that is the system we have (well supposedly) that's a constitutional monarchy.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 25 May 2015, 19:19

We have a kleptocracy but they haven't told us.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 27 May 2015, 16:50

Catweazle wrote:It's all rather sinister. My personal alarm bells kept ringing every time Cameron said " Hard Working " - the way he used the words sounded so Orwellian - and I kept getting a mental image of the infamous "Work Will Set You Free" sign over a gate.

Here he goes again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32894214

David Cameron said the 26-bill package was a "programme for working people" that would create full employment and "bring our country together".

I assume the unemployed, the old, the sick and the disabled will continue to get the blame for all of society's ills.

We can also expect to see an increase in Channel 4 and 5 'documentaries' about unruly benefit claimants. The 21st century equivalent of the stocks?

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 27 May 2015, 17:04

David Cameron said the 26-bill package was a "programme for working people" that would create full employment and "bring our country together".

Remember the rule: the opposite of what he spouts = the truth. Above is a pure example of that rule.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 May 2015, 07:29

3rdRock wrote: I assume the unemployed, the old, the sick and the disabled will continue to get the blame for all of society's ills.

Oh, not 'the old'. We're the 'grey vote', an increasingly large part of the electorate and a sector willing to get out and vote on polling day. Tripple locks on pensions and all sorts of other goodies (so long as we don't slip into 'the sick' category as sick trumps old).

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 28 May 2015, 10:04

And the list will go on...

the government is to introduce an investigatory powers bill far more wide-ranging than expected

The trade union bill [...] is likely to lead to a significant drop in union income

Source

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 28 May 2015, 10:55

A salutary tale from Lola Okolosie.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... dial-state

Society is buying the Tory message that poverty is all the fault of the individual.

I know first-hand how vital state support can be.