UK politics AUA (Ask Us Anything) – no question too simple!

Reply 20

Chickenunicorn17

12

Original post by 04MR17

Watch BBC news each day, usually quite a good way to pick it up

Thank you , will do

Reply 21

Anonstudent12885

2

Hi!
Currently starting a Politics newsletter with 2 other students. Let me know if you want to take part- good for CVs!

Reply 22

FrogTesseract

11

What are some good informative news sources that have credibility for being reliable? (I dont mind them having a bias if it is trustworthy for the most part)

Reply 23

Saracen's Fez

OP

20

Original post by FrogTesseract

What are some good informative news sources that have credibility for being reliable? (I dont mind them having a bias if it is trustworthy for the most part)

Well despite the common cynicism, the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky still do pretty accurate and reliable reporting – certainly as well as anyone else does.

The broadsheet newspapers (Times, Telegraph, Guardian) can vary a bit – obviously none of that list are politically neutral and can often be selective in their reporting, but at the same time most of their reporting of facts tends to be reliable, even if they often put a spin on it.

For more international news, agencies like Reuters and the Associated Press, outlets like CNN are usually of high quality.

If you don't have it already, I'd still say get Twitter and follow some of these and perhaps their journalists if you're interested in keeping up with the news more! :tongue:

Reply 24

FrogTesseract

11

Original post by Saracen's Fez

Well despite the common cynicism, the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky still do pretty accurate and reliable reporting – certainly as well as anyone else does.

The broadsheet newspapers (Times, Telegraph, Guardian) can vary a bit – obviously none of that list are politically neutral and can often be selective in their reporting, but at the same time most of their reporting of facts tends to be reliable, even if they often put a spin on it.

For more international news, agencies like Reuters and the Associated Press, outlets like CNN are usually of high quality.

If you don't have it already, I'd still say get Twitter and follow some of these and perhaps their journalists if you're interested in keeping up with the news more! :tongue:

Thank you very much! Following journalists sounds look a very good idea, getting it straight from the source without potential edits/censorship.

Reply 25

Starrytillymae

7

so from my limited a level law knowledge, a select committee oversees government agencies. and they also debate certain matters within draft bills of parliament (i see them as useless too paha). then appg... they're not actually officially statused in parliament so i don't see their point either. it's cool that all political parties can co-exist in a group like that though and equal with each other.

when labour came into power in the late 1990s (i believe), they actually acknowledged how many people were in the house of lords- and they had a temporary solution and narrowed it down to only a few hereditary peers and more life peers who had actually earned the right to be there. however there's never been a permanent solution to this. i certainly don't see a point on the house of lords as they're practically useless in the legislative procedure and they're not elected like parliament either.

Reply 26

Saracen's Fez

OP

20

Select committees are supposed to scrutinise the work of the government, so there's one per department plus some others. As well as the opposition shadow ministers scrutinising ministers on the floor of the House of Commons (and Lords), they are supposed to be a calmer, more cross-party environment for backbenchers to scrutinise in more detail rather than performing for the cameras. As select committee meetings are also broadcast, often on rolling news when there is something a bit juicy, it's not clear whether they're always fulfilling that purpose.

APPGs are more for any group of MPs to get together and talk about an issue they're interested in. These can be very active or very inactive, big or small. They don't really have an official role in the parliamentary process. Some can be essentially a front for companies that want to lobby parliament/government.

With the Lords, yes, membership is growing as PMs have near-unlimited ability to appoint more members. I think the minimum level of reform that is going to need to happen at some point is to reduce that number. That said, it's worth saying that many members don't attend that often – and it's designed so that members can just pop along when something that matches their interests/specialisms comes up, rather than attending every day like a full-time MP, which is why Lords are paid a daily payment on days they attend rather than an annual salary.

(I've moved this over to the AUA thread as I thought it would fit quite well!)

Reply 27

Mpho47

7

I was impressed essentially by David Cameron, however Dr Theresa May was just as tremendous a British political icon , I found David Cameron's stance on Brexit to be essentially what the United Kingdom required as a sum of at least GBP4,000,000, 000 was recovered in royalties that were owed by the European Union commission and that may have essentially led to his eventual downfall and the recurring crises that accrued to different administrations of his successors such as Boris Johnson and at present Rushie Sunak, thank you, Mpho47

Reply 28

Scotland Yard

Clearing and Applications Advisor, Universities Forum Helper

20

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67630258

I was reading this article and had a bit of a scare. If it's true that you'll need to earn 38k a year in order to bring your partner to the UK, that's just bone chilling in my opinion. HOWEVER, I went to the family visas section in the home office website and read that the current requirement of 18k is the combined sum of both partners... so I'm wondering if this new 38k minimum is also for the combined earnings of both partners? It's a bit unclear to me.

Reply 29

Saracen's Fez

OP

20

Original post by Scotland Yard

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67630258

I was reading this article and had a bit of a scare. If it's true that you'll need to earn 38k a year in order to bring your partner to the UK, that's just bone chilling in my opinion. HOWEVER, I went to the family visas section in the home office website and read that the current requirement of 18k is the combined sum of both partners... so I'm wondering if this new 38k minimum is also for the combined earnings of both partners? It's a bit unclear to me.

I've been a bit out of the loop on holiday but from what I've read in my daily news emails, I think that is true.

Reply 30

CheeseIsVeg

22

Original post by Saracen's Fez

I've been a bit out of the loop on holiday but from what I've read in my daily news emails, I think that is true.

Hey Fez, actual question for you!
I don't really understand this whole Rwanda situation. Mainly, why?
Is there a genuine actual reason that the Government thought to do this? Is there some sense to what appears to be madness?

Just wondering if there is an angle I am missing from all the chat about it.

Reply 31

Saracen's Fez

OP

20

Original post by CheeseIsVeg

Hey Fez, actual question for you!
I don't really understand this whole Rwanda situation. Mainly, why?
Is there a genuine actual reason that the Government thought to do this? Is there some sense to what appears to be madness?

Just wondering if there is an angle I am missing from all the chat about it.

A good question! Big caveat that I've not really been in the loop with the news this week, but it's all about deterrence: the idea that if you send a planeful of Channel migrants to Rwanda, people will be sufficiently deterred to stop coming. There was never enough capacity in Rwanda to take all the asylum seekers, nor does the Rwanda scheme, where people first turn up in Britain and are then put on a plane, actually 'stop the boats' other than if it has a deterrent effect.

So that is the government's gamble, and all of the legal wrangling has to be put in the context of the government hoping and praying that it deters people. Time will tell even if it does get up and running, but I can't see it deterring Channel crossings to anywhere near the level the government hopes it will!

Reply 32

Mpho47

7

Original post by Mpho47

I was impressed essentially by David Cameron, however Dr Theresa May was just as tremendous a British political icon , I found David Cameron's stance on Brexit to be essentially what the United Kingdom required as a sum of at least GBP4,000,000, 000 was recovered in royalties that were owed by the European Union commission and that may have essentially led to his eventual downfall and the recurring crises that accrued to different administrations of his successors such as Boris Johnson and at present Rushie Sunak, thank you, Mpho47

I am delighted by the appointment of Lord David Cameron to the office of external affairs as I previously alluded to his achievements and I am grateful as they have proven to be tenable as such Rushie Sunak at present could focus his attention on the immigration issue as he is correct in suggesting that the Visa processing issues for refugees could be concluded even in Third World countries such as Rwanda and be sent back for resolution as countries such as France which may have been Rwanda's colonizer could assume the responsibility for the repatriation of its refugees accordingly, thank you.

UK politics AUA (Ask Us Anything) – no question too simple!

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you