The Commons Bar Mk XIII - MHoC Chat Thread

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Labour actually offered the Lib Dems PR without a referendum, so even better than AV.
    PR?! Okay I now hate the LD's for being so stupid.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    These are the same people that voted against electoral reform, which would have finally solved the issue of marginals and tactical voting.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    AV is somewhat unstable in what it does because it relies on a strong third party to produce a more proportional result. While 05 and 10 would have been more proportional (the Lib's were less than 15% behind the winner), it's likely that with a 25% gap between the third party and Tories that 2015 would have seen the Tory majority amplified.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Labour actually offered the Lib Dems PR without a referendum, so even better than AV.
    Having seen the rise of Ukip and Greens i'm grateful that they said no.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    PR?! Okay I now hate the LD's for being so stupid.
    They didn't. 1) They offered us AV. 2) We demanded it without referendum and they said too many of their MPs would rebel


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Sounds like Keith Vaz has some explaining to do to his wife...
    Unless a property paid for with parliamentary expenses is being used, is it really anything other than a matter between him and his wife? I have some sympathy for other family members especially children if that is how they found out.

    I think that the allegation that they are male is not the issue, and had they been female the story would still have been covered by the Sunday Mirror.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Unless a property paid for with parliamentary expenses is being used, is it really anything other than a matter between him and his wife? I have some sympathy for other family members especially children if that is how they found out.

    I think that the allegation that they are male is not the issue, and had they been female the story would still have been covered by the Sunday Mirror.
    I think the fact the committee he chairs has strong influence on laws regarding prostitution makes the matter relevant, and he's done the right thing by resigning.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Sounds like Keith Vaz has some explaining to do to his wife...
    I'm torn over what to think on this one. On the one hand, I find Keith Vaz irritating so that doesn't help and he was overseeing prostitution law reform so it raises questions of vested interests. However, to be outed so publicly is unfair to him and provided that it didn't involve expenses etc, I think that what goes on between two consenting adults is none of our concern. On the other hand, if these allegations in Guido Fawkes are shown to be true (http://order-order.com/2016/09/04/244563/), then this is a very concerning situation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    I'm torn over what to think on this one. On the one hand, I find Keith Vaz irritating so that doesn't help and he was overseeing prostitution law reform so it raises questions of vested interests. However, to be outed so publicly is unfair to him and provided that it didn't involve expenses etc, I think that what goes on between two consenting adults is none of our concern. On the other hand, if these allegations in Guido Fawkes are shown to be true (http://order-order.com/2016/09/04/244563/), then this is a very concerning situation.
    Meh, it's unfair perhaps but no different to what happens to anyone else in the public eye, and if anything I have less sympathy for politicians claiming they need privacy. Obviously I couldn't care less that he's attracted to men or interested in casual sex - but if I was a constituent of his the fact he's a liar and a cheat would definitely influence my vote. I don't want to be represented by someone like that. Basically I'm generally with you about the sex lives of public figures being none of our concern, but when it's a politician being dishonest I think it does become a matter of public interest.

    I won't even comment on Guido as it's obviously very far from a neutral source when it comes to Labour politicians.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No it wasn't the point. The point was that they voted through huge numbers of measures which hit some of the poorest and most disadvantaged and whether you call that a 'cut' or a 'tax' makes zero difference to the point in hand.

    You mention a person living in a four bedroom house, but that's not what was happening. Instead the bedroom tax (or spare room subsidy reduction) hit disabled people hugely. Disabled people who live in council housing, or who are on housing benefit often require a room to keep all of their equipment in, or a room in which their carer can stay in. However such people had their benefit cut, even though they very much needed that room.
    This actually resulted in the Supreme Court ruling the bedroom tax on disabled people as a violation of their human rights.

    The biggest problem with the spare room subsidy was that there is simply not the housing stock available for people to move into smaller houses. It's all good and well saying that a person with a spare room should downsize, but if there is no where for them to move, it becomes impossible for them to do so.

    And guess which government has repeatedly refused to build more social housing.... Oh yes that's the Tories. Even this weekend Nick Clegg has come out and said that Osborne refused to build more houses because he didn't want to 'create more Labour voters'. So you are saying that people with a spare room should downsize yet at the same time refusing to build any properties to which they could actually downsize. All it resulted in was therefore the poorest, most disadvantaged and disabled losing benefits.

    And please do tell me how any of that helps our unemployed?
    Also, if you are so concerned about reducing our deficit, then you surely favor a huge clamp down on tax avoidance, which costs us far, far more than welfare? Of course you don't. Cutting public expenditure only matters to you when it's to do with poor people.

    And cutting benefits actually does little to reduce the deficit in the long term. People who receive benefits tend to spend nearly everything they have, thus pumping the money back into the economy, Conversely, the wealthy who receive tax breaks tend to save money and spend abroad, thus taking money out our economy.

    So to summarise: You support reducing the housing benefit for disabled and poor people because you think they should downsize, yet at the same time you don't support building any social housing which they could actually downsize in to. When you pay benefits the economy does not lose any money, when you give tax cuts to the wealthy it does.
    PRSOM, agree 100%
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Even his friends the Hindjua brothers can't help him... His sister Valerie Vaz is an MP too.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The England men's football team may have managed to beat the ten men of Slovakia with a goal in Fergie time which went through the goalkeeper's legs and in a game where Wayne Rooney should have been booked or sent off for dissent, but overall they were very poor.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    The England men's football team may have managed to beat the ten men of Slovakia with a goal in Fergie time which went through the goalkeeper's legs and in a game where Wayne Rooney should have been booked or sent off for dissent, but overall they were very poor.
    Why should he of been sent off? The disallowed goal incident?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Dear Corbyn. Being rude to a woman is not sexism. It's just rude. And I have absolutely no issue with Owen Smith being tongue-in-cheek rude about Nicola Sturgeon. What happened to being straight-talking?!
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So May has ruled out a points-based immigration system. Interesting.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting that May does'nt want a point based immigration requirement .. I Suppose that's because a point based immigration system does not acutally reduce the amount of immigration anyway .. Prehaps she wants an even tougher immigration system
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Again, I told you their incompetence was subjective, and to be frank, should not be a point in this debate. I disagree with their economic policy. You seemingly do. There's nothing more to that.My Right Honourable friend the Prime Minister made it very clear that the Finance Bill will be submitted when the Chancellor is back from his Holiday. There is a month left of this term. The Leader of the Opposition need not fret, we'll get it out in time.As for the budget, our policies at the start of the term were vague, However, I was talked out of the Personal Allowance raise for the reason in the budget:We legislated for Corporation Tax prior to the budget, and those changes are in the Finance Bill.
    You're only saying it's subjective because you know you made an insupportable claim. I'm sure through your yellow-tinted glasses all manner of untruths seem correct. And if you did not think it should be a point in this debate (I have moved this from DPMQs) you shouldn't have made those slanderous comments. The fact of the matter is that whether I support their economic policy or not they actually have one and they have consistently sought to see it enacted through well researched, well written legislation.

    If your economic policies were vague it would imply you don't have the economic competency to outline clear and specific policy or policy that you won't later decide isn't all that good (as you've demonstrated with your personal allowance example).

    With regards to Corp Tax I presume you mean the 25% cut that failed to pass through the House once. I don't see why a random (and considerable) tax cut from a party that promised to make corporations pay their fair share shows competency. It's a simplistic policy of debatable effectiveness enacting in a single line of legislation.

    You have made it utterly clear that you believe that simply by being a 'centrist' it means only you can be 'sensible' or even 'competent'. That should be taken as a sign of diabolical arrogance and an insult to every left-wing and every right-wing member of this House. Bland, inspecific appeals to some vague notion of being in the middle of the road is not a substitute for the research, hard work, creativity and intellect that goes into bills written by the rest of us. Don't hide behind 'subjectivity' or 'opinion' when you can't back up your insults - I am not so blind and self-important as to be unable to accept that any manner of economists I disagree with from Marx (too left) to Friedman (too right) are undeniably 'economically competent' not to mention members of this House I might disagree with.

    Though I suspect you won't, I want you to retract the offending statement and apologise to Aph and his party on the grounds that it constitutes lying to the House.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So May has ruled out a points-based immigration system. Interesting.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Interesting that May does'nt want a point based immigration requirement .. I Suppose that's because a point based immigration system does not acutally reduce the amount of immigration anyway .. Prehaps she wants an even tougher immigration system
    I was under the impression that points based systems tend to fail at their desired objectives (including in the UK currently re: non-EEA immigration) but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I was under the impression that points based systems tend to fail at their desired objectives (including in the UK currently re: non-EEA immigration) but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
    When Labour introduced a point based system for Non EU Nationals immigration sky rocketed and in Australia immigration has gone up as a result of the point based system because you are allowing anyone who meets the requirements enter into the UK

    In thats case Yes if the UK Introduced a point based system immigration would probably go up
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    When Labour introduced a point based system for Non EU Nationals immigration sky rocketed and in Australia immigration has gone up as a result of the point based system because you are allowing anyone who meets the requirements enter into the UK

    In thats case Yes if the UK Introduced a point based system immigration would probably go up
    Then why did Farage keep banging on about it?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    When Labour introduced a point based system for Non EU Nationals immigration sky rocketed and in Australia immigration has gone up as a result of the point based system because you are allowing anyone who meets the requirements enter into the UK

    In thats case Yes if the UK Introduced a point based system immigration would probably go up
    What was the system before points?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You're only saying it's subjective because you know you made an insupportable claim. I'm sure through your yellow-tinted glasses all manner of untruths seem correct. And if you did not think it should be a point in this debate (I have moved this from DPMQs) you shouldn't have made those slanderous comments. The fact of the matter is that whether I support their economic policy or not they actually have one and they have consistently sought to see it enacted through well researched, well written legislation.

    If your economic policies were vague it would imply you don't have the economic competency to outline clear and specific policy or policy that you won't later decide isn't all that good (as you've demonstrated with your personal allowance example).

    With regards to Corp Tax I presume you mean the 25% cut that failed to pass through the House once. I don't see why a random (and considerable) tax cut from a party that promised to make corporations pay their fair share shows competency. It's a simplistic policy of debatable effectiveness enacting in a single line of legislation.

    You have made it utterly clear that you believe that simply by being a 'centrist' it means only you can be 'sensible' or even 'competent'. That should be taken as a sign of diabolical arrogance and an insult to every left-wing and every right-wing member of this House. Bland, inspecific appeals to some vague notion of being in the middle of the road is not a substitute for the research, hard work, creativity and intellect that goes into bills written by the rest of us. Don't hide behind 'subjectivity' or 'opinion' when you can't back up your insults - I am not so blind and self-important as to be unable to accept that any manner of economists I disagree with from Marx (too left) to Friedman (too right) are undeniably 'economically competent' not to mention members of this House I might disagree with.

    Though I suspect you won't, I want you to retract the offending statement and apologise to Aph and his party on the grounds that it constitutes lying to the House.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 3, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.