General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
Funny how she went straight to the NHS instead of the billions that are spent in corporate welfare.
Larry the cat is a good judge of character.
There really needs to be some sort of rule that NHS funding is ring fenced. Every time the Tories get in power they immediately start grabbing money out of the NHS pot, and it's ridiculous because their own voters are the most likely to need access to it.
However since they all appear to be utterly incapable of thinking long-term, and by long-term I mean 6 months, we need to protect the NHS from their short-sighted grubby little mits.
In our palimentary system. It is impossible for one parliment to make a rule, that another parliment cannot change.
Yeah I know that's why I'm saying that we need some sort of protection. Which as I said would help the Tories as well because they're their own worst enemies.
This is a fact that most of the back benches know to be true. There is a reason why they had the candidate selection process so drawn out, and it's so that they wouldn't end up with only reactionary idiots on the ballot.
It would be cool.
But i think the harm would outweigh any real advantage.
Just think about UK hostory over the last 400 years of our parliment.
We have created lots of laws with full public support. That at the time would have passed any test of democratic support you like to come up with.
That nowadays seem utterly unforgivable.
The need for our society to grow morrally is part of why we have the parliment we do.
The US intentionally created there 3 house system to slow down major changes in moral ideals. And even that seems to cause more pain then good.
One good example.
It delayed the emd of slavery. Even more then the UK or most of the western world.
And lets face it. Even with no limitations on our parliment. It takes time to end evils.
The risk can be summed as. Winning support for an emotional possition is easier then ending it when talking about large communities.
JFC
Hmmm. I think Liz Truss is a useless conglomeration of pus and mucus as much as the next chap, but 'considered cutting' doesn't seem like that much of a crime to me. Not compared to 'utterly fucked the economy and brought financial stress and ruin to millions of UK citizens'.
That's hella funny if real, I thought Liz was a diehard libertarian who's against any government intervention when it comes to the free market?
She she's either a sociopath, an imbecile, or both?
Fuck the tories