2019 General Election Poll and Discussion

[ChristmasPud]

I don't believe there is any form of chamber made up of unelected representatives. The EU parliament is elected MEPs and the councils are formed of government officials such as heads of state

The European Commission has the most power in the EU, they draft the law then EU parliament ratify it, unlike in UK parliament. The Commission is unelected and there is no way to democratically remove them.

The way I see it, House of Lords and EU commission are the two big anti democratic institutions, but probably the Lords more. Plus the FPTP voting system needing reform.

Fun fact is the late Tony Benn, leftwing MP was one of the most prominent campaigners against both the EU and Lords (for that reason of them being anti democratic)

 

[Lurker]

Is that not much the same way as the civil service (who aren't elected) draft the laws which our parliment passes?

The European Commission might be a bit more than just a civil service, but unless a majority of MEPs vote for the law they have developed, it will never be enacted.

So there is always a democratic vote before laws are put into action

Ergo, it's a democracy.

 

[jon81uk]

The European commission is a cabinet made up of one representative from each country, chosen by the council of the European Union which itself is made up of ministers from each country. Therefore you could say it isn't much different to our cabinet that is chosen by the prime minister from MPs and Lords.

 

[ChristmasPud]

Is that not much the same way as the civil service (who aren't elected) draft the laws which our parliment passes?.

Unless Im missing something (Im not a political expert) the civil service in this country just supports the elected government, it doesnt draft laws then hand down to parliament and make political decisions of its own. Arent laws drafted between the Commons and Lords?

The EU Commission isnt made of present day elected leaders, it’s made politicians previously elected ‘at some point’ but no longer ie can have been since voted out in their home country. They are required specifically not to represent their original nation’s interest but represent the EU agenda, so not representing a mandate like a parliament would.

More democratic than the Lords but still rather suspect, with the EU being the highest level of state power. And refreshingly it isnt a leftwing/rightwing type debate

 

[Matt N]

Really, that's interesting... my issue with the UK political establishment prior to boris, was that I (and seemingly, a lot of working class voters) felt that the whole thing was approaching this far left singularity with conservative far from right-wing while labour was off chasing Venezuela.
Literally the only reason I even voted in 2017 was to ensure Brexit!

I'm glad we have boris, he seems more centrist to me...
What about him seems far right to you?

The only reason I say that Boris Johnson is taking the Conservatives in a far-right direction is because that's what a lot of people seem to be saying online. The general online consensus among news outlets is that Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn are both taking their respective parties to their extremes in terms of their positions on the political spectrum, with Labour being most centrist under Blair/Brown and the Conservatives being most centrist under Cameron. I myself never described Johnson as far-right, and I'll admit there are some more centrist policies in the Conservative manifesto, but a lot of people online seem to think that the Conservative party is returning towards the right.

@Matt N yes true too, they (the Lib Dems) stabbed an entire generation in the back, based on how long it took the North to forgive the Tories, it might be 2070 before they recover to anything like what they were in 2005.

Interestingly, my mum voted Lib Dem in the 2010 election due to their stance on tuition fees. She then said that she was immensely disappointed about their actions regarding tuition fees in the 2010-15 government and did not vote for them again in 2015. If she resembles your average voter, then I can see why the Liberal Democrats made huge losses in 2015.

Another interesting thing is that Jo Swinson aligns more with the Conservative party than I initially thought; during the coalition, she apparently voted with the government whip more than 72 Conservative MPs!

 

[jon81uk]

Unless Im missing something (Im not a political expert) the civil service in this country just supports the elected government, it doesnt draft laws then hand down to parliament and make political decisions of its own. Arent laws drafted between the Commons and Lords?

Bills are often made by government departments then debated and voted on by the two houses. So again the bill is debated by a democratic parliament before it becomes a law, but the leg-work of doing the writing is led by unelected lawyers and civil servants.
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/law/what-happens-when-bill-drafted

again I don’t see huge differences with the EU Parliament debating things drafted by other commission.

 

[ChristmasPud]

Bills are often made by government departments then debated and voted on by the two houses. So again the bill is debated by a democratic parliament before it becomes a law, but the leg-work of doing the writing is led by unelected lawyers and civil servants.
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/law/what-happens-when-bill-drafted

again I don’t see huge differences with the EU Parliament debating things drafted by other commission.

The page you linked shows there's an interesting difference to how the EU seemingly does it.

Bills drafted by the civil service departments (run by elected MPs) "form the basis" rather than becoming the laws once ratified.

This other page adds more to how laws are passed by Parliament and explains a lot more of the influence parliament has in debating and defining bills, rather than just approving them.

The civil service also doesnt sit above parliament like the EU commission does. The EU council and EU parliament can 'request' legislation but it doesnt have to be accepted by the Commission. The suspect thing about this system is that nobody voted to be part of this, it built up over time and now seemingly cannot be undone if desired, which seems anti-democratic to me.

 

[Sauron97]

The head of the department shapes the agenda when it comes to bill drafting, and the head of the department (usually, obviously not in the case of Nicky Morgan!) is an MP / cabinet member.

Is that not much the same way as the civil service (who aren't elected) draft the laws which our parliment passes?

The European Commission might be a bit more than just a civil service, but unless a majority of MEPs vote for the law they have developed, it will never be enacted.

So there is always a democratic vote before laws are put into action

Ergo, it's a democracy.

It's none of those things. The civil service in this country is a separate issue that requires reform. The commission being a 'civil service' is the standard response without understanding the real extent of their power. They dictate the entire direction of legislation on an agenda that only they and the desk officials they work with are responsible for.

The European Commission has the most power in the EU, they draft the law then EU parliament ratify it, unlike in UK parliament. The Commission is unelected and there is no way to democratically remove them.

Unless Im missing something (Im not a political expert) the civil service in this country just supports the elected government, it doesnt draft laws then hand down to parliament and make political decisions of its own.

The EU Commission isnt made of present day elected leaders, it’s made politicians previously elected ‘at some point’ but no longer ie can have been since voted out in their home country. They are required specifically not to represent their original nation’s interest but represent the EU agenda, so not representing a mandate like a parliament would.

Yep you're not missing anything. They can be removed by the parliament BUT only the entire commission can be removed. Not individual members, which is a nasty trick as it means you'd have to get rid of your own nation state commissioner.
The whole thing is a farce. Even the democratically elected parliament is incredibly weak. All the nation state parties are only given extra funding if they join 'ideological groups' between cross European parties which forces everyone in to a gigantic coalition and forces compromise on everything, which means the lawmaking process is often very rushed. The simple majority voting ignores and overrides the wishes of individual member states and the laws are drafted behind closed doors alongside dubious lobbying (where only a few out of the thousands EU officials actually have to publish data about who they meet, why, what they discussed etc) . So the EU gives us:
Rights? We're then told the EU gives us 20 day yearly holidays (even though UK law gives 28, so at best it's a dodgy safety net) , that's alongside all the other nonsense that is already written in to UK law like maternity pay and minimum breaks between shifts.
Competition directives? Small businesses get pages of Health and Safety directives even if they are working within industries or using capital that are deemed low risk. And anyone who argues against it is given a slogan driven lecture on why H&S is so important....
Energy efficiency? Search the EU website and you'll find pages (deliberately written in to copious documents and not delivered clearly) of directives that are designed to make products more efficient and reduce either carbon emissions, increase input/output efficiency, etc, and yet year on year the energy usage for households driven by demand increases. An optimist would call it a futile strategy that needs an alternative and technology driven approach, a skeptic like me would say it's a deliberate agenda to drive out entry level businesses and keep a foothold for all the big businesses.
Data protection? Look up article 13. Definitely not a corporate driven agenda pursued by the european commission to undermine users and restrict their content by forcing companies like youtube to go through all user generated material to look for vaguely defined 'infringements'........

It's unfortunate that so many people on here are defending the EU. The issue is that the majority of sources you find on the web about the EU are from the EU themselves which makes it hard to find neutral info from independent sources.

 

[ChristmasPud]

Seems as though the EU is economically beneficial, but politically obtrusive.

Wish there had been a third referendum option for ‘reform’ but then would a member state have any power to urge reforming the EU?

 

[IanSR]

Interestingly, my mum voted Lib Dem in the 2010 election due to their stance on tuition fees. She then said that she was immensely disappointed about their actions regarding tuition fees in the 2010-15 government and did not vote for them again in 2015. If she resembles your average voter, then I can see why the Liberal Democrats made huge losses in 2015

Yeah exactly, so not only did the Lib Dems stab your mum in the back, but also you (or an older sibling) and then their/your children (because you will probably relate at some point in the future to your kids how you were saddled with £60k of debt by your mid 20's after your mum voted for a Political part who said they would scrap the fees, then when they got into power, tripled them) and through this storytelling, your children will develope a natural mistrust of anything the Lib Dems say.

So that's three generations before anybody will even remotely consider giving them a chance, just like what happened when Thatcher shut the coal mines down in the 80's, it has literally taken until now (nearly 40 years) for that to be forgotten (I would say forgiven, but I don't think it has, just voting Tory was the lesser or two evils for most) and that was for simply making them unemployed, the Lib Dems saddled people with a debt for life, that'll take a lot longer to forgive or forget.

 

[D4n]

I think it's ironic that the Liberal Democrats take 100% of the stick for the trebling of tuition fees when it was actually a Tory policy. Sure they should get stick for voting it through but they're not the ones who came up with it. Everyone seems to forget that.

 

[GaryH]

Was Labour that started tuition fees in 1998. Not the Lib Dems, nor the Torys.

 

[Lurker]

I think it's ironic that the Liberal Democrats take 100% of the stick for the trembling of tuition fees when it was actually a Tory policy. Sure they should get stick for voting it through but they're not the ones who came up with it. Everyone seems to forget that.

I dislike the Tories too, but it was the lib Dems that had scrapping tuituion fees in their manifesto. They lied, and votes though a humongous increase.

I don't remember the Tory manifesto from the time, but I highly doubt they'd considered scrapping fees

Was Labour that started tuition fees in 1998. Not the Lib Dems, nor the Torys.

In today's money they added fees of ~£1730 per year. I could have easily paid these off as I studied.

I am not decided on whether it's better to tax everyone equally for university. Or to introduce a graduate tax. With number of students attending rising dramatically (see graph) it's clear someone (or everyone) needed to pay for it.

£9000 plus huge interest rates (5.4% for me) makes it a rather ludicrous and ever growing.

This year, to pay off the interest on my tuition loan alone (not considering maintenance) I will have to pay back £2400. That is interest only.

So to pay back the interest, on only the tuition and not the mainteaince loan, I have to earn £48,000. (9% of 27,000 is £2430, you don't pay on the first £21,000).

You can see here

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/graduate-outcomes-leo-outcomes-in-2016-to-2017

the average graduate does not earn that.

So what's the point of a loan that can't be paid back?

Note: I have a master's degree, so 4 years at 9000. I am also in the highest bracket of earners, so pay the highest level of interest at RPI + 3%. The policy on paying back loans is here - https://www.gov.uk/repaying-your-student-loan/what-you-pay

My loan builds more in interest per year than what it cost to go to university before the price hike.

 

[D4n]

You're both missing the point that it was a Tory policy that tuition fees be increased from £3000 to £9000. No, they never considered scrapping fees but they were the ones who pushed through the huge increase.

The fact that Labour introduced the fees is regrettable but the difference between £3000 and £9000 is absolutely huge, especially with the insane interest rates charged on student loans.

 

[GaryH]

I agree, £9000 a year is just ridiculous and puts people off studying, I was just clarifying who started it all

 

[Lurker]

You're both missing the point that it was a Tory policy that tuition fees be increased from £3000 to £9000. No, they never considered scrapping fees but they were the ones who pushed through the huge increase.

The fact that Labour introduced the fees is regrettable but the difference between £3000 and £9000 is absolutely huge, especially with the insane interest rates charged on student loans.

I don't think I'm missing the point.

My counter point is that they couldn't have pushed it through without the Lib Dems as they didn't have a majority.

Both parties are equally responsible.

 

[MattyH]

Thank to the tories I'm nearly £50,000 in debt to them.

 

[Lurker]

Thank to the tories I'm nearly £50,000 in debt to them.

I've been paying off for a few years but I'm at £65,000 now.

 

[Matt N]

To be fair, aren't the Lib Dem promises only in the event of a majority government?

 

[bluesonichd]

people just go to uni for the easy life,
have no intention of paying the loans back,
get a proper job i say !