The UK General Politics Thread Page 109

  • Page

    of 503 First / Last

  • spamdangled 20 May 2013 17:37:46 27,899 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I wondered how long it would take before the Tories brought the EU into it.
  • Deleted user 20 May 2013 17:42:04
    darkmorgado wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    darkmorgado wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    It really is. CPs are as identical as can be.
    When you fill out any form asking for your marital status, gay people in a civil partnership need to signpost their sexuality by stating they are in a civil partnership. That opens up a whole barrel of worms in itself.

    And if you need to give something a different name to single out that it is different, it isn't equality.
    Yeah, that doesn't have anything to do what I am saying. I said they should just change it as all it is at this point is a change of name. Which you have basically just shown to be the case.
    If that's the case then I apologise, it sort of came across that you were opposed to legislation, not to the amount of hand-wringing going on over it.
    Yeah I just read back my first post and realised how it sounded. Forgot to add that the it is all a big fuss over a name at this point so the quicker someone says fuck it and changes the legislation the better. The last bit I missed being the most important!
  • spamdangled 20 May 2013 17:54:35 27,899 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    That's cool then dude :)
  • spamdangled 20 May 2013 19:53:23 27,899 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The government has just said that pension rights, consummation and adultery are completely different between gay Civil Partnerships and straight Marriage, so the issue isn't as simple as just allowing straight people to enter into civil partnerships.
  • Deleted user 20 May 2013 20:06:24
    Can't speak for pension rights but consummation is so archaic it is never referred to and adultery is covered under the behavious ground as far as CP is concerned. In any event they both come under the strict penis penetrating vagina definition of yore so wouldn't be too hard to accomodate.
  • Deleted user 20 May 2013 20:12:25
    Just read about the difference in pension rights, last case on the matter struck it down as not complying with EU Equal Treatment Directive anyway. Wouldn't be hard to fix.
  • spamdangled 20 May 2013 21:21:42 27,899 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    In a sort-of related issue, the Church of Scotland has voted in favour of allowing gay clergy.
  • spamdangled 20 May 2013 23:13:05 27,899 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Wrecking amendments failed by a large majority. The bill has passed the third reading :)
  • RobTheBuilder 20 May 2013 23:16:07 6,521 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Good news on both of those!
  • cubbymoore 20 May 2013 23:24:29 36,509 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Interesting reading who voted for the ammendment. It made me think that what our MPs are voting on, and how they have voted should be plastered all over the borough in massive letters. That would make this democracy more transparent.
  • mal 20 May 2013 23:53:47 23,720 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/
  • mcmonkeyplc 20 May 2013 23:54:52 39,833 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Cubby, I'm going to eat that thing in your signature.
  • spamdangled 21 May 2013 00:12:04 27,899 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    And now it seems Apple have avoided billions in tax.

    Quelle surprise.

    According to a US Senate investigation, they've achieved the their quite staggering 2% tax payouts by funnelling their profits through dummy companies that literally are not based anywhere in the world.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 00:14:28 21-05-2013
  • FWB 21 May 2013 08:16:32 48,083 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I really wish I was allowed to do this. Given my salary, it would make a massive difference to me.

    Don't know what my council tax is doing. Still waiting for new recycling bags after asking for them four months ago.

    Edited by FWB at 08:17:22 21-05-2013
  • Deleted user 21 May 2013 08:49:33
    I was thinking the other day about this. The organisation I work for campaigns against this shit quite a lot. Why not instead of legislation constantly playing catchup trying to plug these holes, which is a never ending game. Why don't we implement something along the lines of full disclosure. In that companies have to completely and accurately disclose exactly how their money is managed if they have any operations in the UK. They would have to show where it is funnelled, how and why. They would have to do this on a continuing basis and make it available to the public (I can't see any privacy/morality concerns being a genuine issue with these corporations). I appreciate this isn't much different from the current position but I believe a bigger emphasis on knowing exactly where the money is going - before and without the need for these public enquiries - would do more to fix this problem than what is happening currently. It would give companies the ability to put their "We Pay UK Tax" badge next to their sustainability, environmentally friendly etc. boasts. Above this though it would enable lots of small companies to use these avoidance tactics, which I believe is a good thing in the long term. A big argument against forcing these companies to act is that we don't want to scare them away. This argument might start to lose significance if "Cherry's Cupcakes" are also now legally avoiding tax. It's a bit muddled and I've missed quite a bit (I've forgotten almost all my tax law and I was never that good at it in the first place!). But I believe a change in tactic needs to be adopted that is centred around holding these people 'to account' without the need of special investigations etc. Give the public this information from the get go and require it to be prominently displayed so companies can continue to legally avoid tax if they want to, but they will have to make it bloody clear to everyone that uses their shop.
  • cubbymoore 21 May 2013 13:16:05 36,509 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I know nothing about Scotland's finances, but I imagine they'd have to do a fair bit of downshifting if they went proper independent, I can't imagine they can afford to wrack up a big deficit if they didn't have their own currency.
  • senso-ji 21 May 2013 14:11:39 6,364 posts
    Seen 44 seconds ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I say fair play to Salmond and the SNP for giving this independence thing a shot. There's been a lot of talk about how politicians these days are out of touch with society, which twats like UKIP have jumped all over. The SNP are at least actively offering an alternative and not shouting from the sidelines.
  • spamdangled 21 May 2013 14:15:44 27,899 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Rather than attempting to zig-zag between adopting the Euro and retaining the Pound, surely Scotland as an Independent nation would be better served by creating their own currency? That way they would have the freedom to use similar economic levers such as currency inflation/deflation, not be dependent on the Bank of England or the ECB and be able to have full control over their economic policy?

    (I'm aware that it is far more complex than simply making up a new word and sticking it on some bits of paper and shiny metal discs, and that there are things like international trade and things to keep in mind).

    Edited by darkmorgado at 14:16:50 21-05-2013
  • mcmonkeyplc 21 May 2013 14:56:38 39,833 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Can we lynch the SNP if Scotland votes no?
  • spamdangled 21 May 2013 15:03:55 27,899 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    Can we lynch the SNP if Scotland votes no?
    Well they sort of exist purely to get an Independent Scotland, so if the country votes No then lose their entire reason for existing, no? Sort of like if in the UK we voted against leaving the EU then UKIP are rendered pointless at a stroke.
  • mcmonkeyplc 21 May 2013 15:42:19 39,833 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Don't tease me with that!
  • imamazed 21 May 2013 15:47:15 6,200 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    Can we lynch the SNP if Scotland votes no?
    Well they sort of exist purely to get an Independent Scotland, so if the country votes No then lose their entire reason for existing, no? Sort of like if in the UK we voted against leaving the EU then UKIP are rendered pointless at a stroke.
    I (somewhat) agree with you regarding UKIP but I don't think the same applies to the SNP. Yes, a "no" vote would be a massive blow to their credibility, but for many in Scotland they're the only mainstream face of socialism and, depending on the UK political landscape at the time, they have enough existing political capital and governmental experience to still offer the people of Scotland a fair amount.

    I say that reluctantly; I wish they would bugger off as we need more Labour MPs up there!
  • DaM 21 May 2013 15:47:38 14,008 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    Can we lynch the SNP if Scotland votes no?
    Well they sort of exist purely to get an Independent Scotland, so if the country votes No then lose their entire reason for existing, no? Sort of like if in the UK we voted against leaving the EU then UKIP are rendered pointless at a stroke.
    It will give them problems! But the reason they got a majority this time is because people were reasonably happy with their last term in Government - a minority Gov, which couldn't do anything radical.

    If you don't want to vote Labour, who else are you going to vote for when Tory isn't an option? And don't say Lib Dems!

    If the electorate had known what was going to happen before the last SP election, we'd have a Labour/LibDem coalition, not an SNP majority.
  • spamdangled 21 May 2013 15:58:48 27,899 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    DaM wrote:
    If you don't want to vote Labour, who else are you going to vote for when Tory isn't an option? And don't say Lib Dems!
    SDLP?
  • DaM 21 May 2013 16:05:19 14,008 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    DaM wrote:
    If you don't want to vote Labour, who else are you going to vote for when Tory isn't an option? And don't say Lib Dems!
    SDLP?
    Bit difficult, they are mainly Irish... ;)

    I was leafleting for the SLDP last week :)
  • spamdangled 21 May 2013 16:07:58 27,899 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Second day of the 3rd reading of Gay Marriage, and this is actually pretty interesting (and much less divisive than yesterday's debate).

    The bill is being used as a springboard for an amendment to legalise Humanist weddings. Many stats and testimonies are being put forward, there hasn't been a single opposing argument based on principle, etc.

    Similar to yesterday, whilst I agree with the amendment in question (particularly as I broadly associate my beliefs with Humanism and would rather like some sort of Humanist ceremony for my own gay wedding), I do worry that if the amendment goes through it would lead to considerable delay and that the issue would be greater served being put forward as a bill in its own right rather than being tacked on to a bill that is founded on principles of sexual equality.

    If nothing else, it's certainly highlighted just how big a mess the current legislation around marriage is - and provided further evidence that really there needs to be a compete and total separation of church and state.

    The point was made that in Scotland, marriage law is far neater and less problematic as it is tied to individuals rather than establishments - which has made their own process of legalising gay marriage far more straightforward with little to none of the rhetoric and controversy that we have seen down in our part of the union.

    Perhaps in a few years we should just look properly at separating Church and State entirely and completely reforming the established law around marriage rights in their entirety. But until then, I JUST want to be able to marry my partner in the eyes of law. I don't want to see a piece of legislation that is hugely important to millions (LGBT people, their family and friends) and widely supported by a majority of the UK population being hijacked by other groups seeing an opportunity, whether I agree with those points in principle or not.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 16:09:57 21-05-2013

    Edited by darkmorgado at 22:33:21 21-05-2013

    Edited by darkmorgado at 22:34:06 21-05-2013
  • spamdangled 21 May 2013 16:33:31 27,899 posts
    Seen 22 seconds ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    They're now discussing an amendment so that the bill covers Transgendered people and effectively "re-establishes" a marriage as continuous due to them being forced to divorce and re-register as civil partners previously (I mentioned this a few pages back when the bill was still in committee stage).
  • Page

    of 503 First / Last

Log in or register to reply