General Election 2015

[bodsier]

Michael Gove minister of justice..... With cutbacks, dumbing down and forensic science being passed down to the police, there inevitably will be more miscarriages of justice than ever before. If we get rid of the Human Rights act, prisons will be bulging. I don't think Any party who wishes to rid us of the Human Rights Act should be in Government. It will no doubt be our biggest loss.

[hpsaucey]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Labour need to stop Union influence. For those of

> us old enough to remember the 70s, it was a pretty

> @&?# time to be around. That generation has

> broadly not forgiven Labour, and they sway

> elections. Labour only wins on the centre ground,

> like under Blair and the unions forced Miliband on

> the party, when his brother was clearly the better

> choice. As much as a swing to the left would be

> great for core vote, that don't play well in

> middle England. I would love Andy Burnham as

> leader but I fear he would isolate the south, just

> as Chukka would isolate the core vote IMO. They

> need someone who cuts through with everyone,

> another Blair.

>

> Louisa.

Jesus Christ - they need another Blair like a kick in the teeth!

[Louisa]

When I say "another Blair" I'm not talking in the literal sense. I'm refering more to the centrist approach (or the perception at least). Whatever you think of the man, he's the only labour leader to win them general election(s) since 1974. That shows you how scary it is that they've failed under every other leader before or since him.

Louisa.

[????]

bodsier Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Michael Gove minister of justice..... With

> cutbacks, dumbing down and forensic science being

> passed down to the police, there inevitably will

> be more miscarriages of justice than ever before.

> If we get rid of the Human Rights act, prisons

> will be bulging. I don't think Any party who

> wishes to rid us of the Human Rights Act should be

> in Government. It will no doubt be our biggest

> loss.

Oh Ffs. It was in their manifesto and hardly warranted a mention ( including from labour) it wasn't law until 2000 and is being replaced by a bill of rights which puts ultimate sovereignty on human rights wit the UK courts. Stop being such a melodramatic twat believing everything you see on Social Medis about the fascist Tories. I despair.

[peckham_ryu]

bodsier Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If we get rid of the Human Rights act, prisons

> will be bulging. I don't think Any party who

> wishes to rid us of the Human Rights Act should be

> in Government. It will no doubt be our biggest

> loss.

IMO, a misleadingly named, well-intentioned but ill thought through Act, whose consequences seem to be largely unintended, because its effect is left to public authorities (especially judges) to determine. Are there any particular valuable rights which its repeal will deprive us of?

Much excitement about the Tories' plan to get rid of both this and the fox hunting ban. In reality, both are well meaning but rushed and poorly written items of legislation. It doesn't mean that the government is anti human or anti fox, it just means they don't want public time and money continuing to be wasted by trying to work with these badly executed laws. (Although they might also be anti human and/or anti fox!)

[Henry_17]

????,

But the manifesto didn't say that they were literally going to "tear it up", which is what we now know from the media coverage, such aggression and zeal in the manner of destruction, I think this is the point of most concern.

[JohnL]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> bodsier Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Michael Gove minister of justice..... With

> > cutbacks, dumbing down and forensic science

> being

> > passed down to the police, there inevitably

> will

> > be more miscarriages of justice than ever

> before.

> > If we get rid of the Human Rights act, prisons

> > will be bulging. I don't think Any party who

> > wishes to rid us of the Human Rights Act should

> be

> > in Government. It will no doubt be our biggest

> > loss.

>

> Oh Ffs. It was in their manifesto and hardly

> warranted a mention ( including from labour) it

> wasn't law until 2000 and is being replaced by a

> bill of rights which puts ultimate sovereignty on

> human rights wit the UK courts. Stop being such a

> melodramatic twat believing everything you see on

> Social Medis about the fascist Tories. I despair.

Well I heard Gove is Pro death penalty.

And now he's in charge of justice.

[robbin]

He's hardly alone!

More people in the UK say they are in favour of re-introducing the death penalty than are opposed to it.

[TillieTrotter]

Really? Most people in the UK? Where did you get that information?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Found this from yougov on the topic: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/13/capital-punishment-50-years-favoured/

[Otta]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> He's hardly alone!

>

> More people in the UK say they are in favour of

> re-introducing the death penalty than are opposed

> to it.

That was the case until very recently, when a poll showed that for the first time ever over 50% were against.

I was shocked to hear it, as I'd just assumed that a larger majority would be against.

I expect the number of againsts will increase as the older generation dies out.

[Blah Blah]

Can't see the death penalty ever coming back personally. It would just be too controversial.

[robbin]

Yes, that's the YouGov article I based my comment on. It is the most current (2014).

ISPOS MORI shows a higher percentage in favour but also has done some interesting research into generational break downs -

"Across the population as a whole support for the death penalty has fallen by 20 percentage points from 74% in 1993 to 54% in 2012. This fall coincided with the abolition of the death penalty for treason and piracy with violence in 1998 and the adoption of the 13th protocol of the Human Rights Act in 2003 which prohibits the death penalty under any circumstances.

And there are no longer any significant gaps between the cohorts. The pre-war generation are the only generation that will remember state executions as adults and have been the most likely to support the death penalty. In 1986 they were 14 percentage points more likely to support the death penalty than generation X, but this gap has narrowed over recent years..."

[robbin]

Otta wrote -

"That was the case until very recently, when a poll showed that for the first time ever over 50% were against.

I was shocked to hear it, as I'd just assumed that a larger majority would be against."

I think you are mistaken. That You Gov research was the latest in the UK. There is nothing so far as I am aware which shows that over 50% are against. You Gov says 39% against and that was last year. Even the Guardian hasn't second guessed that figure in its two major articles recently.

[*Bob*]

There's definitely a sizeable portion of the population oo fink there should be deff for peedos etc so I'm sure the 'for' count is high.

Fortunately, successive governments - of all persuasions - have seen fit legislate against base inhumanity.

[robbin]

Indeed, there are on occasions certain subjects upon which we are protected from our base instincts by our elected representatives and our laws.

[Louisa]

I have always felt the death penalty in certain exceptional circumstances should be used. There are certain individuals who for whatever reason are deemed to have commited such dreadful offences that the death penalty is the just form of retribution for such crimes. I understand why it hasn't been reintroduced, and some high profiles cases many moons ago support that argument sufficiently, but I believe it is patronising for elected members to go against public opinion on even debating the argument, just because it's not PC enough to even bare thinking about.

Louisa.

[*Bob*]

Ah yes, the 'PC' anti-state-sanctioned-murder brigade.

Bloody do-gooders.

We should cut rapist's cocks off as well. And not pay road tax.

[robbin]

The state sanctions killing in the course of reasonable self-defence. If the state sanctions executions after due process of law (i.e. after the final appeals process has ended and no executive clemency is granted) then it isn't murder - no matter how much you may find it personally distasteful.

Murder is where innocent people are killed by criminals. The two are surely very different. Personally, I think it is important not to describe them the same way - if only out of respect for relatives of murder victims.

[aquarius moon]

Life imprisonment is the best punishment for the worst offenders. Not 15 years, life.

I don't think I could ever approve of the death penalty.

[hpsaucey]

aquarius moon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Life imprisonment is the best punishment for the

> worst offenders. Not 15 years, life.

>

> I don't think I could ever approve of the death

> penalty.

Yep - if life actually meant life I'm sure the death penalty would have less 'appeal' for some folk.

[sorry - off topic...]

[????]

C&P section from an Opinion in the Graun

Public discourse in this country would be more civilised, productive, and robust if the left were less sanctimonious, less smugly certain of the righteousness of their cause, and more sensitive to the fact that everyone doesn?t see things their way ? in which case results like last Friday?s might seem a measure less surprising. Conservative supporters might either have the courage of their convictions or, if truly ashamed, revise them, but they should at least refute the proposition that defending your own interests is only acceptable if you?re broke. This election was largely swung by the middle class of middle England, who determined that the economy was in safer hands with the Tories. Others may not agree, but that?s still a reputable position; it shouldn?t be a sordid little secret.

[*Bob*]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The state sanctions killing in the course of

> reasonable self-defence. If the state sanctions

> executions after due process of law (i.e. after

> the final appeals process has ended and no

> executive clemency is granted) then it isn't

> murder - no matter how much you may find it

> personally distasteful.

>

> Murder is where innocent people are killed by

> criminals. The two are surely very different.

Ok let's not dress it up (or down) - I'll settle on 'killing' which is what it is whichever way it happens.

I find the death penalty more disturbing than murder.

For anyone who hasn't seen it, 'A Short Film About Killing' sums it up better than I ever could.

[Jeremy]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Murder is where innocent people are killed by

> criminals. The two are surely very different.

I'm not sure the difference between murder and death penalty is so clear cut. Sure, the death penalty might have a certain validity because there's some kind of consensus that it's for the greater good. But it still boils down to a group of people deciding that someone deserves to be killed.

Some people would consider that stoning an adulterer to death is a fair and just punishment.

[*Bob*]

On the general election, I'm not that surprised. Surprised by the scale fo' sho' - of the SNP triumph and LibDem trouncing - but not the result generally.

There's a vocal liberal anti-Tory educated (relatively affluent, naturally) posse whooping it up on social media at the moment, but let's be honest: most people vote for for selfish reasons, not for some greater good - despite all the talk.

Labour just didn't target their potential selfish voters as well as the Cons did.