Amber Rudd

Chat about anything local that doesn't fit elsewhere!
User avatar
Richard
Posts: 2301
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:36 pm

Re: Amber Rudd

Postby Richard » Tue May 01, 2018 10:21 pm

Hi cbe,
It is peculiar to suggest that any of our MP's have acted democratically when in fact Parliament has been sidelined from the Brexit process so far, with the House of Lords overruling many elements in the negotiations.
Plus, of course, amongst the Commons MP's decisions are, by their very nature, made by 'democratic' means, i.e. when amendments to the EU withdrawal Bill are debated and later voted on, but that doesn't mean the MP's are obeying the wishes of the majority.

I take onboard what you say re- immigration and the EU skilled workers still being able to enter the UK, presumably on work permits, post-Brexit.
It was the wider issue of dealing with illegal immigrant clampdown measures /Caribbean alleged 'over-stayers' that hung A. Rudd.
I am not sure why this particular 'witch-hunt' came into effect relatively recently although the media have milked it to death in order to create 'news' and it seems a shame that we fought many wars to promote freedom and ended up persecuting immigrants in a number of unpleasant ways.

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 2301
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:36 pm

Re: Amber Rudd

Postby Richard » Wed May 02, 2018 12:35 pm

Further to that bit about where MP's say they stand on Brexit issues, they have to follow orders from their Whip and are actively punished for not voting in accordance with the government's own wishes.
The consequences of defying the party whip are absolute: MP's may dismissed from their job immediately, , i.e. for abstaining, depending on the number of 'lines' on the whip.
An MP may get away with a rebuke in writing for defying a one or two line whip notice but defiance of a three line whip is taken rather seriously.
The Government and not Parliament is running the country but thus (as above) seeks control of Parliament because It needs Parliamentary approval of its policies to make them legitimate.
It is much more difficult for the Government to control the House of Lords. The sanctions of the Whips have little effect.
Under the Salisbury Convention, the HOL should not delay or reject legislation that was proposed in the Government’s election manifesto and also it should not unduly thwart the elected Commons. Despite this ruling the present Government has been defeated over 60 times in the Lords this year and without a majority in that 'house' and a narrow majority (aided by the N. Ireland's DUP) in the 'commons' obedience to the whip's orders will be even more vital.

The HOL forces Theresa May to seek Parliament’s backing for any withdrawal deal she agrees with the EU, however the HOL may be allowed a vote and can then overturn Parliamentary approval, depending upon the strength of feeling on important issues.
The Lords amended bills despite the objections of the government 50 times last year. Around one third of such defeats were overruled by the Commons, with the Lords taking the matter no further, according to the government’s guide to passing legislation.
Another third of defeats result in a compromise over the wording. The process of negotiating an agreed version between Commons and Lords is known as ‘ping pong’, as a bill can go back and forth between the two Houses multiple times.
A final one third of defeats “are conceded by the government”. That may be because the government doesn’t have the support of MP's to overrule the Lords, or because it decides that the Lords amendments are a good idea after all. So the Lords can get their way over laws from time to time.

cbe
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:29 pm

Re: Amber Rudd

Postby cbe » Wed May 02, 2018 1:49 pm

You have had two bites at the cherry whilst I've been away Richard. One or two points - the whips have a much less fearsome reputation in recent years and I would say that the consequences of defying them are far from absolute. MPs, on both sides of the aisle, fall foul of their whips from time to time and as you say may be 'rebuked'. The whips cannot have MPs 'dismissed from their job' only the electorate can do that.
The House of Lords 'power' is only in delaying matters (for up to a year at most) and people may think that the HoL has more power than it has because the Commons often amend their legislation so as to avoid such a delay, but they do not have to and therefore they have not been 'beaten' as the press seem to suggest. As you say tradition has it that the HoL will not get in the way of items which were in the latest manifesto......and yet....and yet....at the most recent general election both of the main parties were committed to exiting the EU. The HoL is therefore 'getting in the way' of a manifesto commitment. The reason why? There are so many people in there who have a very strong vested interest in remaining in the EU - The Kinnocks, Heseltine, Mandelson et al, all of whom are in receipt of large payments from the EU.
Richard, most of your posts on this subject come back to immigrants and the persecution thereof, presumably because we are talking about the sainted Amber Rudd, but of course immigration was just one of the things she was responsible for. The Windrush thing is/was just a stick with which to beat her, politics at its worst. From my own point of view it is an ill wind as I am glad she has gone. Now on the 'persecution' of immigrants. If you are an illegal immigrant or if you have overstayed a visa or permit than you have committed an offence. I have no problem with offenders being brought to book - have you?

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 2301
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:36 pm

Re: Amber Rudd

Postby Richard » Wed May 02, 2018 6:45 pm

Defying a three-line whip is quite serious, and has occasionally resulted in the whip being withdrawn from an MP or Lord. This means that the Member is effectively expelled from their party (but keeps their seat) and must sit as an independent until the whip is restored.
If it is not restored they will not be supported by their party at the following election. All the money and support will go to another candidate and should they choose to stand for re-election they will have to do so as an independent. I admit that this would be a very rare event.

cbe you also said:
" If you are an illegal immigrant or if you have overstayed a visa or permit than you have committed an offence. I have no problem with offenders being brought to book - have you?"
Not at all but there are far worse illegal immigrants who have committed an offence as hardened criminals and can use the legal system to complicate matters, demand interpreters and use 'human rights' loopholes. We should not be picking on the 'easy-meat' when we have not tackled the hard stuff.
I am not clear on how Brexit will affect human rights or if it this will also weaken the case of the illegal immigrants who are also serious 'criminals' and know how to play the system, at our expense.
I voted leave in the EU referendum in order to reinstate the U.K. Parliament’s supremacy. That included the right of the HoL to assert its opinion, and for the Supreme Court to make its ruling. Our Parliament is not just the HoC (fortunately).
I also voted leave as I saw the EU as a conduit for huge numbers of illegal immigrants (including terrorists) as well as other criminals to infiltrate the EU and thence enter the UK.
The refugees who are 'illegal' in the technical sense may be desperate and genuine but, perhaps understandably, don't want to take the risk of being detained for many months or more, and so may well become 'illegal' immigrants if they manage to evade detection on entry, for one, but are they really the top priority?

cbe
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:29 pm

Re: Amber Rudd

Postby cbe » Thu May 03, 2018 11:53 am

I think we are going around in circles now Richard and we have moved a little way from 'a view of Amber Rudd,' so perhaps it is time to move on to something new. By the way, again no offence, but playing devil's advocate is fine, but it makes it bloody difficult to get to know someone's true feelings on something.

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 2301
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:36 pm

Re: Amber Rudd

Postby Richard » Thu May 03, 2018 2:17 pm

OK Amber Rudd's demise is the removal of a Remainer from the Cabinet and Jarvid's position is uncertain, he doesn't think May's complicated customs arrangement will work and neither do the hard Brexiteer's or even the EU.

As for Rudd in Hastings she got off to a bad start in May 2013, describing her constituency as a magnet for the jobless and drug users.
She told the Financial Times that people who are on benefits and want to be by the seaside move to Hastings to have easier access to friends, drugs and drink.
She said that she decided that she wanted to stand as MP for the marginal constituency because it was within two hours of London and she could see her party was going to win it.

cbe
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:29 pm

Re: Amber Rudd

Postby cbe » Thu May 03, 2018 2:35 pm

Ta - but even that post tells me what Amber Rudd is reported as saying as opposed to what YOU
think of her.

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 2301
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:36 pm

Re: Amber Rudd

Postby Richard » Thu May 03, 2018 3:02 pm

Hi cbe,
I thought you asked what people thought about her resigning from Office.
I said that if she was unaware of a clear policy fact, at the centre of a scandal, then she should resign.
I don't think I or anyone in Hasting / Rye knew her well enough to comment about her on a personal or ministerial level or whether she was just towing the Party line on various issues.
Rudd campaigned for higher living wages and better treatment/conditions in the workplace but the socialists still hated her and graffiti and such was seen in Hastings, reflecting the level of anger and hatred against her but I don't think this was justified really.
She sounded strident when she spoke at the HoC but then most women in politics have that tendency these days.
Diane Abbott is the shadow Home Secretary, I shudder to think how she would fare if Labour came to power, it's not going to happen hopefully.

cbe
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:29 pm

Re: Amber Rudd

Postby cbe » Fri May 04, 2018 8:31 am

Ok - Thanks Richard.

User avatar
roy
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:36 pm
Location: St Leonard's On Sea

Re: Amber Rudd

Postby roy » Mon May 14, 2018 9:20 pm

Lets be honest Amber Rudd is taking the can for the failure of the Home Office and its civil servants,but we all know the Home Office is not fit for purpose and hasn't been for over 20 yrs,that is why we have around 1 million people who have no right to be here.
The list of failed politicians can go back even further than David Blunkett,all of them have failed and its due to the establishment not having the will to get to grips with this department.


Return to “General Hastings Chat & Friendly Banter”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests