Lord Cameron??? This war criminal has no shame. How can a failed prime minister be lorded up. He couldn't even finish his shift
this post was submitted on 12 May 2024
20 points (77.8% liked)
UK Politics
3086 readers
313 users here now
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! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
He was lorded simply by being prime minister. It was traditional up until Boris said fuck may. I have no clue what's going on since then
He was lorded simply by being prime minister. It was traditional up until Boris said fuck may. I have no clue what's going on since then
What? That's not even laughably true.
When left the PM's office in 2016 he didn't automatically become a lord. He spent 7 years afterwards not being a lord but received a life peerage in 2023 when he became foreign secretary.
Where the fuck do you get your information? LOL 😂
Eh. I never said it was automatic typically it was done via the next pms list
I never said it was automatic
You kinda did
He was lorded simply by being prime minister.
Which is wrong.
You also said
It was traditional up until Boris said fuck may.
Which is also wrong. John Major didn't get a lordship. Tony Blair didn't get a lordship. Gordon Brown didn't get a lordship. You have to go back to Margaret Thatcher to find an example supporting your claims. That's some twenty six years of being wrong... more of you count the PMs after Boris. 🤣🤣
No one counts the pms after Boris
Are you thinking of... Tony Blair?
Given our recent run of prime ministers... I'm actually thankful that there is someone in the cabinet with a brain cell. At least the dude actually gave the public a referendum, even if he didn't like the outcome.
He didn't give the public a referendum; he braided the right wing of his party with a referendum.
Sure but ultimately... I remember voting. So he at least offered the choice which was more than any other politician was prepared to do, the reasons why he offered the choice don't matter to me. I don't know about you, but I have this thing about democracy and actually being able to express my views on any given topic.
We should have many more referendums.
Offering the public a choice.
While allowing one side to outright lie about what them winning means.
Is not democracy its corruprion.
So yes likely exactly how he earned a lordhood.
To offer a democratic choice. You need an informed votership. And allowing all the opposing claims of no loss with all benifits. That the brexit side claimed. Was simply curruption. His or the party right. All equates to the same thing.
And given he used exaxly the same tricks in the AV ref.
He knew full well such a ref was open to lies and tricks to sell a side.
And was the only person with the power to ensure voters had the ability to clearly state what they wanted. No legal reason a ref need to be yes or no.
He could have easaly formated it as 2 question.
Leave stay.
If leave should we try to keep eea like membership.
This would have allowed simple maths to say. X % of leavers feel we should keep single market.
Heck as the questions are on the same paper.
He could have given a list of benifits and losses for people to select yes or no to.
At least then during debate with the EU. There would be a clear democratic path of what was wanted by the people. Broken down by leave and remain voters.
Making any negotiation in parliment and with the EU easier to debate.
"One side" both sides outright lied. So have to disagree on at least that point.
As I keep being told the UK is a 'representative democracy', it is generally your MP who decides the specifics, as the voting electorate it's your job to decide which strategy should be followed. This is why manifestos are presented and that they are not complete covering every policy. The EU also made it abundantly clear (as they threw their toys out of the pram) that the UK could not 'cherry pick' parts of the EU, they were either in or out. There was no option of remaining part of the single market so it would be silly to offer that to the public.
Yes or No, was a legally non-binding way to advise government. What the government did with that information was their own effort. The referendum was sound. That someone lied should not preclude us from voting on things, because all politicians lie... except perhaps in wales where it might actually be a criminal offense for politicians to lie soon(tm)...
There actually was a deal with the EU, several of them, however, the public then elected Boris Johnson deciding by electoral mandate that they wanted out and leave meant leave, not half in half out, just fuck 'em. It's rather sweet to pretend that there wasn't a general election before we actually left. There was a chance for the public to opt towards trying to remain in the single market, whether via Theresa May's deal or by electing Labour.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Lord Cameron said while he would not support a major ground offensive in the Gazan city of Rafah, the UK would not copy US plans to stop some arms sales.
This week US President Joe Biden upended part of one of the world's most significant strategic relationships by saying the US are "not supplying the weapons " if Israel went ahead with a planned invasion of Rafah - the southern Gazan city where about 1.4 million people have been sheltering.
Israel has said it will proceed with planned operations in Rafah despite the US and other allies warning that a ground offensive could lead to mass civilian casualties and a humanitarian crisis.
On Friday, the US State Department released an investigation which found Israel may have used American-supplied weapons in breach of international humanitarian law during the war in Gaza.
The government's Strategic Export Licensing Criteria prevents weapons sales "if there is a clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law".
Last year, 10 Labour frontbenchers quit over the party's failure to call for a ceasefire in Gaza as it instead backed a "humanitarian pause" to allow aid to flood into the country.
The original article contains 698 words, the summary contains 204 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!