News: 1596524465

Does that make the Election Result null and void ?

No because manifesto pledges aren't binding

neither is my consent to be governed by them.

You may, of course, leave any time you wish.

"...You may, of course, leave any time you wish..."

Speaking from North of the border, we're trying to do just that, but not having any luck.

To then "rejoin the EU". That's not independence.

Did I say "Independence"? Sorry I meant "Not Tory"

No because manifesto pledges aren't binding .... Kientha

Is that not then fraudulent ...... and akin to a Parliamentary democracy treating the electorate as if useless/useful fools which they can fleece with practical immunity and virtual impunity?

Hmmm ..... that's dangerous and certainly not intelligent.

@amanfromMars 1

"akin to a Parliamentary democracy treating the electorate as if useless/useful fools which they can fleece with practical immunity and virtual impunity?"

If you missed the Blair years you should definitely look it up. Basically if he stated he was going to do something or something was going well it was the opposite. But yes we are lacking some integrity in the UK gov system for a while.

I refer you to this documentary from the 80s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNKjShmHw7s

Well the problem is the entire system is underpinned by the principle that you vote for an individual to represent you at the national level. That individual may belong to a party, or they may be an independent and whoever can form the largest group of MPs is the government. The system isn't designed for the public to vote for a party or for the policies of a party. The disconnect is in how voters treat the system where they vote for a party rather than a person, or in recent years vote for the PM rather than the individual MP or party. Simply making manifesto pledges binding would not address the underlying issue and would itself be contradictory. Instead, you would need a system akin to proportional representation with binding pledges with an independent body to assess this which has it's own downsides.

If manifesto pledges aren't binding, should they all, by law, contain the simple true disclaimer .......

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release includes forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned that these forwardlooking statements are only predictions and are subject to risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that are difficult to predict and many of which are outside the control of the Party. Therefore, actual results may differ materially and adversely, in terms of quantum and timing, from those expressed in any forward-looking statements. The Party undertakes no obligation to revise or update any forwardlooking statements for any reason except as may be required by law.

Or would such immediately render Parliamentary democracy a fully recognised farce and a phantom force ?

"No because manifesto pledges aren't binding"

And, yet, the number of times I've had to explain this to grown adults is scary.

Listen: Politicians lie. They lie because they can, because there's nothing stopping them doing so, because people give them power on the basis of those lies, and because there's no comeback to lying except possibly in a few years time not being put back into power.

That's it. That's the entirety of UK, US, etc. politics. "Everything is made up and the points don't matter".

That's why anyone who says "I voted X because they're gonna do Y" is an idiot, in my opinion. There's absolutely no legal ramification if they don't. None whatsoever. They can lie with impugnity, not do anything at all or - worse - do the exact opposite of what they said, and nothing happens.

They get sacked because "people don't like them" or something like that, not because of any failure of them to carry out their promises - nobody *ever* punishes them for that.

And while you have such a system, guess what kind of people gravitate to that kind of position? Liars. People with no intention of doing the job, beyond what they need to convince you to not throw them out (which is a very low bar indeed, apparently).

And then people ask me why I don't have any interest in politics. It's because it's like watching a kindergarten quibble over whether they said it was the other person's go or not, and whether they said they would let them have a go, have a go today, have a go eventually, or even have a go at all. It's honestly that bad. And even with a supposed opposition that's supposed to be holding them to account, it just turns into bickering and nonsense and more lies.

Until we hold them accountable, until manifestos are binding (with independent review of progress!), and until people start to vote them out - outside of voting cycles - for doing a BAD JOB, it's all a bit pointless really.

And it's really not difficult: "Please submit your proposals for the next four years with progress indicators, timelines, regular success targets, budgeting and contingencies. We'll check in at quarterly intervals to ensure you're on track and, if not, why not, and whether that's justified" The government is actually worse-run than a small project at a tiny company.

Revolutionary ACTions have been born and implemented from less, Lee D.

Fox

[1]Must... think... in... Russian...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky-uzsw0kqw

a UK government spokesperson told The Register. “But as you would expect, the Government has very robust systems in place to protect the IT systems of officials and staff."

Oh? I wouldn't bet any real money on that being true.

I would, FSVO "robust". I've got a friend in the Cabinet Office who says their mail system is so secure it's been next to impossible to use during WFH. As a civil servant he's forbidden from forwarding anything to his personal mail account, but the politicians do so for convenience, hence Liam Fox's little mishap.

I wonder if he used TalkTalk for his personal mail?

This was my thought, willing to wager he was ignoring the advice he was getting.

I too have a couple of friends who have worked for the government, dealing with classified data. Both have strictly enforced rules detailing exactly how and where they can access the data. I don't know the exact details (nor do I want to), but as I understand it, they are only allowed to access the data on computers airgapped from the internet, and they aren't allowed any devices on premises (these have to be handed in to security on entry).

While there are different levels of classification, their rule was simple. Only non classified data was allowed on computers with internet access.

Now, I understand that MPs have to travel, and they may need to access classified data outside the country, but they still shouldn't be storing classified data on publicly accessible systems.

What a palaver to try hide what they be doing from the public.

Lock him up! Lock him up!

Anyway, the government doesn't talk about Russia, except when it's convenient in this case because it means they don't have to talk about their plans for the NHS.

"Former UK trade minister and current Conservative MP Dr. Liam Fox"

I think you'll find that his actual title is "The disgraced former defence secretary, Dr Liam Fox" - it's a well worn title with a proud history of Tory defence secretaries who have been disgraced.

I think you'll find that, for historical reasons, in the official title it's "disgrac è d former defence secretary"

Whatever happened to "The disgraced former defence secretary, Dr Liam Fox and his close friend Adam Werrity"? IIRC the latter gentleman was rather close to various foreign intelligence agencies. Possibly he's no longer around to give the benefit of his experience?

After the [1]Operation Socialist , now there would be an Operation Conservative?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Socialist

I'm not going to knock him for falling for a spear phishing attack, it's not like a Nigerian Prince or anything. But why did he have official papers in his personal email?

Now it's too late to sack him, he's already gone. Given the obsession with secrecy in government/civil service circles there ought to be the Official Secrets Act available.

Good question.

Given there is an ongoing criminal investigation, I hope one of the lines of inquiry is whether Fox has broken the OSA?

why did he have official papers in his personal email

Presumably for the same reason lots of his MoD meetings were attended by an unvetted [1]personal friend : it suited his convenience and he doesn't care about the rules.

It's a real suprise he isn't still in the cabinet.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Werritty

He probably emailed it to himself so he could read it on his phone and ensure he couldn't lose a paper copy someplace. We'll looks like he managed to lose it everywhere instead.. Lol. The "don't you know who I am" brigade are their own worst enemies. And... he probably renamed it with a txt extension to get it out.

Fox has spent decades demonstrating his unwavering loyalty to Washington and it turns out he was an asset for Russian intelligence.

Quote

"Fox has spent decades demonstrating his unwavering loyalty to Washington and it turns out he was an asset for Russian intelligence."

Which explains why he was so popular in the white house .....

"It is completely predictable that the Russian Intelligence Services are targeting those working to combat the coronavirus pandemic,"

The Russians have been messing with our (and many other nations') social, scientific, economic and political life for over 200 years. We should expect that as it's part of the culture.

The Russians have been messing with our (and many other nations') social, scientific, economic and political life for over 200 years.

Really? Have you any evidence to back up that claim?

So the Russians were solely responsible for the Tories winning the Election, just to cause trouble by getting us out of the EU (where, coincidentally, we can no longer interfere in EU decision-making and therefore making the whole garbage pile run so much easier.)

And now you're saying it was the Russians hacking (out)Fox(ed) who gave the Liebour Party the documents relating to flogging the NHS to the Americans, which was supposed to make sure the Tories lost the Election.

So, dear Remoaners, which is it - did the Russians try to fix the elections so the Tories won or did the Russians try to fix it so the Tories lost? You cannot have it both ways!