Anyone else feeling politically homeless and disillusioned with UK politics?

[Twister11]

Is anyone else finding the current political situation in the UK quite depressing? I used to be an active Labour supporter and I was very keen on the idea of a Labour government. But the last two years have completely taken away all my enthusiasm. The latest scandal with Keir Starmer in the Commons today is absolutely the last straw for me. I know no party or government is without its flaws but this feels beyond the pale. I don’t know how to vote in the locals. I guess maybe green although I don’t like the local candidates or some of their positions. Just feel politically homeless and disillusioned and a little scared for the future because nobody seems to be able to run the country in a decent way. Thanks for reading my vent if you’ve got this far.

That was happening long before Iran... Greenland anyone? the total disrespect of UK forces or Trumps numerous statements on NATO going back a decade or more.

UK still has a decent air force, capable of bombing Iran, fortunately, Starmer stuck to his guns on this, despite some very aggressive remarks by Trump.

On face coverings, one would have to be rather naive to believe this isn't all about sucking up to the far right.

That doesn't answer my point that it is too early to judge whether Starmer handled Trump well or badly. We can't judge the effect yet on the UKs long term strategic interests.

And re Greenland I don't think Trump requested the use of our airbases or navy.

@Imdunfer of course you could frame a law that could ban the burka explicitly while permitting otter face coverings. You would simply have to repeal the Equality Act and withdraw from the EHCR first.

Both of which are of course Reform policies.

Without the Equality Act and EHCR signatory status we have no human rights - the bundling up of all previous rights legislation into a single act means that they can be removed in one fell swoop by a parliament intent on doing so.

Reform are banning all face coverings.

We do not need international law to have "human rights" in this country. If a government choses to withdraw from an international convention it can. If it choses to abolish "human rights" it can notwithstanding any international convention. If it choses to keep the "human rights" that are appropriate for the UK then it can.

I think if Starmer gave you next weeks Euro million winning numbers, you'd find fault.

The RoW has not supported Trump in this war, its a disaster, flights cancelled, the risk of a global recession, starvation in the developing world.....

I think you understand perfectly well the Greenland issue... a USA threatening to use force to invade a NATO country..... with Denmark sending troops to fight the USA, art 5 triggered... but you think the jury is out on Trump....

Beggars belief.

No I didnt say "the jury's out on Trump". I haven't made any comment on Trump's behaviour.

My point is it is too early to judge whether KS did the right thing for the UKs long term strategic interests in his decisions/uturns re Iran. Given that the US has turned to real politiking rather than following the old rules based order. We can't tell yet whether we did the right thing.

Re Greenland I don't think Trump requested our help which we refused. So it's not as relevant to my point as Iran.

I don't understand what you re saying....

Long term interests? if you mean the USA/UK "Special Relationship" thats dead for the time being.

The damage to this is things like Greenland, Ukraine and now Iran.

They are all very pertinent and Starmer along with the RoW, have been 100% correct not to get involved, in what is increasingly looking like another "Forever" war.

Im not commenting on whether Trump's actions are good or bad. Thats a separate issue.

Im just suggesting that its premature to say that KS actions re the US were good or bad with regard to the UKs long term strategic interests. We didn't support him initially and then did but not to the extent Trump wants. Will Trump or his successor now come to our aid if we needed it. Will NATO continue with the US as a member (ignore the fact Iran isn't a NATO issue..Trump sees it as one).

If we look at the world with the new real politik lens, did Starmer do the right thing enraging Trump (because Trump is particularly focusing his rage on the Uk) and will it have implications for us in the future. Ignore the "rules based" legal rights and wrongs for the moment as they don't seem to apply so much at the moment. In the new world of "might is right" does pissing off the mightiest do the UK any good long term? I don't know the answer ...none of us do.

On face coverings, one would have to be rather naive to believe this isn't all about sucking up to the far right.

By some people, no doubt you are right. But "all" about? Absolutely not.

You don't have to be far right to feel deeply uncomfortable about not being able to see people's faces, it goes with the territory for social anxiety not too be able to read people's expressions, for example. It's standard for banks. There are doctors who won't see women with their faces covered. Ofsted supports a ban in classrooms and a teacher in London was lawfully dismissed because she couldnt be understood by her pupils. Shops need to be able to film shoplifters. Deaf, even slightly deaf, people can often only understand speech by lip reading (this is the the majority of over 55s! ) It's already law at demos when directed by the police not to hide your identity. Male terrorists in this country and abroad have evaded capture by wearing a burqa. And so on.

And I've got no doubt at all that with increasing use of facial recognition, the police would support a wider ban.

And since we are a western liberal democracy where women have fought hard for the right to, for example, breast feed in public, and the burqa is pretty much the height of public symbolism of female oppression, then I would be glad to see the same law as they have already had in France since 2011 and approved by the ECHR in 2014.

Reform plan to abolish the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act.

The EA and HRA subsumed all previous rights legislation such as the Sex Discrimination Act, the Race Relations Act, even the Non-Conformist Relief Act which guarantees freedom of religion. They also codified earlier common law rights.

Once they are gone is gone that’s it: you can be fired for being pregnant, you can be refused service if you are black, you have no right to assembly or protest.

I agree

You are misunderstanding how the law works and is made in this country. Parliament makes law. Parliament enacts international conventions into domestic law (The Human Rights Act for example). So Parliament can give or take away any rights it likes. Who would you appeal to if you think a right has been taken away from you in the Uk if no international court has jurisdiction?

Having said all that we are the country of Magna Carta and seemed to muddle through OK before the ECHR which was really established for other countries that didn't have our track record on human rights.

Oh please not that old argument again. The UK practically invented human rights. We were pivotal in creating the ECHR (before it grew into the monster that many countries now want toned down. ) The ECHR is not required in order for anyone to have human rights, they are deeply enshrined in our laws and our culture. They aren't going to disappear.

Regarding framing a law to ban only the burqa, you couldn't. It's not possible. Ban all long black dresses? Not possible. If it was possible they'd wear another colour. Ban dresses, they'd wear culottes. Ban the face covering? They'll use a different style. Ban all styles, they'll wear a full face bike helmet. Ban the full face bike helmet, they,ll wear a wig with a very long thick fringe and a high scarf round their neck. And so on. It is simply impossible to a ban face covering being used for religious symbolism without banning all face coverings in public.

I know very well how the law works.

‘We seemed to muddle along’ because we had legislation and common law rights. That legislation was subsumed by the HRA and the EA.

If the HRA and EA are repealed that earlier legislation, and the rights that arose from it, does not magically spring back from the dead.

Again, if the EA is repealed, and you are fired for being pregnant, what recourse under the law will you have?

We would amend the Human Rights Act presumably to apply to how we want the law in the UK to work and ban all face coverings and leave the bits in about being able to serve black people.

Come on. You're being a bit odd about this. We can make our own laws in this country?

And shock horror, multiple countries in the ECHR ignore ECHR judgements when they feel like it, including France and Germany, and us (prisoner voting rights). It's not the security blanket that some people believe it to be.

Reform have said they plan to repeal the EA and HRA, not amend them.

No one knows what they will replace them with, or if they will indeed replace them at all.

Oh, and the ‘bits in about being able to serve black people’ is in the Equality Act not the HRA. But I’m sure you knew this being such an expert on how legislation works.

I feel the same. I would have gone Green but they have lost the plot lately. 🤦‍♀️

No need to be sarcastic. I'm engaging with you sensibly. My point is that rights come from laws and Parliament can make or repeal any law it likes. So your "human rights" don't ultimately come from a source other than from Parliament. As we can leave any international convention at any time.

And if we elect a party that wants to take away those rights then it can. If it wants to leave the ECHR and rewrite absolutely everything the ECHR says into UK law then it can. Parliament is sovereign ultimately.

And the penalty for not doing what the ECHR says ........

be thrown out of the ECHR.

It's actually toothless, not the security blanket people think it is. That only works if your own government agrees. Russia was a member until it was thrown out for jailing dissidents and the like.

Well there is a fair amount being banned right now - fried food in schools, mobile phones in schools, life time ban for smoking for under 18s.
Parliament is definitely not “adverse” to bans, rather the opposite!
Protecting women from religious extremism… again, there are pros and cons. The debate was heavily had in France and they banned it.
They will likely start with banning burquas etc in schools.
However, the 16-17 getting a vote, it is all going to be quite interesting. Banning a lot of stuff for a group but giving them a vote potentially and with that representation!

Are the judiciary in international courts apolitical entirely? Discuss.

Let’s think back to the IPC and the Chagos Islands…

That was meant to say International Court of Justice

It is a fundamental British principle/value that the judiciary is entirely apolitical (the civil service too supposedly). Personally, I do not agree with political appointments in diplomacy either (unless there is let’s say a war situation, but even then, it is pushing British values).

So you believe that rights are purely in the gift of politicians to be granted and taken away on a whim? That they are not inalienable?

Those aren’t rights, they are conditional privileges. Keep licking the boot.

The politicians in a democracy are your personal representatives and subject to the rule of law like everyone else. It is a little far fetched that you think you absolutely need a foreign court to apply your rights. You do not need it in a democracy. The reason it is a bad idea for a founding member of an international court to leave the whole thing is that you discourage the whole concept in countries where it is actually needed.
But Britain had the Magna Carta and habeus corpus and universal franchise and rule of law/sovereignty of parliament before most other countries. There is no real threat of a sudden autocracy here via Reform. That is overplayed. Leaving the ECHR is not a threat to our own democratic values.