An alternative Queen's speech.

I was quite surprised to find what had happened. You can discuss the Queens Speech on the original thread. As I said, this is one I would prefer.
I notice both the OBR and the financial institute have said the Queen's speech will affect the poorest families rather than the well off, but that's no surprise.

I like this one better! Shocked to see that your original post was "taken over" what is going on? GNHQ certainly owe you an apology. I don't know about the not restricting access to schools on faith grounds. I know it is a great principle but what would happen in practice? I have worked in some great faith schools where there was no doubt that the ethos was linked to the beliefs of the staff and their asperations for the children in their care, sometimes very underpriveleged children. If you could keep that I wouldn't object, but I am afraid it might disappear. As a practising agnostic I have struggled with this.

Thanks, GNHQ, but I don't want to debate with a blank wall of House of Commons people who can't comment about the actual politics. There are lots of Gransnetters who already know how to find links to explain protocol.

I like much of what is contained in this alternative Queens Speech, dj. I was heartened by the reactions of opposition parties and some tory backbenchers who don't go along with the extreme policies Cameron wants to push through in this term of office, particularly the British Bill of Human Rights.

I'm interested to see how the plans for unions pan out. How hypocritical that a government with 37% of the vote should demand that unions should achieve 40% of the postal vote when calling for strike action.

I foresee quite a few u-turns from Cameron and his cronies, as they have promised/threatened more than they can achieve in their campaign to gain control.

Hello Lara. You back again?

I'm interested to see how the plans for unions pan out. How hypocritical that a government with 37% of the vote should demand that unions should achieve 40% of the postal vote when calling for strike action.

postal vote to strike is NOT FPTP is it? so not hypocritical
remember a certain G Brown only achieved about the same percentage in 2005!

I know that in the thread that welcomed me and you all said nice things but one poster (Mollie?) warned me about the politic threads but I cannot sit on my hands when blatently biased arguments are put forward without at least challenging them. the whole thing about 'an alternative' Queen's speech is misleading and frankly 'childish'

Childish, grannyonce? On what basis?

What on earth are you on about, grannyonce?

I don't often comment on political threads but I thought the highjacking of dj's thread was a bad move and I also had no interest in clicking on links I could find for myself if I could be arsed

I do wonder that those at GNHQ can't tell the difference between a debate about the Queen's Speech which is of course political and a Q&A session with the outreach section of the H of Parliament which of course isn't. Do they need some sory of citizens education program I wonder?

grannyonce I think you've misunderstood the situation - it wasn't an alternative to the Queen's speech but an alternative thread about the speech.

The original thread, on the Politics Forum, was taken over by HoC staff who aren't allowed to be political - so DJ started an alternative thread, for those who wanted to discuss the politics, rather than the customs and protocol of Parliament.

Riverwalk, this thread is entitled 'An alterative Queen's Speech' and the OP contains a link to the (alternative) QS the OP would prefer.

I think that's what grannyonce is referring to.

I have been thinking about this and why there is very little comment relating to Her Maj's speech, and have decided that whilst some of it is undoubtedly contentious, little detail is in place at the moment. Also one of the most contentious issues so far seems to have been shelved as so many disagree with what was intended i.e.the HR thing.

I also think it will be a very different matter when the next budget is laid out in detail - I reckon we can keep our powder dry until then, and also wait and see how the other stuff in the Q'sS pans out.

grannyonce I don't know why you have to be "warned" by Mollie. You would hardly expect a thread about politics to be neutral or bland - people of different political persuasions are bound to disagree about certain policies.

If you disagree with what has been said, then why not produce a counter-argument, rather than characterise those who have ideas you do not like as "biased" or "childish"?

What is biased and childish, "grannyonce"? I really don't know what you're saying here. Is it that you disagree with the ideas put forward by Richard Murphy or that you don't see any point in anyone challenging the status quo?

It's one thing to publish an alternative Queen's Speech. Quite another to actually govern a country. And do it within a tight budget.

Thanks for the explanation, Lara. It's the same link as on the original thread, so really you should have read it. But never mind, at least you have realised now.

I quite often put links to taxresearch, jingl, because I think the man who runs it actually has more of an idea about how to run the economy for all the population than Osborne does.

I admit to being biased, grannyonce, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think you are biased as well. If people all agreed there would be no point in politics, would there? I do not think that what Richard Murphy says is childish. I think the government acts in a much more childish way by pretending to be the party for all people whilst saying they will take money away from those who do not have it, as in welfare cuts.

Thinking a bit more about the speech - really it was a sort of cut down version of the Tory manifesto, plus all the wild un-costed promises he made when he thought he may be losing the election. I am sure that some of it DC never thought he would be presenting as everyone thought that if he did get anywhere near a majority it would be with the Libs. So some of the stuff he promised before the election he probably thought that he would not get through. Be very interesting now to see how it all progresses.

The restrictions on union funding were not in the manifesto. Cameron wants to restrict all union rights, but does not do similar on the right of politics.
Another example of not being the party for all people.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/05/27/the-government-just-banned-everything

Definitely alternative. Does the government know what it said?
It wishes to protect hardworking families from drugs. Does that mean that anyone who is not hardworking can continue to take them?

OFGS...

Here we go again..........

If that's what you believe dj

What's a psychoactive drug? I am drinking one at the moment. I bet some of you are as well. Anti-depressants, anyone? They are psychoactive, too.

If you want to be nice about the Queen's speech, you can always go on my original thread, which GNHQ decided to adopt. On here, I'll say what I want.

So will I. Making points is fine, but the sarcasm is getting tedious.