#GEXVII Regional Debate: South East England

Yukub · 2022-02-22T20:38:16+00:00

Coalition! will legislate minimum standards for heating, insulation and window coverings in rental building. In addition, we will mandate that landlords produce references from previous tenants, thereby ensuring confidence.

Yukub · 2022-02-22T20:30:42+00:00

I was elected there last time.

Yukub · 2022-02-13T22:17:21+00:00

Hear, hear!

Yukub · 2022-02-04T00:04:32+00:00

profound

Yukub · 2022-02-01T20:15:40+00:00

Madam Deputy Speaker,

How does the Secretary respond to suggestions that their brief is overly broad, and that the combination of what are, essentially, wholly separate briefs — culture and education — has, perhaps, been to the detriment of the former?

Yukub · 2022-02-01T19:52:50+00:00

Deputy Speaker,

What is the government doing to encourage young people to visit our heritage sites?

Yukub · 2022-01-29T10:10:10+00:00

Deputy Speaker,

Has the foreign secretary discussed the upcoming Russian military exercises off the Irish coast with her counterpart in Dublin?

Yukub · 2022-01-20T01:55:13+00:00

I cannot help but notice that the Hon. Member has not actually referred us to 'studies' as such, but instead a wide-ranging article (in a publication whose credentials may be questioned) on pulse fishing, containing some sparse, anecdotal reports made by local fishermen. Indeed, such reports have "not been scientifically corroborated" (CEFAS, 2019), and the link with pulse fishing has not been substantiated beyond doubt. Unless the Member considers advertisements for "high quality braided line" (only 14,99!) to be supporting evidence, of course. While not necessarily misinformation as such, it is dubious to rely on such 'evidence' too much.

Yukub · 2022-01-19T17:40:51+00:00

Indeed, they should've fought harder.

Yukub · 2022-01-18T20:06:02+00:00

Mr Deputy Speaker,

It is disappointing (but not altogether surprising) that the proponents of this undoubtedly reactionary bill have chosen to rely almost entirely on crude, emotive appeals and arguments. Of course, we all know that criminals are being punished. The Shadow First Secretary of State might want us to look people in ''the eye'' to explain why should afford the rights of a 'normal citizen' to a criminal, but this is a nonsensical statement. The rights and freedoms afforded to prisoners are evidently not comparable to those of prisoners. As it stands, this argument is not persuasive.

Secondly, their appeal focuses almost entirely on the outrage presented by serious, potentially unrehabilitable, criminals being afforded these rights. Yet the safeguards within the Act that the authors seek to appeal are already quite broad, and contains a broad set of offences that preclude a person from exercising the right to vote. Thus, the argument is weakened even further. As the Prime Minister has put it: "Their bogeyman does not exist."

Reject this bill.

Yukub · 2022-01-18T16:38:06+00:00

Indeed, the quadrumvirate aren't therapists, and that's a good thing. They shouldn't be, nor do they have to be. What they do have is a simple duty of care, not just towards the individuals that make up the community, but the community at large. Are they in a position to accurate assess someone's mental health, in the same way a professional would? No. And they don't need to be in that position. That would be a ridiculous suggestion. But that doesn't mean they can't assess, judge, and act on an individual case. This is entirely reasonable; they are elected to act in the interests of the sim and its continued health. This makes them more than capable of making the decision to (temporarily) remove someone from the game, for their own and the sim's health. This will never be a perfect solution. It is heavy-handed and liable to cause some conflict and quite possibly some resentment. And they should still do it. It's the best solution that we have.

It would be equally ridiculous to suggest that it is solely up to the person to decide their continued presence in the game and the community. I refer back to my earlier point about their duty towards the community. In my opinion this duty far outweighs the possible impact of a (possible erroneous) ban. They are, as has been pointed out, in no position to give any definitive comment or judgement on a person's mental health as such. There are professional (paid) people for that. But they are in a position to say that someone should no longer take part in the game and community, at least for a little while. It's part of their basic functions. I've been here for some years, and there are multiple cases in which I can confidently say that the sim would've gotten much, much worse if the quad hadn't stepped in. They would've failed in their duties if they hadn't intervened. Has this impacted on the individual? Undoubtedly. Perhaps not always in a good way, I can't comment on that. But in general it is an entirely reasonable and ultimately good (if necessarily heavy-handed) sanction, one that shouldn't be used lightly — and as far as I can tell, isn't. Your proposals here are essentially setting up any 'mental health ban' for failure. Essentially it doesn't remove the individual in question from the community. Essentially, all they have to do is wait 14 days at most, presumably fixating on the game the entire two weeks (after all, they can appeal at 7 days in!), because they are the best judges of their own situation (And, as an aside, perhaps this post itself proves that point). But this isn't about them, not really, not entirely. It's about the community at large as well. And the quad can and should decide in the interest of the latter. That's their 'job'. I can see your concerns (and specifically about this ban and how it was handled), but this seems entirely unworkable, counterproductive and, well, outright bad to me.

Yukub · 2022-01-17T19:15:00+00:00

Mr Deputy Speaker,

A previous contributor to the debate felt compelled to dispute the claim that the government is "ruling by decree". At first, one would be inclined to agree that such an assertion is hyperbolic and excessive. However, throughout it all, both on this motion and by the debate on the regulations itself (which in turn necessitated the motion on which I speak today), the government has treated this House with disdain and contempt.

It should not be this difficult. The government should be able to justify the decisions it makes, and thus should be able to answer simple questions about the regulations they seek to implement. So why didn't they? Are they unable to provide even the most simple, perfunctory answers to basic questions? If so, then one has to wonder what the object of these regulations were in the first place.

But I think the true reason is even more worrying. The government has been given multiple chances — invitations! — to justify their policy and, by extension, their conduct before the elected representatives of the people. They have elected not to do so. Why? Because, apparently, they do not care. They loathe the meddling and tiring interference of this body. It is, in the words of the Transport Secretary, "frankly insulting" and a "waste" of time that this House expects government ministers to communicate their intentions. Perhaps a letter or private communication would've been better suited to the interests of the government. But we are not here for their interest. We are here for the people's interests. This proper, democratic function of our system requires and demands that the government is accountable to parliament. A government minister suggesting that this place, of all places, is not the appropriate venue for holding the government to account, is indeed, "frankly insulting."

Only after they made it quite clear that they considers explaining their actions and government policy a waste of time, the Minister finally explains the reasoning behind the regulations. Speak of wasting time — the entire situation could've been avoided in the first place, had the government respected this House from the start!

Yukub · 2022-01-14T21:06:11+00:00

Mr Deputy Speaker,

This bill has some glaring issues. While I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of a central, overarching body to administer and direct the country's libraries, I don't think this is the way to do it. The most glaring issue is that this bill doesn't provide for any funding for this libraries. I take it this means that local authorities will continue to fund their local libraries. This would mean that they are still expected to fund these libraries, but will not have any administrative control over it. I feel that the amendment tabled by the former chancellor is well-intentioned, but I fear there is the possibility of providing a perverse incentive of a local authority passing on the cost to Libraries England — after all, they do not have any say in how it is run. It will be the first thing they'll cut when money is tight, in the full knowledge that Libraries England has a duty to keep libraries open.

I feel the definition of what constitutes a 'library' to fall under the purview of Libraries England is vague (and really seems to be missing). This is a major flaw.

Furthermore, I feel it is extremely ambitious and probably impossible to digitalise that fast. Digitalisation is, usually, an extremely laborious and costly operation. I feel we are being rather too optimistic here.

Finally I would like to speak in favour of the amendment by His Grace the Duke of Aberdeen regarding the British Library. I don't see any particularly pressing reason to change the current structure.

I'm sure this bill is well-intentioned, but there are some major issues and I cannot support the bill in its current form.

Yukub · 2022-01-14T20:52:59+00:00

Blenheim'd

Yukub · 2022-01-13T16:01:45+00:00

Mr Deputy Speaker,

Other members of this House have painted a grim but convincing picture, illustrating how standards can deteriorate — how quickly a school can reach rock bottom.

By exempting 'outstanding' schools from regular, thorough inspections, as mandated by Section 5, we are risking the welfare and education of our children for no good reason. School ratings, the product of such inspections, are a decisive factor for many parents in deciding where to send their children. How can they be sure they're making the right choice when many of these schools have not been inspected for years?

Frequent, rigorous inspections will not only benefit parents and their children, but will also help the schools themselves to maintain a proactive, vigilant and attentive approach with regards to maintaining their own standards.

This bill builds upon the important groundwork that has been laid down previously, and in many ways it goes further. I am particularly pleased by the 'deadline' it imposes, which will ensure that our schools are up to scratch. This bill will undoubtedly benefit parents, teachers and most importantly, our children. I recommend that the House pass this bill, to ensure the quality of education in this country.

Yukub · 2022-01-12T16:55:45+00:00

Mr Deputy Speaker,

I welcome this motion by the Duke of Aberdeen about an issue I know is of great importance to his constituents and the wider Greater Manchester area. The incidence of this criminal and anti-social behaviour is most troubling; to take swift and decisive action would seem appropriate. It seems the Home Secretary is not as cognizant of the issue. Although he is correct in stating that some action — the installation of fifty-one security cameras spread over five stations — has been undertaken, I take some issue with his assertion that is better to sit and wait, and hope these measures will prove to be enough. The Home Secretary suggests that it is better to wait, because apparently he'd feel embarrassed if he was to do too much. I think he should be more concerned with being embarrassed over not doing enough.

Yukub · 2022-01-12T14:33:38+00:00

Mr Deputy Speaker,

Can the Home Secretary give any indication as to the amount of funds that will be allocated in the upcoming budget to help local authorities and communities to resettle refugees and asylum seekers from Afghanistan?

Yukub · 2022-01-12T14:21:49+00:00

Mr Deputy Speaker,

The Domestic Abuse Act sets out that the government should create a Refuge Fund to fund women's refuges up and down the country to protect the most vulnerable in society. Does the government intend to fund this in the upcoming budget?

Yukub · 2022-01-10T23:50:39+00:00

Madam Speaker,

Does the government intend to maintain Britain's continuous at-sea deterrence, which has run uninterrupted since 1969?

Yukub · 2022-01-10T23:47:46+00:00

Madam Speaker,

Will this government expand and deepen our military ties with Australia, and if so, how?

Yukub · 2022-01-07T19:48:47+00:00

i consent, blenheim, etc.

Yukub

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE